Conference turris::womannotes-v2

I read a wonderful note in another conference by a bi-sexual woman about how
she does indeed perceive herself as experiencing sex 'like a male' when she was
making love with her bi-sexual male partner, and she was 'playing the man' and
he was 'playing the woman'. Now, I don't know how literally she meant it, but
it was truly a wonderful thought; that empathy can even overcome such 'obvious'
differences.
	Mez

Re:  .0

It seems that there have always been certain behaviors which have been
thought of as stereotypically male or female.  The particulars have varied
a bit over the years, but the stereotypes have always been around.  Some
that come immediately to mind:

    o	Boys like sports.
    o	Girls like to play with dolls.
    o   Boys are stronger than girls.
    o	Girls cry more easily than boys.
    o	Men can't express their feelings easily.
    o	Women can't handle serious competition.
    o	Men are better at math than women.
    o	Women are better at cooking than men.

And so on.

It is obvious that none of these is (or was ever) correct for all women or
all men.  Indeed, for every stereotype I have heard of I suspect I know or
know of someone who is a counterexample.  So when you ask

>    What things about women and men can never really be equal?

the answer is that there is nothing (besides having babies) that some
men can't do or be that women can do or are, and similarly for some women
doing/being as men do/are.

However, that does not mean that there are no differences between us.  For
example, it does currently seem that more women find mathematics difficult
than do men.  Is there a hormonal or other chemical predisposition for this,
or is it just sociological?  Last I saw, the jury was still out on that.
Similarly, do most men have difficulty relating to their emotions?  Might
this be hormonally or chemically predisposed?

Perhaps the differences can only be measured with statistics (e.g., if you
are a woman you are more likely to find math difficult than you will if you
are a man) rather than with absolutes (e.g., if you are a woman you won't
like math).  Just how much of this will remain over time, however, I don't
know for sure.

						--Q (Dick Wagman)

re: the math stereotype

Studies show that girls are definitely better at math and science than 
boys when they are in elementary school.  As they get into high school, 
girls' show increasingly less interest and ability.  I think this is 
quite suggestive of the idea that the "lack" of math skills in women in 
strictly a product of social conditioning.  Once girls are old enough to 
want to attract boys, they learn very quickly that being smarter than he 
is, especially in math and science, isn't the way to do it.

For you paleo-anthropologists, there is evidence that suggests that the 
first records of calendar making and counting are sticks that were 
marked by women to keep track of their menstrual cycles.  Many early 
accounting records are from temples that also served as granaries, and 
were used to keep track of supplies.  These are temples of the Mother
Goddess and were maintained by women, who are likely to have invented
methods of counting and perhaps writing to serve this purpose. The word
"mathematics" appears to be derived from roots meaning "mother wisdom",
an interesting choice for a skill at which women are reputedly poor. 

Given that much traditional "women's work" has to do with creating and 
keeping order in complex systems, I think women are likely to have a
great aptitude for things logical if one observes them without prejudice
and gives them the opportunity to apply those skills to matters other 
than household management.

    Re .4, I think it may be changing that once girls are old enough
    to want to attract boys that they stop doing well in math.  My daughter
    is a freshman in high school this year.  She definitely both does
    well in math *and* attracts boys.  I don't think it's ever occurred
    to her that she can't have both, and I'm certainly not going to
    give her the idea by asking her what she thinks of it!  I know she
    has always prided herself in doing well in math.  She's not a math
    wiz or anything but she has always gotten A's in math, and last
    year in 8th grade she got an A+ in Algebra I for the year, and she
    got an A in Geometry on her first report card this year - and there
    are a lot of boys calling her! :-)  It doesn't seem to bother her
    or them so maybe that's a good sign?
    
    I'm especially proud of her because I was (and am) very stereotypical
    in that I not only always hated math, but had a terrible time going
    it.  I flunked Algebra I in high school, talked the guidance counselor
    into letting me take Geometry anyway, and then flunked *that* and
    gave up!  It seemed like that part of my brain was just missing,
    and I honestly do think that math is probably the most boring concept
    I have ever heard of in my life.  My daughter says she thinks it's
    fun, like a game.  I can't see it, but I cheer her on.
    
    I also have always found science to be boring, too, but not as bad.
     My daughter does well in science but says she thinks it's pretty
    bla, too.  She has to force herself to do it, whereas she thinks
    the other subjects are fun.
    
    I always loved art, english lit and history.  I sort of resent the
    fact that I'm so typical in these interests.  However, I *do* despise
    both cooking and sewing.  But, I hate sports and fixing things (cars,
    plumbing, carpentry) stuff, too.
    
    I really wonder about that math stereotype and whether I can't help
    it or society did it to me!  (in either case I couldn't help it)
    
    Lorna
    

E gadz! according to the list in .2 I'm a boy! ;-)

Jenna (who doesn't fit into any stereotype known to (wo)mankind)

    Re .6, according to .2, I'm a woman who can't cook!  (Uh-oh...)
    
    Maybe *sometimes* the stereotypes are right?
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .3
    
    >Like it or not, anything with a biological basis is here to stay.
    
    My interests, then, lie in two directions:
    
    1)  What insuperable differences are not based in biology?  (Many
    differences are caused by social conditioning, but that can be changed
    or overcome.)
    
    2)  What are the biological differences and what implications do
    these differences have?  (Those of you who think "private" functions
    should not be discussed in public should probably stop reading now.)
    Off-the-wall example:  Urination is easier for men.  Out in the woods,
    with no facilities, a man is going to have a much simpler time than
    a woman.  Do men, then, have a greater sense of freedom while women
    feel more constrained by the world around them?  Are women, then,
    more prone to stay with a known environment?  (I can see this must
    have made a convenient excuse to discourage women from travelling.)
    Are women, then, disposed to be more uncomfortable, awkward or
    embarassed by anything related to excretion?
    
    The obvious biological differences have to do with birth and the
    menstrual cycle.  Women are apparently geared to retain weight,
    much more so than men.  (As one diet book put it, a man can lose
    ten pounds just by giving up dessert; women have to work harder
    at it.)  What else?

    
    RE .4
    
    I'm in agreement with Mike.  I don't think
    that women's "Men like dumb women" stereotype is any more
    acceptable than the sterotypes you accuse men of perpetrating
    against womankind.

    Re: the stereotypes tangent
    
    Unless there is evidence to contradict the theory that differences
    in math and science abilities are the product of social conditioning,
    I'd say it's irrelevant to the topic as described in the base note.
    
    In fact, I really would rather not see any differences attributed
    to social conditioning unless you're arguing that they're biologically
    based.  Sometimes I think we're socially conditioned to squabble
    over socially conditioned differences and I'm tired of squabbling.
    The obvious differences we're (obviously) aware of.  What are the
    not-so-obvious differences?

    I thought the math/science difference was due to differences in
    brain functions.  That is, that men use one side more (don't remember
    which), while women have more communication between both sides of
    the brain.  Is this an outdated idea?  I was always good at math
    and science, and enjoyed them very much, but I tend to like "man"
    things like camping and fishing and the outdoors more than cooking
    (and I hate sewing), and seem to think (in over-generalized terms)
    a lot like men.  
    
    Paula
    

    
>    1)  What insuperable differences are not based in biology?  (Many
>   differences are caused by social conditioning, but that can be changed
>    or overcome.)

	I am not aware of any difference between females and males
	that is not based on a biological difference that will stand
	up to scrutiny.
    
>    2)  What are the biological differences and what implications do
>    these differences have?  

	Alot of people mention the problem women have urinating compare
	to the ease that men have.  But you know I have never noticed
	that female dogs have any more problems than do male dogs.  This
	is not a biological problem it is the fuction of the manner of
	dress, custom and values that the society has.

>    The obvious biological differences have to do with birth and the
>    menstrual cycle.  

	I do not think that it is "weight" that women are geared to 
	retain as much as it the amount of body fat that is able to
	be stored for future use.

>    ... a man can lose ten pounds just by giving up dessert; women 
>    have to work harder at it ....

	This is not true for my SO and my self I can shed 10 pounds
	mostly by just giving up dessert (I have on occasion done so
	but I am not pleasant to be around).  My SO has trouble losing
	any weight no matter what he does (and his life does depend
	on him doing so).

	I think that in discussing the difference between women and 
	men it is best to remember that we are all indoctrinated with
	the cultural values of the society we live in and when we do
	step outside our society we have a tendancy to see other cultures
	and society through our own heritage.  This leads us to miss
	some of the most important and interesting parts of other
	cultures - their intrinsic group personality.

	There is much more difference between men and men of different
	cultures than between women and men of the same culture.

	Getting back to the discussion of biological differences - the
	major one is the ablility of the female to bear offspring.  This
	includes all the hardware involved in this process as well as 
	the software that gets programmed by society.

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			At the risk of being flamed - My Biology
			professor always said "It is the faulty Y
			chromosome that makes the difference."

    Re: .14
    
    >But you know I have never noticed that female dogs have any more
    >problems than do male dogs.
    
    But how much of that is attributable to the biological differences
    between dogs and humans?  I do think there are societal factors
    involved (it would be a lot easier if we didn't have clothes to
    worry about), but they are secondary to the biological differences.
    I think most of the biological differences form the base on which
    societal differences can be built.

    Re .15, well, it seems to me that Peggy's right.  If people went
    naked all the time, and if it was acceptable in society for people
    to urinate in front of each other, I don't see why it wouldn't be
    just as easy for women to go to the bathroom as for men.  It's just
    that the rules of our society - no public nudity, don't let anyone
    realize you're taking a leak - make it more difficult for the way
    women are made.  We have to take off our clothes which makes it
    more difficult to find a private place to go, instead of just turning
    around, unzipping our pants, and standing there for a minute.  (god,
    the times I've *wished* I *could* do that....)
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .16
    
    Someone sent me mail asking why squatting was more difficult than
    standing.  I replied that squatting is a more awkward, precarious
    and vulnerable position.
    
    But, as I said before, that was just an off-the-wall example.  Don't
    like it?  Provide your own examples.

       Well now, I suppose the "pee factor" difference was why women
       wore dresses in the old days before indoor plumbing. I certainly
       think it's the most likely reason for penis envy. :*)

       Women do have a greater percentage of body fat which is in one
       way a reason that women feel "soft" and men feel "hard". Assuming
       normal body size and level of fitness I'd expect the soft/hard
       feeling to be a real difference.

       I believe we have a biological difference in our view of sex due
       to the manner in which we are built. Using "standard" sex as a
       measuring point a woman must "open up" for sex and accept a man
       into her body. A man projects his sexual being and "penetrates" a
       woman. liesl

    I think it all has to do with the fact that women bleed and
    men don't.  I mean really think about it...
    
    I once read a wonderful piece by G. Steinem (someone mentioned
    it in here) which talked about "If men had periods".  (if anyone
    has it, please reproduce it!) 
    
    And to think that we were made to feel bad because we bled.  It
    should be revered and shown great respect at least.
   

    re:.13
    
    � I thought the math/science difference was due to differences in
    brain functions.  That is, that men use one side more (don't remember
    which), while women have more communication between both sides of
    the brain.  Is this an outdated idea? �
    
    Funny thing about science. Once your data change, your theory gets
    blown to hell. Tests are made and data is collected which shows
    that men are better at math/science and women are better at verbal
    skills. So, how to explain it? Voila! The "brain function" concept.
    The trouble is that, while it may be an elegant idea, and explains
    the data, it's validity depends on the validity of the data. Once
    later tests show that the previous data is not as concrete as
    believed, the principle that explains the previous data goes right
    out the window. Back to ye olde drawing board.
    
    --- jerry

    Well, for me it seems like the biggest difference between being
    a man and a woman is the discomfort I feel for 5 days (give or take
    a day) almost every month.  For 5 days each month I can count on being more
    tired, less productive, or in pain.  If I were a man I'd have 5
    more days when I could be productive and "normal" each month.  Five
    more days of productivity a month adds up to quite a bit when you
    consider all the days between age 13 and age 50 or so.  There have
    been times when I had my period, and either had cramps, or a headache,
    or just felt completely run-down and exhausted, for no reason, when
    I thought things such as - if I were a at war right now I'd never
    be able to keep up and fight the way I feel today, or if I were
    in the Celtics I wouldn't be able to play in tonight's game with
    these cramps - thoughts like that.  But, then some women never
    experience discomfort due to their period so this wouldn't even
    apply to them.  But, it does to me.  Another thing for me is that
    if I were a male I would *most likely* be somewhat taller and stronger
    physically than I am now, so I would be able to do physically harder
    work, and would be able to earn more money (as a dock worker or
    whatever) than I do now as a secretary.  I'm only 5'1", 95 lbs.,
    and almost all men are bigger than that.  My father and brother
    were both 5'6" and quite strong for their size, so I have reason
    to believe I would be, too, if I were a man.  But, some women are
    big and strong, so that wouldn't apply to them either.
    
    Lorna
    

    As I was reading this topic I overheard a conversation in a hallway.
    A man was describing in detail his trial of doing laundry.  The
    result was pink polka dotted clothes.  The reason for this was that
    contained in a pocket was a lipstick!  When he put the load of clothes
    in the dryer everywhere the lipstick touched another piece of clothing 
    it left a pink mark.
    
    Boys and men are just beginning to be tested in another realm. 
    Why do boys fail to use logic when doing laundry?  It would seem
    logical to wash and dry only those objects which can withstand water
    and heat.  
    
    Spatial relations as I understand it is the ability to visualize
    objects from different perspectives.  If tests show that boys/men
    are superior in the area of spatial relations is that only because
    the test defined as only that which they deal with?  What I am 
    trying to say is that if the test of excellance in spatial relations
    is based on a persons ability to take a rectangular piece of fabric
    and create a garment from it then testers could conclude that girls
    and women excell in spatial relations whereas boy and men are
    deficient in that ability.
    
    If women are less capable in mathematics how is it that they can
    teach themselves how to divide x amount of money by x amount of
    meals for x amount of people over x amount of time?

    I skimmed through the previous replies kind of quickly so forgive
    me if this has been mentioned before.
    
    One difference between men and women is how excess fat gets
    distributed. Men tend to put it on their belly, women put it mostly
    on their hips and thighs. The latter is structurally the "best"
    place to put it (in terms of strain on the back).
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    	Re earlier -
    	
       I spose that men dont have their corresponding "monthly period" and
    that there is no corresponding "loss" that can be accounted for, due to
    how the *man* feels during this time.
    
    	How is a man "made to feel" by others during his time? How does
    a man feel about himself during his time? Is "his time" aknowledged
    or denied as valid in this day's culture? Does a father typically
    approach his son as a mother would her daughter, with a "this is
    what I do" solution to the occurrance?
    
    	I sense an imbalance due to society's shame based denial of
    fact, in a situation that is inherantly and naturally balanced.
    
    	Joe Jas     

    
      I just wanted to interject a few points, if I may.
    
      1.) In response to "that any characteristics (? I'm not sure
          whether that was the word .3 used) on a biological basis
          is here to stay.  Well maybe...  It's a well known fact
          that in modern humans toes are already on the way out.  If
          allowed to evolve for another few thousand years our
          great grandchildren x 10 to the fifth won't be able to
          wear those god-awful socks with the little toes spaces in
          them!  (After all humans have gotten a lot taller in the 
          last few hundred years!)
    
      2.) When I took business psych I had to read an essay on women
          and how they adapted to the business environment.  One study
          that was mentioned (I believe done in the late 60s) involved
          the way that parents treated young (ages 1-4) boys differently
          from girls.  It seemed that as a rule boys got handled 
          differently (I'm not sure how but I'm going home to look it
          up!) than girls.  AND (here's the clincher) boys were allowed
          to wander further unattended than girls were.  Their speculation
          was that because of this  boys developed, on the whole, a
          more adventurous nature - condusive to problem solving and
          hence mathmatics - than girls were.
    
      3.) And last but not least from high school biology.  Women have,
          as a rule, a longer index finger in their right hand than 
          their third finger (traditional ring finger) while men have, 
          as a rule, a shorter index finger.  This by-and-large seems
          to be prett much the rule rather than the exception.  Please
          no nose jokes!!
    
    
    Luis
    

    
    Please excuse me for entering two notes back to back but I forgot
    to mention what could be the major non-biological difference between
    men and women...
    
    The Three Stooges.  Now I could be wrong but from my experiences
    most women can barely tolerate them (although after having to 
    watch them for 30 some years my mother - a staunch stooge hater
    has been actually been caught smiling during some episodes!).
    If this indeed a fact it could be possibly traced to some
    physical or behavioral difference between the genders.
    
    Luis

    Re: .19, soft vs hard and opening vs penetrating
    
    Do you think this has influenced attitudes about men and women?
    That women are expected to be yielding and complaisant while men
    are expected to be aggressive primarily because of their biological
    differences?  Or is the attitude more strongly linked to social
    conditioning?  In other words, how difficult would it be to overcome
    this attitude among society in general?
    
    Re: .20 and periods
    
    In some places, it's revered; in some places, reviled.  I think
    reviled outnumbers revered, though.  What causes the difference
    in attitude from culture to culture?  What values do the revering
    cultures hold more or less strongly than the reviling cultures?

    If most of the differences between males and females really are
    caused by the way the society we live in treats males and females
    differently, then I am amazed at how young an age these differences seem
    to start showing up in many children.  It must mean that from birth
    we subconsiously treat boys and girls differently and that, right
    from birth, the affects of this treatment start taking place.
    
    One of my closest friends has a 5 yr. old boy and a 2 yr. old girl.
     From the time her son was born we started taking him to malls and
    places like Quincy Mkt., Rockport and antique shows with us.  From
    the time he first became aware of where he was, he seemed bored
    and miserable, as would act up until we left.  After her daughter
    was born, we started bring her with us.  Well, right from the start
    her daughter seemed to *love* shopping (born to shop?).  We brought
    her to two big antique shows with us last summer and she was fasinated.
     She especially went crazy over the costume jewelry, putting necklaces
    and beads over her head and bracelet up her arms.  Bright, pretty
    objects caught her attention.  Her brother never showed any interest
    in this stuff.  Last summer we also brought her son to Provincetown
    and while we were browsing through an antique store, he amused several
    shoppers by announcing louding, "Mum, I'm just not into antiques."
     Later, in a jewelry store he sat on the floor in misery and said,
    "Lorna, I'm just not interested in jewelry," in a very serious tone
    of voice.  He's 5 yrs. old.  We couldn't help but notice the
    difference, between her son and daughter.  Is it just coincidence
    that at such an early age her son and daughter are developing interests
    someone typical for their sex?  Or has it already been brainwashed into
    them by society?
    
    Lorna
    
    we talked about it.  L

    	RE:  .30
    
    	Lorna, kids learn the societal differences between men and women
    	at a *very* early age (from TV, pre-school, other kids, etc.)
    
    	As I've mentioned in this file before, when my teenage son was
    	around 2 1/2 or 3 years old, I can remember him announcing to
    	me one day (after pre-school) that "Girls don't have muscles."
    	As a result of his new discovery, he started giving me a *very*
    	hard time (refusing to do anything that I asked him to do,)
    	presumably because he figured that if I didn't have muscles,
    	what could I possibly do to him if he decided to stop obeying
    	me.
    
    	After about a week, he calmed down and things got back to normal
    	when he announced to me, "_Mommies_ have muscles."
    
    	Clearly, the bit about "girls don't have muscles" was perceived
    	by him to be justification for refusing to consider women as
    	authority figures (even if the woman in question happens to
    	be one's parent, and one is a male who is less than 3 years old.)

    	After fighting with me for a week over it, he decided that
    	I had (more or less) demonstrated to him that "Mommies" have 
    	certain properties that "girls" don't have in general, but men do 
    	(which was a good enough reason for him to give "Mommies" a
    	certain status that was higher than a "girl" or woman who was NOT 
    	a Mommy.)  Not that I wanted him to have this impression _either_.
    
    	This was in 1973 or so, but even then, I was completely stunned
    	that a child less than 3 years old could have picked up these
    	kinds of attitudes from other children his own age.

    re .31, Suzanne, your note reminded me of an incident with boyfriend's
    son, who also 5 yrs. old.  He has a freckle on one ear "exactly"
    where the first hole for an earring would go.  I teased him when
    I first noticed it and said, "Rory, you have an earring.  See? 
    Right here in this ear."  The kid had a fit.  He started screaming,
    "No, I don't have an earring!  Boys don't have earrings!  Only *girls*
    have earrings!"  He was really upset over it.  He obviously felt
    insulted to be told he had an earring like a "girl."  I tried to
    explain to him that nowadays really cool, in-style guys do have
    one earring sometime.  But, it wouldn't sink in.  He kept screaming,
    "I don't have an earring!  I'm not a girl!"  Finally, I got sick
    of it and told him he should watch MTV sometime and find out what's
    happening in the world.  The kid's only 5 and he's already behind
    the times!  
    
    Lorna
    

Children are treated differently according to perceived sex from the 
time they are born.  An interesting study I once read about asked 
volunteers to evaluate the differences between boy and girl babies.
They were given a six-month-old baby in pink ruffles called Beth to play
with. The same baby was then taken away, dressed in blue overalls,
called Adam, and given back to the same participant.  The participants
were asked to describe the two babies.  Overwhelmingly the baby called
"Beth" was cute and docile and the baby called "Adam" was rougher,
bolder, and more independant.  The volunteers played with the "babies"
differently and actually saw them as different creatures.  One of the
ways people learn about their own identity is through the feedback they
get from the outside world.  In many ways, you become what you are
expected to be.  When those expectations start in utero ("oh he kicks a 
lot, must be a boy"), is it any surprise they're pretty solid by the 
time you're 2 or 3?

    Our liberal Jewish synagogue has a woman rabbi (she is about my age and
    is very popular with the membership - all of which would horrify some
    less liberal congregations which do not accept women as rabbis).  She
    does a lot of work with the children in the Hebrew school.  One recent
    funny incident she related had to do with the pre-schoolers (age 4).
    One little boy, when asked "what do you want to be when you grow up"
    announced that he couldn't be a rabbi, since rabbis are girls!  All the
    adults present thought this was very funny (especially since, as the
    onlt synagogue in town, our members come from all sorts of backgrounds,
    so a lot of them would never have had a woman rabbi when they were
    growing up even if there had been women rabbis at the time - our rabbi
    was the 4th one in the US).  Of course it was quickly explained to the
    child that he could be whatever he wanted to be, and pointed out to him
    that he had seen male rabbis too, such as our rabbi's father.  I don't
    know whether the explanation "took" or not, though.  Kids, especially
    little kids, are *really* astute observers of what goes on around them,
    much more than we sometimes give them credit for, and absorb all kinds
    of notions of how society functions.

    What experiences have women had that men will never be able to have?
    What changes have these experiences caused?  For instance, giving
    birth -- has that given women opinions, attitudes or insights that
    men will never achieve?
    
    What experiences have men had that women will never be able to have?
    What changes have these experiences caused?

    
    Excellent question Chelsea.  In our time, with the advancements
    that we have made there seem to be fewer and fewer areas that 
    women haven't experienced that men have.  Let's hope that some
    day there will be none.  I couldn't think of one myself but 
    am really interested to see if any co-noters can.
    
    Luis
    

    Re .35, women can't *impregnate* another person.  I imagine there
    must be a sense of power to know that you can *make* somebody else
    get pregnant and have a baby (*your* baby).  
    
    It will always be much easier for men to beat up or rape women than
    vice versa because most men are bigger and stronger than most women.
     This must also give men quite a sense of power.  (It seems as though
    many men have confused superior physical strength and superior size
    to mean that they are superior at everything.  Let's face it, most
    men have always thought they were better than women.  And, I've
    dealt with enough men in my life to know that many still do.  Men
    have been brought up to believe that what they have to offer the
    world is more important than what women have to offer the world.
     It's so ingrained in our society that most men are born with a
    superiority complex.  I'm not sure it will ever change.  Maybe someday
    people will look back on this time as a time in history where a
    few women got good jobs and let independent lives.)
     
    
    There are still just token numbers of women who have achieved positions
    of power in this country.  Just look at the most recent Corporate
    Organization Chart for Digital for an example of this.

    
    Lorna
    

    re: -1
    
    Remember that a man can't *absolutely know* that a woman is pregnant
    with *HIS* baby!

    How (if at all) does a man who has fathered a child differ from
    a man who has not fathered a child?  Are there any new attitudes
    or understandings that this experience brings?  If so, how are they
    different from any new attitudes or understandings that a woman
    who has given birth might achieve?  And is her view of the world
    different than the view of a woman who has not given birth?

    Re .42, if I were the mother, executing Ted Bundy would make me
    feel better.  In fact, I'd like to be able to do it myself.  Capital
    Punishment is the one area I can think of where my liberal views
    take a hike.  When I think of all the innocent people whose lives
    came to an abrupt end, because of this brute and others like him, I
    agree with what a friend of mine used to say, "F**k justice, I want
    revenge!"  People like him have forfeited their right to be treated
    as human beings (or even animals).  
    
    So, for what it's worth, Eagle, I'm one liberal female who thinks
    Bundy deserved what he got.  I'd like to see a lot more of his type
    in prisons around the country given the same treatment.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    My wife, generally very conservative also shares the view stated
    by Lorna. 
    						Hank

RE: .42

>    May we define a "male" attitude as favoring capital punishment
>    and being opposed to it as perhaps a "female" attitude?

NO, WE MAY NOT!

This issue is not one that you can apply sexual stereotypes to.  There are
plenty of otherwise liberal women who don't agree with Ms Robertson.  Consi-
der, for example, .43 by 

>APEHUB::STHILAIRE "the dishes can wait":

>    Capital Punishment is the one area I can think of where my liberal views
>    take a hike.

Lorna has established her liberal credentials rather frequently here.  Or
consider 350.50, where maggie also disagrees with Robertson.

On the other hand, I've opposed capital punishment rather often in Soapbox.
And while I often agree with maggie and Lorna, I don't agree with them here
at all (Robertson expressed my feelings rather well).  And I'm not female.

I don't want to get caught in a capital punishment rathole, since this topic
is supposed to be about how far apart the sexes are (perhaps, if this is a
topic of interest to women, we could start a new note).  But I think it would
be a major mistake to assume that attitudes towards capital punishment must be
sexually linked.

>   ... is it even possible that most women could come to embrace capital
>   punishment as a "solution" to the problem of dangerous individuals in
>   society?

If people like maggie and Lorna can embrace it, then yes, I think that it's
possible.

(Shudder!)

						--Q

    Re: .42
    
    >carrying a child to birth in one's body and being the nursing parent
    >during those first critical and vulnerable months will shape the
    >thinking of most females toward the value of a single human life?
    
    But contrast this with the 'mother bear protecting her cubs' image
    or the more recent image of Anne Archer duking it out with Glenn
    Close.  While women might (or might not) place a higher value on
    a single human life than men, they don't necessarily see all human
    lives as having the same value.  Removing a demonstrated threat
    to more valuable lives is justifiable to some women.
    
    Do men favor more definitive and destructive solutions?  I'm not
    sure.  I remember one argument for women's suffrage was that women
    would be able to solve the world's problems without resorting to
    war (men being the aggressive, testerone snorting beasts that they
    are ...).  Biology might be an influencing factor.  Women, having
    a greater stake in the process of creating life, might be more
    reluctant to make the decision to destroy it.  (In terms of the
    chicken, the pig, and breakfast, men are involved in pregnancy but
    women are committed.)
    
    On the other hand, I can identify some factors involving social
    conditioning.  It isn't well accepted for women to be aggressive
    and destructive.  Margaret Thatcher has made destructive decisions
    (the Falklands War, for one); I doubt she is widely perceived as
    being 'womanly.'  (And heaven forbid one should be unwomanly!) 
    Also, it might have something to do with women not having been in
    power.  War or some other destructive approach can be a practical
    solution to a situation, perhaps the only one available.  (How else
    could one have dealt with Hitler?)  Since men are traditionally
    the protectors, women have not been put in the position of making
    such decision very often; their inexperience could make them more
    reluctant.  Inexperience might also produce an unrealistic view
    of the situation.  (Certainly the suffragettes blithely believing
    they could solve world problems by 'civilizing' them had unrealistic
    perceptions of the situation.)
    
    So:  Does giving birth increase the value one places on human life?
    Does fathering a child increase the value one places on human life?
    What are the primary causes of changing one's opinion of the value
    of a single human life?

       We have a basic problem here in that there is no way to "know"
       how we'd act if we hadn't been conditioned to act that way. I
       look at myself and see the product of biology x conditioning and
       have difficulty separating the two.

       The other thing I have a problem with is that, IMHO, we tend to
       generalize, sometimes necessarily, to the point where the
       discussion loses meaning. It's hard to talk about individuals
       when you discuss trends, (this makes me think of Harry Seldon and
       psycho-history) but not every individual fits the generalization.

       It may well be that in a perfectly equal society 40% of the women
       would prefer to stay home with kids and 25% of the men would.
       Maybe only 25% of the women would ever want to be soldiers. Maybe
       only 1% would want to play on the same football team as men. But
       until we get there how do we tell what "made us" what we are?

       Now after all that, I must say that I do believe biology shapes
       some of my views on life. But I think the culture I live in has
       tremendous influence that may even override my biological
       leanings. I'm a woman who hasn't given birth or ever been
       pregnant,does that mean I see life differently from a woman who
       has? Am I then "less" female and "more" male because of this?

       During the Vietnam war I remember my father saying that "nothing
       turns a woman from a hawk to dove faster than her son's 18th
       birthday". Is that true? liesl

    
    RE: .38
    
    The ability to impregnate a woman hasn't left me with any sense of
    power.  It has, instead, left me with a fear of casual sex.  At this
    point in my life, if I were to become sexually active, I'd seriously
    consider vasectomy.
    
    This isn't so much based on fear of being unexpectedly financially
    compromised, as a fear of starting a human life.  How anyone ever gets
    up the nerve to condemn someone to life is beyond me.
    
    							-- Mikey

    Re: .49
    
    >Can we agree that 'instinctive' wild animal behavior in a good 
    >natural model for the differences between male and female behavior?
    
    Well, only if the behavior shows up in humans....
    
    >But how much is determined by simply BEING a woman or man with
    >the physical and hormonal influences ???
    
    This is what I have been wondering.  I have noticed a number of
    references (in various notes and notesfiles) to "men" and "women"
    as if they're distinct species -- "What do men want?"  "What do
    women want?"  They want the same things, for the most part.  They
    aren't really all that different.
    
    It's easy to just say it but I don't know how well it sinks in.
    All that social conditioning ....  The thing is, most of the behavioral
    and attitudinal differences demonstrated by women and men *in general*
    have been identified as the products of social conditioning.  As
    has been amply demonstrated, the process of social conditioning
    can be recognized and steps can be taken to reduce that particular
    influence.  Suppose we could eliminate all social conditioning;
    how different would women and men be then?

    Adult men have greater physical freedom than we do (of course, they
    tend to live shorter lives, too, although that may be mostly a
    life-style choice thing), because they do not have periods, and cannot
    get pregnant.  Leaving aside the pregnancy issue (too much flames to
    read today in the abortion note already...), having to plan your life
    around an annoying physical aspect of your body is a thing a man never
    has to do, but most women do for most of their adult lives, to a
    greater or lesser extent.
    
    For me, it is to a much greater extent.  My "normal" (uncorrected
    chemically) periods are extremely heavy, and very sporadic. On the
    pill, I get to lead a "normal" life, and can make plans around when I
    can expect to not be able to easily do certain things (it doesn't make
    sense to plan a camping trip if you will have to carry along boxes and
    boxes of extra paper goods, and swimming or scuba diving isn't much fun
    or even completely safe when you are having heavy cramps even apart
    from the mess aspect of it all).  Now, since I am nearing 36, my
    physcial freedom could be constrained back to what my body is willing
    to do on its own at any time my gynecologist decides that the pill is
    no longer safe for me at my age.  Then I get to look forward to another
    twenty years or so of having to assume that any plans I make will be
    disrupted by my "cycle" (not very cyclic, in my case) - assuming
    twenty years since my mother is thirty years older than I and got off
    this roller-coaster only ten years ago.
    
    Apart from the primitve society view of this
    women-bleed-but-are-not-injured business, we have to deal with and make
    plans around our physical selves that men are not faced with, and I
    think it has real impact on what we consider it reasonable to do.
    Before I was on the pill, I never planned most of the "daring" things I
    do today (vacations in primitive areas, diving over the weekend, etc.)
    because I always had to assume that I would have to bail out in order
    to stay near modern sanitary facilities - since that was true about one
    third of the time on the average (with a period that varied from 12
    days to more than 50 on no particular schedule, with heavy bleeding
    lasting from about ten days of it to more than two months, one horrible
    time when I was in high school - boy did I get anemic!).
    
    On the other hand, I will probably outlive dear Paul even though he is
    younger than I am - unless the difference there is purely caused by
    more men smoking, drinking excessively, and otherwise not taking care
    of themselves.
    
    /Charlotte

    re: .49
    
    �    Can we agree that 'instinctive' wild animal behavior in (sic)
    � a good natural model for the differences between male and female 
    � behavior?
    
    Yes, for male and female wild animals.  For humans, I'm somewhat
    less inclined to entirely accept the model - which is not to say 
    that I think the model's invalid, just that to apply it to the 
    human (allegedly) thinking animal seems less of a fit to me.
    
    I have a notion that instinct and intellect affect one another
    and so to use wild animal intinctual behavior as a yardstick for
    the human animal strikes me as risky.  I'm sometimes struck by
    the idea that "human nature" (i.e. "natural" human behavior) is
    something of an oxymoron.
    
    Jes' musing. . .
    
    Steve
    
    

    I find it fascinating that pregnancy has not been discussed more
    in this string.  It seems to me that it is one of the biggest
    physical cause of the societal differences between men and women
    today.
    
    Consider an ancient civilization where the cause of pregnancy was
    unknown; there was no known physical connection between a man and
    a child - this was true for a _very_ long time.  The only things
    to notice were that women 1) bleed from time to time, and 2)
    spontaneously become pregnant then give birth.
    
    What were the _results_ of this?  If a woman would, with no warning
    and no predictability (beyond reaching a certain age), become
    crippled - unable to run fast, unable to hunt, unable to fight -
    and then be tied down with an infant to tend...
    
    Why one could be prone to thinking of women as fragile creatures,
    likely to be severely handicapped at any time, much of the time
    needing to be protected and fed, somewhat of a burden, actually.
    
    Once the link was made between intercourse and pregnancy, it would
    seem to me that this attitude would change little: perhaps a man
    would feel more powerful because *he* could render the most capable,
    powerful woman pregnant, and she was then stuck.
    
    With the advent of effective birth control on demand, this whole
    thing falls apart, because now women CHOOSE when to be (temporarily)
    crippled.  Thus you see the restructuring of society because one
    of its postulates has been changed.
    
    Footnote 1: I do not hate children, and I don't think a pregnancy
    is the worst thing that can happen to a woman.  But it is a fact
    that only a few hundred years ago, childbirth was one of the top
    two causes of women's death in the US (the other was catching on
    fire while cooking or washing clothes - this was colonial america...).
    Pregnancy and childbirth are SEVERELY limiting, regardless of how
    wonderful they are.  I do not think it is a misnomer to label them
    as "crippling".  
    
    Footnote 2: I apologize for the use of the word "cripple".  It is
    highly negative, and in general offensive.  But it is that time
    of day when my brain begins to fade and I cannot find a better word
    right now.
    
    Lee T     

    So, do men now consider women to be more fragile or less reliable
    because of their limitations during pregnancy?  Do women consider
    themselves more fragile or less reliable?  What about the complications
    of menstruation?  Do women find their bodies more confining or
    restricting?  Do men have a regular experience that creates a sense
    of being inconvenienced, hurt, betrayed, hampered or confined by
    one's own body?

    I think that most modern couples who plan their pregnancies don't any
    longer look upon that time as "fragile", since it is a planned event
    (of course, this doesn't apply to everyone, for reasons of religion,
    ignorance/carelessness (especially in high school kids), or whatever).
    And of course, it is temporary!
    
    I do think that a lot of women find that even though they have the same
    desires and aspirations as the men we associate with, we do have to
    temper our activities to take into account our monthly cycles - and
    those of us whose cycles are predictable have an advantage here.  I try
    to avoid travelling (especially flying) the first few days, and of
    course I do not plan swimming, scuba diving, hiking, etc., mostly for
    practical reasons.  People who suffer from PMS tend to avoid scheduling
    stressful things for times when they aren't up to coping with them
    effectively.  And of course you plan your wardrobe accordingly, too.
    
    I am real displeased to realize that these practical considerations
    sometimes end up overriding what I would really prefer to be doing.  If
    my gyn. takes me off the pill this time (since I am nearly 36), I will
    no longer be able to plan these things, since I won't know when I will
    have to cancel out due to my period.  That can be really limiting! If
    you no longer schedule activities you enjoy because your body may not
    be in condition to participate in them, how long will it be before you
    forget the freedom you once had to do the things you enjoy doing, just
    as men do??  Sigh....  I guess I value my freedom of action a great
    deal, and resent practical considerations that interfere with it that
    exist only because I have no Y chromosomes!  (On th other hand, we tend
    to *outlive* men...though that, too, may be mostly a cultural thing!)
    
    So, I don't think that men's and women's natural aspirations and
    abilities differ because of gender.  I think that the observed
    differences (apart from the temporary state of pregnancy - recognizing
    that an adult man and an adult woman can both care for children after
    birth) in aspirations and abilities are partly cultural and partly due
    to the annoying practical considerations we are stuck with and
    sometimes overwhelmed by.
    
    
    /Charlotte