Conference turris::womannotes-v2

	As usual in matter of this sort I find myself seeing valid points for
	both sides so here come my schizophrenic opions.

PRO:
	As for women's music,art etc...how would you feel after a life of
	growing up in a school system that almost never spoke of the accomplish-
	ments of men? You would think a history of the world might inlcude more
	than a small handful of women but you couldn't prove it by history
	books. Males making marks on paper were artists, women weaving intricate
	clothing designs were merely practicing a craft. Things haven't changed
	that much. Women in the arts are still fighting an uphill battle and
	they can't be blamed for wanting a safe place to be accepted or even
	just a place where they'll be given a chance to be seen and heard. If
	the choice is woman only or nothing at all what can they do?

CON:
	However, I also have a problem with the movement towards woman only 
	museums, poetry etc. I understand it as stated above but I don't agree.
	I'm a musician part time and I am expected to play well whatever my
	sex or I won't get a gig. I would rather fight for my rights in a co-ed
	group than pull off and form a woman only group. The implication would
	be that I wasn't good enough for the main group. I've heard certain
	female artists with the same complaints about a woman only museum. They
	want to take their rightful place beside the men. These woman only
	institutions remind me of the harum (sp),they may be safe but something
	is missing. 

	I personally want to be with the men, not off to the side. I don't want
	to see women just turn the tables and exclude men the way men, for so
	many centuries, excluded women. The point of a society opening up is
	to grow and not to merely rephrase the dogma of the past with new groups
	exlcuded. liesl

    
    I've read through the base note a couple times and I'm afraid I'm
    still a bit unclear on what precisely Mr. Baranski is getting at.
    However, I couldn't help but react to some of the opinions
    upon which he bases his concerns.
    
    It is suggested that the various disadvantages visited upon men
    and women have kind of evened out. I do not believe this and I would
    be surprised to find many women believing it.
    
    The 'woman-hater' is considered, according to the base note, to be an
    'eccentric'. In my own experience, the 'woman-hater' is more
    often considered a most admirable person. The epithet 'pussy-whipped'
    is neither rare nor impotent.
    
    It is suggested that somehow men are being left behind by women
    gaining their rights. This creates the impression that women are
    actually *ahead* in the race for equality; the reality would seem
    to be exactly the opposite.
    
    In discussing men-only situations, it is suggested that
    women have similar opportunities. Even today, as we have learned in
    this notesfile, there are a staggering number of things that women may
    not do that men do as a matter of course. The idea of women going
    off and doing what they feel like, a la men's lodges, seems an absurdity.
    
    Of course, it is true that many men cannot do what they would like
    to do; they are not, in fact, 'free'. I suspect we are all
    agreed here that maximizing freedom, even for white males, is a
    good thing. Yet, it seems a sophistry to suggest that
    a) men are not as free as they should be and 
    b) women are not as free as they should be 
    therefore 
    c) men and women are in the same situation as regards freedom.
        
    Regarding oppression, especially 'unintentional' oppression, we
    *must* look at how we each support the 'system'. If I vote for a
    representative to congress who says s/he will not support the ERA,
    it is difficult to deny a certain amount of collusion in our society's
    oppression of women. The more interesting question, and closer to
    Mr. Baranski's thinking (I hope) is 'what if I didn't vote at all?'
    Tacit approval? Complete rejection of the 'system'? Ignorance?
        
    My gut reaction is that the dichotomy between 'physical' and
    'emotional' superiority is a false one. Each of us have variety
    of strengths and talents and most of us are not allowed to fully
    'be ourselves'. But is life really a zero-sum game wherein if one
    group asserts itself beyond its 'traditional' (by which we mean 
    stereotypical, which is another name for oppression) weakness it
    must mean another group 'giving up' its stereotypical strength?
    If another person finds a way to be more of themselves, rather than
    taking something away from me, it increases my own realm of
    possibilities. 
    
    I've gone on quite a bit here (quite unlike me...must have been
    something I ate). I have probably not dealt with anything
    at all the basenoter intended. If it seems, as I fear, that I
    am Baranski-bashing, I apologize. My intention is merely
    to state my own contrasting opinions. I applaud Mr. Baranski for
    taking the time to write and for sharing his true feelings
    on these difficult matters.

    
    Hmmm... 
    
    Interesting comments. Damned if I can figure out what it says, though.

re: .0
    
>    I believe that the most damaging to both sexes are those traditions
>    that have outlived their usefullness. 

    I agree...
    
>    Now in the past men have been able to go off by themselves and do
>    whatever they felt like.  So have women in different ways. 

    How have women been able to go off by themselves and do whatever
    they felt like?...particularly in the past where they were the
    child-raisers and the house-keepers?  Child-rearing can be a
    more-than-full-time job...and is difficult to escape except with
    a great deal of planning time and effort...
    
>    their reaction to knowing that they are special is to horde themselves,
>    and be dammned if any man will touch their lives.  We have women's
>    music, and woman's thoughts which cannot be sullied or shared with
>    men... 
 
    I think this is a shame...however I feel some of the women who are
    doing this have been hurt in the past, or feel a great deal of
    injustice has been done to them or others of their kind.  I say
    this merely in an attempt to explain...not in defense of their actions.
       

>    Women are making great strides in freeing themselves, but men are being
>    left behind.  I do not feel that men are free to be as they would wish.
>    Is this a fault in man, or a fault in woman? 

    I do not feel men are being left behind.  I feel that they are perhaps
    not making as great an effort because the freedoms they are trying to
    attain are those that come from within themselves, those that are
    highly personal in nature and perhaps take a good deal of personal
    growth to attain, not anything that has been with-held or frowned-upon
    by society in the past, as it seems to be in the case of women... 
    
>    You say that it is not your fault, that you are not obligated to help
>    men, that you want to spend your energy where you value it, that you
>    need to defend yourselves.  

    I say nothing of the sort.  I say I am not obligated to help anyone,
    but rather I would like to help people who wish to be helped in
    ways that I feel comfortable with, and am capable of doing.  I will
    certainly spend my energy where I value it, but this is not bound
    to the sex of the receiver - rather it is bound to their goals and
    whether I, too, believe in them.  And, yes, I believe in the goals
    of men and women who seek to reach the degree of freedom they desire
    and feel they deserve...

>    What is my point?  My point is that even though men have had the
>    physical upper hand for so long, women have had the emotional upper
>    hand and still retain it. 
 
    Again, many of these "freedoms", as you call them, are those that
    can be sought by men on a personal level, one at a time.  They cannot
    be won by a group, like the right to vote.  I support men's right
    to be more emotional, to show more emotion, than they previously
    have.  I encourage this in my male friends.
       
>    But men still do not have that same opportunity. And I see people who
>    could be giving that opportunity saying no...  Yet men are giving up
>    their upper hand, and are not getting the same in return. 

    Men may not feel they have this opportunity, but what they feel
    is the pressure of society's previous taboos towards the sensitive
    male.  When men "give up their upper hand" of physical advantage
    (how they may do that, I don't know, or maybe that's not what you
    meant and I misinterpret), women can no more give them freedom of
    emotion than they could give them ESP or an infinite IQ...it is
    something the men must seek for themselves.  I agree with you that
    women should openly encourage this (although I don't think they
    should go *too* far out of their way to do so), and should respond
    in a positive way when men achieve the balance of emotion that many
    of them may seek.
    

    -Jody
    

    The one statement that jumped out at me from .0 was the repeated
    phase, "Women are special." While I don't know quite in what sense
    Jim meant it, I have too often heard that phrase used to mean "...and
    need to be protected - even from themselves, if necessary."
    
    OK, women *are* special; there are qualities of "womanness" that
    I think are pretty neat. Men are special, too, of course, and
    individuals are special each in their own way. [Note: if this sounds
    like a Monty Python line ("We're *all* special!" "I'm not..."),
    sorry about that!] 
    
    Women are human, too, and lose their tempers and have bad complexions
    and make mistakes along with everybody else. I remember being very
    annoyed with my mother on more than one occasion because I was out
    doing what I liked - climbing trees - and instead of telling me
    how good a tree-climber I was, she was concerned with my not being
    "lady-like." 

    My feeling is that the "special" qualities of each of us should
    be respected, but not deified. Furthermore, individuals who don't
    display whatever "special" quality their group is supposed to possess
    (women who are not emotionally sensitive, for example) shouldn't
    be villified for it.

    I dunno if this has anything to do with .0 or not, but what the
    heck, a reaction's a reaction.

    As for the title, it led me into a silly spiral of "Well, men have
    what women want, too," and then "At least, *some* men have something
    that *some* women want, some of the time," and so forth. Sounds
    like a great title for a book, doesn't it?

    -b

    Re .0, your note sounds to me as though you think that all women
    are way better off than they were 20 or 30 years ago.  It seems
    to me that only some women are better off.  I'm glad that some women
    have made great strides and that they have jobs in previously all
    male professions (such as engineering).  But, I see these women
    as an elite minority, not the norm.  I think there are a lot of
    women in America today who don't feel much more free than their
    mother's did.  (In some ways, even less free.)
    
    What I'm trying to say is I'm a woman and I read your note and I
    don't feel that you're talking about me.  I haven't made any great
    strides.  I work in a female dominated job, making much less pay than
    almost any man my age with my number of years in the work force.

    As far as "emotional upper hand" goes, *what* emotional upper hand??
     Yes, I've been emotional all my life and I've been put down for
    it too, and made to feel as though I shouldn't be so emotional.
    
    As far as feeling special goes?  I've never felt "special" about
    being a woman.  One of the reasons why is that I've never fit the
    image of the type of women that most heterosexual males seem to
    treat special.  Maybe if I were 5'8" with blonde hair, a beautiful
    face, and a huge busom I would have been made to feel "special"
    about being a woman.
    
    As far as wanting to exclude men from things, well, it seems to
    me I've spent far too much of my time in my life trying to *include*
    men.  In other words, I've certainly spent a lot of time in my life
    trying to get to know men who apparently weren't interested *sigh*.
    
    I don't mean to sound angry at you, Jim.  I think you put in some
    interesting topics to think about.
    
    Lorna
    

    It's important not to generalize in this topic, or a great deal
    of meaning will be lost.
    
    Men who sound envious of (or excluded by) women who have sought
    to grow and break free of the limited roles prescribed for women
    in the past need to realize that what many women have had to do
    is to stop looking for approval from men.
    
    Men who would like to feel free of limited roles prescribed for
    them in the past may have to do the same thing:  stop looking for
    approval from other men.  (And some women, no doubt.)
                                                         
    It's a painful exercise, but one well worth doing.

>                       -< Women have something Men want >-

>I don't feel like I've made my point very clearly, so if you have trouble
>understanding, just reply to the topic title... 

Well, since you ask, my first reaction to the title was:

Yup, and it begins with a C...

Can I say that on TV?

How _did_ I get so cynical?
	Mez

    re: .8
    
    Another dirty mind thought the same thing, and then added the
    mental corollary, "And men have something I want, and it starts
    with a C too..." 

    I have so many things I want to say that I don't know where to
    start.  But after some thought I think they all boil down to
    something inside me that says "Women are so repressed, so
    inferior, so no good, that there COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE ANYTHING
    ABOUT US THAT MEN WOULD ENVY AND WISH TO HAVE."
    
    Internalized woman-hating.
    
    An earlier reply talked about having to make arrangements for the
    children before we could do what we want.  What if child-raising
    is what you want to do?  Until recently, that excluded men.  If
    they want to raise children, as many of them do, they want
    something we have the freedom to do. 
    
    Because we have in the past been criticized for being too
    emotional, we assume no man could want to be more emotional.
    
    For something between twenty and sixty years every American in
    this file [I won't presume to speak for other nationalities] has
    been raised with a social dichotomy that women are and men do. 
    
    That means women, on the whole, have not learned how to do and
    men, on the whole, have not learned how to be.  We've each cut off
    at least half of our humanity.  Women have been denied careers and
    men have been denied intimacy.  Women have been denied power and
    men have been denied the chance to follow. 
    
    My 14-year-old daughter knows more about starting and maintaining
    friendship than some of my 40-year-old male friends.  These men
    are only beginning to realize they're missing something, while Kat
    has been practicing for 14 years.  Yes, men can learn to be more
    emotional, they can look inside themselves, but tapping one's
    internal strength is not simple to do without encouragement and
    support.  (Just as women struggling to learn how to "do" things,
    have careers and ambitions and desire for power, did much better
    when they had encouragement and support from a liberated mentor or
    other women.) 
    
    The trouble is, if you don't know how to be intimate in the first
    place, it's hard to ask for or get encouragement and support.  The
    very thing you need is the thing you don't know how to do.

    One other thing, not necessarily related to the previous, is that
    it seems that a lot of us want to say that since men have had the
    upper hand, empowering ourselves require that we denigrate
    everything about men, from their tendency to be rowdy at lodge
    parties to their attitudes toward friendship.  This strikes me as
    the equivalent of digging a hole under someone else to make
    yourself look taller.   If there are good things about women,
    those things are good whether men are bad or good -- and being
    that we're talking about human beings, I'm sure there are things
    men can offer us besides seven to nine inches. 
        
    --bonnie 

General comments:

It seems to me that a basic premise of .0 is "women are special." I don't
buy it. Women and men may be different, but it's because we've been brought
up to be different. We may be different in a genetic or evolutionary sense,
but I don't put much stock in that, either (beyond the obvious physical
differences alluded to in previous replies). 

The difference that .0 discusses is socialization; if we work at it, we can
get rid of those differences. We're all free to be as we wish. It takes some
effort to shake beliefs that have been instilled since infancy, but it can
be done by both men and women.

I think that the basenote is a kind of false reasoning -- there's an
argument that seems somewhat valid, but the underlying principles aren't
valid, so the whole argument is flawed.

Specific comments:

>Through time it is apparent that there are a number or aspects of male-female
>relationships that are unfair toward the female members.  At times this was of
>necessity, 

how so?
>Now in the past men have been able to go off by themselves and do whatever they
>felt like.  So have women in different ways.  

Men have basically defined "what i want to do" for both sexes, so it's not
an even comparison. 

>Now...  I sense that women are special...  they have a certain quality of
>friendship that I enjoy...  I have not had that feeling with a fellow male in a
>long time.  

it's really got nothing to do with women vs men. it's got to do with how
we're brought up. it's not the XX or XY chromosomes that you're relating to,
it's how we've all been brought up. What's special isn't the women
themselves, but how they interact with others.

>will touch their lives.  We have women's music, and woman's thoughts which
>cannot be sullied or shared with men...  

and we have black music, and portugese-american parades and greek food and
synagogues and churches, etc. the reason for these is that people want to
associate with people who share culture because it's comforting. That's
especially so when the group in question has been opressed, and is why
"outsiders" aren't so welcome.


					-- hs

First let me mention something that I have learned here which is special to me: 

1:  'I am the authority on my feelings and my thoughts.'

I do, however see a few problems in seeing this applied.  

I see people applying it to themselves, but not to others and not allowing
others to determine what their feelings and thoughts are.  Part of this I think
is because of the need to have a 'party line' in any kind of party.  Is it
really necessary to trample people's minds to have a party line? 

I see a problem in interpreting this as 'I feel it therefore it is true.' One
person may feel neglected or unloved by another, but the problem may simply that
needs are not being communicated rather then intentional neglect. An extreme of
this is the 'men oppressors' line, telling men how they must want to oppress
women.   This is a consequence of not applying the ideal to others. 

I see a problem in not applying this to extreme cases on the opposing side. A
couple of cases in point might be a woman who kills her husband who has been
abusing her for years, and a man who for unspecified reasons goes crazy and
starts killing random women. 

In both cases the action taken is not justified.  However, the feelings and
thoughts behind those actions are real to those persons, and in their minds they
have been abused and mistreated untill they just could not take it anymore.
The sole difference that I can find is that the man has not differentiated
between the cause of his mental problems and innocent bystanders, and the
woman has.  However, it may be the case that the his causes are too diffuse
to be differientiatable(:-); there is no one or few causes.  I believe that
this is the case more so with men then with women.  

In example of this might be the feeling that the reasons for a rapists actions
are not important.  They may not be important in the trial or punishment, but
they ARE important if we wish to PREVENT such acts.

I see a problem in assuming that men suffer no such abuses that women do.

JMB 

And now a little heat... :-(

Thanks so much for cutting me some slack Mr. White... :-{  I won't try to
argue with him, but merely try and explain myself better...

"It is suggested that somehow men are being left behind by women gaining their
rights. This creates the impression that women are actually *ahead* in the race
for equality; the reality would seem to be exactly the opposite."

On the "physical" reality it is true that women have not been 'ahead of the
game'; however, on an emotional level they very much are ahead of men.

Women have the freedom to cry, scream, feel pain, be irrational, to be the
lesser etc, etc, etc... that men do not have.  This is one of the unfreedoms
that does not get acknowledged; It does not feel is as important as the physical
priviledge of having a higher paycheck. 

I believe that this emotional freedom is that which has enabled the woman's
movement to exist in the first place.  And without it, there will never be a
men's movement to match the women's movement to free men as well.  Why? Becuase
most men cannot even begin to acknowledge to themselves or anyone else that they
might be weak enough to be a victim, to be on the short end of the stick.  The
only outlet for a lot of men is retaliation, which certainly does not help.

The responsibilities that 'white males' have by virtue of there 'priviledged'
status are not acknowledged either.  To any ethical person, having power
requires that you accept the responsibility to use that power to the best of
your ability.  Myself, I have opted out of the race for most positions of power,
and yet I still constantly have the responsibilities thrust at me which I am
expected to fullfill because I am a "white male". 

On a macroscopic scale an example of this would be the US stopping after WWII,
and not trying to take over the world, and instead, contributing to rebuilding
Britain, France, Germany and Japan.  This is the responsibile use of power, to
help others, but it is not without cost or stress.

Another point that is not acknowledged is that the *are* things which women can
do, but which men cannot and never will be able to, such as to bear a child.

In this way, women are are ahead of men...  How should this be handled? Is it
enough to advance medical science to the point that we can implant an embryo in
a male stomach and cut him open when the baby is ready?  That would be like
giving women equal access to jobs, but not equal access to the education
necessary to *get* those jobs!

In the general sense, how should areas where women have an advantage over
men be handled? 

"But is life really a zero-sum game wherein if one group asserts itself beyond
its 'traditional' (by which we mean stereotypical, which is another name for
oppression) weakness it must mean another group 'giving up' its stereotypical
strength?"

No, I don't believe life is a zero-sum game.  I believe that there is a win-win
solution where everyone is as free as possible to be themselves.  The point
is that everyone has something that they and others would be better off if
they could give it up.

"How have women been able to go off by themselves and do whatever they felt
like?"

What I had in mind at that point was the idea that cavemen went off to hunt
together, and cavewomen usually stayed together in groups as well to do 'women's
work'.  I had nothing more in mind.

"I think this is a shame...however I feel some of the women who are doing this
have been hurt in the past, ..."

I understand that...

"I feel that they are perhaps not making as great an effort because the freedoms
they are trying to attain are those that come from within themselves,"

Exactly.  This inner freedom is something which I feel women are ahead of men
in. (as a generalization)

"Again, many of these "freedoms", as you call them, are those that can be sought
by men on a personal level, one at a time.  They cannot be won by a group, like
the right to vote."

Exactly... much more difficult to attain.

If men have the fear of losing something by giving women 'equality', isn't that
fear real to men?   

'Women are special ... and meant to be protected'

I do not mean that in the slightest.  I do not believe that.  I missed out on
that bit of conditioning.  BUT, I am still expected to fullfill that myth, and
open doors for women, buy them expensize presents, support them etc retch! I do
not want it, but I cannot get free of it.  Here is one bit of unfreedom.

Of course men are special too... and the corresponding myth would be that every
good man needs a wife/mother to take care of them.  I don't believe in that
either... 

"As for the title, it led me into a silly spiral of "Well, men have what women
want, too,""

Certainly true... but... there IS a women's movement... progress is being made
for women... and I don't see any corresponding progress for men.  It maybe that
I just can't see out of my particular valley, but that's the way it looks to me.

"Men who sound envious of (or excluded by) women need to realize that what many
women have had to do is to stop looking for approval from men."

A good point, but I don't think what I feel is solely that. 

"Men have basically defined "what i want to do" for both sexes, so it's not an
even comparison."

I disagree totally with that.  I feel that women have had their voice in
writting the social contract as well as men.

"it's really got nothing to do with women vs men. it's got to do with how we're
brought up."

Yes of course... but is about how we are brought up as men and women, and where
we find ourselves in society as women and men even after we 'grow up'.

"and we have black music, and portugese-american parades and greek food and
synagogues and churches, etc."

And I can go to a greek restaurant a lot easier then "'barging in on women'".
Why is that?  Is it because the greek cook won't stand for me telling them
their job, but women might?  Why is that?

Thank you all for bearing with me.

JMB

Re: Note 44.12
Sorry, but I just have a couple of brief comments, because I had a mental
buffer overflow while reading your long note.

> Women have the freedom to cry, scream, feel pain, be irrational, to be the
> lesser etc, etc, etc... that men do not have.

Sure men do.  We traditionally think of actors, artists, and poets as behaving
this way.  We traditionally think of scientists, engineers, and steelworkers as
not behaving this way.  But in reality, artists can get technical/logical/cold
when discussing technique, and engineers can get emotional when discussing a
design.  (Insert a discussion here on "quality comes from an emotional
committment" vs. "good engineers & scientists are cold & detached".  I'm on the
former position's side, usually.)  But all of this is gender-independent: there
*are* male actors, etc. whose *job* is to cry, scream, etc.  It only becomes
gender-related because women and men have traditionally been forced to take
different sorts of jobs.

Since they have had different experiences, different artists will say
different things.  If there is any correlation between gender and what
artists have to "say," I expect it is because there is a correlation
between what experiences people have been given or allowed to have based
on their gender.  But that is a separate topic.

    
    re:.12
    
    For my part you can be as emotional as you like. As for society,
    no doubt there is a certain resistance to men exhibiting certain
    emotions at certain times. Certain other emotions, however, are
    quite acceptable. I maintain it is simplistic to filter this all
    down to some alleged 'emotional superiority'. This does not mean
    that I disagree that we should be as free as possible.
    
    Something else that leaps to mind is the thought that yes, one should
    feel free to express their emotions, but not necessarily to inflict
    them on anyone else. If I am angry at my spouse, it is certainly
    my privilege to feel angry. It is most certainly not my privilege
    to slug her. In fact, depending on the particular relationship,
    even raising my voice would be unacceptable. Not a simple question...
    
    Two nits and a rat hole: 
    1) could you be more specific about the, let's say, 'special' 
    responsibilities of white men?
    
    2) some would argue that, in fact, women have not had a significant
    say in the social contract
    
    rat hole) some would argue that our aid to the defeated countries
    of WW II was merely our own not-so-enlightened self interest in
    getting rid of our food surpluses and gaining markets for our own
    industry
     

    I feel uncomfortable with the concept of women as "special".
    Each individual person, male or female, is "special", but women
    as a group? No.
    
    As Jody (I think it was) pointed out, too often when women are
    said to be "special", it's said in order to prevent women from
    doing something. It's placing women on a pedestal, making them
    something that should be looked at, revered maybe, but not
    letting them do something mundane or down-to-earth.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .12, first of all, who the heck wants the "freedom...to be lesser"?
     I thought that was one freedom we were all born with.  I've seen
    male bums lying in the gutter in Boston.  I guess they felt they
    had the freedom to be lesser.
    
    As far as the responsibilities of the "white male", I wonder what
    responsibilities you think you have that most women don't today.
     I have the responsibility of paying my bills, feeding and clothing
    myself, making sure my car runs, helping my ex raise our child.
     What other responsibilities do most men have?  As far as I can
    see the responsibilities are the same, but most men have more money
    to take care of their responsibilities with than most women have.
    
    I, also, buy women expensive gifts and open doors for both men and
    women, and I'm a straight woman.  It's just part of treating people
    well, isn't it.  (If all the expensive stuff I buy for my teenage
    daughter isn't buying a woman expensive gifts, I don't know what
    is! :-)  )
    
    As far as being able to bear a child, well I always thought that
    having to worrying about getting pregnant was a terrible burden,
    AND actually having my child - the physical part of it - was the
    single most unpleasant experience I have ever had in my life!  I
    mean, it really hurt!  I think men are lucky they don't have to
    have babies.  Hah!  I don't think many men would want a kid bad
    enough to have their stomachs cut open like you mention.  Believe
    me I would have gladly had my ex-husband have *his* stomach cut
    open instead of me when our daughter was born.
    
    I've thought since I was a kid that the single worst thing about
    being a man is having to go to war, and that the single worst thing
    about being a woman is having to have the babies.  I still feel
    that way, only now I'm more pissed about how typically male jobs
    pay so much better than typically female jobs.  Really pissed.
    
    You know what I think, Jim?  I think if you're this upset about
    being a man, you'd really be pissed off if you were a woman.
    
    Lorna
    

    You tell him, Lorna!  Soon the "priviledge to feel lesser" might
    not look so good once he realizes that for a woman, it's usually
    the only option!  Either that or I've just never been able to
    appreciate the "specialness" and "priviledge" of my lesser status.
    Basically it just sucks out loud.  Gimme a man's pay or just his
    opportunities and I'll open doors for ANYBODY, ANYTIME, ANYWHERE!
    What a tradeoff!
    
    "Special" indeed!  The opposite sex is of COURSE more "special"
    to any heterosexual.  It has nothing to do with women simply being
    more special people than men are.  I find men more "special" than
    women.  Does that make them so?  Of course not.
    
    As someone else pointed out, women are just as base and disgusting and 
    just as sublime and beautiful as men are - period.  I thought we got
    over the crap of women's "specialness".  If women were so fragile and 
    delicate and "special", this race would have died with Eve!
    
    And Jim one nit I want to pick - I don't believe men are being left
    behind at all.  I think they are staying there voluntarily staunchly
    holding on to tradition and male superiority and are simply finding 
    themselves increasingly alone there.  Join us where we are.  Our arms
    are open to accept you.  Your choice, which will eventually be the
    choice of all men, is to join us in a more equal future or stay
    behind, alone, with your past illusions.  Men can no longer dictate
    that women remain loyal to the tradition of male superiority and
    I think, (and I am the authority on my thoughts), that this loss
    of control over women is the core of male distress rather than where
    women have chosen to go.

    I think we should stop trying to tell Jim how invalid his feelings
    are and instead listen to what he's trying to say and help him
    understand what he's going through. 

    Maybe we should start by admitting that power is not an unmixed
    blessing.  It's lonely on the throne.
        
    Then maybe we could admit there are some desirable and enviable
    things about being a woman and that however painful it is, having
    a baby is one of them.  Nursing a baby is another. I know lots of
    men who would willingly go through surgery in order to have a
    baby.  I agree with Lorna that giving birth is way up there as the
    most unpleasant experience of my life -- and also one of the most
    beautiful, wonderful, spiritually rich experiences of my life. 
    
    I recognize a great deal of the sentiments Jim is expressing.
    They're common in the economic class I come from.  The men I grew
    up with feel the way Jim does about expressing emotions -- Actors
    and poets can cry on stage, but actors and poets aren't really
    men; women of all ages can get together in the kitchen and laugh
    and gossip while they watch the dishes, and all the menfolk can do
    is sit around staring at the TV.  

    Yeah, all this is cultural, not genetic.  It doesn't have to
    be this way.  Lots of people aren't this way.  But for someone
    who did grow up with this kind of cultural baggage, and feels
    like he's being left behind, saying "It's your own fault" doesn't
    do any good at all, only makes him feel worse about being behind
    and not knowing how to catch up.
    
    --bonnie

    I'v shared my feelings with people I work lots of times..and mostly
    I'v been told my feelings are wrong.. or been put down for sharing
    them, or told I was full of sh*t or insulted or something which
    has hurt to the point where I don't share my feelings too much with
    co workers any more .  Friends, lovers are another story.  I like to share
    feelings and emotions.
                    But often, if your feelings are different, you're
    put down.  I make it a point never to insult or say a biting remark
    about or to someone who differs with the way I feel.  I will cuss
    and discuss.. that's learning.  But, at least in my experience,
    most folks just don't think your feelings are worth anything..
    Remember, that's my experience.. maybe not yours..
    
    So give the guy a break.. It's hard enough as it is..
    

re: .19
    
>    I'v shared my feelings with people I work lots of times..and mostly
>    I'v been told my feelings are wrong.. or been put down for sharing
>    them, or told I was full of sh*t or insulted or something which

    did you tell them to men or women?  I'm curious because I can fairly
    easily see a man belittling you for that, but if a man from my group
    came up to me and told me about his feelings (even if I didn't feel we
    were well-acquainted enough for me to feel completely comfortable with
    his doing this), I wouldn't scold him for feeling them.
    
    -Jody
    

RE: .14

"could you be more specific about the, let's say, 'special' responsibilities of
white men?"

I think the best way to answer that is an ideal that I and a lot of men and
women believe, that of 'To Whom Much is given, Much will be asked'.

RE: 'women are special = putting women on a pedastal'

I do not mean that at all...  To reply to that, and 'women are special = women
must be protected', I can say that my two most notable relationships with women,
one I supported who did not 'take care of me', and the other I do not support
and I cannot get her to stop taking care of me (complusive). I do not like
either situation.   I feel that a woman should do her "job" whatever it is, and
not be neglectfull or go overboard; just as I feel a man should.

What I meant was more the specialness as giving birth, etc....

"who the heck wants the "freedom...to be lesser"? I thought that was one freedom
we were all born with.  I've seen male bums lying in the gutter in Boston.  I
guess they felt they had the freedom to be lesser."

Yes, but you have to be a "bum" to do that.  It is not "acceptable". In any
case, I do not feel that they feel what I am speaking of.  A lot of people, bums
or otherwise blame their failures on events outside of themselves to avoid
having to feel 'the lesser'.  It may seem controdictory, but I think that part
of what I am trying to grasp has to do with being a "helpless victim", such as
women can be, but which men seldom find themselves.  This is quite a different
experience from having an excuse for a failure. 

"I, also, buy women expensive gifts and open doors for both men and women, and
I'm a straight woman.  It's just part of treating people well, isn't it."

But are you expected to?  It it "demanded" from you?  This is *not* "just part
of treating people well". 

The rest of the personal attacks, questions and remarks I will pass by....

JMB

Perhaps another thing men fear of feminists...

There is something frightening about being told that that God is a Woman. It is
terrifying to read that someone says that the power of Creation lies with Woman,
when being creative has been important to me my whole life. 

I have always believed that God is both sexes and more.  It is frightening
to be told that God is what you are not.

Yet, I understand how it must be for women.  The image of God is mostly as a
Father.  Often humans are encouraged to take on a feminine role where God is
portrayed as the Groom or husband, and the people are collectively cast as the
Bride or a woman. 

I don't feel that that in itself is bad, or that because those roles are
depicted for God and people as husband in charge and supportive subjective wife
that this means that we still today must fit those roles as men and women
ourselves.

I have never heard the preaching face to face that women are 'instruments of the
devil' or such nonsense, and can hardly believe anyone with a brain could
believe it.   But I'm told that it exists. 

The closest that I can come to a female figure is Mary, which if you believe
that she continues to come to earth to us even now, is substantial, but for a
substantial amount of people it is not enough. 

I do feel that God has the maternal, nurturing instincts among other feminine
traits, but I can feel that as God the Father because I have good memories of my
father, and not everyone can. 

I feel that yes there should be female clergy, anyone who is called by God. Yet
I am at a loss to see how this will come about as being an act of God, rather
then merely a fiat of people.

I don't feel like I am merely a @#$%^&* Christian for feeling this, so please
save that for someone else....  I don't feel that they are demons, or in league
with them, merely people who cannot relate to God as I do, whoever is right. 

I feel like there certainly should be a topic in here on the Goddess/Pagan/
Wicca, but I will let someone else do that.  I know something of it, 'some of my
best friends are ...', but it is not mine, as I will not chance to define it.

Some of the Goddess worshipers I associate with have some of the
characteristics which I value highly in the parish where I became Christian, and
which I have found lacking in many of the NE churches I have been to.  That is
why they are my friends/*.  On the whole they are a mixed bunch of people just
like any other people. 

Part of the reason for me feeling 'women are special' is that I feel I have
experienced God (amoung other ways) through some special women.  I don't see
this as the same as saying that God is a Woman.  Another part is because I can
see something special in each and every woman/person; I'm not just after a
bod... 

JMB 

    Good for you Jim.
    
    One, It took alot to throw you feelings to the dogs, so to speak,
    and two, it took alot to pass on all the personal attacks!  
    
    I am not saying you are right, nor am I saying that you are wrong,
    I am just saying....
    
    Nuetral, thats it.....
                                          

Re: .18:  Good points.  I apologize if .13 felt like an attack on JMB or his
feelings.  I read "... that men do not have." as "No man can..." which might
not be what was intended.

    Jim,

    I've been kind of confused in this note.  I wasn't sure what you 
    think women have that men want but couldn't have.  I know that some 
    of your replies have focused on biological differences, such as the 
    ability to bear children, and obviously that difference between men 
    and women won't change.  But a lot of what I've been hearing in your 
    notes is that women have been able to express themselves in ways that 
    you would like to express yourself.

    I think it's lovely that more and more men want to express their
    emotions more fully.  And just as I am angry at the limits placed 
    on the value of women's strength and intelligence, I am also angry 
    at the limits placed on the value of men's expression of sadness and 
    fear.  I am convinced that we all need to feel free to express emotion 
    and intellect, strength and vulnerability.

    I admire and support those who are trying to question the limits and 
    fill in the pieces of our experience that have been devalued and
    denied.  But Jim, I don't think that women can *give* you permission
    to express emotion anymore than men can give women permission to be 
    powerful.  Sometimes when you talk about the restrictive roles in
    which men find themselves, for example, I think you mentioned something
    about feeling compelled to buy women expensive gifts, I feel like
    you might not have considered that the scenes you describe have
    2 roles, and that the role assigned to women has been equally
    restrictive.  Many women (and men) have begun to question those
    roles, but we're not all in the same place with that.  Some of us
    may be comfortable with things the way they are.  As hard as it
    is sometimes, I think we do have to accept people where they are.
    The trick is to not let their acceptance of old roles keep us from
    finding our own way.  
    
    It strikes me that the first step in this work is to realize that
    although we didn't build these walls for ourselves, no one else can 
    release us from them.

    Peace,

    Justine

Part of this is not just 'What women have that men want'...  part of it is 'what
men fear about feminism'...  And, no, it is not simply a fear of a loss of
control over women.  I wish that had happened long ago.

How many people remember Jim Burrow's notes about the feeling that feminists
make it look like men have had it easy all their born days by oppressing women,
when it sure has NOT been easy being male, regardless of how you relate to
women? 

And now, 'power' (so we are told) is being taken away from men, so that women
might have a more equiable life.  But it doesn't seem like we got to get rid of
any of the responsibilities that were the reasons for having that 'power'.

If the cards are being reshuffled, there are some cards we would like to
get out of our hands too!

I recently heard a folk song by ?Holly Near? On WERS, 'Hey Girl, What'cha doing
in a man's job?'.  The song is about the attitude that women should not have
jobs, and should stay at home and be supported by their husbands/fathers. Yes,
the women's lives were less because they were restricted, but it wasn't easy for
men to have to support them either! 

RE: .25

You may be confused, but you are listening.  That in itself is the majority of
the goal of this topic.  You don't need to have all the answers; I don't.

I would like to see some concessions to the biological differences surrounding
roles in child bearing.  I would like to see some attitude other then women
making all the decisions.  I feel that men can/have earned those concessions.

"But Jim, I don't think that women can *give* you permission to express emotion
anymore than men can give women permission to be powerful."

I am not asking for "permission"...  Understanding...  Tolerance,
Encouragment...  

In recent psychology, there is a situation in relationships, especially
relationships between men and women, called 'codependancy'.  It is were one
person gets to play the victim, and one persona gets to play the savior or
agressor.  There are many other ways to play the game as well.  The point is
that even though it may look like one person is getting the short end of the
relationship, that in a way is what that person wants, and they cannot change
their behavior to be in a relationship where they cannot be a victim.  The other
person has the same problem; they are stuck playing a role, usually not one they
would design for themselves. 

My point?  It is neither and both people's fault that the relationship is the
way it is, even though it may look like one person has the upper hand.  An
article I read in psychology today suggested that this situation may occur in
85% of relationships today!   The main theme is often addiction, whether it be
an obvious drug or alchol addictions, or an ordinary addiction to watching
football, or even merely a person being set in their ways and manipulating other
people to get their way, what they feel is their NEEDS.  I feel this may occur
anytime something becomes more important then people, and people manipulate to
get their 'needs'. 

One of the ways that I am uncovering a lot of these feelings, and am able to
share them with you is by a technique called 'sentence completion', from a book
called 'What Love asks of Us', by Nathan & Devers Brandon.  You take a start of
a sentence, like "The reason feminism scares me is...", and make up endings for
that sentence without regard as to whether the sentence is true or not; just
roll them out one after another without thinking about it.  This is for getting
at "feelings", not the truth.

One of these days, I should like to put a reply in here on homosexuality, but
for now I will let the topic rest for a while. 

JMB

    
    The reason feminism scares me is....
    					it doesn't.
    

re: note 44.27
 
> One of the ways that I am uncovering a lot of these feelings, and am able to
> share them with you is by a technique called 'sentence completion', from a 
> book called 'What Love asks of Us', by Nathan & Devers Brandon.  You take a 
> start of a sentence, like "The reason feminism scares me is...", and make up
> endings for that sentence without regard as to whether the sentence is true 
> or not; just roll them out one after another without thinking about it. This
> is for getting at "feelings", not the truth.

> One of these days, I should like to put a reply in here on homosexuality, but
> for now I will let the topic rest for a while. 


Jim, 

I can see the value of this technique, especially if it's helping you 
better understand your feelings. It also seems like it might be helpful
to share some of your findings with close friends. But I question the
value of sharing the results of your explorations with the other members
of this file, many of whom have never met you.

What concerns me is that this method goes for "gut feelings" rather than
for truth. You may feel comfortable examining your feelings about women
in this file. Would you feel equally at ease if womannoters completed this
sentence "The reason that I despise men is ..." or this one: "The reason
that fathers make terrible parents is..."? I suspect not. In fact, I suspect
that such an examination of raw feelings would be hurtful to you. I hope you
consider that possibility before embarking on sentence completions about
homosexuality.

Liz Augustine

"It also seems like it might be helpful to share some of your findings with
close friends."

The same could be said for many of the notes in this conference.

"What concerns me is that this method goes for "gut feelings" rather than for
truth."

As long as it is explict and realized that they are "gut feelings" and not
"truth", I do not understand the concern.

"Would you feel equally at ease if womannoters completed this sentence "The
reason that I despise men is ..." or this one: "The reason that fathers make
terrible parents is..."? I suspect not. In fact, I suspect that such an
examination of raw feelings would be hurtful to you. I hope you consider that
possibility before embarking on sentence completions about homosexuality."

Well...  Such topics have certainly come up in WOMMANNOTES, and the concensus
seems to have been that as long as one is speaking about one's own feelings that
it is acceptable.

In any case, I plan to submit such a note on a delicate topic to the moderators
for a second opinion before I post it.  I will certainly try to avoid hurting
anyone's feelings, and believe that I can do so.  I hope that it might help
understanding from 'my' point of view in a nonthreatening way. 

JMB

""The reason that I despise men is ..." or this one: "The reason that fathers
make terrible parents is..."?"

I feel obliged to point out that these are not good sentences for sentence
completion about a persons feelings.  The subject of these sentences are
reasons, which exist outside of the person speaking, rather then the feelings
which are inside the person.  These sentences could be attacks; a person's
feelings, properly phrased, are not attacks.  Rather they are conveyed as a
means of communications.  Although feelings have been expressed as attacking
statements in WOMANNOTES in the past, I choose not to use that tactic. 

A couple of examples from the book:

If I sabotage my own chances for happiness...

   I'll have no one but myself to blame.
   I'll be a coward.
   I'll lose the man I love.
   I'm not going to do that anymore.

If I were to surrender to happiness ...

   I would be frightened.
   Jeff would be happy.
   I could be sexual.
   we could be the way we used to be.

Note that some of these feelings are not true in an objective sense, some are
not true as feelings in a literal sense, and some are not even true as feelings
in any sense.  But,  it is a good tool for exploring feelings. 

I know that some people have the attitude that women need not listen to men
anymore, and should ignore them, or not make concessions to them.  I myself do
not understand how any conflict, such as that between women and men, can be
resolved without two way communication.  Not only do men have to listen to the
concerns of women, but women should listen to the concerns of men if their goal
is to resolve conflicts.  This is my reason for this topic.   

JMB

    Jim,
    
    You've made my own point better than I could. Part of the reason
    that I used those sentences as an example is that the following
    sentence is the only one you offered as an example:
       > "The reason feminism scares me is..."
    
    Hmm. Your second point is well taken. You're right that if there's a
    conflict between two people, one option is for both people to listen 
    to the other and to try to work things out. But that isn't the only
    option, nor is it always the optimal solution for both people. But
    thanks for the clarification.
    
    Liz

Thank you for pointing the problem with my original example.  You are correct
that it is not a good example.  .22 is a product of the sentence completion
technique, and thankfully it doesn't seem to have upset anybody too much.

JMB