Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    hmm,
    
    the "you women" says a lot to me.  

    
    Wonder how many men protested and walked out when all those quotes from
    v2, Quotable Sexists were uttered...  :-)
    
    Dorian (one of those "you women")

    re .21, Isn't Susan Deitz a woman, too?  Why is she saying "you women"
    when she's a woman, too?
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, that's the point.  Some women still much separate themselves
    from "you women."
    

    Don't be silly.  If she were addressing a crowd of women, it should
    have been "we women".
    
    							Ann B.

    Not if she were addressing the audiance and not herself.
    
    jim
    

    re .28, Ann, exactly.
    
    It's *you* *men* and we women....  
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, I'll go against the flow somewhat and say I don't think it
    matters that much that she said "you women". I mean, it is weird, but I
    don't know why there's so much attention paid to it.
    
    I agree with the general idea that we should not allow bashing of
    either sex to go unchallenged.  I disagree with Susan Dietz that the
    best method is to "protest loudly and walk out."  Protesting loudly is
    an ineffective way for women (or anyone, in my opinion) to express
    their displeasure in a credible way; walking out is, again, not
    effective as a frequently used technique.
    
    Also, what is "a session that turns to demeaning men"??! Are they all
    that common?  Is there a difference between "naming things that men do
    that make women unhappy" and "demeaning men"?  Robert, can you provide
    a little context for this quote?  
    
    (Maybe any further replies should be in a new topic instead of here...)
    
    Pam

    re .33, frankly, I'm not very interested in what makes men feel
    demeaned.  I have felt demeaned by men many times in my life and I
    haven't had the option of a fist-fight either.  I'm interested in what
    makes women feel demeaned (and many other feelings women have).  That's
    why I read and write in womannotes much more often than in mennotes.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    i'm really glad this became a new topic so i didn't have to enter a
    'hot-button'. i think the quote is garbage and shows, in a nutshell,
    how ingrained and pernicious sexism is.
    
    

    There is a situation that people (especially men, but lotsa women
    too) should be watching out for, but generally don't.
    
    In the typical case, men are used to women speaking to them and
    about them in flattering, and even larger-than-life terms.  They
    (some) are *so* used to it that terms which are realistic rather
    than flattering, and life-size rather than larger-than-life, are
    perceived by them as being demeaning and insulting.
    
    So, before leaping to the conclusion that some man has been demeaned,
    consider the possibility that he merely hasn't been flattered
    "enough".
    
    						Ann B.

    Herb,
    
    Given what I know of our current culture, my take on the Dietz comment
    is that she is saying, "Girls, really!  You'll never get a good
    husband if you don't puff men up, you know.  And you also mustn't
    condone women who don't flatter men, because it reflects on you.
    Men still won't think you're attractive even if *you* are nice to
    them if you let other women get away with anything except the
    right, hero-worshipping attitude and behavior."
    
    Since my comments are addressing the base note, and were intended
    to explain it in the context of the-expected=the-norm=the-right=
    the-fair, I cannot see that my reply ought to be considered insensitive
    or hostile.  It is sensitive to the actuality of our culture, and
    assumes that the readership is sufficiently intelligent and mature
    to separate average attitudes from individual attitudes, and thus is
    not intended to be hostile to this readership.
    
    If, however, you feel rage and resentment against me for even
    mentioning the idea that some men not only like but *expect*
    flattery, then I suggest that you look inside yourself to find
    out *why* it bothers you before replying to me again.  (Of course,
    should you find the reason, there is no need for you to mention
    what it is; it just would be nice if it shaped your future responses.)
    
    							Ann B.

    
    
    What an interesting quote.  
    
    I don't know if man bashing does occur more or less among women or
    even what would constitute man bashing however like most of you out 
    there I know when I am being insulted and I know that I don't like it.
    
    This quote is basically in line with others such as "I may not 
    agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your
    right to say it."  Such quotes illustrates a basic truth of human
    interaction and that is that you have no rights in this world,
    you only have the privilege of being reponsibile for the rights
    of others.
    
    For example some women may feel that they have a right to not
    be demeaned by men, and some men beleive that they have a
    right not to be demeaned by women.  Neither group has these
    so called rights and each has the responsibility to stand
    up for thier convictions and defend those who would be 
    demeaned.
    
    If you are not willing to stand up for the principle that men
    should not be demeaned by women then you cannot expect men
    to stand up for the principle that women should not be demeaned
    by men.
    
    I repeat "YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.  YOU JUST HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES."
    
    If you are afraid to stand up for your convictions, join the
    crowd.  This is what courage is all about, this is what you
    are asking the men in your life for.
    
    
    
    

    re .18 & .20, I love it when Ann writes like that, too.
    
    Lorna
    

    Lots of meaning in Dietz's article; IMHO.  Who is she to tell me when
    to walk out of a session anyway?  The 'you women' rings ominously
    of all those admonitions, 'well, you made your bed, now sleep in it',
    or maybe, 'oh you women are never happy.'  bleah.  The article stinks
    IMHO of ocurse.
    maia
    

    Mark,
    
    Show me where and how I demeaned Herb.
    
    Be very elementary and specific; you know how much less intelligent
    and sensitive we women are than you men.
    
    							Ann B.

    I felt insulted and demeaned by being refered to as "you women". Oh and
    alienated too! If a woman is going to address other women as *you*
    women, I'll probably not hear what she says after that

    I think I once entered a quote to the effect that the hardest
    part of fighting a war is maintaining your alliances. That's
    what I see .0 as saying. Maybe it's just the way it's phrased?

    
    the quote, that is the words, is garbage.
    the person who spoke the words has spoken garbage. she herself may or
    may not be garbage. i have an opinion, but i have not, and will not
    state it.
    the person who entered the words has entered garbage. he himself may
    or may not be garbage. i have an opinion, but i have not, and will
    not state it.
    the person who defended the words has defended garbage. he himself
    may or may not be garbage. i have an opinion, but i have not, and
    will not state it.
     

    Dana,
    
    Yes.  But, ah! what is the alliance to be maintained?
    
    						Ann B.

    Dana,
    
    The way you (generic you) phrase your thoughts sometimes shows your
    attitude.
    
    (Not to Dana) Why is not hurting the sensitive man more important than
    helping thousands of women who are hurt everyday?

    Those who believe in equal rights (male and female, black and white,
    etc.) vs. those who don't.

    
    Well you know the "sessions that demeaned" women started a few thousand
    years ago in rather high places, and more or less set the tone for our
    society ever since....so maybe a few women are looking at all that, and 
    thinking it's not too pleasant, and responding in kind.

    re .34, and nobody ever said sensitive men should be hurt or demeaned,
    so what was the purpose in entering the quote in the first place?
    
    Lorna
    

    isn't this all getting kinda personal?
    
    daniel

    .34
    
    Mark
    
    a lot of women do see it that way tho..
    
    it is kind of like, well women are demeaned everyday all the time and
    no one cares or notices, and when we do care or notice we are mocked
    laughed at, pooh poohed, belittled, teased, ignored, etc etc ad
    nausium.
    
    But if for a minute we laugh at or say, yeah, them too, to something
    demeaning to men, then we are 'men haters', 'uninterested in equality'
    'hypocrits' etc etc etc..
    
    It is more like, 'hey, maybe now we can talk, you know what it feels
    like', or 'why *should* I make nice for you, this happens to me
    every day all the time, and you are complaining when it happens
    once or rarely?'
    
    These thoughts are presented in an effort to enable communications,
    i.e. to explain what I see in notes like Anne's.
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    *grin* is that your "thug" voice Dorian?
    
    hee

    What the heck it's Friday. I think both sides have a point. I have been
    in a group discussing just how awful men (in the generic) can be. I've
    also experienced the other side where a man who was hearing reality
    felt he was being demeaned.

    I do think men expect to be flattered and don't like it when they are
    not. I think even sensitive men fall into this at times. I suspect some
    women do this too. (IMHO the ones who judge their worth by their
    physical attractiveness) My obervation is that the sexes go about
    searching for this flattery in different ways. And both are quite put
    out when it doesn't happen.

    Woman: I'm so fat, or unattrative etc (usually said by one who isn't)

    expected response: Oh no, you're beautiful, really. (this usually lasts
    for several exchanges).

    Man: I'm so strong, or smart, or talented etc.

    expected repsonse: yes, you are and I think you are wonderful. (man
    basks in expected compliments)

    
	can you imagine the result of not responding correctly to either?
    ________________________________________________________________________

    I am guilty of occasional man bashing, sometimes the advantages they
    have in our world make me crazy. It's hard not to be bitter sometimes.
    Most of the women I've know who have gotten vicious about the male of
    the species were really mad at a particular man and just generalized
    his traits to the sex temporarily. I think the men that do this to
    women think the whole sex is somehow deficient or vicious and then
    exempt specific women for a time. At least until that woman displeases
    them. liesl
    

    Bonnie,
    
    Not quite.  What I am calling into question is the categorization of
    "demeaning to men".  (Yes,  there are statements in this world that
    are indeed "demeaning to men".  I don't approve of them.)  I hold that
    there are too many statements, attitudes, et cetera which are *perceived*
    as "demeaning to men" simply because they are not sufficiently respectful,
    complimentary, and upbeat to men.
    
    Let me make a change in Susan Deitz's quote to reflect my concern:
    
    "The next time you women are present at a session that doesn't speak
    respectfully of men, protest loudly and walk out."
    
    Now it sounds like the speaker is counseling special treatment for
    men, doesn't it?  Treatment that women neither get nor expect to get.
    
    Suppose that is what Susan Deitz is doing?  It seems to match up with
    her distancing use of "you women", just as if she were putting herself
    in the camp of women-respectful-of-men, and putting her audience
    into -- some other camp.  Her phrase, "the sensitive man they want
    so badly" seems to imply it is the camp of women-who-don't-respect-men-
    and-who-deserve-not-to-catch-a-good-husband.
    
    Gotta go.
    
    							Ann B.

    Ann,
    
    Maybe I'm misinterpreting your meaning, but it seems to me
    that when Susan refers to women wanting the sensitive man,
    you interpret it as wanting a sensitive husband, mate,
    companion, SO, whatever, but on a more personal one on one
    basis.  Maybe that's what she is saying, but I took it to
    mean if women want men (as a society) to be more sensitive,
    it won't be accomplished by women turning around and giving
    men the same treatment that they (women) find abhorrent.
    
    I also disagree with statements that all/most/or some men 
    feel that a lack of complimentary comments constitues men
    bashing.  I've heard plenty of men bashing and I wouldn't
    say that the context rendered in was a lack of nice things
    to say, they've been downright rude, insensitive and
    emasculating.  I'm not saying that *some* men don't overreact,
    I'm just saying that male bashing does exist and I don't 
    think it's right, even if *some* women feel that it's "their (men's)
    turn".
    
    I am a woman and I am intelligent.  I found the first response to
    Herb to be a bit on the insensitive side.
    
    Herb-I liked and agree with your interpretation of quote.  Just my
    opinion, tho.
    
    Christine  

    THANK YOU .40 & .42
    
                          I was beginning to wonder if anyone was going to
    wake up and make any sense.  I am sorry people, but this note really
    takes the cake for comical repartee of a serious subject.  Look at
    it......almost 30% of it was a question of semantics.  I am sure that
    *most* of you understood the authors intent, but did you address it?
    Yeah, but it took a while! :^)  
    
                         I am reading something that does concern me a
    great deal, *some* in this note seem to believe that Men cannot be
    demeaned.  Common sense dictates that if a Woman can be demeaned then 
    why is it so hard to believe that a man also can?  People, *PLEASE*,
    don't take the "equal" out of the 'equal rights admendment'!  If all
    people are to be equal, why can't "we" all have the same rights and 
    consideration of our feelings?  I support equal rights for everyone,
    but if your intent is to let a "pendulum swing" then you've lost me and
    99% of all the other men supporters you have.  
    
    
    IMHO.....of course!
    Dave

    re: .43
    Well, it didn't take that long -- I addressed the author's intent in
    .9, for example...
    
    ********************************************************************
    
    I think it might be good to get some context for this quote.  The level
    of what constitutes "demeaning men" is different depending on who's
    speaking at what occasion .. was it a toast for Phyllis Schlafly or for
    Gloria Steinem, for instance?
    
    I think the comments reacting against the quote relate well to a
    discussion we had in V2 around the time of the Montreal massacre.
    
    Someone had as a personal name ""Men don't want to know"-D. Nyhan". 
    Another person took great exception to this name, saying it was an
    insult to men.  When pressed for an insult to women equal in insult to
    this quote, it was not enough to say "Women don't want to know".  It
    was necessary to go way beyond and say something like "Women are
    b*tches" to get the same emotional impact.
    
    In other words, something that is *strongly* insulting to men can be a
    mild slap on the wrist to women.  Therefore, it is easier in our
    culture for women to insult men as a class (because it is done so
    rarely it is very powerful) than for men to insult women as a class
    (because it is done so frequently by both sexes nobody cares very much).
    
    I think this is true.
    
    I also think the basic message of Susan Dietz's quote (don't drive away
    your allies) is true.
    
    That's why I personally would like some context so I know whether she
    is taking this basic inequality in our society (the power and number of
    insults directed to men or to women as groups) into account.  If she is
    not -- and if she is not *also* directing "sensitive men" to remember to
    wear the shoe only if it fits -- then she has lost some credibility
    with me.
    
    Pam
    
    P.S.  On the subject of "if the shoe fits, wear it."
    
    My mom used to yell at all five of us kids at once (saved time).
    Sometimes only 3-4 of us were to blame (never me, of course).
    
    I would complain and say "but not me!!"  She would turn around and say,
    "well then, I'm not talking to you, am I?  If the shoe fits, wear it;
    if it doesn't, don't wear it!"
    
    I was always angry when she said it.  It seemed to me that if she was
    bawling us out, it was *her* responsibility to sort out who she was
    talking to and who was to blame, and I shouldn't get any sort of
    fallout because, after all, *I* was innocent.  (This is when I thought
    life was fair.)  Why should I suffer for the problems caused by other
    kids who were naughty, just because the other kids and I were related?
    
    It is only now that I am able to see more clearly why it bothered me. 
    It meant that she wouldn't tell me whether I was behaving badly.  It
    meant that *I had to look at myself and decide myself whether I was
    doing the right thing or not*.  I had to take responsibility for
    KNOWING WITHOUT DOUBT that I was doing the right thing.
    
    Sometimes I think of this when I see the different reactions of:
    
      o men who say they are for women's rights and back it up by what they
        do and how they think and how they act
      o men who say they are for women's rights and don't always back that
        up with their thoughts and actions and words
    
    The former don't get annoyed as easily by a woman's negative comments
    about men as a class, because they know the shoe doesn't fit -- or they
    agree the shoe is ugly anyway and they don't want to put it on in the
    first place.  
    
    The latter get annoyed easily, because -- in my personal opinion -- in
    the back of their mind they aren't sure if the shoe fits or not.  It
    makes them angry that the person yelling at them isn't separating men
    out into the good, the bad, and the ugly, so it's all nice and they
    don't have to question themselves.  It doesn't always occur to them
    that -- like my mom, who was frazzled with dealing with 5 kids
    simultaneously -- a woman might not have the time or energy to figure
    out exactly which kid is acting up.  She might be saying:  "THIS IS A
    PROBLEM.  IT IS BOTHERING ME.  YOU figure out if you're a part of the
    problem or not.  YOU take responsibility for looking inside yourself to
    see if you're doing the right thing."
    
    I get tired of hearing that EVERYTHING to do with the feminist movement
    is the woman's responsibility.

    In my experience, a sensitive, 90's kind of guy (like DougO f'r'instance)
    would be able to empathize with a woman's frustration if she said some-
    thing like, "Men just don't care."
    
    I know if I heard a man say,"You just can't understand women. Just when
    you think you've got them pegged, they change the rules", I would
    understand that. 
    
    It'd be a rather immature person who throws all sensitivity and object-
    ivity out the window simply because he can't distinguish between a per-
    sonal and a general comment. Aren't we beyond that?
    
    Kate 
    
    
    
    
    

    Who is Susan Deitz?  Susan Dietz?  And do we yet have context?
    
    aq
    

  It has long been observed that the less a person deserves respect, the 
  more likely s/he is to demand it.  This has certainly been my experience,
  from grammar school right to the present.

  The rest of this string is a rehash of the some_men/all_men and 
  if_the_shoe_fits issues that have popped up more than once in each
  version of =wn=.

  Yes, keeping one's allies is important but if an ally gets driven away
  because people are blunt about expressing their feelings, well, I don't
  think losing that particular ally is any great loss.

  I didn't change my opinion about the validity of civil rights when the
  talk turned to "blue-eyed devils."  Such talk, like the statement that
  men� get annoyed when not sufficiently buttered-up, is not pleasant to
  hear.  What one learns from such talk is the importance and depth of
  feeling in which the speaker holds the issue.  You can take the point
  or you can miss the point; it is up to you.

  JP

  �Common usage, meaning "some men" --  ITSFWT (if the shoe fits, wear it).

    
    One of my first reactions to the quote:
    
    If a guy is going to be *that* sensitive, and as Ms. Deitz seems to
    think I want him to be (how would *she* know, anyway?), I don't think
    I want him.  He bruises too easily and I'd be looking for someone
    who'll last for the long haul.
    
    

    
    I still find myself having a problem with the "You women" part of the
    quotation.  I admire women who are working to build alliances with 
    sensitive men, but it struck me that the speaker was distancing herself
    from the women in the room.  That would make it hard for me to hear
    whatever message she were going to deliver.  Because of that distance
    that I felt from the speaker, I found myself questioning her motives
    and her definition of "demeaning" just as some of the women and men
    here have done.  So at the very least, I'd say that the quotation was
    ineffective communication since I (and a number of other readers)
    have been more affected by the form than by the content.
    
    
    Justine                                    

	When any human being characterizes a whole sub-class of humanity 
(men,women,blacks,Jews ect) and in so doing *bashes* them: I consider it 
more a reflection of that *bashers* particular bigotry than anything else.
To what extent an individual indulges this behavior is a mark of his or her 
character. IMHO, it is characteristic of most of the 'isms, with maybe the 
exception of humanism, that a certain degree of bigotry is an inescapable 
by-product.

	Most of these human belief systems really need a one dimensional
stereotypical target to focus their anger on. for feminism there
may be the tendency to say...'all men'..within this context. One of the
reasons I challenge my daughters with questions like: Doesn't Humanism
address the same problems without the surrounding bigotry?

	Now not all who choose the label of 'Feminist' indulge in this
sort of behavior....but I've seen enough who do to consider it a natural
proclivity of the movement itself.Feminism does however address some real
human needs and as a movement has done much to aleviate a great deal of
human suffering (and will continue to do so).Even so, where it shoots itself
in the foot so to speak lies within the realm of its own bigotry.

	I admire the woman in 0's courage. My experience however is that you
can't get people, particularly angry people, to see their own bigotry and
attempts such as her's usually only entrenches them futher in their mind set.

	A possible case in point.....

	Some mention has been made of the 'male need' for flattery. This
doesn't surprise me as a feministic construct. I believe a humanist might
see the need for flattery as a human problem; owned by both men and women.
I believe it then escapes a certain narrowness of viewpoint...having no need 
to bash some stereotype.

	Is it not true that both men and women can develop an undue need for 
flattery?

	I may draw some response here, but please don't point out the
historical failures of the humanist movements: my bigotry is such that
I rather not face that.

MAC

    Mac, et alia,
    
    The reason that I warned about the *possibility* that Deitz might
    have accepted the idea that ~men must be flattered~ as being the
    natural, ground state from which she operated, is that (by one of
    life's little coincidences) I had just finished reading _Reflecting_
    _Men_ by Sally Cline and Dale Spender. (I'll bet you thought sentences
    like that went out with the nineteen century, didn't you?)
    
    Just to poke a hole in Mac's argument that women like/get flattery
    just like men, I'd like to mention that the two authors point out
    that while we're all familiar with the term "male ego", we are not
    at all used to the term "female ego".  It seems almost an oxymoron.
    Women aren't flattered, praised, built up, and encouraged by men --
    at least not thoroughly and methodically, as men are by women.
    
    Hypothesis:  If women flattering men is seen as the ground state,
    then even an occasional departure from this is detectable and
    is seen as the *only* behavior, because flattering men is no more
    perceived as "behavior" than breathing is.  Hence the belief that
    feminists are endlessly demeaning men.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  If people aren't really lucky, I'll use some examples from
    this string to (try to) make my point.

reply to .51

	Ann...

	My interacting with women over some 39 plus years has taught me
	that women, as men, have ego's and attendant ego-driven needs.

	A paradigm that constructs that only men have ego driven needs for 
	flattery and women no such needs has to be based on a very myopic
	vision of reality.

	All human beings need feedback on their value to those around them.
	
	My mother, girlfriends, wife, daughters and female professional peers
	all require some form of occasional stroke.For some it took the
	form of personal beauty and others intellectual acuity or some mixture
	thereof.

	I and most smart men consistently build up the women in their lives.
	It is wise to do it genuinely and often. We all need it.

	Certain core human needs and drives transcend sexual lines...I would
	agree that they may take different forms pertaining to sex and individual
	differences but	they exist for both genders nonetheless.


MAC		

    
    This topic has provoked a lot of thought from me.  My sister (who is a
    strong feminist) and I have had quite a few arguments on similar
    topics.  I'm all for women's equality, but it seems to me that *some*
    women have a bit of a chip on their shoulder and actively *look* for
    a derogatory meaning in every other sentence.
    
    There are alot of things said that are demeaning to men as well, but
    *some* women don't see those.  They look for the blatant sexism in 
    Postman Pat. I think you can take it so far.  I don't think that if a 
    man opens a door for me he is suggesting that I, being a mere woman, 
    am not strong enough to do it for myself, but take it as the courteous 
    gesture that it is surely meant to be.
    
    I read a note in Eurowoman where a girl was complaining that the use of
    the term "Hen Party" for a girls night out (used regularly here in
    England) was very derogatory to women, implying that they were a group
    of cackling, flapping, mindless idiots.  Good grief!  It's just a name
    given to a night out with the girls!  
    
    My sister used to make statements like "All men are potential rapists". 
    Taking it literally, I suppose they are, but then *everyone* is a
    *potential* murderer.  But that coloured her view of men in general.  I
    think she is getting over that extreme way of thinking now.
    
    I don't know ... maybe I'm lucky.  There was never any male domination
    in our family, we girls were encouraged to do well at
    school/work/sports etc as much as my brother.  My husband does as much
    housework as me, and I have never heard any of the men in my family
    demeaning women in general.  So perhaps they are "sensitive" men, but
    they do not "bruise too easily" and are just as capable of "staying the 
    whole course" as anyone.
    
    Sam
    

	Genuine praise really greases the interpersonal wheels. This
has long been a recognized dictum and an impressive industry has been
built up around it.

	We , men and women, are constantly involved in influencing people
towards cooperative endeavors. There are three options around how we may
package our influencing behaviors: Surround them with genuine praise for the
receiver, do nothing in this context or invite a hostile response by actually
demeaning the receiver.

	Try the third on male or female as compared to the first option and
judge from the response whether there may be a human need here that operates
as a key to generating cooperative behavior.

	I know this may seem obvious and trite but from some of the notes in
this string I feel the need to highlight it.

	If there's a subtlety here that I'm missing (I often miss those)
please hit me over the head with it.

MAC

    re .54, nobody ever said that women don't *need* praise just as much as
    men do, but that men, in general, are much more used to *receiving*
    praise and flattery from women, than women are from men.  I believe
    that this is true, and that it also accounts for the fact that men
    sometimes feel slighted when, in fact, they are simply not being
    flattered at the moment.
    
    Lorna
    

    	Thanks Lorna for the clarification.
    
    	Within my experience as a husband, father and DP professional;
    	the women and men receive the same amount of needed praise.
    
    	I'm curious as to why our life experiences differ so.
    
    	Are you living in a domain where men are praised muchly and women
        almost not at all?
    
    Mac

    Thank you, Lorna, I was just gearing up for the same response!
    Everyone *needs* stroking and everyone *likes* it but only men get it
    routinely from women who are raised to give it as the default such 
    that when it is absent, it most certainly feels like "man-hating".
    Because if a particular woman didn't hate men, wouldn't she just go 
    along with how she and all women are taught to regard men?
    
    As usual, the reality of women has been lost between the two mythical
    extremes.  She either flatters or she hates.  She's either good girl or 
    a bad girl.  She's either a virgin or a whore, (though marriage - a 
    man's name and claim on her - can help soften these two extremes).
    
    Real women, like most real people, fall somewhere in between these 
    extremes.  But women aren't allowed mediocrity, (which is why their
    reality is hidden away and passed over in favor of fantasy).  They 
    aren't allowed mere humanness.  You won't hear "girls will be girls".  
    They will be either the absolute best physical, spiritual and moral 
    examples possible, or they will have failed miserably and will be 
    regarded as the worst, as in women who don't flatter men, (and there
    are more ways then just outright praise - there's acting dumb to let
    him feel smart), seeming to hate them instead of just being neutral.   
    
    Of course it isn't men holding these extreme ideas, harmful stereotypes 
    and harsh judgements, now is it.  Only feminists are so radical,
    narrow and blinded by self interest.  Uh huh.

    Gee Sandy... Ya found us out....
    
    

Maybe this belongs in "I hate it when..." or "The Rathole".

>    She's either good girl or 
>    a bad girl.  She's either a virgin or a whore, (though marriage - a 
>    man's name and claim on her - can help soften these two extremes).

A male, um, er, friend of mine from college sent me his home address _after_ I
told him I was, as he put it, "safely married". Before that he asked me to
correspond with him at his work address, for reasons he didn't feel like
sharing.

What planet is this person from?
	Mez

	Sandy let me start this with some praise. I find you to be among the
most interesting of noters. Your notes have shown some remarkable insight
and have provoked much thought. I'm not trying to be cute here...I mean it.

	My contention is that those that feel men get more praise or need
more praise get those feelings more from how they map reality than reality
itself. Further I feel they're mapping from some social philosophy that
requires some stereotypical target to focus its anger and frustrations on.
I believe that this is where some potentially positive social movements
shoot themselves in the foot....turning a great number of potential converts
off. I can't be the only person who's turned away from those espousing
rather positive social agendas because of displays of bigotry that the
movements participants themselves are blind too.

	I'm also aware that the truly radical in any movement really don't
care about who they're turning off....some even thrive of the energy or
that rejection.

	In our household we teach our three children to discern the positive
from the bigoted in social movements. We think this essential in their
practical education because we were young adults in the 60's where a great
number of movements pointed to real problems but often by doing so obscured
their own prejudical tendencies. The Black Panthers, SDS, YSA, (U.S.) Muslims
and the like caused much positive social change but would we have wanted to be 
governed by them? Does history teach that the bigoted can achieve power
by pointing at real social injustices and minimizing or rationalizing their
own flaws?

	IMHO, bigotry is a natural human tendency based on that pattern 
recognition, chunking tendency of the human mind. We all do it, all own it, 
all fail to see it when we indulge in it and can rationalize all around that 
recognition quite impressively. I believe its a built in feature of our 
activities and requires a constant vigilance to escape its consequences. 

	The rich question is: can we make the necessary social changes without
it? I honestly don't know....it seems at times to be a catalyst for real
dialogue that might not occur with gentler, more reasonable tones.


mac

    re: .56  Mac
    
    Some things are really subtle.  
    
    It's sometimes hard to tell when you are being flattered -- it might be
    something so minor as having someone in a group always smiling as you
    begin to speak, and nodding agreement as you go, no matter how long you
    take to say what it is you have to say. 
    
    It's sometimes hard to tell when you are being demeaned -- it might be
    something so minor as having someone in a group always look away as you
    begin to speak, and cutting you off when you've gone on too long, and
    not hearing what you said but rather what they decided you were about
    to say.
    
    Maybe you are lucky and you live with lots of people who truly see
    others as other humans, and have managed to step aside from societal
    conditioning to avoid the patterns of thought that are engrained in
    other people, including me.
    
    But, just as a piece of information, there was a study publicized
    recently in NEWSWEEK, I think, where they assessed how women and men
    are respected as leaders.  They had groups of people in to do some
    task.  Group A was given instructions by a woman.  Group B was given
    instructions (word-for-word the same script) by a man.  They used a
    two-way mirror to note down the expressions the people in the group had
    in reaction to the instructions.  In general, most people looked up,
    smiled, and nodded, as the male leader spoke.  Many more people looked
    down or away, stayed deadpan, or frowned when the woman leader spoke. 
    The involuntary findings contradicted the pre-study questionnaires, in
    which the people reported believing men and women had equal abilities
    as leaders.  
    
    So when Lorna and Sandy and others speak of men EXPECTING praise and
    flattery, you might want to think carefully before saying "gee, that's
    not true."  There are forms of praise and flattery you may not be aware
    of getting in our society ... but those who GIVE that praise and
    flattery may be aware of not getting it themselves.  
    
    Pam

    re: .61 Pam
    
    Well put Pam. That study you relate is very interesting and I admit to
    overlooking that subtle level of interaction.
    
    Thanks,
    Mac

    re: .62  Mac
    
    Thanks, Mac.  On a whim, I'll even wend my way back to the quote itself
    in .0...
    
    The objections here are not that "women should be *encouraged* to rant
    and call men the evil monsters, because after all women are perfect in
    every way, and where does Susan Dietz come off telling us how to act???!"
    
    The objections relate to:  what level of "demeaning men" are we talking
    about?
    
    1  Identifying problems women have by things *most* men do?
    2  Targeting all men for problems only a *few* men cause?
    3  Targeting men for problems that are not their fault?
    4  Blaming men for problems women make themselves?	
    
    To me, I see some men saying we are doing 2, 3, or 4 when we feel we
    are doing 1.  Some men say women have lost perspective, that we
    overreact, that we are flailing around saying mean things just because
    we can't cope with real competition in the real world.  Some men say
    feminists are deliberately ruining men's relationships with women, and
    that they would meet us halfway if we would stop insulting them and
    running them down.  Some men say that feminists are the worst enemy to
    the cause of women getting equal respect and equal treatment.
    
    I disagree with most of the above.  
    
    Without strong feminists, I would have graduated from college and been 
    blocked from applying for the job I have, because it would have been in
    the FOR MEN ONLY section of the want ads (this happened to my mother,
    who graduated first in her class from college in 1950).  Without strong
    feminists, my old roommate wouldn't have been in a medical school class
    that was about 50% women.  Men didn't point out these inequities; WOMEN
    did.  It is not kindly, sweet, calm, gently-worded treatises that
    changed the world for me -- it is gadflies and iconoclasts who refused
    to stop pointing things out.
    
    Without an extreme voice saying the previously unthinkable, there is no
    change. Even to me, some feminist voices are not pleasant to hear. 
    Some feminists are indeed harsh in how they say what they say; some, to
    me, do have a knee-jerk response.  Some are indeed "insensitive" to men.
    
    The point being made is that men are used to women being "SUPERSENSITIVE" 
    to men.  Any reduction in that level of supersensitiveness is often
    perceived as bitchiness, rudeness, and, yes, demeaning behavior.   In
    my view, truly sensitive men don't hear the hurful words as much as
    listen to the pain that causes the words to be said.
    
    To me it is *equally* counter-productive to point fingers at strong
    voices, saying "ya know, if you would just tone it down a little, I
    would be willing to listen to you."  (I'm not speaking to you, Mac, but
    generally.)  Saying it's up to women to make sure we aren't hurting
    anyone's feelings.  Putting ALL of the responsibility for social change
    on how women say what they say, not on whether *men have any
    responsibility to HEAR what women say and UNDERSTAND it and why it is
    being said*.
    
    Starting to identify the framework society has put around us is hard to
    do without saying things that hurt men's feelings.
    
    My question is simply:  what does Susan D. mean by not "demeaning men"? 
    Does she mean don't say things that are blatantly unfair, or does she
    mean don't say things that will hurt men's feelings?
    
    Pam

    and my knee-jerk response to the quote was still - "you women?! what
    are you? a tomato?"
    
    lee

re: .63 Pam

>    Without strong feminists, I would have graduated from college and been 
>    blocked from applying for the job I have, because it would have been in
>    the FOR MEN ONLY section of the want ads (this happened to my mother,
>    who graduated first in her class from college in 1950).  Without strong
>    feminists, my old roommate wouldn't have been in a medical school class
>    that was about 50% women.  Men didn't point out these inequities; WOMEN
>    did.  It is not kindly, sweet, calm, gently-worded treatises that
>    changed the world for me -- it is gadflies and iconoclasts who refused
>    to stop pointing things out.
    
>    Without an extreme voice saying the previously unthinkable, there is no
>    change. 

	The validity of this (being based on your real experience) support your 
conclusions....and make damn good sense. I think particularly early on in a
movement, when the obstacles are so numerous and entrenched, the strident voices
are whats necessary. But there may be a time for the onset of gentler more 
rational voices when the nature of the work has changed.

	I think that most men have trouble being told that its a male dominated
society with all the benefits being for the males. Most males have had the
real experiences of being raised in the same abusive households as the women;
fighting useless wars and enduring the attendant horror; and if a survivor of
all that, finishing out the years of ones life performing some mindless job.
This leaves most of them wondering where the so called benefits are. To listen
to some women you'd think we (men) were attending secret meetings somewhere:
determining how to keep women in their place and gather more of the benefits
for ourselves. Ha! If there are any such meetings they are attended by the
privileged few and they are the real enemies of equality and justice. To complete
my paranoid vision...let me say that keeping most of us mis-directed expressing
anger towards each other is testament to their power and influence. Are the
masses so easily manipulated?

	It's too early in the day for my leftist paranoia...signing off.

MAC

    re: .65  Mac
    
    Thanks again, Mac -- I think we are more in agreement than
    disagreement.  Betty Friedan's THE SECOND STAGE says most of what you
    do (the first stage is striking out, the second stage is working with
    allies toward a common cause).  But how many anti-feminists would think
    of reading a book by -gasp- Betty Friedan, that strident feminist?  :-)
    
    People who have problems with "those feminists" are usually reacting to
    an image of feminists they have in their mind that has little relation
    to who feminists actually are.
    
    The key is figuring out what Susan D. meant to say.  The semantics
    arguments have to do with:  Why distance herself from other women by
    saying "you women"?  Why select the word "demean"?  (That word means "to
    debase in dignity or stature".  Does she think men should be kept on a
    pedastal?) 
    
    I will say again, gently, that just because something is hard to hear
    doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong.  Our society IS stacked in
    men's favor.  (About war, men are the ones who send other men to war.) 
    Men ARE accustomed to a higher level of respect than women get.
    Conditions have improved for women since we've been "fighting"; it's
    unfortunate that relations with some men who had a stake in keeping
    things the way they were have soured.  But the truly sensitive men are
    the ones who see a new vision for how people can act together, and the
    ones who see that they have a stake in changing the patterns our
    society locks us into.  I don't think they are offended by hearing
    women talk about how dissatisfied they are with the current society. 
    It hurts, but unless things are brought out into the open they never
    get addressed.
    
    Pam

    re .67, Brian -
    
    Do you still think Dworkin is talking about "some other world"? Do you
    think we'd have to go and do a study of the kind of material she's
    talking about (if we're not ourselves familiar with it), or can we take
    her word for it?
    
    Incidentally, for several impassioned and eloquent statements of
    Dworkin's views on pornography and several accounts of her involvement
    in fighting it, see her *Letters from a War Zone*, 1988.
    
    Dorian

    
    	It's interesting when people don't seem to understand when they've
    	been ignored.
    

    thanks Suzanne

    
    	RE: .74  edp
    
    	> That's an excuse for not being able to justify your position.  
    
    	Uh, Eric, I haven't stated a position in this topic.
    
    	> Closed minds -> wrong minds.
    
    	If no one is willing to discuss this with you, these sorts of
    	manipulative tactics are rather useless.
    

    
    	You are not the holder of "TRUTH" on our planet, Eric.
    

 re :77
  
  
  Just ignore......

    
    "ignore: to refuse to pay attention to; to disregard."
    
    -- American Heritage Dictionary

    I'm a card carrying member of the "listers" too.
    
    Kate