Conference turris::womannotes-v2

>>      <<< Note 996.0 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "Scott Baio is the antichrist" >>>
>>      [...]	         		        	      ^^^^^^^^^^
>>	  Can we work together on this and maybe use such strong terms only
>>    when appropriate?
        
        Do as I say, and not as I do?
        
        Dan

    I'm interested in this topic and something that I got in mail recently
    feeds my interest. Back in November I happened to be leaving a
    restaurant where a bunch of Decies were gathering. I saw a friend
    out of the corner of my eye but wasn't sure that was who I saw.
    
    This week I remembered to ask the friend (because my mind had been
    jogged on the subject) if it was him that I had seen. It turned out
    it was, and that he had mentioned to the others that I was a =wn=
    moderator. The immediate response was 'oh, the man haters?' mostly
    from women.
    
    Now this really bothers me. I don't believe =wn= is the home of either
    man haters or women whowhine for another steriotype.....as a matter
    of fact, I enjoyed the recent complaints about =wn= that we had more
    receipes than cooks or that the major focus of the file was on s&m.
    At least that's a different steriotype. :-)
    
    But the point of this particular note is that just as I as a woman
    object to others, men and women who refer to me as a 'man-hater'
    because I'm a feminist, I think that men have an equal right to feel
    upset when they get called mysoginists when they are no more woman
    haters than the average womannoter is a man hater.
    
    I get rather tired of people throwing labels around.
    
    Bonnie

        re .2                    -< better? >-
        
        Yes!  I wonder if that means there are good labels and
        bad labels.
        
        Dan

    Bonnie...does your hubby know you're a man hater?  8^)
    
    Gail

    Gail,
    
    Not that he's mentioned :-) :-)
    
    Bonnie

Re: .0

�   Though I've only checked 2 dictionaries, the definition remains
�   the same: "hatred of women".  Nothing else.

In this file and in others I have noticed that when a disagreement about the use
of a term arises there is a rush of "Go for your dictionary!" :-)


There is a certain validity in dictionary definitions - however it should be
remembered that a dictionary defines spelling and meaning in terms of 
that_which_was - not necssarily what the spelling/meaning might be now - or is
becoming.

Language cannot be frozen into static forms - and left there. If it is one of 
two things happen. The language dies - because it cannot express the concepts
that are part of life as it is now. Or it breaks out of the static forms.

Only time/usage/acceptance will tell whether "Misogyny" will take on what now
seem to be wider meanings (perhaps it's simply a recognition of the wider fact).
If such meanings become the accepted ones, lexicographers (whose job it is to 
catalogue the past in linguistic terms) will change their definition.

The call for "responsible usage" is certainly valid. But, "responsible usage" 
_cannot_ mean "MY usage" - or even "Someone else's usage". If the term be used
(and used with due consideration for the listeners/readers) then perhaps the 
scope should be defined. If this should become too cumbersome (and perhaps it
might) then it would serve just as well to understand that there might be a
wider scope in use than one will find in a dictionary - and accept that such is
the way language develops. It's good to remember that written text lags some
distance behind thought and speech.

My �3's worth (inflation don't y'know)

Kevin

    
    When I use the word misogyny, that's what I mean.  I think there is a
    lot of hatred of women in this culture, and I think some of that is
    reflected in this file (and in other files, one in particular comes to
    mind, where some men felt compelled to talk about how ugly they thought a
    certain prominent feminist is.  One man in particular recommended that 
    this women wear a "hefty trash bag."  I think only true hatred of women 
    could inspire such a comment.  These men may or may not actually think
    this women is ugly, but it's interesting that comments about a women's
    appearance were considered relevant to a discussion of feminism.  As 
    angry as I have sometimes been at individual men, I have never even 
    considered insulting their bodies as a way of expressing my anger.)  
    
    I don't particularly care if I am described as a man-hater, but I feel 
    that it is untrue.  There are a few men that I truly love, and to me 
    that means that I must accept them in their full humanity -- including their
    male-ness.  
               
    Justine

    Somehow I am reminded of a sign I saw recently:
    
    "Let's stop all this finger pointing
     and get down to the serious 
     business of name calling."
    
                             I only quote it half in jest.
    
    The other (serious) half is two parts:
    
    1.)  It is a good point that we should all examine ourselves and how
    often we have taken the easy pejorative rather than realy think out an
    issue.  If your conscience is clear on this, don't flame me. 
    
    2.)  There IS a difference between belittling, devalueing, underpaying,
    preferring-the-pretty-ones, and subjugation on the one hand; and hatred
    on the other hand.  The first class _may_ arise from the second condition
    but not necessarily.  Many a "traditional" male-chauvanist husband has
    dearly loved his "little wife." (Archie Bunker clearly adored Edith
    although his treatment of her was unpleasant to say the least.) 
    
    
       Margaret

re .10 -
    
>    2.)  There IS a difference between belittling, devalueing, underpaying,
>    preferring-the-pretty-ones, and subjugation on the one hand; and hatred
>    on the other hand.  The first class _may_ arise from the second condition
>    but not necessarily.  


Where else would it arise from?

    Mike,
    
    It is a commonly used technique among men, common enough that I've
    run into it in a number of books on female vs male psychology and
    the growth and evolution of feminism, for men to attack women
    whose oppinions they strongly agree with by attacking their appearance.
    Such remarks as 'the only reason she is a feminist is that she is too
    ugly to get a man' are so commonly used as to have become trite.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .11
    
    The "hefty trash bag" part of your remark reminds us -- assuming I'm
    not the only woman who made the association -- of that
    2-bagger/3-bagger mysoginist joke where the man wants to f**k the woman
    but she's so ugly... etc., you know the joke I mean.  Well, *that joke*
    definitely conveys *to me* a VERY strong hatred of women in general,
    whether or not the individual man perpetuating that joke "hates" women
    himself!  The "hefty trash bag" bit is closely linked in our common
    popular consciousness.
    
    Not all mysoginy 

     I disagree with the ever more common tendency to use the term misogyny
    to describe any activity, feeling, or comment that is in some way
    complimentary of women. It seems that anything bad can be attributed to
    misogyny in one way or another. Needless to say, I believe that the
    range of negative human emotions is far more complex than the term
    misogyny implies.
    
     A comment has been made that the dictionary definition of misogyny may
    not reflect the current usage of the word. That is not a terribly
    compelling argument to me. What that says is that if a suficient number
    of people misuse a word for a suitably long time, lexicographers have
    to change the meaning to include the bastardized use. While I realize
    this occurs all of the time, it doesn't mean I have to like it. :-)
    
     One of the reasons why there is such a problem with this particular
    word (besides the obvious) is that implicit in the use of the word is
    the word "hate." While hate ostensibly embodies the most negative of
    all human emotions, I see it being used more and more in situations
    where such severity of emotion simply doesn't exist. So in effect,
    misogyny is being diluted in meaning for precisely the same reason hate
    is being diluted.
    
     A while back, there was a situation where a group of women were
    described as man-haters because they conducted an anti-male rally on
    father's day. The very fact that they were called man-haters caused an
    eruption; many decried the use of hate in the description of these
    women. And yet their emotions regarding men were arguably far stronger
    than many men who have been called misogynists. So we see a double
    standard of sorts. A man who tells an off-color joke which casts a
    woman in an unfavorable light is seen as a woman-hater. But a woman who
    attends a rally against abusive men and subsequently destroys private
    property is not a man-hater, but is simply asserting her rights to
    heal.
    
     It would be rather helpful to have consistent usage of the terms
    misogynist and man-hater. 
    
     The Doctah

    Exactly!  Language is living, constantly evolving, none so much as
    American English.  You can't freeze language at any point.  Just check
    those hallowed dictionaries and you'll see that in the last five years,
    many, many new entries have been included which never existed in the past.
    The first example I can remember is the word "infrastructure".
    
    If we can accept that, we can accept that existing entries may well be
    in a state of redefinition.

    But more importantly, I'd like to address the label misogynist when
    it's given to a guy who *only* "says stupid or sexist things", who is 
    *only* "unsympathetic to some aspects of the feminist movement", (and 
    which aspects would be important to know in order to determine the level 
    of misogyny), who *only* "calls adult female human beings girls", etc.
    
    Mike, you seem to be saying that such men often are not personally
    misogynistic and it's important to realize that before branding them. 
    I'd agree wholheartedly if that's all there were to it, but there isn't.
    The man may not be misogynistic, but such actions and beliefs were
    originally born from a society that devalues at best, hates at worst,
    its women and if he has any intelligence at all, he knows that.  The man 
    may not be misogynistic, but if he lives in America today, he knows full 
    well what it means to call the women in the office, "the girls".  Chances 
    are pretty good he knows exactly when he is saying a sexist or stupid 
    thing.  Continuing to do these things, knowing full well the implications 
    of them, IS misogyny, however, even if the guy also says he believes in
    equal pay. 
    
    "Every dog gets a free bite" was an old, self-explanatory expression. 
    Along the same vein, may I offer that almost every adult American man
    has already gotten his "free bite".  Therefore, to continue to do
    something they know is demeaning to women, and something they most
    likely have been called on at least once, reflects a certain attitude
    that I wouldn't characterize as "putting women on a pedestal".  I'd say
    it's closer to misogyny.  He may not hate women, but if he uses
    statements and behaviors that DO reflect a hatred of women, then he is,
    for all intents and purposes, misogynistic.  You can't expect everyone
    to know your motives, your lifetime track record for ensuring equality,
    etc.  How your words fall on your audience is as important as your
    intent.  
    
    Playing AC/DC records at full volume can't be considered cruelty to 
    animals, but if my roommate's dog freaks out and runs every time, 
    and I continue to do it with that knowledge, then the originally innocent 
    action certainly *becomes* one of cruelty.  And I'd have to accept
    that label *even if I bring my own dog home a steak* because I still
    harbor the ability and the willingness to be cruel to an animal.
    
    Context and motive are important to consider.
    
    >I am asking that you remember its true definition, and that you
    >use the phrase appropriately and responsibly, not randomly or at the
    >first sign of what _may_be_ misogyny.
    
    And I have to call you on this one because it reflects your "different
    societal perspective" as a male.  Women see the "first signs" of
    misogyny very early in their lives and certainly not as working adults.  
    You may think all this stuff is new to women but it isn't.  It only seems 
    new to men.  
    
    It may seem "irresponsible" or "random" to you, because it can be hard to 
    understand how much a lifetime of seemingly arbitrary rules, traditions 
    and behaviors based on pure sexism rather than logic, comes into play when 
    an adult woman hears herself referred to as "the girl", or how some other 
    seemingly innocuous, (to men), statement or behavior reflects an attitude 
    that has devalued that woman and all the women she knows, all their lives.
    
    I think I'm defending again, a woman's right to anger.  Because
    actually, we are not as quick to point fingers and call men names as you 
    might think.  We still spend a major portion of our lives silently 
    enduring most of it because in addition to the sexist attitudes we'd like 
    to fight, we know that fighting itself gives us a bad name.  Anger
    does.  Pointing out the inequities does.  Many of us rail in notes because
    we can't in real life.  We still have to be not just the great worker
    but the good girl, too, and to that end, most women bite their tongues
    when faced with sexism in real life more often than we challenge it.
    
    I don't believe that the challenges men see in notes reflects the relative
    amount of challenging women do in real life.  This is a safety valve
    for women - a safe place to try out our challenges and try on the
    mantle of self respect and personal dignity men take for granted all
    their lives.  Instead of telling women to be careful what they say or
    to consult the dictionary or whatever, I would suggest you sit back and
    let yourself get a feel for the amount of sexism women must be enduring
    for them to seem so incendiary or so quick to attack especially when
    you consider that we were all raised to be, above all, polite and nice,
    deferential and sweet.  Yes, even the sweet ones get pissed off.
    
    Rather than telling you you shouldn't cry, I think I would sit back and
    get a real understanding of the depth of despair that would make
    you willingly set aside the deeply ingrained tenet that men don't cry.
    Do you see the parallel?  If a man cries or if a woman speaks in anger, 
    I can only conclude that the reasons must be very compelling for them to 
    overcome the training that says persons of their sex shouldn't be showing 
    these emotions.  You should be learning here, not instructing.
    
    This is womannotes.  If the level of anger bothers you, you can't expect 
    you can just tell us to cool it because it bothers you and that we will.  
    I'm sure the mods are willing to address specific examples of nastiness 
    but a general request to women to "stop and think" is both insulting, (we
    spend most of our lives stopped, thinking!), and presumptuous.
    
    I tried to be calm.  Hope I succeeded!  ;-)
    

�   A comment has been made that the dictionary definition of misogyny may
�    not reflect the current usage of the word. That is not a terribly
�    compelling argument to me. 

Well, I shouldn't like to `compel' you in any way. However, in view of the 
statement:

�    What that says is that if a suficient number
�    of people misuse a word for a suitably long time, lexicographers have
�    to change the meaning to include the bastardized use. While I realize
�    this occurs all of the time, 

I must admit that I find it sufficiently compelling - and your statement does
seem to lend credence to it. 

�     it doesn't mean I have to like it. :-)

Agreed! To each their own - however liking it or not liking it has no effect on 
the reality of the situation.

One of the later replies calls for the use of "WOMEN'S definitions". That might 
not be such a bad thing. Words do no more than convey concepts - the addition of
a (potentially) different perspective on some commonly held concepts (with all
the asumptions which are built up and expressed in `default' meanings) is
`goodness' - no?

Reality forces me to say that there are those for whom the above would not
represent `goodness' - the status quo is often the preferred option.

Kevin

�	Is it safe to assume that if x% of the men in the world are
�    misogynists, then x% of the women are man haters?

I really doubt that it would be "safe" to assume any such thing! :-)

"If X, then Y"? - what's the correlation you see between your two statements
that lead you to such a conclusion? Until I know how you got from X to Y, I 
can't offer my opinion on whether or not it's defensible (and therefore - 
theoretically - "safe").

Kevin

    Is the opposite of a mysoginist a misteroginist? %^).
    
    re: .3 Bonnie's note about "men-haters"
    
    Seriously, I have recently been aware, in other notes, of women who
    themselves seem mysoginist, in that they brand the women in
    womannotes-v2 as "man-haters". I'm not sure whether they really hate
    women as a totallity, or despise an assertive, effective female image.
    Many of their notes seem to be aimed at either being one of the boys,
    or involved in sexual flirtation or innuendo, in order, I guess, to
    be considered attractive through this electronic medium we indulge
    in. This seems to be a pretty futile task in itself, when you consider
    how invisable we all are here.
    
    Do others here consider that this is a possibilty, that women in of 
    themselves can be "woman-haters"?
    
    -roger
    
    
    
    
    

>    <<< Note 996.15 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "I've fallen and I can't get up!" >>>

>     One of the reasons why there is such a problem with this particular
>    word (besides the obvious) is that implicit in the use of the word is
>    the word "hate." While hate ostensibly embodies the most negative of
>    all human emotions, I see it being used more and more in situations
>    where such severity of emotion simply doesn't exist. So in effect,
>    misogyny is being diluted in meaning for precisely the same reason hate
>    is being diluted.

	 Not only that, but it encompasses a hatred of women in
	 general, when sometimes it's just a hatred/dislike of some
	 facet of women and/or what a woman does that is being
	 expressed, but hatred of the entire gender does not exist in
	 that person.

	 I admit that I sometimes say "Don't EVER let me look like
	 that" when I see a truly obese person.  Does this kind of
	 comment make me an obese-person-hater?
	    
>     A while back, there was a situation where a group of women were
>    described as man-haters because they conducted an anti-male rally on
>    father's day. The very fact that they were called man-haters caused an
>    eruption; many decried the use of hate in the description of these
>    women. And yet their emotions regarding men were arguably far stronger
>    than many men who have been called misogynists. So we see a double
>    standard of sorts. A man who tells an off-color joke which casts a
>    woman in an unfavorable light is seen as a woman-hater. But a woman who
>    attends a rally against abusive men and subsequently destroys private
>    property is not a man-hater, but is simply asserting her rights to
>    heal.

	 I see this quite often Womannotes and it greatly disturbs me.
	 Although it's really hard sometimes to examine ourselves and
	 see that we might be doing the same thing that we abhore in
	 others, but it happens.

	 I think there is a BIG gap between what we perceive in others
	 as opposed to what we see in ourselves.  And I think we would
	 do wise to examine ourselves a little closer when we make
	 statements about men just as we examine the statements men
	 make about women.
	 
>     It would be rather helpful to have consistent usage of the terms
>    misogynist and man-hater. 

	 Agreed.   I think it's always a little easier to cast the
	 stone at another person instead of drop it on our own foot.

	 kath

	 PS:  These are purely my perceptions of the atmosphere in
	 Womannotes/Mennotes.  My perceptions are in no way debatable.
	 But they are open to change thru action.

	 

re: .7 (Kevin Mackey)

> Language cannot be frozen into static forms - and left there. 

	I agree.  I would think myself narrow-minded if I limited 
	how I translate my experiences based strictly on what is 
	in the dictionary.

	Heck, if I did that, I would feel appropriately described by 
	the term "man".  How ridiculous!

> If the term be used (and used with due consideration for the 
> listeners/readers) then perhaps the scope should be defined. 

	The "Exploring Misogyny" topic might be a good place to look
	for that.

re: .8  (Justine Sullivan)
    
>    [...]  I think there is a
>    lot of hatred of women in this culture, and I think some of that is
>    reflected in this file (and in other files, one in particular comes to
>    mind, where some men felt compelled to talk about how ugly they thought a
>    certain prominent feminist is.  One man in particular recommended that 
>    this women wear a "hefty trash bag."  I think only true hatred of women 

	Another example...  In the FIREARMS notes file, a male noter said what
	an ugly bitch a certain female news reporter is.  One or two other male
	noters agreed.  The noter who made the original statement also stated in
	the previous version of SOAPBOX that the girl from Florida who was 
	raped (the alleged perp was acquitted because she was wearing revealing
	clothes) deserved what she got because she was nothing but a prostitute
	anyway.  Just a coincidence that the same person made both statements?
	I think not.

re: .16  (Sandy Ciccolini)

>    The man may not be misogynistic, but such actions and beliefs were
>    originally born from a society that devalues at best, hates at worst,
>    its women 

	Exactly.   This is what I verbalize as a "manifestation of misogyny", 
	which does _not_ necessarily mean I am calling the doer of the action
	a misogynist.  It is probably not at all obvious to the man that 
	what he is doing is indeed a manifestation of the misogyny inherit
	in our culture. 

	On example: the editor of Computer Shopper.  While I think putting
	down a man by calling him a "girlie man" is a manifestation of misogyny,
	I would not think of the editor as being a misogynist.  There are 
	_lots_ of examples of misogyny all around us.  Some are extremely 
	subtle, some are almost obvious, and others are quite blatant. 
	That some men find this unsettling and protest our describing
	what is true-for-us should not be surprising, I suppose...


re: .21  (Roger Brown)

>    Seriously, I have recently been aware, in other notes, of women who
>    themselves seem mysoginist, 

	Roger, some of the female contributers to _this_ file recognized
	and described their misogynistic attitudes and feelings in the
	"Exploring Misogyny" topic.

						nancy b.
    

    
    Doesn't the fact that our language doesn't even have a word that
    parallels "misogyny" and would mean hatred of men, tell you anything?
    
    Why do we have to keep on reinventing the wheel here? As several
    preceding replies point out, this has been discussed in depth in the
    note on exploring misogyny. As Catherine T. pointed out somewhere in
    that string, it's our culture that's misogynist and that inculcates
    misogyny in *men and women*, and yes hatred of women is what it means and
    yes, this means that large numbers of women in our society grow up
    hating themselves.
    
    Imho, the place to look for the origins of it all is those bad ole'
    patriarchal religions. See the string on quotable sexists for some
    examples of their attitudes towards women. There are so many books 
    out these days documenting just this. Doesn't anybody read them?
    Patriarchal fear of women, envy of women, hatred of women...that's 
    where these attitudes became established.
    
    I also believe that where the great patr. religions left off, Freudian
    psychology and, most recently, our wonderful media took over in the
    great game of perpetuating misogyny. Open the newspaper, turn on the tv,
    walk to the drugstore to see images of women everywhere devalued as sex 
    objects and/or domestic dingbats.
    
    Women have had their dignity, their opportunity, their full humanity,
    even their connection with their own bodies and their functions, simply
    stolen from them over the past several millennia. We've come to accept
    this as so "natural" that many of us are blind to it. Lately, however,
    things have been changing, and maybe, just maybe, *this* time they'll
    keep on changing in the same direction... 

misandry:  hatred of men.

yup, it's a real word and it's in more than just the Oxford English dictionary.

OED has misogyny cross-referenced to it and vice versa.

Of course, the fact that so few people have encountered it speaks volumes...

  Ann

>	Nor can you expect it [language] to change dramatically in 12 months.

Mike, no one expects it to change in 12 months.  We're talking 20-30 some-odd
years, here!  And that IS enough time.

>	If enough people started using the term "prostitute" to refer to
>    "a woman who's had more than one sexual partner", would that be right?

Right or wrong isn't the issue.  Usage and meaning is.  And although I
believe the specific example above would never happen, in theory, if it
did, then eventually the dictionaries would have to catch up with the
new usage.  The example you've chosen is interesting.  It has a subtle ring 
of nastiness to it.

>My father, for one wouldn't think twice about it, [calling women girls]
>yet he would not say it to demean.

You're wrong.  If he lives in this country, I'm quite sure he knows the
impact of the word "girls" on women.  Ask him and see if I'm right.  And
if he does, that knowledge alone makes his motives suspicious when he
uses the term.  Unless your father lives a very isolated life, he knows.
Or maybe we differ in what we mean by "saying to to demean".  I contend
that if a man knows women consider it demeaning, (and I believe they
all do, even your father), then in saying it they are simply brushing
off women's words, ignoring women's feelings as irrelevant in light of
their own desires to avoid change and continue on in ways they know are 
considered nasty.  Not taking women seriously is part of misogyny.
    
>    And some women do not mind being referred to as "girls", as long
>    as the context and usage is not derogatory.

You're missing the point.  The context and usage IS derogatory simply be-
cause it reduces an adult woman to a child in order to remove the threat
of woman-ness.  Most women have grown up with this reduction and devaluing
so it's not surprising that some women accept it and even welcome it as
proof to men that they certainly pose no "woman-threat".  But that doesn't
mean the word still isn't derogatory and devaluing.  Plenty of women sub-
jugate themselves willingly to be on men's good side.  I'm sure you know
dogs, (why am I always using dogs for examples here??), who, when threatened,
turn over rather than snarl back.  Different strokes.  But the different
reactions do not prove that there are different motivations and meanings
behind the actions.  I reiterate that the usage is demeaning and that 
nearly every adult male in America now understands this.

>	Behaviors such as being unsympathetic to some aspects of the
>    feminist movement?  Does that make the person a misogynist?

I said you would have to determine *which* aspects one was unsympathetic
to.  Does he think equal pay is a boring subject?  Why?  Is he angry that his
woman might not be home to cook his dinner and wash his sox?  Does he
think the world will go to hell if we start letting women make decisions
and run things?  Does he believe sexual selection and initiation is not 
something a woman has a right to?  Or does he just not want to see women
sent into battle and killed simply because he doesn't want to see that
happen to anyone?  To answer your question, in some instances no, in
most instances, yes.  One needs to know which aspects of feminism a man
objects to and why.

Roger Brown -

>I'm not sure whether they [women] really hate women as a totallity, or 
>despise an assertive, effective female image.

It's deeper than that.  Actually, I think most women love, respect and
cheer on assertive, effective female images as leaders in the fight for
equality. Internalized misogyny is just what it says.  Women learn early on
that what is feminine is what is bad.  Women who strive to be acceptable
to and accepted by men strive to learn the lesson well, bury in themselves 
what men consider bad and mimic male attitudes and beliefs.  The difference 
is that they are women, and they know that they possess many of the character-
istics they've agreed to see as bad.  In order for them to deny that
they possess them inherently, (and therefore wil ultimately be found
out as bad in the eyes of men no matter what they really do), they cannot allow
the existence of these traits in other women.  Just like a smoker who is
trying to quit and cannot be around other smokers, a woman who is trying
to quit womanhood cannot be comfortable around others' womanly traits.
Guilt by association is too real a possibility.

>    Do others here consider that this is a possibilty, that women in of 
>    themselves can be "woman-haters"?
 
Oh, yes - the worst kind.  Not only because they reduce the impact of
trying to establish what is demeaning to women by denying that they are
affected, (because they consider themselves separate from women), but also,
in their effort to be liked by men, they offer themselves as islands to men
who may understandably be seeing themselves drowning in new rules and
longing for the days when you could just lay down the law with women and
that was that.  Most women have internalized misogyny and I was one of
the worst in my teens.  I hated silly, stupid women and held myself up
as a refreshing change from all that was bad.  In that way, I had lots
of men friends but it was really because I allowed them to continue to ex-
pect that women would turn themselves inside out, even to the point of 
trashing their own self respect and dignity, in order to be liked by men.  
They like me because I allowed them to feel superior to women.  When they 
played Army, I wanted a gun, too, but I knew they'd like me better if I were 
the nurse, (they flirted with the nurse!), so I always, immediately, accepted 
the role of nurse and got to play with the boys.

But when they'd eventually turn away from me to foam over Miss Boobs of the 
Month or other examples of total subjugation and passivity, I realized that 
the logical conclusion for my internalized misogyny was complete denial of 
everything I was, everything I wanted, to just give, give, give.  A blow-up 
doll who was warm and could cook.  I stopped right there and never looked 
back.  Hopefully, other women who still harbor this wanna-be-liked-by-the-
boys-at-any-price attitude, will one day realize that after they belittle 
themselves and other women, 'the boys' will get bored and move on, anyway.  
    
I use the term "the boys" because I'm talking about boys and girls
which is where this all starts.
    
Self respect and dignity, which requires understanding, admitting and com-
municating the things we want and need, not only leaves women with the 
self-confidence and the self-esteem to handle men, but creates a whole 
person which is the only kind that can inspire real love - even if it's 
recognized only by one man in a thousand.  The warm blow up doll just gets 
another thousand.

    Re .23, Nancy, you said, "It is probably not at all obvious to the
    man that what he is doing is indeed a manifestation of the misogyny
    inherit in our culture."  And, I think reading the replies of some
    of the men in this topic certainly prove that this statement is
    true.  They just don't get it.
    
    Re .8, Justine, good reply.  I agree.
    
    Re .21, Roger (?), yes, I've noticed the same things in some women's
    notes in some notesfiles.  One particular well-known noter from
    another well-known file certainly comes to mind.  It's well known
    that some heterosexual women consider all other women to be nothing
    more than competition (and therefore the enemy) in their struggle
    to "get a man."  Apparently, some women will say anything even in
    notesfiles in the never ending quest for attention from men.
    
    My ex-husband was recently telling me that when he was in basic
    training in the marines, that the worst insults the DI's could give
    the trainees was to call them "girls", "ladies", "pussies", etc. 
    Now, just why is it so insulting to call a 19 yr. old guy, a "girl"
    "lady" or "pussy"????   (it couldn't be because those terms mean
    something so much inferior to "man" could it?)

    Lorna
    

nancy b.:

>	Exactly.   This is what I verbalize as a "manifestation of misogyny", 
>	which does _not_ necessarily mean I am calling the doer of the action
>	a misogynist.  [...]
>	On example: the editor of Computer Shopper.  While I think putting
>	down a man by calling him a "girlie man" is a manifestation of misogyny,
>	I would not think of the editor as being a misogynist.  

Thank you, Nancy, I think this needed saying.  It makes me a lot more 
comfortable with this topic.  I was having similar reactions to Kath, Mike and
Mark, that there are a lot of times where "misogyny" is used when it isn't
at all clear that the person referred to "hates women", that it is too easy
and too quick to write someone off as a "misogyninist".  Yet at the same time
I recognized that *society* is misogynistic, and that people who are not
misogynists can nevertheless say things that reflect and even perpetuate
that.

I think it is important when using the term "misogyny" and "misogynistic"
to clarify whether you mean that a particular person's actions imply that
they hate women, or whether they reflect and/or perpetuate a societal
attitude that devalues women.

For instance, in the menstruation note, someone (Doctah?) said that 
menstruation was "gross", and someone else called that misogyny.  It wasn't
clear to me whether that implied that the Doctah was a misogynist for
saying it, or whether that attitude is a reflection of societal misogyny.
The latter I might be convinced of; the former seems utterly absurd.

Calling someone a misogynist, (or saying something they might interpret as
you calling them a misogynist) is a *strong* accusation.  It is much less
insulting/alienating/angering to say that someone's views are a reflection/
result of a misogynistic upbringing.

D!

    It seems to me, from reading this string, that some men and some
    women have very different ideas of misogyny.  It seems that some
    men are willing to consider only murder, or mass murder, as misogyny,
    whereas some women consider being treated with disrespect or less
    than equal to males as misogyny.
    
    I also sometimes get the impression that some men think that they
    love or like women, in general, just because they enjoy looking
    at and having sex with pretty women.  But, they'd just as soon the
    rest of us put trash bags over our heads.
    
    As for the marines DI's calling recruits "girls", etc.  No, it isn't
    insulting to call 19 yr. old women boys or tom boys.  In fact, I've
    noticed that many women seem to pride themselves on being able to
    brag that they were "tomboys" as children.  
    
    Lorna
    

>    whereas some women consider being treated with disrespect or less
>    than equal to males as misogyny.
    
     Then should men who are treated with disrespect by women ascribe
    said disrespect to misandry? Sounds to me like an awful lot of people
    would be considered to harbor hateful feelings towards the opposite
    sex.
    
    The Doctah

    Re .32, unfortunately, Doctah, I think a lot of people *do* harbor
    hateful feelings toward the opposite sex!  (it's just that so far
    the men are winning, and that's why the women are the one's
    complaining!-well, there's a lot more to it than that [but in a
    nutshell])
      
    Lorna

	If someone exhibits a racist outlook, is that person a racist?
	>yes
    
	If someone exhibits a misogynistic outlook, is that person a
    misogynist?
	>yes
    
    p.s.
    is anyone else reminded of the 'what is rape?' topic, where the
    primary concern seems to have been to determine just how nasty
    something had to be before it was 'real' rape. is there some magic
    line below which actions are not 'real' misogyny? as with the rape
    note, i think this is a non-productive approach; it distracts us
    from the real issues.
    

    	Would anyone care to guess how many times they've seen women
    	say to a man, "You are a sexist" or "You are a misogynist"
    	in this notesfile?
    
    	My guess would be that there are some here who will claim they
    	see it "all the time" (or "very often.")  I defy *anyone* in
    	this conference to prove it, though.
    
    	For at least three years, I've been taking note when I see someone
    	call an identifiable person a "sexist," and 99% of the cases I've
    	seen were men (or women) calling a *woman* sexist, rather than the
    	case of a man being called sexist to his face.  The same is true
    	for identifiable individuals being accused of "hating" the other
    	sex.  A number of women are routinely called "man haters" for being
    	feminist, for example, without much hesitation.  Yet, I'd like to
    	see an example in this conference where a man is told to his
    	face, "You are a misogynist."  If the example exists, it's rare!
    
    	In Soapbox, I've also been accused repeatedly of being a lesbian
    	because I'm a feminist.  It's not that I consider it an insult 
    	to be considered gay myself, but I see the accusation as being
    	intentionally derogatory (especially since the person who keeps
    	doing it acknowledges being homophobic, and with pride.)
    
    	Once, in Soapbox, I made a comment that people (in general) who
    	make certain kinds of statements about homosexuality often make
    	me wonder if they aren't questioning their own sexuality (and
    	I got horrified mail from a man who said I was implying that the
    	person, to whom my note was addressed, might be questioning his
    	own sexuality.)  I apologized publicly immediately, but the man
    	who might have been insulted was never able to respond to me
    	again on the subject in question.
    
    	It seems that the mere "general suggestion" that a statement makes
    	me wonder if "people in general" are *questioning* their sexuality
    	(not winding up gay, mind you, but merely *questioning* themselves
    	about it) is far more horrifying than a woman who is openly accused
    	of being gay.
    
    	By the same token, the mere "general suggestion" that an action or
    	group of actions in our society might be misogynistic is far more
    	horrifying than the endless numbers of times that women/feminists
    	have been openly accused (as INDIVIDUALS!) of being "man haters."
    
    	It is my assertion that there is far more work needed in the area
    	of getting people to stop routine accusations of man-hating first
    	(before even beginning to address the idea of making general
    	statements about actions or groups of actions in our soceity that
    	could be attributed to soceital misogyny.)
    
    	When the basenote asked how some of us would feel if we were
    	called "man haters" undeservedly, it took me by surprise.  
    	
    	Obviously, we already *know* how it feels, since it happens so 
    	frequently.  And you *bet* it's not deserved, nor true!

Suzanne:

  Your reply is actually quite telling, but I'm not sure what it
  (may) reveal is what you intended:

    o You stated that men tend to apply their possibly derogatory
      terms to individuals, e.g., "X, you're sexist...".

    o You stated that women tend not to call individuals names.


  But I've certainly seen lots of names called by women and so have
  you.  They just aren't aimed at individuals.  There are some noters
  who can't seem to reply here without blaming all the troubles of the
  world on, for example, men.

  So which is better?  Stereotyping and calling an entire class names,
  or calling out individuals when they're wrong?

                                   Atlant

    	RE: .36  Atlant
    
    	> Your reply is actually quite telling, but I'm not sure what it
  	> (may) reveal is what you intended:
    
    	Atlant, I'm afraid you missed the point.
    
    	In our society, calling an identifiable woman names (like "man
    	hater") is not considered *nearly* as horrifying as implications
    	about "actions" or "groups of actions" that can possibly be
    	attributed most often to men as a group (without naming individual
    	men at all!)  In fact, calling individual women "man haters" isn't
    	regarded as horrifying *at all* by most people (or so it would seem.)
    
    	When one group feels free to use insulting stereotypes to characterize
    	members of another group *as individuals, by name*, but is unable to
    	tolerate the mere broad *suggestion* that the actions of its own group
    	should be subject to scrutiny or criticism, it's pretty telling indeed
    	as to the difference in status held by the two groups in our society.
    
    	It's like noticing that parents feel free to openly chastise their
    	children by name, but would consider it the height of insubordination
    	if their children started making caustic comments that could be 
    	considered critical of parents in general in front of *their* parents.
    
    	> But I've certainly seen lots of names called by women and so have
  	> you.  They just aren't aimed at individuals.  There are some noters
  	> who can't seem to reply here without blaming all the troubles of the
 	> world on, for example, men.
    
    	What I see here most often is "actions" or "groups of actions" being
    	characterized as misogynistic or sexist, and as other women have
    	pointed out a number of times, such actions are not strictly limited
    	to men.  
    
    	> So which is better?  Stereotyping and calling an entire class names,
  	> or calling out individuals when they're wrong?
    
    	Your choices are a bit slanted, Atlant.  Surely you aren't trying
    	to say that it's justifiable for someone to call me a man hater simply
    	because they think my note contains an error in some way.
    
    	Furthur, I disagree that an entire class of people are stereotyped
    	when "misogyny" is given as the root of certain problems.  If the
    	dictionary defined "misogyny" as "men who hate women," then you
    	might have a case.  However, per the definition, an entire society
    	of men *and* women can hate women (and *do* hate women!)
    
    	Please don't confuse the condemnation of an action (or group of
    	actions) with the condemnation of a group of people.

    Atlant,
    
    You use the term "possibly derogatory" to apply to terms like "sexist"
    and "man hater" -- when used by men.  If they are not derogatory, what
    are they?
    
    You ask for people to choose between "[s]tereotyping and calling an
    entire class names" and "calling out individuals when they're wrong".
    This is a false choice.  I hope you know it.  I know it.
    
    How about a choice between refraining from calling out individuals
    when they are wrong and insulting individuals when they are right
    and you are wrong?  Hmm?  Like that any better?  No?  No symmetry
    there, either, is there?
    
    Tell you what.  Since you are willing to write that there are noters
    in this very conference "who can't seem to reply here without blaming
    all the troubles of the world on ... men", you can send me, by mail,
    a list of their names, and I will send you a list of their notes
    which refute your (hasty?) claim.
    
    Then will I be entitled to call you out as an individual who has
    been wrong?  Using a "possibly derogatory" name?  No?
    
    							Ann B.

re: Atlant
    
     Shame on you for not picking your words more carefully!
    
>    You ask for people to choose between "[s]tereotyping and calling an
>    entire class names" and "calling out individuals when they're wrong".
>    This is a false choice.  I hope you know it.  I know it.
    
     Ok, Ann, how about: "What is better? Stereotyping and calling an
    entire class of people names or calling certain individuals names in
    certain situations?"
    
>    Then will I be entitled to call you out as an individual who has
>    been wrong?  Using a "possibly derogatory" name?  No?
    
     It will be tough to prove that said noters don't _seem_ to reply
    without blaming men... because you are trying to disprove an
    individual's perceptions, not disprove an immutable fact. But if you
    can prove him wrong, then by all means, call him a "possibly
    derogatory" name.
    
     The Doctah
     

I have a good deal of internalised misogyny [I've written a bit about this 
elsewhere].  There is woman-shame and unworthiness in me.

Is this hatred?  Yes.  Is this unreasonable?  You bet.  Is is to be expected?
Of course.

It is not _all_ the doing of my family.

I live in a society, that though slowly evolving, has devalued [or tightly
bounded] women in its attitudes.  It has valued, and _also_ tightly bounded,
men.

In my wish to facilitate a more rapid change in the status quo, I'm likely
to call out 'misogyny' when full-blown Hate is probably not at work.  I make
no apologies, for I feel that there is a hatred at work.

However, as communication is important, I have given much thought in the last
days as to more precisely descriptive terms.

Those that substitute accurately [which are also gender neutral] are:

	bigotry
	ignorance
	contempt
	close-mindedness
	territoriality

These are attributes that are exhibited by both men and women, and can be 
turned against same by either.  I think that they are all part and parcel 
of hate in its many manifestations; but concede that -- with proper modifiers
-- their use will convey an exactitude of meaning.

  Ann

    
    
    	RE: .39  Doctah
    
    	> Ok, Ann, how about: "What is better? Stereotyping and calling an
    	> entire class of people names or calling certain individuals names in
    	> certain situations?"
    
    	How about:  "Condemning *actions* that could possibly be attributed
    	to an entire class of people, or using unfair, intentionally derogatory
    	stereotypes against identifiable individuals instead of debating with
    	them about issues in a straightforward manner"?
    

Ann B:

> You ask for people to choose between "[s]tereotyping and calling an
> entire class names" and "calling out individuals when they're wrong".
> This is a false choice.  I hope you know it.  I know it.
    
  *IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH I PRESENTED IT*, it's not a false choice
  at all.  One noter seemed to present the thesis that one of these
  behaviors (calling out individuals) was unacceptable.  I was left
  with the distinct, albeit possibly mistaken, impression that the
  other behavior was to be tolerated.  So I phrased the question as
  I did, comparing the relative "goodness" or "badness" of the two
  behaviors.

  My personal opinion is obviously that "Stereotyping" is the more
  harmful behavior in the long run, especially as it causes communi-
  cations to break down.  For example, if you call all the members
  of cohort 'Y' a bunch of '<verb>ing <nouns>' long enough, they'll
  simply stop listening to you.

                                   Atlant

>                    <<< Note 996.26 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>

    
>>    And some women do not mind being referred to as "girls", as long
>>    as the context and usage is not derogatory.
>
>You're missing the point.  The context and usage IS derogatory simply be-
>cause it reduces an adult woman to a child in order to remove the threat
>of woman-ness.  Most women have grown up with this reduction and devaluing
>so it's not surprising that some women accept it and even welcome it as
>proof to men that they certainly pose no "woman-threat".  But that doesn't
>mean the word still isn't derogatory and devaluing.  Plenty of women sub-
>jugate themselves willingly to be on men's good side.



	 Really, Sandy.....you can say all you want about yourself and
	 your views and your feelings, but when you start attributing
	 things to those of us that DON'T find anything wrong with
	 being called a "girl", then I'm sorry, that is where I draw
	 the line.

	 I IN NO WAY feel reduced or devalued by being called a
	 "girl."  I IN NO WAY feel that being called a "girl" is any
	 sort of subjugation on my part to be "on the man's side."

	 If you want to talk about you and your feelings, then
	 alright, but don't make assumptive remarks on the part of the
	 rest of us, please?

	 
>I reiterate that the usage is demeaning and that 
>nearly every adult male in America now understands this.

	 No Sandy...it's use is demeaning TO YOU.......and to others,
	 but NOT to all of America.
	 



	 kath

Ann B:

> o You stated that men tend to apply their possibly derogatory
>   terms to individuals, e.g., "X, you're sexist...".

  The statement (applied to party X) "X, you're a sexist..."
  may simply be a statement of opinion or *EVEN* fact, and
  not an effort to disparage, speak of as unimportant, or
  belittle party X.

                                   Atlant

    	RE: .42  Atlant
    
    	> My personal opinion is obviously that "Stereotyping" is the more
  	> harmful behavior in the long run, especially as it causes communi-
  	> cations to break down.  
    
    	Calling an identifiable individual a "man hater" in the heat of an
    	argument is a stereotype, Atlant, made all the worse by the fact
    	that it is an unfair personal attack against the individual.
    
    	Women who are stereotyped in our culture suffer far greater harm
    	than simply making us inclined to cease communication.
    
    	Your use of "harm" in the case of a group being inclined to cease
    	communication sounds more like the harm is inflicted on the group
    	perceived as *stating* the stereotype, rather than on the group 
    	perceived as being stereotyped.  
    
    	It's interesting that regardless of whether men or women are
    	stereotyped as a group, women end up suffering for it in our 
    	culture.  Wonder why that is?

><<< Note 996.31 by DZIGN::STHILAIRE "still haven't found what I'm lookin for" >>>
>
>    It seems to me, from reading this string, that some men and some
>    women have very different ideas of misogyny.  It seems that some
>    men are willing to consider only murder, or mass murder, as misogyny,
>    whereas some women consider being treated with disrespect or less
>    than equal to males as misogyny.


	 No, Lorna...I really don't think that is what is going on
	 here.  It's more than just calling mass murder and such
	 "misogynistic."  I fully understand that denying a woman a
	 job based on her sex and such could be construed as misogyny.
	 I fully understand, and can point out, man that I feel are
	 misogynistic.

	 I DO believe misogyny exists and is prevalent in our society.

	 I DO NOT believe that a simple expression, a word, an
	 attitude, whatever IS misogyny and implies that the person is
	 a misogynist.

	 I feel there quite a few OTHER factors that can explain away
	 the misogynic fingers that have been pointed at many of the
	 comments in this file.

	 I feel that when we yell "misogyny" so much we fail to see
	 all the other factors that go into making a person what they
	 are and what molds a person's personality and attitude.

	 While misogyny is prevalent and IS a real issue, I see us
	 blinded to other JUST AS IMPORTANT contributing factors that
	 lead to such statements/actions/whatever.
	 


	 I don't see anyone trivializing misogyny...just trying to put
	 it in it's proper perspective.

	 kath

    	RE: .43  Kath
    
    	>> [Sandy] ...so it's not surprising that **SOME** women accept it 
    	>> and even welcome it as proof to men that they certainly pose no 
    	>> "woman-threat".  [Emphasis added is mine.  SEC]
    
    	> Really, Sandy.....you can say all you want about yourself and
	> your views and your feelings, but when you start attributing
	> things to those of us that DON'T find anything wrong with
	> being called a "girl", then I'm sorry, that is where I draw
	> the line.
     
    	Since when does Sandy need your permission to make comments about
    	*some* women?
    
    	On what authority do you draw your line?

    
    	RE: .46  Kath
    
    	> ...I feel that when we yell "misogyny" so much we fail to see
    	> all the other factors that go into making a person what they
    	> are and what molds a person's personality and attitude.
    
    	Now's a good time for you to take your own advice and speak
    	for yourself.
    
    	Don't include the rest of us when you describe what "WE" do, ok?
    
    	Most of the women I know who use the term misogyny know *precisely*
    	what it means, and aren't "failing to see" anything.  
    

>   <<< Note 996.47 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

     
>    	Since when does Sandy need your permission to make comments about
>    	*some* women?


	 The way I read what Sandy wrote was that her direct inference
	 for "some women" were those women that didn't mind being
	 called "girls."

	 In other words the "some women" to me meant the same as "all
	 women that don't mind being called girls."  If that is not
	 Sandy's inference, then I'm willing to read a re-write, but
	 as written, and read about FIVE times by me, I still don't
	 see how she would mean anything else.

	 Suzanne.......I'm not in argue mode...and will not be with
	 you, comprend�?   You've taken Sandy's quote out of context,
	 and highlighted a part of it to make your point.....Address
	 the paragraph/point as a whole, please.

	 Actually, don't adress it at all...it was Sandy's paragraph
	 and my implication of what I read.

	 kath

>   <<< Note 996.48 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>
>
>    
>    	RE: .46  Kath
>    
>    	> ...I feel that when we yell "misogyny" so much we fail to see
>    	> all the other factors that go into making a person what they
>    	> are and what molds a person's personality and attitude.
>    
>    	Now's a good time for you to take your own advice and speak
>    	for yourself.



	 Suzanne...what do the words "I feel that" mean?


	 kath	     

    	
    	RE: .49  Kath
    
    	> In other words the "some women" to me meant the same as "all
	> women that don't mind being called girls."  If that is not
	> Sandy's inference, then I'm willing to read a re-write, but
	> as written, and read about FIVE times by me, I still don't
	> see how she would mean anything else.
    
    	Your inability to see how she could mean anything else isn't
    	proof that she meant it the way you suggest.
    
    	Just hoping you do realize that.
    

RE: .18 - Mike,

.14>    2-bagger/3-bagger mysoginist joke where the man wants to f**k the woman
.14>    but she's so ugly... etc., you know the joke I mean.  Well, *that joke*
.14>    definitely conveys *to me* a VERY strong hatred of women in general,

<	There was no connection in my reply between her being ugly and
<    me wanting to have sex with her.   It's really quite the opposite
<    situation.

    Mike, your comment here is *totally* irrelevant to what I was saying. 
    I am really amazed that you missed my point!  Please note the sequence
    of the following:
    
from Justine:
.8>    mind, where some men felt compelled to talk about how ugly they thought a
.8>    certain prominent feminist is.  One man in particular recommended that 
.8>    this women wear a "hefty trash bag."  I think only true hatred of women 
.8>    could inspire such a comment.  These men may or may not actually think
.8>    this women is ugly, but it's interesting that comments about a women's
.8>    appearance were considered relevant to a discussion of feminism.  As 

    from you in .11:
<    	That was me, and it was in PEAR::Soapbox.
<
<	Are you basing the label "woman hater" only on my perception of
<    Gloria Steinem's aesthetics?
<
<	Does that seem fair to you?
<
<	How about the people here who said they consider Roseanne Barr
<    to be unattractive?
<
<	Are they also misogynists?
    
    from me in .14:
<    The "hefty trash bag" part of your remark reminds us -- assuming I'm
<    not the only woman who made the association -- of that
<    2-bagger/3-bagger mysoginist joke where the man wants to f**k the woman
<    but she's so ugly... etc., you know the joke I mean.  Well, *that joke*
<    definitely conveys *to me* a VERY strong hatred of women in general,
<    whether or not the individual man perpetuating that joke "hates" women
<    himself!  The "hefty trash bag" bit is closely linked in our common
<    popular consciousness.
    
    Mike, you did *not* say, "Gloria Steinmen is unattractive"!  
    You used -- whether consciously and intentionally or unconsiously and
    unintentionally -- *an extremely misogynist cultural reference (the
    trash bag)* to describe your opinion of her appearance!  My reply was
    an attempt to point out to you the cultural context of that way of
    expressing yourself and why some of us consider it to be *very*
    misogynistic!
    
    If you are goading us on intentionally with your air of innocence,
    please be aware of the unnecessary pain you are causing some of us!  If
    I have not increased your understanding (I'm not taking "agreement"
    here, but *understanding*), then I will not make another attempt here. 
    

>	 I don't see anyone trivializing misogyny...just trying to put
>	 it in it's proper perspective.

    	i see many people trying to trivialise misogyny and refusing
    	to put it in proper perspective.
    

    
    	RE: .50  Kath
    
    	> Suzanne...what do the words "I feel that" mean?
    
    	They don't give you permission to draw the rest of us into your
    	personal insights (about when *you* yell misogyny.)
    
    	We're each entitled to our own insights about the use of such
    	a word, and I emphatically deny that most of us "yell" it.
    

>	If someone exhibits a racist outlook, is that person a racist?

>	If someone exhibits a misogynistic outlook, is that person a
>    misogynist?

Oh Mike, gimme a break.  If you are going to draw parallels to my statement,
at least make them *parallel*.

I didn't say "exhibiting a misogynistic outlook" I said "reflecting a
misogynistic society".  Big difference.

Need I explain?

A purely hypothetical example:

A misogynistic society devalues women, and those things considered womanly.

Let's say some attribute, like long hair f'rinstance, is associated strongly
with women.  Society as a whole will then devalue long hair.  Therefore  a lot
of people raised in said society will absorb the attitudes about long hair...
they will learn to devalue/dislike long hair themselves, since that is what
they were taught to do by society.

So...person X says "I dunno, I just think long hair is yucky."  Person X does
not necessarily hate women.  However, the reason (and this is true because I
say so, and I am definining the situation) s/he dislikes long hair is because
s/he was indoctrinated to do so by a misogynistic society.  Therefore, her/his
statement that they don't like long hair is a *reflection* of misogynistic
attitudes, even though personally they don't hate women.

That is, the statement *reflects* misogyny but *exhibits* only a tendency
to adopt reactions to stimuli based on other people's reaction to stimuli.

exhibits .NE. reflects

D!

    Atlant,

    I am always amazed when I find people repeatedly missing something
    under their noses.  Here it is:  "calling out individuals when
    they're wrong".                                           ^^^^
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Don't you get it?  You seem to be saying three things.  First, that
    a male human's judgement is invariably correct; i.e., when a man
    `calls out' (By now this has become a stupid phrase.) someone using
    a negative term, then *he* is de facto right, and the other person
    is *guaranteed* wrong.  Second, that a male human is *entitled*
    to use insulting terms to describe someone who is "wrong".  Third,
    the idea that a term, such as "man-hater", has anything to do with
    the entire concept of right and wrong.

    The first idea is arrant nonsense, as you'll agree.  (You'll also
    deny that *that* was what you meant.)  The second idea is false,
    as many people who have been faced with suits for libel or slander
    in this country have discovered.  The third idea is a juxtaposition
    of non-sequiters, only suitable for use by schizophrenics.  After
    all, even a man-hater can make true statements, and even a lover of
    men can make false ones.

    Now.  Could you explain to me how the term "man-hater" can be USED
    AT ALL (whether as a "statement of opinion" or of `"fact"') without
    having any intent of being derogatory or disparaging?  (I use the
    term "man-hater" in *my* example because that unambiguously fits
    the concept that Suzanne introduced and that you are, presumably,
    trying to discuss.)

    							Ann B.

    P.S.  In your second response to my one reply, you quoted from your
    own note, yet you gave the impression that you were quoting me.  I
    would recommend that you be less careless in the future.

    
    re:.55
    nicely put!
    

re .10 -
notes .10 and .12    
    
.10>    2.)  There IS a difference between belittling, devalueing, underpaying,
.10>    preferring-the-pretty-ones, and subjugation on the one hand; and hatred
.10>    on the other hand.  The first class _may_ arise from the second condition
.10>    but not necessarily.  


.12> Where else would it arise from?
    
    Belittling, devaluing, etc. can easily be caused by one person caring
    so much for (his) own self and pleasures that the needs, wants,
    desires, and indeed personhood of the other is not taken into account. 
    It is not even selfishness, which I think necessitates some awareness.
    On a societal level, these attitudes benefit one class at the expense
    of the other.  It happens because the beneficiary class is the ruling
    class.
    
    I think that much of what is called misogyny is really lack of
    consciousness.  This unconsciousness is so ingrained in our society
    that recognizing and naming the effects of "indifference based on
    gender" is difficult.  
    
    Hatred is personal stuff.  One of the most difficult realizations is
    that much sexism is not personal at all. Sexism just is: pure, 
    simple and hideous.
    
    Raise consciousness (remember that old term??) and hell, if that's
    necessary.   Myself, I am less interested in the why of the
    unacceptable action and more interested in making the unacceptable
    action stop.  (Don't ask, "why are you underpaying me?" Ask for a
    raise. The right answer to the second question is more useful.)
    
      Margaret
    

>   <<< Note 996.51 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

 >   
>    	Your inability to see how she could mean anything else isn't
>    	proof that she meant it the way you suggest.

	 Just because I don't make the determination to see something
	 a certain way does not mean that I am not "able" to see it
	 any other way.

	 I don't appreciate or like your implications as to my
	 perception.

	 kath

>   <<< Note 996.54 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>
    
>    	We're each entitled to our own insights about the use of such
>    	a word, and I emphatically deny that most of us "yell" it.


	 Exactly, so why don't you lay off?  Hummmmmm???

	 kath   

>             <<< Note 996.55 by TLE::D_CARROLL "We too are one" >>>
 
>Let's say some attribute, like long hair f'rinstance, is associated strongly
>with women.  Society as a whole will then devalue long hair.  Therefore  a lot
>of people raised in said society will absorb the attitudes about long hair...
>they will learn to devalue/dislike long hair themselves, since that is what
>they were taught to do by society.

>exhibits .NE. reflects


	 Exactly D!...I agree with you, totally.

	 kath

    	
    	RE: .59  Kath
    
    	> Just because I don't make the determination to see something
	> a certain way does not mean that I am not "able" to see it
	> any other way.
    
    	Kath, you were the one who claimed that you were unable to see
    	it any other way (in .49):
    
    		> ...as written, and read about FIVE times by me, I still 
    		> don't see how she would mean anything else.
    
    	If what you meant was that you simply *refused* to see it any other
    	way, that's worse (in my book.)
    
    	> I don't appreciate or like your implications as to my
	> perception.
    
    	Perhaps you should be more careful about how you word your notes
    	(per the above quote.)  When you claimed to know Sandy's meaning
    	based on the fact that you "[didn't] see it any other way," your
    	claim was bound to be challenged (if not by me, then someone else.)

    	RE: .60  Kath
    
    	> Exactly, so why don't you lay off?  Hummmmmm???
    
    	Is there some reason why you think you can voice *your* insights
    	using the word "WE" (to include the rest of us) without having
    	to accept challenges about it from one of "us" whose insights are
    	completely different from yours?
    
    	You frequently object to women talking about "some women" in the
    	third person, Kath.  Using first person plural is far worse,
    	especially when revealing personal insights about *flaws* in ones
    	thinking or use of our language.  (Go back to your original note
    	about how "WE" yell misogyny and fail to consider certain things,
    	etc. to see what I mean.)
    
    	In those particular situations, it's best to speak for yourself.

>    I think that much of what is called misogyny is really lack of
>    consciousness.
    
     You're right. Alot of what is called misogyny is something else, and
    that's why some of us object to using the very broad brush of misogyny
    to paint fine lines.
    
     The Doctah

>    The first idea is arrant nonsense, as you'll agree.  (You'll also
>    deny that *that* was what you meant.) 
    
     You _knew_ that isn't what he meant. But you just couldn't wait to
    call him out on the carpet for it, could you? Nothing like fostering
    communication, Ann.
    
>    Now.  Could you explain to me how the term "man-hater" can be USED
>    AT ALL (whether as a "statement of opinion" or of `"fact"') without
>    having any intent of being derogatory or disparaging?
    
     Since man-hater is the analog of misogynist, the usage of one should
    mirror the usage of the other (fairness and all that.) If using one
    is prima facie evidence of derogatory intent, then using the other is
    as well. (Just to dot the i's and cross the t's, I am using man-hater
    as a synonym for misandrist; gotta avoid potential ratholes where you
    can, you know).
    
     The Doctah

    Let's you and her fight somewhere else (offline).  If and when you
    resolve it, let us know.

Ann B:

  Mark Levesque has already pointed out the crucial flaw in your
  argument.  You put words in my mouth, shoot at them, and then
  ask me to defend them.  I'm not foolish enough to try that.

  And, in fact, my example is based on much less strident language
  than "...-hater" or "mis...".  My example was based on the word
  "sexist" as I believe that is the charge more frequently leveled
  and that it's a lot less emotionally charged since it doesn't
  imply "hatred".


> Now.  Could you explain to me how the term "man-hater" can be USED
> AT ALL (whether as a "statement of opinion" or of `"fact"') without
> having any intent of being derogatory or disparaging?  (I use the
> term "man-hater" in *my* example because that unambiguously fits
> the concept that Suzanne introduced and that you are, presumably,
> trying to discuss.)

  Oh that's easy.  As has already been pointed out to you, "Man-hater"
  or "Misandrist" can be used in exactly the same contexts as "Women-
  hater" or "Misogynist" and with much the same effect(s).  If it turns
  out that one set of words *CAN'T* be used without harmful effect,
  then that probably says the other set can't be used without harm-
  ful effect as well.


> P.S.  In your second response to my one reply, you quoted from your
> own note, yet you gave the impression that you were quoting me.  I
> would recommend that you be less careless in the future.

  It wasn't carelessness at all.  You seemed to have accidentally
  or deliberately misunderstood what I said so I said it again.
  As we argue onwards, I feel more and more that your misunderstanding
  is entirely deliberate, so I'm going to drop my end of the debate
  right here.

                                   Atlant

  <<< Note 996.66 by EGYPT::SMITH "Passionate commitment to reasoned faith" >>>
                              -< Kath & Suzanne >-

>    Let's you and her fight somewhere else (offline).

I second the proposal.

Kathy

    Well, if you want to know my real intent, Kathy, I was thinking of you
    specifically when I wrote that I believed there are some women who 
    don't mind being called a girl.  I didn't know for sure of course,
    (so don't waste your time railing about how dare I pretend to know),
    but I surmised from many of your notes that you would probably not mind 
    being referred to as a child, probably would actually like its sweet,
    docile connotations and would strongly object to any inference that
    those connotations may actually stem from less than flattering attitudes
    about adult women.

    And to that end, I wrote the note specifically so that I would not be 
    misunderstood, specifically by you, so that we wouldn't have to go down 
    the same rathole yet again with your usual, "that's you, not me", 
    contribution.  Yes, Kathy, you're right.  I wasn't discussing you. You've
    caught me.  Is that what my sin was?

    But even if it might not apply to you, can we still discuss it?  In 
    addition to us being properly trained to use qualifiers, must we now also
    include a category for where Kathy Gallup fits into the item being dis-
    cussed?  Should I have said, "Some women, including (or excluding) Kathy
    Gallup..."

    If your point is to establish that you are so different from the rest 
    of us, you've made it - several times.  I accept that you are different,
    Kathy.  I accept that you don't see much sexism and misogyny in your life.
    And I also accept that you have a right to snarl at women who do see it,
    lots of it, and who wish to discuss it.  We have your views now, and we
    understand that because you don't see it much you probably won't have
    much to contribute to the discussion.  But yelling at the people who
    *are* discussing it is an interesting reaction.  I wonder if my "fear
    of guilt by association" may be at work here.

    So now that we know where Kathy Gallup stands, and that I failed to
    acknowledge that in my reply, back to the discussion...
    
    PS:  Thanx, Suzanne, and good luck.  Everyone gets a turn.  ;-)
    

    Misogyny may indeed stem from a "lack of consciousness".
    
    In a society which devalues women and (dare I say) over-values men
    (maleness, manliness, etc) why in heaven's name should any man
    *BE* conscious of women? Except, of course, when they become too uppity
    and demanding. 
    
    So long as things run smoothly, the laundry gets done, the dinner gets
    served, the letters get typed, the children get raised....there is not
    a reason in the world why The Men should have to be conscious of
    The Women. Or their feelings. Or their little problems. Or their minor
    dissatisfactions.
    
    Problem is, we've become *noisy*. We've become *strident*. Some of us
    are even *ugly* and *strident*. (Yecccch.) We are forcing men to be
    *conscious* of us. Our feelings. Our problems in a misogynist society.
    
    (Yes, there are and have been men who have cared about this. Many of
    them are in this file. But they get damn little support from the
    society, too. Wasn't too long ago that a man changing his kids' diapers
    took the chance of being called a "wimp". And worse (all terms for
    females or femaleness)  - the worst possible insults to a male.
    
    And while I'm here in the parentheses, NO. It is not more insulting to
    describe a female in male terms. "She throws like a boy." is considered
    praise to a budding female Little Leaguer. "Don't run like a girl." Is
    good advice to a budding track star.  In case you missed it, the flaws
    here are that there are proper ways to run and to throw. The *im*proper
    ways are NOT gender-specific.)
    
    Is it a lack of consciousness which causes misogyny? Maybe. If so, we
    are bringing issues into the consciousness of a society. And being
    treated exactly as you would expect a misogynist society to treat
    women who don't stay "in their place".
    
    --DE
    
    
    

    RE:  .69 
    Hey, come on.  This is getting really unpleasant to watch. I may not
    agree with a lot of what Kath has to say, but I completely support her
    right to say it.  She is not writing specifically to annoy; she is
    writing what she thinks and she supports her views.  What I REALLY
    disagree with the personal attacks she gets from enlightened feminists.
    
    For the record, I don't like being called a girl.  I haven't since I
    was 18.  I personally think that routinely being called a girl is as
    insulting to a grown woman as routinely being called a boy is insulting
    to a grown man.  (How do we all feel about black men being called "Boy"
    -- it used to be "OK" in white society and is now fully recognized for
    what it is:  insulting and demeaning.)
    
    But I think publicly psychoanalyzing someone else's reason(s) for *not*
    minding being called a girl is really unfair, like snapping a bra strap
    or giving a wedgie to someone in public.  I think we should all have
    outgrown those impulses.
    
    It's childish and I really wish the personal attacks for personal
    beliefs would stop.
    
    Pam

    RE: society being misogynistic vs individual men being misogynists
    
    When such an idea has been "blessed", either by, say, force of law
    or thousands of years of custom, it becomes easy for individuals
    in a society to say and do things. Things that, when looked at under
    the light of logic and common sense, no longer seem sensible. "That's
    the way it's always been." is a strong force. "It's perfectly legal"
    is a strong force. And it's very difficult to battle those forces.
    
    That is one of the reason how, under the Nazi regime, perfectly fine
    human beings did perfectly reprehensible things. 
    
    Yes, there are men who are misogynists. They have no respect for women
    as human beings, but rather see us only as somehow related to *them*.
    TO serve their needs, bear their children, clean their houses, etc.
    
    There are also men who have grown up in a society that, as a whole,
    devalues its women and sees us only as we relate to men. When they
    *think* about it, these men realize that this is a ridiculous
    situation, but until they become conscious of its existence *and its
    effect on human beings* - it's not something they need ever to
    consider. The surrounding misogyny supports their way of being.
    
    Now, for some reason, which I have never been able to figure out, some
    men, when women point these things out, believe that these women hate
    them. As if in order to prove that we like men, we have to keep quiet,
    suffer in silence, take care of their lives so they don;t notice us,
    and don't call out their lack of sensitivity. 
    
    I heard a speech recently on women in the workforce. In a survey on
    successful women, I noticed one comment made by many male respondents.
    A successful woman should be quiet, unnoticed, as she does her work.
    
    So here we are, being uppity and *strident* to bring these things to
    the consciousness of men so they can understand. And the very thing
    we do dooms us to being called names and written off as "man-haters"
    "radicals", and (*shudder*) "Women's libbers".
    
    (It's really amazing that a women who bring issues to the attention of
    men are "man-haters", but the men who rape women every 5 seconds and
    kill them every couple of weeks are not "woman haters".)
    
    --DE
    

    RE: .71
    
    <             This is getting really unpleasant to watch. I may not
    <agree with a lot of what Kath has to say, but I completely support her
    <right to say it.
    

    Well, Pam, you just said no more than I did so you can expect to get
    attacked, too.  You said being called a girl "IS" demeaning, etc.  All
    I said was some women didn't mind it and I got slammed.  You are
    stating what apparently is a universal truth - it IS demeaning and if I
    got slammed for saying "some women", I can imagine what kind of flamage
    you'll receive for what you said.  Kathy says it isn't demeaning. 
    You're saying, (and you're not saying it's your own opinion, either),
    that it IS.  It ought to be interesting to see what happens here.
    
    I too support Kathy's right to say what she thinks and I stated that
    explicitly.  The trouble is, I also support mine.  But she doesn't seem
    to.  So if I'm blasted for daring to say something about "some women", 
    well, I'm gonna defend myself because I believe I have a right to.  If 
    you disagree with the "personal attacks she gets from enlightened 
    feminists", why didn't you have any trouble with the unfounded one I 
    got from her?  And how do you know she isn't writing "specifically to
    annoy"?  Aren't you concerned she might get upset with you for
    publicly assessing her motivations?  I mean you don't really KNOW what
    her motives are, so how can you make such an assumption without fear
    of reprisal?  Maybe because it's ok to make flattering assumptions
    only? 
    
    If you're against personal attacks, you ought to start with the first 
    one who attacks and not with the one who is defending against it.
    
    And what is so "unpleasant" to watch about this anyway?  Are some
    women, (maybe not you specifically but some),  really so uncomfortable 
    with discord that it's intolerable?  I don't see what the big deal is.  
    Kathy defends herself quite well, so does Suzanne and so do I.  So why 
    does this have to stop?  Maybe we're enjoying it.  I'll bet a lot of
    readers are!  ;-)  
    
    Maybe anytime someone gets close to home with a point someone gets antsy. 
    Does that mean we must shy away from any meaningful discussion?  Once
    again, I just don't understand why some women get so upset when
    everyone isn't simply making nice.  People do disagree and it's ok.  It
    really is.
    
    I'd hate to see this new banner for womannotes:
    
             No strong emotions, please, there are girls present.  

    Re: 996.69
    
    That note is beyond insulting.  I find it very sad that a person
    who has a great ability to write intelligent, thought provoking
    views would stoop so low as to attempt to publicly humiliate another
    noter.  I use the word attempt -  you certainly didn't succeed.
    
    I was so angry when I first wrote this reply, that I entered it,
    with numerous typos, I've re-written the reply, and disgust has
    replaced angry.
    
    SandieD

>    Does that mean we must shy away from any meaningful discussion?  
    
     Are you trying to imply that .69 constituted or fostered "meaningful
    discussion?" 
    
     The Doctah

    	Things are insulting and demeaning when they are intended to
    be so. How often do you find yourself saying, "I wonder what the
    girls are doing?" or "I think I'll go out with the girls." A simple
    statement not meant to demean or reduce the status of anyone. If
    you're stared at and someone says, "Sitdown, girl!" then you have
    the case of being demeaned by being referred to as lessthan women.
    	I do so love the support for each other when a female in the
    file decides not to be "strident" (another cutesy word) along with
    the rah rahs. Let's gang up on her and verbally drive her from the 
    file. That'll teach her. 
    
    	As to repetitiveness, she had to defend against the hoards
    attacking her, so it goes without saying that she'd have to repeat.
    After all, you all said the same thing to her, just different. 
    
    	You claim that you want women's voice heard, you want to challange
    the status quo, and in the same breath, you rise equally to quell
    the dissenting cry from within your own ranks because you sense
    it as a weakness. 
    
    Just my humble opinion and observation.
    
    As a question: Ever hear of an "Attaboy"? They feel good. Think
    an "Attawomen" would??
    
    Ken......back to my cave

Just something I noticed...I have seen the word "strident" used many times in
this note and in others...it is invariably used as an *example* of a negative
term that non-feminists or anti-feminists use against feminist women.  However,
I have never seen it used by a non- or anti-feminist!   The only place I have
ever seen or heard the word was from the mouth (fingers) of a feminist saying
that that is what feminist women are called.

Do people really call other people "strident"?  In what context?

D!

    	RE: .78  D!
    
    	This gets interesting, because calling feminists "strident" goes
    	back in Notes history.
    
    	Some years ago, I can remember seeing feminists called "strident"
    	a number of times (and I found the usage quite insulting, and
    	pointed at feminists exclusively.)  So I tried an experiment -
    	in the course of an argument with a gentleman in Mennotes, I
    	called *him* strident (to see how he would react.)
    
    	He responded with near shock - along the lines of how no one had
    	ever called him strident before, and he very quietly announced
    	that he was leaving the discussion in the same note.  I don't know
    	what he was feeling, but I sensed that seeing the word used against
    	him was disorienting in some way (and he wasn't quite sure what to
    	make of it.)
    
    	Since then, feminists seemed to have *claimed* the word for ourselves
    	(which may account for how rare it is to see anyone *else* use the
    	word to describe us anymore.)  ;^)
    
    	(Hopefully, I'm not the only one who remembers back to the days in
    	notes where people tended to call some of us strident a lot.) ;^)

re.79

Yes 'strident' brings back the memories.  It was slung with such abandon that
I was beginning to think it was my middle name [not as frequently in =wn= as 
elsewhere].  It always brings a warm glow to my heart when I see it used now.

When I first heard it, I was a bit taken aback.  But with time, I realised
that it is merely [by usage] the feminine 'assertive' and quite applicable.
I too noticed that when I started proudly admitting to being strident, that
people stopped telling me that I was.

I've always wondered if it was because they felt I realised it or because
they didn't want to compliment me anymore ... sigh.

  Ann

    	RE: .77 KUPTON
    
    	> I do so love the support for each other when a female in the
    	> file decides not to be "strident" (another cutesy word) along with
    	> the rah rahs. Let's gang up on her and verbally drive her from the 
    	> file. That'll teach her. 
    
    	The word "strident" is "cutesy" now???  (Wow!  I never fully
    	appreciated the power of claiming an insulting word - it's great
    	to find out that it has become "cutesy" since we stopped being
    	insulted by it, and started using it to refer to ourselves!)
    
    	It's interesting that Kath's attack on Sandy (for having the nerve
    	to describe "SOME women") is now being characterized as "deciding
    	not to be strident."  Kath sounded pretty strident to me (in the 
    	strictest definition of the word) when she pounced on Sandy for 
    	talking about "some women."
    
    	I guess the point is that it's ok to attack feminists (since it
    	is defined as "deciding not to be strident.")
    
    	It's *not* ok for feminists to defend ourselves (or our point of
    	view) lest we appear to be attacking others.
    
    	Heaven forbid that anyone should think that feminists are less
    	than fully accomodating while being attacked.  We certainly
    	wouldn't want to give the impression that we are willing to back
    	our beliefs with conviction.  Someone might think we're trying
    	to be "cutesy" again (with such strident behavior.)  Geesh!

>                       <<< Note 996.75 by USEM::DIONNE >>>

>    That note is beyond insulting.  I find it very sad that a person
>    who has a great ability to write intelligent, thought provoking
>    views would stoop so low as to attempt to publicly humiliate another
>    noter.  I use the word attempt -  you certainly didn't succeed.


	 I'm used to it.


	 I graciously bow out of this conversation.  I would like to
	 continue it, because it's important to me, but I don't have
	 the time nor the energy to argue.

	 kath

    > Kathy defends herself quite well, so does Suzanne and so do I.  So why 
    > does this have to stop?  Maybe we're enjoying it.  I'll bet a lot of
    > readers are!  ;-)  
    
    Since I know all three people mentioned (two of whom I've even met in
    person), I know that I'm certainly enjoying it. 

    It's like one of the same over-and-over-and-over-again discussions -
    about some obscure point - that go on in IOSG::CHRISTIAN.

    > Maybe anytime someone gets close to home with a point someone gets antsy. 
    > Does that mean we must shy away from any meaningful discussion?  Once
     
    I believe (emphasis on the word *I*) there hasn't been anything meaningful
    said in this string, probably since reply .10.

    > I'd hate to see this new banner for womannotes:
    
    >         No strong emotions, please, there are girls present.  

    I don't know, I think it might be kind of catchy.

      Alan             

    I didn't enjoy it.  I thought it was boring.  Sorry "girls" :-).
    
    I enjoyed reading Dawn's 2 recent replies, tho, and agree with them.
    
    Lorna
     

    
    	RE: .84  Alan
    
    	> ...I know that I'm certainly enjoying it. 
    
    	> I believe (emphasis on the word *I*) there hasn't been anything 
    	> meaningful said in this string, probably since reply .10.
    
    	As long as more than two people in a discussion find the material
    	entertaining and/or meaningful in some way, it's worth it.
    

    I think the vast majority of people are making it crystal clear that
    they are not interested in the rathole.  
    ********************************************************************
    
    When this topic was first opened, I had been noticing the trend for
    using the word "misogyny" a lot, and somewhat agreed with the opening
    note's premise:   misogyny is being used to explain sexism so often
    that the word is losing its meaning.  I'm less sure now.  
    
    In particular, the argument (can't remember who -- Suzanne? Dawn? Ann?)
    that misogyny ONLY applies to males who hunt and gun down females,
    whereas man-hating can apparently be slung around casually to insult
    any woman who comments that the status quo is not quite fair was QUITE
    telling.  Women ARE so used to being insulted as a group that it slides
    off us or we don't even notice or we do it ourselves; men (from a
    societal viewpoint) have so much inherent power that they find it
    mind-bogglingly offensive to be insulted or ignored or analyzed.
    
    However, I still don't want to see "misogyny" become as commonplace and
    STUPID a word as "man-hating" has become.  I'd like it to maintain its
    current impact and power.  How can we do that?  One way might be to
    remember what it means before using it; and to apply it more readily to
    "attitudes in society" rather than individual people.  Another way
    would be to use the list of alternate adjectives published a few notes
    back. 
    
    For instance, I don't like to be called a girl, since "girl" means
    child rather than adult to me.  However, I would say that I see calling
    women "girls" as BELITTLING rather than misogynistic.  (I see it as  a
    label that makes women less than they are; but am not sure it is
    appropriate in this case to state unequivocally that the reason for
    doing this is that women are hated.  Devalued yes, hated no.)  However,
    I do see the argument that a man (say, in New England, rather than in
    another part of the U.S.) who repeatedly calls a woman a "girl" -- when
    he knows she doesn't like it -- is deliberately being offensive and
    may, deep down, hate women.
    
    I really liked D!'s description of how misogyny comes to permeate
    society so completely that people don't necessarily see its roots; and
    that people can reflect society's misogyny without knowingly or
    necessarily being misogynistic.
    
    In a lot of ways, I think most of the people in this topic are in
    violent agreement, but because we are coming from different angles we
    aren't seeing it!
    
    Pam

    	Getting back to the subject of misogyny (per the basenote)...
    
    	A number of times, I've seen people treat the use of the word
    	"misogyny" as though it were an insult to men (and as though
    	it is parallel to an individual woman being called a "man hater.")
    
    	I've seen queries posed as to which is worse - to insult an entire
    	class of people, or to insult one identifiable individual.  The
    	persons posing the query use the comparison, I presume, as a way
    	to suggest that insulting an individual is the lesser evil than
    	insulting an entire sex (in this specific situation.)
    
    	Misogyny is not an insult to all men.  The hatred of women is a
    	cultural affliction (shared to some degree by many/most people
    	in our culture, whether it's the way many people *feel* about
    	women *OR* whether it's merely the way women are *treated* in
    	our society as a group.)
    
    	Saying "misogyny exists" and/or "a certain scenerio is an example 
    	of misogyny" is not the same thing as saying "men are shit," in 
    	other words.
    
    	The evidence of misogyny (as a cultural affliction) is all around
    	us.  I don't see the insult to anyone to acknowledge its existence,
    	nor do I see the point in pretending that something *isn't* misogyny
    	because it makes some members of the majority uneasy (in case the
    	acknowledgement *does* imply something possibly negative about men.)
    
    	As discussed earlier in notes, I don't see women telling individual
    	men, "You are a misogynist."  What I'm seeing is certain actions or
    	groups of actions being described as being part of the cultural
    	affliction of misogyny, which does *not* mean that the individual
    	involved in the action is misogynist.  What it means, to me, is
    	that groups of actions considered *acceptable* in our society are
    	*born* of misogyny (as a cultural affliction,) whether many people
    	are conscious of this connection or not.
    
    	Talking about misogyny only serves to *make* all of us more conscious
    	of it (and I fail to see a problem with doing that.)
    
    	If someone is going to bring up the idea that women should accept
    	more blame ourselves, etc., let me point out that women already tend
    	to do that to an alarming degree (erring *much farthur* on the side of 
    	low self-esteem, guilt and self-hatred) already.  We don't need to
    	be pushed any *more* in that direction as a group than we already are 
    	(thanks in large part to the very misogyny we're talking about here.)

    
    	RE: Correction to .88
    
    	> What I'm seeing is certain actions or groups of actions being 
    	> described as being part of the cultural affliction of misogyny, 
    	> which does *not* mean that the individual involved in the action 
    	> is misogynist. 
    	
    	That should be "which does *not necessarily* mean that the individual
    	involved in the action is misogynist."
    

    	RE: .89  Mike Z
    
    	.35> When the basenote asked how some of us would feel if we were
	.35> called "man haters" undeservedly, it took me by surprise.  

	> Suzanne, I know you've been labelled as such in the past.
	> And so have some other WNers.
    	> And that's precisely why I asked that.
    
    	> Wouldn't it be better if such strong terms were used responsibly,
    	> rather than without substantiation?
    
    	Yes, it would be better, especially since I'm in the group that
    	is most often the target of such strong terms.  ;^)
    
    	> Personally, I was hoping to see men saying "yeah, I have called
    	> some women `man-haters', and on no more evidence than those women
    	> who called some men `woman-haters'", but instead I hear people using
    	> semantics to justify their labels.
    
    	Show me all the men who are personally being told, "You are a woman
    	hater."  We already *know* you can name identifiable women who have
    	been called "man haters" to our faces in notes.  
    
    	Show me the men who are the *direct targets* of the same labels (and I 
    	don't count "misogyny exists" as a direct insult to an individual man.)
    
    	> I can see that there will be no resolution or agreement or compro-
    	> mise on this issue, at least not here and not right now.
    
    	The problem is that you equated two things that simply aren't the
    	same.  Telling someone "You hate men" is not the same thing as 
    	saying, "Our culture treats women as a group with hate."
    
    	As someone said earlier, it appears that women are so accustomed to
    	being insulted that we almost take it in stride when we are called
    	names as a group or as individuals, while some men are *MORE* insulted
    	for their group by comments that apply to our entire CULTURE!

    I just *knew* someone would rathole the conversation by getting back to
    the base note. :-)
    
>    In particular, the argument (can't remember who -- Suzanne? Dawn? Ann?)
>    that misogyny ONLY applies to males who hunt and gun down females,
>    whereas man-hating can apparently be slung around casually to insult
>    any woman who comments that the status quo is not quite fair was QUITE
>    telling.
    
     I disagree that this is a valid argument. For the argument to be
    accurate, several conditions must exist (as imposed by the argument
    itself): 1) the concept that misogyny only applies to men who hunt down
    and kill women must be true. It isn't. Hatred does not necessarily
    imply hunting down and killing. 1 straw man left by the wayside. 2) The
    concept that it is _acceptable_ to to casually insult women by accusing
    them of man merely because they comment that the status-quo isn't fair
    must also be true. It isn't either. I don't think you'll find too many
    people that believe that calling anyone (any woman) who comments about
    the lack of fairness in our society a "man-hater" is an acceptable
    practice. Given the lack of a consensus on that point, it too is a
    straw man with little stuffing left. :-) 
    
>    Women ARE so used to being insulted as a group that it slides
>    off us or we don't even notice or we do it ourselves; men (from a
>    societal viewpoint) have so much inherent power that they find it
>    mind-bogglingly offensive to be insulted or ignored or analyzed.
    
     I believe that your second statement is a bit of an oversimplification
    and overstatement. "Mind-bogglingly offensive?" Nah. Especially when it
    comes to being ignored (which can be annoying) or analyzed (which is
    just fine with me). Insulted, well, I guess it depends on the insult.
    Being insulted can be pretty enraging and offensive.
    
>    One way might be to
>    remember what it means before using it; and to apply it more readily to
>    "attitudes in society" rather than individual people.
    
     Applying it to attitudes is fine when it's accurate. Applying it to
    groups or individuals is fine, too- when it's accurate. The problem
    arises when the statement is made and someone questions its accuracy.
    
>     Another way
>    would be to use the list of alternate adjectives published a few notes
>    back.                                             
    
     I think this is the best thing to do. Not to shy away from calling a
    spade a spade- that isn't healthy, but to use the more descriptive and
    accurate terms instead of using misogyny as a sort of default
    descriptor with a negative connotation.
    
>    However, I would say that I see calling
>    women "girls" as BELITTLING rather than misogynistic.
    
     This is a perfect example of what I mean. Thanks!
    
>         In a lot of ways, I think most of the people in this topic are in
>    violent agreement, but because we are coming from different angles we
>    aren't seeing it!
    
     Everyone has their teeth sunk deep into their own interpretation of
    what's right here; no one seems willing to entertain any notions that
    do not correspond exactly with their own ideas. It's a pretty common
    pattern.
    
     The Doctah

    <set_flame_on>
    Give me a break.  If only we women could learn to laugh at
    ourselves....
    misogyny?  gosh no. she just can't take a joke.
    
    Misogyny is misogyny is misogyny, period.
    
    Where do the names, the 'cutesy' terminology, the 'take my wife please'
    jokes come from, if not from misogyny?  Yes, deep rooted, inherent
    misogyny. 
    
    grrr.
    
    <set_flame_off>
     

    Well, Mike, you have to understand that when a man says something
    like, ~But I'm not a misogynist like that guy who killed all those
    women in Montr�al...~ there is the temptation to see one of two
    ideas implied:  The idea that he is a *different* sort of misogynist,
    or the idea that he canNOT be a misogynist because he isn't a killer.
    
    Neither interpretation is, um, satisfactory.
    
    							Ann B.

    	RE: .95  Mike Z.
    
    	> I feel the dilution of such a powerful term as "misogyny" by
    	> equating it to other meanings, such as "laughed at a sexist joke",
    	> or "made fun of a feminist's appearance", or "said a chauvinistic
    	> thing", trivializes TRUE misogyny.
    
    	It's a good thing that "misogyny" doesn't have feelings about it.  ;^)
    
    	> Misogyny, as per the definition "woman hater" is a _very_ bad
    	> and _very_ dangerous social situation.
    
    	It wouldn't *be* so bad and dangerous if it weren't accompanied by
    	actions against women as a group, such as systematically denying
    	us opportunities, as well as the appalling numbers of us who are
    	beaten, raped and murdered (mostly by people we know!)
    
    	> But, misogyny, as per some definitions here in 996.*, ranges
    	> from a different sense of humor to an ability to laugh at onesself
    	> to true hatred of woman.
    
    	The atmosphere of misogyny in our culture is demonstrated in a
    	*wide* variety of dehumanizing ways, with some of these being
    	far more brutal (and life-threatening) than others.
    
    	It seems like a waste of time to me to endlessly nitpick about
    	which culturally-induced misogynist behaviors are "worthy" of
    	being given the label "misogyny," and which are not.
    
    	> If the term continues to become diluted, it will go from being
    	> a horrible social problem to an accepted difference of perspectives.
    
    	If the term becomes diluted, then a stronger term will rise up to
    	take its place (as long as our society continues to be plagued with
    	this affliction.)
    
    	The reason for pointing out the more subtle effects of misogyny is
    	because these less noticeable aspects of misogyny already *are*
    	an accepted part of our culture for many people.  The only way to
    	make them less acceptable is to point out their origins.

    	RE: .102  Mike Z
    
    	> Is that key to your argument?  A direct insult?
	> ... or will indirect do as well?
    
    	Well, I should say "yes" (since it would be far easier to furnish
    	you with a long list of instances where women were told in a very
    	direct manner, "YOU hate men!" than it would be to find even *one*
    	instance of a man being told directly, "YOU hate women!")  ;^)
    
    	> If not, then I'd like to know why saying (paraphrased) "your
    	> attitude is that of a misogynist" is different than saying "you're
    	> a misogynist".
    
    	The paraphrasing *should* be, "SOMEONE IN ANOTHER CONFERENCE [which
    	is about as deliberately vague as one can get] has an attitude I
    	would regard as misogynist."  You identified yourself, Mike, which
    	was your choice.
    
    	Even if a person identifies a statement as being evidence of the
    	misogyny that exists in our culture, I don't see that it necessarily
    	means that the person hates women.
    
    	However, when someone says, "YOU hate men!" (which has been said to
    	me, personally, more times than I care to count) - the intended
    	meaning is pretty doggone clear.

>	If [...] it can then be concluded that 
>    misogynist comments are made by misogynists, and subsequently if
>    a noter (me) said "you're talking about me, I said that in Soapbox"...
>	If not, then I'd like to know why saying (paraphrased) "your
>    attitude is that of a misogynist" is different than saying "you're
>    a misogynist".

Mike, 

Are you ignoring me or are you deaf?

You asked me the same question about 50 replies ago, and I answered it,
and you never responded.  (I think my reply was .50, or somewhere around
there.)  Now you are asking Suzanne the same question?  Is this like asking
Mom permission for something, then asking Dad when she says no, hoping he 
will not realize Mom said no and give a different answer?  What are you
looking for?

One can make a comment that is misgynistic (characteristic of amisogynistic
society) without being a misogynist.  I gave an example in my reply.  If
you disagree with my logic or example, have the decency to address my point
directly (which, BTW, was aimed at you, by name, specifically) rather than
ignoring my answer and asking someone else the same question.

I wouldn't presume to guess whether the referenced statement (about how
the trashbag comment is misogynistic) meant you in particular are a 
misogynistic, or just that the statement relfects misogyny, but I *would*
presume to say that it is not necessarily the former.  You clearly still
disagree.  Why?

D!

   <<< Note 996.94 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "cuz Tim didn't blow chow at 5000'" >>>

.52>    unintentionally -- *an extremely misogynist cultural reference (the
.52>    trash bag)* to describe your opinion of her appearance!  My reply was
.94>	It is _sometimes_, not _always_, a misogynist cultural reference.

    It is *my* contention/opinion that that particular cultural reference
    is misogynist.  Always.  By origin, culture, etc., etc.

.94>	I think I understand what you are saying.
.94>	What I said about trash bags is indicative of what a real
.94>    misogynist would say.

    No, *not necessarily.*  What you said about trash bags comes from a
    misogynist culture, is a misogynist reference, and -- consequently, *in
    my opinion* -- would not *continue* to be perpetrated by a person (either
    male or female) who did not want to risk being thought of as a
    misogynist.
    
<	If that is so, you must realize that if I make a statement
<    that is identical to one that would be made by a person who hates
<    women, that coincidence alone does not make me a woman hater.
    
    Well, let's say I certainly wouldn't advise that you make that
    statement in *this* particular environment!  Just as you (rhetorical
    "you" here) would be *very* careful if/when/where you used an offensive
    word to describe a person of a specific racial or ethnic group. 

   <<< Note 996.95 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "cuz Tim didn't blow chow at 5000'" >>>
<	I feel the dilution of such a powerful term as "misogyny" by
<    equating it to other meanings, such as "laughed at a sexist joke",
<    or "made fun of a feminist's appearance", or "said a chauvinistic
<    thing", trivializes TRUE misogyny.
    
    Can you show any place in *this* string where "making fun of a
    feminist's appearance" is equated with misogyny?

    
    Would it help any to make an analogy between "misogyny" and "racism"?
    If someone makes a racist remark, is that someone a racist? Or does
    that someone at least run a serious risk of being considered a racist?

    re: .106  It was .55, D!.  I scratched my head and looked it up when I
    realized Mike hadn't read it.
    
    re:  .96  Mark
    I'm glad you agree with the latter part of my posting, but just have to
    point out that you are one of the ones who has their "teeth sunk into
    their own interpretation of what's right"!  :-) :-)
    
    You categorize the specific wording I used to contrast the uses of
    "misogyny" and "man-hating" as two straw men.  But you don't address
    the underlying argument itself! The underlying argument was the same
    one Suzanne brought up in .37 and others have also brought up:  
    
      o  misogyny must be extreme to be recognized (Mike, take note):
         only when it is on the LEVEL of the Montreal incident do we
     	 we all agree that it is present.  Woman-hating is a real,
    	 hard, strong adjective that describes raw hatred.
      o  man-hating, in contrast, is easily used to apply to women,
         particularly feminists.  I wasn't saying that it was a nice thing
         to say, or a fair thing to say:  just that it was common, so
         common that "man-hating feminist" or "man-hating women's-libber"
         is a well-known label for a well-known stereotype.  "Woman-hating 
         man's man" is not on any level a "common epithet".
    
    Now is this observation still the juxtoposition of two straw men? You
    say for men to be insulted, "it depends on the insult."  My point was 
    that the insult can be extremely weak and still cause extreme anger in
    men (remember the violent controversy about the "men don't want to
    know" personal name??!); women are routinely insulted and even insult
    themselves ("oh, I throw like a girl.").
    
    (Wish I had time to edit this some more, but I gotta go!)
    Pam

    I take words seriously, and I try to say what I mean.  When I use the
    word misogyny, that's what I mean -- hatred of women.  I believe 
    that we live in a world where hatred of women is normal.  Women are 
    considered weak, smelly, evil, manipulative, etc.  I also believe that 
    we have all (women and men) internalized those ideas about women.  I 
    think that if we want to learn to love women (whether we are male or 
    female), we must examine and challenge all the awful things we have 
    learned about women.  Even though I love women, I still do and say things 
    that remind me that I still need to work on overcoming my internalized 
    misogyny.
    
    I happen to believe that if a man expresses his anger at feminists 
    and/or at feminism by saying that a prominent feminist is so ugly 
    she ought to wear a hefty bag, that is an expression of hatred of 
    women.  He's not attacking her views or her logic, he's insulting her 
    body.  When my younger brother and I were little and got into an 
    argument, if he found that he was losing, he would cover his ears with 
    his hands and start yelling -- to drown me out.  I think to a certain 
    extent, the hefty bag comment is like that, but there is, I think, an 
    important difference.  My brother's yelling was nonsensical -- its only 
    object to drown out my voice.  I think when men make negative comments 
    about women's bodies (in a context where physical appearance is not at 
    all the topic of discussion), the intent may certainly be to silence 
    women, but the content is loaded; it's not just noise.  I think that 
    "Shut up!" is different from "Shut up, you ugly..."
    
    Does uttering misogynous words make a person a mysogynist?  I believe that 
    we live in a misogynous world and that we all have absorbed some level of 
    misogyny, so if I point out that I find a certain behavior offensive 
    because I think it demonstrates hatred of women, I'm not really talking
    about the person, I'm talking about the behavior.  
    
    Some folks might think I run the risk of diluting the meaning of misogyny
    through overuse -- I happen to think that misogyny is quite prevalent.
    I will try to explain, however, how/why I think something is misogynous
    lest anyone think I'm using the word frivolously.
    
    Justine

>    I'm glad you agree with the latter part of my posting, but just have to
>    point out that you are one of the ones who has their "teeth sunk into
>    their own interpretation of what's right"!  :-) :-)
    
     Qui? Moi?!!! :-) Yes, I realize that.
    
>      o  misogyny must be extreme to be recognized (Mike, take note):
>         only when it is on the LEVEL of the Montreal incident do we
>     	 we all agree that it is present.
    
     I disagree. A person doesn't have to kill women to be easily
    recognizable as a misogynist. As for "we all agree," you aren't going
    to find too many things where at least a few people don't disagree.
    
>      o  man-hating, in contrast, is easily used to apply to women,
>         particularly feminists.
    
     However, on a parallel plane, such an accusation is steadfastly and
    routinely denied with every bit of the vigor that men deny misogyny. I
    recall a particularly heated argument in mennotes regarding the group
    of women who gathered on Boston Common on father's day to protest. The
    women were reported (by female reporters) as being "self-proclaimed
    man-haters." After their rally, these women went into the remnants of
    the combat zone and vandalized a few adult bookstores (read: explicit
    sexual material stores). It was argued over the course of several
    hundred notes that the women were not man-haters (this position was
    adopted by mostly or exclusively women). And men generally took the
    position that these women demonstrated a hatred for men, and thus were
    misandrists. 
    
     The point is that while a case could be made that men are more likely
    to engage in slapping the label man-haters, it certainly isn't blandly
    accepted- it is fought tooth and nail. And given the rising prevalence
    of the use of misogyny here and elsewhere, that position is less
    rigorous.
    
>    My point was 
>    that the insult can be extremely weak and still cause extreme anger in
>    men (remember the violent controversy about the "men don't want to
>    know" personal name??!
    
     Nah- can't recall, can you refresh my memory? :-) Just kidding. :-)
    
     Actually, the fact that the insult didn't say "men are scum" doesn't
    mean the insult was any less powerful; only less obvious. 
    
>    women are routinely insulted and even insult
>    themselves ("oh, I throw like a girl.").                    
    
     Acknowledged. I getcha drift.
    
     The Doctah

    OK, lets take this on down the road. Yesterday the Colorado Springs
    paper had an aricle about domestic violence. The reports of it are up
    dramatically in our town. The two reasons given by the police
    department:

    reason 1: increased stress from all the home foreclosures and
    unemployment. More men are beating their wives and children.
    It's rarely the wife beating up someone.

    reason 2: more people realise that it's not OK to beat your wife
    anymore so more cases get reported.

    Our culture is only now realising that maybe it's not OK to beat
    your wife. I love that description, it's not a crime exactly, just not
    OK. If our society doesn't hate women and devalue women why can some
    men (quite a few according to the local crime statistics) think it's
    their right to beat up their wives if things aren't going so good for
    them?

    As is said many times in this conference, we are not the "average"
    Americans. We make more money and have more education. But on the
    street and outside of work we women are subjected to the attitudes of
    society as a whole. Perhaps it's that other world out there that has
    us so mad. And when we rail against it here I feel as though some
    male noters take the "well, I'm not like that" stance and get
    defensive. And then we go down the ratholes. liesl

    re: .112
    
    Bravo.
    
    I will, in addition to my own note on my own misogyny that I put in
    another topic, own up to having some anger at men that could,
    sometimes, be construed as man-hating.  Frinstance, I own a button,
    although I have yet to wear it, that says "The way to a man's heart is
    with a broadsword".  Any man-hating actions I may exhibit are mostly a
    result of anger and frustration at my experience of being a woman in an
    unbalanced society which treats women differently, and often as less,
    than men.  This does not validate my thoughts or my actions, it is just
    my motivation.  I do not hate men, as a rule.  I occasionally  exhibit
    anger and frustration at them through negative remarks which  may look
    like hate.  And often I apologize immediately after saying it because
    it feels like letting negative energy out (which is positive) in a way
    that could have negative results on my relationships with fellow human
    beings (men and women - who may base their opinions of me on how I act
    or what I say, and if a certain action is nonrepresentative of me as a
    whole - i.e. as swearing really harshly - I apologize if I offend them).  
    
    What is the motivation for the hefty-trash-bag remark? 
    What is the motivation for misogynistic actions?  Is it anger and
    frustration?  Is it denigration?  Is it a need for feeling more
    powerful than the object of the misogynistic action or spoken phrase -
    a form of one-ups-man-ship?   Is it a release of negative energy that
    builds up for various reasons?  What could these reasons be?
    
    Does the motivation behind the action - whether it is trivial/casual or
    serious/dangerous - validate or invalidate the use of the words
    "man-hating" or "misogyny"?  I think there can be degrees - but as
    people on occasion in this topic have called for placing the term
    misogyny where it belongs - or in the proper context - I think I can
    honestly say the place I believe it belongs is WITHIN CLEAR SIGHT. 
    Where we can SEE IT and call it what it is.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    re:.112
    says it all.
    

    	RE: 112  Justine
    
    	Excellent note!!
    
    	> Does uttering misogynous words make a person a mysogynist?  I 
    	> believe that we live in a misogynous world and that we all have 
    	> absorbed some level of misogyny, so if I point out that I find a 
    	> certain behavior offensive because I think it demonstrates hatred 
    	> of women, I'm not really talking about the person, I'm talking 
    	> about the behavior.  
    
    	Regardless of claims about semantics, there is a difference between 
    	characterizing a *behavior* as misogynistic versus calling a *person* 
    	a mysogynist.
    
    	Books on parenting often urge parents to call their children's
    	*behavior* naughty (rather than calling the *children* naughty
    	themselves) because of the distinct difference in the message
    	behind each of these approaches.

    Mike,
    
    In your reply .103, you quoted my semi-quote from .100:  ~But I'm not
    a misogynist like that guy who killed all those women in Montr�al...~
    and continued with:

	"But that situation is hypothetical, unless I passed right by the
    reply that said that.

	"Is it here, or are you providing a hypothetical situation?"
    
    Permit me to point you to note 996.29, written (ostensibly) by
    yourself, Mike Zarlenga:

	"It is.  But "woman hater" strikes me as a whole level nastier.

	"It conjures up images of the mass murder of women in Montreal.

	"*That* was misogyny."
    
    I hope you find this reference satisfactory.
    
    							Ann B.

>.106>Are you ignoring me or are you deaf?

>	I read your answer.

>	I disagree with it.

In other words you are ignoring me.

Mike, yo, yoo-hooo, hey, mike Z, I'm talking to you.  That's Mike Zarlenga!
Yo!

Good, now that I have your attention...you addressed a question *to* *me*.
You said, essentially, how can one exhibit misogyny without being a misogynist.
I answered, complete with an example.  You *didn't* *respond*.  Then some notes
later, you ask the *same* *question* of someone else.  You never even addressed
my answer, didn't say you disagreed, let alone actually explaining why you
disagreed.

People like you are impossible to argue with, and I have now decided I will
attempt no further.  With many people, I have a discussion like this: 
they say "X".  I said, "I disagree with X, because A is true, A leads to
B, B leads to C, and C leads to not-X".  They say "X".  They don't say
"I disagree with your premise A".  They don't say "I disagree with your
logical leap from B to C."  They just insist that X is still true, despite
my logic to the contrary, without saying where my logic is flawed.  (At least
the hypothetical person adamantly stating "X" *responded*.  You didn't have
the courtesy to respond to an explanation *you* *asked* *for*.)

You clearly have no interest in carrying on a genuine thought-out discussion
of this topic, so I hereby withdraw from this conversation.

D!

    Re .112:

    > I happen to believe that if a man expresses his anger at feminists 
    > and/or at feminism by saying that a prominent feminist is so ugly  she
    > ought to wear a hefty bag, that is an expression of hatred of  women.

    Why do you believe that is due to hatred, rather than some other cause? 
    Why do you think such an act could not be caused by ignorance, by lack
    of compassion for another person, by unthinking adherence to
    teachings/conditionings that women are inferior, by a typical reaction
    against anything that goes against the status quo, by fear, or by a
    reaction against any opponent?


				-- edp

    re -1:    
    
    >Why do you believe that is due to hatred, rather than some other cause? 
    >Why do you think such an act could not be caused by ignorance, by lack
    >of compassion for another person, by unthinking adherence to
    >teachings/conditionings that women are inferior, by a typical reaction
    >against anything that goes against the status quo, by fear, or by a
    >reaction against any opponent?

    Because the same men who would say "ignorantly innocent" remarks to
    women probably wouldn't say "ignorantly innocent" remarks to a man,
    to the woman he wants to sleep with, to his boss, etc.  The selection
    of when to be "unthinking", when to "lack compassion" and whom to fear
    is what differs the misogynist from the average imbecile.  Truly 
    ignorant people who make stupid remarks about everyone and everything,
    (Archie Bunker), are far more rare than are men who select their
    targets and choose their behaviors based on them.  That selection, that
    singling out of a group, makes one a specific hater of that group and
    throws the argument of innocence and ignorance right out the window.
    
    Everyone recognizes the Archie Bunker types.  Generally only women
    recognize misogynists and misogynistic attitudes.  Only people of
    other races recognize racism.  Only prisoners recognize the problems of
    overcrowding in jails, etc.
    
    Liesl Kolbe, your note was great.  That's excatly what happens, every
    damn time!
    

    And if you think an alleged misogynist may be absolved of blame because
    he may only be "adhering to teachings/conditionings that women are
    inferior", I ask you, who ARE those teachers?  We women live with them
    in the world, too.  And doesn't everyone "teach" everyone else? 
    Doesn't one boy in the schoolyard screaming, "GIRLY-ITIS! - LOOK OUT!"
    teach other boys that something about women is disgusting if men get
    too close?  (That was a common theme in my grade school - if a boy
    accidently touched a girl he screamed it and all the other boys avoided
    him for the rest of the day.  Who's the teacher and who's the "innocent
    student" there?)

  <<< Note 996.119 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "for just 1 nite gimme 1 more nite" >>>
                                -< here ya go >-


.108>    Can you show any place in *this* string where "making fun of a
.108>    feminist's appearance" is equated with misogyny?

.119>	The following, in my opinion, calls me a misogynist.

.8>    certain prominent feminist is.  One man in particular recommended that 
.8>    this women wear a "hefty trash bag."  I think only true hatred of women 
.8>    could inspire such a comment.  These men may or may not actually think

    "Making fun of a feminist's appearance" .NE.  (that's "DOES NOT EQUAL")
    "making fun of a feminist's appearance by sugggesting she wear a hefty
    trash bag." 
    
    It is not accurate to say that "making fun of a feminist's appearance"
    is equated with misogyny when that is clearly *not* the case in this
    string.  I am rapidly losing faith in your ability/willingness to
    be fair, however.

>                    <<< Note 996.127 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>

>    too close?  (That was a common theme in my grade school - if a boy
>    accidently touched a girl he screamed it and all the other boys avoided
>    him for the rest of the day.  Who's the teacher and who's the "innocent
>    student" there?)


	 Hummm....almost like the little girls screaming and running
	 from the boys because the boys had "kooties."

	 I guess I don't see it so blatently one-sided as you do,
	 Sandy.

	 kath

    	RE: .119  Mike Z
    
    	It's pitiful that the quoted reply (about an unnamed man in an 
    	unnamed conference) is the closest thing you can find to equate 
    	with the numbers of times that you have seen identifiable women 
    	addressed *directly* in notes with, "You are a man hater!!" 
    
    	It's also ironic that you are now hunting Justine down with the 
    	burning question (paraphrased): "Did you call me a woman hater?" 
    
    	Most of us who have been called "man haters" to our faces didn't
    	need to ask the question (since it was an indisputable fact that
    	the accusers did precisely that.)  Had we thought to ask though,
    	I'm sure the response would have been, "Damn straight I did!!
    	Can't you read?????"
    
    	Try to understand this, Mike:  Your comment about hefty trash bags
    	was *born* of misogyny (in a misogynist culture that believes that
    	the only reason women could want to lead a women's rights movement
    	is that they're too ugly to get men to take care of them.)
    
    	Your comment about the trash bags was meant to be humorous (in a
    	culture that takes great pleasure and humor out of dehumanizing and
    	humiliating women, which is born of a profound societal hatred and 
    	contempt for women.)
    
    	Whether you consciously buy into this hatred or not, you became a
    	part of it when you promoted the misogynistic message that women in
    	political movements ought to be targets for humiliating remarks
    	about their looks.

    re .129, Mike, if a woman did accuse you of being a woman hater, would
    you be really upset, and, if so, why?   (I'm not accusing you and
    I don't think you are, but I get the impression that if someone
    did accuse you of being a woman hater that you would be very upset
    and defensive and I'm curious as to why.)
    
    I've been called a man hater a few times in notes, and I laughed.
    I didn't get upset about it because I know it's not true.  I've
    had friends accuse me of loving men before, ("Lorna, you *love*
    men!"), and that makes me laugh, too, because I know that I don't
    either love or hate all men in general.  People are people; some
    I like, some I don't.  Misogyny is a problem in our society but
    I don't understand why it upset you so much to be called a woman
    hater if you know there's no truth to it.
    
    Lorna
    

    	RE: .133  Lorna
    
    	Your question could be phrased another way:
    
    	If an Army drill sargeant yells at his men all day that they are
    	"girls" or "pussies," would he become upset if he overheard a
    	recruit make a general comment about how some sargeants deserve
    	to be called females?
    
    	You bet he would.
    
    	Considering the difference in status between the two of them, the
    	recruit's comment would be regarded as insubordination.
    
    	The same principle applies here.

    
    
    
    
    				Yawn.
    
    
    
    

    	RE: .136  Mike Z
    
    	> I was asked to provide an example, I did that.
    
    	You haven't provided an example where a man was told to his face,
    	"You are a woman hater!!"  All you've provided is an example where
    	the *behavior* of an unnamed man in an unnamed conference was
    	characterized as misogynistic.
    
    	Your example is *pitiful* compared to the numbers of women in
    	notes who have been told they hate men *directly*!
    
    	> I asked her a question I had not explicitly asked her before.
    
    	The fact that you even have to ask is quite telling, though.
    	As I said before, those of us who have been called "man haters"
    	in notes didn't need to ask (since it was an indisputable fact
    	that we were called exactly that.)
    
    	By the way, I would like to hear you explain *why* you made the
    	comment about hefty trash bags in the first place.  Was it an
    	attempt at humor?
    
    	Where do *you* think that humor of this nature (eg, humiliating
    	remarks about the looks of women in political movements) comes
    	from, if it's not born of cultural misogyny.
    
    	I'd really like to know.

    	RE: .138  Mike Z
    
    	.135> The same principle applies here.

	> You are way out of line Suzanne.
    
    	How nervy of me to use a word like insubordination.  I can see
    	how that would be considered well out of the bounds of acceptable
    	behavior for a woman in the presence of (some) men.
    
    	> I don't appreciate your implications.
    
    	My implication was that men outrank women in our culture, although
    	I agree that it was quite nervy of me to say it openly here.
    
    	> Be civil and adult with me and I'll return it.
    
    	I'd settle for straightforward, and non-evasive. (You can start any 
    	time you like.)

    	RE: Questions for Mike Z.
    
    	Why did you make the hefty trash bag remark about Gloria Steinham?
    	(I'd still really like to know what the purpose of that remark was.)
    
    	Very recently in Soapbox, I also recall a rash of "bagger" jokes
    	about ugly women - (you know the ones I mean, where "one bagger"
    	and "two bagger" ugly women are defined.)
    
    	After the "two bagger" was defined, a woman came along and defined
    	a "three bagger" as a *MAN* so ugly that the woman who woke up next
    	to him chewed *her* arm off (to keep from waking him) then chewed
    	her other arm off to keep it from happening again.
    
    	If I'm not mistaken, you were the one who came along to say how
    	funny it was (as a *TWIST* to an old joke.)
    
    	The twist, of course, is the idea of making a joke about ugly men
    	(when the joke is *supposed* to be about ugly women.)
    
    	In our culture, ugly men are revered and loved (if they have either
    	money or intelligence.)  Gloria Steinham has both wealth and brains,
    	but of course, she's still the target of a trash bag joke (and I'd
    	like you to explain why that is, if you're willing.)

    
    	A serious question regarding the tangent of humor and misogyny.
    
    	If the 3 bagger joke can be associated with misogyny
    	then can one also make a similiar link to those jokes
    	in topic 22 that are denigrating to men as linked
    	to man-hating? 
    
    							Hank

    Re .125:

    > Because the same men who would say "ignorantly innocent" remarks to
    > women probably wouldn't say "ignorantly innocent" remarks to a man,
    > to the woman he wants to sleep with, to his boss, etc.

    First, I did not say "ignorantly innocent" -- I said "ignorance", and I
    did not say there was anything innocent about it.

    Second, the above does not explain why ignorance could not cause the
    observed behavior.  A person could say improper things about women out
    of ignorance for what is proper rather than hatred.

    > Truly  ignorant people who make stupid remarks about everyone and
    > everything, (Archie Bunker), are far more rare than are men who select
    > their targets and choose their behaviors based on them.

    What you do here is show that the discrimination is aimed at a specific
    group.  But that does not prove that there is hatred for a group. 
    There are reasons to discriminate other than hatred.  For example, a
    person might discriminate simply because they were taught to do so and
    they have never thought to do otherwise.  That can be done without
    hatred, can't it?  A person can discriminate because they wrongfully
    think the group is inferior.  Does wrong thinking necessarily come from
    hatred, or are there other reasons people can think false thoughts?

    > That selection, that singling out of a group, makes one a specific
    > hater of that group and throws the argument of innocence and ignorance
    > right out the window.

    I see no reason to believe that singling out a group makes a person a
    hater of that group.  A person can fear heights without hating heights. 
    A person can dislike the company of engineers without hating engineers. 
    A person can think that uneducated people should not do critical
    engineering without hating uneducated people.  A person can think
    Republicans are wrong and selfish without hating Republicans.


    Re .127:

    > And if you think an alleged misogynist may be absolved of blame because
    > he may only be "adhering to teachings/conditionings that women are
    > inferior", I ask you, who ARE those teachers?

    Where did I say an alleged misogynist may be absolved of blame?  First
    you misquoted me by saying "ignorantly innocent" and then you criticize
    me for saying there is innocence when in fact I never said any such
    thing.  In fact, I had not stated anything; I only asked you two
    questions:  Why do you believe hatred is the cause, and why could it
    not be any of a number of other things?  As far as I can tell, you have
    not explained why a person cannot simply be doing mindlessly what they
    were taught.  A person could be taught "Treat men this way.  Treat
    women this way." and simply obey the dictives they were given without
    ever thinking about _why_ they are doing it.


				-- edp

    	RE: .143  Hank
    
    	> If the 3 bagger joke can be associated with misogyny
    	> then can one also make a similiar link to those jokes
    	> in topic 22 that are denigrating to men as linked
    	> to man-hating? 
    	
    	Well, I re-read the entire topic, and I had to make it through
    	nearly 60 replies before I found jokes that were truly denigrating
    	to men (and even those were more *twists* on old jokes that have
    	traditionally served as cultural insults to women.)
    
    	Does that tell you anything?

    
    	No Suzanne, I still don't understand. Hence my question.
    	
    
    							Hank

    	RE: .146  Hank
    
    	> No Suzanne, I still don't understand. Hence my question.
    	
    	Hank, jokes that denigrate women in our society are the "norm"
    	(because of the cultural misogyny that plagues us a society.)
    
    	In topic 22, there are more jokes *against* feminists (made by
    	people who misunderstood the topic title and assumed that it was
    	meant as a place to *denigrate feminists* rather than being a place
    	for humor written *by* feminists) than there are jokes which
    	denigrate men.
    
    	Making humiliating remarks against groups considered inferior in
    	our society is part of the hatred held for those groups.  As many
    	of us have stated *repeatedly*, it doesn't necessarily mean that
    	the individuals who make those remarks consciously buy into this
    	hatred.  It just points out the fact that the cultural hatred does
    	exist!
    
    	The lack of jokes denigrating men in topic 22 can be attributed to
    	the *lack* in our society of a cultural hatred for men.

    	RE: .147  Mike Z.
    
    	> I've already asked if that was key to your argument (see .102).
	> You never answered me (see .103), just told me what you "should say".
	> So, is it key, and if so, why?
    
    	Ok, I've made up my mind.  Provide examples for me that show men
    	being called "women haters" to their faces.
    
    	It's key to me, because my point is that an indirect accusation to
    	one man is considered as bad (or worse) than dozens of DIRECT insults
    	to women because *men outrank women in our society* (making even the
    	most *indirect* insult of a man by a woman, an act of insubordination.)
    
    	> If A is wrong, and B is also wrong, yet B is done more frequently
    	> than A, is A still wrong?
    	> I think so.
    
    	You offered the experiences (of men and women being accused of hating
    	the opposite sex) as parallel, as if one problem was as serious as
    	the other, yet you can't offer me one example where men have been
    	told directly "You hate women!"   
    
    	Surely you see that your one example of a highly indirect accusation
    	of woman-hating can't be viewed as being as serious as the number of
    	women who have been told *directly* that they hate men.
    
    	> It was an attmept to graphically demonstrate just how unattractive
    	> (to me) Ms Steinem is.
    
    	Why would you consider that information relevant to a discussion of
    	her role in a political movement??
    
    	How attractive do you regard George Bush?  How about John Tower
    	(God, now there's an ugly man!  Amazing how badly he's been
    	criticized for being a womanizer, too.)  Exactly how many bags
    	would you rate Tower (or how about Bork?)  I'd like to get a
    	rundown on your bag assessments of the entire Senate, while you're
    	at it.  How about the men in the Cabinet, or the men of the
    	Supreme Court?  Let's hear it.
    
    	> I could have also said "she has to sneak up on the faucet to get
    	> a glass of water".
    
    	I'm sure you have a vast repertoire of jokes that insult women,
    	Mike.  Wonder why that is...  (And if you're going to tell me that
    	I'm implying you hate women, don't bother.  Jokes denigrating to
    	women are a dime a dozen in our society because of the contempt
    	that society holds for women, whether you personally buy into
    	this contempt or not.)
    
    	> From comedians.  Some of whom are female.
    
    	You missed the point.  Why are jokes denigrating women regarded
    	as being so funny in our culture???  (Out of love and respect???)
    
    	> It so happens that I can laugh at jokes about men as well as
    	> jokes about women.
    
    	Also noticed that you couldn't *RESIST* explaining that you thought
    	the bag joke about men was funny *because* it was twist on the
    	standard joke about women.  (Why couldn't you have just laughed
    	about it on its own merit, if you thought it was so funny.  Why
    	explain???)

      Yawn is right Nancy, but I'll make a go anyway.
    
    It won't be popular, but it's what I want to say.  Parts are a touch
    sarcastic, but that's me, and it's been a long day.
                                                               
    **Of course, all the standard _This is my opinion, not all women's,
    not all men's, not all people's, but my opinion only even though
    I'm not going to attached those stupid IMHO all over it_ disclaimers
    apply, just in case someone thinks I'm playing God  here.**
          
    
    
    I don't think we live in a misogynic society.  
    
    Why?
    
    Because that would imply a society that hates women.  Yep, hates
    women.  Just like the dictionary says.
    
    Our society doesn't hate women.  (By society, I am referring to the
    only one I know of, the United States of America's society, of which
    you, me, and lots of other people here are a part).  They still
    do not see them as equals of men, but not hate them.  
    
    Nope, try and hard as I can, look everywhere I must, bias myself
    as much as I am able to, I do not see a vast, overwhelming surge
    of misogyny awaiting me outside my door, my cube, the grocery store,
    the theatre, hell, even here in notes.  
    
    I *do* see a society that is slowly, so terribly slowly and painfully
    learning to not devalue it's women, or relegate them to a stereotype
    which is somewhat domestic at best, subordinate at worst.  In examining
    the words subordinate, and even demean, I can see that it involves
    a "second class" status, a lessening of importance, both certainly
    not flattering, but still not hate-ridden.  I see a society that
    is not changing as fast as it might, which is depressing to be a
    part of at times, but not ridden with hate.  Misunderstanding, fear,
    mistrust, false impressions, but not hatred.  Not towards women
    as an entire group.
    
    Now, the fun things about words is you can bend them all sorts of
    ways and they just _never_ quite break.  You can attribute
    sorta-meanings to them, infer things which sounds about right, although
    they aren't.  The fun thing about the written word is you can read
    between the lines--and half the time, you don't even have to have
    lines to read between.  You can take something spoken, something
    seen, and attribute all sorts of things to it--but they aren't always
    correct.
    
    And attributing the second class status of women, which admittedly
    exists, to misogyny, is incorrect.  
    
    Oh, most CERTAINLY misogyny exists, in wide and varied forms, from
    the man who kills women, to the one who HATES them without resorting
    to such violence.  There are men who dislike women so much they
    will antagonize them every step of the way.  But for the most part, women
    don't get top paying jobs because men hate them.  They don't get
    them because of sexism, the belief that one sex (usually men) are
    superior to others.  That's arrogant.  That's a false assumption.
    That's a stereotype.  That's demeaning.  But it's not hate.  
    
    Women are not thought of as the primary domestic because men hate
    them.  They are not thought of as bimbos on a calendar, or nice
    Mommy-types because men hate them.  I am not using the unfriendly
    word "bimbo" because I hate women.  People who don't like long hair
    don't automatically hate women.  Women who don't like having periods
    do not automatically hate themselves, or other women.  Women who
    conform to the demeaning stereotypes are not somehow supressing
    this inborn hatred of their gender--they are conforming to stereotype.
    They are conforming to set standards of their society, wrought over
    hundreds of years.  Unpleasant to us, perhaps, insulting, yes, but
    not hatred.    
    
    A man calls a women ugly and suggests that bags over her heads improve
    her looks.  He is slapped with the label of misogynist, or, with
    quite the same meaning, someone displaying misogynist tendencies.
                                                                       
    
    Hmm.  Calling a person ugly, making in fun of their appearance,
    equates hatred of the gender associated with that singular person?
    
    Nope, can't follow.  I think lots of men are ugly.  In fact, I have
    commented on it.  Do I hate all men?  Am I simply displaying a
    behaviorial pattern suggesting I just *might* hate all men?  Am
    I instantly a man-hater?  What if I think a bunch of women are ugly?
    Am I now a misogynist too? 
    
    Nope.  I am calling a specific person ugly.  I did not read Mike's
    comment on Gloria Steinem, but certainly it has been quoted/paraphrased
    enough for me to somewhat safely say that he did not call Ms. Steinhem
    ugly because she was a woman.  Nor did he comment that ALL women
    should have bags over their head.  He called her ugly.  Jokingly
    or not.  Mike might even think I'm ugly.  The woman who works over
    in the next cube might think a bag improves my looks.  The man who
    is just walking by may make a commment that my face could stop a
    Mack Truck.  
    
    So, do they all hate women, too?  Is the only reason they don't
    like my looks is because I am a _woman_ or could it be because I
    _am_ ugly to them?  (note: whether I am ugly or not is up to the
    beholder.  I happen not to think I am, but I can point out people
    I think that are.  This does not mean I am conditioned to hate them
    because of their gender, simply that I do not like the way they
    look.  It's a very subjective world.)  
    
    Another example not mentioned here yet:  
    
    A man thinks his wife should stay home and raise babies.  She
    vehemently disagrees.  A big arguement ensues in which the husband
    states that women should not go to work because their duty is in
    the home.
    
    Quite the sexist remark.  But how do we get from him being a sexist,
    and an angry sexist, to the fact that he must be a misogynist as
    well?  Does he hate his wife?  How do you know?  Wouldn't his other
    verbal/physical treatment of her dictate whether or not he hates
    her or loves her?  If he hates her, how do we know without further
    examination that he hates ALL women, and not just her?  As of the
    comment of duty, we can only say he's clearly sexist in his attitude,
    and however unappealing, unpolitically correct, arrogant and generally
    misguided (of course!) his behavior is, sexist is _what_ it is.
                       
       
    On the subject of "man-hater" vs "misogynist" use:
    
    Man-hater seems to be the spoken counter to the term sexist.  Truly
    they do not mean the same thing, however each time I have heard
    someone call another a name, this is how it was intended.  A woman
    calls a man sexist--he calls her a man-hater.  True, I haven't seen
    many women call a man a misogynist--usually they are too concerned
    with snapping of the more standard "male chauvanist pig" or equivalent
    remark.  Even this is rare.  But then again, the occassions were
    I have heard a woman called a man-hater, outside of these notesfiles
    at DEC, are few and far between.
    
    And finally, if I were labelled an *anything*-hater incorrectly,
    I would quite upset.  Hatred is such a strong, powerful and ugly
    word my personal concern is that it be attributed to me _quite_
    correctly.  If I were called a man-hater and it wasn't true, depending
    on circumstance, I might become quite upset.  I certainly would
    become quite upset if someone in here suggested I did not like women
    simply because I dislike menstruation, a very womanly thing to do.
                                   
    And such, I can understand Mike_Z's concerns that he not be attached
    a label as misogynist because he thinks Gloria Steinheim is ugly.
    I can understand the concern that labels, especially in such a prone
    to boil medium such as notes, be used with care, by women AND men.
    And I can understand and hope that such broad and easily weilded
    paintbrushes such as misogyny be swished around where the label
    of Hatred becomes trivialized to the point where it will not longer
    mean what it does, become diluted and slowly fade into ignorance.
    
    ---kim
                                          
    

	He doth protest tooooooo much!

	But please be sure to never call a man a woman-hater that
	would mean that he was a man-lover and we all know what that
	means to his man-hood.

	_peggy

    	RE: .150  Kim
    
    	Well, I am truly relieved by your note.  It's good to find out that
    	we aren't hated after all.
    
    	So what if the streets aren't safe for us to walk at night (for fear
    	of being the target of the appalling number of rapes and murders of
    	women in our culture.)  
    
    	Not that we're all safe at home, either, of course (since most of
    	those who beat, rape and kill us are people we know.)
    
    	If we're going to be raped and murdered anyway, it's good to know
    	that at least our society doesn't hate us.
    
    	> Our society doesn't hate women.
    
    	The sum total of everything you described *DOES* amount to hate
    	and contempt, Kim.
    
    	Sure, if you take out one insult, or one instance of a woman being
    	denied opportunities, it doesn't amount to much.  
    
    	If someone beat you up several times a day for thirty or forty
    	years, it would be difficult to call any individual beating an act
    	of real hate, but at some point, the repetition alone has to tell
    	you that the beatings are the result of more than just amusement
    	for the one doing the beating.
    
    	At what point do you look at the total picture of the way women
    	are treated in our society and recognize that there is hatred
    	and contempt there (for women as a group)?
    
    	> Oh, most CERTAINLY misogyny exists, in wide and varied forms, from
    	> the man who kills women, to the one who HATES them without resorting
    	> to such violence. 
    
    	If only these misogynistic individuals (as plentiful as they are
    	in our society) were the only true evidences of the hatred of women
    	in our culture.
    
    	Where do you suppose all these misogynistic individuals come from
    	(and why don't we have the *same* number of women who rape and
    	murder scores of men, if it's just a matter of individuals doing
    	the hating?)
    
    	> Nope, can't follow.  I think lots of men are ugly.  In fact, I have
    	> commented on it.  Do I hate all men? 
    
    	You can comment on a man's being ugly, but you don't have an entire
    	culture-wide brand of humor dedicated to the subject of ugly men
    	(although there are an endless variety of jokes in our culture to
    	describe ugly women.)  This disparity of part of the fabric of
    	misogyny, whether you want to see it or not.
    
    	> If I were called a man-hater and it wasn't true, depending
    	> on circumstance, I might become quite upset.  
    
    	You're talking to a good number of people who *have* been called
    	"man haters" (quite deliberately and specifically.)  If most of
    	us allowed ourselves to become upset about one occurance of it,
    	we wouldn't last in notes very long.  As often as it happens,
    	we can't afford the luxury of letting it upset us.  
    
    	> And I can understand and hope that such broad and easily weilded
    	> paintbrushes such as misogyny be swished around where the label
    	> of Hatred becomes trivialized to the point where it will not longer
    	> mean what it does, become diluted and slowly fade into ignorance.
    
    	The hatred of women is ONE ENTITY, regardless of how often behaviors
    	are attributed to it.  Examining these behaviors can't dilute the
    	entity itself, but can only serve to make us more aware of the
    	pervasive influence it has on our lives as members of our society.

>    	If the 3 bagger joke can be associated with misogyny
>    	then can one also make a similiar link to those jokes
>    	in topic 22 that are denigrating to men as linked
>    	to man-hating? 


	 IMO, Yes.

	 Although, I posed a similar question a month or so ago and
	 was told that it's not the same because it's been happening
	 to women for eons, so turn-around was fair play.....since men
	 were doing it, women could.

	 kath

    	RE: .152  Mike Z.
    
    	> It suggests to me that you are not capable of accurately judging
    	> what is and what is not denigrating across gender boundaries.

	> Either you are unable to feel empathy for the men in those jokes,
    	> or you have unequal limits set for what is/is_not denigrating.
    
    	Your reply suggests to me that you haven't re-read the topic 
    	recently.
    
    	Go read it, then come back and tell me where all the vast numbers
    	of jokes are that denigrate men.  I found only a very, very few
    	(and the most prominent one was based on another old insulting
    	idea about women.)
    
    	Since I only claim a cultural misogyny about anti-women jokes
    	(and do *not* claim that individuals who tell such jokes are
    	misogynists themselves,) then the most I would be able to claim
    	about anti-men jokes (if they existed in great numbers) would
    	be the existence of a cultural hatred for men (and *not* that
    	any individual women hate men.)
    
    	By the way, you still haven't answered my questions about the
    	bag assessments for John Tower, Bork, the men of the Senate,
    	the Cabinet and the Supreme Court yet.  
    
    	Precisely how ugly do you regard those men (you can elaborate
    	down to bags in decimals, if needed.)

    	RE: .154  Kath
    
    	>> [Hank] If the 3 bagger joke can be associated with misogyny
	>> then can one also make a similiar link to those jokes
	>> in topic 22 that are denigrating to men as linked
	>> to man-hating? 

	> IMO, Yes.
    
    	Then, you *do* regard 3 bagger jokes about women as misogyny,
    	Kath?
    
    	Tell me, do you regard men who tell 3 bagger jokes to be misogynist
    	themselves, or is it just evidence of cultural misogyny?
    
    	If it is only evidence of cultural misogyny, then do you also
    	believe that men are hated on a cultural level (if so, what *other*
    	forms of evidence can you offer for this assertion?)

So called 'feminist humour' is frequently misandrist, BFD.  Are all women who
laugh, man-haters?  I say no.  Your mileage may vary.  If so, we disagree.

I do not like having my period.  I think this perfectly natural healthy process
is a cosmic joke! -- once was OK, but puhleeze, do I have to do it again? 
However, it is not a source of self-hatred.  Making fun of a woman having her
period is about as dim-witted as making fun of the sun for setting.

Saying a person puts the 'ugh' in ugly doesn't mean I hate them.  However, if
I feel that only attractive people are intelligent or deserving of a hearing
I should rightly be called and idiot and a bigot. If I feel that a standard
of attractiveness is required of Navaho Indians, but not anyone else, before
I choose to respond to an intellectual/political argument, I am a racist as
well.  If my reponse to a person's rhetoric is, 'but he smells,' didn't I miss
a point somewhere?

I do not hate men as a class; neither do I hate women.  I have been accused of
both.  I do not like it.  If possible, rather than wasting time on useless
denials and protestations I endeavour to find the "why" behind the accusation.
If my accuser is either unable or unwilling, I can either assume that the 
perceived hatred is what the person wishes to see or that indolence and 
mean-spiritedness are at work.  If the person is of little importance to me, I
will most likely shrug it off.

    re .153
    
    Suzanne, I think (?)
    
    I read your reply, carefully, and I *still* don't feel you are correct.
    I do not think this society, or this world is misogynic.  I conceed
    there are very real problems that face women as an entirity, and
    this is based on sexism, not hatred.  I do not condone them.  I
    do not condone sexist attitudes.  In no way am I saying we are "safe",
    but we are not all victims, either.  Yes, lots of women get beat
    up, raped, murdered, (and yes, by people they know), but not all
    women do.  There is most certainly instances of hatred, real hatred,
    against women by men.  But the difference between casting the same
    label upon a man who beats his girlfriend to death because he truly
    hates her and a man who thinks long hair on men is girlish, does
    not follow.  It's wrong.
    
    However, in seeing how often you have restated your position, I
    see that your feelings and your views are something you stand by
    100%.  
    
    I feel 100% about mine. 
    
    Since all points of my arguement have been stated as clearly as
    I could make them, continuing to restate them probably won't do
    anything other than make my fingers tired.
    
    I'm outta here.
    
    ---kim
          

    
    re:.150
    it is quite easy for me to see the essence of hatred in
    the 'misunderstanding, fear, mistrust, false impressions' you
    mentioned.
    

    I think the basic issue is whether one feels that the underlying reason
    for sexism is misogyny.
    
    I don't have an answer.  And I don't know if the answer can be global.
    
    Pam

    	RE: .158  Kim
    
    	> I conceed there are very real problems that face women as an 
    	> entirity, and this is based on sexism, not hatred. 
    	
    	Multiply sexism over thousands of years (across a myriad of
    	different cultures on our planet,) and it spells hatred to me.
    	Somehow sexism (as bad as it is) doesn't account for the sheer
    	pervasiveness of the contempt our culture has shown for women
    	throughout recorded history.
    
    	> In no way am I saying we are "safe", but we are not all victims, 
    	> either.  Yes, lots of women get beat up, raped, murdered, (and yes, 
    	> by people they know), but not all women do. 
    
    	Gee, do we *all* have to be murdered before it would seem like a
    	symptom of hatred to you??  How about if 99% of us were murdered?
    	Would that be enough (so there were at least a few of us left to
    	point it out to someone?)
    
    	Aside from that, I never said we were all victims.  I used the word
    	"target" (which doesn't necessarily imply that we all get "hit.")
    
    	> But the difference between casting the same label upon a man who 
    	> beats his girlfriend to death because he truly hates her and a man 
    	> who thinks long hair on men is girlish, does not follow. It's wrong.
    
    	Show me where a man has been told, "YOU are a misogynist for thinking
    	that long hair on men is girlish."  
    
    	Ask yourself why it is "ok" for women to wear pants to work, but not
    	ok for a man to wear a dress to work.   Do the people who would
    	ridicule a man in a dress hate women?  Probably not.  However, the
    	very fact that people's reactions are so drastically different to
    	the two parallel situations is a sign of the *OVERALL PICTURE* of
    	misogyny in our culture.
    
    	The cultural hatred of women is *one large problem* that is manifested
    	in our society in a myriad of ways (some of which seem pretty harmless
    	compared to the more serious effects on us, such as the appalling
    	numbers of us that are beaten, raped and killed.)

Since this topic originated with a semantic discussion, it's no surprise that
it develops into a semantic rathole of significant proportion.

What started out was a discussion of "Does 'misogyny' mean 'hatred of women',
or does it go deeper than that?"

It's degenerated into the same discussion, with "hate" replacing "misogyny".
If you accept the definition of misogyny as "hatred of women", then everything
that you view as being misogyny must be "hate". When you really want to talk
about hammers, *everything* looks like a nail.

So - what is "hate", anyway?

If I don't think my cat should be allowed to drive, do I hate my cat? No, 
because a cat can't drive.

Suppose I'm wrong. Suppose my cat *can* drive, but I'm too tied up in the
stereotyping of cats as purry things that ruin the furniture to see it. Do
I *now* hate my cat?

By the same token, if the devaluation of <X> in society is unjustified (as it
generally is, with the exception of lawyers and psychologists), does this 
*by definition* define a systemic *hatred* of <X>? 

    <--(.162)
    
    Thanks, Paul.  You have, I think, illuminated the definitional nature
    of the problem.
    
    Maybe we could spend some time working out exactly what's being talked
    about?  I'm not sure we'd all suddenly find ourselves in agreement, but
    I'm sure it would improve the arguments.
    
    						=maggie

    
    Germaine Greer once said, "women have no idea how much men really hate
    them".  But then some might consider her a bagger too, so let's ignore
    her.
    
    re: Kath - in my school the girls didn't shout "cooties" about the
    boys.  Most of them would have given anything to be liked by them.
    
re BEING::POSTPISCHIL:

>    First, I did not say "ignorantly innocent" -- I said "ignorance", and I
>    did not say there was anything innocent about it.

Sorry. Call it what you will.  But if it's selective, like it often is,
it's more than simple ignorance.

>A person could say improper things about women out of ignorance for what 
>is proper rather than hatred.

I quite agree.  Anything and everything is possible.  But in light of
the "noise" women have been making for the last 20-30 years, do you think
there are very men left who are truly "ignorant" and don't understand
that they are making what they know are nasty remarks against women?  Such
men, I don't think, would be working at DEC, anyway, probably wouldn't
be working at all if they've remained so isolated and so unaffected by
the last 20-30 years.  So I guess I'm just not taking into account the
few, isolated instances of real ignorance.

>    There are reasons to discriminate other than hatred.  For example, a
>    person might discriminate simply because they were taught to do so and
>    they have never thought to do otherwise.  That can be done without
>    hatred, can't it?  

You are still assuming the person is blissfully unaware of the last
20 - 30 years.  I'm sure nearly every "unaware" man has been made aware,
and HAS thought about the implications of doing otherwise.  Those who
*choose* traditional behavior do so out of laziness at best, misogyny at 
worst.  The culture will still support the sexist man.  He looses little 
in terms of his own status with other men, and he gains much in terms of 
his own ego by seeing another group as "lesser".

> A person can discriminate because they wrongfully think the group is inferior.
> Does wrong thinking necessarily come from hatred, or are there other 
> reasons people can think false thoughts?

People think false thoughts for a variety of reasons.  But if they continue
to think them, in light of new knowledge, in light of logic and fairness,
then I conclude that they must LIKE to think that way.  It must give them
pleasure.  Everything a human does has a payoff for that person.  That's
the first thing I learned in psychology.  And if someone chooses, in light
of knowledge to the contrary, to continue to see a group as inferior, that
person does so because he/she wants to - enjoys to - gets something from it.
In misogyny, what men get from it is ego stroking and a sense of omnipotence
and power.

>    I see no reason to believe that singling out a group makes a person a
>    hater of that group.  A person can fear heights without hating heights. 
>    A person can dislike the company of engineers without hating engineers. 
>    A person can think that uneducated people should not do critical
>    engineering without hating uneducated people.  A person can think
>    Republicans are wrong and selfish without hating Republicans.

Are you saying that men may be thinking that women are no more significant
and deserving of respect than "heights"?  That if he could fear women in
the same way that he fears heights?  Men aren't drawn to heights.  Such
people can stay away all their lives and be happy.  But men are forced 
to deal with women, hetero men are compelled to approach women.  They 
cannot simply avoid them.  And that makes it very different than a "height".
And that makes women as a group very different in the eyes of men than a
group of engineers or a group of Republicans.  Men cannot be casual about
women.  And a lot of their misogyny is specifically because of their
obsession.

>  First you misquoted me by saying "ignorantly innocent"

I didn't attempt to quote you.  I attempted to paraphrase and condense
it.  You said they were probably "only ignorant".  I thought you might
have meant that they were therefore not to be blamed for being misogynists,
which I translated to mean, "innocent of the charges".  So I condensed
that into saying that they might be just saying "innocently ignorant", (they
were just stupid, innocent of misogyny), things.  I don't think I changed
the meaning at all.  The first part of trying to understand someone is
to repeat back what you think they said.  That's what I did. Did I change
your meanings?

>As far as I can tell, you have not explained why a person cannot simply be 
>doing mindlessly what they were taught.  

But as of now, I have.  I could buy that argument about a 5 year old or
a 10 year old.  But not of the average adult male in America.  I believe
he's been told and that he KNOWS!.  For heaven's sake how do you explain
the common "eye-rolling" and heavy sighing exhibited by some men in response
to yet another discussion of sexism?  Because they hear it a LOT!  I don't
believe men are polarized into one group that is sick of death of hearing
about it and another that is blissfully unaware of any of it.  I think most
men are the formerand wish to be the latter.

>A person could be taught "Treat men this way.  Treat
>    women this way." and simply obey the dictives they were given without
>    ever thinking about _why_ they are doing it.

But you can be sure some woman's going to TELL them!


re WFOV12::APODACA:

> I do not see a vast, overwhelming surge of misogyny awaiting me outside my 
>door, my cube, the grocery store, the theatre, hell, even here in notes.  
    
What are you expecting it to look like?

> I can see that it involves a "second class" status, a lessening of importance
> both certainly not flattering, but still not hate-ridden.  

Then where did it come from?  Why did we choose to relegate women to the
scut work, the second class status, the lesser important beings when
society was initially evolving?  Why is Eve the one responsible for
everything?  There are many other myths and fables about the first humans.
Why did this particular one become the accepted norm?  And why were the
gnostic gospels, (which alluded to woman as the supreme creator and not
man), when discovered relatively recently, supressed?

>Misunderstanding, fear, mistrust, false impressions, but not hatred.  

I don't know, a lot of people here seem to think that men and women
never talk to each other - that men have these "fears" and "false impressions"
and "misunderstandings" and that that shouldn't be a crime.  Well it isn't.
But it IS a crime if they continue to hold them in light of the truth,
in light of what women tell them, in light of logic.  And that's very
different than being innocent and just ignorant.  A kindly, senile old 
woman may have a house full of cats and due to her mental deterioration,
never feeds them.  Is she guilty of hating cats?  Of course not.  But
someone else doing the *same thing* CAN be.  Why?  KNOWLEDGE!  I can
appreciate the magnanimous attitudes and the generosity of spirit in
assuming men, (and male society), is something other than flat out
misogynistic.  And I can appreciate that men are probably reading those
words and hoping they'll stand unchallenged.  But they won't.  I contend
that they know.  And that knowledge puts a very different light on the
behaviors and attitudes they then have *chosen* to engage in.

>    And attributing the second class status of women, which admittedly
>    exists, to misogyny, is incorrect.  
 
Why?  What else could you attribute it to?  They just got USED to treating
us like the family cow?
   
> But for the most part, women don't get top paying jobs because men hate them.
> They don't get them because of sexism, the belief that one sex (usually men)
> are superior to others.  That's arrogant.  That's a false assumption.
> That's a stereotype.  That's demeaning.  But it's not hate.  
 
I don't know about you, but I can't imagine being arrogant towards, stereo-
typing and demeaning someone or some group that I liked.  If you say men
do this but don't necessarily hate women, are you assuming that men are
just that way?  That they really like women but it's just in their nature
to belittle, demean and stereotype us?  I'm going to give men much more
credit than that.
   
>    Hmm.  Calling a person ugly, making in fun of their appearance,
>    equates hatred of the gender associated with that singular person?
>    Nope, can't follow.  

Well I can.  Men do not routinely appraise the physical characteristics
of men running for office, or applying for a job in their group, etc.
And it has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with *expectations*.
Men are expected to BE good.  Women, to be good, of course, but more
importantly, to LOOK good.  Women are generally not allowed the luxury
of being mediocre.  If we fail to please a man's eye, we have failed to
get his attention to our words, even if they're logical and right.  How
many men gag at the thought of having to listen to Bella Abzug?  How
many would be willing to listen to Michelle Pfeiffer talking about 
hair spray?  The "hate" comes in where a woman cannot be simply a
person.  She must be an ornament and then, maybe, she'll get her point
across.  Gloria Steinem's looks are as irrelevant to her words as
George Bush's are to his.  But few people decide whether or not he's
worth listening to based on that.  Many make those kinds of decisions
about women and often.  That's the misogyny.  If you made your sweetie
beg and crawl before you would listen to something important he wanted
to say, would you not call that contempt?  Hate?  Even if you toss him
a cracker and pat his head after and say, "good boy" and generally
feel you "like" him.  The first time he didn't beg and crawl, however,
your hate would surface.  And in men who don't believe they are misogynists,
it surfaces when a woman fails to present herself as decorative bauble.
And it comes out in the jokes regarding her looks - her failure to perform
the beg and crawl routine expected of women who want attention from a man.

>Nor did he comment that ALL women should have bags over their head.  
>He called her ugly.

But if no one was discussing her looks, the observation is as relevant
as saying, "yeah, but you know she saves change in this bottle..."  
Discussing a woman's looks, however, is appropriate for men at any
time and in any place and in any context.  It's always open season on
a woman's looks.  That seems pretty contemptible to me.

>    A man thinks his wife should stay home and raise babies.  She
>    vehemently disagrees.  A big arguement ensues in which the husband
>    states that women should not go to work because their duty is in
>    the home.
    
>   how do we know without further examination that he hates ALL women, 
>   and not just her?  

From this:  

"women should not go to work because..."  rather than "you should not
go to work because..."  He wants her home simply because she's a woman
and that's where he believes WOMEN belong.  Not because he believes he wife 
would be happier or it would work out better for their particular situation.
And now it would be interesting to ask him WHY he thinks women belong there.
I imagine the answer might go something like this:

"Uh, well, you know, whaddo women need to work for?  MY mother didn't work
and she wasn't upset about it.  I can make enough money for us to live on".

Or something similar.  His reasons would all revolve around himself, his
dinner, his ego, his property staying hidden safely away, his domestic
servant and lover secured to him through ecomonic dependence.  To hell
with what the little woman thinks.  What HE says goes.  Misogyny.
    

    To me, "misogyny" is a good general term, the "hatred" needn't be the
    all-consuming kind that finds expression in rape or mass murder.  We
    "hate" spinach, for heaven's sake, and everyone understands that we
    don't mean that we want to obliterate spinach from the world!  We mean
    that we don't enjoy it, won't buy cook or eat it unless compelled by
    social requirements (and maybe not even then, depending on the strength
    of our "hatred"), and that we generally don't think it has an
    appropriate place in our personal world.  We might even make
    disparaging jokes/comments about it as an indicator of our dislike
    ("How can you eat that stuff?  I'd sooner eat seaweed off the lake!".) 
    Given behavioral clues like these, it seems pretty clear to me that a
    person who displays them is likely to be labelled a "spinach hater".
    
    Although we don't have a special term for "spinach hating", we do have
    "misogyny" as shorthand for "woman hating".  What behavioral evidence
    might result in a "misogynist" label?  I don't see any reason why,
    mutatis mutandis, the clues wouldn't be similar.  I should think the
    main difference would be in the strength of their expression:  women at
    least theoretically enjoy legal protections not available to
    vegetables.
    
    						=maggie

    Misogyny is the definition of a male that hate women then what is the
    word for women who hate men?
    
               REK

    
    	RE: .169  REK
    
    	> Misogyny is the definition of a male that hate women then what 
    	> is the word for women who hate men?
    
    	Misogyny is *NOT* a "male that hates women."
    
    	Misogyny is the hatred of women (and can be accomplished by persons
    	of either sex.)
    

    	RE: .168  Mike Z.
    
    	.155> Your reply suggests to me that you haven't re-read the topic 
	.155> recently.

	> You say tomato, I say tomahto.
	> Regardless, I answered your question.
    
    	I'll be the judge of that.  ;^)
    
    	> I extracted it and went thru them before I replied.
	> Why do you now ask for "vast numbers"?
	> Those words are new to this issue, and they are yours, not mine.
    
    	What I said originally was that I had to make it through nearly
    	60 replies before coming up on much that I'd regard as denigrating
    	to men.  You then questioned my ability to judge properly.
    
    	If you think you've found denigrating material about men that I 
    	missed, then show me!
    
    	> Tower, 1 bag.  A brown one from the local liquor store :^).
	> Bork, I don't know his face well enough.
	> The men of the Senate, Cabinet, Supreme Court, ditto.
	> This is a rathole.
    
    	Ok, then, how about the bag ratings for some male politicians
    	whose faces you *do* know.
    
    	This isn't a rathole.  You seemed to think it was highly appropriate
    	to judge Gloria Steinem for her looks, so I must assume it is your
    	standard practice to give bag assessments to political figures in
    	general (both male and female.)
    
    	How about George Bush?  How many bags for him, Mike?  And how about
    	Ronnie Reagan (he's old, so he should get lots of bags, I would
    	imagine.)  Gloria Steinem was once a Playboy Bunny, so the bags you
    	now give her must have something to do with her age.
    
    	So - how many for George and Ronnie?

    Re .164:
    
    > But in light of the "noise" women have been making for the last 20-30
    > years, do you think there are very men left who are truly "ignorant"
    > and don't understand that they are making what they know are nasty
    > remarks against women?
    
    Yes, very much so.  20 to 30 years is a small amount of time for new
    things to be understood.  It seems trivial to us that the Earth goes
    around the Sun, but such heresy was enough to get a person imprisoned
    when people had other beliefs.  Something that seems crystal clear to
    you can be totally incomprehensible to other people.  It is perfectly
    obvious to me that a VCR can record without a television attached, but
    some people will not believe that when told.  I have no idea how their
    thought processes operate, but I recognize that there are people
    different from me who do not have the slightest clue about things that
    seem to me like the most basic logic -- and, sometimes, vice-versa.
    
    > Such men, I don't think, would be working at DEC, anyway, probably
    > wouldn't be working at all if they've remained so isolated and so
    > unaffected by the last 20-30 years.
    
    Many of the people at Digital are technically oriented.  To many
    people, if "chairman" means "chair man or woman", then that is all it
    means to them, when they think about it consciously.  They do not know
    that there are consequences of using male forms for allegedly generic
    uses.  Even if told there are consequences, they are likely not to
    accept such a statement because it is not explained clearly -- clearly
    to them.  A person who says some feminist is ugly probably knows they
    are insulting the feminist, but they may very well have no real
    knowledge of the sexism of such a statement.
    
    > You are still assuming the person is blissfully unaware of the last
    > 20 - 30 years.
    
    No, I am not.  I think people can be very, very stupid, even smart
    people.
    
    > I'm sure nearly every "unaware" man has been made aware, and HAS
    > thought about the implications of doing otherwise.
    
    I very much doubt that many men have thought about sexism to any
    significant degree.  I am sure that many men have been _told_ about
    sexism, sexist statements, and the consequences, but I think it likely
    that few men have been made _aware_ of the consequences in the sense of
    really comprehending how sexist statements affect men and women.  I do
    not think very many people are good at explaining things to other
    people.  If a person has been raised to behave in certain ways since
    childhood, it will take a lot to get them to change.  If a poor
    explainer tries to explain, the subject will listen but not understand,
    and will just ignore what they were told.  Or if the explainer goes too
    far and talks about hatred and uses excessively strong terms, the
    subject is likely to be alienated and will ignore what is said.
    
    > Those who *choose* traditional behavior do so out of laziness at
    > best, misogyny at worst.
    
    Well, I can agree with that range.  And I think laziness is most likely
    explanation for most people.
    
    > The culture will still support the sexist man.  He looses little  in
    > terms of his own status with other men, and he gains much in terms of 
    > his own ego by seeing another group as "lesser".
    
    Yes, that is right.  Society reinforces the sexist man (and even the
    sexist woman in ways).  A person who is not _actively_ resisting sexism
    is guided automatically into sexism.  The person who does nothing is
    made into a sexist.  How many people actually actively do anything that
    is not of personal interest to them?
    
    > But if they continue to think them, in light of new knowledge, in
    > light of logic and fairness, then I conclude that they must LIKE to
    > think that way.
    
    In general, people do like to think the way they have been thinking in
    the past.  (How hard is it to change a person's opinion in Notes?) 
    People who think the Earth is flat like to think the Earth is flat --
    even if they never thought about what they think and simply think it
    because they were told it was so.  I don't know what it is that makes
    people like that -- maybe it is because telling somebody that what they
    think is wrong is like an attack, and the person reacts defensively. 
    Maybe it is hardwired into human brains because it was beneficial to
    survival and evolved that way.  I know that when somebody disagrees
    with me, my first reaction is to disagree back.  A typical situation is
    for me to argue my side, them to argue their side, and then LATER I
    think about it, after my instinctual reactions are out of the way.
    
    > And if someone chooses, in light of knowledge to the contrary, to
    > continue to see a group as inferior, that person does so because he/she
    > wants to - enjoys to - gets something from it.
    
    I do not think most people choose what to believe.  (You could get into
    a chain here -- would a person choose to choose to believe in
    something?  Only in rare circumstances.)  If you gave a really good,
    crystal clear explanation and you did not alienate the subject and you
    were lucky, they would later think about what you said and might accept
    it.  Note that I think they would accept it, not choose it.  If you
    have done a good job, it will sit well in their mind, and it will stay
    there.  But if anything goes wrong, the person will simply toss it out.
    They will not _choose_ to toss it out; they will simply let it go.
    
    Not doing anything is easy.  Adhering to old beliefs is easy and is
    usually the more rewarding course simply because it is less stressful.
    
    > In misogyny, what men get from it is ego stroking and a sense of
    > omnipotence and power.
    
    Yes, some men might get those.  But that's not hatred.
    
    > Are you saying that men may be thinking that women are no more
    > significant and deserving of respect than "heights"?
    
    Am I saying that engineers are no more significant and deserving of
    respect than "heights"?  No.  Am I saying that engineers are no more
    significant and deserving of respect than "heights"?  No.  If I say
    that people and apples are both living things and stones are not
    because people and apples reproduce and grow and metabolize, am I
    saying that people are apples?  No, I am not.  I am making a comparison
    of _some_ properties of people and apples, not _all_ properties of
    people and apples.
    
    People can think about heights.  People can think about Republicans.
    People can think about women.  Some of the ways people think about
    things apply to our discussion, and I tried to illustrate something
    about how people think with my examples.  My examples are about how
    people think, not about how people are like heights.
    
    People can have all sorts of reactions and thoughts about something --
    women, heights, Republicans, Silly Putty, and books -- thoughts that
    are good or bad, complex or simple.  My examples were meant to show
    that the thoughts people have about men and women are not necessarily
    due to hatred.
    
    > I thought you might have meant that they were therefore not to be
    > blamed for being misogynists, which I translated to mean, "innocent of
    > the charges".
    
    I have not attempted to establish whether or not there is any blame of
    guilt to be made.  For the record, hatred could constitute malice which
    could be deserving of blame, and ignorance could constitute negligence
    which could be deserving of blame.  On the other hand, ignorance might
    not constitute negligence.  I have not explored that here.  My note was
    addressed to the issue of whether or not there is hatred.
    
    > Did I change your meanings?
    
    Yes, somewhat, because you introduced innocence/guilt, which I would
    not like to get into at the moment because it complicates things.  My
    interest in this topic comes because I think ascribing hatred to people
    is too much.  It seems to be ascribing an active malice to people -- as
    if they _intend_ to be sexist, and I do not think most people intend to
    be sexist.  Ascribing hatred if hatred does not exist is like making a
    wrong diagnosis of a disease, which is bad because if treatment is
    started for the wrong disease, it could let the real disease grow and
    possibly even cause harm.  If a person is accused of hatred but does
    not really have hatred, they will be alienated -- the accusation will
    have made things worse.
    
    > For heaven's sake how do you explain the common "eye-rolling" and
    > heavy sighing exhibited by some men in response to yet another
    > discussion of sexism?  Because they hear it a LOT!
    
    Yes, they are "eye-rolling" because they hear it a lot.  That does not
    mean it has ever been explained to them in a way that makes them
    understand.  What they are hearing is not an explanation they can
    understand; it is complaints, excessive accusations, and statements
    _about_ sexism that don't really convey comprehension.
    
    Consider modus ponens, a simple logical principle:  If you have two
    statements, "A", and "A implies B", then you can figure that "B" is
    true.  Now consider a person who does not understand this.  I might be
    able to explain it to the person.  But I might not.  Some people, I
    will not be able to explain this to, even if I talk until I am blue in
    the face.  It is a SIMPLE thing TO ME, and it is a TRUE thing -- to me,
    it is even more true, in a sense, than the truth that the universe
    exists.  In spite of the fact that it is a crystal clear, absolutely
    true, fundamental building-block of thinking, I might not be able to
    explain it to another person.  THERE IS NO GUARANTEED WAY TO GIVE
    COMPREHENSION TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.  There is no certain mechanism
    for making another person understand what you understand.
    
    If I tried to explain modus ponens to a person repeatedly, they would
    start rolling their eyes.  They would have heard it many times.  That
    does not mean they have chosen not to believe or that they hate logic.
    The explanation is that they just are not "getting" it.  If they ever
    actually did understand, they would probably accept it happily.  But
    it's just not working.
    
    Of course, people _usually_ are able to communicate.  That's because we
    have a lot of things in common.  We usually can make each other
    understood.  But we also have many differences, particularly when
    things get philosophical (which semantics certainly is).  And then is
    when it becomes difficult to make somebody understand.  You can't just
    tell somebody what the truth is and expect them to accept it.
    
    Sometimes, we just aren't able to make somebody else understand.  They
    go on doing what they do, not because of hatred, but just because they
    do not understand.
    
    
    				-- edp

>                <<< Note 996.150 by WFOV12::APODACA "Oh boy." >>>

>    I don't think we live in a misogynic society.  


	 Kim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  As soon as I find the Hall of Fame
	 note, this is THERE!!!!!!


	 Wonderful....it's amazing how you can so simply say the
	 thoughts are stuck to the tips of my fingers.


	 Thanks.

	 kath

>   <<< Note 996.156 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

>	> IMO, Yes.
>    
>    	Then, you *do* regard 3 bagger jokes about women as misogyny,
>    	Kath?

	 
	 No, suzanne...I don't.  The title to the note said "That is,
	 if you believe in the premise, which I do not."
	    
	 If you will re-read Hank's question it basically said "If
	 we can equate three-bagger jokes to misogyny then isn't
	 the converse the same?"
	 
         	 So all your other questions are moot.  Read the whole
	 note next time, please?

	 kath

>                    <<< Note 996.164 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>

    
 >    re: Kath - in my school the girls didn't shout "cooties" about the
 >   boys.  Most of them would have given anything to be liked by them.


	 Well, Sandy, you're a little older than me and perhaps things
	 have changed a little?

	 After all, isn't that what we're after?  Change for the
	 better?

	 Are things REALLY the same as they were when you were in
	 grade school?  Are they really the same as when *I* was in
	 grade school?

	 We ARE making advances, I think it's time people were given a
	 little CREDIT for those advances!!!

	 Don't you?

	 kath

    	
    	RE: .180  Kath
    
    	It's strange how the title to your note cropped up after I wrote
    	my response.  Must have gotten lost somewhere when your note
    	first popped up on my screen...
    
    	So, what you're saying now is that you *DON'T* link man hating
    	with the jokes about men in Topic 22.  Fine.
    
    	That's all I wanted to know.
    
    	If my asking questions about your notes bothers you so much, I'll
    	just make my own assumptions next time (and won't take the time
    	to check with you.)  How's that?

    It is very easy to say we don't live in a misogynic society if you
    haven't been exposed to much of life, different age groups, different 
    cultures.  very easy.  If someone has had all the opportunities and 
    never had to really struggle for anything, if they have an
    education, entered the work force into a high paying position, it would 
    be very hard for them to see anything unfair or misogynic.  It would be
    very hard to understand what its like to be put down or devalued by
    being called "girl".  I guess until more life experience is obtained,
    its kind of a useless arguement.
    
    vivian

>   <<< Note 996.182 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

    	
>    	It's strange how the title to your note cropped up after I wrote
>    	my response.  Must have gotten lost somewhere when your note
>    	first popped up on my screen...


	 Yes it is very strange isn't it....are you running some weird
	 vesion of notes?  After all, the title was typed in when I
	 got the prompt for it while entering it.

	 Your accusation disgusts me.  



	 kath
	 

    	RE: .183 & .185  Kath
    
    	>  -< This disgusts me. >-
    
    	> ...that is low...
    
    	Kath, I think it's wonderful that you're able to create this sense 
    	of drama in your life, but asking questions about your note wasn't 
    	as heinous as you implied, nor did my suggestion that you changed 
    	your title amount to accusations of mayhem or murder.
    
    	>    Your accusation disgusts me.  
    	>  -< And so does your attitude. >-
    
    	I'm deeply crushed.

    I've hidden some of the responses in this exchange between Kath and
    Suzanne; they clearly qualified as personal attack or the quotation of
    a personal attack.  I've let other responses stand although I felt
    uncomfortable.
    
    This is obviously a heated topic.  Please refrain...*carefully*...from
    giving the appearance that you believe your opponent is unethical
    unless you have *clear* evidence that that is the case and that no
    other explanation is appropriate.
    
    							=maggie

    <--(.174)
    
�	The same can be said of man hatred.
    
    Mike, where did you see me argue that it can't?  Did I miss something?
    
�	If a man dislikes women, is he a woman hater?
    
    Consider to whom the term "misanthropy" (hatred of people) is applied. 
    Scarcely to the Hitlers and Vlad Drakuls of the world!  Actually, I
    can't think that I've ever heard it used about the mass murderers and
    genocidists, it's too weak.  But it is used about the folks who've no
    good word to say about anyone, the hermits who live off in the
    mountains with KeepOutThisMeansYou signs up all over, the folks who may
    do a gratuitous mean trick if they can get by with it...the "spinach
    haters", in other words.
    
    So, in answer to your question:  maybe.  Yes, if he demonstrated his
    dislike for women by behaviors analogous to those that get someone
    labelled "spinach hater" or "misanthrope" then I'd feel comfortable
    saying that he is "a woman hater".  And, similarly, "man hater" if a
    woman.
    
 						=maggie

     "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
    ignorance."
    
     That is an operating principle in my life. I try to follow it whenever
    possible. The reason this conversation bothers me is because it seems
    that many people are unwilling to believe that ignorance could
    adequately explain some of the behaviors that are currently attributed
    to misogyny. This failure to accept the possibility that a lack of
    malice could exist in the face of these unacceptable behaviors serves
    to alienate the various factions. Women accuse men of acting with
    malice; men respond by considering their accusers to be hysterical.
    
     I'll tell you what. When I was growing up, I casually dismissed
    feminists as a radical, fringe group. Why? Well, for one thing, the only
    feminists that I ever was exposed to were really separatists. You know,
    the "women are actually superior to men, we have absolutely no use for
    men, men are pigs, men are scum" types. If you are told that this type
    of person is representative of a group, you tend to write them off as
    being less than fully cognizant of reality. (major euphemism) In
    addition, men from the old school (men whom I reason to respect in other
    circumstances) told me that feminists were ugly old bags that couldn't
    make it in the traditional world, so they harbored hateful feelings
    towards men. And when I'd see a show with self-proclaimed feminists, by
    and large they weren't too physically attractive, and they sure
    _sounded_ like they hated men. So why not believe what I had been told?
    Besides, as a teenager, I had much more important things to think about
    than fairness and equality- there was fishing, my basketball team,
    Celts, Bruins, Patriots, and Red Sox, my studies, and girls. I was very
    content to accept what I had been told- why shouldn't I?
    
     Even during the time when I sort of wrote off feminists as being
    "weirdos," I knew that there were many areas that men were not superior
    to women- basically, most any area where physical strength was not the
    dominant factor. Intellectually, I knew some very intelligent girls- so
    I knew that they weren't by definition dumber than boys- or any less
    capable of most things for that matter. One thing that helped alot was
    my dad. He was ahead of his time, equality-wise. He taught me that boys
    aren't any better than girls (even when that wasn't what I wanted to
    hear.) Even today, I am surprised at his various manifestations of
    equal-mindedness.
    
     I began to challenge some of the notions I had about feminism in
    college. It was difficult and unsettling. Why would such a beautiful
    woman be a feminist? She could make it just on her looks... There goes
    one myth out the window. Certainly coming to Digital and reading =wn=
    has been a major source of challenge to my accepted beliefs. Some
    beliefs have been disproved, some have endured. But the reason that
    many of my beliefs have changed is not because I was totally reamed the
    moment I set foot in this file. It's not because I have been on the
    receiving end of scorching flames. And it's not because I completely
    swallow everything I read here (or anywhere else for that matter). It's
    because I've read and thought, and met people, and read and thought
    some more. And it's because I've received support (mostly in mail) for
    some of my thoughts, and condolences when I've been unfairly attacked.
    
     I am a reasonably intelligent and compassionate human being. And there
    have been times when I've said "Screw it- it just isn't worth the pain
    and aggravation." I have even taken a vacation or two from the file.
    Without the perseverence to stick around, I would have stopped my
    education after the first time I was torched (and of course, my
    tormentor was immediately carried to the hall of fame. "Yeah, that's
    telling him.") Not exactly helpful towards the goal of equality.
    
     The key to attaining equality IMO is educating men, dispelling the
    myths, rooting out the false beliefs. And the only reason that men need
    to be educated is because they hold most of the power (and it's
    something we want them to share). Of course, if women held all the
    power, they could just dictate. But that isn't the way things are
    right now. Which doesn't mean that women have to bow down servilely and
    beg men to learn, it doesn't mean women have to treat men with kid
    gloves, and it especially doesn't mean that women have to put up with
    more shit. (I only make these disclaimers to avoid such accusations).
    What it means is that women might want to try to use words which
    accurately represent the ideas they are attempting to get across
    instead of using emotionally charged rhetoric. (But MEN use emotionally
    charged rhetoric! Yes, they do- and are promptly disregarded for doing
    so). I don't believe that upping the ante with every situation or
    feeling is the most effective way to go about teaching men to accept
    women as equals. One of the things that men fear is that women as a
    group aren't really out for equality, they just want to get the power
    and do the same thing to men that men do to women. And of course they
    aren't going to just hand over the power and say "go for it." The fear
    is that the women who are calling for equality are just a nice front
    for the separatists- who can't wait for turnabout.
    
     When I hear a charge of misogyny or hate being leveled when ignorance
    could just as easily be applied, I feel sadness. I see a woman who
    looks at men as an evil force, a group which harbors malice towards
    women. While it is undeniable that some individuals indeed harbor
    malice (and act upon it!) towards women, the vast majority of us don't.
    And when the charge of misogyny is inappropriately leveled, the ears 
    of most men get turned off. "There they go again." And learning and
    understanding the feelings women have doesn't take place; it's just
    blocked out.
    
     I think that if education and understanding for men about women's 
    thoughts and feelings are goals of women, they might want to try using
    less hypercharged words (as the default), and attribute to ignorance
    what may be explained by ignorance rather than malice.
    
     The Doctah

re: .184

Vivian, I agree wholeheartedly with your note.

Carla

    The only problems I can see with "it's not malice, it's ignorance--you
    just haven't figured out how to explain it to us well enough yet" (a
    sort of summary of what I hear edp's and Mark's thesis to be) are that
    it's (a) incredibly self-serving in its effect and (b) unlikely from
    whate we know about how human cognition works.
    
    "I'm not robbing these banks out of malice, you just haven't
    successfully explained to me why it's wrong.  I'm just ignorant."
    There are people for whom this would be a legitimate defence, but I'd
    sure rather be seen as malicious instead, fellas:  that kind of
    pathology is incurable and dangerous.  And, thankfully, very rare.
    
    A much more likely explanation is that the ignorance, if maintained in
    the face of repeated explanation, is willful and therefore malicious. 
    Comparable to an experience I had during my early days at DEC, where a
    certain individual complained that I wasn't explaining [technical]
    things to him so he could understand...but other people in the room
    could see his lack of attention in his body language: he had no desire
    to listen to me, but wasn't willing to admit it.
    
    						=maggie

    Re .184, I also completely agree with Vivian's note.
    
    Re .189, I think a minority of men share views even as enlightened
    as yours.  I think the majority of men still believe that men are
    more intelligent and more capable than women.  (and that's probably
    the real reason there's never been a US woman president)
    
    Ignorance is not the same thing as refusing to listen.  
    
    Lorna
    

	=maggie
    
>    A much more likely explanation is that the ignorance, if maintained in
>    the face of repeated explanation, is willful and therefore malicious. 
>    Comparable to an experience I had during my early days at DEC, where a
>    certain individual complained that I wasn't explaining [technical]
>    things to him so he could understand...but other people in the room
					    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    could see his lack of attention in his body language: he had no desire
     ^^^^^^^^^						   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    to listen to me, but wasn't willing to admit it.
     ^^^^^^^^^

	I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head.    

	One will only learn what one is willing to listen to.  I could
	not teach basket weaving to someone who sleeps in class.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The more of LIFE I experience
			the more radical I get, I wonder
			why that is???????

    Re .191:
    
    > The only problems I can see with "it's not malice, it's ignorance--you
    > just haven't figured out how to explain it to us well enough yet" (a
    > sort of summary of what I hear edp's and Mark's thesis to be) are that
    > it's (a) incredibly self-serving in its effect . . .
    
    I think that amounts to an unjustified accusation.  There is no reason
    to get my self involved in this.  And it certainly is not clear to me
    what service you think is performed.  How is a person served by being
    ignorant instead of malicious?  And what does self-serving have to do
    with it -- if the thesis were true but self-serving, would you ignore
    it because it were self-serving?
    
    > . . . and (b) unlikely from what we know about how human cognition
    > works.

    I have explained, in detail, how ignorance can lead to the observed
    behavior.  I have not seen anything that indicates that only malice can
    cause the observed behavior.  There is, generally, no direct evidence
    of malice here -- only indirectly the conjecture that bad acts toward
    women are so prevalent that it must be malice.  But that conjecture
    does not hold up when other explanations are available.
    
    > "I'm not robbing these banks out of malice, you just haven't
    > successfully explained to me why it's wrong.  I'm just ignorant."

    A person who had not been taught the principles of right and wrong that
    we were taught might well be in such a state.  If not robbing banks,
    there are certainly many people who believe there is nothing wrong with
    helping themselves to food in the produce section of grocery stores.
    These people are not necessarily malicious.  They just do not think the
    same way you do.  They DO NOT think what they are doing is wrong, so
    they can do it without malice.
    
    > A much more likely explanation is that the ignorance, if maintained in
    > the face of repeated explanation, is willful and therefore malicious. 

    Why is that more likely?
    
    How can you ever show that a person "must" have understood what you
    explained?
    
    > Comparable to an experience I had during my early days at DEC, where a
    > certain individual complained that I wasn't explaining [technical]
    > things to him so he could understand...but other people in the room
    > could see his lack of attention in his body language: he had no desire
    > to listen to me, but wasn't willing to admit it.

    Which is cause and which is effect?  Did his lack of interest cause his
    lack of understanding?  Or did his lack of understanding cause his lack
    of interest?
    
    Even if many people HAVE chosen to deliberately ignore feminist
    statements, that doesn't show malice.  If a person doesn't believe
    what they are doing is wrong, then they are choosing not to listen to
    statements they believe are false.  They are NOT choosing to be
    malicious or to ignore valid complaints; they are choosing to ignore
    something invalid and irrelevant, in their belief.
                        
    
    				-- edp

    re: .191
    Maggie, your analogy to robbing banks isn't really the same thing. 
    It's the combination of ignorance (willful or not) and LAZINESS/APATHY
    that creates the situation.
    
    Robbing banks is a deliberate, thought-out, planned attack. You can't
    claim ignorance of the fact that it's against the law.
    
    Perpetuating sexism, in my view, is not _necessarily_ deliberate,
    thought-out, planned -- malicious.  Sometimes I think some of it IS due
    to the combination of ignorance and laziness.  And we need to use
    DIFFERENT techniques when we're faced with ignorance (willful or not)
    than when we're faced with active bigotry.
    
    Maybe the proper analogy would be if someone got something for nothing
    and didn't take action to make sure they STOPPED getting something for
    nothing.  (The following is NOT a perfect analogy to sexism in society
    and its root causes, PLEASE don't read it as if it is!  It is an
    example of how people can behave badly through causes other than
    malice, and how the burden is --unfairly-- on the communicaTOR to make
    things clear to people who are happy to continue getting a free ride.)
    
    Suppose a ticket agency makes a mistake and sends John a ticket at the
    discounted student rate instead of the regular rate. John doesn't
    realize he got a discount.  He buys tickets for YEARS at the low rate. 
    The ticket agency finally realizes what's going on and sends him a
    letter asking him to pay back all he's "stolen" through the years.  The
    letter is written in legalese, and he doesn't understand what it says. 
    He throws the letter away.  They send him more letters, written more
    and more angrily.  He starts to throw away the envelopes without even
    opening them, because he "knows" what they will say and he thinks it
    doesn't apply to him.  
    
    Suppose also that he _does_ suspect what the legalese in the letter is
    saying, but, because it is an unwelcome truth, it is to his advantage
    to say he doesn't understand it.  He will lose money if he "understands" 
    what the ticket agency is asking for.  Is that malicious?  Or is it
    laziness combined with an unwillingness to face unpleasant truths?
    
    In cases like this, it is to John's advantage not to understand.  It is
    to the ticket agency's advantage to make their position COMPLETELY
    CLEAR.  If he tunes them out, they won't get their money (in this
    scenario, he didn't set out to cheat them, they made a mistake that
    cheated themselves).
     
    (Again, this is NOT intended to be a perfect analogy to the current
    situation of women and men in socity.)
    
    I think that's the kind of thing the "it's not malice, it's ignorance"
    notes are getting at.
    
    Pam

    <--(.195)
    
    Sorry, Eric, my phrasing wasn't the best.  No accusation was intended,
    what I meant by "[your] and Mark's thesis" was that I perceived you two
    to be putting forward the proposition that "if someone [unspecified]
    behaves badly, it's more likely ignorance than malice".  My intention
    was not to suggest that you were defending yourselves thereby nor that
    to advance such proposition was in self-serving on your part.
    
�    A person who had not been taught the principles of right and wrong that
�    we were taught might well be in such a state.
    
    I agree.  But unless they were judged incompetent, their different
    upbringing would not save them once they had been instructed in "how it
    works here":  they would not be presumed to be incapable of profiting
    by instruction, and it would not be allowable as a defence.
    
�    > A much more likely explanation is that the ignorance, if maintained in
�    > the face of repeated explanation, is willful and therefore malicious. 
�
�    Why is that more likely?
�    
�    How can you ever show that a person "must" have understood what you
�    explained?
    
    Occam's Razor:  absent some reason to suppose the problem is too hard
    for the cognitive skill of the individual, go with nature.  Learning
    things is a survival trait, people can't not do it.
    
�    Which is cause and which is effect?  Did his lack of interest cause his
�    lack of understanding?  Or did his lack of understanding cause his lack
�    of interest?
    
    The former:  it was a technical subject of considerable potential
    importance, and he prided himself on being a wizard. 
    
�    Even if many people HAVE chosen to deliberately ignore feminist
�    statements, that doesn't show malice.  If a person doesn't believe
�    what they are doing is wrong, then they are choosing not to listen to
�    statements they believe are false.  They are NOT choosing to be
�    malicious or to ignore valid complaints; they are choosing to ignore
�    something invalid and irrelevant, in their belief.
    
    Depends on your definition of malice, of course.  Me, I take a simpler
    view:  when I see someone rejecting a position that would just happen
    to require some sacrifice, I take any protestation about innocence cum
    grano salis.  Maybe I'm just too cynical?  :-)
    
    						=maggie 
                                                       

    there is a guy I work with.  On many occasions he has sent out mail
    district wide saying things like "Vivian has been a very good girl
    because... blah blah.  The first time I went to him and said, geez, I
    just wanted to tell ya that I haven't been a girl since I was 12 and
    started menustrating, so would you give me a break?  I said this in a
    joking manner but made it very clear that I "really" didn't like being
    called a girl. He keeps doing this! recently I had done alot of
    database work so he sent another mail message district wide about what
    a busy "girl" I was.  once again, I went to him, mentioned that I
    would really appreciate it if he would stop it. His excuse was that he
    was just trying to compliment me on the amount of work I did.  
    
    now, is this ignorance?  is this just his upbringing that makes him
    feel that he needs multipule lessons to  "learn" how I feel about 
    being called a girl? 
    do I continue to gently try to educate him?  
    
    vivian

    	It's interesting to hear people describe (in great detail) the 
    	hideous stereotypes that were being handed down from adult men to 
    	young boys about nasty ole feminists.
    
    	As a female, I was never privvy to these particular stereotypes.
    	I don't recall hearing them explained to me in as much gruesome
    	detail even once, in fact.  Perhaps the people near me in power
    	didn't trust me enough to let me in on the "secrets" of how to
    	try to stamp out the women's movement with malicious lies.
    
    	When I see these lies trotted out again (in all their supposed
    	wisdom and glory,) I have a very hard time attributing their
    	original creation to ignorance rather than malice.  
    
    	I don't think many men are stupid enough to believe that women 
    	ever wanted to take over the world (at the first available opportunity 
    	after getting a couple of rights.)
    
    	Neither do I think many men consciously buy into a personal hatred
    	for women, either.
    
    	It just seems to me that supporting the misogynist atmosphere that
    	exists in our society is too much fun to stop, for some/many men,
    	and that they'll fight to preserve this fun at almost any cost.
    
    	How terrible it would be if bagger jokes stopped being acceptable -
    	there would be less humor in the world, especially now that racist
    	and ethnic jokes have become less fashionable.  Without women as
    	the butt of cruel jokes, our society would be a dry, humorless
    	place (and all because women just couldn't be good sports about it.)
    
    	How terrible it would be if women were allowed to say, "We are treated 
    	with hatred by our society" (and people had to start acknowledging and 
    	correcting many/most of the subtle ways that misogyny is played out in 
    	our culture.)  How could we ever face looking at advertising campaigns
    	(or computer graphics demonstrations) without being treated to a nice
    	female body for our amusement.  If that's the way it's going to be,
    	we might as well not even spend money anymore.
    
    	The fun would be gone.  Forever.
    
    	       * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    
    	How long must societies have to feed off the dehumanization of women
    	as a group before it can be considered a cultural affliction?
    
    	How many ways must women be denigrated on a societal level before
    	it can be considered the hatred of women?

    Re .198:
    
    Is it ignorance?  Probably not.
    
    Is it idiocy, obstinance, and jerkiness?  Probably.
    
    Is it malice or hate?  Probably not.
    
    
    				-- edp

    It seems to me that the note itself was a "lets bash feminist" written
    by a misogynic woman.  The discussion merrily took off and then Gloria
    was brought up... then the bagger jokes.  seems pretty clear to me that
    the intent of bringing up your impression of how she looks was not
    meant to be just a personal impression, but an addition of feminist
    basher comments and a call for more nastiness.
    
    since women have been told, over and over again, that just because men
    treat us a certain way, doesn't mean we should treat them the same way,
    why is it important to find women in this file who refuse to play by
    those rules?  Personally, I could care less if some of the notes in here
    make some men uncomfortable, hell, we can't even discuss menstruation
    among ourselves without men making comments!  
    Believe it or not, many woman can come up with how they feel without 
    a mans help or perceptions.
    
    vivian

    	RE: .201  Mike Z.
    
    	Thanks for the list, Mike.  I've taken the time to quote some of
    	this material that you regard as being so denigrating to men (and
    	some of it is quite telling, about you that is):
    
		"I heard this from a friend:
	         I think, therefore I'm single."
    
    		"Marriage: nothing down and the rest of your life to pay."
    	
    		"The Rules" (obviously intended to be fun poked at WOMEN,
    		 NOT MEN, followed by the comment from the noter who
    		 submitted the list:  "I'm convinced the author was probably
    		a frustrated man trying to deal with his wife or girlfriend.")
    	
    	Another note you listed was a quote from Murphy Brown (following
    	a form feed with a warning that the line might possibly be offensive
    	to men.)  I don't recall ever seeing anything **close** to a formfeed
    	or a warning in front of bagger jokes, of course.
    
    	The last three were variations on old jokes that traditionally insult
    	women (the last one was written AFTER the standard women-insulting
    	joke was submitted in the topic with women still the target!)
    
    	Perhaps you can explain to me why it is insulting to men for someone
    	to make a remark that denigrates marriage?  (If you're going to say
    	it's because women marry men, and women made the comments, check
    	again.  Your first quote came from a man.)

>    "I'm not robbing these banks out of malice, you just haven't
>    successfully explained to me why it's wrong.  I'm just ignorant."

     That analogy (robbing banks to remaining ignorant of women's rights)
    is skewed very much in your favor. I don't believe it to be nearly as
    accurate as Pam Smith's analogy.
    
>    A much more likely explanation is that the ignorance, if maintained in
>    the face of repeated explanation, is willful and therefore malicious. 
    
     Premise 1: said repeated explanations are sufficient to cause
    understanding
    
     Premise 2: willful ignorance implies malice
    
     I believe that both of premises can disproved without much effort. I
    believe they have been done in the intervening notes; if you wish me to
    do so say the word.
    
    The Doctah

    
    	Taking a look at some of what Mike Z. regards as "denigrating to men"
    	almost tops finding out that another noter now considers the word 
    	"strident" to be "cutesy."
    
    	What a week this has been!
    

>I perceived you two
>    to be putting forward the proposition that "if someone [unspecified]
>    behaves badly, it's more likely ignorance than malice".
    
     In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I believe the benefit of
    the doubt ought to go to the perpetrator of said behavior.
    
>    Depends on your definition of malice, of course.  Me, I take a simpler
>    view:  when I see someone rejecting a position that would just happen
>    to require some sacrifice, I take any protestation about innocence cum
>    grano salis.  Maybe I'm just too cynical?  :-)
    
     Probably you are just tired of bearing the brunt of unacceptable
    behavior. Can't blame you for getting cynical!
    
     Deliberately ignoring feminist statements strikes you as deliberately
    ignoring the truth, does it not? Therefore, you see anyone who
    willfully ignores the truth as being malicious. This is not necessarily
    the case.
    
     Analogy time: (You thought you'd escape two replies in a row? :-)
    
     I am against communism. I do not believe in is basic tenets, and I'm
    therefore extremely unlikely to listen to anyone who attempts to paint
    communism in a good light. To a communist- I am ignoring the "truth."
    By your definition, I am acting with malice vis a vis communism. 
    
     Now, what if the reason I was against communism was because many
    people told me that communism stood for killing every third child that
    was born? And I based my rejection of communism on this false notion.
    
     I believe that many men base their rejection of feminism on the basis
    of false notions. And their continued refusals to listen are a reaction
    to these falsely held notions- and NOT malice.
    
     The Doctah

    re .198, Vivian
    
    For this guy, this isn't ignorance.  You've told him flat out.  Gentle
    education doesn't seem to be working.  Maybe a touch of his own
    medicine would work:
    
    Send out mail district-wide saying what a "good boy" he is for giving
    you public credit for your complex technical achievements, and how
    productive it is to work with a boy who is a good team player.
    
    Sometimes people need to FEEL what the other side does.  Words don't
    mean anything to them.
    
    Pam

    Pam-
    
     While I agree in principle that it would be great to put the shoe on
    the other foot, it may backfire. Who writes her reviews? 
    
     I would probably tell him flat out "Do NOT refer to me as a girl
    again!" I would follow this up with a memo (it's so nice to have
    something written which you can show personnel).
    
     If he does it again after that- nail his butt.
    
     The Doctah

    I started to have that problem.  My supervisor introduced me to
    my new coworker and officemate-to-be, saying "And this is Ann, our
    girl programmer."
    
    I knew that it was best that my cubbymate understand that I was
    going to be a strange person to work with, and I knew that this
    sort of talk would have to be stopped before he-- well, got worse.
    
    So I smiled broadly, and replied perkily, "Yes.  I program girls."
    
    (The next time he had to introduce me, he almost swallowed his tongue,
    but he did call me "ahhhnother one of our programmers".)
    
    							Ann B.

    Re .197:

    > But unless they were judged incompetent, their different upbringing
    > would not save them once they had been instructed in "how it works
    > here":  they would not be presumed to be incapable of profiting by
    > instruction, and it would not be allowable as a defence.

    (I presume you mean "instruction" in the sense of education, as opposed
    to orders.)

    "Instruction" in the sense of education does not always get through a
    person's skull, as I have tried to explain.  Look at how many topics
    are discussed in notes:  privacy against searches, taxes, capitalism,
    gun control, crime, welfare, and on and on.  How come people don't just
    hear the truth and accept it, thus ending arguments?  It is not a
    matter of complexity; people hold a wide variety of different beliefs,
    and it is not easy to change those beliefs.  You cannot just present
    somebody with the truth and expect them to believe it.  Consider a
    person who has just been exposed to an argument presented by a
    feminist.  You seem to expect the person to accept what they were told. 
    But why should that person accept the feminist's statements any more
    than that person would accept a sexist's statements or a Democrat's or
    a Libertarian's or a car sales person?

    What makes the feminist's statements so special that they will be
    accepted by any person who has no malice?

    > Occam's Razor:  absent some reason to suppose the problem is too hard
    for the cognitive skill of the individual, go with nature.

    As previous responses have pointed out, you have assumed that the
    reason a person does not comprehend is that the subject is too hard. 
    That assumption is not correct; there are other reasons people do not
    comprehend.  Even very smart people can misunderstand very simple
    things.

    Some of the examples I gave of people failing to understand were very
    simple things:  modus ponens, the Earth going around the Sun.  People
    can easily fail to accept simple things.

    It is not a matter of complexity.  Understanding is not a mechanical
    process; a person cannot just do it and be guaranteed of success if
    they follow some step-by-step process.  For all our vaunted
    intelligence, human thinking is still largely a hodge-podge of
    association, trial, and error.

    > Learning things is a survival trait, people can't not do it.
    
    I disagree.  Learning some things is a survival trait, but I don't
    think it applies to all things.  I also think that even if it is a
    survival trait, that does not mean people are always capable of it.  In
    addition, in a world where predators grow fur that matches their
    surroundings, it pays not to believe everything you see.  When you are
    bombarded with advertisements, political views left and right, and
    pleas for money, it pays not to believe everything you hear.  People
    learn not to believe everything.


				-- edp

re: .209

	Ah, but Ann, not everyone has your great delivery! ;-)

					--D

ew BEING::POSTPISCHIL:

>    Yes, very much so.  20 to 30 years is a small amount of time for new
>    things to be understood. 

Really?  Would it take you longer than 20 to 30 years finally to "understand"
something you've been hearing about all that time?  Wow.  I'll tell you
something then that's different about women - we learn IMMEDIATELY about
the dangers of being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong
man.  It doesn't take us very long.  Why?  The payoff.  As in Pam Smith's
ticket agency analogy, which by the way is PERFECT, claiming ignorance buys 
you time to strategize and hopefully you win.  A woman claiming ignorance 
gets her in trouble very, very fast.  The men who need 20-30 years to 
"understand" simply aren't motivated to do so.  They get women anyway.  
But motivation will happen of its own accord once women are convinced that 
sexism and misogyny isn't something they have to put up with from their lovers 
since all guys are like that.  When women are convinced they have a right 
to demand decent treatment, and when they believe it's possible to find it, 
such "ignorant" men will be *very* motivated to learn - very fast.  And the
few great guys right in this file should convince men that the competition
is increasing and the winning qualities are changing.
    
> Something that seems crystal clear to you can be totally incomprehensible 
> to other people.

Comprehension isn't the goal.  Whether or not men understand it, whether
or not they know why, whether or not they accept it, fairness to all under
the constitution should be LAW.  I'm sure most men can understand law and
the implications for breaking it.  Sooner or later, the light will dawn,
even if it does indeed take men sooooo long to understand what women say to
them.

Did you question why you were supposed to address your teachers as Ms and
Mr while they called you whatever they chose?  I doubt it.  You were told
and you probably just did it.  If so, that's because you respected the 
requestor and feared the retribution for failure to comply.  Men are 
comfortable in their belief that women still have no power to enforce their 
requests. Compliance seems optional.  If she makes too much noise, you can 
just write her off as a "feminist" and go find another female.  That's why 
we need the ERA - so men can take all the time they need to "understand" what 
is being asked of them.  Personally, I give them more credit than that but I 
dunno, maybe you're comfortable thinking men aren't as quick mentally.

> I am sure that many men have been _told_ about sexism, sexist statements, 
> and the consequences, but I think it likely that few men have been made 
> _aware_ of the consequences in the sense of really comprehending how 
> sexist statements affect men and women.

So you think there's a difference between "telling" someone and "making
him aware"?  This is the old, "OK, you told me, now convince me" argument, 
yes?  If a man doesn't want to be convinced, isn't he asking her to spin her
wheels?   I think so.  But as long as she off trying to find the right
words, as long as she's convinced SHE's the reason she doesn't get the
fair treatment she wants and deserves, she isn't bugging the guy about it.
    
> If a person has been raised to behave in certain ways since
> childhood, it will take a lot to get them to change.  If a poor
>    explainer tries to explain, the subject will listen but not understand,
>    and will just ignore what they were told.  Or if the explainer goes too
>    far and talks about hatred and uses excessively strong terms, the
>    subject is likely to be alienated and will ignore what is said.
 
So it looks like the onus is on women to be sterling communicators, (no matter
how long the guy says, "No, I still don't get it"), crystal clear in their
thinking and extremely sensitive to the man they're speaking to.  Sounds
like only about 5-10% of women have a chance then, huh?  Anything less
than a perfectly lucid explanation complete with analogies and examples,
delivered in the style the man expects will work.  That's exactly the
reason Catherine T used to explain why she'd stopped noting for awhile -
because her words were secondary to the taking apart of and finding fault
with her style, her approach, etc, ANYTHING will get the attention but
the words.   You seem to be stating flat out that this is what you believe
men not only expect, but have a RIGHT to expect - that when women
approach them with a request, particularly an unwelcome one, that they
will be meticulously prepared, flawlessly lucid, excrutiatingly clear and
extremely gentle and sensitive toward the male ego.  Anything less
automatically invalidate the examination of the request.  Boy that sure
sounds like the Wizard of Id.  Well, the king is a fink!
    
From what you've been saying over and over here, I'd assume that guys must 
have an *awful* time in school since they need such explicitness, such
clarity, very specific approaches and tons of time before they can understand. 
But I don't think that's really the case.  I suspect they probably have 
reasoning powers equal to that of women and can learn from a variety of 
styles, words and approaches - um, when they want to.

>How many people actually actively do anything that is not of personal 
>interest to them?

Bingo!  You've finally admitted it.  It isn't that we've failed to make
men understand.  And it isn't that we haven't tiptoed around them trying to 
find the best approach to get the point across.  It's that men just don't 
care.  It isn't of "personal interest" to them because they still get dates,
bed partners, wives.  It hasn't hit them where it hurts.  They haven't felt 
any repercussions from continuing on.  Feminism to many men is just empty
ranting and raving.  It's the wife who complains about getting no help
with the housework but does nothing about it - just continues to nag.  It's 
the sweetie who makes a lot of jokes and snide side-comments about his 
behavior but goes to bed with him anyway.  It must seem like we're crying 
wolf when women's actions don't match their words.  But you can bet the rent 
that women like me will become more and more commonplace, and it's eventually 
going to dawn on men that suddenly women can only be acquired through 
kindness and compassion since we no longer need to exchange our domestic
and sexual services for rent and food, and that we're perfectly willing to 
toss the sexists out of our beds, out of our lives.  THEN it will become of 
personal interest - and I bet it doesn't take 20 years, either!  ;-)

Convincing men should not be a game we have to play in order to "win" the 
same protections and rights guaranteed by the constitution that they 
enjoy. Men did not have to convince women that they deserve the rights they 
have, they simply set it up so that anyone who is born male would get them
by default.
    
re Doctah:

> So why not believe what I had been told?

It seems likely that you've ALSO been told that feminism is good for both 
men and women.  Why did you select the one you did?

> I was very content to accept what I had been told- why shouldn't I?

And there's the answer for why you selected one "telling" and not the
other.  Only one made you content.  Sorry to use you, Doctah, and I don't
think you're sexist at all, having met you.  You just gave me great lines
to use.  Men's words still touch men more deeply.  Thanx.

> Not exactly helpful towards the goal of equality.

Nothing will be as helpful as the ERA.  I state again that women should
not expect to have to dance or perform some impossible feat, (convincing
the unconvincable), in order to prove themselves worthy of the same rights
men get just by being born male.  That's an underlying misogynistic
assumption right there.  Men get by being born, women will have a CHANCE
to TRY to get only by gently and sweetly asking, cajoling, convincing men
who are only too willing to remain "ignorant".
  
> One of the things that men fear is that women as a group aren't really out 
> for equality, they just want to get the power and do the same thing to men 
> that men do to women.

So what you're saying is there's a bit of fear of retribution going on here,
am I right?  Then you admit they DO KNOW that their treatment of women is less
than sterling.  I think so, too, Doctah!

re BEING::POSTPISCHIL:

> How is a person served by being ignorant instead of malicious? 

Ask any lawyer.  The "insanity defense".  Nearly everyone understands
this kind of defense, when and why it's used and how it "serves" the
defendant.  It's what you've been using in defense of men who commit sexist 
actions.

> -- if the thesis were true but self-serving, would you ignore
>    it because it were self-serving?

Nope.  It would a lucky facet of the truth.  Serendipity.

> I have not seen anything that indicates that only malice can
> cause the observed behavior.  There is, generally, no direct evidence
> of malice here -- only indirectly the conjecture that bad acts toward
> women are so prevalent that it must be malice.

Well, gee, are you saying that men are just basically nasty people - bulls 
in china shops committing "bad acts" with blissful oblivion?  Are you saying 
that they're not misogynistic, they're malicious to everyone??  I don't know 
about you, but when I'm malicious, it's a consciously chosen behavior di-
rected at a selected target and for a reason.  I think that's what malice 
means.  You're trying to prove "absence of malice", (GREAT flick!), but I 
say it can't be proved because MEN KNOW!  The relatively few really ignorant 
people in the world are easy to spot.  I don't think any woman would come down
on a man who was mentally retarded, for instance, despite a sexist action
or statement.  Other men?  Nein.  They know what they're doing!  Why not 
take a poll and ask every man you know about these things?
 
>    there are certainly many people who believe there is nothing wrong with
>    helping themselves to food in the produce section of grocery stores.
>    These people are not necessarily malicious.  

Once they are told, then the next time they do it, it is malicious.  If
there are no consequences, however, what difference does it make what you
call it?  They can continue.  The only consequences women can offer is
lack of access.  Existing laws don't often help us offer consequences
and maybe that's why we're having such a hard time here trying to ascertain
what is misogyny and what isn't.  With a lack of consequences, the point
is rather moot.  What difference does it make what you call it?  You say
tomatoe...   So what?

>    How can you ever show that a person "must" have understood what you
>    explained?

When I speak in their native tongue and use veeeerrrry simple words like,
"this behavior is wrong".  I would think that American men would be capable
of comprehending.  Maybe we need to create little picture books for them.
They seem to be able to grasp pictures quite quickly.  Sorry for the
sarcasm, but your instance on their ignorance is getting to me.  How come
no men are objecting to this indolent, unflattering image of the American 
male?  Is looking ignorant a price you're willing to pay to continue on 
in traditional ways?  If so, such men are clinging to sexism far more 
tenaciously than even I thought!

re CADSYS::PSMITH:

Your ticket agency analogy is sterling! 

>    In cases like this, it is to John's advantage not to understand.  It is
>    to the ticket agency's advantage to make their position COMPLETELY
>    CLEAR.  If he tunes them out, they won't get their money (in this
>    scenario, he didn't set out to cheat them, they made a mistake that
>    cheated themselves).

This is exactly how it all happened!  Women didn't cheat themselves, 
actually, they gave away their domestic and sexual services in exchange
for rent, and food for themselves and their children since society brushes
off motherhood and forces women to try to get men to support them while
they bear the next generation.  But now that we can pay the rent ourselves, 
we're no longer willing to trade our services for that.   Now we want com-
panionship, friendship, understanding and love in exchange.  
    
Men may THINK it's to their advantage not to understand but is it really?
Would you rather have the traditional "you sex, me money" relationship
or would you rather double the sex, double the money, and win a lifetime
lover who is happy, your closest friend, strongest ally and most eager
champion?   Stay ignorant and eventually you'll only have ignorant women
to choose from.  And that will become clearer as time goes on.  If you fail 
to "understand", you will be left behind with the women who don't want to work,
don't want equality, but are willing to trade their sexual and domestic 
availabiltiy for your paycheck. I'd rather have love, thanks.

    Re .212:
    
    > Would it take you longer than 20 to 30 years finally to "understand"
    > something you've been hearing about all that time?
    
    What do _I_ have to do with this?
    
    Some people would take that long -- some people might never understand.
    Changing the beliefs of an entire society can take generations.
    
    > As in Pam Smith's ticket agency analogy, which by the way is PERFECT,
    > claiming ignorance buys  you time to strategize and hopefully you win. 
    > A woman claiming ignorance  gets her in trouble very, very fast.  The
    > men who need 20-30 years to  "understand" simply aren't motivated to do
    > so.  They get women anyway.
    
    Okay.  So?  None of that demonstrates that hate exists.
    
    > Whether or not men understand it, whether or not they know why,
    > whether or not they accept it, fairness to all under the constitution
    > should be LAW.
    
    You seem to have strayed from the point.  I have not made a stand one
    way or the other about what the law should be.  I raised the issue that
    people's behavior is not necessarily due to hate.
    
    > Personally, I give them more credit than that but I  dunno, maybe
    > you're comfortable thinking men aren't as quick mentally.
    
    That is a sexist statement and is uncalled for.
    
    > So it looks like the onus is on women to be sterling communicators,
    > (no matter how long the guy says, "No, I still don't get it"), crystal
    > clear in their thinking and extremely sensitive to the man they're
    > speaking to.
    
    I did not say anything about where the onus is.  I stated what I
    thought would happen if the explainer goes too far and talks about
    hatred and uses excessively strong terms.  I talked about what I
    thought were the facts of what _would_ happen if that were done.  I did
    not say what _should_ be done or _who_ any burden should be on.
    
    My interest in this is NOT in absolving anybody of blame nor in laying
    blame on anybody.  I saw the statements that people hated women, I
    thought the statements were false, and I thought the false statements
    were undesirable -- both because of the feelings that accusing a person
    of hate causes in that person and because of the consequences of acting
    as if there is hate when there is not.  (That is, if there is not hate
    causing the problem behavior, it is better to understand the true cause
    of the problem behavior.)
    
    > Anything less than a perfectly lucid explanation complete with
    > analogies and examples, delivered in the style the man expects will
    > work.
    
    Okay, let's suppose that's true.  The world is a bad place.  I can't
    help that (except in part).  I'm not saying that's the way things
    should be or the way I want things to be.  I am saying, hey, look,
    maybe this is the way things are, and _this_ is what we need to deal
    with rather than _that_.
    
    I'm not saying there isn't a problem or there isn't blame.  I'm saying
    maybe the problem is _this_ set of human characteristics instead of
    _that_ set -- and since the problem is _this_ set, we should set out to
    accomplish our goals, whatever they are, using methods appropriate for
    _this_ set instead of _that_ set.
    
    > You seem to be stating flat out that this is what you believe men not
    > only expect, but have a RIGHT to expect . . .
    
    That is 100% false -- I said NOTHING about what anybody has a RIGHT to
    expect.  I only described how I think people behave, not how I think
    they should behave, not how I want them to behave, and not what rights
    there are.
    
    > From what you've been saying over and over here, I'd assume that guys
    > must  have an *awful* time in school since they need such explicitness,
    > such clarity, very specific approaches and tons of time before they can
    > understand. 
    
    Again, that is a sexist statement.  My statements about people's
    problems with comprehending each other apply to people of both genders.
    
    > It's that men just don't care.
    
    Yes, that is correct.  It is not caring.  And that is not hatred.  That
    is my ultimate point:  The problem is caused by things other than
    hatred.
    
    > Convincing men should not be a game we have to play in order to "win"
    > the  same protections and rights guaranteed by the constitution that
    > they  enjoy.
    
    That's correct; I certainly do not think convincing people should be a
    game anybody has to play to win their rights.  But things aren't always
    the way they should be, and what I have tried to do is to throw some
    light on the way things are, not the way they should be.
    
    > I don't know  about you, but when I'm malicious, it's a consciously
    > chosen behavior directed at a selected target and for a reason.
    
    Okay, malicious behavior is consciously chosen behavior directed at a
    selected target for a reason.  But it is not necessarily true that
    consciously chosen behavior directed at a selected target for a reason
    is malicious behavior.  (All humans are mammals.  Not all mammals are
    humans.)
    
    A person can engage in consciously chosen behavior directed at a
    selected target for a reason, and that reason can be something other
    than malice.  That reason can be because the person was told to act
    that way, was rewarded when they acted that way, and was punished when
    they acted a different way.  That reason can be because the person
    holds false beliefs that make them think that the chosen behavior is
    beneficial.  That reason can be because the person is a jackass.  That
    reason could even be because the person is malicious -- but that is not
    necessarily so.
    
    > When I speak in their native tongue and use veeeerrrry simple words
    > like, "this behavior is wrong".
    
    That only makes a person understand that you think the behavior is
    wrong.  It does not make them understand it is wrong.  To make them
    understand it is wrong, you need to make them understand WHY it is
    wrong, and that is more a more complex task than just saying it is
    wrong.
    
    If I told you that making pancakes were wrong, would you believe me?  I
    just spoke in your native tongue and used very simple words.  But I
    don't think you would believe me.  If you thought I were honest, you
    would believe that I believed that making pancakes were wrong, but you
    would not believe it yourself.  It takes more than that to convince a
    person.
    
    
    				-- edp

�                    <<< Note 996.212 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>
� How come
� no men are objecting to this indolent, unflattering image of the American 
� male?  
    
    Because it's obvious Notes-noise and you seem to be doing a fine job of
    refutation without male assistance and we don't see any need to keep
    this topic alive? 
    
    OK, if you really want another voice from the choir, I don't understand
    the big deal about denying "misogyny" - after all, it's not a crime. 
    Most of my men friends are misogynistic some of the time and will admit
    to it afterwards if you ask them right.  For that matter, women can be
    man-haters occasionally and I've seen them look for man-hating support
    to help get through the mood.  I'm a misanthrope myself but I'm willing
    to indulge in a little misogyny (typically after a romantic breakup) or
    misandry (typically after I hear some particularly obnoxious remark).
    
    As I understand it, the problem is when hatred isn't just a bit of
    personal garbage to get through but an ongoing pressure release which
    becomes an integral part of personalities and institutions.  I see that
    happen with misogyny much more than I see it with misandry.  But that's
    just repeating the obvious.
    
    Oh, and what's wrong with being indolent?
    
    Lazy Ray

    Back to the ticket analogy:
    
    Beta buys tickets at this agency.  Why not?  He gets a great price
    on them.  He uses them for years.  He meets other people who go
    there.  Naturally, when you've got a good deal, you want to know
    if you've done well, or you could do better.  So Beta finds that
    a lot of people pay what he does, but (oh, satisfaction!) others
    pay a lot more.  He's sure he got the discount because he's a
    nice guy.
    
    Of course, from time to time, he realizes that a few of the other
    people who got discounts aren't really as nice as he is.  And, on
    some level of his mind, he recognizes the Factor that he and they
    share, and share with the ticket sellers.  He also recognizes that
    some very nice people are paying that higher price, and also (but
    not really admitting it to himself) mentally ticks off that these
    nice people don't have that Factor.
    
    Since he's a nice guy, he has a sense of humor.  So he makes jokes
    about the Factor with the ticket sellers, and they laugh, and he
    feels good, because he's shown that he's one of those In the Know,
    which means he's sophisticated, as well as a nice guy.
    
    And since he's a nice guy, he doesn't hurt the feelings of those
    people without the Factor by telling them that they can't get a
    better deal, because, well, it isn't going to change, and why make
    them miserable?  (The ticket agency has got to get its profit from
    *somewhere*, and he really shouldn't have to pay higher prices,
    because he's a nice guy.)  So when Chi asks him how he got a price
    lower than Chi's, he says it's because he bought it really early
    if he bought it earlier than Chi, or because he bought after a new
    discount deal if he bought it later than Chi, or because he's flown
    more miles than Chi if he can persuade himself that Chi could be
    younger or less prosperous, or because of a computer screwup if
    he can't find any rationale that that insistant Chi will accept.
    
    This happens more than once.  Does Beta get angry with the Chis of
    this world, who keep asking him these awkward questions?
    
    When there is talk of changing the price structure so that the Chis
    pay less, thereby requiring the Betas to pay more, does Beta feel
    resentful of them?
    
    			*		*		*
    
    Yes, there is no innocent, individual mistake of years gone by as
    in the other analogy.  Yes, there is no sudden surprise of a long,
    abstruse letter that is thrown away as in the other analogy.  Yes,
    I like my analogy better.
    
    						Ann B.

    Pam, one more "Great analogy, gyn!"

    Eric, I'm not sure I'm following you completely.  You appear to be
    saying that sexist-against-women behaviors are not, in general,
    motivated by misogyny.  I'm going to presume for the moment that you
    agree with me that it's reasonable for women to use a "spinach hater"
    definition of "misogynist" rather than MikeZ's "strict constructionist"
    :-) one (ie, that we don't have to prove murderous potential in order
    to use the term about someone).

    As I've said before, I'm simple-minded about some things.  If somebody
    tells me he has nothing against me, believes in equality, maybe even
    goes so far as to say that he's my friend, I reckon that I've got a
    call to expect that he's going to temper his self-interest in ways that
    offer me the fairness or friendship that he professes to feel.  If I
    see him acting in ways that cast doubt on his professions, and he
    persists in both the acts and the professions even after I tell him how
    his behavior affects me, I'm going to presume he's malicious because
    any other explanation flies in the face of what I know about how the
    world works.  Yes I could instead make endless excuses and doubt my own
    ability to evaluate the world correctly, but that's the sort of
    behavior that attracts pejorative labeling by psychologists.
    
    So, yes, I will certainly grant that there are alternative explanations
    other than malice possible for sexist behavior, but I see no reason to
    prefer them; at least if we consider the behavior malicious, the
    responsibility for changing it lies with the only ones who *can* change
    it:  the perpetrators.
    
    						=maggie

    	RE: .219  Mike Z.
    
    	.203> this material that you regard as being so denigrating to men (and
	.203> some of it is quite telling, about you that is):

	> No, not "so denigrating", "as denigrating" as the bagger joke.
    
    	Ok, let's shoot for "as denigrating to men as the bagger jokes are
    	denigrating to women."
    
    	What is "as denigrating to men" about the phrase "I think, therefore
    	I'm single"??
    
    	> You asked for a list, you have it.
    
    	You gave me a list of jokes you found denigrating in general.
    
    	Out of your list, there are 3 or 4 jokes that I would consider 
    	denigrating to men (out of 65 replies in that topic!)  All the ones 
    	that were denigrating to men were twists on old jokes against *WOMEN*!
    
    	Therefore, my statement about the relative scarcity of jokes
    	denigrating men in topic 22 was accurate, and you've failed to
    	prove otherwise.

    	RE: .220  Mike Z.
    
    	.205> Taking a look at some of what Mike Z. regards as "denigrating 
    	.205> to men"

	> Perhaps, you are numb to male denigration.
	> Perhaps you cannot see what I consider to be obvious.
    
    	Perhaps you would like to explain what is "obviously" denigrating
    	to men about these phrases:
    
    		"I heard this from a friend:
	         I think, therefore I'm single."
    		
    		"Marriage: nothing down and the rest of your life to pay."
    	
    	If there is something specifically insulting to men in each of these 
    	phrases you've labeled as "denigrating to men," I'd be interested in 
    	hearing you explain what it is.  
    
    	Let's have some backing for these claims that the denigration to
    	men is obvious.  

    	RE: .227  Mike Z.
    
    	.225> I think, therefore I'm single."

	.226> It suggests that thinking women do not marry men.

    	It also suggests that thinking men do not marry women.  (Men
    	are not mentioned specifically, so it could apply to either sex
     	quite easily!)
    		
	.225> "Marriage: nothing down and the rest of your life to pay."

	> That marriage (to a man) is not desirable.
    
    	It could also mean that marriage (to a woman) is not desirable.
    	
    	In fact, considering how many men claim that "men are the ones
    	who pay" in marriage, my guess is that this was written to be
    	from a man's perspective.
    
    	> Are you saying that they can't be denigrating to men because
    	> they were written by men, and meant to put down women?
	> Is that it?
    
    	They don't seem denigrating to men since they can be applied to
    	either sex.  Men aren't specifically mentioned as the butt of the
    	joke.
    
    	In bagger jokes, 99.9% of the time I've heard them, women are
    	mentioned *specifically*.  That tells me that the joke is supposed
    	to be about judging women's looks (enough to rate them by the
    	number of bags some women should wear over their heads.)
    
    	That's denigrating to women in general, because of the dehumanizing
    	practice of judging women as consumable commodities (meat!) in our 
    	society, although I don't expect you to agree with me about it.
    
    	I'll tell you what, though.  I dare you to tell the joke differently
    	from now on (telling people how ugly the *man* is and how many bags'
    	worth, etc.) and see if you get as many laughs for it.
    
    	If the joke is not meant to be specifically insulting to women as
    	a group, it should be just as funny when told about men, and there
    	shouldn't be a *problem* for a man to start telling it about men,
    	should there?

    	RE: .229  Mike Z.
    
    	> Suzanne, you did not ask for exclusive denigration of men.
	> You asked for "denigrating to men".

	> If something is dengrating to both men and women, it must be, by
    	> definition, denigrating to men.
    
    	It's good to see that you had to rely on jokes that included both
    	sexes (when we both know only too well how many jokes there are
    	that dehumanize women exclusively.)  Thanks for such a comprehensive
    	demonstration of my point.
    
    	> Ok, from now on I'll use other ones that can be adapted.
	> Will that make you less upset?
    
    	If that's your way of saying that you won't use jokes that denigrate
    	women *exclusively* and *specifically* anymore, I would appreciate it. 
    
    	As for being upset, you haven't seen me in that state yet.  If you
    	had, you'd never forget it, I assure you.

    We haven't been throwing around dictionary definitions for a
    while, so, during the week-end, I looked up the two dictionaries which
    are the current authorities on the French language, le "Robert" and
    le "Larousse". They both give an interesting definition of misogyny:
    
    Misogynie: haine ou mepris des femmes
    
    i.e.,      hate or contempt of women
                       ^^^^^^^^
    As you can see, the French definition is much less restrictive than the
    English or American one seems to be.
    
    For me, the "contempt" really pin-points what I feel misoginy is all
    about. Hate is extreme and active. Contempt can take many forms, from
    mild to strong, and is what I believe we are confronted with every
    day.
    
    Joana
    
    PS: Suzanne, Mike, do you believe one of you will manage to ..."catch"
    the other? I use "catch" for lack of a better word, but I am sure you
    get my meaning. I have been on vacation for a while and am reading all
    the notes in one go: my feeling is the back-and-forth is getting a
    little unproductive ...!!!
                              

    <--(.223)
    
    
    Mike, you started out this string by requesting that people only use
    "misogyny" when actual "hate" is meant.  I think I've demonstrated
    that, because the "strength" of the word "hate" varies greatly in
    normal use, it's impossible to tell what *you* mean in your request.  I
    think you've said that my "spinach hating" is too inclusive, and you've
    now said that "murderous potential" is too restrictive.  That still
    leaves a very large scope of possibility, so I now think it's incumbent
    on you to describe, in the most non-circular way possible, just what
    you *do* mean.  Feel free to include sample behavioral scenarios to
    illustrate how we might recognise a misogynist in real life.
    
    						=maggie

    Re .216:
    
    > If somebody tells me he has nothing against me, believes in equality,
    > maybe even goes so far as to say that he's my friend, I reckon that
    > I've got a call to expect that he's going to temper his self-interest
    > in ways that offer me the fairness or friendship that he professes to
    > feel.
    
    There one thing missing from your list of premises:  The person
    believes act X will cause detrimental acts to people.  That is, even if
    the person has nothing against you and believes in equality, they might
    not believe that some particular act (like using a term we think is
    sexist) is not sexist.  Thus, they are acting in a manner which is
    entirely self-consistent; they are obeying their beliefs and honestly
    think they are not sexist.
    
    Just because a person supports equality does not mean they understand
    the things that cause inequality.
    
    Also, people are not always logical.  They can be honest and wrong.
    
    > . . . he persists in both the acts and the professions even after I
    > tell him how his behavior affects me, I'm going to presume he's
    > malicious because any other explanation flies in the face of what I
    > know about how the world works.
    
    Why don't you accept the explanation that the person simply does not
    believe you?  They honestly think you are wrong.  They think you
    believe what you are saying, but that you are wrong.
    
    > So, yes, I will certainly grant that there are alternative explanations
    > other than malice possible for sexist behavior, but I see no reason to
    > prefer them; at least if we consider the behavior malicious, the
    > responsibility for changing it lies with the only ones who *can* change
    > it:  the perpetrators.

    That is backwards reasoning:  At least if we consider the behavior
    malicious, we have a solution for it.  That's like looking for a lost
    object where there is light to look by instead of where you lost it. 
    You might think it is good for the responsibility for changing
    malicious behavior to lie with the perpetrators, but that is not going
    to do you any good if the behavior isn't malicious.
    
    
    				-- edp

re:                 <<< Note 996.212 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>
    
>    And the
>few great guys right in this file should convince men that the competition
>is increasing and the winning qualities are changing.               
    
     That is something that the women have to do on their own. How can one
    man convince another man that his sexist actions and attitudes aren't a
    "winning quality" when he continues to receive nice treatment from
    women, dates, and sex? It is up to the women to say "Bullshit! I will
    not put up with your crap anymore." And follow through. My middle
    teenager keeps asking me "Why does he treat me like dirt?" and the
    answer remains "Because every time you go back to him after he's
    treated you like dirt, you are showing him that your words are
    meaningless. You are telling him that no matter how poorly he treates
    you, you will go back for more because your _need_ for a boyfriend
    outweighs your need for decent treatment and self-respect."
    
>    It's that men just don't 
>care.  It isn't of "personal interest" to them because they still get dates,
>bed partners, wives.  It hasn't hit them where it hurts.  They haven't felt 
>any repercussions from continuing on.
    
     Yeah- that is alot of it.
    
>> I was very content to accept what I had been told- why shouldn't I?
    
>It seems likely that you've ALSO been told that feminism is good for both 
>men and women.  Why did you select the one you did?
    
     I was talking about my teenage years here. And the answer to your
    question is that the people who were telling me that feminism was "good
    for BOTH men and women" were the feminists. Well, of course a group
    will tell you that what they want for you is good for you, but that
    doesn't make it credible in and of itself. Heck- communists believe
    that communism is good for you- even in the face of tyrannical
    oppression like Tiananmen Square.
    
>So what you're saying is there's a bit of fear of retribution going on here,
>am I right?  Then you admit they DO KNOW that their treatment of women is less
>than sterling.  I think so, too, Doctah!
    
     Well, I haven't conducted a poll, and no one has said as much to me,
    but I really think it is an underlying motive.
    
>    Sorry to use you, Doctah, and I don't think you're sexist at all, 
>    having met you.
    
      Well, I wouldn't go that far. :-) <blush> ;^)
    
     The Doctah

>    Yes I could instead make endless excuses and doubt my own
>    ability to evaluate the world correctly, but that's the sort of
>    behavior that attracts pejorative labeling by psychologists.
 
     <snicker>
    
>    So, yes, I will certainly grant that there are alternative explanations
>    other than malice possible for sexist behavior, but I see no reason to
>    prefer them;                 
    
     So you are saying "assume malice unless you can prove otherwise?"
    And this is done to remove any and all responsibility from us, who are
    the ones complaining about the behavior (rightly so), and place it upon
    someone who may not even know what (he) is doing is wrong. Kinda like
    not saying anything when someone's running over your foot- after all
    they should know better, right? But what if they don't realize they are
    running over your foot?
    
     The Doctah

    <--(.235)
    
�    Why don't you accept the explanation that the person simply does not
�    believe you?  They honestly think you are wrong.  They think you
�    believe what you are saying, but that you are wrong.
    
    Because what I've told him is "how his behavior affects me"; I can
    scarcely be wrong about that and if he persists in believing that his
    "standing on my foot" (to use Mark's analogy) *doesn't* hurt despite my
    clearly saying that it does, then he fails the test of a socialised
    being and deserves no better treatment than any other psychopath.
    
    
�    You might think it is good for the responsibility for changing
�    malicious behavior to lie with the perpetrators, but that is not going
�    to do you any good if the behavior isn't malicious.
    
    Look at it this way:  It's not going to do me any additional *harm*...
    I'm still suffering from the behavior regardless of the motivation!
    
    <--(.237)
    
     So you are saying "assume malice unless you can prove otherwise?"
    
    No, of course not!  How did you get that?  What I said was I see no
    reason to *prefer* the explanation of innocence; if all I have is
    repeated behavior despite my protests, sincere stupidity is one
    possible explanation but I have no reason to prefer that to malice.
    
    						=maggie

.222>	"Misogynistic some of the time"?

    Yes.  That's right.  It is possible to have occasional misogynistic 
    thoughts or occasionally say misogynistic things without being a 
    full-time, out-and-out misogynist.

    Does being "misogynistic come of the time" mean you're a "part-time
    misogynist"?  Maybe, depending on how deep-seated those feelings are,
    why you express them, etc.


.222>	Is that the same as "fleeting moments of displeasure at one or
.222>    more women"?

    No.  Feelings of hate and displeasure are *not* identical, and "some
    of the time" would seem to connote a longer period of time than does
    "fleeting".  "One or more women" also implies that the target is 
    specific.  "Misogyny" means that the target is generalized to women
    as a group.  There's a big difference.

    Ok, let me see if I understand this...
    
    Women make 63� to every dollar a man makes because we haven't explained
    well enough why we are worth more
    
    Men rape 12 of us every hour because we haven't explained well enough
    why they shouldn't
    
    Men who "love" us kill one of us every 2 weeks because we haven't
    explained well enough why we deserve to live
    
    We are told we can't be trusted with choice about our bodies because we
    haven't bothered to mention how important that is to us
    
    Men call us denigrating names and do offensive things around us because
    we haven't explained well enough why it bothers us
    
    We have been explaining these things to men for over 100 years. Women
    have died trying to make these points. And yet, this is not due to
    any type of negative feeling toward women.
    
    Perhaps it's oversight.
    
    Oops! Missed 53% of the population again! 
    Oops! Slipped up and raped ya, baby.
    Oops! Beat ya to death by accident.
    Oops! Forgot you've said you don't like to be objectified in
    advertising.
    
    Hey...nothin personal, babe. Lighten up.
    
    

    Re .238:
    
    > Because what I've told him is "how his behavior affects me"; I can
    > scarcely be wrong about that . . .
    
    I'm not sure what you mean by "affects me".  If you mean how it makes
    you feel, then the person has no reason to believe otherwise.  If you
    mean it affects you in other ways (e.g., using sexist terms reinforces
    stereotypes, which cause people to treat women as inferior), then the
    person is not unreasonable in not believing -- because now you are not
    reporting your own feelings, but are making a series of conclusions.
    
    If you meant the former case, please tell me what you say to a person
    who makes a sexist comment.  But even in that case, I am not sure you
    can ascribe malice.  Suppose one of your co-workers told you they were
    offended by the wearing of yellow.  What would you do?  A person can
    feel that somebody else is making something out of nothing.  Suppose a
    co-worker asks everybody in the office to stop wearing yellow, and
    suppose somebody refuses.  That person refuses even after being told
    repeatedly that wearing yellow is offensive.  Would you think that the
    person is refusing because they are malicious?  Or might they be
    refusing because they don't think the complaint has merit?
    
    > Look at it this way:  It's not going to do me any additional *harm*...
    > I'm still suffering from the behavior regardless of the motivation!

    It might!  First, feeling that there is hate when there is none can
    create hate (in yourself, and then in others) when there was none
    initially.  Second, believing in the wrong diagnosis can prevent a
    solution.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re .240:
    
    Wow.

    Re .240:
    
    > Women make 63� to every dollar a man makes because we haven't explained
    > well enough why we are worth more

    No -- I never suggested that lack of understanding CAUSED behavior
    detrimental to women.  The causes are other things -- jumping to
    conclusions about the differences between men and women, selfishness,
    the rewards that come from sexist systems, et cetera.  The lack of
    understanding is only what keeps people from seeing their mistakes and
    fixing them.
    
    > Oops! Missed 53% of the population again! 
    > Oops! Slipped up and raped ya, baby.
    > Oops! Beat ya to death by accident.
    > Oops! Forgot you've said you don't like to be objectified in
    > advertising.

    Those are NOT accurate representations of what I have been saying.  I
    have not been ascribing people's behavior to accidents or
    forgetfulness.  I have not represented sexism as some sort of cosmic
    mistake.  I have only been trying to explain how it can be due to
    things other than malice.
    
    
    				-- edp

    <--(.243)
    
�    I have not represented sexism as some sort of cosmic mistake.  I have
�    only been trying to explain how it can be due to things other than
�    malice.

    I can't figure out whether you're saying that it _can_be_ due or... 
    
�    The lack of understanding is only what keeps people from seeing their
�    mistakes and fixing them.                                           
    
    ..._is_certainly_ due to "lack of understanding" rather than malice.
    
    If the former, I doubt anyone would disagree, except on the percentages
    so caused; if the latter I would argue that you've as yet given neither
    evidence to support nor cogent reason to prefer such a formulation.
    
    						=maggie

>    Hey...nothin personal, babe. Lighten up.
    
	Come on Dawn you know that WE can ALL take a joke now and then.

	Oh darn it is now 11:23 almost time for my hourly "taking of a
	joke"

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The loulder women are the bigger the threat
			- ask your self to whom are we a threat?
			and what kind of a threat?

    
    re .240 - well said Dawn!
    
    Whoever suggested sexism is a "cosmic mistake" was pretty close to the
    truth, I'd say. Cosmic because of how it got started and the
    proportions it assumed, and mistake because...well, we all know why
    that is!
    
    DBK

    	RE: .231  Mike Z.
    
    	.230> It's good to see that you had to rely on jokes that included both
	.230> sexes (when we both know only too well how many jokes there are

	> That is false.
    
    	Ok, you *chose* to rely on jokes that included both sexes (when you
    	offered me your list.)  Without them, the list of jokes denigrating
    	men (specifically) would have been as short as I claimed it was.
    
    	Don't bother to go 'round the block with me again about how jokes
    	that denigrate HUMAN BEINGS IN GENERAL are denigrating to men.  I
    	think it was quite obvious that I was making a comparison of jokes
    	*specifically* denigrating to women as a group (versus jokes that
    	do the same thing to men as a group.)  
    
    	> Perhaps you missed it, so I'll ask again.
    	> Would the use of jokes that could be adapted for either sex
    	> make you less upset?
    
    	Have you stopped beating your wife yet, Mike?  (Catch my drift??)
    
    	If you stopped telling jokes that are specifically designed to
    	dehumanize and humiliate women, I would appreciate it.

    I would like to thank Mr. Postpischil for his brilliant character-
    ization of the behavior which Maggie has been describing.
    
    						Ann B.

    Re .244:
    
    The two statements you quoted say different things.  The first says
    something about what causes sexism.  The second says what role lack of
    understanding has.  The second statement does not say that sexism is
    due to lack of understanding; it explicitly says that lack of
    understanding is _only_ what keeps people from seeing their mistakes
    and fixing them -- that's the _part_ that lack of understanding plays.
    
    
    				-- edp

    A phrase that I keep remembering as I read in this note is one I
    coined a few years ago: the Impulse of Denial.
    
    It is this which causes us to cry, "Oh! No!" as the glass slips
    from our fingers and dives for the unyielding floor.
    
    It surfaces in multitudes of situations, and it takes many forms.
    I do not fault anyone for having it -- we all do.  I understand
    a man recoiling in horror from the idea that he treats women unfairly;
    it's the predictable response; he could act no other way; et cetera.
    
    Yet, sometimes, in dealings out in the world and reported here,
    I do see something objectionable.  I see the glass swept up, the
    fragments wrapped up and placed under something else in the wastebasket
    (or dustbin), and the remaining glasses rearranged to disguise that
    one is missing.  This is giving in to the Impulse of Denial, and
    this is naughty.  As children, we were punished when we were caught
    doing that, and by now we should all have grasped that this is a
    question of morality and ethics.
    
    A woman writes that a woman-based society existed without weapons
    or traces of death by violence, and a man replies that we should
    all seriously consider that all the society's warriors died Somewhere
    Else.  (He forgot to explain about the lack of weapons.)  A woman
    writes that careful analyses of this country's business show that
    women are disproportionately underrepresented at the higher ranks
    and overrepresented at the lower ranks, and a man replies that we should
    all seriously consider that twenty-five years is too short a time
    for an equitable distribution to have occurred.  A woman writes
    about a study in which the hiring or promotability (terrible word;
    sorry) of one person vis a vis another varies drastically with the
    genders of the people applying for the job, and a man questions the
    techniques used in the study.
    
    Okay, guys, so it's hard.  Just don't make it any harder on yourself
    by indulging the Impulse of Denial.  It's a bad habit.  Instead
    of finishing that entry, delete it when you get to the second line.
    Reread the note you're responding to.  Extract it.  Paraphrase it
    instead of doing those interminable block quotations.  Go off and
    do your own research, instead of asking other people to spoonfeed
    theirs to you.  Push on those mental horizons!  Live a little! ;-)
    
    						Ann B.

    <--(.251)
    
�        ...some or all of the following...
�
�	1. frequent lack of respect for women
�	2. unnecessary violent behavior aimed at women
�	3. frequent derision of women
�	4. says "Women, I hate them", and means it

    "Frequent"?  How frequent?  "A day doesn't go by without..." or "I
    can't remember a time when he didn't..."  or...?
    
    Can you give some examples of how you might detect "lack of respect"?
    
    How about "derision"? 
    
    And what in hell constitutes NECESSARY "violent behavior aimed at
    women"?!?  That's really scary sounding, Michael!
    
                          			=maggie

    	RE: .254  Mike Z.
    
    	My original reference to Topic 22 was in response to the question
    	from another noter about whether or not there could be a link
    	between man hating and jokes that denigrate men. My reply mentioned
    	that I'd had to make it through nearly 60 replies before finding
    	some *very few* jokes that I would regard as "denigrating to men."
    
    	You came along and questioned my ability to judge "what is denigrating
    	to men," so I asked you to point out to me the jokes against men that
    	I missed.  
    
    	At that point, you listed some reply numbers (as a way of showing me
    	the "jokes denigrating to men" that I missed) and they turned out to
    	be jokes like, "I think, therefore I'm single" (which don't mention
    	men specifically AT ALL!)  The ones in your list that *did* mention
    	men specifically were the very few that I'd already acknowledged having
    	seen.
    
    	You claim that I failed to identify jokes like "I think, therefore
    	I'm single" as being denigrating to men.  I submit that if the joke
    	doesn't mention either sex specifically, then it is about HUMAN BEINGS
    	IN GENERAL (and doesn't qualify as a possible symptom of either misogyny
    	*or* man-hating.)  Simple enough, yes?
    
    	> You never stated in absolute terms how short my list would be.
	> Your use of vagueries notwithstanding, you are still wrong.
    
    	You made a claim about my ability to judge "what is denigrating to
    	men."  The only substantiation for your claim is the fact that I
    	don't regard humor denigrating to HUMANS BEINGS IN GENERAL as being
    	"denigrating to men (specifically.)"
    
    	No, I didn't use the word "specifically" in my original note - I
    	didn't realize it would be necessary (since we were already discussing
    	misogyny and man hating, which are gender specific.)
    
    	> I expected more objectivity, honesty, and reason from you.
    
    	Your ability to judge these things is quite seriously impaired, as
    	amply demonstrated by your notes.
    
    	> I am surprised and disappointed.  And that's no joke.
    
    	And they say ignorance is bliss...  Another myth exposed.
    
    	> And you _still_ did not answer my question re: if you would be
    	> less upset with jokes which could be adapted for either gender.
	
    	I've answered your loaded question twice now.  "I would APPRECIATE
    	IT if you stopped telling jokes that are specifically designed to
    	dehumanize and humiliate women."  (That makes three times now.)
    
    	In case you've never heard of a loaded question, allow me to explain
    	it to you.  A loaded question includes an accusation that can't be
    	answered with a  simple "yes" or "no" (such as, "Have you stopped 
    	beating your wife?")  
    
    	Hope this helps.

    <--(.244)
    
    Brian, as far as I'm concerned, your note represents strong evidence in
    favor of my thesis.
    
    Starting from a position in which you thought "feminism [to be] a type
    of psychosis", you brought yourself to one in which you considered it
    "[at least] in rare instances [just] profound stupidity", and finally
    to one in which you have "learned [to listen to women and] to see".  
    
    Sounds like a pretty rough trip, t'me.  Hell's own hard time to get
    started, probably harder yet to keep going.  No obvious payoff.  What
    made you decide to spend that "massive amount of effort on trying to
    understand"?  
    
    I'd be willing to bet that you just couldn't *not* do it; you had this
    vague, uneasy feeling that something might be skewed about your world-
    view and since you didn't have a lot of your ego invested in not
    learning, you learned!  And you'll go on learning.
    
    I'm not sure where you're getting your "1/2 of 1%" figure, it might
    represent the NOW membership but I'd be willing to bet a fine dinner
    that the actual number of people identifying with feminist goals is
    much much larger.  But that's sort of a nit, I understand your thesis.
    And I agree that whatever the figure is, men aren't "evil" even when
    they're exhibiting the "malice" I'm talking about.  The "malice" is the
    "malice" of somebody who, getting an extra $5 in change at the
    grocer's, doesn't return it; who, as in Ann's and Pam's examples,
    "plays dumb" to avoid having to give back the fruits of a long-ago
    mistake.  Evil?  No, greedy and self-important.  Filled with petty,
    me-first willfulness.  Not evil to the core.  But not my friend,
    either.
    
    So I do indeed take it on faith that it's hard, Brian.  But as you
    yourself demonstrate, it's not impossible.  Except for those who won't 
    make the effort.
    
    						=maggie

    <--(.261)
    
    Okay, thanks Mike; I think I can now quit worrying about whether I'm
    misusing the term.
    
    						=maggie 

>since you didn't have a lot of your ego invested in not learning, you learned!
    
     I don't think it's quite that easy. I don't think it's a matter of
    "anyone who doesn't try to keep from learning will change their minds
    vis a vis feminism." I do not believe that a failure to adopt feminism
    implies an inherent malice or an active effort to keep from learning.
    
     It takes a good deal more effort than you apparently realize to become
    an egalitarian white male. It also takes willpower, a commodity in
    rather short supply these days.
    
     Simply identifying reflections of misogyny in your own life is
    difficult and painful; it causes feelings of shame and uncertainty.
    It's not quite as easy as waking up and saying "Gee, I think I'll be
    fair and equitable, and completely forget all the little (and big)
    biases and learned behaviors I've accrued since I was born." I wish it
    were that easy.
    
     The Doctah

    Re .256:
    
    Statements are not true because some people say they are false,
    regardless of the reasons for saying they are false.
    
    
    				-- edp

    That's very funny!  "Statements are not true because some people
    say they are false, regardless of the reasons for saying they are
    false."

    "Regardless"?  "Regardless" of any possible substantiation?
    "Regardless" of the reason for saying it being the facts of the
    matter?  "Regardless" of the reason for saying it being sworn
    testimony?  "Regardless" of the reason for saying it being the
    personal acquisition of the evidence by the speaker?  Or "regardless"
    of everything inconvenient to the listener?
    
    							Ann B.

    Mike Z.
    
    I quoted facts on what women experience. There are studies that show
    these things. These studies have been cited here and in many
    publications. I by no means quoted all the abuses women experience
    because they are women. These were examples. Read the literature if
    you want more information. 
    
    Are you doubting these facts? If so, my having to extend myself to
    prove something to you only supports Ann's theory of denial. Your
    interest in women's issues and women's lives (as evidenced by your
    enthusiastic participation in this note) must certainly propel you to
    do the reading and research to understand these things better.
    
    What was my point in the note you reference? Well, perhaps *one* man
    denying *one* woman a job simply because she is female does not
    indicate any misogyny. Perhaps *one* woman making 63% of what a man
    makes does not indicate misogyny. Perhaps *one* man raping a woman
    does not indicate misogyny. (And perhaps *one* father, uncle, moms-SO,
    abusing girlchild does not....and perhaps *one* man killing his wife
    does not... and perhps *one* man beating his girlfriend does not.....
    etc, etc,etc) 
    
    However, if you begin to add up all the numbers of women who abused by
    a male-dominated society in so many ways, you have a seriously large
    percent of the female population. 
    
    Women have been fighting for women's rights for a long time - much
    longer than 20 years. This cannot simply be oversight. IT cannot simply
    be lack of understanding. Perhaps Denial is what is at work. Perhaps
    misogyny is what is at work. Perhaps fear. 
    
    Perhaps there *is* no malice in any of this.
    
    Perhaps it's just a simple lack of regard for the *human*ity of women.
    
    --DE
    
    

    <--(.264)
    
�    It takes a good deal more effort than you apparently realize to become
�    an egalitarian white male. It also takes willpower, a commodity in
�    rather short supply these days.

    Mark, this is twice today you've appeared to read something into what
    I've written that the quotations you make don't support at all.  What's
    going on?  You must have noticed that I immediately accepted as
    accurate Brian's contention that it was very hard work carried out
    unremittingly for a long period of time.  Why do you ignore what I
    actually said?
    
    The passage you quote embodies my contention not that the effort is
    easy but rather that learning --any learning-- is an inevitable,
    hardware-level process in a healthy individual.  I said nothing at all
    about it being easy!
    
    						=maggie

    Re .266:
    
    > "Statements are not true because some people say they are false,
    > regardless of the reasons for saying they are false."
    
    > "Regardless" of any possible substantiation?
    
    Yes, certainly.  In fact, I would say that the opposite is true:  The
    more substantiation a person had to show a statement were false, then
    the more likely the statement would be not to be true.
    
    (Are you reading my original statement correctly?  It says that just
    because some people say a statement is false, that doesn't mean you
    should conclude it is true.)
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .268:
    
    > You must have noticed that I immediately accepted as accurate Brian's
    > contention that it was very hard work carried out unremittingly for a
    > long period of time.
    
    That would seem to carry in itself my position.  If a white male must
    work very hard for a long period to become egalitarian, then all that
    is needed not to be egalitarian is not to work hard at it.
    
    That's all it takes.  It doesn't take active malice -- or malice or
    hatred of any sort.  All that it takes is a little relaxation of
    vigilance or concern, and a person is then likely to fall into sexist
    behavior.
    
    
    				-- edp

	Last Friday when I told someone that I was a feminist, I was asked
	if I was a man-hater - I did not answer the question but asked the
	person what was meant by the question.  I did not get a "real"
	answer, more of heming and hawing and oh you know what I meanishness.

	No I do not know what is meant by the question except to "put me
	in my place" as a non-threat to men since to say yes would mean
	that I could be dismissed as a "radical" unbalanced woman and to
	deny it would mean that I believe the question has merit.

	A lot of the discussion that has been going on in this topic is
	the same.  There are a number of individuals who are in this topic
	not to learn but to insinuate that the feminist are "unbalanced"
	and not able to make a point that is valid.  This is done by
	not answering direct questions, by ignoring data that is presented
	and by "pusush tosh, that is not what I meant when I said ...
	since you can not understand me I will try one more time in simple
	language that even you could understand."

	If you are not in this file to learn about women, who they are,
	what they think and feel and the reality they live in, my personal
	advice is to get out before you get to caught up in the reality
	that women live in day after day.  That is what comes out in this
	file - our reality as we see it, as we feel it, as we live it.  No
	one can tell you what that reality is except the one living it.

	I have seen a number of noters in this file grow and change over
	the past (almost) three years.  This is goodness to me.  But each
	time a new "vocal" noter comes into the file many of us have to
	start the education process all over again and I am really tired
	of hearing the same "insipid" arguments over and over about some
	person who thinks that the answer to complex questions is up or
	down.  If complex questions had simple answers they would not be
	complex questions.  My advice is to get out of the shoe box and
	in the the boots of the other person and see how that feels before
	you give simplistic answers to complex questions.

	I really appreciate what Brian wrote about how much work it was
	to get to where he is - guess what - it ain't been easy for any
	of us.  Not a single woman is born knowing ALL she has to learn
	day by day about man's reality because if she don't she is what
	gets refered to as "dead meat" (if you know what I mean).

	_peggy

		(-|-)
		  |
		  |
				To see the Goddess in ALL things
				is to see that ALL are peers to one.

re .249 - 

Thanks Brian, I appreciate your candor.

I think feminists *are* questioning the basic assumptions of society, to 
the extent that those assumptions reflect (as ours does) a dominator 
model, with male dominating female. 

You make a distinction between "malevolence" on the one hand, and "failure
to comprehend" on the other. I agree that often it's *society*, *culture*
that's malevolent/misogynistic, and that individuals who have derogatory
attitudes and behaviors towards women may or may not themselves be
misogynistic - they may just not comprehend, not have thought about things
they say and do regarding women. 

But even if they're not misogynistic, as (perhaps) in casual put-down jokes,
in objectification of women in advertising, etc., they're still reflecting
*cultural misogyny*. If individuals made the effort you describe in your
case to think about those attitudes and behaviors - and I would say they
have a responsibility to do so; do we excuse *racist* attitudes and
behaviors by appealing to a failure to comprehend? - their misogynistic
element might become clear. 

We tend to be blind to cultural misogyny; it's all but invisible. And it's
hard to get rid of, particularly if (as in our society) it's part of
religion and therefore "divinely ordained." It's simply accepted as the
"natural order" of things; the historical reasons why it became part of the
religion in the first place are never questioned. And then - over many 
centuries - it informs all the laws, social conventions, domestic
expectations, etc. 

I don't know what to suggest other than the sort of thinking/reading you've 
done. (Does =wn= have any plans to become a degree-granting institution?!)
One thing for sure - enlightenment, in the form of what Riane Eisler 
(author of The Chalice and the Blade) calls a "partnership" model of 
society rather than a "dominator" model - will be good for us all.

Dorian

>    Mark, this is twice today you've appeared to read something into what
>    I've written that the quotations you make don't support at all.
    
     I honestly believed the quotations supported my conclusions. I am
    certainly not just stirring the pot here. If you feel I am arriving at
    faulty conclusions, then we are failing to communicate, no?
    
     Here's what threw me:
    
>    Sounds like a pretty rough trip, t'me.  Hell's own hard time to get
>    started, probably harder yet to keep going.  No obvious payoff.  What
>    made you decide to spend that "massive amount of effort on trying to
>    understand"?  
    
>    I'd be willing to bet that you just couldn't *not* do it; you had this
>    vague, uneasy feeling that something might be skewed about your world-
>    view and since you didn't have a lot of your ego invested in not
>    learning, you learned! 
    
     This sounds to me like you are saying that despite the fact that it
    took alot of effort for Brian to learn, it was practically inevitable.
    I read it to say that some force drew him to learn, drew him to exert
    alot of effort to learn, and the only thing that could have kept him
    from learning would have been if he had made a concerted effort to NOT
    learn. Am I misinterpreting? 
    
>    So I do indeed take it on faith that it's hard, Brian.  But as you
>    yourself demonstrate, it's not impossible.  Except for those who won't 
>    make the effort.
    
     Then you make this statement which seems to almost contradict the
    previous statement. Now the learning we are talking about is recognized
    as a result of significant conscientious effort, which implies to me
    that many reasons could exist for not learning, not just an active
    or even passive effort to preclude learning. 
    
>    The passage you quote embodies my contention not that the effort is
>    easy but rather that learning --any learning-- is an inevitable,
>    hardware-level process in a healthy individual.  I said nothing at all
>    about it being easy!
    
     I agree that some minimal amount of learning is inherent in a healthy
    sentient being. I don't think that translates necessarily into the
    learning of specific subjects (like feminism, equality or whatever).
    While I am a healthy, sentient being, I know almost nothing about
    Latin. I am not opposed to learning Latin; it's just not very high on
    my priority list. I think that for many men, feminism is about as high
    on their priority list as Latin is on mine. 
    
>    Why do you ignore what I
>    actually said?                            
    
     I'm not ignoring what you're saying. I am seeing things which seem to
    be contradictory (or maybe they're just confusing me) and those parts
    are the ones I am questioning (so you can elucidate a little bit so I
    might see that there is no contradiction and I was just thrown for a
    sec.) Ok?
    
     The Doctah

    At the risk of a side-rathole, I would like to suggest that we refrain
    from using the word "denigrate" and its various word forms because of
    its racist roots (i.e., to blacken = give something a bad reputation)
    
    Suggested alternatives are: defame, belittle, devalue
    

    RE:.271
    
    Yes. Well said.
    
    I was particularly struck by your last point, Peggy. That neither men
    nor women are born knowing about each other's reality, but women
    (*heck* - girls! We start 'em *young*) had damn well better find out
    about men's reality and adapt to it; sadly, the reverse is not true.
    That there is a reality OTHER than men's reality is often hard -
    indeed, often impossible - to get them to understand.
    
    I constantly marvel at how our experiences are pooh-poohed unless
    there's some Harvard Business School Study actually giving the
    percentages of, say, women's ideas, that are ignored until proposed
    by men. The fact that this has happened to almost all women who work
    in the business world is meaningless. Nobody actually *saw* it happen,
    and only *women* are experiencing it. Obviously not worth our time.
    
    I wish someone could explain how wanting to improve women's lives makes
    one a man-hater. De facto. Period. 
    
    And yes, Peggy, I've noticed the SSDD factor, too.
    
    --DE
    

    RE: American dictionaries:  Webster's Ninth New Collegiate (which is
    *not* very extensive in its definitions):
    
    misogynistic:  having or showing a hatred and distrust of women.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^              ^^^^^^^^

Most of this discussion, it seems to me, has been in the realm of
logic, "rationality", and trying to prove/disprove other people's
ideas and opinions.  This is realm that men are traditionally taught
to value and women and traditionally taught to stay away from.

Personally, I think that we could all learn a lot more if we discussed
our own experiences with misogyny.  Men, if they are brave, enough
could examine their own misogyny, and women could examine their own
internal misogyny or even anger at men...

Maybe then we could actually understand each other better!

john


PS:  I'll try and share something tommorrow when I have more time.

    RE: .278
    
    Question away, Mike. If you cannot make the connection, I cannot
    make the synapses fire *for* you. 
    
    If you don't believe it, you don't believe it.
    
    You don't have to. 
    
    I am not here to convince you. 
    
    Wiser and more intelligent people than you and I *have* made 
    the connections already.
    
    We differ. Big deal. Happens all the time.
    
    --DE
    
    

    I think I detect a perceptual difference.
    
    Many males in our society have the really, really basic assumption
    to their lives of "My first perception *is* correct."  And sometimes
    this assumption is incorrect.
    
    Most females in our society don't have that.  They mentally blink
    and ask, "Did I really see/hear/feel/read/whatever that?"  And
    sometimes the answer is "no".
    
    This is all part of our cultural conditioning, blah, blah, blah.
    
    So what a typical woman or typical scientist sees as easy; i.e.,
    "Question everything!", some men find hard.  [At this point I lost
    it.  I've had to toss the rest of this paragraph.]

    							Ann B.    
    
    P.S.  You will keep in mind the vague nature of "many" and the
    non-totality of "most", won't you, dear reader?

    	RE: .263  Mike Z.
    
    	.258>men specifically AT ALL!)  The ones in your list that *did* mention
	.258>men specifically were the very few that I'd already acknowledged 
    	.258>having seen.

	> I didn't see you directly acknowledge any note numbers.
	> Please do so now, or point me to your previous note that did.
    
    	They were acknowledged as a group of notes (in .145): 
    
    		"Well, I re-read the entire topic [22.*], and I had to make 
    		it through nearly 60 replies before I found jokes that were 
    		truly denigrating to men (and even those were more *twists* 
    		on old jokes that have traditionally served as cultural 
    		insults to women.)"
    
    	This was, in fact, the beginning of the rathole about whether or not
    	the jokes in topic 22 can be considered denigrating to men.  Since
    	then, of course, the rathole has become barely recognizable (with the 
    	addition of furniture, plants, wall hangings, wall-to-wall carpeting...)
    
    	Hope you remembered to issue change of address forms (and personal 
    	checks with your new address on them) since it appears you have taken 
    	up permanent residence.
    
    	> Please avoid introducing new words like "specifically".
    
    	The concept of there being gender-specific targets involved with
    	misogyny and man-hating has been an integral part of this discussion
    	from the beginning.  I didn't introduce it as a foreign concept.
    
    	> It serves to skew the sentence meaning towards "exclusively" and
    	> although that may be what you are getting at, it is not what you asked
    	> earlier, and it is certainly not part of my contention that "what is
    	> dengirating to men and women, is by definition, denigrating to men".
    
    	The question (asked by Hank Modica) that prompted my original response
    	dealt with behavior whose targets were gender-specific.  On that basis,
    	it was entirely appropriate to stick with the idea of examining jokes
    	whose targets were *also* gender-specific.  
    
    	> Is it true or false that you "don't regard humor denigrating to
    	> HUMANS BEINGS IN GENERAL as being denigrating to men".
    
    	It is pointless to pursue humor denigrating to HUMAN BEINGS IN GENERAL
    	when asked a question about whether jokes denigrating women have a
    	link to misogyny (or whether jokes denigrating men have a link to
    	man-hating.)  
    
    	If you want to start a topic about whether jokes that denigrate HUMAN
    	BEINGS IN GENERAL have a link to the hatred of all humans, be my guest.
    	That isn't what we're discussing here.
    
    	> Suzanne, if you expect me to understand what you're saying, it is
    	> necessary for you to say what you mean.
	> Otherwise, how can I?
    
    	I don't expect you to understand *anything* you steadfastly refuse to
    	understand.  
    
    	> It's not meant to be a loaded question.  Show me why it is.
	> "Suzanne Conlon, would it upset you less if I told a joke about
    	> women that could be adapted to become a joke about men, rather than
    	> a joke about women that could not be adapated to become a joke about
    	> men?"
    
    	Asking me if something would upset me less is an assumption that my
    	being upset about these jokes is a "given" (which is patently false.)
    	That makes it loaded.
    
    	Aside from that, almost any joke that doesn't mention genitals "could
    	be adapted to become a joke about men" (such as the bagger jokes.)
    	That doesn't mean that these jokes *would* be used against both sexes.
    
    	For the fourth time, I would appreciate it if you stopped telling
    	jokes that were specifically designed to be dehumanizing and humiliating
    	to women.  
    
    	I consider jokes that REFRAIN FROM MENTIONING EITHER SEX SPECIFICALLY
    	to be more acceptable (such as "I think, therefore I'm single.")
    
    	Hope *this* helps.  

    RE: bagger jokes
    
    The analog (?) to bagger jokes for women is NOT bagger jokes for men.
    Men do not have to be attractive in this society.
    
    The analog is probably more along the lines of ruler jokes. (the
    measuring type, not the king type)
    
    --DE
    

    	
    	RE: .284  Dawn
    
    	That's quite true.  Jokes that were specifically designed to insult
    	women don't translate well to be insulting to men (even if our
    	language allows that the adaptation is linguistically feasible.)
    
    	Jokes aimed at a specific gender tend to draw more heavily upon
    	offensive stereotypes, of which there are far more about women
    	in our society than there are about men.
    
    	Jokes that don't mention either sex tend to be generic enough to
    	refrain from relying on offensive stereotypes about people of either
    	sex (which makes them far more acceptable, in my opinion.)
    

    
            Misogyny doesn't seem to be too harsh a word to use when
            looking at the affects of prejudice and violence against
            women in this day and age.  The strength of the word doesn't
            seem disproportionate when reading about a rape in the
    	    newspaper, talking to a friend about what contributed to a woman's
            alcoholism, or seeing insidious games played at the
            corporate level.  It seems to me that misogyny is part
            of the fabric of our society; the element is there in
            books, movies, jokes, and (above all) actions.  Does this
            mean that everyone is actively misogynistic?  No.  Does it mean
            that everyone is exposed to misogynistic attitudes and actions?
            Yes.  In some it takes, in others it doesn't.
    
            A plea of ignorance doesn't ring true for me.  Maybe it's
            because the shield of ignorance has become so pervasive:
            the corporate executive "didn't know" that barrels of
            toxic waste were being dumped in Tijuana, numerous
            political figures "didn't know" or "can't remember."
            Ignorance itself has been devalued.  I guess I've seen
            too many minds able to rationalize resistance to change,
            fear of loss, greed, and the need for power into
            ignorance.
    
            Misogynistic attitudes seem too pervasive to be
            anything other than systemic.  This is just my view.
            The semantics are secondary to me -- I can see something
            there and grasp the closest word to express it.
            I'm a white male, raised in a small town in a rural
            state.  How come I can see these things so clearly,
            but so many people I know cannot.  Are these things
            hard to learn, or is it that they are hard to accept?
            Why does this knowledge threaten to such a degree?
    
            All I had to do to get another person's view of things
            was to ask and then listen.  In the narrow view, I don't
    	    have a stake in recognizing and identifying misogyny;
    	    in a fully ingtegrated view, as a human being, I have
    	    a lot at stake.  As a human being, I share a
    	    life with female friends and family.  A systematic
    	    devaluation of their life is a systematic devaluation
    	    of mine.  It ceases to become merely a question of
    	    politics and sematics -- it becomes a matter of the very
    	    quality and existence of life.  
                                  
            I don't have any answers, and I don't have any statistics,
            and I haven't looked up words in 5 different dictionaries.
            In this one, I'm going by what I've learned by living,
            watching, listening, talking with friends and family...
    
            Ron
    
            ps.  Sorry for the length and lack of organization, but
                 I'd been thinking about this note for a while and
                 finally felt that I might have something useful to add.
    

    The depressing message I'm getting from this discussion is that no
    matter what I do there's not much hope. Most men don't want to
    understand and think we are being silly rattling on about rights. It's
    soooo difficult for a man to treat me as an equal that except for the
    exceptional man I may as well forget it.

    Because I was not trained by the Harvard debating team no man will
    acccept that I have a vaild gripe about how I am treated. It's not in
    his interest, it's too much work and why should he bother anyway?
    liesl    

    Re .271:
    
    > There are a number of individuals who are in this topic not to
    > learn but to insinuate that the feminist are "unbalanced" and not
    > able to make a point that is valid.
    
    I hope that is not the impression you got from my notes.  My point is
    not that any people are not able to make a point that is valid, but
    rather that valid points aren't always enough to change people's minds.
    
    
    				-- edp

    I am going to present an example from _Normal Accidents_ by Charles
    Perrow (Basic Books:  New York, 1984, pages 215 to 218).  This is a
    report of the Coast Guard cutter _Cuyahoga_ colliding with _Santa Cruz
    II_, a cargo ship four times the cutter's length.  The two ships would
    have passed each other safely except that the captain of the _Cuyahoga_
    turned the ship across the path of the _Santa Cruz II_.

    I am presenting this example because it shows how intelligent people
    can make mistakes.  The mistake the captain made is not due to poor
    intelligence.  It is a consequence of the way our minds work.  What I
    want to illustrate is that human minds are not capable of fully
    realizing all the logical conclusions of the data they are presented
    with -- even when that data is about simple, understandable things.

    The incident involves at least three models of reality.  One is what
    was really happening.  "On a beautiful night in October 1978, in the
    Chesapeake Bay, two vessels sighted one another visually and on radar. 
    On one of them, the Coast Guard cutter training vessel _Cuyahoga_, the
    captain (a chief warrant officer) saw the other ship up ahead as a
    small object on radar, and visually he saw two lights, indicating that
    it was proceeding in the same direction as his own ship."

    Here our second model diverges from reality.  The captain only saw two
    lights, and thought the other ship was proceeding in the same
    direction.  In the captain's mind is a model of the situation.  The
    captain thinks the other ship is possibly a fishing vessel.

    Then there is our third model.  "The first mate [the lookout] saw the
    lights, but saw three, and estimated (correctly) that it was a ship
    proceeding toward them."  The lookout knew the captain had seen the
    lights, so they thought they did not need to inform the captain about
    the ship, nor did they have a responsibility to do so.  The first mate
    wrongly thinks the captain knows the other ship is approaching.

    The first model, reality itself, continues.  The two ships drew
    together rapidly.  The captain observes that the ships are now closer.

    Now, why doesn't the captain take this new information and figure out
    something is wrong?  Here is an important facet of human thinking:  The
    captain has a mental model of the situation.  When a person receives
    new information, they interpret the information to figure out how it
    conforms to the model.  Since the captain thinks the two ships are
    heading in the same direction, the fact that the two ships are closing
    quickly must mean the _Cuyahoga_ is overtaking a very slow fishing
    boat.  That is what the captain thinks.  They don't figure out that
    something is wrong; they just figure out how the new data fits into
    what they already believe.

    Back to the third model.  "Later, as the collision nears, the lookout
    and another sailor discussed the situation and decided that perhaps the
    approaching ship should be reported again.  But at that moment the
    captain saw it and blew his whistle.  There then did not seem to be any
    point in notifying the captain of the obvious.  But they did not know
    the captain still assumed that the ship was going in the same direction
    as they were; thus, they did not contradict his sense of reality." 
    Again, the lookout has an incorrect model:  The captain knows the ship
    is approaching.  New data, the blowing of the whistle by the captain,
    confirms that model.  The lookout goes on in their belief.

    Back to reality:  "Since both ships were traveling full speed, the
    closing came fast.  The other ship, a large cargo ship, did not
    establish any bridge-to-bridge communication, because the passing was
    routine."

    Now the captain:  "But at the last moment the captain of the _Cuyahoga_
    realized that in overtaking the supposed fishing boat, which he assumed
    was on a near-parallel course, he would cut off that boat's ability to
    turn as both of them approached the Potomac River.  So he ordered a
    turn to the port."

    And reality once again:  "This brought him directly in the path of the
    oncoming freighter, which hit the cutter.  Eleven coastguardsmen
    perished."

    What happened here was not stupidity; the captain acted correctly given
    what they believed the situation to be.  It was not too complex a
    situation; we can all understand it.  It was not selfishness or
    conditioning; the captain received no rewards for behavior that causes
    collisions.  It was not malice; the captain had no ill feelings for the
    victims.  It was not happenstance -- marine collisions often involve
    ships that are not on a collision course but one or both ships manage
    to change course in such a way as to effect a collision.  MOST marine
    collisions occur that way.  (Other accidents, such as explosions or
    groundings, have other causes.)

    Such collisions happen in good weather and bad, with radio
    communication and without.  They even happen after two ships have
    contacted each other and agreed upon a passage that would be safe, if
    they both stuck to the agreement.  This misunderstanding is normal
    human behavior.

    The human mind is not a machine which understands all the logical
    implications of the data presented to it.  A person does NOT take the
    information you give them and act as if it means what it means to you. 
    The person figures out how the information applies to the model they
    already have.  If your model and theirs differ, then they can think a
    ship is on the port when you think it is on the starboard.  They can
    think a statement is not sexist when you think it is.  And giving them
    new information MIGHT NOT WORK because if you give them information
    that can fit in some way into their model, then it will be fit in.

    For example, suppose a woman, Jones, complains to Smith that a certain
    phrase is offensive.  If Smith thinks women are not as "serious minded"
    as men, then Smith might fit Jones' statement into Smith's model by
    thinking "Jones is just being a silly woman.".  Or, suppose Smith is a
    person who believes in equality but thinks the phrase is just words and
    does not have any actual consequences in the real world.  Then Smith
    might fit Jones' statement into Smith's model by thinking "Jones is
    overreacting.".  Finally, suppose Smith is aware of the consequences of
    such phrases.  Then Smith might think "Jones is correct; I should not
    say that phrase.".

    In all three cases, Smith did exactly the same thing:  Take Jones'
    statement and merge it into Smith's already existing beliefs.  Three
    different people took the same information and drew different
    conclusions from it.  That is what people do.  It does not matter how
    clear the statement is -- the problem is in the listener, not the
    speaker.
    
    There does not have to be malice or stupidity for this to happen --
    just an already incorrect model and a normal human being.

    Is this a reasonable explanation?  I think so; I think people act like
    that all the time -- they incorporate what they see and hear into what
    they already know.

    MOST marine collisions happen when one or both captains make a safe
    situation into a dangerous one.  They would not do that if they had
    correct beliefs about what was happening.  They would not do that if
    they interpreted data completely logically.
    

				-- edp

    liesl, I have to disagree that there's no hope.  In any community there
    will be a number of people who, given the chance, will debate to get
    the last word.  That doesn't mean they win the fight.

    As for sexism and misogyny, the two still don't seem synonymous to me.  I
    also don't agree that feminism itself is responsible for misogyny.  What
    I've seen in the past are people who have some dislike for women fighting
    to defend their dislike (partly for selfish reasons), and a larger number
    of people who are willing to be swayed by either side (but who default to
    the status quo).
    
    I went to a poor rural high school in the mid-'70s.  I like the people I
    knew there but I wouldn't describe them as exceptional.  Most of them,
    including the men, were able to understand the basic concepts being talked
    about here.  There was a sizeable minority of men who were totally closed to
    "women's lib" but they didn't bother to debate.  My impression was that
    they were full-time misogynists.

    When I went to a pretentious liberal arts college, I found that among the
    prep-school crowd this minority seemed at least as large and considerably
    more vocal.  They displayed hatred and contempt for women.  (For the record,
    I would count "bagger" jokes, statements like "Women are basically stupid"
    and "Smart women are skags", and getting a potential sexual partner
    unconscious as showing contempt.)  And, when not in a crowd which did the
    same, they loved to debate, up to a point - at which point, they loved to
    repeat themselves.  To my eyes, this was misogyny leaping to the defense of
    sexism.

    But... Over a few nights I spent with a male adolescent friend who was going
    through a crisis with his parents, we indulged in a good amount of
    anti-matriarchal BS.  His feelings were part of the crisis and he needed to
    get it out of his system.  

    Women have to get anti-male feelings out too, and despite the obvious
    paradox, I've tried to listen when I had enough detachment (and, more
    often, despite the obvious irritation, did the "not ALL men" routine when I
    hadn't).  Far fewer women cling to those feelings through a lifetime or act
    violently on those feelings.  (Or maybe I've just been lucky.  (: >,)
    
    In the weeks following my common-law separation, the only pleasures I can
    remember were a cold-blooded novel in which all the women were fools or mad,
    a blues song which began "It must be hard to say goodbye with my pistol in
    your mouth," and a film about killer gynecologists.  I can't think of a
    better word for this stuff than "misogynous".  I also don't feel that I was
    evil for having enjoyed it - I had a lot of anger and self-pity that had to
    dissipate somehow.  And I don't think the anger was tied to sexism.
    
    Sexism supports misogyny in that the novel, the song and the film were so
    easy to find - they fell into my lap.  Cultural statements of misandry are
    much rarer and more indirect.
    
    Misogyny supports sexism in that the clich�s of misogynous thought are used
    against feminism and that misogynists are the loudest opponents of
    feminism.  Misandry supports - well, maybe a few discussion groups and some
    inflated alimony payments.
    
    Ray

    	RE: .294  Mike Z.
    
    	.283>    They were acknowledged as a group of notes (in .145): 

	> Please list the reply #s of those jokes.
    
    	They were the last two or three replies on your own list (excluding
    	.65, which hadn't been written yet when .145 was posted.)
    
    	> You introduced "specifically" into a question I asked of you.
	> The word is most definitely foreign to the question I asked.
    
    	You've been living in this rathole too long, Mike.  The question
    	was MINE, not yours!  (I asked you which replies I missed that
    	were insulting to men, and you provided jokes like, "I think,
    	therefore I'm single" as the answer.)
    
    	> It is no coincidence that the word, when included into my question,
    	> alters the meaning in the direction you were leaning.
    
    	It was MY question, not yours, and the discussion already *involved*
    	gender-specific insults (and their possible link to behaviors that
    	target gender-specific groups.)  I didn't alter a thing!
    
    	> Again, don't bother to answer my original question.
	> I'm getting used to it now.
    
    	Your original comment to me (in this rathole) was an accusation
    	about my ability to judge jokes that insult men.  When I asked you
    	to support your accusation, you offered me, "I think, therefore
    	I'm single" and "Marriage:  nothing down, and the rest of your life
    	to pay" as the "insults to men" that I missed.  
    
    	We were talking about jokes that MENTION women specifically (and
    	not jokes that mention HUMAN BEINGS IN GENERAL) as being "insulting
    	to women."  You then introduced the concept of regarding jokes
    	about human beings in general as being "insulting to men."
    
    	> And I can tell you that what _I'm_ discussing here is more than
    	> gender specific denigration, and that every question I've asked you
    	> more than once is one I considered worth asking more than once.
    
    	Misogyny and man-hating have gender specific targets.  If you want
    	to discuss the hatred of human beings in general, start another
    	topic.  It only clouds the issues that are being discussed here.
    
    	.283> It is pointless to pursue humor denigrating to HUMAN BEINGS IN 
    	.283> GENERAL when asked a question about whether jokes denigrating 
    	.283> women have a link to misogyny...
    	
    	> The question above is one such example.
	> It's also another one which you have chosen to not answer.
    
    	The question above was Hank Modica's, not yours (and I mentioned
    	that to you *specifically* in reply .283!)  Pay attention, Mike!
    
    	> You started off on a line of reasoning, then, as it progressed,
    	> you modified your words, and mine too, and in the process you altered
    	> the meanings in your favor.
    
    	The title of this topic includes the words "misogyny" and "man
    	hater," which are behaviors with gender-specific targets.  Your
    	claims that I altered the topic are preposterous!
    
    	> Adding your word "specifically" to my question is one example.
    
    	Once again, it was my question, not yours.  I asked you to show
    	me the jokes I missed that were insulting to men, and you later
    	complained that my question didn't ask you to show me jokes
    	that were *specifically* insulting to men.  [By the way, I'm
    	not using the word "denigrating" anymore after reading the request
    	in this topic that we stop using that word.  For your information.]
    
    	.283>For the fourth time, I would appreciate it if you stopped telling
	.283>jokes that were specifically designed to be dehumanizing and 
    	.283>humiliating to women.  

	> And you can ask 4 more times, if that will make you happy.

    	That's NOT A QUESTION AT ALL, Mike!  It was the ANSWER to your
    	question (posed to me four times) about how my feelings would
    	change if you were to change a certain aspect of your behavior.
    
	> But consider: have I told any since you first asked?
    
    	You have a serious problem recognizing "questions" (and identifying
    	the individuals who pose them,) don't you?  Perhaps an elementary
    	course in grammar could help.
    
    	> No.  So why do you continue to ask?
    
    	I didn't ask you even once.  I stated to you how *I* would feel
    	if you exhibited a change in behavior (in response to your question
    	about whether or not I would be "less upset, etc...")
    
    	> Whenever possible, I will try to remember to use only jokes which
    	> are suitable for adaptation to either sex.
    
    	Whenever possible, huh?  You will TRY TO REMEMBER?  And the jokes
    	will be suitable for "adaptation" to either sex (which means you
    	could still use them *exclusively against women* as long as it is
    	also linguistically feasible to adapt them to men as well)???
    
    	I'm overwhelmed by the generosity of your offer.  (And I thought
    	you were a hopeless case...)

    	RE: .287  Ron
    
    	> Misogyny doesn't seem to be too harsh a word to use when looking at 
    	> the affects of prejudice and violence against women in this day and 
    	> age.  
    
    	There are many in our culture who would disagree with you, though.
    	
    	Women have so little inherent value in our society, that we aren't
    	regarded as having the *right* to use a word like misogyny to describe
    	our cultural plight.  In fact, the mere association of women's
    	insignificant problems with an IMPORTANT word like misogyny only
    	serves to "cheapen" the word (in some people's eyes.)
    
    	It's as if the word itself has a limited shelf-life (and should be
    	saved for some *truly* deserving situation, such as the complete 
    	anhiliation of women from the entire planet.)  Meanwhile, anything
    	less than that is an insult to the word itself (which must *not*
    	be allowed to happen, even if it means sacrificing the rights and
    	self-determination of women.)  The word is more important!
    
    	> It seems to me that misogyny is part of the fabric of our society; 
    	> the element is there in books, movies, jokes, and (above all) 
    	> actions.  Does this mean that everyone is actively misogynistic?  
    	> No.  Does it mean that everyone is exposed to misogynistic attitudes 
    	> and actions?  Yes.  In some it takes, in others it doesn't.
    
    	Very well said, and I agree.
    
    	> The strength of the word doesn't seem disproportionate when reading 
    	> about a rape in the newspaper, talking to a friend about what 
    	> contributed to a woman's alcoholism, or seeing insidious games 
    	> played at the corporate level. 
    
    	Again, I agree with you, but the point is that women simply aren't
    	regarded (in our society) as being *worthy* of using a word as
    	strong as misogyny.  Society thinks we have enough gall to talk
    	about the way we are treated *at all*, much less to elevate our
    	complaints to the level of a word with this much strength.  
    
    	Our society doesn't feel we have the right to voice our complaints
    	without the requisite bowing and scraping (and crawling on our
    	bellies.)  How *dare* we speak up as though we think we're as good
    	as men?  It's an abomination, quite clearly.
    
    	> A plea of ignorance doesn't ring true for me. 
    
    	Me neither, Ron...  
    
    	> I guess I've seen too many minds able to rationalize resistance 
    	> to change, fear of loss, greed, and the need for power into
        > ignorance.
    
    	Amen.
    
    	> I'm a white male, raised in a small town in a rural state.  How 
    	> come I can see these things so clearly, but so many people I know 
    	> cannot.  Are these things hard to learn, or is it that they are hard 
    	> to accept?  Why does this knowledge threaten to such a degree?
    
    	In a misogynist culture like ours, there is a built-in resistance
    	to believing that women could be *important* enough to experience
    	something as significant as hatred and contempt for women.  
    
    	It's this very hatred, after all, that denies women are worth hating.
     	And it's contempt that makes women seem *beneath* contempt.
    
    	Thanks for your note!

                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 996.275  misogyny/man_hater/etc, a call for responsible usage    275 of 298
EGYPT::SMITH "Passionate commitment to reasoned fait" 6 lines   5-MAR-1990 16:47
                              -< On denigration >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the risk of a side-rathole, I would like to suggest that we refrain
    from using the word "denigrate" and its various word forms because of
    its racist roots (i.e., to blacken = give something a bad reputation)
    
    Suggested alternatives are: defame, belittle, devalue
    

    Mike - I think we have no *choice* but to disagree, you and I...  ;-)
    
    Ron Brown - yes. Well said. 
    
    R(on?) Davis - granted, individual men and women have to "blow off
    steam" about the other sex in cases of, say, unfriendly divorce. BUT
    I believe that is different than misogyny. Misogyny is (I freely admit
    at this point that more than 1 person has explained this better than I
    can, already) ....anyway, misogyny is more global...institutionalized
    negative feeling about women.
    
    It is misogyny...the societal condition of how women in general are
    percieved...that allows  *individual* men to say and do things that
    devalue and harm women on a regular, epidemic basis.
    
    The phrase "women in general" is key, here. Many men who feel quite
    free to devalue women when "out inthe world" would never say or do such
    things when with their sweetie, wife, SO.
    
    "These ($%*^ women drivers!!!" "Not *you*, dear."  And we buy it.
    "Oh." we figure, "He means *those* women. Over *there*. Not *me*."
    (Catherine Iannuzzo wrote an excellent note on just this phenomenon.)
    
    But should a woman say something similar regarding "men" (not ALL but
    aLWAYS) - why, practically every man in *sight* takes it personally.
    
    So how a man (or woman!)  fits into the misogynistsic model depends
    very much on what s/he says/does/thinks in relation to  A Particular Woman, 
    or Women in General. Which may be why some men don't understand what we say
    about misogyny.
    
    Making the problem individual lessens it. I worked in a group in which
    there occurred several harrassing incidents. Each time, it was viewed
    as the *individual woman's problem*. If she objected, she was to get an
    apology. Case closed. Next incident, next complaint, next apology. Case
    closed.
    
    Obviously, there was a problem with the *atmosphere* in that group. But
    by making the problem individual to each woman, it was hidden, erased,
    ignored, not dealt with. It's easy to do that with societal misogyny.
    It's an *atmosphere* that engenders actions.
    
    
    --DE
     
    
      

    Reply to note 996.252 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA, itself replying to 996.239
    
    .252> Are there also part-time racists?
    
    .252> Should they be called "racists", just like part-time misogynists are
    .252> called "misogynists"?"
    
    I'll give you a straight answer: YES.
    
    There are no part-time racists, and there are no part-time misogynists.
    What appears as a part-time (not my choice of words, but... ) activity
    is only that a persons' deepest feelings do not surface all the time
    and one will get only an occasional glimpse of the deep-rooted racism
    or misogyny of lots of people.
    
    Note that I am not discussing here the person's responsibility, malice,
    innocence, consciousness or sub-consciousness of his/her attitude, etc... 
    just the - to me - very plain fact that somebody displaying racist 
    attitudes is a racist, and this is also valid for misogynists, dog-haters, 
    cat-lovers, atheist, belly-buttonist, ...
    
    Mike, I have seen many, many entries from you in this note, all entered
    in a very challenging tone - I guess it's your usual style. Apart from
    the fun of the challenge, and of contesting word-by-word most of what
    women and/or feminists have to say here, are you trying to prove something?
    
    Joana
    

    re: .302
    
    Mike, this is getting really dull.  Is the object here to score nit
    points or is the object to try to get at the basic truth?  I have been
    fascinated by this topic and the excellent discussions and viewpoints,
    and I thank you for starting it in .0, but, really, Suzanne's point is
    a very good one.  
    
    There are many ways to make jokes putting down women in our society.
    There are ways to make jokes that can put down either men or women in
      our society.
    There are relatively few ways to make jokes putting down men in our 
      society.
    
    Do we all agree with this analysis?  Are the nitworthy "who said what
    when" debates really important when we look at this basic truth? 
    Pam

    	RE: .302  Mike Z.
    
    	> So, 51 is nearly 60?  Or maybe 54 is nearly 60?
	> That's an odd round-up algorithm.
    
    	Yes, 51 *is* pretty close to 60.  It's a lot closer to 60 than
    	1, 2, 10 or even 20.
    
    	Are you so desperate to be contentious that you intend to make a 
    	MAJOR BATTLE out of the phrase about my "having to make it through 
    	nearly 60 replies" to describe reading 51 replies to find a certain 
    	kind of joke??  Is that what you've been reduced to in this topic???
    
    	> My original statement appears in .229:
	
    	.229> If something is dengrating to both men and women, it must be, by
	.229> definition, denigrating to men.
	
    	> Notice that I wrote that.  It is mine.
    	> Notice the absence of the word "specifically".
	> Can you say "Yes, I did alter the meaning by adding `specifically'"?
	> I knew you could.
    
    	Wait - in your last note, you claimed I altered your QUESTION, not
    	your STATEMENT!!  
    
    	In any case, I didn't alter the above.
    
    	My original question to you was long before .229, and it was about
    	asking you which jokes against men I missed.  You offered me ones
    	like "I think, therefore I'm single" which are not *specifically*
    	about men.  
    
    	When I asked you how jokes like this can be considered insulting to
    	men *specifically*, you cried back to me that I didn't *ask* you to
    	show me jokes about men specifically (and have whined ever since
    	about how unfair it was to SPRING that word on you.)
    
    	If you're going to insist on dragging this thing out for the next
    	two decades or so, at least keep the story straight!  
    
    	I don't want to have to remind you about this again - pay attention!

    	
    	RE: .303  Pam
    
    	>There are many ways to make jokes putting down women in our society.
    	>There are ways to make jokes that can put down either men or women in
      	>our society.
    	>There are relatively few ways to make jokes putting down men in our 
      	>society.
    
    	Thanks - I would certainly agree to this!
    
    	Let's hope this settles it.
    

>    There are no part-time racists, and there are no part-time misogynists.
>    What appears as a part-time (not my choice of words, but... ) activity
>    is only that a persons' deepest feelings do not surface all the time
>    and one will get only an occasional glimpse of the deep-rooted racism
>    or misogyny of lots of people.
    
     Joana-  
    
     You say that if one occasionally exhibits racist or misogynist
    behaviors s/he is by definition a racist or misogynist. Does this
    property of extension (for lack of a better term) apply only to bad
    qualities or does it also apply to good qualities? In other words, if
    someone does occasional acts of philanthropy, is s/he a philanthropist?
    (for example)
    
     This could lead to situations where one person is considered to be
    two contradictory things. Ie someone who is occasionally racist and
    occasionally equalist could be an "equalist racist" or some other such
    nonsense.
    
     I would tend to believe a less "extended" assessment. "S/he is a
    human this exhibits some signs of racism or misogyny." It seems more
    accurate than "S/he is a racist or misogynist." When you make such a
    proclamation, it's almost like you are branding the object of the
    assertion- or maybe pidgeonholing her/him. It gives rise to the saying
    "Give me the name and I'll play the game." This is the opposite of the
    message we really want to send. It's saying "we have given up on you;
    youare beyond hope." Instead we should say "You have fundamental
    goodness but you also have a flaw which needs correcting."
    
     The Doctah 

    	RE: .307  Mike Z.
    
    	> I see now that some women like to use the term "woman hater" as
    	> flippantly as some men use the term "man hater".
    
    	You don't see women using such labels to identify individuals by
    	name, though (unless such individuals go out of their way to let
    	us all know that they have exhibited behaviors being discussed.)
    
    	It's far, far, FAR different to say, "This behavior is PART of
    	the atmosphere of misogyny in our culture" than it is to say,
    	"So-and-so is a woman hater."
    
    	You won't see us calling an individual "woman hater," in SPITE
    	of the fact that so many men call identifiable women "man haters"
    	at the drop of the hat.
    
    	There is a difference between talking about *behavior* versus the
    	character of an *individual*, whether you are ever capable of
    	recognizing it or not.

    	RE: .308  Mike Z.
    
    	> Now, Suzanne's "nearly 60 replies..." may seem like the ultimate
    	> nit to you, but if you go back thru my replies here, you will find
    	> many, many different instances where she alone took what I said and
    	> altered it in a significant way for a subsequent reply.
    
    	Mike, I'm growing very tired of the accusations you keep throwing
    	at me.  I did *not* alter your words, as I've demonstrated to you
    	every time you've accused me of doing so!
    
    	> In every case I found, I pointed it out.
    
    	You alluded to "original questions" and "original statements" up
    	the gazoo, but you were never able to show me (QUOTING BOTH YOUR
    	WORDS AND THE EXACT WORDS OF MINE THAT ALTERED YOURS) that would
    	have proven your accusations.
    
    	> It so happens that this particular nit *is* indeed trivial - that's
    	> why Suzanne has dragged it into the light so quickly.  Ask yourself 
    	> why the others were swept under the carpet.
    
    	Nothing was swept under the carpet.  I responded to your unfounded
    	accusations against me EVERY TIME YOU THREW THEM AT ME!
    
    	> If you'd like, I can show you exactly what I mean with examples
    	> of note #s and extracts.
    
    	You've already tried and failed to prove your case against me.
    	Take furthur attempts to mail (to everyone in Digital, if you like.)
    
    	Better yet - contact the newspapers and CNN. They might be interested.	
    
    	I'm absolutely AMAZED that you are willing to wage an entire WAR
    	with me because I made a comment about how few "jokes that insult
    	men" are contained in topic 22.  (That's where all this started.)
    
    	Is it so very threatening to see a woman able to back up one small
    	claim about the scarcity of "jokes than insult men" in topic 22?

    re: .308
    Mike, do you agree with my analysis in .303 about the "basic truth" I
    feel Suzanne is talking about?  (paraphrased, that there are relatively
    much more jokes aimed specifically at putting down WOMEN in this
    society than there are jokes aimed specifically at putting down MEN?)
    
    She said she agreed with it.  Do you?
    
    Pam

    Good grief.  I just don't understand all this back and forth about
    is someone a misogynist if s/he does x sometimes, often, never...?
    
    This is the point that I have been trying to make.  I believe that
    we still live in a misogynous world.  By that I mean that I see examples
    of misogyny all around me.  I see it in the media, in textbooks, in some
    religions, in language, in humor.  I see it also in my behavior, thoughts,
    feelings, and in the behavior of other women and of men.  When I read
    some of the replies in that note on feminism in Soapbox, I saw (that means
    that it was my impression that there existed) misogyny.  The reply about
    the hefty bag jumped out at me... as an example of what I believe to be
    words that express what I believe to be misogyny -- hatred of women.
    
    Shortly after I read that note in Soapbox, I read the basenote to this
    note (996) that Mike Z. started on usage of the word misogyny.  I took it 
    from his basenote that he believes that some of us feminists in Womannotes 
    (and maybe other folks, as well) use the word misogyny too much, that the 
    real meaning of misogyny -- hatred of women -- is too harsh to be fair 
    and accurate in some of the situations in which we use that word.  I 
    replied that I really think that misogyny is quite pervasive and that I 
    didn't think I was using it casually.  To give an example of a situation 
    where I would use the word misogyny, I cited the hefty-bag example from 
    Soapbox.  At that time I wasn't sure if it had been Mike who wrote that 
    reply, but when I found out that it was his reply, I found it quite ironic 
    that here I was using a note of his from Soapbox to reply to his basenote 
    in Womannotes.
    
    Was I accusing Mike of being a misogynist when I said that I thought his
    hefty bag comment about Gloria Steinem was an example of misogyny?  Well,
    no more (and no less) than I accuse myself of that very same thing when
    I acknowledge my own misogyny.  Instead of spending energy denying my own 
    misogyny (I think Ann's points about denial were excellent) or defending it 
    in others, I choose to challenge misogyny whenever I have the courage and 
    energy to do that -- whether I find that misogyny inside or outside myself.
      
    Thank you, John Heffernan, for your note reminding us to do that, and thank 
    you, R(ay?)Davis for your courageous and honest sharing of misogyny that 
    you have seen and felt in your own life.
    
    Justine

    Then, please, agree to disagree and get off the subject! This
    particular horse is well dead, and the sound of kicking is not all that
    entertaining.

    Re 8.63 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD:
    
    > And one of mine
    
    Please explain what point of yours was made by my response .292.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Certainly, edp.  From .282:
    
    `Many males in our society have the really, really basic assumption
    to their lives of "My first perception *is* correct." '
    
    This is the attitude of the captain in your anecdote -- or at least
    the attitude as you interpreted things.  He saw something and
    came to a[n erroneous] conclusion about what it was.  He got another
    piece of information (the third light) about it, but did not use
    it to correct his first perception.  He got another piece of
    information (the speed of closing (Since he, as captain, should have
    known his ship's speed, and since he, as captain, should have had
    the years of experience needed to estimate speed, he should have
    realized that they were closing at a speed greater than his ship's
    speed.)) about it, but did not use that one either.
    
    No one corrected him, because most people have learned to apply
    self-checking techniques to themselves, and they thought the captain
    had too.  Unfortunately, the captain was one of the "My first perception
    *is* correct." people, and eleven men died because of it.
    
    						Ann B.

    Re .316:
    
    Thank you for explaining that.  However, I would state that many
    _people_ in our society act that way -- believing their first
    perception is correct.
    
    Since nobody has pointed out any errors in .292, should I take it that
    the behavior I described is accepted as something that is in fact a
    normal part of human nature?  Have I adequately explained how a person
    can fail to understand what they are told without malice playing a
    part?                             
    
    
    				-- edp

    Firstly, it is far more likely for a man to have that perception,
    (because women have their assumptions and perceptions repeatedly
    questioned and so, unless they are very rich or very isolated,
    they have it trained out of them).  In fact, when I described the
    reaction of my own gender, I used "most", not "all", and pointed
    out this careful distinction in a postscript.  I'm sorry you missed
    it.
    
    Secondly, no.  You explained how someone could believe something
    erroneous *if no one communicates with [in this case] him about it*.
    That is not the situation women have been facing.
    
    						Ann B.

    Re .318:
    
    > Firstly, it is far more likely for a man to have that perception,
    
    That is a sexist statement.
    
    > (because women have their assumptions and perceptions repeatedly
    > questioned and so, unless they are very rich or very isolated, they
    > have it trained out of them).
    
    Oh, right, like men are never questioned on anything.  All those
    thousands of Notes conferences contain NO controversy involving men
    whatsoever.
    
    > You explained how someone could believe something erroneous *if no
    > one communicates with [in this case] him about it*.
    
    That condition was not part of my thesis.  Marine accidents happen EVEN
    WHEN THE CAPTAINS HAVE CONTACTED EACH OTHER BY RADIO and arranged for a
    safe passage.  Communication from a person is just more data, as is a
    decreasing distance on radar, and people act the same way:  They
    incorporate the new information in light of their already-existing
    model.
    
    Communicating with a person about something isn't always enough -- if
    the communication can be interpreted without contradicting the model,
    it will be.  To change a person's beliefs, it is necessary not only to
    communicate, but to demonstrate that their mental model is wrong.
    
    
    				-- edp

Thought for the day:

Don't try to teach a pig to sing.  It wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Re .320:
    
    Yes, it has occurred to me that I am communicating with some people in
    an attempt to change their perceptions, but they seem to have the
    really, really basic assumption of "My first perception *is* correct.".
    
    
    				-- edp

    <--(.319)
    
�    That condition was not part of my thesis.  Marine accidents happen EVEN
�    WHEN THE CAPTAINS HAVE CONTACTED EACH OTHER BY RADIO and arranged for a
�    safe passage. 
    
    Then why didn't you use such a case for your example?  It's not clear
    to me how you can reasonably expect other people to ignore salient
    points simply because they weaken *your* argument.
    
    						=maggie

    re: .321
    
     Touch�!

    Re .322:
    
    > Then why didn't you use such a case for your example?
    
    Because:
    
    	0) Every general principle has many examples, each with
    	   different features.  Choosing any example always has
    	   some features other examples do not have.
    
    	1) I used the example I did because it was a very clear
    	   demonstration of the principle.  The book contains another
    	   example with two boats on the Mississippi river which
    	   called each other and arranged a port-to-port crossing
    	   but still collided.  However, that example involves two
    	   boats, docks, a tug with barge, and possibly another tug
    	   with a barge -- it is harder to describe.
    
    	2) I gave additional fictional examples of how the principle
    	   applies to people communicating.
    
    > It's not clear to me how you can reasonably expect other people to
    > ignore salient points simply because they weaken *your* argument.

    I do not expect people to ignore a point because the point weakens my
    argument, and I have not got the slightest idea where you got such a
    notion.
    
    
    				-- edp

    as far as I can see, the analogy would thereby excuse racism? 
    discrimination?  homophobia?  gee the list is endless.
    
    whether it is accepted or not, there are very large differences in the
    way women and men are/were  raised.  pointing this out is not sexist.  
    
    there is a class that DEC sponsors called Collaborative Politics.  The
    male/female cultures are discussed, very clearly.  I always knew there
    were differences and after this class, I realized that others saw it
    too. 
    
    vivian

>    whether it is accepted or not, there are very large differences in the
>    way women and men are/were  raised.  pointing this out is not sexist.  
    
     Making a blanket statement like "women are more likely to do x, feel
    x, or be x than men" is making a sexist statement. It says nothing
    whatsoever about the accuracy or validity of the statement (recognizing
    it as a sexist comment). Many people use "that's sexist" or "that's
    racist" when what they really mean is "that's false." Not all racist
    comments are false. example (since I knew you'd want one)
    "African-americans have darker skin than Anglo-Saxon descendents." That
    is racist. It is also accurate. 
    
     Where we get into trouble is when someone makes a comment that is not
    so clear-cut, and is also sexist or racist. 
    
     The Doctah

    
    	RE: .321  edp
    
    	>Yes, it has occurred to me that I am communicating with some people in
    	>an attempt to change their perceptions, but they seem to have the
    	>really, really basic assumption of "My first perception *is* correct.".
    
    	This is probably the slickest version of "I am rubber, you are glue,
    	whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you" that I've ever
    	seen.
    
    	It's amazing how a bit of education can dress up a tried-and-true
    	debating technique of the sandbox set such as this one.
    

    	RE: .326  Doctah
    
    	>Making a blanket statement like "women are more likely to do x, feel
    	>x, or be x than men" is making a sexist statement. It says nothing
    	>whatsoever about the accuracy or validity of the statement (recognizing
    	>it as a sexist comment). 
    
    	Based on your statement above, are the following sexist also?
    
    		"Most men have male genitals."
    		"Most men have larger bodies than women."
    		"Most men have the ability to father children."
    
    	Why so quick to slap on labels like "sexist"?
    

    Strictly speaking, yes, but hardly illuminating.
    
     The Doctah

    I would recommend using a twenty-five cent term like "sexually
    (or "gender") specific", rather than misusing a term like "sexist".
    
    							Ann B.

    re: .327 Suzanne
    and re: others disagreeing with edp
    
    I think edp has a point and I don't think he is being self-serving.  I
    also think he is trying to point out that there is resistance in this
    topic to the *idea* that some of the unfairness in our society may be
    due to inertia (laziness) rather than active hatred.  Why is it so
    important to push back strongly against the idea that people may be
    just stupid, or lazy, or indifferent, or greedy, rather than requiring
    that they hate?
    
    If Q believes in something (right or wrong), they have a vested
    interest in staying the way they are.  This is inertia.  I personally
    have a problem calling inertia a malignant quality, because to me it's
    passive rather than active.  (Malignancy exists, but maybe something
    simpler can explain some things.)
    
    If X wants to convince Q that Q is mistaken, there is effort expended
    on both sides.  Effort is hard, effort takes time:  
    
    1.  X has to know what wrong assumptions Q has made.       <--FLAG!!
    2.  X has to point out why those assumptions are wrong     <--FLAG!!!
    3.  X has to make a case for why the new ones are better.
    
    1.  Q has to agree to question their assumptions.          <--FLAG!!!
    2.  Q has to do active listening.                          <--FLAG!!!
    3.  Q has to assimilate what they've been told by X.
    
    SIMPLY doing X's 3 and expecting Q's 3 is not going to work, based on
    this model.  ALL STEPS MUST GO IN ORDER for learning to happen.  And I
    think that this basic model is all edp is putting forward.  
    
    We can argue forever about "who's trying harder" and "who is more
    motivated to have things stay the same," but I don't think that this
    basic model is wrong.  
    
    One analogy to our society could be that a climate exists in which
    women are devalued in relation to men.  A climate exists in which men
    are expected to do certain macho things.  One man may go against the
    flow of societal expectations IN THE DIRECTION OF HIS CONSCIENCE, but
    he has made a decision to go against conditioning.  He has questioned
    his and society's assumptions, thought about things, and made his own
    decision.  
    
    That takes effort.  NOT doing it MIGHT just take mental laziness. 
    Maybe it also takes hatred (to maintain devaluing of women).  But why
    is it so hard to say that it might be both?  And to think about the
    idea that overcoming apathy takes different arguing techniques than
    overcoming hatred?
    
    Pam

    Pam,
    
    We are all aware that `mistakes happen', just as edp claims.  We
    are all aware that inertia and laziness are major forces, just
    as edp claims.  (I even have a nutshell theory based on this.)
    However, the impression I get from reading edp is that he does
    not believe that explanations involving denial rather than ignorance,
    and explanations involving malice rather than innocence are valid.
    I hold differently, because I have seen them.
    
    If edp had replied to me with ~Ah.  You're right.  I should have
    chosen a different one of my many examples.  Please stand by.~
    then no one would have objected.  When he started to deny things
    is when the objections started.
    
    I mean, Ann sulked, it did *too* make my point, and I don't care
    if it made his point.
    
    							Ann B.

    Re .325:
    
    > as far as I can see, the analogy would thereby excuse racism? 
    
    	0)  The analogy does not excuse anything.
    
    	1)  I did not say the analogy excused anything.
    
    	2)  I explicitly said I did not think the analogy excused anything.
    
    How many times do I have to say something before you believe me?
    
    I presented the analogy NOT to excuse anything, but to make two points:
    
    	One, sexism is NOT necessarily due to hate.  That does not
    	mean it is blameless, but it does mean that accusing people
    	of malice is incorrect and accusing people of misogyny is
    	questionable at best.
    
    	Two, if sexism is caused by the mechanism I described and
    	not by malice, then different methods of addressing it are
    	needed.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .327:
    
    > 	It's amazing how a bit of education can dress up a tried-and-true
    >	debating technique of the sandbox set such as this one.

    It is dressed up.  But is it false?  I think not.  The behavior we have
    seen in this conference does in fact demonstrate that my thesis is
    correct.                          
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .332:
    
    > However, the impression I get from reading edp is that he does
    > not believe that explanations involving denial rather than ignorance,
    > and explanations involving malice rather than innocence are valid.

    Do not take "impressions" from my words.  Read them literally, and if
    you have any questions, ASK.  That helps communication.  Going on
    impressions leads to mistakes, misunderstanding, and hindered
    communication.
    
    I have not said that explanations involving malice are invalid.  Your
    impression is wrong.  I have taken care specifically not to state that
    malice is not a possible explanation.  But I do not think it is the
    most likely explanation in most circumstances, and certainly statements
    made previously that there was malice were based upon insufficient
    evidence to make such a conclusion.  I do think that the mechanism I
    have described is the most likely explanation in MOST circumtances.
    
    > When he started to deny things is when the objections started.
    
    What are you talking about?  What did I deny?
    
    
    				-- edp

    re .333 -
    
    "sexism is not necessarily due to hate" -
    
    is racism due to hate?

    Re .336:
    
    There have been many racial incidents caused by hate, but I do not
    think the origins of racism lie in hatred, nor do I think that _all_
    racist people hate the targets of their racism.
    
    
    				-- edp

    	
    	RE: .334  edp
    
    	>It is dressed up.  But is it false?  I think not.  The behavior we have
    	>seen in this conference does in fact demonstrate that my thesis is
    	>correct.                          
    
    	It wasn't your thesis.  You borrowed it from someone else.
    
    	Perhaps it is more appropriately identified as a dressed-up version
    	of "I know you are, but what am I?"
    

    re: .331
    
     Bravo!
    
     The Doctah

    Re .338:
    
    > 	It wasn't your thesis.  You borrowed it from someone else.
    
    The possessive case in English indicates possession, not ownership.  My
    apartment is mine, even though I rent it from somebody else.  My office
    is mine, even though I borrow it from Digital.  The possessive case is
    called the possessive case because it indicates possession, not
    ownership.  Is your wordplay really necessary?  Does where the thesis
    originated have anything to do with its validity?  Were you trying to
    make any point relevant to the discussion?  Do you in fact know that I
    had not formed the thesis myself before I read _Normal Accidents_?
    
    > 	Perhaps it is more appropriately identified as a dressed-up version
    >	of "I know you are, but what am I?"

    I repeat:  Is my comment false?  I think not.  The behavior we have
    seen in this conference does in fact demonstrate that the thesis is
    correct.
                                     
    
    				-- edp

"Never, never joke about the size of a man's penis - they don't like
it"

Ladies - have you ever heard this?  Do you generally heed it?  Or do
women continue to joke blissfully unaware because although
we've heard the statement, we aren't convinced that, as one male noter
put it here, "the argument has merit"?  Do we require years and years
of lengthy explanations complete with examples, war stories, et al to
convince us WHY they don't like it - or do we just accept it because
we basically have little desire to make men feel creepy and inadequate?

If we just accept it because we basically have little desire to make men
feel creepy and inadequate, is it so difficult to understand that when
we see blatant examples of the fact that we are clearly not regarded with
the same level of, shall we say, concern with which we regard men, that
it feels like "hate" - it *must* be hate, since women generally won't
even joke this away about a man they simply dislike.  From where we sit,
and from the way we are taught to regard all men, those we love, those
we like, those we ignore and those we actively dislike, it is easy to
understand that women must feel "hated" or at least certainly "hatable"
to be so casually and continually insulted by men in the many ways we
are.
    
Most of us don't ever joke about the size of a man's penis because
we've been told they don't like it and we, quite simply, accept that.  
Actually, because we are anything BUT misandric, most of us have lied at 
one time or another to build a man up.  We're often confused as to what men's 
reasons are for brushing off OUR requests when we so willingly comply with 
theirs.  It can only seem misogynistic and if it isn't, then surely the empty,
groundless and often silly reasons some men have give here for rationalizing 
their behavior has to be.  Either they're very stupid or they think we are to
think we'd accept some of these rather weak arguments.  And I don't think 
they're very stupid.  Drill Sargeants use lots of hate and shouting, what 
women are never supposed to use if they want men to learn.  But the recruits 
learn AWFUL fast with that approach.  Why?  Because of consequences!  They're
not going to insist that the Sargeant convince them that his argument has
merit.  They're not going to wait until they understand completely WHY they
are being told to do or not do something.  Women know this.  And it's insulting
to be treated as though we can be bowled over via a game of verbal volleyball in
which we will seem "strident" by saying, "Whoa - wait a minute", as many times
as is required to deal with some of these excuses.

If an American male today hasn't "learned", it's not the image being presented
here of an innocent bumpkin scratching his head and wondering why all the gals
get upset at a little swat on the hiney.  No.  It's because he believes there
are are no consequences for not learning.  He believes, (because his life
proves it), that he will still get women.

"Take my wife, please".  No one expected the wife in Henny Youngman's 
joke to actually say "screw you" and walk out.  The mental picture is
that the woman is at the stove, maybe glaring at him, but continuing on making
the dinner nonetheless.  Because if she weren't, the husband wouldn't
be so likely to say "take her".

Maybe we're too willing to give and that's the problem.  Maybe women
haven't gotten angry enough!  We grumble and moan but we make their
dinners anyway!  And I don't know about you, but I'd very quickly loose
respect for someone I could insult so easily and be allowed to get away
with it.  
    
Not being able to support ourselves was the main reason women
have allowed men to "get away with it".  Most of our male peers right
in this file have seen their mothers put up with their fathers'
derision and their cultural derision and have tried on those behaviors for 
each other, enforcing them in each other, as marks of becoming men.  
Mommies are big, omnipotent creatures to little boys.  To be a man is to 
demonstrate, whether or not it's true, that you fear women no more.
Casually brushing them off, regarding them as stupid and even offering
lame excuses to them like right here, are behaviors men recognize as
proving that they no longer fear women as omnipotent.  It's the same
thing as telling a nervous speaker to imagine the audience naked. 
Derision and ridicule removes the threat.  And since derision and
ridicule is a culturally accepted way to regard women, I can only
conclude that we're dealing with "nervous speakers" who regard us as a
judgemental audience and who are striving to remove our power, if only
symbolically, to calm themselves.  

What was in reality economic dependence that forced women to accept
this treatment was seen as "weakness" or "stupidity" by little boys
growing up.  No one wanted to be female.  Everyone knew it meant
servitude and humiliation.

And now these little boys are men and the women they are meeting are
NOT accepting it.  Again it's misread and assumed that these women are
simply haters of men when in reality it's that these women are simply payers
of rent.  Nothing has been ADDED to women today to make them less
pliant, something has been REMOVED - economic dependence on men and
the constant possibility of pregnancy.  Men too can be made docile and
compliant by proving to them their survival depends on it.

What we have now is woman as autonomous as man and, surprise, surprise,
JUST AS DESIRING of dignity and respect - no longer willing to stir the
soup at the stove while the meal ticket sits there and derides us or the 
culture snickers at our social position.  Our bosses have replaced our lovers 
as providers of our livelihood and women are now free to appraise men for 
their potential to fullfill us personally as friends and lovers.  

Just like the fall leaf colors that are there all summer long, masked by 
the chlorophyll, so too were women's wants, desires and personalities there 
all along, masked by economic need and dependency.  You aren't seeing new 
women, you're seeing women for the first time!  And you can fight them if you
want to.  You can waste your time and your youth longing for the days when 
women were too dependent to object.  Or you can take joy in finding out what
it was was that's been hidden away, brushed aside and silenced for too long.
And there is nothing sexist or manhating or nasty about choosing as our
first words, "I've never really liked this, so please stop it".  It's human.  
Just like we have turned out to be, after all.
    

The fall colors are there all along? Honest? What a lovely analogy. I wish they
had covered the biology of it in high school though, so I could think about it
more deeply.
	Mez

    RE: .341
    
        Bravissima!

    Re .341:
    
    > "Never, never joke about the size of a man's penis - they don't like
    > it"
    
    That is a false generalization.  It is stereotypical.  It is sexist.
    
    > If we just accept it because we basically have little desire to make
    > men feel creepy and inadequate, is it so difficult to understand that
    > when we see blatant examples of the fact that we are clearly not
    > regarded with the same level of, shall we say, concern with which we
    > regard men, that it feels like "hate" - it *must* be hate, since women
    > generally won't even joke this away about a man they simply dislike.
    
    Yes, it is difficult to understand that it must be hate.  It is
    difficult to understand because it is false.
    
    Once again, NOTHING in your note addresses the mechanism I illustrated
    in .292.  You conclude that people must hate women because you cannot
    figure out any other reason.  But I gave you another reason in .292,
    and you have not shown any reason not to believe it.
    
    Yes, women have been treated terribly in society.  Yes, there is blame
    to be laid for that.  But no, it is NOT all due to hate.
    
    
    				-- edp

    re: .344 edp
    
    The "don't joke about the size of a man's penis" might be a false
    generalization, but it's one that I've heard MANY times.  And I rarely
    hear ruler jokes (told by women anyway).  So it's a request to avoid 
    joking about an area where many men are sensitive; and it IS respected.
    
    On the other hand, "stop joking about the size of a woman's breasts" is
    something that I've heard asked of specific men.  Who went on to tell a
    joke about a woman's breasts in front of the woman who requested they
    not be told.
    
    I don't think the point was: is the stereotype true for all men or not? 
    The point was, do women take pains not to joke about things that many
    men are sensitive about?  Why?  Why is the converse not true?
    
    Pam

    edp,
    
    If you want to play semantic games, I would recommend the
    Grammar conference.
    
    If you want to use the first person singular in reference to an
    idea which I have introduced into this conference (once in each
    version) and if you want to quote it exactly while using the
    first person singular, then you should be prepared for charges
    of plagarism and the like.  If you cannot make yourself more
    comprehensible, then I would again recommend the Grammar conference.
    
    Now, let me explain to you something about words like "many" in
    this country.  According to the Census Bureau, there are 250,000,000
    people in this country.  This means that there are on the close
    order of 100,000,000 adult men in this country, and the same
    number of women.  Now, 1,000,000 men constitutes "many".  You
    will notice, I trust, that it is not a majority, nor even a large
    minority.  It is 1% of the men.  Yet it is still "many".  Even
    a mere 250,000 men is "many".
    
    So, let's say only half the women in this country have experienced
    incidents which they characterize as sexist.  This is still
    50,000,000 people, and constitutes "many".  Let us say that the
    average woman can only dredge up three such incidents.  Let us
    further say that 60% of these incidents can be explained by
    ignorance, innocence, and momentary inattention.  (Three of the
    five attributions I have mentioned elsewhere in this conference.)
    Let us further say that 60% of the remaining incidents can be explained
    by stupidity.  This still leaves 24,000,000 incidents which, I
    guess, should be attributed to malice.  Twenty-four million
    incidents constitute "many", and is a large enough number to
    be worth addressing, is it not?  In fact, given 100,000,000 women
    in the country, even tiny percentages produce "many" incidents.
    Thus, in a conference devoted to issues "of interest to women",
    maliciously sexist incidents will be considered `worthy' of
    discussion, even if they are not the majority of such incidents.
    
    Onward.  You wanted to know what you denied?  By writing, "That
    condition was not part of my thesis." you denied that my thesis
    had any bearing on your example.  Yet it did.  By making your
    sarcastic comment about "thousands of Notes conferences" you
    denied the existance of nearly 100,000,000 men who don't work
    for Digital.  You also deny that all but a handful of those
    "thousands of Notes conferences" don't deal with initial perceptions
    or even interpersonal relations at all.  If you protest that this
    was not your intention, I accept that.  But in return, you will
    have to accept that you do not express yourself well in writing.
    Digital does offer seminars on the subject.
    
    Would you like to know how at least one man in Digital, who reads
    and writes notes deals with the questioning of his initial assumption?
    He stops noting; he doesn't deal with it.  Look in this very note.
    You'll find a man who left in a snit -- excuse me, who left in
    justifiable anger because I could distinguish between form (discussed
    in a postscript) and content (discussed in the body of my reply).
    
    I trust this covers a sufficiency of your questions?
    
    						Ann B.

    	RE: .331  Pam
    
    	> I also think [edp] is trying to point out that there is resistance 
    	> in this topic to the *idea* that some of the unfairness in our 
    	> society may be due to inertia (laziness) rather than active hatred.  
    
    	Pam, edp is trying to insinuate that we deny that there is *ANY*
    	unfairness in our society due to inertia (laziness,) etc., which is
    	patently false!  
    
    	How many times do some of us have to say explicitly that we don't 
    	believe that people consciously buy into hatred as individuals
    	(in the course of perpetuating misogyny) before edp is willing to
    	notice and say to himself, "GEE, I guess they aren't really saying
    	that every act of unfairness to women is evidence of the conscious
    	hatred of women!"
    
    	It will take at least a few thousand more times, evidently, since
    	edp still continues to claim that he has proven Ann's thesis about
    	how we believe our first perceptions to be correct (even when he
    	doesn't have the foggiest idea in hell what our perceptions really
    	are!)
    
    	> Why is it so important to push back strongly against the idea that 
    	> people may be just stupid, or lazy, or indifferent, or greedy, 
    	> rather than requiring that they hate?
    
    	As I've stated several times, I don't believe that acts against women 
    	are foolproof evidence of an individual's conscious hatred of women.  
    	Misogyny is a cultural affliction that manifests itself in a wide 
    	variety of behaviors exhibited by many/most of the people in our 
    	culture, male and female.  That's far different than claiming that
    	all these individuals actively hate women.
    
    	Please don't respond to me based on someone else's misrepresentation
    	of my argument.  

    	RE: .340  edp
    
    	> I repeat:  Is my comment false?  I think not.  The behavior we have
    	> seen in this conference does in fact demonstrate that the thesis is
   	> correct.
    
    	If you want me to regard your comment as something other than a snappy
    	comeback to the fable about the futility of teaching pigs to sing,
    	then I'd have to say that your behavior in this conference (so far)
    	is the best demonstration I've seen of Ann's thesis.
    
    	You are not in a position to judge whether or not our perceptions were
    	formed on the basic assumption of "My first perception *is* correct,"
    	since you've demonstrated an appalling ignorance for what most of our
    	perceptions really are.

    Re .345:
    
    > The "don't joke about the size of a man's penis" might be a false
    > generalization, but it's one that I've heard MANY times.
    
    Wonderful, go ahead and spread stereotypes.  If you are going to say
    things like that about men, is it okay if men spread stereotypes about
    women?
    
    
    				-- edp

    	RE: .349  edp
    
    	>> The "don't joke about the size of a man's penis" might be a false
    	>> generalization, but it's one that I've heard MANY times.
    
    	> Wonderful, go ahead and spread stereotypes.  If you are going to say
    	> things like that about men, is it okay if men spread stereotypes about
    	> women?
    
    	Eric, you have a truly perverted notion of what it means to fight
    	against stereotypes.
    
    	Is it racist to say, "Don't tell jokes about n*gg*rs?"
    
    	Is it sexist to say, "Don't tell jokes about women's breast sizes?"
    
    	It would be sexist if we claimed that most men who debate loudly
    	do it because they have small penises.  That would be a stereotype.
    
    	Saying that certain kinds of derogatory humor aren't welcome (in
    	general) by many/most members of particular groups doesn't qualify
    	as a stereotype.
    
    	I'd recommend that you cease and desist accusing people of making
    	sexist statements until you get a handle on your massive confusion
    	about all this.  
    
    	Tutoring can be arranged, by the way.  

    Re .346:
    
    > If you want to play semantic games, I would recommend the
    > Grammar conference.

    Tell that to Suzanne Conlon who started it in .338.
    
    > If you want to use the first person singular in reference to an
    > idea which I have introduced into this conference (once in each
    > version) . . .
    
    I think you are talking about a different idea than I was talking about
    in .340.  Please permit me to use "my" to refer to the things I am
    trying to say.  I think it would be somewhat beneficial if I try to
    explain what I am trying to say, and you do not lay claim on defining
    what it is that I am saying.
    
    > Twenty-four million incidents constitute "many", and is a large
    > enough number to be worth addressing, is it not?
    
    Twenty-four million incidents is a large enough number to be worth
    addressing, but it is NOT a large enough number to be worth accusing
    innocent people of hatred -- and THAT is why I entered this topic.
                      
    > You wanted to know what you denied?  By writing, "That condition was
    > not part of my thesis." you denied that my thesis had any bearing on
    > your example.
    
    I fail to see how my saying anything about the thesis I was supporting
    denies anything about your thesis.  Perhaps you are misinterpreting my
    comment.  By saying that condition was not part of my thesis (the
    thesis I am supporting), I meant the restriction of the condition did
    not apply -- my thesis not only covered situations in which the
    condition held, it ALSO covered conditions in which the condition did
    not hold.  Thus, I was not denying that the thesis had a bearing on the
    example, I was claiming it had a bearing on many more things.
    
    > By making your sarcastic comment about "thousands of Notes
    > conferences" you denied the existance of nearly 100,000,000 men who
    > don't work for Digital.
    
    Selecting one thing to use as an example does not deny the existence of
    other things which are not mentioned.  It is an EXAMPLE -- ONE thing
    used to DEMONSTRATE a principle about MANY things.
    
    > You also deny that all but a handful of those "thousands of Notes
    > conferences" don't deal with initial perceptions or even interpersonal
    > relations at all.
    
    That is totally irrelevant!  People have discussions/arguments/beliefs
    about many things other than interpersonal relations!  On ANYTHING
    people discuss, they have initial perceptions and often are confronted
    with additional data which may or may not contradict their initial
    perceptions.      
    
    > But in return, you will have to accept that you do not express
    > yourself well in writing.  Digital does offer seminars on the subject.
    
    On the contrary, you will have to accept that you do not comprehend
    very well.  Digital does offer seminars on the subject.  Shall we
    proceed with the insults, or can you confine yourself to a discussion
    of the subject?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .347:
    
    > 	Pam, edp is trying to insinuate that we deny that there is *ANY*
    >	unfairness in our society due to inertia (laziness,) etc., which is
    > 	patently false!  

    That is false.  Do not make false statements about me.  I am fully
    capable of representing myself, and I do not appreciate somebody who
    does not understand my statements representing them to other people.
    
    > 	How many times do some of us have to say explicitly that we don't 
    >	believe that people consciously buy into hatred as individuals
    >   . . .
    
    "We"?  Who nominated you speaker for all people who do not agree with
    me?  You're just wonderful aren't you; you tell people what I'm saying,
    and you tell people what everybody else is saying.
    
    For your information, some of the notes in this topic HAVE made
    baseless accusations of innocent people, and I object to that.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .350:
    
    > 	Eric, you have a truly perverted notion of what it means to fight
    >	against stereotypes.
    
    Oh, how wonderful of you to define what is and is not acceptable to
    spread as a stereotype.  Gosh, I really bet all the people whose
    beliefs you are falsely representing really appreciate you.
    
    
    				-- edp

    	RE: .352  edp
    
    	>> Pam, edp is trying to insinuate that we deny that there is *ANY*
    	>> unfairness in our society due to inertia (laziness,) etc., which is
    	>> patently false!  

    	> That is false.  Do not make false statements about me. 
    
    	If you do understand that some/many of us are already aware that some
    	unfairness in our society is due to inertia (laziness,) etc., then
    	your secret has been well kept throughout this discussion.  
    
    	It's good to know that our messages about this have gotten through
    	to you (at least a little.)
    
    	>> How many times do some of us have to say explicitly that we don't 
    	>> believe that people consciously buy into hatred as individuals
    	>>   . . .
    
    	> "We"?  Who nominated you speaker for all people who do not agree with
    	> me?  You're just wonderful aren't you; you tell people what I'm 
    	> saying, and you tell people what everybody else is saying.
    
    	I don't need permission to speak for ******* SOME OF US *********
    	- and ************ SOME OF US ************* is not "EVERYBODY ELSE"
    	by any stretch of the imagination.
    
    	> For your information, some of the notes in this topic HAVE made
    	> baseless accusations of innocent people, and I object to that.
    
    	Same goes for me.  I object to your baseless accusations of sexism
    	here, and I ask you HERE and NOW to cease and desist.

    In .164, Ciccolini writes:
     
    >> And attributing the second class status of women, which admittedly
    >> exists, to misogyny, is incorrect.  
    >
    > Why?  What else could you attribute it to?
    
    Here is a person who indicated there was nothing but misogyny (hatred,
    according to the author, I believe) to attribute discrimination to. 
    According to Suzanne Conlon's words, I would think such a statement
    does not exist.  Therefore, if you see the above statement in note
    .164, you are experiencing a bug in Notes, and should report the
    problem in the VAXNOTES conference.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .354:
    
    >  	I don't need permission to speak for ******* SOME OF US *********
    >	- and ************ SOME OF US ************* is not "EVERYBODY ELSE"
    >	by any stretch of the imagination.

    Well if you are only speaking for SOME people, then don't object when I
    rebut the words of OTHER people.  When I object to statements in which
    innocent people have been accused, don't go into a grandiose act about
    how YOU never said any such thing.
    
    > I object to your baseless accusations of sexism here, and I ask you
    > HERE and NOW to cease and desist.
    
    Sexism in this conference should be pointed out, and I will fully
    support each and every indication of sexism that I make.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    	RE: .353  edp
    
    	>> Eric, you have a truly perverted notion of what it means to fight
    	>> against stereotypes.
    
    	> Oh, how wonderful of you to define what is and is not acceptable to
    	> spread as a stereotype.  Gosh, I really bet all the people whose
    	> beliefs you are falsely representing really appreciate you.
    
    	Gosh, Eric - it's a good thing you're here to protect people all over
    	the world from my opinion that it isn't sexist or racist to request
    	that sexist/racist/ethnic jokes *NOT* be told.
    
    	I'm sure the world appreciates protection from the untold planet-wide
    	damage that my opinions about this could do.  
    

    Re .357:
    
    > 	Gosh, Eric - it's a good thing you're here to protect people all over
    > 	the world from my opinion that it isn't sexist or racist to request
    >	that sexist/racist/ethnic jokes *NOT* be told.
    
    First, the issue isn't that sexist jokes should not be told.  The issue
    is that "Men don't like jokes about penis size" is a stereotype. 
    Second, since I am a member of the group about which the stereotype is
    being spread, I am representing myself.  Try it sometime.
    
    
    				-- edp

    	RE: .356  edp
    
    	>Well if you are only speaking for SOME people, then don't object when I
    	>rebut the words of OTHER people.  When I object to statements in which
    	>innocent people have been accused, don't go into a grandiose act about
    	>how YOU never said any such thing.
    
    	Eric, I was responding to a note that was addressed to me personally
    	when I made the statements about my own notes:
    
    		.331>  re: .327 Suzanne
    		.331>  and re: others disagreeing with edp
    
    	My note .347 (where I discussed what I did and did not say) was in
    	direct response to Pam's note .331 (which was addressed to me by name.)
    
    	> Sexism in this conference should be pointed out, and I will fully
    	> support each and every indication of sexism that I make.
    
    	Thank you for the new brand of McCarthyism.
    
    	Just what we've always wanted here - a witch hunt.  I'm so thrilled.

    	RE: .358  edp
    
    	> First, the issue isn't that sexist jokes should not be told.  The 
    	> issue is that "Men don't like jokes about penis size" is a 
    	> stereotype. Second, since I am a member of the group about which 
    	> the stereotype is being spread, I am representing myself.  Try it 
    	> sometime.
    
    	Gosh, did someone forget to use the required word "SOME" in front
    	of a statement about men (or women, for that matter)?  Notify the
    	posse and meet me round back with the horses.  We'll catch that
    	varmint, or die trying.
    
    	Double gosh, though, since I *do* make a habit of using the required
    	"SOME" word around 99.9% of the time (and it *still* isn't good enough 
    	for you,) then maybe women just shouldn't be allowed to discuss people
    	in general or human behavior at all. 
    
    	Shucks.  And I was having so much fun.   :-(

    Re .359:
    
    > 	Eric, I was responding to a note that was addressed to me personally
    > 	when I made the statements about my own notes:
    
    You said "edp is trying to insinuate that we deny that there is *ANY*	
    unfairness in our society due to inertia (laziness,) etc.".  Now I know
    I am a little slow, because you tell me so, but that doesn't look
    entirely like a statement about your own notes.  I looks kinda like a
    statement about me.
    
    > Just what we've always wanted here - a witch hunt.  I'm so thrilled.
        
    Oh, I see, saying a statement is sexist is a "witch hunt".  Are you
    saying it is wrong to point out sexism when it is seen?  Do you never
    tell anybody when they do something sexist?  If I do not point out
    statements in this conference that are sexist against men, will you
    refrain from pointing out statements that are sexist against women?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .360:
    
    > 	Gosh, did someone forget to use the required word "SOME" in front
    >	of a statement about men (or women, for that matter)?
    
    Is it okay for you to leave it out?  If it is okay for you to leave it
    out in your statements, is it okay for me to leave it out in my
    statements?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Every time I get ready to automatically NEXT UNSEEN this string,
    GEMVAX::CICCOLINI writes something really terrific and so I have to
    keep stepping through reply by reply. 
    
    Ray

    RE: .361  edp
    
    >>>Well if you are only speaking for SOME people, then don't object when I
    >>>rebut the words of OTHER people.  When I object to statements in which
    >>>innocent people have been accused, don't go into a grandiose act about
    >>>how YOU never said any such thing.
    
    >> Eric, I was responding to a note that was addressed to me personally
    >> when I made the statements about my own notes:
    
    >You said "edp is trying to insinuate that we deny that there is *ANY*	
    >unfairness in our society due to inertia (laziness,) etc.".  Now I know
    >I am a little slow, because you tell me so, but that doesn't look
    >entirely like a statement about your own notes.  I looks kinda like a
    >statement about me.
    
    Eric, you were bitching at me about having the audacity to write about
    my OWN NOTES (which is why I explained the reference to MY notes to Pam.)
    Now you're bitching that I didn't *stick* to writing about my own notes.
    
    Make up your mind!!  

    RE: .361 edp
    
    >> Just what we've always wanted here - a witch hunt.  I'm so thrilled.
        
    > Oh, I see, saying a statement is sexist is a "witch hunt".  Are you
    > saying it is wrong to point out sexism when it is seen?  Do you never
    > tell anybody when they do something sexist?  
    
    As a matter of fact, I don't tell people that they personally are being
    sexist (or that their notes are sexist) very often.  As pointed out
    several times earlier in this note, it is exceptionally RARE to find
    women willing to make such accusations in response to notes written by
    identifiable individuals at Digital.  
    
    As we both know, of course, it is only too easy to find noters willing to 
    hurl such accusations at women in notes.  You demonstrate that yourself.
    
    > If I do not point out statements in this conference that are sexist 
    > against men, will you refrain from pointing out statements that are 
    > sexist against women?
    
    YES!!!!  Absolutely!  Let's consider it a deal and shake on it!  (I do
    it as rarely as most other women already, so cutting it out completely won't
    be a problem for me in the least.)
    
    Finally - some progress!  ;^)

    	RE: .362  edp
    
    	>> Gosh, did someone forget to use the required word "SOME" in front
    	>> of a statement about men (or women, for that matter)?
    
    	> Is it okay for you to leave it out?  
    
    	As mentioned in my note, I *don't* leave it out very often - for the
    	past 4 years, I've made it a consistent practice to include the word
    	"some" (often written as *some* or *SOME* so that people won't miss
    	it) at least 99.9% of the time.
    
    	As many notes as I write, and as intolerant as *SOME* people are on
    	the net when they read women's notes, I can't afford to leave the
    	word "some" out (or I'd spend the rest of my life explaining that I
    	don't mean "every last man on our entire planet" when I say "men.")
    
    	It's pathetic to have to keep that in mind, but I have plans for the
    	rest of my life, so I don't have room for several decades worth of
    	disclaimers for every note I write.
    
    	As it is, I catch hell when I say *SOME* men or women, so it doesn't
     	do me that much good.
    
    	> If it is okay for you to leave it out in your statements, is it 
    	> okay for me to leave it out in my statements?
    
    	Well, it's not ok for me to leave it out, so I'd like to see you make
    	a point of having to write that dadgummed word every time *YOU* make
    	even the most CASUAL statement about one sex or the other. 
    
    	It would serve you right to be subject to the same stinking, petty
    	conventions required of women in notes.  (I would love to see it!)

>        <<< Note 996.363 by STAR::RDAVIS "The Man Without Quantities" >>>
>                             -< A mild complaint >-
>
>    Every time I get ready to automatically NEXT UNSEEN this string,
>    GEMVAX::CICCOLINI writes something really terrific and so I have to
>    keep stepping through reply by reply. 
    
    Ray,
    
    No disrespect to you or the noter you mention intended, but if there
    has been anything really terrific in this note, it's been so swamped by
    exchanges between people who seem to have nothing in common except a
    need to have the last word that I can't remember it.
    
    	Andrew.

        has been this --

        What Justine saw as "ironic" about making a hefty trash
	bag joke in one conference and starting a topic about
	misogyny in =wn=...

        996.312 (Justine Sullivan)

        > but when I found out that it was his reply, I found it quite
        > ironic that here I was using a note of his from Soapbox to 
	> reply to his basenote in Womannotes.

        ... I saw as quite humorous :-].


        ... Then it was just [yawn]. ...


        And then with

        996.320  (D! Carroll)

        > Thought for the day:

        >    Don't try to teach a pig to sing.
        >    It wastes your time and annoys the pig.


        it became humorous again :-] !!!

                                                nancy b.

�         <<< Note 996.368 by SYSENG::BITTLE "the promise of spring" >>>
�                         -< my range of reactions... >-
    
    Yeah, the replies you mentioned were cool too.  And there are probably
    some others I forgot... but mostly it's not fair that I still have
    insomnia after getting through the whole string.
    
    Ray

First let me say that I never enter this file to find escapist reading!!
I fail to see how anyone could walk away without thinking about something
read here.  This particular note has contained some of the most eloquent
pieces of informal writing I've ever read!

Unfortunately, it also contains some of the most embarassing and immature
pieces of informal writing I've read, but this *is* "just" a notesfile.  
People get caught up in the emotions of the topic and don't write (or type) 
as well as they might normally.  ;-)

I'm with Ray - this note has been a cause for insomnia!!  This has been 
incredible.  My thanks to the few people who bothered to look things up
in unabridged dictionaries.

I think that the biggest problem here is massive confusion between denotation
(the dictionary definition) and connotation (the implied meanings and images
that words conjure).  Perhaps most here could use another course in
literary analysis to refresh their memories (or maybe they never learned ;-).

Webster's Third New International Dictionary - unabridged - 1986, Volume II
(Merriam-Webster Inc.) defines

misogynic or misogynous - adj. - having or showing a hatred and distrust
of women (synonym: see CYNICAL)

misogynist - n. - one who hates women  (misogynistic is listed as the 
adjective form, which usually tranlates to something like, "of or pertaining
to the hatred of women" - no definition was given)

misogyny - n - a hatred of women

Mike Z is very caught up with the notion that this is too strong a term,
and doesn't want people to throw it around freely.  Doc would prefer people
to stick to strict denotations, and forget connotation altogether. :-)

Did *any* of you think to look hatred up?  No?  Why not?  Because everyone
"knows" what hatred means.  But you may not realize that you're talking about
connotation.  The denotation of hatred is:  prejudiced hostility or animosity.
The denotation of hate is: 1. to feel extreme emnity toward 2. to have a
strong aversion to.  Now the connotations for hatred certainly conjure up
a lot more than those few words convey.

Somewhere along the line, somebody (edp? =maggie?) introduced the word
malice, which has a much stronger denotation than hatred:  desire to see
another suffer that may be fixed or unreasonable or no more than a passing
mischievous impulse.  I personally think that this *desire* to see someone
suffer - impulsive or not - is much worse than to have a strong aversion
to someone or something!

Perhaps we should use misogynic or misogynous when not referring to an
individual?  Would that make things clearer for anybody?  Justine (and
a couple of others, if I remember correctly) already use these words, and
certainly seem to undertand the denotations and connotations.  Responsible
usage was all that Mike requested, after all.

More importantly, I'd like to ask if any of you are familiar with the word
misology?  (It's not far from misogyny in the dictionary.)  Several of you 
may well be misologists.

misology - n - a dislike, distrust, or hatred of argument, reasoning, or 
enlightenment

I've seen an awful lot of misology in this note on misogyny and misandry.
And the people who seem to suffer from it the most keep accusing others of 
suffering from it!!

There are women who seem to refuse to see the points the men are making, and
men who seem to refuse to see the points the women are making.  Can't you 
all just accept that there is no one cause for sexist behavior?

I personally believe that the *original root* is misogyny.  I further believe
that our society perpetuates a *misogynous attitude*, due in large part to 
the very ignorance edp explains.  This is exactly what the majority of women
in this note have been saying.  I can't prove it, any more than Mike Z
(or anyone else in here) can prove his points beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I'd like to see the ridiculous name-calling and rat-holing end here.  Is 
there even something worthwhile to discuss?  Again, Mike Z's note simply
requested responsible usage (read the note title!).  Let's all just agree 
that we will consider denotation and connotation before using the words 
and we have nothing more to discuss here.  (But then this wouldn't be so 
much fun would it? ;-)

On a personal note, I would like to offer some praise to individuals who
I found particularly eloquent (FWIW):  Justine and Ann B (pretty much
everything you two wrote), Joana Bize (particularly .233), Doc (for 
recognizing that nothing is cut-and-dried, and especially for .236!), Dawn 
(.240 was lovely!), and edp (for most of your arguments - I may not agree, 
but you present a reasonable and noteworthy argument, especially in your 
earlier replies).

And I can't help but add that I personally think that captain must have
been an imbecile to continually ignore repeated visual evidence that his
initial perception was *wrong*.  That's my opinion.  I don't have a high
tolerance for stupidity - which *I* define as someone who has a brain
and refuses to use it!

One more thing, Mike.  You said that if someone says you said something 
misogynistic, that makes you a misogynist, and you resent that.  I disagree
with your interpretation.

There are elements of my job about which I am quite cynical.  When we move
into production, I *know* that things are going to go wrong - I'm going
to find out someone forgot to tell me something important, or I'm going
to realize that I missed or forgot some little thing that isn't so little
any more, or some other Murphy's Law type thing will happen.  According
to your interpretation, because I have become cynical about an aspect
of my job, I am now a cynic.  However, my entire family, every friend I
have, and most of my colleagues would *not* use the word "cynic" to describe
me!  I can have cynical attitudes in some areas without being a cynic, just
as you can (unwittingly, perhaps; perhaps due to the ignorance edp described)
display misogynous attitudes without being a misogynist!

Well, that's it for now.


Susan
    
    PS:  I can't remember who brought up the "good girl" problem (sorry),
    and this might not work for you since the manager "says" this in
    writing, but I handled this by whistling, making "kissing" noises, and
    snapping my fingers, followed by, "Here, girl!  Here, girl!  That's a
    good girl!!"  My boss threw an eraser at me, but he *never* called a
    woman a "good girl" in front of *me* again!