Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Why would you be responsible for your male friends' behavior?

   Why should you be responsible for her finding a man?  Introducing
   her to some of your male friends is one thing, trying to insure that
   they will work is another.
   
   Her running commentaries on the relationship between you and your
   boyfriend sound intrusive, not like a woman espousing feminist opinions.
   It sounds like she's using "feminism" to cover up a weakness in her
   relationships in general.
   
   
   						Terza L. Zane
   

> It sounds like she's using "feminism" to cover up a weakness in her
> relationships in general.
    
    <GAG>
    
    Ahem, why don't you pass on the suggestion that she read _Gyn/Ecology_.
    
    Also, have you asked her not to make comments about your relationship
    with your honey?  We all have to draw lines, and you can't just
    expect her to know what annoys you.  Be firm about this but not nasty.

    Re: .3
    
    >Ahem, why don't you pass on the suggestion that she read
    >_Gyn/Ecology_.
    
    Or "I'm OK, You're OK" or any book that discusses making/breaking
    patterns of behavior.  (If you run five experiments with one constant
    and one variable and all five tests fail, would you think the problem
    is with the constant or the variables?)

    RE .0  Sounds like your roomie has a penchant for self-fulfilling
    prophecies. "Men are no good, and I'll prove it by involving myself
    with one who's no good." Some people would rather be right than
    happy.

                                
    	Most who seek abusive relationships are modeling what they've
    been impressed upon as "normal", i.e., the environment which they
    grew up in. Understanding this concept may help. That you understand
    there is a "correlation" glitch in this persons behavior, you could
    help her out with it.
    	From personal experience, I know that in general, we all attempt
    to recreate our childhood environment, because thats where we are
    *trully* most comfortable. I'm sure exceptions to this idea abound.
    However, there is quite an abundance of those who follow this "rule"
    to the letter.
    	One stormy relationship ago, I was "dating" a woman who's idea
    of a good time was to really stir things up. When things were going
    just fine, there would always be something - always something -
    that she'd raise as a contention to cause trouble or "rock the boat"
    in some way. I tried really hard to deal with this, but eventually
    the continuous nature of it got the better of me, and needless to
    say we're no longer together.
    	Well, she hooked herself up with a real winner. Without spilling
    all the details, let me say that he gives her all the trouble she
    needs; he's physically abusive. Yet, albeit that she knows she could
    do much better, she stays with him and although she has tried, she
    cannot get away and has now completely yielded to him and the situation
    he forces upon her. She has his son, also. Why?                
    	(My reasons for not charging into this situation on my white
    horse are personal. Please respect them as such)
    
    	Joe Jas

Re .6

That is the best answer I have heard yet.  I have done some reading into the
phenomenon of co-dependancy lately, and from what .0 described, I think that
her roommate is showing severe co_dependancy characteristics.  One of the
most common tendencies among co-dependants is the attempt to recreate one's
childhood environment, since the survival techniques learned there are so 
deeply ingrained that the person can not function well outside of it.  While
it may not be 'comfortable', it is perceived as normal, and it takes a great
deal of effort to overcome that perception.

Re .0  

To gain some insight into co-dependancy, you might read some good books on the
subject.  One is 'Making Choices', by Sharon Wegscheider-Cruse.  Another is
'Bradshaw On The Family', by John Bradshaw.  Also, I recommend being patient 
and understanding with your roommate, which you are obviously trying to do. 
Direct confrontation rarely works, but if she is given information on her
condition, in a non-threatening way, she might begin to respond to it.  I hope
things go well for her.

/Mike

re: .4

Gyn/Ecology, by Mary Daly, is not a self-help kind of book.  It is one 
of the significant works of radical feminism, so your roommate really 
ought to check it out if she considers herself a serious feminist.  
Among other things, the book discusses the ways in which women are 
ensnared into self/woman-destructive behavior.

    IT is probably a good idea not to ascribe all of this person's
    traits to her feminism. We are all affected by situations in our
    lives which may or may not have anything to do with whatever
    political (not the exact word, but close) ideas we have. Her
    problems in relationships may not have anything to do with feminism,
    but rather with old behaviour patterns. So may the propensity for
    judging other's actions. Then again, we *all* judge others' actions
    against the patterns we hold in our *own* minds.
    
    Dana, I'm going to "call" you on the comment you made about her
    self-fulfilling prophecy. That may indeed be true, but I think you
    intimated that her feminism has to do with her belief that "men
    are bad". I think that's a huge leap in logic. I'd just like to
    re-iterate [which is redundant, but I've said it so often....:-)]
    that feminism does not spring from negative feelings toward men.
    
    --DE
                
    

    
    
    Another vote for "Im o.k your o.k.". Transactional Analysis is an
    interesting concept.                
    
     jack

I would like to reiterate Dawn's statement that FEMINISM DOES NOT IMPLY 
MAN-HATING, AND MAN-HATING DOES NOT IMPLY FEMINISM.  Now that I've made 
that disclaimer, I would like to say that man-hating certainly
is a perfectly understandable response to the patriarchal culture, and 
one for which a woman needn't feel excessively obligated to justify or
apologize.  A woman who identifies herself as a man-hater but is still 
intimately involved with men is assuredly going to have some difficulties 
reconciling these two aspects of her life. I imagine the difficulties
involved are similar to those faced by many heterosexual feminists, only
more extreme.   I would suggest the roomate look into some other options 
and points of view: perhaps contact a separatist group, and certainly do 
more reading of separatist feminist writers.  A man-hater is likely to 
find it less stressful to adopt a separatist lifestyle, at least while 
working out a clear idea of where she wants to go and what she wants to 
do.

    I did not mean to imply that feminism drived from man-hating, or
    vice-versa. Sorry if it came out that way.
    
    Dana

re: .12

I hope you don't take my reply as being directed at your comments.  
The roommate is clearly in a state of sorting out her adult 
relationships, and what the psycho/social background is that she has to 
deal with in doing that is unknown.  Your point may be completely valid.
Many people fulfill their own expectations (both good and bad) in 
seeking out relationships.  I doubt that feminism is the force that has 
set her expectations -- this type of thing is usually rooted deeply in 
someone's family background.  Many women who choose "bad" men are not at 
all feminist. In any case, I didn't see your point as necessarily
implying feminism = man-hating.

The point I wanted to make is to come at the problem from a slightly 
different angle.  The woman has described herself as a "man-hater".  
Rather than viewing this as a problem that needs to be solved,
I suggest that it is not necessarily an unreasonable persuasion to have.
It is certainly a handicap to be a heterosexual man-hater, and 
reconciling these incompatibilities is a challenge.  Rather than focus 
only on the inconsistency of these positions or on how she can be 
"fixed" to have successful male relationships, I wanted to point out 
that there are alternatives that would be more accepting of a man-hating 
identity.  Athough all separatists are not necessarily man-haters, a 
man-hater is likely to find herself comfortable with a separatist 
lifestyle.  I think this is a positive choice, rather than one that 
focusses on this woman's perceived deficiencies.  I mean, it's like 
deciding you have to be a concert violinist when you hate the violin.  
Rather than go through all the misery of trying to play the violin, why 
not take up something else and avoid the stress?

    RE:.13
    
    Good points (as always) - I'm sort of embarrassed I didn't think
    about them before.
    
    Dana, (not to turn this into a mutual apology society)
    
    I wasn't sure you meant to say that man-hating causes feminism,
    but I thought it might be inferred, so I chose to say something
    about it. As a friend of mine said when he was playing quarterback
    on a football team, and walked up behind the guy NEXT to the center
    and put his hands down for the ball....
    
    
    
    "Er...just checkin'!"
    
    :-)
    
    --DE
    

    To hate men...because of an idea (patriachy)? 
    
    Are we turning men-hating into a valid lifestyle?
    
    No hemming and hawing: do you think men-hating is a valid lifestyle?
    
    What about women who are happy in their relations with men: are
    they ignoring the offenses of the patriarchy?
    
    WW

    Re: .15
    
    >No hemming and hawing: do you think men-hating is a valid lifestyle?
    
    I don't consider hating any *class* of people a valid lifestyle.
    
    >What about women who are happy in their relations with men: are
    >they ignoring the offenses of the patriarchy?
    
    Only those women know.

    And at any rate, we're only talking dislikes, not violence.
    
    "Man-hating" is a touchy term, considering women have been called
    that for as small an offense as not wearing makeup.

    Valid - well-grounded, justifiable; logical
    
    Life-style - a way of life for an individual, group, or culture
    
    Those are my definitions.  
    
    
    WW

    RE: .18
    
    To label a woman a man-hater because she does not wear makeup is
    an illogical accusation. 
    
    But what does that have to do with the questions put forth in .15?
    
    
    WW

    Probably nothing.  So what.  I don't choose to judge womens lifestyles
    and I don't choose to answer you questions either.

    
    Before we get too far down the road on this (is man-hating a valid
    choice for some women to make) issue, my sense of what Catherine
    had to say is that if a woman identifies herself as a man-hater,
    she will probably be more comfortable living in a separatist
    community?  (a possible analogy: if you're a vegetarian, why work
    in a steak house?)   
    
    It's really hard to be different in this culture.  Sometimes people 
    choose to distance themselves from the mainstream, and I think 
    that's a valid choice to make, whether it's a permanent or a 
    temporary choice.
    
    Justine

    RE: .22
    
    I choose to judge lifestyles. A person who predicates their lifestyle
    on hate has an inferior one, in my judgment (see below). 
    
    RE: .21
    
    I wasn't talking about whether such a society is feasible. I was
    considering the morality of basing a society, group, or individual's
    reason for being on the hatred of a group of people.  
    
    It's a tragedy when a person gives up on an entire group, based on the
    actions of a few of its individuals. 
    
    To turn away, to (as someone earlier suggested) adopt a separatist
    lifestyle, seems to me to only add to the burgeoning loneliness,
    pain, and alienation that already soaks society. To stay in the fight;
    to recognize that you can find happiness within the wilderness of
    the group; to maintain hope, but not a foolish hope, a proud hope;
    to work for change in the group, seems a much nobler
    lifestyle to me.  
                      
    A poet (I can't remember who but it was a modern), once wrote a
    line:
    
    The world will soon break up into small groups of the saved. 
    
    
    WW
    

    Why does one woman's choice to live apart "add to the burgeoning loneliness,
    pain, and alienation that already soaks society."  If anything,
    it might or might not cause her loneliness, but hardly cause Society
    any.  Let's see, didn't Kant live apart from women?  Is he viewed
    as any less a giant of Metaphysics for it?  Or did Kant too "add
    to the burgeoning loneliness, pain, and alienation that already 
    soaks society."  Dickenson never married; do we devalue her poetry
    for it?  Wasn't Thoreau's _Walden_ a noble endeavor?  Doesn't Emerson
    celebrate the individual?
    
    Make your own choices but impose them on no one else, please. 

Justine (.23) is correct in interpreting my meaning.  I did not say
man-hating was a lifestyle, I said separatism was a lifestyle, and one
that a man-hater would probably find amenable.  The "vegetarian in a
steak house" analogy is an apt one.  Although members of a vegetarian
community may or may be allergic to meat, someone who IS allergic to it
would probably be comfortable there. 

There are separatist communities that choose to devote no energy
whatsoever to the patriarchy, and live in a way that focuses on the
primacy of meeting the needs of women.  Given that the world is a fairly 
hostile place to women who are trying to put their own needs first, 
such an environment can be an energizing and restorative one.  Some 
women may make a lifetime choice, others choose it for a while.  Medieval 
convents (aside from the religious issues) are somewhat equivalent in 
concept. The modern world lacks enough of these kinds of alternatives 
for women.  I must restate that like feminism, SEPARATISM IS NOT
PREDICATED ON MAN-HATING.  This is an andocentric view of it.  The
bottom line is that separatism is based on giving maximum priority to
women, and this can be a very valid choice, given the state of the
world. 

Although it is an emotionally loaded word, I have used the term
"man-hating" because the woman in question used it, and because I think
we should defuse the stigma attached to it.  I don't see why man-hating
cannot be accepted as a function of personal preference, like being a
vegetarian.  "Hate" here can be used in the same sense as one "hates"
Barry Manilow or lime jello.  It does not imply doing violence to men,
denying them their civil rights, or teaching them to internalize
self-loathing of their maleness.  (Which is more than I can say for how
our culture has treated women.)

    RE: .25 
    
    In the first two sentences, you substitute terms. I used the verb 
    ``soaks,'' you substituted ``causes.''  
    
    >>>Let's see, didn't Kant live apart from women?
    
    Are you asking me or telling me? I don't know. What does this have
    to do with the subject at hand?
    
    Kant, having lived in the 18th century, could not possibly ``add
    to the burgeoning loneliness, pain, and alienation that already
    soaks society.'' I'm talking about the 20th century; Kant lived
    in the 18th (mostly; he died in 1804). But, if you mean, did Kant
    ``add... HIS society'', again, I don't know; not being knowledgeable
    in 18th century German society; especially whether it was racked
    by personal despair and alienation. 
    
    >>>Dickenson never married; do we devalue her poetry for it?
    
    Again, why bring Dickenson into this? Irrelevant. 
    
    >>>Wasn't Thoreau's _Walden_ a noble endeavor?
    
    Not because Thoreau lived apart from society but because of what
    he wrote about living in and out of society: the merits of each
    way. Thoreau did not go to Walden because he hated anyone. As I
    understand it, Thoreau _did_ go into town often for the year he stayed
    at Walden Pond. 
    
    Yes, I think _Walden_ was a noble endeavor. And Thoreau did the
    right thing returning to society: if he hadn't, we'd never know
    about _Walden_ in the first place. 
    
    >>>Doesn't Emerson celebrate the individual?
    
    Yes. The individual who thinks he or she is right _in their heart_,
    should stand by their convictions. Which is what I'm doing.       
    Why don't you respect my conviction that there are indeed some ways
    of living better than others?
    
    >>>Make your own choices but impose them on no one else, please.
    
    My reply mentioned nothing of my ``imposing'' my value system. I
    simply stated my opinions. 
    
    
    WW

    It's not that I criticize you for your beliefs, it's that I criticize
    you for devaluing others beliefs.  As a part of valuing differences,
    I'd suggest you may say that you disagree with someone's beliefs
    but not that their beliefs are not valid.
    
    And why is it you'll argue the men's lives I mentioned, but not
    the woman's?

    Re: .17
    
    I don't define it; I just recognize it when I see it ....
    
    Re: .27
    
    >I don't see why man-hating cannot be accepted as a function of
    >personal preference, like being a vegetarian.
    
    .31 fairly well sums up my reaction.  I'm an anti-stereotypist.

    Just a few thoughts. First, "man-hating" is not analagous to
    "Black-hating" - it is analagous to "white-hating". The perspective
    is totally  different depending on if you are in the empowered
    groups or the "dis-empowered" group.
    
    Secondly, if a discussion of the validity of "man-hating" is to
    be pursued, perhaps it belongs in another note. THIS note is
    supposedly discussing the situaiton of a third-party who (supposedly)
    describes herself as a "man-hater". The LOGICAL response,then was
    to respond to the person's situation AS IT EXISTS, not to question
    the validity of this third-person's (whom very few of us know)
    choice. 
    
    --DE
    

<at the risk of going off on a terrible tangent, I entered, deleted, 
then re-entered this note.  If the moderators want to start a new topic, 
please feel free.>

Believe it or not, I am strongly humanist in my values.  I am opposed to 
racism, sexism, classism, able-ism, and a number of other kinds of 
social oppression.  I believe in the value of all human beings.

Whenever we discuss these kinds of issues, there are always two sides: 
one is the fact of our common humanity and the second is the fact of our 
differences.  Both are quite real and true, and both can be used in a 
way to promote freedom and in a way to promote oppression.

On the common humanity side, certainly recognizing that most of us want 
the same things out of life -- a little love and happiness, some 
meaningful work, the good of our loved ones and a future for our 
children -- can give us the bonds to work together to create an 
environment in which we can all thrive.  Unfortunately, there is a 
sneaky way in which this argument can be used to imply that noone is 
really different from the "norm".  Behavior that doesn't fit is 
invisible, or whenever it rubs up against the "norm", is "abnormal".
The definition of normal here is what is insidious.  Since we have a 
common humanity, it is easy to slip attachments onto this commonality 
and label them as part of it.  

Since it is an undeniable fact that our culture has been dominated by
white men for quite some long time, white male experience has come to be
the terms in which that commonality has been defined.  Many attitudes
and values that are in fact unique to white men have been mislabelled as
"common human".  Other attitudes and values are usually labelled in such
a way to seem inferior varieties of the "common human".  Because 
<whitemale=common human> in most white men's experience, they haven't
got much of a basis for hearing real difference. Liberal men, in the
interest of trying to communicate with others, will then assume that
there are no real differences,  that essentially everyone one else in
the world is really a virtual white male.  On one hand, this can be seen
as an act of generosity,  but on the other hand, it makes other people
invisible. They are essentially told that all the parts of them that
don't fit the white male paradigm are nonexistent, and when these parts
are of crucial importance to an individual s/he can feel quite
invalidated and ghostlike. The experience is a lot like being told that 
no matter how much you SAY you don't like lime jello, I KNOW that you 
really do, because I like lime jello, and in your heart you are really 
just like me.

I think it is easy to see how "common humanity" can be used on both 
sides of the argument here -- as a way to bridge between individuals, 
and as a way to deny individuals their validity and personal truth.
It therefore matters a lot WHO is talking about "common humanity".  When 
a person of "difference" talks about it, they are generally talking 
about a slightly different intersection of experience than a person of 
the dominant culture.  

The recognition of difference is another two-edged sword.  Because the 
dominant culture identifies itself as "common human", difference has 
traditionally been the basis for marking the less-than-human.  
Difference has automatically meant inferiority, and inferiority has just 
as automatically been the justification for exploitation.  Just as no 
one questions the justification for using "inferior" animals as beasts 
of burden and food, few have questioned the justification of using 
"inferior" humans as forced labor, domestic workers, or sex slaves.  
Upgrading any class of "sub-human" to "common human" has usually 
involved erasing their differences: teaching them to speak English, 
serve tea, wear suits, and so on.  For many persons of a liberal 
persuasion, recognizing differences has meant subscribing to the 
oppression justified by these differences, so in order to justify
equality they attempt to "upgrade" the oppressed to "common human", and
so end up erasing them. 

The existence of stereotypes is seen as serving the interests of
oppressors, since it marks out and categorizes the "inferior" 
characteristics of the typed class.  Any acknowledgement that 
stereotypes may have some basis in a statistical distribution of 
cultural characteristics is seen as participating in the oppressive ways
these stereotypes are intended to be used.  A stereotype, when used to 
mask out the reality of any given individual, is of course an oppressive 
thing.  (About as oppressive as being told you're really the same as 
as a white male when  you aren't one -- both deny your own reality).
There is a big difference, though, between using a stereotype to oppress, 
and recognizing a cultural commonality, the bonds of experience that tie
a particular group together.  You will often find members of an 
oppressed group poking gentle fun at their own stereotypes and using 
them as a bonding experience, when the same kind of "humor" from an 
outside group who is not participating in the bond is offensive.

A "different" group suffers from much assault on its "differences" by 
the mainstream culture.  These assaults come from those who emphasize the 
differences with the intent of using them to prove inferiority and 
justify exploitation, and the well-meaning who wish to promote equality 
through erasing the differences.  Both have the same assumption, though: 
difference is bad.  This assault has a number of predictable effects. 
Because the differences do exist in the different group's experience, 
they end up believing in their own inferiority.  Some choose to leave 
their differences behind and emulate their "superiors", in the interests 
of acquiring "equality".  This kind of reaction may involve  a real 
denial of the group and particularly vicious put-downs of its 
traditional behavior.  Others may choose to attack the root assumption 
that difference is bad, and choose to validate their culture, bonding 
around it and even flaunting its particular characteristics in the face 
of the mainstream culture.

It is this behavior that constitutes such a threat to the mainstream 
culture.  As long as the quest for equality does not deny the assumption 
that <common human = dominant culture>, and difference is bad, the 
dominant culture is not threatened.  As soon as the idea of EQUALITY 	
WITH DIFFERENCE surfaces, there is a deep threat to the culture.  White 
men are suddenly dethroned as the human norm and the central definition 
of human experience.  I think this is a far more deep threat than 
admitting a few grey flannel women to the boardroom or Oxford-educated 
blacks to the government.

Accepting equality with difference (Valuing Differences) means 
acknowledging that "different" groups have a basis for deep 
dissatisfaction and anger toward the dominant culture.  Members of the 
dominant culture must face the ways in which they have been complicit in 
exploitation, and this naturally makes them quite uncomfortable.  It 
is very hard for white people to hear the anger and pain of people 
of color, men to hear the anger of women, and so on.  This anger is a 
necessary part of every oppressed group accepting its own worth.  You 
cannot recover from abuse without the healthy rage of one who knows
s/he didn't DESERVE to be exploited and abused. It is natural for
the target of that rage to want to gloss over it, say yeah, yeah, that's
over, let's move into an "equal" future.  Unfortunately, an equality
that cannot hear the truth of everyone's life is no real equality -- it
is an equality of grey paint for everyone.  

It is easy to say the world is hostile to everyone, but to ignore the
reality that the world is far more hostile to women than to men is not
to see women at all.  It is the arrogance of seeing male experience as
the only kind of experience. If an oppressed group chooses to separate
itself from the forces around it (both well- and ill-meaning) that
assault its value and validity, this should be seen as an important part
of the path toward healing.  That this discomfits the dominant group is 
unfortunate, but relative to the pain on both sides of the scale, it is 
small one compared to what has driven a group to take this kind of step.
It is similar to a battered wife leaving an alcoholic husband.  One
might argue that the "best" course is to repair the marriage, for both
partners to "work at it" and live happily ever after.  She may have to
give up hope of reforming or saving him and the husband may be
considered "lost", but stepping out for her own well-being is an act of
reclaiming health for the wife. 

For a woman to come out as a "man-hater", and to live separately from 
men, could be a step toward reclaiming wholeness of her part.  In the 
context of our society, her "man-hating" cannot be viewed as the same 
thing as the "woman-hating" that is one of the major themes of our 
society.  That woman-hating has been used to deny women their humanity, 
to oppress, exploit, and cripple them in their souls.  This historical 
and social context must be taken into consideration.  This woman-hating 
is not a positive step toward affirming the goodness of maleness, it has 
been used to affirm the ONLY-NESS of maleness.  It has been used to 
erase women in the interests of giving men dominance.  Man-hating by a 
woman who has been erased can be a step in fighting back.  

The overwhelming dominance of men means a woman cannot erase them -- their
nature and experience has been carved in her life, and believe it or
not, that probably isn't her goal.  If her goal is to affirm the
goodness of her womanness, then anger is likely to be an unavoidable
part of it.   For a woman who has a life experience of men-as-oppressor,
naming, fighting, even "hating" the enemy, can be a step towards 
freeing herself.  All that is suffered by the dominant group, who so far 
are not threatened with losing their privileges, is the loss of their 
self-image as benign rulers.

The fear that women, especially self-identified man-haters, will "turn
the tables" on men and oppress them in the same way that they has been
oppressed is a latent fear of many men.  This is in no way guaranteed.
(The assumption that it is based on the arrogance of assuming that there
is no other reality possible than that which has been created by white
men. The world would be the same, no matter who was running it, right?) 
The worst thing is likely to happen to men is that the "man-hating"
women will refuse to serve them, give them sex, answer their phones,
wash their clothes, and indulge their fantasies.  In some ways, this may
be a greater threat than an armed revolution.  What would the world do?

    -1 (I have nothing to add except my admiration)
    
    Maggie

    Re: .35 (at the very end)
    
    Ever read "Lysistrata"?

        While Catherine's note 750.35 is a masterful statement and makes
        a large number of extremely valid points, I would like, with all
        respect, to disagree with part of it. I understand that my
        disagreement may be seen by some as coming from my "white male"
        background, and that may be a valid criticism of it. None-the-
        less, it does not seem that way to me. Rather, I think my
        reaction is based on my own experiences as a victim.
        
        The point of disagreement is on the focusing of one's hate or
        anger upon others as a class, and quite possibly even on them as
        individuals. First, I completely agree that the only way that
        one can begin to overcome abuse is through recognition that one
        does not deserve the abuse, and that ones adamant refusal to
        accept it. Where I disagree is that this indignation and refusal
        to take it any more has to be anger or hatred directed at others
        especially at others viewed as a class.
        
        My own experience in this is that it is the *internal* decision
        that the situaution is unacceptable and must change that is
        important. I found that so long as I focused my indignation as
        hatred and anger towards individuals and classes, I was still
        incapacitated, not so much as when I just accepted it, but
        incapacitated none the less. At least in my own case, it wasn't
        until I overcame the anger and hate that I became effective.
        Now, in my case the indignation and the decision that it was no
        way to live came at the same time as the loss of hate and anger.
        Rage, if you will, turned to outrage, but they did not co�xist.
        
        I will admit that it is entirely possible for the rage and
        outrage to co�xist. If they do, then yes, going from passive
        acceptance to rage to rage and outrage to outrage alone is a
        healthy process and each step is vital. However, it seems to me
        that the anger and hate of the rage period tie up a lot of
        emotional energy and focus, and that the detract from the
        outrage period, abd thus act to retard development once you've
        gotten out of the acceptance state.
        
        In all of this, I am not concerned as a man about man-hating
        because it is directed at me otr because of what it can do to
        me, but because of what I see it as doing to the person who
        hates men. It is, as I have said, distracting and likely to
        interfere with overcoming the abuse. Beyond that, I think that
        in a way, it acts to validate the victimizers. In so much as you
        come to believe that men are victimizers because they are men,
        you give the victimizers the excuse that they are as they are
        merel because they are men. You are affirming their claim that
        they are just "doing what comes naturally". I would prefer, by
        far to say that it is victimizing that is wrong, and to affirm
        that no one HAS to be a victimizer, that choosing to be a
        victimizer is wrong.
        
        Aside from this disagreement with one thing that I think I heard
        Catherine say, I think that her note was right on the money. I
        have no problem with separatism, or with the kind of changes
        that victims must go through in order to cease being victims,
        and the observation that being different can mean being
        invisible, or visible only as bad. Being different and good is a
        hard thing to accept--something we all must accept.
        
        JimB.

    
    re:.35
    
    very provocative! many thanks!!

    Catherine,
    
    That was great.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    			The idea of the Great Mother offers
    			an alternative to the present reality
    

re: Note 750.39  BRONS::BURROWS

>Where I disagree is that this indignation and refusal
>to take it any more has to be anger or hatred directed at others
>especially at others viewed as a class.

>I found that so long as I focused my indignation as hatred and anger 
>towards individuals and classes, I was still incapacitated, not so much 
>as when I just accepted it, but incapacitated none the less. 

But Jim, you DID experience the anger, didn't you?  What you're getting
wrong is that you are assuming that the angry reaction of women here is 
JUST a chosen one and is not a natural, healthy and automatic reaction as
was the anger YOU felt when YOU were a victim.

Saying that anger makes one incapacitated sounds awfully self-righteous.
We all know that.  That still doesn't make it easy to just chuck the
anger.  Was it easy for you?

>At least in my own case, it wasn't until I overcame the anger and hate 
>that I became effective.

Your feeling seems to be "Sure, I was angry but it didn't get me anywhere 
until I "recovered".  That sounds a little pompous.  Maybe we WILL get nowhere 
until we "recover" from our anger but we're still going to feel it anyway, for
as long as we have to and we will "recover" when our anger is spent and we are 
READY to recover, just as YOU didn't get over your anger a moment sooner than 
you were ready to despite the fact that you seem to feel you were able to "in-
tellectualize" yourself out of your anger and that women should be able to too.

Whew - long sentence.

You didn't talk yourself out of your anger and don't expect women too either.
You wallowed in rage and hate for as long as you needed to as the first step 
to recovery.

You're still denying women the right to be angry about their victimization.

>In all of this, I am not concerned as a man about man-hating because it is 
>directed at me otr because of what it can do to to me but because of what I 
>see it as doing to the person who hates men. 

And what is it doing to the person who hates men?  It's acting as a healthy
and understandable outlet for a person who has been victimized and recognizes
it.  That sounds like a good thing to me.  You are confusing normal healthy
anger with on-going bitterness which does eventually erode any potential for
happiness.  Either that or your are pronoucing YOUR anger as normal and healthy
and women's anger as on-going bitterness.

>I have no problem with separatism, or with the kind of changes that victims 
>must go through in order to cease being victims,

You sound like you do have a problem with the kinds of changes victims go
through.  You seem to think women should skip the anger stage and go right
back to being the sweet, benevolent, kind and giving creatures we've always
been expected to be.  Wrong.  Fooled you - we're as normal as you are and
we're going to be pissed off at men a while first.

>Being different and good is a hard thing to accept--

Maybe for you it is.  The whole point of Catherine's excellent note is that
being different and good at the same time is a hard thing for many WHITE MEN
to accept.  For the groups WITH the differences, it is not.  We already know
that non-white men can be good.  White men still aren't convinced.

    Oh, Catherine...
    
    
    wow.
    
    
    
    --DE
    

    Actually, .39 expresses my reservations rather well.  I can understand
    that the anger is useful, but I'm not sure it's necessary.  If you
    believe that the end justifies the means, then it works out.  I
    have some trouble with that, so it's hard for me to accept that
    something I consider wrong is a good thing to do, no matter how
    useful it is.
    
    Re: .42
    
    >What you're getting wrong is that you are assuming that the angry
    >reaction of women here is JUST a chosen one and is not a natural,
    >healthy and automatic reaction as was the anger YOU felt when YOU
    >were a victim.
    
    Maybe I'm missing something, but I saw nothing that indicated that
    his anger was a reaction.  Actually, I find the word 'focus' more
    connotative of a deliberate action.
    
    >That still doesn't make it easy to just chuck the anger.  Was it
    >easy for you?
    
    There are two different levels here:  what is understandable and
    what is right.  They are not necessarily the same thing.
    
    >That sounds a little pompous.
    
    Is it possible to explain a successful personal experience without
    sounding pompous or self-righteous?  I picked up no such overtones.
    I get the feeling that noters here are a lot more sensitive than
    I am (I usually don't even think to notice such things).
    
    >You didn't talk yourself out of your anger and don't expect women
    >too either.  You wallowed in rage and hate for as long as you needed
    >to as the first step to recovery.
    
    Wow.  I begin to believe you know Jim better than he knows himself.
    
    >You're still denying women the right to be angry about their
    >victimization.
    
    There's a difference between being angry at one's victimization
    and being angry at the stereotypical class of men.
    
    >It's acting as a healthy and understandable outlet for a person
    >who has been victimized and recognizes it.
    
    Understandable, yes.  But I'm not sure I'd use "healthy" to describe
    hating an entire class of people for the actions of a portion of
    that class.
    
    >You seem to think women should skip the anger stage and go right
    >back to being the sweet, benevolent, kind and giving creatures
    >we've always been expected to be.
    
    Missed something again, I guess.  I thought he was looking for
    constructive action (which often requires assertiveness), not passive
    submission.
    
    >White men still aren't convinced.
    
    White men, as a whole, aren't convinced.  I think I dislike
    generalizations because they're simplifications, and life is far
    too complex for massive simplification.

    re .39 - not a good idea to hate a group of people for the actions
    of a few
    
    While I personally have had to accept the truth of the above statement,
    it was difficult.  The difficulty lies in the fact that in crimes
    such as rape, harassment, battering, the criminal is not acting
    against the victim-as-an-individual; rather the criminal is acting
    against the victim-as-a-member-of-a-class/group.
    
    A racist does not act against one Black person when s/he hangs that
    person for "transgressions against the white race" - s/he acts against
    all Blacks.  The rapist is not acting against the one victim - he
    is acting out his frustrations with _all_women_ on one select
    individual, his victim.
    
    If, for example, the victim understands that `her' rapist was acting
    against her _as_a_woman_, she sees that a member of the group `men' has
    declared `war' on the group `women' and she is just one casualty.
    
    One reaction to finding herself a victim of one man's (or several
    men's) war on women is to fight back, to accept that man, that
    criminal, as he chose to act: as a representative of all men.  She
    decides to hate the group `men' for declaring war on her group,
    `women'.
    
    This decision becomes all the more palatable to her when she notices
    all the _little_ things, the _little_ skirmishes - men calling her
    honey babe, hearing herself referred to as girl when males her age
    are referred to as men or guys, noticing that every woman in her
    workplace is poorly paid with respect to the men, and on and on
    and on.  With such evidence, it could be very easy to decide that
    in fact all men _are_ in on the `war', that all of `them' _are_
    trying to subjugate her.
    
    When faced with continual reminders, it could be very hard _not_
    to hate all men.  It takes a lot to remember to _notice_ the _good_
    men, the men who do _good_ things, to notice them _as_much_ as you
    notice the bad guys.
    
    So while I'd agree that hating a group of people for the actions
    of one isn't a good idea for _me_, it isn't so easy as that, Jim.
    
    Lee

    Re: .46
    
    >to accept that man, that criminal, as he chose to act: as a
    >representative of all men.  She decides to hate the group `men'
    >for declaring war on her group, `women'.
    
    In other words, to do unto 'them' as 'they' have done unto her.
    If it's wrong for men, it's wrong for women.  Perpetuating the
    dehumanizing attitudes doesn't seem to be a particularly constructive
    way of addressing the problem, certainly not in the long term.
    
    >It takes a lot to remember to _notice_ the _good_ men, the men
    >who do _good_ things, to notice them _as_much_ as you notice the
    >bad guys.
    
    Yes, anger/annoyance make a stronger impression than contentment.

    I'm a little confused by parts of this discussion. Some people
    apparently think that "anger at men" is a moral issue, or some kind
    of choice. It's as if we can wake up one day and say "I think I'll
    be angry at men for awhile" and then decide "Oh no. That's unladlylike.
    That's morally unacceptable. I think I'll stop." Yes, the decision
    to feel anger is a choice in a very broad sense, but once one notices
    that emotion, it can take years (if not decades) to work through.
    
    And yet, when you've been raped or beaten or constantly subjected
    to mass media images of women as objects, why is anger an inappropriate
    response? To me, it's an important first step in healing. 
    
    
    Liz
        

    I'm going to have to agree with Jim in .39.  Hate, however natural
    a reaction it is and however necessary a stage it is, is not good
    for you and in the long run you have to give it up if you want
    to make something positive of your life.  

    My particular group-hate was (still is too often) against the
    comfortable middle class that fed itself at the expense of people
    like my family and then looked down on us, humiliated me in
    school, and drove my brother to delinquency for being poor.  As if
    we chose it. 
    
    I still feel a lot of anger at what I went through growing up.  I
    don't suppose I'll ever stop being angry for it.  
    
    But as long as I let the anger for things that happened in the
    past, or even the present, be the focus of my life, I get nowhere.
    When I hated them, I refused to see the individuals, refused to
    admit that there might be compassionate businessmen and honest
    bankers, and I LET THEM DEFINE ME AND CONTROL MY LIFE.  Instead
    of looking for their approval I was looking to cut them down,
    but it was still THEIR rules and their game.
    
    When I started to let go of the hate and focus instead on the
    things I could do for myself, that I wanted for myself, I freed
    up a lot of energy and a lot of compassion for the troubles
    and needs of other people.  Even the people I used to hate.
    
    I probably sound as pompous as Jim, but I'll be damned if I
    can figure out a way to say it so that it doesn't sound like
    I know better than you.  I don't mean it that way, though.
    
    --bonnie

    Just a few thoughts that Bonnie Randall's reply brought up.
    
    "Hating" something gives it energy. Hating men, therefore gives
    energy in the exact direction one doesn't want it to go.
    
    			HOWEVER
    
    A woman who does NOT give her energy to men is seen as HATING men.
    A woman who channels this "hating" energy into women only, is seen
    as HATING men.
    
    So what, really, is the definition of "hating men"?
    
    --DE
    

    re: .50
    
    Dawn, from the sociological point of view your question is
    extremely interesting and I have to agree that a lot of people
    accuse you of hating men if you aren't man-focussed and
    man-centered.
        
    However, I was talking only about the emotion, the one that
    society can't see and can only try to guess from your behavior or
    my behavior. 
    
    It's my own hate (which is NOT, NOT, NOT the same thing as anger!)
    and my own awareness of it which held me back for so long.  Not
    anybody else's view of it.  
    
    --bonnie

    I've never hated men as a group.  I have hated some of the things
    some men have thought or felt or done, but I feel that I have been
    too close to them as people to see them as an enemy.  My energy
    has, rather, been sapped by the jealousies I have felt towards them.
    In my case, this brought about a "why do THEY get all the...", and
    left me cursing the fates.  I think the most difficult thing to
    accept and understand is that often the minor skirmishes that
    inconvenience women most are those that aren't premeditated.  These
    are driven by ignorance, or by apathy, and will be quite difficult
    to wipe out.
    
    I acknowledge it is okay to feel angry/jealous/whatever towards
    those you feel have wronged you, but where is the best place to
    focus this energy (if, indeed, it is not too scattered and erratic
    to be focused)?  In many ways, I wish to feel better about myself
    as a woman...but living/working in what seems to be a man's world
    is constantly unveiling more injustices, and sometimes I cannot
    see my way clear to divorcing myself from the issue so as to avoid
    playing comparison games.  To compare men and what they do and how
    they do it, to women and what they do and how they do it, is like
    comparing apples and oranges.  But mine is an untamed herd of 
    feelings, and often I cannot "choose" to stop feeling a certain way
    any more than I chose to feel that way in the first place.  
    
    Don't get the impression I spend 24 hours a day dwelling on this
    kind of thing...it's more like stubbing your toe against that darn
    bureau in the hall because you forgot it was there...and then you
    realize it's always been there, you just hadn't noticed it for a
    while.
    
    Only human...
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Excellent point, Dawn.  Maybe "Man-_Hating_" is a real misnomer because
    _hate_ implies an emotional state, defined in relation to another group, 
    in this case, men.  Maybe "Male-Indifferent" would be a better term.

re: 39

These are valid points about the process of empowerment.  In making the 
transition from victim, to rage, to outrage, there does seem to be an 
important point at which an individual accepts the hand s/he has been 
dealt and resolves to play it, taking personal responsibility for 
creating her/his own life.  Blaming only the external forces that have 
dealt the cards can be disempowering, since it leaves the individual 
with no sense of personal control for shaping the future.  

Although individuals do have responsibility for themselves and must 
accept it as some point in order to move on, this individualization of 
the struggle against victimization exist in parallel with a need to 
analyse and hold responsible the system that has created the conditions
of victimization.  There is a system.  This is more obvious to the 
disenfranchised than it is to those for whom the system is designed.
Perhaps the most significant privilege enjoyed by white men in our 
system is the position of thinking of themselves as individuals, whose 
lives are their own responsibility.  I do not mean to say that women and 
other minorities do not see themselves as individuals, but the degree to 
which they experience the power to shape their own lives is decidedly 
different.

The individualization of both victim and oppressor prevents both from
discovering and threatening the "system".  The victim's experiences are
seen as just a matter of personal dysfunction, unique to herself. The
dominant-class individual's success is seen as also all his own
responsibility, success that is available to any other individual who
makes the same effort.  The fact that there is a system in the
background that systematically disables one and enables the other goes
relatively unchallenged.  

That we are individuals, and can relate as such, gives us the 
opportunity to bridge groups and classes.  Seeing ourselves only as 
individuals exhibiting randomly personal behavior is like the "common
humanity" argument -- it can deny that there is any system shaping the
lives of various classes of "individuals". The fact that there are
individuals that do break out of the system pattern is seen as proof
that there really is no system or no pattern.  For women in particular,
the fact that there are doubtless individual men whom she loves and to
whom she intimately relates, can obscure the fact that her loved ones
belong to a system that is working against her. 

For a woman, treating her dysfunction as a strictly isolated personal
problem can prevent her from challenging  the rightness of what it is in
the system that has named her a victim before she was born. It can be
very empowering to discover that there is a system that promotes low
self-esteem, sexual victimization, and lack of personal power in her
life.  Her "failure" in the white  male world is not necessarily all her
own creation and a reflection of her personal inadequacy. The system
breaks people, and then uses the isolation of naming it only a personal
responsibility to turn the broken in on themselves, to lick the wounds
they believe to be self-inflicted. They don't look up to see what hit
them, don't question the existence of the machine that keeps on hitting
them and their kind. 

To acheive personal power, I agree one cannot give ultimate power to the
system. It is part of the inheritence of any particular individual,
though, and must be dealt with as such. It is a paradox that fighting 
and overcoming the system means transforming oneself within to not 
accept the power of the system.  I believe in this, just like I believe 
Steven Biko died a free man, although he was beaten to death by South 
AFrican police.  He believed that liberation began in one's own mind and 
that freedom was not necessarily a thing to be grasped from the outside 
and then brought inside.  One has a state of being free within, and then 
brings it into being.  This understanding of personal tranformation, 
though, cannot be based in a denial of the actualities of the system.

Getting from here to there means much painful struggle.  Seeing
through the system, seeing the ways in which one has been crippled,
passing through anger, and transforming anger into power and freedom is
a long and complicated journey.  The results are not even anything we can
probably imagine in our current state of unfreedom. The system can be
challenged, and it will, be individuals of courage and faith. 
Individuals may succeed in healing themselves, with or without
recognizing the part the system has played in damaging them in the first
place, but their triumphs will only challenge the system at its roots
when they have seen and named the system for what it is. 

        RE: the replies to my reply to Catherine.
        
        Wow! There's some great stuff here. Very thought provoking. I
        hope I can respond as the replies deserve.
        
        RE: 750.42 -- Sandy Ciccolini
        
        I'm afraid that I didn't quite convey some of my intent. I'm
        sorry if I gave the impression that the anger I see in women is
        not as natural, healthy and automatic a reaction as my own anger
        was. I don't think that the anger I felt was any better than
        theirs. I do think that it was a natural reaction in both cases.
        I would not goes so far as to call it unhealthy, but I do think
        that for me, and by extension for others, that so long as my
        outrage, my indignation expressed itself as anger rather than as
        something empowering it was debilitaing.
        
        Yes, I did feel anger and hatred, but when I did that was almost
        all that I experienced of the situation beyond fear and pain.
        When I was able to act with indignation and outrage rather than
        rage, then I was able to really overcome my r�le as victim.
        Anger and hate were just part of being a victim and in a way
        kept me in that part.
        
        I know that what I've said sounds self-righteous. I'm sorry for
        that, but it is inherent in the message I'm trying to convey,
        and I can't find a way to express it better. What I'm trying to
        say is that self-respect and righteous indignation, and outrage
        that someone would think of victimizing one are more effective
        reactions than mere anger and hate which at least for me
        continue the r�le of victim. I'm talking about MY experience and
        I'm advocating a RIGHTEOUS SELF-assurance. I don't know how to
        get the flavor of self-righteousness out of that. I'm sort of
        trying humbly to advocate self-righteousness. Does that make
        sense?
        
        As to the inevitability of passing from acceptance to rage to
        outrage and the stage of anger being necessary, I suspect that
        you are correct--it is the rare or non-existant person who can
        step deftly over the stage of anger straight to "recovery". What
        bothered me about Catherine's note was mostly what it left
        unsaid rather than what it said. On the whole the note is
        masterful. Her note, and yours, are correct that anger and even
        hatred may be necessary and valid. I do not doubt that. But what
        I didn't get from her note, which I wished I had, was the sense
        that it was only a step, that we should go through it to the
        next stage--the stage of being really effective in overcoming
        victimization.
        
        Finally, I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that women
        should just be dear sweet things without normal reactions of
        anger. That certainly was not my intent. I'd rather see them as
        people who just don't put up with victimization. I found that
        anger was a way of being powerless. Anger as I have experienced
        it always had a sense of frustration and admission of defeat in
        it. Power seems to bring with it colder emotions than the heat
        of anger.
        
        JimB.

        RE: 750.46 -- Lee Tatistcheff
        
        As I read your note I just kept nodding and saying "Right!"
        
        You are absolutely correct, given that a lot of victimization is
        not directed personally at an individual but at a member of a
        group makes it terribly difficult not to respond to the
        victimizer as a member of a group. It is extremely tempting to
        accept the victimizer on their own terms as a representative of
        their group attacking towards a member of yours.
        
        That is one of the biggest edges that victimizers can have. By
        being the active person in the transaction they get to write the
        initial ground rules and set out the initial definition. Getting
        control away from them and responding on your own terms is
        extremely difficult, which merely adds to the problem of being
        victimized.
        
        That's kinda why I feel that anger and hatred are debilitating.
        They are reactive. The other person hurts you and then you react
        with anger and hatred. They still have control in a sense. They
        are still defining ther interaction. I find self-righteousness
        is more proactive. By deciding that "It is wrong for anyone to
        be victimized. I will not stand for being victiomized, nor for
        others to be." you are taking the first action in a sense. You
        start by defining your r�le, your position, the rules of the
        game. 
        
        Indignation, as I see it, is a reaction to someone else failing
        to live up to the rules that pre-existed. It isn't the second
        step in a transaction, but at least the third. The first stepp
        was the defining of the rules. When you react "How dare you?!"
        you are acting within your own context. They've invaded your
        world, stepped out of your rules. They aren't setting the ground
        rules. They are violating yours.
        
        The difference between 
        
            "I'm a man. You're a woman. Men attack women."
            "I, a woman, therefore hate men."
            
        and
        
            "I'm a man. You're a woman. Men attack women."
            "They do not! You are a victimzer. You are not a man.
             You, personally, are out of line."
        
        is who sets the agenda, who defines the terms.
        
        JimB.

        RE: 750.48 -- Liz Augustine
        
        I, for one, certainly don't think that anger at men is morally
        unacceptable or unladylike. I do think that it is often unwise.
        It is acceptable. It is valid. It may be a necessary step in
        healing. It isn't a very good *last* step though, and it
        oughtn't, for one's own good, be prolonged more than necessary.
        How long is necessary is impossible to judge from the outside.
        
        JimB.

        RE: 750.49 -- Bonnie Randall
        
        You don't sound pompous to me, but then how could anyone who
        agrees with me sound pompous? :-)
        
        RE: 750.50 -- Dawn Evans
        
        Hating may give energy to men, but being seen as hating men
        isn't the same as actrually hating men.
        
        RE: 750.53 -- Jody Bobbitt
        
        Sounds very human to me, and that does point out that the ideal
        that I was suggesting reaching for is in many was superhuman and
        unattainable. I certainly would not fault or blame anybody for
        being in the angry or hating stage. It is unrealistic to think
        that any of us could perfectly attain the ideals that we may
        strive for.
        
        JimB.

        RE: 750.55 -- Catherine Iannuzzo
        
        Another great note. In both this one and the last you captured
        into words a lot of things that I believe and at the same time
        have said a lot of things that give me a whole new perspective
        on things. Please keep it up. They are challenging and very
        good.
        
        I'm not sure that I buy all of your perspective, but then it is
        in many ways quite different from mine because our experiences
        are different. I certainly cannot with any conviction claim that
        what you've said about the system and class culpability are
        wrong. They are different from my perspective. They are not the
        way I conceptualize the world, but there is a strong element of
        truth in them.
        
        My own vision of "the system" is on the whole more benign. I see
        the victimizers more as outlaws, more as out of the system than
        as a part of it. There is no denying that the victimizers are
        very systematic, and gain a lot of support from using the
        system. Moreover it is quite true that our culture is very
        centered on externalities, and that this is a very strong factor
        in favor and support of victimization.
        
        I'm not sure that I would also accept the notion of "class
        culpability" either. I do believe that those of us who are part
        of the group most favored by the current system have a strong
        responsibility to help extend the benefits of the system to
        those who are deprived of it, and to assure that the system is
        not misused to propagate or support victimization.
        
        On the other hand it is not without justice that one might claim
        that these reactions are typical for a white male who is pretty
        facile at using the system. There is no denying that I have a
        number of real edges given the way our society is set up, and
        those edges are bound to act as a set of rose colored glasses,
        making the system look better to me. It is both easier for the
        member of the "haves" to deny class culpability and for a member
        of the "havenots" to assert it than the other way around.
        
        As it stands, I don't accept blame for things which I have not
        done, but I do accept the responsibility not to propagate
        unfairness and accept blame for having failed to do that as well
        as I could. I understand the position of people who feel I ought
        to accept class culpability, and I acknowledge that there is
        some justice to the position.
        
        I strive not to be complacent. I value extremely highly the
        words that you write that challenge what complacency I do have
        (or do recognize). Please keep at it. We can only make the
        system work for all of us if we recognize where it is rotten and
        root that out and change it. Some of us will attempt to preserve
        that which seems to be supportive and good, but we must not let
        our self-interest blind us to the bad spots.
        
        JimB.

Jim,

I would like to clarify why I said about "class culpability".  I didn't 
mean to imply that all white men should necessarily go about apologizing
for themselves, or taking on responsibility for abuses that may 
not be theirs.  I certainly know consciencious and caring white males, 
just as I know insensitive and selfish ones.

What I did want to do is get a little bit past the idea that 
exploitation is only a function of "bad" individuals.  Seeing social 
problems this way prevents us from seeing a "bad" system that creates 
these individuals.  Unless it can be named, and its structure exposed, 
it is not possible to change or destroy the system.

I think that we are different in our sense of the benignity of the 
system.  I am not certain that just extending the franchise is 
sufficient to bring about true equality. I think that victimization is
inherent in it, and that some core assumptions need to be challenged and
changed.  That they are only assumptions, and may not be universal
truths, is a thing that can become clearer from the outside, and
I consider it my job to travel further and further out there.
Believe it or not, I sometimes startle myself with what I see...

	TO:  no one in particular ...
    
       	What is the difference between "anger" and "righteous
    	indignation?"  The words that result (from each of these)
    	sound the same to me.
    
    	I remember listening to a loud argument between two people
    	once (some years ago.)  At one point, the louder/angrier-sounding
    	of the two announced to the other that his "problem" was that
    	he was angry (whereupon the quieter person said to the louder
    	person, "You are angry, too!")
    
    	The louder person denied it (and claimed to be feeling "righteous
    	indignation" instead, which was a totally different emotion
    	and *much* more empowering and acceptable.)
    
    	Myself, I saw no difference between the two at all.  What I
    	*did* notice was that one person was using a negative 
    	label for the other person's behavior, while attaching a positive 
    	label to his *own* (practically identical) behavior.

    	By the way, the quieter ("angry") person didn't accept the label
    	given by his opponent.  He was not "incapacitated" by the fact 
    	that someone else defined his momentary emotions in a negative
    	way.  In his heart, he knew that *he* was the one who was feeling 
    	"righteous indignation" (and it was the *other* person who was 
    	"angry.")  ;-)  
    
    	While I don't believe for a minute that many/most feminists
    	hate men as a class (and I'm fairly certain that I've never
    	personally even *met* a woman who *does* actually hate all men),
    	I think the whole "problem" of the anger that some women 
    	possibly feel about sexism can be SOLVED once and for all. 
    
    	Let's just agree to start calling it "RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION" 
    	instead of "ANGER."
    
    	If an individual finds a particular emotion to be empowering
    	(and not incapacitating), it doesn't matter what we call it.
    	If it works, it works.

        Since I drew the distinction between righteous indignation and
        anger, I'll have a try at distinguishing them, although I admit
        that it is slippery. It clearly means something to me, but I'm
        not clear on how well I can convey it.
        
        Whenever I think of being angry, I think of being worked up to a
        really high emotional temperature. I don't get that hot unless I
        feel hurt, threatened and frustrated. Anger is, so far as I'm
        concerned a response to being powerless, it's what I do went I
        can't do anything constructive about the situation. Without some
        sense of powerlessness or frustration, the energy that would
        fire the anger dissipates.
        
        When I think of being indignant, I think of a much cooler
        emotional state. Indignation to me expresses the surprise that
        someone would have the affrontery to do something that's really
        out of line. When I am indignant, I don't feel threatened, but
        put upon, not hurt but shocked. When I'm indignant it is
        generally a precursor of my taking some sort of action--my
        putting someone back in line. 
        
        I think that's the distinction that I was drawing in the second
        of my two notes, the one in which I really contrasted anger with
        indignation. I'm not sure that it was the best way to draw the
        distinction I was trying to get in my original reply. There I
        talked about focusing anger or expressing indignation as anger
        or hatred. That may have been a better way of phrasing it.
        
        The idea I was trying to get at was the one from the old saw
        about "don't get angry--get even". Really powerful emotions take
        a lot of energy. They are, in general, not conducive to
        effective action. When something that affronts our dignity,
        something unjust happens or is attempted, we can respond in many
        ways. We can focus on the people who did it and hate them, or on
        the thing that happened and be angry, or on what we're going to
        do about it. 
        
        Perhaps the distinction is not unversally experienced. Perhaps
        for many it doesn't make sense to talk about the difference
        between rage and outrage, between anger and indignation. It maps
        fairly well to my experience, though, and I was trying to
        express something that I felt was missing from Catherine's
        original note, excellent though it was.
        
        She spoke about the importance of naming, fighting and even
        hating the enemy as being an important step. I was hoping to see
        something about the next step, a step that is mostly internal
        and self directed, a step where it seems to me that anger and
        hate and emotional reaction can be a drawback from effective
        action.
        
        JimB. 

        Catherine,
        
        What we have here, it seems to me, is a chicken and the egg
        situation. I tend to see bad individuals who with our
        complacency can screw up the system and pervert it. You tend to
        see a bad system that creates bad individuals. Both visions are
        I feel true, and which you pick is a matter of focus and
        assumptions. Does the system corrupt the people or the people
        the system? Both.
        
        How do we fix it? I think we have to oppose the people and fix
        the system. You I suspect, would fix or replace the system and
        oppose the people. There is a difference of emphasis and
        approach--it is a very real difference--but there is a lot of
        similarity.
        
        My own reaction is that victimizers--bad people--are in the end
        responsible for their own actions regardless of whether the
        system rewards them for it or not, and that we must not allow
        them to foist that responsibility off on the system. At the same
        time, I think the system needs to be fixed so as to not reward
        victimization. I focus on responsibility, but I don't claim that
        it is the only factor. 
        
        Even if my approach is better in some way--which I of course
        think it is--I think it is very important to have both views
        represented. We won't fix the system if we have too much faith
        in it. We need to have our assumptions assailed until they are
        unassailable, which they won't be for a very long time if ever.
        We also won't fix it if we don't think it is worth fixing if we
        don't think the game can be won. We also need someone who
        believes that we're winning, albeit slowly. In this case, I'll
        play the optimist and you can be the cynic. I get to play the
        cynic at other times. 
        
        JimB.

    	RE:  .64
    
    	JimB., if you define "anger" as an emotion that comes from
    	powerlessness (etc.), whereas "righteous indignation" is an emotion
    	that helps enable you to take action to resolve the situation...
    
    	...and...
    
    	Some others use the word "anger" and describe it as an emotion
    	that helps enable them to take action to resolve situations...

    	...then...
    
    	What those others call "anger" is actually what you would call
    	"righteous indignation."
    
    	As I recall, Catherine was speaking about "anger" that EMPOWERS
    	a disenfranchised group (meaning, I presume, that the group
    	is then able to take some sort of action to improve their situation
    	and/or make progress toward "recovery" from the injustices that
    	have been suffered.)

    	Like I said before, we could probably solve a lot of the
    	misunderstandings if we simply stopped using the word "anger" and
    	switched to "righteous indignation."  ;-)

    I've always experienced "anger" as an immediate reaction. After
    I've rationalized it, it turns to "righteous indignation". 
    Jim's use of heat/cold seems to fit this. Especially if we 
    assume a temperature shift over time. 
    
    As anger loses the heat of passion, it becomes indignation.
    
    In years of self-defense training, I learned that in a threat 
    situation, best results are obtained by passing through the fear
    and anger stages to indignance as rapidly as possible. This
    maximizes awareness of the tactical situation with a minimum
    of impairment on judgement and reaction. One can extend this
    principle to threatening situations of a non-physical nature.
    
    Dana

    Re: .67
    
    >I've always experienced "anger" as an immediate reaction. After
    >I've rationalized it, it turns to "righteous indignation".
    
    Makes sense to me.  I see "righteous indignation" as having more
    of a focus - "It is *this* particular aspect that causes my
    indignation, *this* particular aspect offends my principles."

    	RE: .68
    
    	Makes sense to me, too.
    
    	Also agree with you that "righteous indignation" would tend
    	to be more focused than immediate anger.
    
    	Therefore, it follows that if a person (over a period of years
    	or decades) focuses negative feelings on a societal condition,
    	such as sexism, then those negative feelings would be more
    	accurately described as "righteous indignation" than as "anger."
    

    re: .0
    
    I can't speak for the feminine part, but for the "seemingly
    hypocritical" part ... I feel qualified.
    
    Several years past, and even now, I observe "apparent hypocrisy"
    from those who advocate the better ideals. I think it is  a human
    trait. On the one hand, we advocate, work, strive, preach, demand,
    require from others a diligence to strive for the best we can hope
    for.
    
    Then, we turn around and succumb to the worst that  we are opposed to.
    People for centuries have opposed to "unecessary killing", yet we
    condone war by participating in it; we oppose crime and buy "expensive
    goodies from dubious dealers and flea markets"; we puportedly support
    the highest ideals of patience, and drive our cars as if every other
    person on the road is the enemy. 
    
    By "preaching the good word" we  indicate our support to that ideal.
    By violating that ideal we show we are human, and subject to frailty
    just like any other person.
    
    Several biblical quotes come to mind, but there are others just as
    relevant, as they demonstrate the "humanness" of our being. The first
    is from St. Paul: "Why do I do the things  I hate, and fail to do those
    things which are good ?". 
    
    The other, attributed to JC (himself):"Why do you wish to pick the
    spec from your neighbors eye, and fail to see the log in your own?".
    
    History remembers the idealistic, but tends to ignore the faults of its
    advocate. Your friend is publicly striving to a better ideal, and being
    a friend, overlook her faults, for they seem small by contrast. 
    
    Which is the more important:"The good she is trying to do", or the
    "reality that she is" ? 
    
    Bob_plus_trois

        In general:
        
        I'm having two problems trying to explain what I mean here.
        First is merely that I'm seeing a distinction that I'm having a
        hard time expressing, one that I think is important. (Although I
        don't think that the particular words that we choose to label
        the variious notions that are involved are important.) The
        second is that I get the strong feeling that some people think
        that I'm being condemnatory when that isn't my intent. I don't
        want to label people as angry and say that they're wrong because
        of it.
        
        Suzanne,
        
        No, I don't really *define* anger to be an emotion that comes
        from powerlessness. I associate it with powerlessness. If I'm to
        define the distinction in a definitive way, I would say that
        anger is a strong emotional reaction we have against other
        people or against circumstance. I associate it with frustration
        and powerlessness because that's what brings it out in me. I
        would define indignation as a less strong emotion (in general),
        which is directed specifically at actions or events. Indignation
        could readily grow into or be expressed as anger.
        
        What I was trying, and seemingly failing, to say was that when
        we (or at least when I) feel anger towards a person or towards a
        class of people it, doesn't do anything really positive, and it
        takes a great deal of energy that could have been applied
        better. When we feel indignation at either being wronged
        ourselves or seeing others be wronged, we can either merely
        become angry, which is much better than just accepting it, or we
        can go the step further to act to prevent or correct the
        indignity.
        
        As a victim, it seems to me that I came to a point where I
        accepted abuse and injustice, and felt afraid and hurt. Then
        there was a period when I was angry and hated the people who
        hurt me and people who were like them. In both of those states,
        which rather blended into each other, I was still powerless. I
        was frustrated. I was fearful. I wanted it to stop, but I didn't
        act. When I began to seriously fight back and to try to change
        the way I was treated, I found I was no longer angry. From the
        outside I may have *looked* angry, because I was now fighting
        back, but the anger and the fear went away. Instead of feeling
        all of this I was doing something. It was much as one is taught
        in martial arts--"passing through" your feelings and into
        action.
        
        I don't really care what you call it, my only point was that it
        is far better to focus on correcting the wrong, on preventing a
        futrure wrong, on *acting*, rather than to focus on anger at or
        hatred of the person or class of people, or on the feelings of
        being hurt or afraid. Before you are angry about the things that
        are wrong in the world, anger is a liberating thing. It gets you
        started on the path. Once you are alread angry or indignant, the
        powerful feeling of the anger can hold you back, distract you
        from becoming effective.
        
        JimB.

	RE: .72
    
     >   When I began to seriously fight back and to try to change
     >   the way I was treated, I found I was no longer angry. From the
     >   outside I may have *looked* angry, because I was now fighting
     >   back, but the anger and the fear went away. 
    
    	    From your perspective, some of the people in this
    	    note may *LOOK* angry (because they are now fighting
    	    back), but the anger (as you define it) and the fear
    	    have gone away.
    
    	JimB., there is nothing wrong with the way you are trying to
    	"convey" your meaning.  In fact, the more you explain it, the
    	more convinced I become that the effective (action-centered)
    	emotion that you keep describing in *yourself* is also the
    	most accurate way to describe the feelings of many of the people
    	that you are so certain are feeling something that is *different*
    	(i.e., less effective) than what *you* felt.

    	The problem is that you refuse to believe it when others assure
    	you that their approach does *not* make them feel powerless
    	(and is *not* the result of mere frustration and fear.)
    
    	Why is it so hard for you to believe that others have already
    	*progressed* to the state that you keep describing to them?
    
    	If you say that, in spite of still appearing angry on the
    	outside, you had actually lost your anger and used your "righteous
    	indignation" to focus on action, then I take you at your word.
    
    	Please take me at my word that many of the people you seem to see 
    	(from the outside) as still appearing angry are using *their* 
    	"righteous indignation" to focus on their *own* actions (to help 
    	correct what they see as injustices and to recover from having 
    	been the target of unfair societal conditions.)

    Er...excuse me.....<taps on shoulders>...
    
    but are we confusing the *emotion* with the *expression* thereof?
    
    i.e., being angry is expressed in a predictible groups of actions,
    while being righteously indignant is expressed in another such group?
    
    I *think* the emotion is anger. Period. How an individual expresses
    it is another bag of artichokes (or whatever).
    
    "I don't get *mad*, I get *even*" is Road Apples. This person felt
    anger first, then determined a course of action.
    
    I also submit that there are many men who are afraid of Women's
    Anger.
    
    Jim (while I have you on the phone - I didn't want to interrupt
    this "conversation") 
    
    Your perception that I hate men is, indeed, not the same as if I
    really DID hate men. HOWEVER. THE WAY YOU REACT is NOT different,
    because you *believe* the condition exists. Therefore, women who
    do not give their energy to men are *treated* as "man-haters" because
    they are *perceived* as such.
    
    Danw
    

	RE: .74
   
        >...are we confusing the *emotion* with the *expression* thereof?
        >i.e., being angry is expressed in a predictible groups of actions,
        >while being righteously indignant is expressed in another such group?
    
        >I *think* the emotion is anger. Period. How an individual expresses
        >it is another bag of artichokes (or whatever).
    
    	You have a very good point there.
    
    	While we could describe "anger" as an immediate reaction (and
    	may use some other term to show how different we feel after the
    	initial reaction has worn off), neither "anger" nor any other
    	term is a reliable indicator of whether or not corrective action
    	will be taken by the person who has been angered.
    
    	It would seem that, no matter how we choose to label our negative
	emotions (and whether or not they are immediate reactions *or*
    	are focused on actions/practices with which we disagree in
    	principle), the emotions that we feel can either EMPOWER us
    	(or not empower us) as individuals and as a group.
    
    	Another important point is the fact that very few of us have
    	the ability to devote ourselves to only one emotion for any
    	significant length of time.  Angry people who are empowered
    	by that emotion are also happy people, sad people, hopeful
    	people, etc. as well (alternately or simultaneously.)
    
    	All in all, it seems difficult (and/or ill-advised) for anyone
    	to characterize a group of people as being inherently angry
    	(and to define their anger as being associated with powerless-
    	ness) when, in fact, the group/individuals involved would define
    	*themselves* as having been empowered by whatever they have been
    	feeling (and the actions that have resulted from those feelings.)

    re: .76
    
    Suzanne, you put your finger on something that's been in the back
    of my mind throughout this discussion. 
    
    You point out that people normally don't feel just angry, that
    they are also happy people, sad people, whatever -- the normal
    flux of human emotions. 
    
    I have known people who are so caught up in their anger (by whatever
    name you want to call it) that they have been unable to see other
    emotions.  
    
    I have also known people who are so caught up in denying their
    anger and insisting they're happy that they are unable to see
    their negative emotions any more.  At a certain stage in my life,
    I was one of them. 
    
    Ordinary anger, even very intense anger, is normal.  Everyone
    feels angry at times.  Focussing on that anger to the exclusion of
    other emotions, or focussing on other emotions to the point of
    denying one's anger, is not normal.  
    
    That's what I meant by not letting go of the hate.  That's when
    the anger rules one's life, defines one in terms of the thing
    hated, cripples one's development, and prevents one from defining
    oneself in positive ways. 
    
    Thanks for clarifying this for me.
    
    --bonnie

    	RE: .77
    
    	Bonnie, I see what you are saying, but keep in mind *also*
    	that what may be apparent (looking at a person from the
    	outside) may not actually be true about the person from his
    	or her own perspective.
    
    	Just as JimB. pointed out that he *appeared* angry (on the
    	outside) but had actually lost his anger and his fear, it
    	is also true that *others* are perceived (wrongly) as being
    	totally caught up in their anger (because it may be visible
    	more often than the person's other emotions.)
    
    	For this reason (and other reasons), some people are being
    	told that their <negative emotion about injustice> is
    	incapacitating (or is causing them to be powerless) when,
    	sometimes/often, the opposite is true.

    	That's what I was trying to point out.

    I'll speak for myself (as usual!). When I am angry, I say so,
    immediately, most of the time. I say the first thing I can think
    of, and just lash back. Sometimes I regret it bitterly, sometimes
    not. But there's one clear thing, and it's that I always feel better
    for having expressed my anger and said what I thought than when
    I have kept it cooped up and simmering.
    
    We should not be afraid to express anger. Unfairness and cruelty
    makes me boiling mad. I have been endangered professionally and
    also physically by telling people they were behaving like insensitive
    monsters (or other similar compliments). I have had to apologize 
    QUICKLY for what I said. I have paid dearly for expressing my
    indignation, but though I have sincerely regretted what I said in 
    some particular cases, in general, it has been for me the only
    possibility to retain my sanity.
    
    BTW, this is one thing I find restrictive in Notes, that, not knowing
    who will read what you are saying, it is very difficult not to
    temperate your anger before expressing it. It may be all to the good,
    but it is so damn frustrating!
    
    Joana
                                             

    This note seems to be working under the assumption that anger for
    men and women is experienced the same way.  I'm not so sure that
    that is true.
    
    I read Jim's notes and say to myself that yes, what he says is true
    for me, for the most part.  At the same time I get this feeling
    that his and my 'male' reaction is being taken as 'normal' and
    therefore applicable.  After reading Corol Gillian's (sp?) "In
    a Different Voice" I try to watch out for instances were the
    'male' reaction is assumed to be the 'normal' reaction.
    
    For myself, I know when I start to get really angry I get ineffective
    real quick.  I'm socialized to allow myself to get angry.  Most
    women are socialized not to show anger.  I get the feeling that,
    for women, it may be necessary to get angry and stay angry in order
    to become effective.  If she loses that anger she may be in danger
    of losing her resolve and drop back into complacency.
    
    If my speculation is accurate it could explain how anger can be
    both a negative force for me and a positive force for women.
    
    					MJC O->

    re .80
    
    Yes, I think that women are not taught to look out for their rights
    as much as men are.  Before I am likely to be _able_ to get up and
    say that someone's actions have _violated_ me and my rights, I have
    to get very angry.
    
    Until I get angry, I simply feel bewildered and get down on myself.
    
    Lee

    re .80 & .81
    
    I've followed the various opinions in this string and felt myself
    seeing some validity on all sides and not being able to extract the
    parts that make my picture complete, until replies .80 and .81.
    
    Yes, I've felt lots of anger, it is important for me to feel it, to the
    core.  It's also important for me not to hold on to it indefinitely.  I
    guess the reason I have trouble moving from anger to indignation is
    because I have to be thoroughly provoked before I allow myself to feel
    my anger.  So I too am confused and I get down on myself until I reach
    that magic threshold.
    
    Nancy

    Women aren't taught to shift from fear to anger as men are. I remember
    my father telling me "if someone bothers you, punch him in the nose".
    I don't recall my sisters being taught the same 'skill'. It's a
    variant of the "Nice girls don't get angry" fallacy, being used
    to deny women a necessary survival skill.
    
    Fear disables you, and waiting for the fear to become so intense
    that the transformation to anger is automatic is equally disabling.
    
    As mentioned previously, advanced training allows one to transform
    the anger to outrage as quickly as possible. Anger controls one,
    outrage can be controled and focused. But the first step, from fear
    to anger, is critical. 
    
    Dana

    All these stages of "healing" are very nice but they depict the
    ideal situation which I don't believe quite applies here.
    
    So say it begins to dawn on women that things aren't quite right
    - that they really DON'T get the same professional rewards men get
    for work, nor the same social allowances men get.  So they start
    to get angry about it.  Then they get indignant about it.  Then
    they advance further and organize and make their indignation known.
    They introduce the ERA.  It gets shot down.  Gloria Steinem gets
    laughed at.  Geraldine Ferraro becomes fodder for stand-up comics.
    And women are hard at work still earning little more than half what 
    equally qualified men earn and being held to stricter rules then men 
    are.  Male-targeted porn becomes more and more pervasive.  The
    "sex-object-ness" of women becomes stronger and stronger in media
    images.  Aid to women raising children alone decreases relative
    to inflation.  Medical information on women's reproductive options is
    increasingly witheld from them - legally.
    
    Now what?  We've progressed FROM anger and even FROM indignation.
    We've DONE what should be done.  We've SAID what we want to say.
    Can we go BACK to anger?  How can we NOT?  And wouldn't this new
    anger be even stronger than before compounded by the fact that
    the last anger/indignation/action produced little effect?  Perhaps
    our new anger is fueled by the feeling that we were humored rather
    than heeded?  Did you know that in the 70's women's starting salaries
    relative to men were higher than they are right now?
    
    Is it any WONDER that men tend to see women as JUST angry instead
    of angry, indignant, active, thwarted and back to angry again?
    
    Keep a dog caged and laugh at him.  Throw him crumbs to eat.  Pat 
    him one day and kick him the next.  Open the door just a touch and 
    as he bolts for it laugh while you shut the door on his leg.  Feed
    him another crumb and tell him he's lucky to be fed and sheltered.
    
    Never having been out that cage door, he will soon settle down and
    believe you, licking your hand, dodging your foot and waiting for
    your crumbs.  Good little puppy.  Be quiet.  Behave.  Be mine. 
    Woof.
    
    

    dana,
    i've noticed the fear -> anger shift in relationships. with my current
    sweetie, i remember being puzzled at the start of our relationship
    when we'd have disagreements. i would cry and feel helpless and
    use that as a re-start point. he, on the other hand, would flash
    angrily at me (and that would make it hard to resolve our problem
    -- he wasn't playing by my expected rules). it took a long time
    to realize that the anger was a response to fear.
    
    more generally:
    i've found this discussion very interesting. several months ago,
    i entered a note in this conference concerning my anger about social
    injustice. my suggestion was that many people had similar concerns
    and that perhaps we could use this energy to constructive ends.
    the response was nearly completely split along gender lines: women
    who contacted me understood my message. men, on the other hand (with
    one or two exceptions), were horrified that i was angry. they called
    and sent mail and visited in an effort to calm me down and suggest
    that i get professional help for my rage (which was just going to
    hurt me in the end). i now realize that if i'd substituted the words
    "i feel righteous indignation about..." for "i'm angry that...",
    my message might have been clearer.

    
    liz

    Re: .84
    
    >Is it any WONDER that men tend to see women as JUST angry instead
    >of angry, indignant, active, thwarted and back to angry again?
    
    The issue, then, is to not get stuck at the angry point, but to
    move on again to the indignant and active stages.  Otherwise, you're
    just spinning your wheels.

    	RE: .86
    
    	> The issue, then, is to not get stuck at the angry point,
    	> but to move on again to the indignant and active stages...
    
    	If we agree (as stated earlier) that "anger" is more of an
    	*immediate* reaction, then it would seem more likely that if people
    	got "stuck" anywhere, it would be in the longer-lasting "indignant"
	stage (during which action can and does occur.)
    
    	It seems to me that the *real* issue is to not get stuck at
    	*any* point that leaves one incapacitated (regardless of the
    	labels we give to each stage.)
    
    	If a person can be EMPOWERED by her/his anger (even if it is a
    	repeat of the same stage), then progress is being made for that
    	individual and/or group.

    RE [-1  Hi Suzanne!]
    
    It seems that we're assuming that "getting stuck" is a personal
    choice - that to be angry is a conscious decision rather than a
    gut reaction.  How do you not "get stuck"?  How many times can you
    ask nicely for equal pay?  How long can you smile and just try,
    try again?  If women are "stuck" anywhere have they stuck THEMSELVES
    there?  Is that what I'm hearing?
    
    If women are indeed just "spinning their wheels" it could simply
    be because they're mired in mud.
    
    Often, the wheel-spinning is seen as proof of the innate inability of 
    women to move ahead and the mud underneath causing this inability is 
    rarely addressed.

    	RE: .88
    
    	Good point, Sandy!
    
    	I guess I was making a distinction between "social progress"
    	and "personal progress" (since so much of the backlash against
    	women's anger seems to take on the tone of "You only hurt yourself
    	when you are merely angry," as if anger and forward momentum
    	are mutually exclusive, and as if our culture's main objection
    	to women's anger is to protect us from ourselves.)
    
    	Even when social/political progress seems painfully slow, it
    	is possible for anger/righteous_indignation/whatever to have
    	personal benefits for those who are concerned with that progress.
    
    	Of course, it's not a great substitute for true social and political
    	progress, but I hesitate to think of it as "spinning one's
    	wheels" either.

    re: .88
    
    Getting stuck on one's own anger isn't the same as getting angry
    because one is stuck in the mud! It's quite plain that you,
    personally, are not stuck in feeling only your own anger. 

    Here are some of the things I found that moving beyond anger
    meant to me:      
    
    Moving beyond anger means I know what is making me angry. This
    sounds obvious, but I spent a lot of time since Steven was born
    thinking I was angry about the restrictions society imposes on a
    young mother when in fact I was projecting anger at myself for not
    taking more responsibility for my life. The restrictions that
    infuriated me are very real but they weren't why I was angry. 
    
    Moving beyond anger means I'm angry at the appropriate person or
    thing.  I sometimes catch myself being angry at my husband when he
    does something that reminds me of my mother. Only it's not him I'm
    mad at, it's my memory of her. 
    
    Moving beyond anger means I think about the most effective and
    appropriate thing to do in response to that anger -- do I smile
    sweetly and drive my 4-inch spike heel accidently into his instep?
    Do I yell and throw a temper tantrum?  How about a firebomb?  Do I
    join a women's political caucus?  Do I patiently explain for the
    thousandth time that fire trucks don't START fires, Steven, they
    put them OUT?  Or do I lock myself in the bathroom for five
    minutes until I calm down? 
    
    When I was stuck in my anger, I had an automatic reaction to
    anybody who grew up in an economically more advantaged class
    than I did -- I resented them, I refused to consider that they
    had anything of value to say, and I dumped socialist political
    theories on them at the hint of an opening.  I still will when
    prodded in my more sensitive memories.

    It doesn't mean I'm not angry about the injustices I suffered,
    that other people like me continue to suffer.  It means I don't
    blame my father-in-law for the things the principal of my school
    did to me.  I blame him for the things he did as principal
    of his own school 2500 miles to the east.

    Going beyond anger certainly doesn't mean you have to smile
    and try, try again!  Especially when it didn't work the first
    sixty times!  
    
    --bonnie

    recently a friend offered me a book to read to help me through some
    anger, I recommend it 
    "DO I HAVE TO GIVE UP ME TO BE LOVED BY YOU"
    Like the previous note, the illuminating thing was recognizing who
    or what I was really angry at.
    
    It was first written for couples, but can be applied to single
    parenthood too.
    
    vivian

    Re: .87
    
    >*immediate* reaction, then it would seem more likely that if people
    >got "stuck" anywhere, it would be in the longer-lasting "indignant"
    >stage
    
    An immediate reaction does not necessarily imply a short-term reaction;
    it just means that the reaction follows on the heels of the catalyst.
    One hopes that the reaction quickly moves into a more productive
    mode, but that doesn't always happen.
    
    >If a person can be EMPOWERED by her/his anger (even if it is a
    >repeat of the same stage), then progress is being made for that
    >individual and/or group.
    
    I'm not so sure.  Progress is a vector with both magnitude and
    direction.  Power simply has magnitude; it doesn't become progress
    until it is applied in a direction.  "Spinning your wheels" is power
    going in no direction.

    Re: .88
    
    >that to be angry is a conscious decision rather than a gut reaction.
    
    I thought we were assuming that anger is a gut reaction, but
    indignation is a conscious decision.
    
    >How do you not "get stuck"?  How many times can you ask nicely
    >for equal pay?
    
    One way to not get stuck is to recognize when a tactic isn't working
    and reevaluate/change tactics.
    
    >If women are "stuck" anywhere have they stuck THEMSELVES there?
    
    "Anywhere" covers a lot of territory.  Stuck in a particular emotional
    state?  Probably.  Stuck in a particular situation?  Not necessarily.
    
    >If women are indeed just "spinning their wheels" it could simply
    >be because they're mired in mud.
    
    One possibility.  So, do you just sit and swear at the mud, or do
    you do something about getting out?  (Most people will swear at
    the mud for a while to vent their frustration, but they don't stop
    there.)  What Suzanne said about not getting stuck at any stage
    is, of course, the most productive way to go.
    
    Actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure how empowering anger is.
    I'm often tired after being angry; if anger has generated any energy,
    it's been consumed by the process of being angry.  If anger is to
    be empowering, it must be of short duration; otherwise, it burns
    itself out.  Both a tool and a trap.  Maybe that's why I don't like
    the idea of relying on it - because it's dangerous.  Are there other
    ways of firming one's resolve ("girding one's loins," so to speak)
    besides anger?

    
    re: .84
    
    Thanks again, Ms. C. This really needs to be said!
    

	RE: .92
    
    >>If a person can be EMPOWERED by her/his anger (even if it is a
    >>repeat of the same stage), then progress is being made for that
    >>individual and/or group.
    
    >I'm not so sure.  Progress is a vector with both magnitude and
    >direction.  Power simply has magnitude; it doesn't become progress
    >until it is applied in a direction.  "Spinning your wheels" is power
    >going in no direction.

    	My favorite definition for the word "EMPOWER" is "to enable."
    
    	Although I would certainly agree with you that it *could* be
    	considered "spinning your wheels" if a person had the ability
    	to take action (of some sort) but chose not to take whatever
    	steps were available -- also keep in mind that it is not
    	always possible to see the effects of one's efforts towards
    	social change.  No matter how much overt action is taken, the
    	visible effects could be so negligible as to make a person or 
    	group feel that she/he/they were spinning their wheels.

    	In *my* opinion, the mere act of having become "EMPOWERED"
    	(i.e., "enabled") is an improvement over the feeling of utter
    	helplessness (even if the only visible effects are the raising
    	of one's own, or others', consciousness about social injustices.)

    	When one has become "enabled," personal growth becomes possible
    	(and may be more likely.)  If personal growth (through the constructive
    	use of energy) has been acheived, it is up to the individual
    	to guage the value of such growth (and I would *still* hesitate
    	to call it "spinning one's wheels" if the individual placed
    	a high value on that growth.)

        Suzanne,
        
        Apparently I'm still giving a mistaken impression here, for
        which I am dreadfully sorry. It was not my intent to judge
        anyone and to declare that they were angry, nor if they were to
        say that they were wrong for feeling that way. The whole
        discussion--at least this portion of it--seems to have taken on
        a greater proportion than I had intended, for which I am also
        sorry. 
        
        All I wanted to say was a very small piece of advice from my own
        experience, which was that anger could side track one from
        really getting things done. I didn't mean to say that anyone in
        particular or that women in general were either angry or side
        tracked. 
        
        When you say that a lot of the people I think are angry are
        really indignant, I suppose it could be true, but I don't really
        think of a great many people as angry. When you speak of people
        being told that they are incapacitated when they are not, I know
        I am failing to communicate what I mean because I don't mean to
        tell anyone that they are incapacitated. 
        
        All I meant was that if a person who reads what I'm writing
        finds themselves extremely angry at being victimized, they may
        want to try to channel their energy away from merely being angry
        to being active, that allowing ourselves to be trapped into mere
        anger is a way that victimizers keep us as victims. It was an
        observation of something that was important to me, when I was
        dealing with being a victim. I thought it might be of help to
        others. 
        
        Really, that's all.
        
        I think I shall bow out now as it has been suggested to me
        off-line that I have been over-active in this discussion and
        being over bearing is certainly counter to the intent of my
        message. If you want to continue this off-line, fine.
        
        JimB.

    I am beginning to feel frustrated (not angry or indignant) with
    this whole conversation. Though it may only be me, I still thought
    I'd share my feelings with you (before they overcome me, maybe....)
    
    1) I feel we are talking in circles. Though some of the earlier
       answers were fascinating, we have now reached a stage where we
       are just repeating what has already been said, either using diffe-
       rent words, or sometimes using the same words in different settings.
    
    2) I feel we are now "playing" with words. We are getting into the trap
       of the semantic debate. "Anger". "Indignation", be it righteous
       or otherwise. Those are valid expressions of our feelings, and
       going round and round definitions will, in the long term, hamper
       us when trying to write notes. If I want to say I am mad as Hell,
       I don't wish to spend 15 minutes wondering if I am righteously
       indignant or not. If I have to spend that much time, I'll just
       drop the issue. Now that may be a good way to have less flames
       in the Notes, but it would also make Notes a very poor place
       to come for ideas, debate, help, etc.
    
    3) We have gone off from the original subject, quite a bit,
       haven't we?
    
    Please notice that I have preceded most of my paragraphs with *I*feel*,
    and I am perfectly willing to admit you won't agree, but maybe you
    could give it a thought?
    
    Regards,     Joana
                                                                

    re .97, point 2 semantics
    
    I agree.
    
    re: why talk about anger so much?
    
    I think the reason we are discussing anger, its manifestations in
    individuals' lives, and its effects, is that many of us _are_ angry
    at one thing or another.
    
    Anger is an emotion which women are _not_allowed_ to feel.  Think
    of the female role models you were handed as a child (mother, religious
    figures, public figures, fictional characters).  Were they ever
    angry?  If they _did_ get angry, what were the consequences?
    
    The few role models I had were either: 1) all-suffering and
    all-enduring, sacrificing their personal good for the good of others;
    or 2) were tragic figures destroyed by their anger.  I was taught,
    somehow, that whenever a woman strays from the path, into anger,
    she would suffer for it (misery, loneliness, suicide, punishment).
    
    I think this is true for most of the women in this file, excepting
    _perhaps_ the youngest of us - it is possible that my age group
    was one of the last to be fed this baloney, but I wouldn't bet on
    it.
    
    The result of this training for me is that it takes me a long time
    to get angry after someone has done me wrong.  I have taken the
    lessons to heart _so_well_ (unfortunately for me and those who must
    cope with me) that when someone says something to me and asks me
    if that makes me angry, I say it does not BECAUSE I *AM* NOT ANGRY.
    They could tell me I am the slime of the earth, that I personally
    responsible for nuclear warfare; it would not occur to me
    _at_that_time_ to be angry.  Hell, when I was raped, I didn't get
    mad for several hours, what those monsters did to me did not sink
    through my brain for a loooong time.  I didn't realize I was angry,
    because I was _not_ angry... Lee doesn't _get_ angry, that's not
    allowed.
    
    I seem to take anywhere from a couple hours to several weeks before
    that anger goes from my subconscious to my conscious - I deny its
    existence until I can no longer deny it.  If I keep trying to ignore
    and not acknowledge my anger, it will take itself out one way or
    another (like making it impossible to eat - I have been known to
    go from a size 11 to a size 3 in about a month).
    
    I have to _learn_how_ to be angry, how to _allow_ myself anger,
    _when_ I feel it, and not wait until it incapacitates me.  Every 
    adult must learn this.  We must then learn how to _deal_ with
    that anger, and then how to be free of it when the time comes. 
    Until we have learned these things, we are emotionally crippled,
    eternal martyrs.
    
    While I'd expect that men in some religious groups may have a similar
    difficulty with anger, I think _almost_all_ women have been severely
    hampered in this aspect of their development.
    
    Perhaps this is why we react so negatively when we are labelled
    as angry or hating.
    
    Perhaps this is why we talk about it so much.
    
    Perhaps the frightening thought of facing ourselves and learning
    of our emotional handicap is why we sink into semantics.
    
    Lee

    Re: .97
    
    Yes, I'm also noticing semantic differences - the major pitfall
    of most serious discussions that range anywhere near philosophical
    subjects.
    
    Re: .98
    
    >I think this is true for most of the women in this file, excepting
    >_perhaps_ the youngest of us
    
    One thing I've noticed is that I don't really have that sense of
    being victimized by a patriarchical society.  A large part of that
    is because I'm 23 and I haven't had to struggle to get anywhere.
    Nor have I seen many other women struggle.  In the groups I come
    into contact with at work, there are a lot of women among the various
    levels.
    
    One of the main messages of the liberation movement is "Gender is
    irrelevant; the character of the individual is the important matter."
    Just as men should view women, so I tend to view men.  It works
    both ways.  Therefore, it's difficult for me to blame "men" for
    particular ailments of society.  This is not to say I disagree with
    the thesis of a patriarchical society.  But to me, the whole thing
    is more of an issue in social/cultural history (which is the most
    interesting and fun branch of history, but history nonetheless).

    re: .98 --  YES! (Boy, I wish I could write as well as you do, Lee...)
    
    Only I eat instead of starving myself.  
    
    Bonnie's a nice person.  Everybody says so.  "You're so level-headed
    and calm," they tell me.  "How do you do it?"
    
    At the expense of my own self, sometimes.  
    
    Most of the time I am pretty calm, cheerful, level-headed.  But
    that makes it worse when I do feel angry.  How can I be feeling
    this ugly, un-Christian, uncharitable feeling?  What a hypocrite
    I am for telling everybody to care about others and then to get
    angry when I'm treated unfairly!
    
    And how can I express such a terrible, ugly emotion?  People might
    hate me.  Even worse, what if I get out of control?  If I ever let
    this emotion get a toehold, it's going to take me over and I'm never
    going to get out of it.
    
    Scary?  You bet.  And I have no role models whatsoever for dealing
    with anger; it was an emotion my family didn't admit existed, for
    men or women.  Only society didn't give me any ideas, either.
    
    --bonnie

Note 750.90  VIA::RANDALL

>Moving beyond anger means I know what is making me angry.

What?  It sounds like you are saying that no truly angry person
really even knows what is making them angry.  Jeez, isn't there
something between blind rage and passive acceptance?

Most of your note, Bonnie, sounds like you had MISDIRECTED anger, not
just anger that you had to "get over".  You had to define and direct
your anger at the right target, that's all.  I think our male controlled
government and male-controlled businesses are the right target for
women's anger at the injustices they face by merely being women.  I think
we know very well what we are angry at.  I don't think we're flailing at
the wind.  We want the ERA passed.  That seems pretty specific to me.
Reagan says abortion information should be witheld from pregnant women.
That makes me angry at Regan.  That seems pretty specific to me.  What
about the democracy?  What about majority rule?  Why does HE get to de-
cide what's best for US?  I'm angry allright and I don't think it's mis-
directed.

Note 750.93  JENEVR::CHELSEA 

    
>    One way to not get stuck is to recognize when a tactic isn't working
>    and reevaluate/change tactics.
 
Here again is the common myth that women are ONLY angry and have really
done nothing about their lowly status.  WHO got women the vote?  Some bene-
volent white male?  WHO formulated the ERA?  Reagan?  WHO got Geraldine
Ferraro on a democratic ticket?  MEN?  WHO'S responsible for the creation
of the concept of EEO?  Kind and benevolent men who've suddenly after
centuries just decided to be fair to women for a change?  And WHO is
NOW and what are they doing?  A group of men??  A woman's sewing circle?
A children's play group?  The point is women are doing PLENTY.  We HAVE to.  
If we did nothing but rant and rave we would not even be on this network - 
we'd be home getting dinner for our men and hoping that they will come home 
from slaying their dragons long enough eat it.  Doing nothing.  Spare me.

Get with the program.  It isn't anger/or, it's anger/AND!!!!

We're angry because we're doing EVERYTHING we can and still we're underpaid 
and overworked by males who would much rather look up our skirts than sit down 
and work out our career paths like they do with men.
   
>Stuck in a particular emotional state?  Probably.  Stuck in a particular 
>situation?  Not necessarily.
 
On what do you base your presumed assumption that the former is more likely
the case than the latter?  Many men hear all the talk flying
around and tend to assume things are pretty much equal for women these days.  
They don't see women's paychecks.  They don't read women's reviews.  They 
don't go on women's interviews.  They assume our anger is hollow and they
take their assumptions as fact and our explanations to the contrary as 
assumptions.
   
>So, do you just sit and swear at the mud, or do you do something about 
>getting out?  

What do YOU think?  What would YOU do?  Why do assume women are not
"common humans" and would probably do the same thing too?  Your answer
implies that you believe women are JUST swearing at the mud.  Why do you
think this?

>Most people will swear at the mud for a while to vent their frustration, 
>but they don't stop there.

Bingo!  And guess what?  Most women are JUST LIKE most people!!

>Actually, thinking about it, I'm not sure how empowering anger is.
>I'm often tired after being angry; if anger has generated any energy,
>it's been consumed by the process of being angry.

One of my favorite sayings is "Trends are more important than absolutes".
You, (and a few other noters), are taking anger out of context and treating
it as a standalone emotion.  We all KNOW the effects of anger as a standalone
emotion.  It isn't good for anyone.  But we're talking about a specific TREND 
in which anger occurs and not just the anger itself.  

If you have been a passive victim most of your life, you will never be any-
thing else without anger at some point.  In this TREND, anger is a positive
because the TREND is positive.  Anger occurrs on the way UP.  If you're just 
holding a grudge or cannot forgive someone and are going to stay angry at them,
your anger occurs in a downward trend and as such the anger is negative.

Discussing anger alone is meaningless here.  There's already a note that dis-
cusses anger as a standalone emotion.  Let's discuss it in the context of 
victims, (or in Catherine's sterling words, the "disenfranchised"), no longer
willing to be victims.

>Maybe that's why I don't like the idea of relying on it

Who's "relying" on anger?  It's a gut reaction!  It happens!  It just
happens and that's all.  Is it safe to say then that you will never "rely"
on anger again in your life?  You will NEVER AGAIN "choose" to be angry?
I'll give you one week.  Then maybe you'll see that stopping anger is
like trying to stop the wind.  It's going to happen.  To you, to me and
to everyone else in this file who dares to be philisophical and self-
righteous about anger.  If you don't have the capacity to feel deep anger, 
I believe you don't have the capacity to feel deep love, either.  Passionate 
people are passionate, period.  One of my favorite lines of poetry is:  (and 
all you who hate my poetry just hit next unseen!  ;-))


         "He does not know that the depth of one's hate
          And the depth of one's love are equally great"


Try and stop love when it "just happens".  Then tell me you can really stop 
your anger from happening too.


Note 750.96  HUMAN::BURROWS

>All I meant was that if a person who reads what I'm writing
>finds themselves extremely angry at being victimized, they may
>want to try to channel their energy away from merely being angry
>to being active, that allowing ourselves to be trapped into mere
>anger is a way that victimizers keep us as victims. 

MERELY being angry?  And we may "want to try to channel" our energy
wlsewhere?  Thank you, Jim, I appreciate your concern that our anger
may only hurt us, but I think we can take care of that ourselves.  I
think we're big enough to decide for ourselves when we're pissed off
and have a right to do so without a big brother looking out for our own 
good.  I fully accept responsibility for the consequences of my anger in
exchange for the right to feel it.  Thank you.

    Re: .101
    
    >Jeez, isn't there something between blind rage and passive acceptance?
    
    Of course there is.  Why are you so willing to believe that other
    people *don't* see that?
    
    >Here again is the common myth that women are ONLY angry and have
    >really done nothing about their lowly status.
    
    Is THAT what I'm saying?  I really should pay more attention.
    
    >The point is women are doing PLENTY.
    
    Did I say they weren't?
    
    >We're angry because we're doing EVERYTHING we can and still we're
    >underpaid and overworked by males who would much rather look up
    >our skirts than sit down and work out our career paths like they
    >do with men.
    
    No, YOU are angry.  I'll choose my own program.
    
    >Why do assume women are not "common humans" and would probably do
    >the same thing too?  
    
    I don't.  Why do you assume that I assume this?
    
    >Your answer implies that you believe women are JUST swearing at
    >the mud.
    
    No, my answer assumes that I'm addressing the question of why it's
    not a good plan to get stuck in any particular stage of the cycle
    of anger/focus/action that we have been discussing.
    
    >If you have been a passive victim most of your life
    
    Ah.  So not only are we discussing a TREND, but we're discussing
    a TREND that is used by those who have been passive victims most
    of their lives.  I wish someone would explicitly state the basis
    of discussion, if we're going to be rigorous about these things.
    
    >Who's "relying" on anger?
    
    In the cycle being discussed, those struggling to right injustices.
    They rely on the anger to give them the energy to fight back.

    Nope, the message is not that gender is irrelevant, it's that being
    a woman is as valid as being a man.  Women aren't any stupider or
    less able to be responsible than men.  NOT that gender is irrelevant.
    I haven't suddenly become a white male.

    Re: .103
    
    >NOT that gender is irrelevant.
    >I haven't suddenly become a white male.
    
    I don't understand how point two comes from the negation of point
    one.  How does gender being irrelevant turn you into a white male?
    Irrelevance doesn't erase the difference.  It just fails to grant
    it any consideration.  Isn't that the whole point of equal opportunity,
    equal pay, equal advancement - that you shouldn't consider gender?

    You're confusing equal employment opportunity with feminism.
    
    Before we had race and gender distinctions, and white males were
    the highest standard.  If you ignore race and gender distinctions,
    the standard has not changed, and voila everyone is a white male.
    
    Gender is not irrelevant.  However, opportunities and compensation
    should not be based on gender.
    
    What equal rights movements and womens movements have striven for
    is a changing of the standard also--so that differences are allowable
    but not punished.
                                      

    re: .101
    
    I'm getting out of this argument because I obviously don't
    understand what's going on.  I don't know what I'd do if you
    weren't here to tell me what I said and what I'm really feeling. 
    
    How did you get from MY statements about MY PERSONAL experiences
    with MY OWN anger to a conclusion that I was saying "no truly
    angry person really even knows what is making them angry"?????? I
    wasn't talking about everybody else, I was talking ONLY ABOUT MY
    OWN FEELINGS and how I'm beginning to deal with my own anger.
    That's what I said.  Right up front, at the head of the list. Did
    you read it? 
    
    What gives you the right to put sweeping conclusions in my mouth?
    For all I know I'm the only woman in the world who is afraid to
    admit she's angry because she's afraid her anger will injure her
    loved ones.  Maybe I'm the only woman in the world who feels
    bewildered by an emotion I never learned to experience.  But
    that's still my experience and you can't tell me it's invalid
    just because it hasn't turned to supporting the political causes
    you espouse.
    
    "I think we know very well what we are angry at," you say. I'm
    glad the rest of you have it figured out and are willing to tell
    me what to do.  Because I haven't.  Way down deep I might be angry
    because Reagan is withholding money from pregnant women -- but I
    think I'm more angry at my mother because she didn't teach me what
    being a woman meant.  Maybe after I'm done recognizing and
    integrating my anger at her, I'll become angry on behalf of
    pregnant women.  But right now I just feel sad for them.  I'm
    sorry, but that's the truth and it's no use my lying about it. 
    
    I'm glad you're so much farther ahead of me.  But would you
    mind just letting me make my own progress instead of forcing
    your conclusions down my throat?

    I'm sorry if this is harsh or offensive, but right now I'm angry
    and this time I know what I'm angry about. 
    
    --bonnie 

Note 750.106  VIA::RANDALL 

Gee, Bonnie a big apology.  I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth
at all.  Maybe I'm getting too tense with all this talk about anger.
I'm typing so fast I'm even letting the typos get through, <gasp!>.

In my defense:

>How did you get from MY statements about MY PERSONAL experiences
>with MY OWN anger to a conclusion that I was saying "no truly
>angry person really even knows what is making them angry"?????? 

This statement make me think so:

"Moving beyond anger means I know what is making me angry".

I concluded, perhaps in error, that you are saying that if you don't 
know what is making you angry, you have not moved beyond anger.  I
just assumed this corollary was true too.  An apple is a fruit but a
fruit isn't necessarily an apple.  Corallaries don't always fit but
I thought this one did.  I still do but my apologies. 

>I wasn't talking about everybody else, I was talking ONLY ABOUT MY
>OWN FEELINGS and how I'm beginning to deal with my own anger.
>That's what I said.  Right up front, at the head of the list. Did
>you read it? 
 
Yes, I did.  I was talking about your own feelings too.  My mistake.
I'll stick to generalities although one often gets in trouble with
that too!
   
>What gives you the right to put sweeping conclusions in my mouth?
 
Nothing.  That wasn't my intent.  I was using your words to illustrate
my own point.  I hope the readers know I wasn't saying "This is what
Bonnie really thinks".  

>But that's still my experience and you can't tell me it's invalid
>just because it hasn't turned to supporting the political causes
>you espouse.
 
??  Where did I say or imply your experience was invalid?  I like to
think I know better than that.  All feelings are valid.

>"I think we know very well what we are angry at," you say. I'm
>glad the rest of you have it figured out and are willing to tell
>me what to do.  

I can't help but feel I have figured it out.  Why should I hide that
fact?  I am not telling anyone else what to do.  I'm just joining in
this discussion like everyone else and I happen to be very clear in my
mind on what I think about this subject.

>Way down deep I might be angry because Reagan is withholding money from 
>pregnant women -- but I think I'm more angry at my mother because she 
>didn't teach me what being a woman meant.  

OK, fine.  But I'd much rather blame Reagan, a powerful white male with
absolutely nothing to loose by tossing around "rules" for women to live
by.  I'm far more sympathetic to my mother who also didn't teach me how
to survive in this world because I believe she taught me how to survive 
in HER world.  My mother's was an honest mistake made in love.  Reagan's
is pure sexism executed in misogyny.  The difference is very clear to
me.  My mistake was in assuming these kinds of things are very clear to
others as well.  Mea Culpa.

>I'm sorry, but that's the truth and it's no use my lying about it. 

Ditto.

>I'm glad you're so much farther ahead of me.  But would you
>mind just letting me make my own progress instead of forcing
>your conclusions down my throat?

Absolutely.  No force intended.

>I'm sorry if this is harsh or offensive, but right now I'm angry
>and this time I know what I'm angry about. 
 
It's always best to!  ;-)



Note 750.102 JENEVR::CHELSEA 

>    >Jeez, isn't there something between blind rage and passive acceptance?
    
>    Of course there is.  Why are you so willing to believe that other
>    people *don't* see that?
 
Because of the continuing statements made here that anger only incapacitates
us.  Because of the seemingly common attitude that anger will get us no-
where.  Because we're told to not be angry, DO something as if we're not
or as if we can't if we are angry.  I'm not "willing" to believe it, it
seems that's in this string, that's what many other people are believing.

>    >Here again is the common myth that women are ONLY angry and have
>    >really done nothing about their lowly status.
    
>    Is THAT what I'm saying?  I really should pay more attention.
 

Your comment, "One way not to get stuck is to recognize when a tactic isn't
working and reevaluate/change tactics"  sounded like you're suggesting women 
are getting stuck because they are not working to reevaluate/change tactics 
instead.  Again, my misinterpretation.  Sorry.  But it sure still sounds like 
that to me.

>    >The point is women are doing PLENTY.
    
>    Did I say they weren't?
 
I though you implied it with the above quote.
   

>No, YOU are angry.  I'll choose my own program.
 
Yeah, I am.  It gets me angry sometimes not that I'm female but at the
implications of that.  I realize not every woman is angry at being 
second-rate - being an afterthough in our society.
   
>    >Why do you assume women are not "common humans" and would probably do
>    >the same thing too?  
    
>    I don't.  Why do you assume that I assume this?
 
Because you asked me:  "So, do you just sit and swear at the mud or do you
do something about getting out?"

The answer seems so obvious to me that if you asked the question, you
musn't be sure that women are not just swearing at the mud.  I suppose
your question was rhetorical.  I took it as a sincere query.  Sorry.

>    No, my answer assumes that I'm addressing the question of why it's
>    not a good plan to get stuck in any particular stage of the cycle
>    of anger/focus/action that we have been discussing.
 
Since I assumed we already know that it's not a good idea to get stuck,
I figured you were saying something else - like "Don't get stuck", assuming
we were getting stuck in and of our own volition.
   
>    Ah.  So not only are we discussing a TREND, but we're discussing
>    a TREND that is used by those who have been passive victims most
>    of their lives.  

A trend that is "used"?  A trend is just an occurrence.  When the trend
goes from passive victim to full and equal citizenship, anger will be in
there at some point in the trend.  And because the trend is positive the
anger is positive.  If you're implying that I have been a passive victim
all of MY life, you're only half wrong.  I've been a victim but I see it
coming every single time and I fight it every step of the way.  When I
loose, (and I almost always do), I am all the angrier for it because I
saw it coming, tried my damdest to avoid being victimized yet again, and
men won out.  Sometimes ignorance really IS bliss.  Would that I could
be content to live in the shadow of a successful male and have a happy
home life under his control.  But I'd rather have my low pay than his golden
reflection because at least I'm free and that freedom gives me hope that
maybe, just MAYBE someday I'll have my OWN big paycheck.  Passive accep-
tance removes any possibility.  Give me a fish and I eat for a day.  Teach
me to fish and I eat for life.  I want to learn to fish.  And I get angry
at men who keep the poles and the bait for themselves and instead offer me 
a fish or even 10 fish.

    Re: .107
    
    >Because of the continuing statements made here that anger only
    >incapacitates us.
    
    Incapacitation <> passive acceptance.
    
    >Because we're told to not be angry, DO something
    
    The recommendations I've seen are not to suddenly stop being angry,
    but to rechannel the energy.  Don't turn off the feeling, use it.
    Anger is natural and it will happen.  That does not let us escape
    the fact that anger can be non-productive or even counter-productive.
    
    >"One way not to get stuck is to recognize when a tactic isn't working
    >and reevaluate/change tactics"  sounded like you're suggesting women 
    >are getting stuck because they are not working to reevaluate/change
    >tactics instead.
    
    That was a response to a statement of a specific situation, not
    a statement for general application.
    
    >A trend that is "used"?
    
    Semantics rears its ugly head again.
    
    >And because the trend is positive the anger is positive.
    
    That's looks like an "The end justifies the means" argument.  As
    far as this statement goes, anger is positive by the fact that it
    is part of a process which provides positive benefits.  I'm not
    willing to agree to that.  Nor have we conclusively established
    that anger is a necessary part of the cycle.  I'm not convinced,
    anyway.

    Anger _can_ be non-productive but it isn't necessarily non-productive.
    I fondly remember a few productive mini-rages; other instances are
    less memorable, but no less life-assuring.
    
    An angry woman is a powerful woman, and Lord knows what a menacing
    force she can be.

    Any decent counselor or therapist will tell you that, if you have
    come from a dysdunctional family in which you were powerless, you
    have not only a right, but a *need* to GET ANGRY, and CLAIM your
    right to BE angry. In many dysfunctional families, kids who are
    crapped on in one way or another ARE INDEED angry - or should be-
    but are punished for showing it.
    
    Women have been angry for centuries - or should've been - and we
    are just now learning to CLAIM our birthright and our anger at the
    patent unfairness we have endured. I believe it is a necessary step
    in the healing of ourselves and the emergence of our personas as
    complete individuals.
    
    If we never OWN our anger and process it, we will never be complete
    individuals and our power as such and as a group will never really
    come to full fruition. Therefore, it makes a lot of sense for people
    in the power structure to say "There, there, dear - now don't be
    angry. Do something else. Channel it." For until we OWN it, PROCESS
    it, and become complete we will always be vulnerable to others'
    power.
    
    Dawn
    

    re: .107 -- apology accepted, Sandy.  No offense taken.  
    
    re: .110
    
    Dawn, 
    
    This sounds like an important point, but I don't understand the
    distinction between channelling anger and processing it. (Remember
    I'm just beginning to make very small steps with anger.  Six
    months ago it wasn't an emotion I knew I had.) 

    I should add, my family wasn't dysfunctional.  It was, on the
    whole, very healthy and happy, and that makes it even harder for
    me because in addition to my anger at my mother for what she did
    to me is guilt at blaming her for what little she did wrong when
    she did so many things right.  As Sandy said, our mothers didn't
    have much choice and she did it out of love.  But it hurts so
    damned bad . . . 
    
    --bonnie

    RE: .111 Chanelling vs. processing anger
    
    Caveat: These are only my *own* views on the subject. In the course
    of this discussion (in my humble opinion) we've discussed more points
    *semantically* than *actually* - it's really just what the stuff
    means to *us*. I don't think there's a universal truth here.
    
    (REalizing I am going to say this badly, and to a *writer* ,yet...)
    
    To me, *processing* one's anger means coming to terms with it, making
    friends with it, relaizing we have a right to it, and understanding
    it is, and comes from, a part of *ourself*. THEN deciding how we
    want to live, including all parts of our selves and emotions.
    
    (Warning: I'm not saying this well)
    
    *Chanelling* anger can be simply using the negative energy to "power
    one's actions", as it were. The anger (energy) stays "outside" of
    ones self - is never integrated, understood, or made friends with.
    It is like a separate "thing", almost palpable, which is fought
    *against* as much as *with*. (And I believe if treated in this way,
    can literally "eat you up". There is evidence that anger and hostility
    play a large role in heart disease and cancer)
    
    For someone *else* the word "chanelling" may mean something entirely
    different - ditto "processing". The bottom line, for me, is that
    in one case, it is brought into ones own source of power - int he
    other, it is *external* to ones self - and the power source needs
    to be constantly fed, or it will run out. (Maybe this is why some
    people need to be agressive all the time - they have to feed this
    "anger power source" or they'll run out of power [they think])
    
    Dawn
    

RE: .27 Catherine T. VIKING::IANNUZZO

"Although it is an emotionally loaded word, I have used the term "man-hating"
because the woman in question used it, and because I think we should defuse the
stigma attached to it.  I don't see why man-hating cannot be accepted as a
function of personal preference, like being a vegetarian.  "Hate" here can be
used in the same sense as one "hates" Barry Manilow or lime jello."

It depends on your definition of "Man-hating".  Your definition seems to be
pretty much a "NO-OP".  Someone else's definition of "man-hating" is not wearing
makeup.  My definition of "man-hating", is someone who does "violence to men,
denying them their civil rights, or teaching them to internalize self-loathing
of their maleness." 

Sadly, I feel that any man affected by the feminist must struggle with 'female
loathing of maleness'.  If I want to understand them, it means that I have to
listen to all of the !@#$ from "man-haters" that "man-haters" have been
subjected to. That is as effective in "teaching men to internalize self-loathing
of their maleness", as any technique used by society. 

RE: .33 VINO::EVANS --DE

"Just a few thoughts. First, "man-hating" is not analagous to "Black-hating" -
it is analagous to "white-hating". The perspective is totally  different
depending on if you are in the empowered groups or the "dis-empowered" group." 

Are you saying that is is ok for a disempowered group to stereotypically hate an
empowered group but not vice versa?  I can't agree.  A disempowered group may
have more reasons for hate, but an empowered group also has *their* (real to
them) reasons for stereotypical hate. Stereotypical hate is wrong in any case. 

RE: .35 Catherine T. MOSAIC::IANNUZZO

I think that's a very enlightened note; it deserves it's own topic!

JMB

    re .113  "Stereotypical hate is wrong in any case."
    
              I agree.
    
             "...enlightened note; it deserves it's own topic."
    
              Eye opener yes, what it deserves I may forget...