Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Is Ms. Kunin a Democrat or a Republican?
    
    Kate
    

                           -< Political Parties >-
    
    -1
    
    Ms. Kunin is a Democrat.
    
    Sue
    

I'd like to offer a different perspective (which may or may not
be appropriate in this note.)  

The bottom line is that our legislative system is REPRESENTATIVE
of the choices of the American public.  And the public continues to
choose male legislators.

I think that any change will have to come about as a result of 
grass roots changes in perceptions, not top down changes of
political structure.

Victoria

    Re .3, "you're going to have to start talking and acting like
    politicians."
    
    OK, let's see: lie, cheat, steal, buy favors, cheat on my SO, lie
    some more, what else?
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .4
    
    Well said.  While I believe that a major obstacle to political
    office is the cost of a major campaign, I also think that a
    major grassroots movement can still succeed.  When Ms. Kunin
    asked when there would be groups of 50 or 100 women, my first
    reaction was "Sometime after that time when hundreds or even
    thousands of women are routinely running for office".
    
    re: .5
    
    Sounds like my kinda candidate. . .what're you running for, 
    Lorna?  Not that it makes any great difference, mind you; we
    just wanna know that one of "us" will be in office. . .
    
    Steve
    

    
    
    
    CATHERINE T.  for   PRESIDENT!!!
    

    
    re : .3
    
    Sorry but I can't let .3 slide. It's "okay to read Cosmo and Self,
    but also read Time and Foreign Affairs" (not a direct quote -
    paraphrasing)?
    
    Are you saying that the average man in this country is more politically
    aware than the average woman? I really resent the insinuation.
    
    You could have just as easily told the men in this file "it's okay
    to read Sports Illustrated and Esquire..."
    
    I don't NEED YOU to tell me to listen to NPR, thank you, nor to
    tell me who Cokie Roberts is. 
    
    
    Roberta

    
    I also found Gregg Germain's tone in .3 quite patronizing and also
    astonishing - though I don't read magazines, just newspapers, I fail
    to see how reading Cosmo or Playboy, or the New Yorker could possibly 
    imply that one is not politically active!
    
    I normally quite enjoy your notes, Gregg, but don't you think you
    could have just - possibly - maybe - put your foot in in this case? 
                    
    On the other hand, the base note was very much to the point, and
    reminds us that though women are very much involved and active in
    politics, their representation, as that of the minorities, is way
    below what it should be.               
                                                                      
    Politically yours,   
    
    Joana
    
    

    I'm with Roberta. I read Time and the Worcester Telegram while
    my husband reads the Bradley's sale flyers. I watch 60 Minutes
    and the Evening News while my husband watches Star Trek and WWF
    Wrestling. 
    
    In November he voted for the first time in his life at the age 
    of 32. I shamed him into it by telling him to set an example
    for the kids. (He even voted the wrong way.But he won! )
    
    I say we women are as politically active as the men. Just look
    at who's going to the reproductive rights rally in April! Move
    over, Big Boy! Make room for the women of America. 
    
    Kate
    
    
     

    I agree with Gregg on the issue of becoming more politically aware
    of world politics/issues which do not appear to be specifically
    oriented towards women.  Personally, since we are half
    of the human race, I think that every issue--directly related or
    marginally related--affects our lives.  Wars may be caused by 
    miscalculations by the *men* who are in power, but it is the
    *women and children* who suffer, and often suffer the greatest
    losses.  
    
    On a personal note, in Nashua a few years back, there was a group
    of women who ran for a number of local political offices.  School
    Board, Alderman, State Reps.  And they had a tough row to hoe, let
    me tell you.  Their private lives were put up for public discussion
    in ways I have *never* seen men receive when running for the 
    same office.  (We are talking small potatoes here, remember, not
    the da*n presidential election).
    
    At that time, there was a very vocal and active group of women who
    got out and worked for those candidates, and they won.  But their
    struggles during their tenure -- and a number of them held office
    for some years -- took its toll, and today very few of these same
    women are holding public office.
    
    One of these women was the Liquor Commissioner for 6 years.  Another
    ran several presidential campaigns for the Democrats in New Hampshire,
    and became a lobbyist at the state capital.  Both had served several
    terms as school board and alderman members.  And there were others.
    
    Knowledgeable?  Yes.  Bright and politically savvy?  Yes  
    
    Finally got tired of the personal cost to themselves and 
    their families?  Yes.
    
    I don't know what the answer is, but I seriously question if *most*
    women *really* want other women to succeed in the political arena.
    For my friends I spoke of, their worst enemies were the politically
    conservative women, as well as women who simply do not think for
    themselves and allow their opinions to be formed by others, generally
    their menfolk.
     
    My 2c worth...
    
    Marilyn

    I have to agree with Roberta, Gregg.  You went a little overboard
    with the patronizing crap.  You are talking to the wrong people
    with your gung-ho attitude.  These women are the most politically
    active people I know - and it's not just women's issues.  The people
    that need the convincing are out in the far reaches of the country,
    that just don't think that women should be in office.  Just look
    at the big stink about Ms. Tamposi running for office in New Hampshire.
    "She shouldn't be running for office with two young children at
    home."  But sir, don't you have two young children at home and you
    are running?  "Yes, I do, but I'm a man."
    
    
    I like to read Newsweek my husband reads MACWORLD.  I voted in the
    first election I was able to at age 19, my husband just voted for the
    first time in this last election (age 26), and only on my prodding.
    At least he voted RIGHT :-) but we both lost :-(. 
    
    Suzanne

    I know!  I have Montezuma's revenge of the keyboard!
    
    *But* I just thought of something someone once said after a
    very frustrating campaign.
    
    Activist and politically aware women should forget trying 
    to change men's attitudes, and work
    at changing other women's attitudes towards each other.  Men
    have *always* had some kind of Good Ole Boy network--even if
    they can't stand some of the things about the Good Ole Boy--
    but too many women just can't seem to get their act together enough 
    to recognize that they have a vested interest in the lives
    of other women that supersedes petty diversities.

    I think almost every activist woman has a counterpart in a politically
    and/or religiously conservative woman.  And each of us sees our
    world through a personal telescope-----it is that personal telescope
    that we have to put down, and see the world through the wider lens
    of what is *best for us as a gender*.  Then, and only then, will
    be become strong enough to affect the power structure and effect
    changes in *all* women's status.  
    
    *And that word *compromise* is an absolute necessity for the above
    to occur*
    
    M
    
    
    
     

    The idea that women NEED an *attitude change* in order to be
    part of the current political machinery is something that I
    have been questioning for quite a while.
    
    The current system, as good as it is, has many areas that need 
    to be continually questioned and reviewed.
    
    Perhaps the innovative and humanistic ideas of women would
    improve the tired old political machine whereby all people
    might possibly benefit.
    
    

    Some Agreements:
    ----------------
    Whether it be in the public political arena, or the corporate arena,
    whether we like it or not, in order to succeed - you have to know
    how to play ball like "the boys". Sure, I don't like it, but that's
    the way it is. Hopefully, it is changing. Maybe our daughters or
    grand-daughters will see a tremendous change, not only in political
    structure, but also in the voter's attitudes. Until that time however, 
    in order to "win", we may have to conceede a bit. (Smile, get your
    foot in the door, then give them a boot in the a**!)
    
    Some Disagreements
    ------------------
    I think there are many women out there who would love to see another
    woman in a position of top political power. I think a woman could
    contribute (along with her political intelligence and savvy) a sense
    calm, order, and nurturing that this country desparately needs.
    I think the areas that would be paid more attention to would be
    the homeless, the environment, benefits for the aged, etc. etc.
    (and the usual horse**** would still be taken care of in addition
    to the preceeding).
    
    Just my $.02 minus tax.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    re .3 (Gregg) ref to women's participation in other notes conferences
    
    
    Does that mean that women who do not participate in =wn='s are
    
    uninformed.....or not interested......or don't have opinions about
    
    "Topics of Interest to Women"?
    
    
    ~robin

    Gregg,
    
    I really believe that all most '80's men don't think the way you
    do. Really politically active people don't have to write in an
    invisible media like the notesfile. I speak, organize and have
    gone door to door. Most people seem to take me seriously. My being
    female has always come second to my being human.
    
    Thanks for your input.
    
    Kate
    

First you say women need to become politically aware (stop reading
Cosmo), and now you say (again paraphrasing here) "oh, I didn't mean
women weren't politically aware. I only meant they don't SHOW their
political awareness."

You wanna back up a couple MORE steps?

I don't write in soapbox because a) I don't have time b) from what
I hear (having never accessed it, to be honest) it's a bunch of redneck
idiots. You can't argue with those types of people, and you can't PROVE
your political awareness to them either.

We show our awareness as much as MEN SHOW THEIRS. Sometimes that is a lot,
sometimes a little, sometimes not at all. 

>	Think about it. How many times have you gone into a bar, or 
>	restaurant, or someone's cube at work, or the cafeteria, and
>	heard women talking with men about history, or politics, or
>	whatever? And how many times have you heard men in those arenas
>	talking about those things?

You know what the guys in my group talk about during breaks? Cars
and alcohol. That's it. No politics. And these are supposedly
enlightened college-educated engineers we're talking about. 

I completely disagree with your two premises. Namely (in .3)
that women are not politically aware, and (in .19) that women 
hide the fact that they are politically aware.


Roberta

    RE: 19
                         
    Gee, I think I'll read Newsweek and then wait around for someone to ask
    me a question and then I'll floor them with my political prowess!  You
    certainly know a lot about me!  Try again.. 
    
    You see Gregg, a lot of people know how political I am and my political
    thinking - not just my husband either.  You only know my notes side of
    me- and though it may be hard for you to believe, WN is not my only
    political forum. I am very active in my community and family.  And
    beleive me, I don't back down from a political argument - I'm not known
    for being quiet about my views. Just ask my republican father/brother
    how many times he has argued with his democratic daughter/sister.  My
    father-in-law, friends and co-workers could tell you a few stories too.
    Or you could ask the NH reps how many times I have written to them
    about issues I felt strongly about (and funny thing is, they weren't
    always 'women's' issues.) In school I went to all of the presidential
    candidates speaches and then joined the campaign of the one I liked
    best.  I also wrote letters to the editor all of the time expressing my
    view - sharing it with others and trying to educate. I was also
    a student senator in college, my big term project was trying to get the
    student populus to get out and vote - and not democratic either :-) 
    - just to convince them to use their right to vote.  And I certainly
    was not alone.
                                                                         
                                                                           
    So, I still think you are talking to the wrong group of people - and I'm
    not angry at what you are saying - I'm angry at how you are saying it -
    and I'll say it again - We don't need your patronizing attitude.
    It's a hot button of mine - stop patronizing!  I'll be able to hear you
    better :).
    
    
    You see, growing up with my ideas and views in a republican household
    I've learned to hold my own in politics.  How I ever ended up with
    these views and attitudes with the upbringing I had is beyond me.
                 
                                   
    Politicaly yours,
    
    Suzanne
              

    Gregg, the late Richard Feynman pointed out that the only things people
    can really "discuss" are those topics about which nobody really knows
    anything!
    
    Are we seeing a gender-correlated difference here?  ;')   
            
    							=maggie

re: -.1

I don't think this is a rathole at all.  In fact, as much as it pains
my ego to say so, I think that Gregg has made some very valid points.

This particular topic brings up alot of feelings.  I don't necesarily
have them all catalogued and analysed, but I would like to share them for
what they are worth.

I, too, am very concerned about international relations, political events,
and the state of the world at large.  I can, in fact, discuss (intelligently)
the Soviet withdrawel from Afghanistan, etc.  When I was a child, I dreamt
of being a senator.  And, yet, from someone like Gregg's vantage point, I 
probably appear to be politically apathetic.  Why?

Well, basically becasue it hurts to do otherwise.

I actually have an emotional attachment to the "state of our state." 
It pains me to confront the horrors of what we as human beings have done
and continue to do to each other. Furthermore, I have high hopes,
standards, and expectations for the quality of human relations - regardless
of race, religion or nationality.  Consequently, i am constantly
disappointed in the realm of politics where the "system" perpetuates
deceit, distrust, and divisiveness (viz. the policy of deterrment.)

Engaging in a conversation about politics with a man is especially painful, 
becasue most men (that I know) approach politics as an intellectual
endevour (versus an emotional one,)  to be played by the existing rules
of the road (see above).  My faith in a different set of rules, (cohesiveness,
interrelatedness, trust) and my emotional involvment with a topic often 
leave me feeling battered and bruised in a conversation with someone who
is only willing to hear me as naive, ignorant, or simply wrong.

In retrospect, my alternatives have appeared to be (1) become a cynic and play 
the game with the rest of the boys, or (2)withdraw from the arena.
I am ashamed to say that I have chosen #2.  

And yet, I would be equally ashamed to live in accordance with option #1 -
to give up my vision, don a hard coat of
emotional armour, and sacrifice my personal integrity to "work within the
system;" becasue among my greatest assets AS A WOMAN, are my empathy for others,
my holistic understanding of social and political systems, my ability to remove
my ego from the issue at hand (i.e. not be parochial), and my emotional
accessibility (i.e. ability to "be" with people.) 

Not oddly enough, those politicians (loosly used term) I respect the most are
those who have been willing to enter the arena, firmly holding 
their vision of a different way, refusing to submit to the lure of
cynicism (read: experience).  To wit - Dr. King, Ghandi off the top
of my head.

So that is why I, an intelligent, educated woman,(who cannot spell worth
sh*t, BTW) do not participate in political discussions or activities.  Am
I a coward?  Despite all the justifiaction I can come up with, the
answer remains - Yes. 

I hope this (One Woman's Opinion) will provide food for thought.
Victoria

    re .24, Maggie-
    
    Men who carry on in Soapbox (guilty) and Defense_issues (guilty)
    and other political forums (guilty) doing so because they are
    able to "discuss" even though they don't really know anything?
    Women avoiding those forums ('cept Bonnie, Chelsea, Marge, and UOB
    ;-) because in their free time they won't waste effort on such
    wasteful argumentative noters and notesfiles, but take direct action 
    instead (per Kate's and Suzanne's entries)?  Perhaps...
    
    > Are we seeing a gender-correlated difference here?  ;')   
    
    Gregg identified the gender-correlation in political conferences
    or as I'd call them, "talk-only" forums.  The article in the basenote 
    identified it in the real world.   I think Gregg's point about the
    perceptions held by many, that women aren't "serious" about politics,
    may be rooted in this lower level of participation in the talk-only
    forums...and may be causing that same lesser representation in the
    real world.  If his words came across to some as patronizing, he'll
    have to answer that, but his point is yet worth discussing:

    Is women's lack of significant penetration into the political
    hierarchies related to a perception (on the part of the voting public)
    that they care only about "women's" or "minority" issues?
    
    DougO (who_can't_quite_figure_out_how_~--e--~_would_have_said_this)

    in re .26
    Actually Doug, I don't contribute to the political discussions
    in soapbox because I feel a lot of the people writing them
    are of the 'don't confuse me with facts my mind is already
    made up' variety. 
    
    Bonnie

    My point was that women may be political and you'd never know it
    because they may not voice political opinions in notes!!
    
    I have never learned anything about a political subject in notes
    that I hadn't read elsewhere.
    
    When SOAPBOX gets into the gun control issues and other hot ones,
    I can't say anything in there that anyone else hasn't said. I mean
    there are 6xx replies to the darn thing.                                                              
                                            
    I hope, when men make these assumptions about women they have a
    broader base sample than noters.
    
    Kate
     
    

    The question should not be "why aren't more women being elected?" or
    even "why aren't more women running?". The question for each and every
    woman interested in changing the number of women in elected office to
    ask herself is "why am *I* not running?" If women don't start answering 
    that with "No good reason so I will run" we're never going to have the
    representation of women that we should have. That's how we started
    getting so many women doctors, lawyers, programmers, etc. Women
    can do what ever they want but first they have to decide to go after
    it.

    I believe that if the same numbers of men and women ran in each
    election we'd have a pretty good balance but if 10 men run for every
    1 woman that does it'd be pretty silly (or sexist) to expect women
    to make up half the winners. Where women run, woman often win. In
    my town 2 (of 3) Selectman are women. Much (most perhaps) of the
    budget committee are women, half the school board and half the
    school budget committee (1 of 2) are women. My state rep is a woman.
    When it gets down to it there are a lot of women in the local
    government in my town. Why? I suspect it's because they run for
    office and are judged on merit. NH is pretty old fashioned after all
    so I doubt that these women are being elected by guilty men. :-)

    There are several valid reasons for not running. Having a different
    priority (family is 98% of why I don't run for state rep myself),
    a believe that the people in office are doing a good enough job or
    at least better then you could, or laziness. You know in our society
    where so many families live on one income it should be pretty easy
    for the other to pick up a few bucks and serve the public at the
    same time. This is the case in NH were an awful lot of state reps
    and senators are women. Why isn't it that way in 50 states? Is NH
    more 'liberal'? :-)

    I don't know why more women don't run for national level offices
    but until they do bitching about how few are elected is a waste of
    time. There are a whole lot of capable women sitting on the sidelines.
    Most of them have no one to blame but themselves.

    			Alfred

    Sorry but the waste of all those smart caring thinking honest women
    sitting on the sidelines while men get blamed for the sad shape of
    government gets me going.

    
                            -< Some More Ideas >-
                   
    RE: .19        
                   
    > I am saying that those of you who are do not display your awareness
    > where it counts.
                   
         Where does it say that males get to define the forum "where it
    counts".  This is the mindset that women have been forced to accept
    for the last couple thousand of years or so.  It's time that what
    women determine to be important be recognized and validated in society.
                   
    As another idea point,  one of the Scandinavian countries (Norway
    I think) has mandated that 50% of their legislative bodies and cabinet
    positions must be filled by women.  We're not talking about attrition
    being the primary vehicle for equal representation.  Now I know
    that this sounds suspiciously like a *gasp* QUOTA, and perhaps it
    is, but this country has directly addressed the issue of under-
    representation in a meaningful way, and there has not been the dissent
    there that would occur here, as the past adminstration's position
    was anti-quota because they were only interested in pursuing individual
    cases of discrimination and not class defined discrimination.  I
    have no reason to believe that this opinion will change in the present
    administration.
    
    I think that the United States, if as the politicians in power assert
    that we do not need an Equal Right Amendment, should mandate that
    there must be 50% representation by women in all local, state, and
    national elections.  I posit that there would be plenty of qualified
    woment to fill those seats!
    
    Sue (who is trying to keep the discussion going)
     
                   

    Regarding politics:  I feel very similarly to Victoria, .25, except I'm not
    well educated, and I don't claim to be as up on world events and
    current political events as I could be.  I admit I don't read Time
    or Newsweek, or a newspaper, or even watch TV news on a regular
    basis.  I have also never participated in any type of local or school
    politics.  However, I do have a general idea of what's going on in the 
    world, (although I'm still not quite sure what Quail looks like!)
     I hear or read things here and there.  I was much more up on things
    25 yrs. ago when I was a teenager.  My father (although not college
    educated) always read constantly and kept up-to-date on politics
    and current events, and he liked to discuss issues with me.  (It
    took me a long time to realize to what extent his views influenced
    me, but I know they did!)  I, also, had history classes as long
    as I was in high school which kept me up-to-date.  The problem is
    I just became so disillusioned over the years.  First, the people
    I admired the most were assasinated.  Then, my next choices never
    got elected.  Then, I realized that long before anybody ever makes
    it to the status of presidential candidate, they have had to become
    a crook in order to grab that much power.  (What does any millionaire
    lawyer care about me and my problems?  I can't even enter my career
    concerns in Human_Relations without having engineers 15 yrs. my
    junior tell me to "quit yer bitchin' and get a better job", so if
    engineers don't care about me, what is a millionaire lawyer going
    to care? And, if they don't care about me, they sure as hell don't
    care about some poor black woman in South Africa.)  So, severe 
    disillusionment helped me to lose interest in U.S. politics.  (I
    like Jesse, though.  He says the rights things (most of the time).  I 
    don't know if he'd do them.)
    
    Another problem is just plain time.  People get married, have kids,
    work full-time jobs, try to have some fun and there's just so much
    spare time, so sometimes there is only time for a couple of things.
     I'd rather read a novel, short stories or poetry, than read about
    Afghanistan.  I'd rather take an oil painting class than run for
    selectman or whatever.
    
    I have always voted though.  Nobody I ever vote for (presidential)
    gets elected.  But, I still vote.  I think it's fun.  It makes me
    feel like I have some say in things, even though I know I really
    don't.  I pretend I'm doing something important, though.
    
    Regarding Soapbox:  I'm too sensitive and too liberal to enjoy
    participating in the notesfile. :-)
    
    I haven't read it for a long time.  At one time I entered a few
    notes.  It isn't what they talk about that isn't interesting, it's
    the way they talk about it.  It has often seemed to me that the
    typical soapboxer is more interested in being the first to come
    up with a mean, witty reply, especially to a new noter's response,
    than they are in actually discussing the issues at hand.  I find
    this both rude and arrogant, and ultimately...boring.
    
    Lorna
       
    

    Alfred,
    
    I don't think the base note was "bit@hing". I think it was meant
    to inspire. Is that difference that subtle?
    
    Kate
    0  0
      >
    \__/
       
    

	I am not sure if I should be offended by the suggestion 
	that the women in =wn= are not politically active or
	effective.  I may be glad in a way - just think if we
	were we might try to set up groups in each facility in
	which women can talk to one another about what it feels
	like to be at DEC and be a woman.  Or we might try to
	get speaker forums going on (gasp) politically pertinent
	issues like dependent care cost/availability.  Or even
	worse we might try to get other women involved in a massive
	lobbing effort in DC in April.

	But thank the Goddess that we are not politically active
	or even knowledgeable - cause we might just make things
	change a little.

	Now on the topic of why women are not in office - The
	country is Norway and they have a political party that has
	accepted the challenge of having each gender be atleast
	40% represented in their party - be it elected office or
	party office.  They have discoverd that they are having a
	hard time getting women to participate and one of the major
	reasons is $$$$$$ (only there it is called something else).

	If the Democrats tried that in the US I would become one in
	a minute - but I could never run for office - I have a very
	dark background - I have begun to give money to political
	groups that are doing what I beleive in.  The problem is that
	up until the past two years my income did not match my ideas.
	But now that I have extra cash at the end of the week I make
	it work for me through the support of organizations with my
	point of view.

	I also do what I can with my time - to support what my beliefs
	are - but it is money that women need to have to be successful
	in politics not guts or "enlightenment" - just plain and simple
	cash to run with.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Where did you say the barricade was?????

<    The question should not be "why aren't more women being elected?" or
<    even "why aren't more women running?". The question for each and every
<    woman interested in changing the number of women in elected office to
<    ask herself is "why am *I* not running?" 


	Well, the only woman I can speak for is myself but I know why I
       will NEVER run for any political office. I couldn't pass the
       white bread test. I've done too many things in my life (I regret
       only a very few) that wouldn't fly in our expose all political
       arena. Especially for a woman having done them. BTW, I do engage
       in political discussions with men even if I haven't had time for
       SOAPBOX lately. liesl

    	RE:  .20  Gregg Germain
    
    	> It *DOES* mean that since you're not heard in those conferences
    	> [such as SOAPBOX] that "........women know their place isn't
    	> in high powered politics - They are staying RIGHT where they
    	> belong - Hen notes files discussing WOMEN's stuff....burp...."
    	> (quoted sentence *NOT* my opinion!!!)
    
    	Heh, heh, heh.  I must admit that I am *considerably* amused
    	by the idea that some men think that women's lack of participation
    	in Soapbox is a sign that we are uninformed and/or uninterested
    	in general politics - (or, as you put it, it's a sign that women
    	"can't or won't participate in the general arena.")
    
    	Well, a lot of people that *I* know (both women AND men in
    	Digital) seem to think that a lack of participation in
    	Soapbox is more a sign of INTELLIGENCE (or AT LEAST good sense!)
    
    	Remember the Presidential election?  The American public may
    	have thought that the campaigning got pretty dirty, but the
    	intensity of the debating about it in Soapbox sunk to such a
    	low level that the REAL Presidential campaign looked like a
    	love affair in comparison.  
    
    	Then, after the election was over, the Dukakis-bashers in Soapbox
    	weren't happy EVEN THEN!!!  They continued to pound Mike Dukakis, 
    	and the Liberals of America, even HARDER after Bush won!  The 
    	pounding continued MERCILESSLY, while at the same time, those
    	very people bitched heavily at Dukakis-supporters for not being 
    	willing to embrace Bush as their beloved HERO as soon as the
    	winner became apparent.)  It was ridiculous!!
    
    	Maybe some people have the time to engage in endless pontificating,
    	posturing and chest-beating in a notesfile that sees HUNDREDS
    	of replies DAILY (though the sum total of intelligent/meaningful
    	discourse is small enough to fit into the space of a personal
    	name) - however, some others of us have more important things to 
    	do at Digital than that.
    
    	The thing that really gets me, though, is the kind of "blackmail"
    	that some men in DEC notes try to use to "lure" women into male-
    	dominated conferences.  (I still remember the campaign awhile
    	back to get women into Mennotes.  The men involved were saying,
    	that, since women wouldn't participate in Mennotes, it was a sure
    	sign that women in general just don't care about men's issues.)  
    	If anyone needs references for that argument, quotes CAN be provided.
    
    	Now we're hearing that since we don't participate in Soapbox,
    	it's a sure sign that we just CAN'T or WON'T debate in general
    	arenas (as if we have nothing to say.)
        
    	One way or another, the bottom line seems to be that we should
    	listen to some MEN and spend more time in conferences that THEY
    	dominate (rather than risk "looking bad" by spending time here
    	where there are plenty of both men AND women, but where women
    	have the admitted edge.)

    	Sorry, Gregg, but I don't buy it.  If you think women are so
    	very, VERY valuable and important in politics, then why do you
    	qualify it with such lengthy lists of how we will "HAVE" to
    	change in order to stop appearing so politically inept to most
    	men?
    
    	If you honestly and truly WANT us to become leaders, then don't
    	start out by asking us to become your followers.

	I think there is a nugget of truth in what Gregg wrote.

	If many women are brought up in environments that either
	discourage, or do not encourage participation in 
	areas what were traditionally perceived as being
	reserved for men, politics being one, I don't
	think it's unreasonable for someone to infer that
	such discouragement has had an effect. It could be a wrong
	inference, but not an unreasonable one.

	The majority of the women I talk to (present company excluded)
	often appear to me to be apathetic toward politics. Now that 
	certainly could be me reading them wrong. Or maybe I just
	hit a bad sample. But that's the way I see it, and I'd be lying to
	tell you different. I don't mind if you tell me I'm wrong, but
	I hope you won't tell me I'm wrong and then kick me in the 
	shins besides. :-)
	
	On the other hand. it could also be possible that women are
	just as political as men, but that they happen to devote
	their energies to different interests. About a year or so
	ago I became very involved with a certain political issue
	(no, not that one.) Now, from my point of view, the persons 
	active on one side of the issue seemed to be around 80% male,
	while the persons active on the other side seemed around
	60% female. The perception of how active women are might be
	very different, depending upon what side of this issue you were
	on, because on one side they were relatively few, while on the
	other they were a majority.

					Tom_K

    	One problem I see is that some (I said some) women seem to be
    very intense about some issues. Now I believe in having principals
    and using them to guide a person through life. However if someone
    disagrees with you, especially a woman, is she less of a women?
    Take for example Jean Kirkpatrick. She is a woman. She is conservative.
    She is VERY intellegent in foreign affairs. Would you vote for her
    because she is a woman, would you vote against her because she is
    conservative?
    	Another issue. Some women, and a lot of men (less than 50% of
    the voting electorate) tend to agree with one issue and then buy
    the whole program/agenda. For example: Most women here favor abortion,
    now a lot of women ( and this is an intense issue from both sided)
    will meet other possibly politically active women at these rallies
    etc who are active on other issues. The attitude of  ' they are
    with me on this and they are intellegent, they must know what they
    are talking about' so I will be with them and listen to say Helen
    Caldicot (sp) on a nuclear freeze.  Each issue is seperate, and
    in the emotions, the real issues get lost.
    	I agree that if more women want to be in politics, then RUN.
    Any quota system is pure BS. 
    	We talk politics in mixed groups at lunch sometimes. The women
    I work with are intellegent, though mostly conservative and can
    discuss a wide range of issues.
    
    Steve_who_would_vote_for_Jean_K_and_who_is_awaiting_replies?
    
    If a terminals could kill...

    Hi Steve,
    
    Not only are most women not politically active, But the ones who
    are have their opinions on other issues influenced by other women?
    
    Sorry, Guy. My woman friends come from all economic and social back-
    grounds and you're wrong. Some pro-choicers are also death penalty
    advocates. Some Democrats believe in the right to bear arms.
    
    How dare you lump as all together. The only thing women have common 
    is the obvious. 
    
    May I repeat: Noters are not a random sampling of all women!!!!!!!!!!
    
    BTW Steve, This is 1989
    
    Kate
    

    RE: .34 I don't think the quotes in .0 were bitching and I don't
    think I said they were. What I refer to is a more general attitute
    not limited to Notes or even to women. There are a number of groups
    in this country that appear to be complaining about underrepresentation
    in government and yet fail to put up candidates in proportion to their
    distribution in the general population. It was that that I was
    addressing.
    
    		Alfred

    RE: the white bread test and past 'sins' Are there really women in this
    conference with a 'worse' record then Jesse Jackson who came with in a
    hair of getting the Presidential nomination? Do we have people with a
    worse record then the senior Senator from Massachusetts? These are
    rhetorical questions but I think the point I am trying to make is that
    things that used to get one 'disqualified' don't always do so today.
    Not only that but not all offices get into a deep level of muck raking.
    You'd have to have a pretty solid felony record for it to turn up in
    a small town election or even a state rep election in NH.

    This is 1989 and people are starting to be judged on merit. People are
    more willing to forgive things, especially things that one did in
    school or before (other then cheating which is different in some ways
    then using dope.). Show a record of honesty and competence and you've
    got a good shot today. Heck I know some totally, IMHO, incompetent
    men and women who keep getting elected because they have records of
    honesty and caring about people.

    			Alfred
    
    PS: I don't mean to pick on Democrats but those are the most obvious
    examples off the top of my head of people who have done things that
    in the past would have failed the 'white bread' test. Teddy's drinking,
    womanizing, devorse, being Catholic all would have been major
    liabilities not that long ago. So would Jackson's being black, poor
    management record, jail record (civil rights related though it be)
    in the past.

    Re .38, "If you honestly and truly WANT us to become leaders, then
    don't start out by asking us to become your followers."  No, kidding!
     I agree completely, Suzanne.
    
    Re .41, "men have no sole claim to pontificating"......ha!ha!ha!ha!
    ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!........

    They don't?  I'm sorry, I never noticed that!......ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!ha!
    ha!ha!ha!  (oh, boy, that was really a funny one!)
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .49, No, *seriously*, *really*, I've never known anyone, male
    or female who was perfect, BUT I've only ever noticed men to
    pontificate.  That's why it just struck me as being so funny! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    In my opinion, women are more politically astute then men see. I
    feel that woman will not waste time with brick walls, they will
    attempt intelligent discourse until they notice that the discussion
    turns into a "lesson" on the rightness of "mans" opinion. 
    alot of very politically aware women will not go into soapbox (this
    is not a slam at the women who do participate) because they don't
    enjoy being slapped over the terminal.  there is enough abuse in
    real life, who needs abuse over the terminal?  
    as far as not having a squeaky clean background, what is acceptable
    for a man's past IS NOT acceptable in a woman.  men are more easily
    forgiven for any past transgression, but to forgive a woman who
    might have been promiscious, or an alcholic.......where are her
    morals?????  No, there is no such thing as being seen for present
    records, or present morals, or present political leanings for women.
    
    like I said, these are MY opinions. 
    
    vivian

RE .42

================================================================================
Note 437.42               Politics: Still a Man's World                 42 of 51
USEM::DONOVAN                                        18 lines  10-FEB-1989 09:21
                               -< Reply to .40 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    Hi Steve,
    
>    Not only are most women not politically active, But the ones who
>    are have their opinions on other issues influenced by other women?
>    
>    Sorry, Guy. My woman friends come from all economic and social back-
>    grounds and you're wrong. Some pro-choicers are also death penalty
>    advocates. Some Democrats believe in the right to bear arms.
>    
This is interesting. Are you saying if someone is politically compatable
with you, you would vote for them over another person with differing views
even if the differing person was a woman?
	Now if that is the case, then what is this note about? Are there not
people out there who represent your views who you could vote for with gender
not being an issue? I agree that womens views vary all over the spectrum. The
point I was making is that some times (please reread the note) people get 
invloved with an issue, probably mostly first timers, and get emotional
(this applies to many issues, men and women) and see these newly aquired
friends having an issue in common with them. They may look up to these new 
people and with peer/crowd influence added fail to look at other issues that
these friends are also expousing (sp).

>    How dare you lump as all together. The only thing women have common 
>    is the obvious. 
 
I never did that, I said some, not ALL.
   
>    May I repeat: Noters are not a random sampling of all women!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed. But, if you want a new note, take a sampling of the women in this
note file about other liberal/conservative issues. I don't think I would be
too surprised.
>    
>    BTW Steve, This is 1989

Funny, my watch says the same thing. Does this mean something?
If you were refering to my use of the freeze movement, I used it because:

	A.  Everyone here would know of it... most would, be careful of
            absolutes
	B.  It is an emotional issue, not unlike abortion.

>    
>    Kate
    
Steve

The original note follows:

================================================================================
Note 437.40               Politics: Still a Man's World                 40 of 54
WILKIE::KEITH "Real men double clutch"               27 lines  10-FEB-1989 07:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    	One problem I see is that some (I said some) women seem to be
    very intense about some issues. Now I believe in having principals
    and using them to guide a person through life. However if someone
    disagrees with you, especially a woman, is she less of a women?
    Take for example Jean Kirkpatrick. She is a woman. She is conservative.
    She is VERY intellegent in foreign affairs. Would you vote for her
    because she is a woman, would you vote against her because she is
    conservative?
    	Another issue. Some women, and a lot of men (less than 50% of
    the voting electorate) tend to agree with one issue and then buy
    the whole program/agenda. For example: Most women here favor abortion,
    now a lot of women ( and this is an intense issue from both sided)
    will meet other possibly politically active women at these rallies
    etc who are active on other issues. The attitude of  ' they are
    with me on this and they are intellegent, they must know what they
    are talking about' so I will be with them and listen to say Helen
    Caldicot (sp) on a nuclear freeze.  Each issue is seperate, and
    in the emotions, the real issues get lost.
    	I agree that if more women want to be in politics, then RUN.
    Any quota system is pure BS. 
    	We talk politics in mixed groups at lunch sometimes. The women
    I work with are intellegent, though mostly conservative and can
    discuss a wide range of issues.
    
    Steve_who_would_vote_for_Jean_K_and_who_is_awaiting_replies?
    
    If a terminals could kill...

    Re: .54
                                                                             
    > 	like other noters, you seem to feel that I have pinpointed every 
    >	single one of *YOU* as politcally unaware, inept, and afraid.
    >	Nothing could be further from the truth. 

    >	I seems to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you take
    >	what I wrote as a personal statement about YOU.
    >    It was not meant that way. 

    >	I will have to be more careful when I write in the future. When I
    >	said *YOU* I didn't mean every single one of you.

    This topic sounds like a perfect place to use a variation of the 
    by-now-famous phrase: 
    
      Not *ALL* women but *ALWAYS* women  
    
        Alan

Seems to me that there is a lot of defensive emotional reactions
spewing around for a bunch of people who supposedly are
interested in the same thing (e.g. greater representation of 
women in government.)

I find such defensiveness about womens issues _offensive_.  It seems
to me that people are more interested in being righteous and
making sure the other guy (nongender) knows how wrong they are then
creatively exploring solutions to the issue at hand.

Frankly, I find this sort of argumentative-divisive approach to political 
problems disturbing -a perfect example of what I hate about the
present system of politics.  It is unfortunate that we, who laud ourselves
as enlightened women so asily fall into the (historically male) trap of 
fighting fire with fire instead of with water.

Nothing is more useless in my estimation than a woman who adopts a 
man's ego.  What's the use in being female?

Yours in pontification,
Victoria

    My grandfather went into politics in the 1930's.  He had been
    active in civics even before then; he had worked in the State
    Treasurer's office during the war for a dollar a year.  (It's
    odd to think that being treasurer of a non-profit organization
    is a genetic trait. :-)
    
    He began when he protested, "I can do better than they're doing!"
    and my grandmother said, "Prove it." over breakfast.
    
    His household consisted of himself, his wife, their seven children,
    and their nana.  As a caterer, he already worked many evenings.
    As a caterer, he already knew many influential people.  As a caterer,
    he already had free time during the day.
    
    Because he was honest, and had high principles, he got into
    trouble more than once.  One time, the State Senate (as punitive
    retaliation) investigated him back to the day of his birth.  They
    found out only just how long he had been scrupulously honest.
    Another time he resolved a tie by voting with the Democrats, so
    his fellow Republicans complained to his party boss, Fred Peck.
    The only thing that saved him that time was that the vote had
    been to limit millworkers' labor, and Fred P. had been a millworker.
    
    Lessons:  1. You must have managable spare time.
              2. You must be socially acceptable to your new coworkers.
              3. Your past must be stainless.
              4. You must be defensible by the party bosses.
    
    Working women have little of 1, their chances of having 2 are lower
    than that for socially-equivalent men, ditto for 3, and since the
    "party bosses" are still older, white men, the same is true for 4.

    It's still do-able, but it is still harder for women and minorities
    than it is for white men.
    
    						Ann B.

re: .58

Well now I AM furious (emotional). And not about Gregg's original
    statement:

Who are YOU to call the women in this topic who disagree with 
Gregg "emotional" and "defensive"? If it were men
posting these replies, would your perception be that they were being
this way, or would you consider them to be "assertive" with 
"strong opinions" on the issue? Just because I disagree with Gregg
and believe he took a patronizing tone does not mean I am being
emotional about what he said. 


>	I never meant to point the finger at YOU personally, and that
>	is the impression I have of your objections. Maybe my impression is
>	wrong. But I stand by my statement that women have had to overcome

>	or disinterested. If you resent what I said because you think it 
>	was a personal attack on you, or the women in this notes file, then
>	I will apologize for that, because that was not my objective.

In response to you and to Gregg, I say that I did not take offense
personally and, Gregg, your impression is wrong. Don't give me 
that "we didn't mean YOU" crap. I don't need you to dry my womanly tears, 
thanks. I know perfectly well that you were talking about women in general. 
So let's discuss the statement you made and stop worrying about hurting 
my (and other women's) feelings. 

re: Gregg

>	Incorrect. What I said was:

>	It's ok to read SELF - but you have to start reading Foreign 
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	Affairs. It's ok to read Cosmo, but you have to start reading 
>	history. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Thanks for your permission. The point is that you made a statement about
women in general. You strongly implied (understatement of the year)
that we don't read Foreign Affairs and know nothing of history.

Then you went back and said, "oh, I didn't mean you're uninformed. I
meant you don't show it."

>	catagories. Never did I accuse ANYONE HERE of being uninformed,

You accused women in general, then, of being uninformed. Which is
just as bad if not worse.

Do you get the point, Gregg? It's not PERSONAL, so it doesn't make me
any more comfortable when you say "oh, I meant OTHER WOMEN are uninformed."
You might as well say, "I meant other Jews are cheap, or other blacks are
lazy, not YOU."  Thanks a f*ckin' heap.

>	I DO say that there is a PERCEPTION that women are incapable or
>	disinterested, due to upbringing. And I *DO* say that a lot of

So which is it? 

1) Women in general are uninformed.
2) Women outside wn are uninformed.
3) Women are informed but don't show it.

Make up your mind, and admit that you have been completely contradicting
yourself to avoid owning up to an embarassing statement. Then we can get on 
with the discussion.


>	Tell me WHY I'm wrong about the impact of upbringing on women today

>    	You can't just say, "Since I, and a lot of other women I know
>    are active and aware, that it PROVES that women are aware and active."

The burden of proof is on you, since you made the statement. Prove that
women are uninformed, please. Or at least prove 3.

    	You can't just say, "Since I, and a lot of other people I know
    feel that women are not active and aware, that it PROVES that women 
    are not aware and active.
    

>	Why do you think that women feel safer airing their views in this 
>	forum, than in others? It's one of the very reasons this forum
>	exists!
                                      
    I can only speak for myself.
I do not air my views on women's issues here because I feel safe. I do
so because it is relevant to this file. I am certainly not going
to air them in CARBUFFS or JAZZNOTES. 


Roberta

    alot of very politically aware women will not go into soapbox (this
    is not a slam at the women who do participate) because they don't
    enjoy being slapped over the terminal.  there is enough abuse in
    real life, who needs abuse over the terminal?  

On the other hand, there seems to be quite a bit of abuse being heaped
on folks who do participate in Soapbox in an environment that many
of them do not read.

If you want your comments to be known by the Soapbox participants,
you might consider entering them in PEAR::SOAPBOX, note 327.

Martin.
co-moderator, Soapbox.

    Whether it was his intention or not (I suspect it was), Gregg has
    certainly stirred the pot here!
    
    So as to keep =wn= from resembling =soapbox=, might I ask that
    vitriolic reactions be reserved for only those people who have shown
    themselves to be *truly* insensitive to reasoned argument.  I don't
    think there are any such people participating now.  
              
         					=maggie

    I didn't take anything Gregg said personally. Gregg made some
    generalizations about women and the general perception of women.
    Because I am a woman I am an expert at both how women feel and how
    they are perceived. When one calls from one's own experiences does
    not mean one's overly sensitive.
    
    It is dangerous to generalize our entire gender. We are as different
    from one an other as Ronald Reagan is to Jesse Jackson. 
    
    In order to suggest solutions, one must first identify the problems.
    Women of my generation (1956) are no less aware than their male
    counterparts. They think just as much about politics and they vote
    probably more.
    
    In so far as running for office goes. Look at the way Ms. Ferrarro
    was thrown to the wolves while her beliefs were no different than
    those of her male cronies. 
                       
    Equality is a long and painful road. Centuries of sexism can not
    be erased over night.
    
    The issue of women in politics is not a woman's or a man's problem.
    It's a human problem. Let's face it we need all the good resources
    we've got. A good (wo)man is hard to find.
    
    Kate
     
    
    
     
    
    
     
    

           
437.54     	
>       like other noters, you seem to feel that I have pinpointed every 
>	single one of *YOU* as politcally unaware, inept, and afraid.
>	Nothing could be further from the truth. 

>	I seems to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you take
>	what I wrote as a personal statement about YOU.
>       It was not meant that way. 

>	I will have to be more careful when I write in the future. When I
>	said *YOU* I didn't mean every single one of you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder why I took it so personally...

437.3
	
>	It's ok to read SELF - but you have to start reading Foreign 
>	Affairs. It's ok to read Cosmo, but you have to start reading 
>	history. 

>   	Then you have to get out there and start to debate these issues
>     	not just women's issues - ALL ISSUES.
    
437.13 (POIRIER)
>    I like to read Newsweek my husband reads MACWORLD.  I voted in the
>    first election I was able to at age 19, my husband just voted for the
>    first time in this last election (age 26), and only on my prodding.

437.19
>	What are you going to do? Sit around and wait for someone to 
>	ask you an insightful question and discover that you actually
>	have an opinion? Your husband knows - I know - who else knows?
      
437.23 (POIRIER)
    >Gee, I think I'll read Newsweek and then wait around for someone to ask
    >me a question and then I'll floor them with my political prowess!  You
    >certainly know a lot about me!  Try again.. 
             
437.54
>	Never, did I say you should wait to be invited. ALWAYS, did I say
>	you should speak out. In fact, I'm saying that women, as a group,
>    	don't do this enough. 
    
>    	Don't wait for an engraved invitation - it won't come.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not personal? Sorry for taking it so personally - seemed like you were
talking to me and asking me a question.

Gregg, usually I like to read your notes, but this is just getting into
a rat hole.  I think you have a lot to say and some very valid points.
Guess I just don't like the manner in which you say it.  Whether you know
it or not (and yes I'll say it for the last time), you are being to
patronizing and reminding me to much of my father. (Oh gasp!)

My last .02� I promise.

Suzanne

    re:.66  Gee Gregg, you're no fun. I thought we could keep this 
    going for a while.
    
    Kate
    

    
    Thanks, Gregg. Apology accepted.
    
    Roberta
    
    P.S. We think of you as equal too.  :^)
    

re: women not being taken seriously

I remember being thunderstruck at an interview with a woman in the NYTimes
Magazine, where she said (approximately): I couldn't see a woman as President.
I couldn't see myself as president. Women cry and break down under pressure, as
do I.

Since women are half the people, if they're all busy being this modest, we're
loosing votes here too.
	Mez

    wow, see what happens when you don't come to work for a day!
    
    I feel a bit embarassed to be singled out as a 'woman who reads
    and writes in soapbox'. The reason, I really don't. I enter the
    file maybe twice a day, lunch time and at night.  I may look in
    more often if 1. I have put in a provocative note (seldom) or
    2. work is slow in my job. I use the , key on the keypad to
    skip most of what is in the file.
    
    However, I do think that it is too bad that more women do not
    go into soapbox and argue their personal point of view. The
    file is not as bad as it's reputation paints it. (I  recall
    I first added the file in the fall of 1986 with fear and trembling)
    I do define, personally, what issues I feel I can answer. These mostly
    lie around the areas of my personal expertise, i.e. biology, adoption,
    teaching, living on the land. I tend to stay out of political
    arguements because I have come to feel, over the years, that 
    they are a waste of time. I just don't enjoy arguements for
    the sake of arguement on subjects that I care passionately about.
     
    However, I would encourage the women who read this file to go read
    and write in soapbox. It is really not as bad as it's rep makes
    it! and if you really want to encounter and argue with people,
    if you like debate, if you are reasonably tough skinned, and like
    to prove your point of view in a political sense to a different
    world than =wn= ( i.e. mostly male and largely conservative)
    then go for it!
    
    Bonnie

    re: .66/.67
    
    I thought it might be worth parading a bit of my, uh, less-than-
    sterling side to indicate the kind of perhaps unexpected effect
    two notes like that can have.  In this, I'm speaking about
    your replies, Gregg, as opposed to speaking directly to you.
    
    As background, I should explain that, as luck would have it, 
    I was reading the conference Wednesday night when .3 was written 
    to the disk; in my usual mode (set mode=bozo), I almost entered 
    the one sentence reply "Uh oh - I think I'm gonna go batten down 
    the hatches. . ." but then decided, just for once, to button my lip.
    
    Sure enough the "storm" broke.  Now here's where I have to 'fess
    up: from that point on I really kind of zipped past Gregg's replies.
    When I decided that his tone was patronizing, I allowed myself an
    excuse for not reading his replies.  
    
    Then along come .66 and .67   The first is significant (to me) because
    it strips away my excuse; the second is significant because, in
    stating his ideas in clear, non-judgemental language, I find myself
    far more compelled to consider Gregg's ideas.  I take no pride in
    saying that the language and style of presentation of .67 have
    made all the difference (no pride because, after all, if I'm such
    an all-fired cosmic dude, I should be able to blow off the more
    slanted language of the earlier note.)  But there it is - the 
    word choice and the "voice" have made a world of difference.
    
    If .3 "allowed" me to close my mind, .66/7 forced me to pay
    attention.
    
    Steve
    

    RE: ?
           I would like to state first that I am a man so that some
    of the Women of this note may now hit Next Unseen. :^)  
      
           My first comment on this whole issue is that it disturbs
    me to see such an important discussion fall into nit-picking.  But
    that happens in all conferences.  It has been stated that Women
    and men have different perceptions of the World in general.  While
    this disturbs most Women, it is my thought that this very difference
    *might* be the salvation this world needs.  Men have had the power
    for such a long time and though the world is still here there are
    possibilities ,in the very near future it won't be.  Because of
    societies attitudes on raising children, Women have been taught
    to look at our society in a different way.  Now my point....this
    very way might be exactly what is needed to bring our lives back
    into focus on a variety of issues. Such as the enviornment,the raising
    of children,honesty in government,food and homes for the poor, world
    hunger, national defence, and all issues pertaining to OUR life
    in general.  I find it insane to eliminate prox 50% of the world
    population in trying to figure out a way out of the mess this world
    is in.
    
            As a side note I would like to put in my vote for the next
    president.........Ms Barbra Jorden! Both a woman and a Black!
    
    
    Dave 

 I'd like to comment about the SOAPBOX conference also. 

 SOAPBOX is a different arena than =wn= in one very significant way: no matter
what your position is, there is very rarely a consensus that you are "right";
there are always multiple people whose viewpoints are diametrically opposed
to yours. So it is important to remember that there are no PC views to speak
of. When sparring in the 'BOX, one never has to worry that you will be picked
on due to your gender, race, etc- there are plenty of other reasons to be
picked on and everybody gets a ration now and then. That's part of the fun-
everybody shares equally in the harrassing and being harrassed. It really
does get your blood boiling at times- that people can be so thick-skulled,
but you are almost never alone on one side of an issue so there's always
something for you to take solace in.

 SOAPBOX can be somewhat intimidating for the novice, but I think that most
every noter in this conference could handle the additional pressure imposed
by a slight relaxation of decorum. The real question in my mind is whether
people would _want_ to play under such rules, not whether they could.

 One reason that women seem to be underrepresented in SOAPBOX is that many  do
not sign their notes with a gender indentifiable ending or handle. I find
that particular action to be most frustrating and also troubling. My guess is
that some women feel that their opinions will be less valued than men's
opinions. Speaking for most boxers (if I dare), I find that the gender of a
notes author has the least importance (most of the time) when I read a note.
However, I would like to see who is writing the notes so I can get a better
perspective about how the discussion lies in terms of demographics of each
side of the argument. When people enter notes that have only a node name
and user name at the top, it detracts from my  ability to make those kinds
of valuations. I'd like to stress that it is not to identify women's notes
to discredit them, rather to identify if a cartein trend develops so I can
ask myself WHY is this trend apparent.

 If you'd like to test the waters in SOAPBOX, press kp7. Wear a flak jacket:-)

The Doctah

    	RE:  .66, .67
    
    	Thanks for the apology and the change of tone, Gregg.
    
    	In response to your ideas, I would like to see women become
    	more visible in the political arena as well.  It is my opinion
    	that many, many women are far more politically aware than
    	most of our culture realizes, so I think it would be helpful
    	if we could work together to change the perceptions that most
    	people have about women.
    
    	One thing I'd like to bring up, however, is that "erroneous
    	perceptions about women in general" is NO EXCUSE to keep
    	from voting for a qualified woman candidate in and of itself
    	(unless voters refuse to see her as an individual and choose to 
	base their voting habits on the prejudices that they still
    	have about certain groups.)
    
    	Therefore, although changing perceptions is a good goal, we
    	need to recognize the fact that people who base their votes
    	on "perceptions" of groups (rather than on the individual's
    	qualifications) are exercising sexual and/or racial prejudice
    	(which is a much worse dilemna for minorities than a mere
    	set of distorted perceptions.)
    
    	At any rate, thanks for your thoughts on this issue.

                       -< This is =wn=, not Soapbox >-
    
    RE: .67
    
    Gregg, you ask some good questions, which no one has yet addressed.
     First, there are a lot of women in politics, but mostly their "role"
    has been to help elect men candidates.  You know, the traditional
    "woman behind the man" syndrome.  This has to stop if women are
    to be taken seriously for their own sakes.
    
    Second, these days, I think we will all agree, it takes multi-mega
    bucks to even enter a race.  Women can't command the funding that
    men do.  The Women's Campaign Fund, a non-partisan fund raising
    and distribution organization, is trying to rectify this situation
    of funding dollars.  They distribute money to both Democratic and
    Republican women candidates in, I believe, local, state, and national
    elections.  This is a good beginning, but more needs to be done
    in this area.  For the supportive men who are writing in this topic,
    you might want to consider donating part of your campaign contributions
    to this Fund to further the cause of women in politics.  I give
    part of my money here, and save the balance for the particular
    candidate I support.
    
    Third, it is true that women have been socialized differently than
    men, and this sort of refers to the first point I made.  But you
    know Gregg, women do read a lot of history, foreign affairs, and
    other forums for important issues of the day.  I personally almost
    majored in history, and have always been fascinated with the historical
    perspective of almost every time period.  However, as the word
    "history" implies, what we studied was mostly about men, and the
    only women who were included in those stories were those who without
    a doubt contributed to the forward progress of the world.  I have
    a book at home that is entirely about women's stories from the past,
    and I have given it to my daughter to read so that she will know
    that there were women contributing, even though they are not mentioned
    in most history books.
    
    A personal note about how I choose which candidates to back.  First
    I look to see if any women are running.  Then I look at their positions
    and if I find one who is closely aligned with my beliefs, then I
    will back her with my financial and personal support.  If I don't
    find a woman to support, I then look to the men and follow the same
    procedure as above.  I have voted for those who most closely support
    the same issues as I, and personally I would not vote for Jean
    Kilpatrick just because she is a woman because she does not support
    my positions.
    
    Sue (who is actively working for a better world)
    

    	As for Soapbox...  
    
    	For anyone who doesn't read the file, I pulled up a directory
    	of the current incarnation of Soapbox last night (to provide
    	a rough idea of the kinds of issues that the 'Boxers find
    	the most pressing in our current world.)
    
    	There are only a handful of issues that have generated more
    	than a hundred replies (even though the 'Box has approx. 441
    	topics with ~12,986 replies written since November 6, 1988,
    	not counting the month or so that the 'Box was completely
    	off the net while searching for a new host.)
    
    	The biggest issue in the 'Box (BY FAR!) is about Gun Control.
    	There were 748 replies to that note as of last night (most
    	of which appear to be bitches about the horror involved with
    	losing the right to arm one's home like a war zone.)

    	The second biggest issue is about Abortion.  There were 355
    	replies in that topic as of last night.  (They obviously don't
    	see this as just a topic of interest to women.)
    
    	Third biggest on the Soapbox Hit Parade is the Mike Dukakis
    	bashing topic (with 304 replies) with the George Bush worshipping
    	topic trailing immediately behind it with 218 replies.

    	Another real biggie on Soapboxers' minds is how much they
    	hate and despise Jane Fonda.  The Fonda-bashing note had a
    	whopping 231 notes as of last night (and still retains its
    	place in the Soapbox list of Top Alltime Hits.)
    
    	A few of the other topics that deserve Honorable Mention are
    	the Draft Dodger bashing topic (with 187 replies,) the "Should
    	Ollie North be pardoned?" topic (with 117 replies,) Animal
    	Rights (or the lack thereof) with 179 replies, and "Homophobia
    	USA" (with 169 replies in the battle for and against gay-bashing.)

    	Oh yeah.  I checked for notes about SDI and Afghanistan, and
    	only found one for each (both written on February 4, 1989.)
    	The SDI topic has a whopping 53 replies while Afghanistan is
    	trailing with only 14 replies so far (and they spelled the
    	word "Afghanistan" wrong.)  >;^)
    
    	Well, that's it.  (You know...  after taking this survey, I'm 
    	having an AWFULLY hard time taking men seriously about politics.)

 Suzanne-

 Surely you could grace us with your wisdom (in the 'BOX). After all, we are
all so childish that  we could use someone like you to straighten us out.:-)

 Actually, the box has changed alot in this incarnation. Many topics have not
been reincarnated.

 As for why the gun control note has been so active lately, notice the knee
jerking done by legislators in response to the latest acts of lunacy that
also involved criminal uses of firearms. To the knee jerkers, the solution to
any problem is to simply add another layer of laws. Forget trying to actually
ENFORCE the laws that are currently on the books, or to see the real problems.
It is far easier to simply pass a new law. Then you can throw up your hands
and tell your constituents "We're doing everything we can." How convenient.

 Of course boxers realize that abortion is not only a women's issue.

 I noticed that you called the political notes the "Mike Dukakis bashing topic"
and the "George Bush worshipping topic." Obviously you haven't really read all 
of the replies because there is plenty of dissention within the ranks.

 We've seen you during your breif forays into SOAPBOXland, Suzanne. I notice
you haven't stayed too long. Too bad.

 The Doctah

    	Now that I've finished needling Soapboxers for awhile [yes,
    	I did see the basenote in the 'Box that mentioned some of the
    	comments that have been made about the 'Box in this topic...]
    	
    	In all seriousness, I don't consider Soapbox to be intimidating
    	at all.  I also don't consider it to be a serious forum for
    	the debating of political issues.  It's just a bunch of folks 
    	letting off steam about some things in ways they consider fun.

    	Although I consider Soapbox a relatively harmless pastime,
    	if one has the time for such silliness :-), I can't give serious
    	consideration to the idea that women should participate there as 
    	a way to improve our political prospects in this country.
    
    	One thing I will admit is that I would probably participate
    	in Soapbox more than minimally (which is what I do now) if I
    	could get hold of an account that would allow me to show
    	up as male in ELF.  
    
    	I think it would be a fascinating experience to see what it
    	would be like to be able to argue some political point to my
    	heart's content without getting the extra garbage that women
    	are given during debates.
    
    	Most likely, I wouldn't make it a fulltime habit or anything,
 	but it might be nice to experience once or twice.

re: .81:
    	One thing I will admit is that I would probably participate
    	in Soapbox more than minimally (which is what I do now) if I
    	could get hold of an account that would allow me to show
    	up as male in ELF.  
    
    	I think it would be a fascinating experience to see what it
    	would be like to be able to argue some political point to my
    	heart's content without getting the extra garbage that women
    	are given during debates.
    
Hey, Suzanne: let's trade: I'll give you an account with a man's name
if you let me masquerade as a woman in Womannotes:

    	One thing I will admit is that I would probably participate
    	in Womannotes more than minimally (which is what I do now) if I
    	could get hold of an account that would allow me to show
    	up as female in ELF.  
    
    	I think it would be a fascinating experience to see what it
    	would be like to be able to argue some political point to my
    	heart's content without getting the extra garbage that men
    	are given during debates.

Martin.

    what i don't understand is why participating in soapbox proves that
    women are ready (or not ready) to be taken seriously as political
    candidates. if folks would like to continue to discuss the box, it
    would be great if you could take it offline. meanwhile, i'm kind of
    curious about the basenote -- what will it take for more women to get
    elected? do the various assessments about this situation ring true? or
    is there something else going on? is it important for groups to have
    representation, say, in proportion to their demographics? why or why
    not?
    
    liz 

    	RE:  .82
    
    	> Hey, Suzanne: let's trade: I'll give you an account with
    	> a man's name if you let me masquerade as a woman in Womannotes:
    
    	Martin, if only we could.  You might learn more than you bargained
    	for...
    

You two could switch for a week.

    I feel that I know about as much as, and probably more, about politics
    and world affairs than the average male my age. I sometimes get into
    heated arguments about politics and I am branded as "too aggressive" and
    a number of other "toos." (There is nothing really wrong with being
    aggressive, except that I am not more aggressive than normal compared
    to others my age, etc. When "too aggressive" is used to describe one's
    behavior, even a dummy can realize that it is meant as an insult.) When
    I argue "politics" with certain men they tend to try to "talk" down to
    me, even in light of my overwhelming display of more knowledge about
    the subject than them.  But come to think of it, it happens alot. Maybe
    this is a direct result of "men don't take women seriously." I don't
    know. 
    
    For example, one day a very good male friend and I were talking about
    one of the latest Supreme Court decisions. It was not a heated debate or
    anything. Yet throughout the entire discussion, he kept "reassuring" me
    by patting me on the shoulder. That really pissed me off, to put it
    mildly. That pissed me off far more than our actual conversation. Quite
    frankly, I feel that this kind of reception from some males is probably
    why several women refused to discuss "things of importance" with
    them. Then those males go around thinking that most women are only
    interested in cooking and knitting.
    
    The same thing is true in electronic conferences. When some women
    try to speak up they are sometimes patronized by their male
    counterparts. It is very aggravating. I know I take the easier way
    out at times by not participating in conversations with them. While
    this "way out" may not be good for politics, it is good for sanity.

    I would imagine that this may be one of the reasons why women don't
    pursue political careers in drove.  
            
    _karen

    Well, as fun as all the 'rathole' is...
    I have a reply to the actual question... or at least as best
    as I can remember what the question was....
    
    Gregg,  I agree that many people (male and female) PERCEIVE that\
    women are less interested in politics.  And I agree that many
    folks perceive women are less aware of what is happening in the
    world at large, and how that affects our lives.  Perception 
    obviously doesnot necessarily equal reality.   I think many women
    are very politically astute, and would make good leaders for
    the country/state/town.   
    
    So, the question, as you posed it, is *why* aren't they more
    visibly involved?  Why are they not running for local/state/national
    office?  Why aren't they on the forefront of the 'movers and shakers'?
    hmmmm  good question.  Maybe many, like me, think its a thankless
    underpaid, overworked job, and just don't aspire to it.  But surely
    there is more reason than that, else no one (male or female) would
    run for office.  Perhaps it goes back to something mentioned in
    another note---young women today believe they can *do* anything
    they want....have any job...but do NOT go for them....why???
    because they still think about FAMILY first...not career...
    Young women view themselves in perspective to the marriage they
    expect to have, the children they want, the 'family' to whom they
    will be the major caregiver.  From that viewpoint politics is too
    demanding/timeconsuming/overburdening to even think about juggling
    a career in that field and a family.  Young men, on the other hand
    don't seem to worry about that.  Changing the attitude of family
    being a 'female' issue to being a 'human' issue might help some
    of these youngsters to consider a wider variety of career choices...
    MIGHT ...  
    how do we do that???? i don't know... sorry... i have
    no solutions.  Education and communication are key...but how
    to really go about making a difference/??  i don't know.
    
    deb
    

re:  .89

I think you raised some very good points.

If you consider that the practise of politics is really nothing more than
the practise of relationship on a very large scale, it
makes sense that many women turn their attentions to the subject
closer to home: family.

(In fact, I would say that one of the biggest differences between
the male-dominated realm of politics and the female-dominated realm of
family is that by practising the former, one is far enough removed
to the constituency to produce 80% rhetoric and 20% action without cause
for alarm.  In the home, the feed back loop is much shorter!)

Look at the skills necessary to be a good politician/mother:

	consistency
	interity and honesty
	the desire and ability to be a role model
	diplomacy
	negotiation
	evaluation and split second decision making
	communication (listening & speaking)
	relationship building (networking)

and so forth.  Granted, our families aren't in the greatest of
shapes these days.  But it makes sense that, given the options
of solving "other" people's problems and taking care of those
closest to you, you might be inclined to look inward.

I know several mothers of young children (under 16); these are
women who are powerful contributers to their community at large.  And
still, on a regular basis, they feel the strong need to turn inward,
nurture their families, take care of their power sources and regroup
before heading into the great unknown. 

Maybe another answer is that most of the women who can effectively participate
in politics are those whose children are grown and flown, or those who
never married in the first place.  In that case, I would think that the
first real generation of "modern women" (god knows I don't know what
else to call women who grew up during and after the women's movement began,)
will start to hold their own in the next two decades.

Just a rambling thought .....
Victoria

    Imho, "women being taken seriously", as Liz said, is the crux of 
    the matter. 

    As political candidates, as contenders in the corporate world, as
    full fledged members in the body politic, I think that women are 
    not as successful as they might be because they aren't taken seriously 
    by (many) men (nor by many women).  This reflects (again imho) a 
    perception (by those men and women, not me) that women can't be 
    bothered to pursue ideas for their own sake, or to debate ideas 
    because its important 1) to test one's debating skills in open 
    forums and 2) to decide what one really does think by being forced 
    to defend it.
    
    That is, my definition of "being taken seriously" includes the
    abilities to analyze and debate serious issues with proponents and
    opponents alike, since that is required daily of political leaders.
    I recognize that not all will agree that being taken seriously should
    include these skills, and I'll debate that issue ;-).
    
    re .83, Liz-
    
    > what i don't understand is why participating in soapbox proves that
    > women are ready (or not ready) to be taken seriously as ...
    
    The point is not to "participate in soapbox".  You're right, it
    wouldn't "prove" anything (though, incidentally, I'd love to see 
    the box stirred by a large influx of women, and so would Gregg and
    the Doctah.)  The point is to try to figure out ways in which women 
    can show that they should be taken seriously; I understood the 
    original mentions of soapbox and defense_issues to be suggestions 
    towards that end.
    
    So...who has these hideous perceptions and how do we reach them?
    See note 325.* ;-).  See note 420.* (I think...Tom's addresses note.)
    Enlist others and be leaders...and jump on men when they start to
    lecture you (oops, no, not me ;-), I'm on your side).  Aw, what
    the heck- jump if I deserve it.
    
    DougO

    If one other person meantions that other file in this string I am
    going to be ill.
    
    Is there one person out there who can say that political involvement
    and "INSERT-OTHER-FILE-NAME-HERE" go hand in hand?
    
    Read it. It's dribble.
    
    Regards,
    
    Kate.(A leader in note #325)
    

    re .92, Kate-
    
    > Is there one person out there who can say that political involvement
    > and "INSERT-OTHER-FILE-NAME-HERE" go hand in hand?
      
    DID anyone say that?  I missed it.
    
    DougO

< Note 437.90 by BUFFER::WALTON >
                             -< Food for Thought >-

>Look at the skills necessary to be a good politician/mother:
>
>	consistency
>	interity and honesty
>	the desire and ability to be a role model
>	diplomacy
>	negotiation
>	evaluation and split second decision making
>	communication (listening & speaking)
>	relationship building (networking)

>and so forth.  

	Victoria,

	I think that this description also fits anyone in a 
	leadership position including fathers.  The main 
	difference (IMHO) is that women take these skills
	seriously and work on developing them and using them
	to the benefit of themselves and others instead of
	learning how to take advantage of people through
	miscommunication, dishonesty and fraud.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			It takes the strength of mountains
			to stand up to forces that don't
			let up the pressure on you.

    
    .9 and .10 typify what I see as women's desire to have power
    handed to them in terms they find complimentary. Why, how dare
    a mere male tell them anything?
    
    I rarely see women reading Foreign Affairs. What I do see them
    buying is People and the Enquirer. 
    
    You can listen and take note, and change what is needed to 
    become aware, or you can just sit there and bitch about how
    men are always being patronizing.
    
    BTW - out here in California women are running for office and
    are winning. 

    re .94
    
    Ah, its those evil white men again...
    
    How constructive to replace male sexism with
    f dominance... 
    
    Get a clue...

    Oh, that's all right, Bob.  I never see men reading anything serious
    either.  And I never see them buying *any* magazines.
    
    Still, somehow I had always blamed my sampling technique.  Are you
    saying I should condemn all men instead?
    
    							Ann B.

    Respectfully suggest you duck, gentles Mike Z and Eagles.  Kate
    asked us not to mention that_other_file anymore, especially in this
    discussion.  So we don't...
    
    DougO

    
    .55
    
    Yes, but NPR likes to put a leftist spin on news, so I wouldn't
    exactly call it "analysis". 
    
    Interesting programs, though. 
    
    BTW, Rep. Patricia Schroeder was out here last week doing the 
    speech and talk-show circuit. I must say she sounds like she
    has a program. If I were a Democrat (especially an F one) I would
    seriously consider her a serious and viable Presidential candidate.
                                                                       

    I like this note, and this notes' file in general. I find 
    Women Notes much more interesting than most other notes' files.
    It's much more well rounded than most, I think. The subject
    matter is dealt with at both an emotional and intellectual level, 
    and I think that's what makes it interesting. 
    
    The notes' file that is currently unmentionable bores me. I think 
    it's very emotional but is not direct in dealing with the emotional
    content.  Political opinions reflect values, and I think that notes' 
    files would be both more interesting and less attacking if people 
    perceived them as such. (Not that people don't use reason to create 
    their values. I just think that reason is not the
    bottom line. I also think that no amount of reason will ever create 
    a better world. Reason can best be a tool of good will.)
    
    I think a women's notes file is a very political act. The issue
    in the base note talks about getting more women into positions of
    power, but that can, and must be, I think, done by consciousness
    raising as well as by simply having more women run for office. A lot
    of the problem Gregg talked about (how women are perceived as
    being uninterested in politics) can be solved in ways other than
    women doing more of what men are currently doing. I think women
    can do different things as well as the same things that men do.
    Like creating civilized, interesting notes' files that raise 
    consciousness! If that's perceived as women's backlash, let's have 
    some more women's backlash!
    
    Has anyone else noticed that this notes' file has many more apologetic
    remarks like "This is just my two cents' worth."?  I think I've
    seen this kind of remark a little more often here than in other notes'
    files. In a sense it's refreshing, especially after any time spent
    in the unmentionable file, but I wonder if it's also a desire not
    to make waves on the part of women. 

    Eileen
    
    

    re.104
    
    Well, Eileen,
    
    	In my opinion -- and I'm _never_ wrong, ;^) -- the abundance
    of 'my 2 cents' and 'IMHO' and such is more a reflection of the
    awareness on the part of members of the Community that _most_ of
    us have _strong_ opinions and views rather than any desire to appease.
    
    	Ann