Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    re: .0  MAC
    
    I'd like to answer this question, but I find it difficult. Are you
    asking:  how have men defined women, and please separate it into things
    that are defined because of the need to survive and things that are
    defined because men want to maintain control?
    
    If this is what you're asking, I can't answer the question as posed.
    To me, it sets up a "forced choice" between 
    
    a)  women must be defined by society because there is no choice
    d)  men define women deliberately to hem them in
    
    How about things like:
    
    b)  men define women unconsciously, in relation to what women represent
        to men
    c)  men define women because they think women are just men shaped 
        differently (corallary: because men don't really see women as people
        but as not-men)
    f) etc.
    
    You think d) is mistaken for a) -- deliberate mean-spiritedness vs.
    cultural necessity.  It is MY belief that there is also a lot of b) and
    c) going on (unthinking behavior, ignorant behavior).  
     
    So to make a forced choice between the two you offer is not possible. 
    Particularly since in our current society there are not a whole lot of
    examples of things that are REQUIRED to be gender-based.  (For
    instance, your example of Neolithic hunter/gatherer society does not
    explain the original contention in this notesfile that men have defined
    women for the last few CENTURIES, in a non-hunter/gatherer society.)
    
    Furthermore, I disagree that all hunting/gathering societies *must* be
    based on sex-role assignment.  So to talk about this being an example
    of "a force beyond human control" makes no sense to me.  Another
    example, please?
    
    A straightforward answer of the original question -- how have men
    defined women -- is easier than trying to fit the answer into your
    categories...
    
    Pam

    	re: 1 PAM
    
    	I take your point. My examples are slanted by my point of view on
    this issue. Please ignore them if you will and talk to the general
    question of how men have and are defining women. I'm very interested
    in your and anyone elses perspective on this matter.
    
    Thanks,
    MAC

                                                                  
The following are excerpts from the article "Why We Burn, What Famous Men
Throughout History Really Think of Women", written by Meg Bowman and 
published in _The_Humanist_ magazine in November 83. Most of the quotes are 
by "great" men of religion.
 
 
    One hundred women are not worth a single testicle.
                                                Confucius(551-479 BCE)
 
    The five worst infirmities that afflict the female are indocility,
    discontent, slander, jealousy, and silliness.
    ... Such is the stupidity of woman's character, that it is incumbent upon
    her, in every particular, to distrust herself and to obey her husband.
 
                                                The Confucian Marriage Manual
 
     A proper wife should be as obedient as a slave. 
 
    The female is a female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities- a
    natural defectiveness.
                                                Aristotle(384-322 BCE)  
 
 
    In childhood a woman must be subject to her father; in youth to her
    husband; when her husband is dead, to her sons. A woman must never 
    be free of subjugation.
 
    If a wife has no children after eight years of marriage, she shall be
    banished; if all of her children are dead, she can be dismissed after
    ten years; and if she produces only girls she shall be repudiated after
    eleven years.
                                                The Hindu Code of Manu 
                                                (c. 100 CE)
 
 
    Among all savage beasts, none is found so harmful as woman.
                                                St. John Chrysostom 
                                                (345-407 CE)
 
 
    Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot give birth to as many
    children as she is capable of, makes herself guilty of that many murders...
                                                St. Augustine
                                                (354-430 CE)
 
 
    Do you know that each of your women is an Eve? The sentence of God - on
    this sex of yours - lives in this age; the guilt must necessarily live too.
    You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you
    are the first deserter of the divine law.
                                                Tertullian in 22 CE
 
 
    Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not
    rule and command him.
                                                John Knox (1505-1572)
 
 
    The souls of women are so small that some believe they've none at all.
                                                Samuel Butler (1612-1680)
 
    What misfortune to be a woman! And yet, the worst misfortune is not to
    understand what a misfortune it is.
                                                Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
 
 
    Woman is ontologically subordinate to man.
                                                Karl Barth
 
 
    The pains that, since original sin, a mother has to suffer to give birth
    to her child only draw tighter the bonds that bind them; she loves it the
    more, the more pain it has cost her.
                                                Pope Pius XII in 1941
 
 
    It seems to me that nearly every woman I know wants a man who knows how
    to love with authority. Women are simple souls show like simple things,
    and one of the simplest to give... 
    Our family airedale will come clear across the yard for one pat on the 
    head. The average wife is like that. She will come across town, across 
    the house, across the room, across to your point of view, and across 
    almost anything to give you her love if you offer her yours with some 
    honest approval.
                                                Episcopalian Bishop 
                                                James Pike 
                                                in a letter to his son in 68'
 
 
    You must learn to adapt yourselves to your husband. The husband is the 
    head of the wife.
                                                St. Paul
 
 
 
    Let a woman learn in silence with submissiveness. I permit no woman to 
    teach or to have authority over men; she is to be kept silent... Yet 
    women will be saved through bearing children.
                                                I Timothy 2:11-15
 
 
    Let us set our women fold on the road to goodness by teaching them to
    display submissiveness... Every woman should be overwhelmed with the 
    shame at the thought of being a woman.
                                                St Clement of Alexandria
                                                in 96 CE.
 
 
    In the year 584, in Lyons, France, forty three Catholic bishops and 
    twenty men representing other bishops, held a most peculiar debate:
    "Are Women Human?" After many lengthy arguments, a vote was taken. The
    results were thirty two, yes; thirty one, no. Women were declared 
    human by one vote. 
                                                Council of Macon
 
 
    Men are superior to women.
                                                Koran
 
 
    Blessed are thou, O Lord our God and King of the Universe that thou didst
    not create me a woman.
                                        Daily prayer, still used today,
                                        of the Orthodox Jewish male
 
 
    If... the tokens of virginity are not found in the young woman, then they 
    shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and
    the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones because she has
    wrought folly... so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.
                                        Deut 22:20-21
 
 
    To the women he said, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; 
    in pain will you bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your 
    husband, and he shall rule over you.
                                        Gen 3:16
    In 1847, a scandal resulted when British obstetrician Dr Simpson used 
    chloroform as an anesthetic in delivering a baby. The holy men of the 
    Church of England prohibited the use of anesthetic in childbirth, 
    citing this quote.
 
 
    Women should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bring up children.
 
    If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing, it matters
    not. Let her die from bearing; she is there to do it.
                                        Martin Luther (1483-1546)"

    The point, I think, was that women have been defined by men throughout
    history to be things they are not, and do not wish to be.
    
    They are some examples of how men have defined women, and via the
    society often those definitions were then imposed on the women, who
    did, indeed, in many cases, conform to the requirements of those men
    and the society they had created.
    
    -Jody
    

    the point is that for the past umpteen thousand years, men have made a
    business of telling women what they are and what they are supposed to
    be. if those authors were merely 'sexists" that would be obnoxious but
    not horrible.  however, they were sexists in whom most people believed.
    
    daniel

    
    .4, "hell hath no fury"... what's *your* point?
    
    D.

	Concerning men defining women's roles in the past and to
	a lesser extent now:

	Did men do so in the past because they had the political power to do so?

	What were the forces that shaped societies which gave them that power?

	Can we be judgmental of the roles men used to play considering
	the context of the forces that were shaping societies then?

	How have things changed so that women can now share that power
	and influence the definition of the roles we all will play?

    re: .4
    
    Also, "sexist" is a recently coined word.  There didn't used to be any
    way of saying what it is.  These views were *totally* mainstream -- and
    are built into the foundations of our current society.
    
    Look at WHO is quoted -- the religious and philosophical "great
    thinkers" of modern civilization:
    
      Confucius, St. Augustine, Kierkegaard, St. Paul, the Koran, Martin
      Luther, the Bible ...
    
    How come there are not any famous FEMALE religious thinkers or
    philosophers that have preached the utter inferiority of males? How
    come *their* writings (if they were allowed to write) have not survived
    and been passed down and taught in college courses?  Because women have
    not been _allowed_ to define men the way men have been allowed -- even
    encouraged -- to define women.
    
    Quotes from these people (and many, many others) have been used over
    and over to define a woman as:  childbearer, follower, secondary,
    mentally deficient, lacking a soul, worth less than 1/100 of a
    testicle, silly, shrewish, incapable of supporting herself, an utterly
    pure and chaste vessel yet a dangerously vain and teasing prostitute,
    best when filled with doglike devotion, SUBhuman, SUBservient,
    SUBordinate, hysterical, and improved by application of pain (in
    relation to beating and to childbirth).
    
    Casual gatherings of women are described in English as a gabfest, a hen
    party, a night out with the girls, or girls' night out.  When I hear
    these words I do not visualise women talking with other women.  The
    impression I get is of gabbling and twitting about childish topics.
    
    These are are things that create a SOCIETY where defining and demeaning
    of women is carried on without massive effort and without massive
    resistance by the majority of society. 
    
    Pam

    The point, Greg, is that men are defining women.  These various men have
    decided among themselves what women are, (shameful, silly, etc),  and 
    what women are to do about it, (be quiet, be subservient, be pregnant,
    be dead).  Sure they are "sexist and wrong" but that isn't the end of
    it.  Don't forget that these quotes are from the "great men" on whose
    beliefs modern society, (where we live), is shaped.  The myth down
    through the ages that women are evil temptresses, for instance,
    translates into the harsh cross examination a raped woman gets today on
    the witness stand and into the suspicion a jury has for her that she
    must have done *something* to cause the innocent man to "loose control"
    and have sex with her.  Now isn't that silly reasoning?  You bet.  But
    is it common thinking?  Yes!
    
    The myth that women are "silly" translates into them seeming less
    qualified than a male candidate for a "serious" job.  Is it illogical
    reasoning?  Of course!  But is it common thinking?  Yes!
    
    That these quotes are sexist and wrong goes without saying.  That women 
    still live under the oppression of these myths, however, is very real. 
    For an exercise, maybe we can print out Dorian's list and then listen 
    to music lyrics, comedians, read or watch the kinds of scenarios
    authors and screenwriters are creating, etc, and check off all the
    myths that are still around only with modern interpretations.  I think
    you'll be very surprised.  "Barefoot and pregnant" was a common joke
    theme in the 50s.  Where do you think that came from?  See Dorian's list.
    How about the idea that women are expected to be more moral, swear
    less, have fewer sex partners and stay at home more than men?   I'm sure 
    you could find more than one quote that sowed the seeds for that one.
      
    Pam, in the bonding note, you said that the men who've defined women
    were wrong and that indicates that perhaps when women discuss men they
    are probably wrong, too.  I disagree.  I believe there's a big
    difference and it is thus:  In defining women, men ignore what is real
    about them and instead insist that women ignore it too and accept the
    mantle of myth that males want them to wear.  In the bonding
    discussion, women are talking about *what they have seen* -
    interpreting what has actually taken place.  I don't think I'd have any
    problem with a man interpreting, even incorrectly, what he sees about
    women.  But they generally don't bother to pay attention.  They look
    only when sex is in the offing.  They pay attention when physical goodies
    lurk in their future, but otherwise, they just look away.  
    
    "Women's work", "women's stuff, "sissy stuff" - men are practically
    required to ignore or deride it.  If it doesn't include a sexual thrill
    for men, it's not expected to be worth their time.  Which means that
    other than in bed, men know precious little about women because they
    consciously work to stay ignorant about them.  And instead, extrapolate
    what they do know, (sex), into the entire being of a woman.  Even today
    many confuse sex with women.  In discussions of advertising right here
    in notes people will constantly refer to "using sex to sell".  But no
    one uses sex to sell.  I've *never* seen a copulating couple in an ad,
    (except maybe Klein's Obsession ads!).  They don't use sex, they use
    *women*.  But because of men's myths and their belief that women are
    only what men say they are, few of us today know the difference.  And
    few men are really interested in any other part of a woman.  Who spends
    time getting to know the 55 year old woman at work?  They're all busy
    getting to know the 23 year old - spending "quality time" with her and
    trying to understand her "mind" and treat her as an "equal".  All
    because of the myth that women ARE sex and if so, of course the 23 year
    old is the more valuable of the two, (despite the egalitarian claim
    that one is genuinely interested in the 23 year old's mind!) 

    >Did men do so in the past because they had the political power to do so?

    Yes.
    
    >What were the forces that shaped societies which gave them that power?

    Women were always too busy getting raped, being pregnant, raising and
    protecting themselves and their children.  Who had time or energy?
    
    >Can we be judgmental of the roles men used to play considering
    >	the context of the forces that were shaping societies then?

    Yes.  They were opportunistic, self-serving and malevolent.  Today it's
    watered down some and is just called "life".
	
    >How have things changed so that women can now share that power
    >and influence the definition of the roles we all will play?

    The invention of reliable birth control and the growing social stigma
    against rape.  Women are no longer at the mercy of their uteruses and
    to a lesser extent, of male strength.
    
    That's the whole basis for the beginning of the woman's movement!

    

    
    excellent!!!
    

    This is extracted from Note 957.22 in Bagels, which extracted it
    from an article by Don Feder in the "Boston Herald" for Thursday,
    July 26, 1990, who extracted his information from Dennis Prager's
    newsletter, "Ultimate Issues".

    "Judaism was the first religion to insist that sex be confined to
    marital relations."  "Judaism started a moral revolution ... in
    demanding that sex be sanctified, raised from an animal to a
    spiritual plane."  "...the gravest offenses:  idolatry, human
    sacrifice, ritual prostitution"  "("abomination")"  "It's no
    coincidence that in those societies where homosexuality was and
    is widespread ... `women were relegated to society's periphery.'"

    (Readers of this conference are surely relieved to learn that
    societies that viciously suppressed homosexuality must have placed
    women in their active centers.)

    "...the social consequences of men without women:  the unrestrained
    sexuality, the violence, the live-for-the-moment ethos."  "...the
    humanizing qualities of marriage and families"  "By insisting that
    romantic love could be found only in marriage, it began the process
    of raising the status of women from breeding animal to fully human."

    (Readers of this conference may be surprised to learn that owning and
    managing property, selecting life and sexual partners, inventing
    agriculture, writing and mathematics are the marks of a breeding
    animal.  But I'm sure they will be as pleased as I was to learn
    that "By sublimating man's `polymorphous sex drive,' Judeo-Christian
    ethics made civilization possible.")

    Dennis Prager was described as a "most discerning" and "most courageous"
    thinker.

    						Ann B.

    re: .10 
    Sandy, to clarify, I did NOT say that because "men who've defined women
    were wrong ... that indicates that perhaps when women discuss men they
    are probably wrong, too."  What I said was:

        "...I also find a little room for believing that if men have things
        to learn about how females bond, then it is probably possible that
        females have things to learn about how males bond."
   
    In your paraphrase, go HEAVY on "perhaps" and change the next phrase to
    "they have some things to learn, too."
    
    I *agree* that women know FAR more about men than men know about women,
    and I said so.  However, I *disagree* that women know EVERYTHING about
    men.  All I was asking for in that particular note was a chance to hear
    what men had to say in their own words, rather than hear what they had
    to say in a defensive tone.
    
    You make a really good point about how men ignore what is real about
    women and create a fantasy image, though!
    
    
    re: .8  MAC
    Lots of leading questions here -- and I don't think the answers go in
    the direction you may have hoped!
    
	Did men do so in the past because they had the political power to do so?

    Yes.  And physical power.  And the decisions to use those powers.
    
    
	What were the forces that shaped societies which gave them that power?

    War, fear, and mistrust, based on the territorial and pecking-order
    instincts that are more typical of men.  War and empire building
    creates an atmosphere of distrust and danger and shifting ground; which
    creates a perception that women must be protected (from war, which men
    wage against each other) so they can produce more male children to
    fight wars; which creates a perception that women are weaker and more
    inferior and ...
    
    Men are physically stronger.  Men compete.  Men need to establish
    pecking orders.  Men are territorial.  You see this every day at work,
    even!  You get war because you want to protect turf and get more turf
    ... and by waging war and winning, you gain political power.
    
	Can we be judgmental of the roles men used to play considering
	the context of the forces that were shaping societies then?
    
    Oh, yes!  Given that war, territorialism, pecking order, saving face,
    and the willingness to wield power over others are predominantly male
    forces!  

	How have things changed so that women can now share that power
	and influence the definition of the roles we all will play?

    I have to second Sandy, the Pill (lately).  Also, a society where most
    of its members are literate is easier to seed with new ideas and growth
    -- alternative presses get the word out and it trickles into mainstream
    thought to the point where it can't be ignored.
    
    I am not as cynical as Sandy, but then again I am not as optimistic as
    you, Mac.  I do not think we have come as far as you think ("women can
    now share that power").  It is easier to compete with 50 people than
    100 people.  Although smart people realize we need to apply all the
    intelligence we have (all 100 people), stupid or lazy people will
    always prefer to keep the playing ground at 50 just so that they
    personally have a greater chance of winning.  There's lots of "stupid"
    and "lazy" people out there.
    
    Pam

    I would say that two things changed in the recent past which have
    allowed women to aspire to positions of power.  
    
    The first is reliable birth control, and the ability to plan when in 
    our lives we will spend the 10 months to 2 years where we really need 
    physical and financial support.  A pregnant women, or a woman caring
    for a small infant, is very vulnerable.
    
    The second is a change in how work is done.  Most labor in the
    developed world no longer relies on sheer muscle to be accomplished. 
    As a consequence, the playing field has been leveled.  Physical
    strength is no longer a prerequisite to providing the necessities of
    life.  This change is older, but continues on a curve of increasing
    mechanization and less muscle-power today.
    
    Alison

    	I have always felt that 'men defining women' is layered with
    inaccuracy.Perhaps I've felt this way because I'm male...don't know
    but I'm open to that charge.
    
    	What I think I know now is that I was born into a set of societal
    circumstances and taught (by women and men) my sexually related role
    playing behaviors. Over time I found that the behaviors and the ex-
    pectations associated with them were being challanged...I was being
    prodded as a male to change.My behavior was defined and is being
    defined by men as well as women in this context; through social
    interaction primarily.
    
    	To me saying 'men define women' is as accurate as saying women
    define men'. Both statements have the same degree of accuracy and
    inaccuracy to me.
    
    	When those that contend that only men define women also say that
    only men are capable of pecking order, war waging and related behaviors
    their contention becomes highly suspect. By ignoring the fact that
    women are capable of these behaviors too when the opportunity arises;
    they show their mind sets to be very slanted.
    
    	I apoligize for the incoherence ...I'm rushing this.
    
    
    MAC

    re: .16  Mac
    
    I think I'm "them".  :-)
    
    I agree that both men and women define themselves and others.  What we
    are quibbling about is the degree to which it is done by one sex toward
    the other.
    
    You may be looking at the shaping done on a personal scale by
    individual people (your mother, father, friends, spouse, etc.).  The
    shaping you see.  But there is a vast societal scale that cannot be
    ignored, and that is the scale I am speaking about.  I think much of
    the resistence to the women's movement is that men are just starting to
    feel pressure from a different angle (women to men) than they are used
    to. What feels like a lot of "pressure to change" to you is, forgive
    me, not nearly as strong as the constant confining pressure to be less
    than you are that women and minorities get all the time.
    
    (On the confining pressure to be less, studies have shown that people
    playing with babies allow "male" babies to play more actively and
    explore their surroundings, while people playing with "female" babies
    hold them in one place, coo to them softly, and tell them how pretty
    they are.  The baby's actual sex was not correlated with how the baby
    was treated.)
    
    Every current society that I can think of values men and their
    activities more than women and their activities.  Every current society
    that I can think of allows men to have greater options for livelihood
    (farming, religion, politics, at home or traveling, etc.) than women.
    Every current society I can think of has strong myths or stories or
    training to influence the women to feel that their place is to stay at
    home and bear children and be the assistant to their men.  
    
    Now if women truly shared power, would they be valued less?  Would they
    have narrower options?  Would they be trained to sit still and look
    pretty and have babies? You say that "given opportunity", women are
    just as territorial etc. as men -- but if women WERE truly as
    territorial, etc., why would they wait to be GIVEN opportunity? 
    Wouldn't they demand it and fight for it and get it about as often as
    men?  I don't think there are as many hawkish female senators as
    hawkish male senators...
    
    Obviously, *some* women are more territorial, etc., than *some* men
    are. There are individual differences. However, studies (described in
    V2 regarding language and decision-making) have shown that men tend to
    use competition to solve problems whereas women tend to use cooperation
    to solve problems.  (I'm not making this up, you know!)  Generally,
    however, most cultures in this world use men predominantly if not
    exclusively as the warriers; and most if not all cultures in this world
    are controlled by men, who are the ones who decide if a war is needed. 
    This suggests that it is an area men feel strongly about (to say the
    least).  
    
    It makes perfect sense to me to say that men are in a position to
    "define" women -- and that they do so more than women define men.  When
    I say "define", I mean "control and shape who they are _supposed_ to
    be."  Define what a woman is SUPPOSED to be.  In our culture, men
    control the media, the political world, the economic world, and women's
    personal worlds (via controlling the first three and via being stronger
    physically).  This is also true historically -- remember my point about
    how the philosophical minds who shaped our perceptions of men and women
    are all men.  I can't think of a single famous female philosopher who
    is a cornerstone of our political or social system.  It stands to
    reason that men's perception and definition of women is FAR more
    greatly weighted in our society than women's definition of men.  And
    there is great resistence to having that weighting change to be
    equal...
    
    Pam

    
    I always get in trouble when I answer one of these...but...
    what the hey...it's been at least a month since I went down in a burst
    of flames....[grin]
    
    I have a couple of observational questions...
    
    Just who was it who raised all these 'evil bastards' who run around
    defining us? That's what I thought...women.
    
    And how do you [no one in particular...the editorial 'you'] *know* that
    all women do/did not like it? I have a suspicion that a great number of
    women are perfectly happy to be defined by *anyone* who will take the
    time to do so.
    
    This stirkes me as one of those inflammatory topics. When we become so
    incensed about perceived injustice that we are as guilty as the accused
    of slander and misrepresentation, then we lose before we begin.
    
    The act of social *definition* is one of great intricacy and prolonged
    development. To boil it down into "why do men define women" is
    ludicrous.
    
    Melinda
    
    
    

    	RE: .18  Melinda

    	> Just who was it who raised all these 'evil bastards' who run around
    	> defining us? That's what I thought...women.
    
    	First off, it isn't true that women raise children completely by
    	themselves in a social vacuum.

    	As a matter of fact, a number of fathers get quite incensed when
    	family courts make custody decisions based on the idea that only
    	women raise their children.  Fathers are parents, too.

    	Second, children are influenced a great deal by their culture
    	(aside from what their parents think/believe.)

    	As I saw myself when my son was very little, children bring home
    	information about sexist attitudes as early as PRE-school.  My
    	son was only 2 years old the first time I heard him repeat some
    	sexist crap about women that he'd heard from kids at pre-school.

    	Unless kids are raised in complete isolation, they're BOUND to 
    	hear this stuff (and some of it is bound to stick.)

    I don't usually get involved but when I see a file such as this it makes me
    feel that women are holding a gruge against men because of the shape
    our evolution took.
    
    It seems to me that back in the days of old when men were fighting alot
    and probably helping themselves to whatever women they wanted providing
    there was'nt a stronger man around to protect them, the arrangement 
    worked out at that time to let the man be in charge and the woman would
    do whatever the man said. This was probably the best arrangement that
    could be worked out for both parties. Yes BOTH parties, although women
    at first glance might seem to be getting the short end of the stick 
    when I say woman would do whatever the man said, I'm sure it was no
    picnic for many of the men who had to put their lives on the line on
    a daily basis. They had to hunt wild animals for food and clothing,
    fight other men in either war or a thief or any other reason a fight
    may have been started.
    
      Things have changed today and I beleive as most men do that equality
    for women is over due. It would be difficult for any man to disagree
    after see some of the great accomplishments from the woman of today.
    
     As far as the argument that men are in power today and want to rule 
    women. I think that is a bit short sighted, I agree there are more men
    in power positions today. Thats a carryover from the days of old, its
    human nature that when someone has something they don't want to loose
    it and if they hold the power its easer to defend it from beeing taken
    over. But I don't think the men in power have it out for women, they
    want to have power over men too.
    
     Sex is also mentioned, the implication is that men only think of women
    as sex objects and if there is more to them well that can be ok too but 
    its secondary. I have a certin impuls that I find very difficult if not
    sometimes impossable to control. If I see a 23 year old sexy woman and
    a 60 year old non sexy woman I would have a natural tendency to give more
    attention to the younger woman. It does not mean I don't care about 
    the person inside of the older woman. Its just an instinct, and the
    words impulse, natural and instinct are all very important here. I 
    know that women in general have a wonderfull way of careing, and
    feeling as first reactions where many men have the first reactions of
    jumping in bed. Men get criticized for their feelings, when it is a 
    natural instinct, one that is very difficult to change. I know because
    I've tried, and tried, and tried. I'm not speaking for all men. However
    in has been my experience that the vast majority of my friends think
    SEX first. If women want to blame men for that then I'm guilty but
    until someone can offer me a better way I'm stuck in this mind and
    body. 
    
    
    Men and women are different in both mind and body and we have to try
    and understand each other even when our instincts are in conflict. 
    
    There have been times when my feelings come into play first but I have
    to admit that does'nt happen very often. I guess maybe some women have
    thought of jumping in bed first... No probably not, its just wishfull
    thinking i guess.
    
    	K.C.

re: Pam

On the V2 discussion; Deborah Tannenbaum [sp?] has come out with a new book. A
catchy title something like "That's Not What I Mean!". It's about women and men
communicating again, and the Sunday Times Book Review had an excellent review
of it last Sunday.
	Mez

>    I know that women in general have a wonderfull way of careing, and
>    feeling as first reactions where many men have the first reactions of
>    jumping in bed. Men get criticized for their feelings, when it is a 
>    natural instinct...

And said by a man, too!

If a woman said anything like this about how men are naturally uncaring
and are instinctually sex maniacs, she's be blown out of the water.

D!

    re: .18  Melinda
    
    I'm curious, Melinda, do you believe that women and men have equal
    input into how the other sex "should" be, in our society?
    
    All I'm saying is that it's unequal, currently.  Fact, not flame or
    accusation or angry tone.  Just simple, pure fact.
    
    Regarding "who raised all these 'evil bastards'", I agree with you that
    women carry some responsibility for perpetuating definitions about
    women and perpetuating the idea that it is appropriate to be defined
    narrowly.  (The study I mentioned about babies used both men and women
    as the adults holding the babies.)  But that's sort of "well, YOU had
    them LAST, so it's YOUR FAULT!!", which strikes me as somewhat
    simplistic in its own way.  I mean, if you've been "cabin'd, cribb'd,
    and confin'd" all your life, you're not necessarily going to realize
    it.  And you might find it kind of comfy.  We all know how TV, the
    great mindless entertainer that so many of us are addicted to, has a
    drugging effect ... might it not also be addictive to have someone
    always defining you so you don't have to think about who you want to
    be?
    
    But just because some women have become accustomed to it and may like
    it doesn't mean that it does not happen.  All I am saying is that it
    happens:  our society is based on men's values; men's values determine
    most of the definitions of the ideal woman (and the ideal man); women's
    definitions of the ideal man are often ignored and sometimes ridiculed
    ("Real Men Don't Eat Quiche").  The topic is not "why" do men define
    women, but rather what is meant by saying "men define women".  
    
    Pam

    re: 20  K.C.
    
    "Holding a grudge" implies resentfully dwelling on past insult, to me.  
    There's an element of unfairness about holding grudges.  But this type
    of thinking about our society is necessary to *identify* what the past
    insults were!  Should we focus on "what is wrong and how did it happen"
    or should we focus on "how bad a loser are you, anyway?"
    
    In your next paragraph, about the days of old, you unintentionally
    underlined one of my main points.  "Men were fighting alot and probably
    helping themselves to whatever women they wanted."  My point was that
    *THAT BEHAVIOR ON MEN'S PARTS* is what caused the "arrangement...to let
    the man be in charge and the woman ... do whatever the man said." 
    
    In other words, men took charge of society to protect themselves and to
    protect women against other men, to "fight other men in either war or a
    thief or any other reason a fight might have been started."  That was
    exactly my point (war) and exactly Sandy's point (rape).  
    
    My contention is that if men did not fight each other, protection for
    everyone would be less necessary, and therefore the whole protection
    /belittling /defining cycle would be unnecessary.  If you protect
    someone for a long time, eventually you come to think of that person as
    less than you (because YOU can protect THEM), you come to think of
    yourself as greater then them, and you begin to think that what YOU see
    in that person is all that matters, because after all you are stronger,
    wiser and more capable.  And you begin to arrange society in that way. 
    Only 100-300 years ago, people sincerely believed that a woman who
    studied anything past learning to spell her name would go crazy, that
    the learning would "drive her mad".  
    
    These things happen.  But to point them out is not to be inflammatory;
    just to acknowledge what has happened and its effect on what is
    happening now and how to change it in the future.  
    
    Pam

    
    something in the last couple replies seemed to suggest a kind of
    inevitability to the way our society has developed. i just wanted
    to mention that one of the great values of studying ancient
    civilisations, especially 'pre-patriarchal' civilisations, is
    discovering that there are (or at least were) other choices about
    how a society could be structured.
    

    rep:22
    D!
    I did not say men are naturally uncaring, in fact many men care very 
    much. However many men will look at a good looking young woman walking
    down the street and think, Gee, it would be nice to get her in the sack.
    (first reaction) Not... WOW I bet that woman has a great mind. Also I
    did say" many men", not "men" which implies all men.
    
    " instinctually sex maniacs " Does being born with a natural instinct
    for sex mean that I am a SEX MANIAC ? 
    
     
    K.C.

    re: 22   Hi Pam
    
    The point I was trying to make is the arrangement that was worked out
    in the days of old were fine for them because it worked out for them.
    As for men causing the fighting, thats true but  I don't think all
    men were out to start a fight so I don't think it should come under
    the catagory of men. Thats like saying... Women in America like to stay
    home, cook meals for their husbands, do the laundry, and keep the
    house clean. Just because a select few feel this way today. Anyway to
    get back to my point, the old arrangement has unfortuniatly had a 
    negitive impact for woman once the protection factor was gone. And it
    took a while for woman to convince men that they are truly equal in
    some areas and even surpass men in other areas. This has pretty much
    been established now, and women are doing what use to be mens jobs and
    men are performing what use to be womens jobs. Women and men must do
    what works best for us today, just as was done in the past and will
    probably change again in the future. Its just a part of the evolution.
    
    K.C. 
                                                                          

	Concerning the past....whats more accurate?

1)	In the past men defined the roles of women.

2)	In the past a certain class of influential men, those 
	that held the societal power, defined roles for the 
	majority of the people, men and women. Most men
	were too busy with their defined roles to influence
	much in the political direction: survival completely
	occupied the average persons time.

3)	In the past forces were such, environmental and human
	technological, that a division of labor along sexual
	lines developed. This division of labor was such that
	the males assumed the political power structure. As 
	technology advanced and redefined the relationship with
	the environment this division of labor made less 
	sense and was prone to change.

4)	other?

MAC

    
    4) other: in the past there was a peaceful matrifocal society
       that was overrun by a warlike patriarchal society that we
       are the physical and spiritual descendents of.
     

         RE: .19


>    	> Just who was it who raised all these 'evil bastards' who run around
>    	> defining us? That's what I thought...women.
>    
>    	First off, it isn't true that women raise children completely by
>    	themselves in a social vacuum.

         Ummm...that's what I said. This comment was meant to be
         a bit facetious...a couple of paragraphs later, my point
         was that the issue was far to complicated to be
         attributed *any* single group...men or women.

         If women who raise children are effected by society;
         then it stands to reason that *men* are
         also...regardless of their intentions.

>        Second, children are influenced a great deal by their culture
>    	(aside from what their parents think/believe.)

         I was trying to get to the point that *so are men*. It
         just doesn't seem like a black and white issue to me. A
         subject like 'Men Defining Women' just seemed so
         terribly simplistic or biased to be useless. [No offense
         intended...I am not casting aspersions on the
         base-noter, just trying to express my view of futility
         at trying to pin a reasonable answer on such a
         multifaceted situation.]
>
>    	As I saw myself when my son was very little, children bring home
>    	information about sexist attitudes as early as PRE-school.  My
>    	son was only 2 years old the first time I heard him repeat some
>    	sexist crap about women that he'd heard from kids at pre-school.

         When my sone was born, he was with a family that kept
         their children at home. The Mother determinedly bought
         Eric and Will dolls as well as trucks; they were not
         allowed to watch TV until they were five. Eric and Will,
         all by themselves, just the two of them, picked trucks
         over dolls 9 times out of 10. There have been numerous
         studies that have debunked the 'totally-environmental'
         theories about male vs. female...the little buggers
         really *do* view the universe a bit differently. I am
         not disagreeing with you, just adding more input. Again,
         I just think it's "not that simple".


         RE: .23

>    I'm curious, Melinda, do you believe that women and men have equal
>    input into how the other sex "should" be, in our society?

         Nope. I agree absolutely that men have had [since the
         industrial revolution anyway] the upper hand in
         definitions of _society_. I just don't think it is
         necessarily *men's fault* that that is true.
    
>    The topic is not "why" do men define
>    women, but rather what is meant by saying "men define women".  

         Yes. I am just saying that in my opinion you can't
         divide the two. To try to slap a defintion on something
         without understanding its origins and its implications
         is like sticking your hand in a paper bag and just by
         *feel* defining what you have in your hand. The naked
         eye plucked from the face of a screaming refuge could
         turn out to be a peeled grape. How embarassing.

         Melinda
    
    Pam

RE: 29 

>    4) other: in the past there was a peaceful matrifocal society
>       that was overrun by a warlike patriarchal society that we
>       are the physical and spiritual descendents of.

	Remarkable! Could you flesh this out a bit? Where and when was this
	matrifocal society? Where and when for the partiarchal warlike
	society too please? When did the 'overrun' happen? Never ran across
	this in my history readings. Your contention seems to suggest that
	todays males are linked to the warlike patriarchal society...did I
	get that right?

	Were you kidding....just to make a point?

	I'll tell you why I offered the multiple perspectives, all which
	are probably wrong in some aspect or another, I believe that people
	deal with each other from such premises. If i believed that all
	women were endlessly chattering air-heads; I'd deal with them
	in a way totally different than if I believed they were intellectually
	superior in some fashion. The biggest enemy of bigotry is alternative
	points of view that tend to get away from the narrow perspectives
	that one group tends to offer respecting another.

	Republicans say....Democrats always look to spend money.
	Democrats say.....Republicans always take care of the rich first.

	There are a great number of people operating from these two gems.
	I offer these two because a great number of us might fall into
	one or the other of these catagories (dem or rep) and we might see
	a number of examples of people (even ourselves) operating from
	these statements....such is their power.


MAC

re: 30 

>         subject like 'Men Defining Women' just seemed so
>         terribly simplistic or biased to be useless. [No offense
>         intended...I am not casting aspersions on the
>         base-noter, just trying to express my view of futility
>         at trying to pin a reasonable answer on such a
>         multifaceted situation.]

	No insult taken. You have expressed far better than I how I
	actually feel about the statement and others like it. My
	hats off to you.

>			 To try to slap a defintion on something
>         without understanding its origins and its implications
>         is like sticking your hand in a paper bag and just by
>         *feel* defining what you have in your hand. The naked
>         eye plucked from the face of a screaming refuge could
>         turn out to be a peeled grape. How embarassing.

	Yep..

MAC

    .31, where and when was this peaceful matrifocal society -
    
    See works by Marija Gimbutas (The Language of the Goddess), Riane
    Eisler (The Chalice and the Blade), and others.
    
    D.
    

    D, Although the "normal run of the mill" history books may be somewhat
    Biased, I certainly wouldn't consider those readings (that you stated)
    all too unbiased neither.....

    Al, Mac, et alia,
    
    This is the note on Men Defining Women.  The base complaint is
    that men have been defining women for millenia.  This includes
    the history books.  (No, it's not some conscious conspiracy.
    It's "all the news that fits, we print"� and there's never enough
    room to include everything, so the unimportant things, like the
    women, get chucked out first.)  And you want to put the few,
    late-twentieth century let's-REALLY-look-at-the-data books in
    the same category as those other history books?  Think about it.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    � Coined by Hugh Downs.

>    However many men will look at a good looking young woman walking
>    down the street and think, Gee, it would be nice to get her in the sack.
>    (first reaction) 

    Thanks, K.C., that really makes me feel warm and fuzzy about walking
    down the street (and passing all those men with those "very difficult,
    sometimes impossible to control" impulses.)

	Sharon

    Quite frankly Ann, I HAVE peeked through the Challice and the Blade
    it was sent to me by a wnnoter a few years ago.....
    
    Does that make what I said any better to swallow?  GESH!

    re .36, he also doesn't seem to realize that sometimes women have the
    same reaction to seeing good looking young men walking down the street,
    but society has made damn sure that we learned to control our sexual
    impulses.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    
    .38, society making sure women learned to control their sexual impulses -
    
    Good point. I keep coming back to it. *Why* was it so crucial, in the
    process of men defining women, to make sure women's sexual impulses
    were controlled? What was the basic emotion dictating that this had to
    be done? Was it male fear? Envy? Both? Whatever the basic motivation was, it
    sure got encoded in the major religions and it sure has been effective ...
    Even now with all our heightened awareness, as you say it's still a
    prime factor in how we all behave. But the awareness itself -- that
    this is something that happened at a specific point, or over a specific
    time period, in history -- is empowering to women, at least I think it
    is. It means it didn't have to be that way and it can be changed.
    
    Dorian
    

For hundreds of years, a woman's clothing was a limiting factor of her mobility.
[In many instances still is ...]

Skirts used to be long, oh so easy to trip over or get tangled in.  Generally
as they got shorter, they also became narrower thus continuing to hamper the
stride.  There were even extreme instances where skirts were both long and
narrow [the hobble skirt comes to mind, but there have been other instances]

Corsets of various sorts also adversely affected mobility by restricting the
breathing apparatus.

Even in this century of androgynous dressing, it seems that women's trousers
have generally been worn a bit tighter.  Hence that illusion of equal freedom
of movement is quickly flown either due to hampered breathing/circulation or
the small desire to 'cut oneself in half' by unihibited movement.

[recent fashion trends have allowed for a bit more ...]

In studying this phenomena in one of many anthropology seminars, an instructor
posited that this limiting of mobility was a survival trait.  That it is a
hold-over [of sorts] from the transition-time when our species was evolving
into a more pastoral pattern. When we put down our burdens it became necessary
that the female not just wander off when things got bad ... or if she chose
to try that she would be easier to retrieve.  Ditto, 'handbags' when away from
hearth and home ... it'a harder to make one's getaway when toting luggage.
[Gee, and I always wondered why Mother said it wasn't ladylike to use pockets]

No conspiracy,

  Annie

re: .35 Ann

>    This is the note on Men Defining Women.  The base complaint is
>   that men have been defining women for millenia.  This includes
>    the history books.  (No, it's not some conscious conspiracy.
>    It's "all the news that fits, we print"� and there's never enough
>    room to include everything, so the unimportant things, like the
>    women, get chucked out first.)  And you want to put the few,
>    late-twentieth century let's-REALLY-look-at-the-data books in
>    the same category as those other history books?  Think about it.

What men defined women, all of them...the wealthy ones...politically
influential ones? How did they get such power? What was the cause and
effect of it all?
 
Did women define men on any level?

If men defined women why did the women tolerate it...buy into it?

Just a little more precision please....Your take is interesting.If
you're comfortable with it..just a little more detail.

thanks,
MAC

    Mac,
    
    We have been working on answering this question for three versions
    of this notefile, there is an entire field, called feminist theory,
    on this question, and you want me to give you the details in this
    one note?!?
    
    It sounds to me like you're trying to define the limits of this
    study for us.
    
    Think about it (again).
    
    						Ann B.

    RE: 42 Ann
    
    I wasn't aware of the note on feminist theory you referenced.
    I will try to catch up with it as you suggest. Please don't
    feel that I'm requesting you dump all that out...unless you want 
    to.
    
    My questions are not an attempt to limit the discussion. They are
    the geniune responses I have to 'men defining women' as a statement.
    
    I truly believe that 'men define women' as a statement by itself
    belongs with: democrats spen money, republicans favor the rich,
    blacks are lazy, jews are....ect. I hate, HATE..HATE, statements
    such as these. I've heard them over my lifetime, I still hear them
    from time to time....my children report them and like statements
    from their school experience. When we need humanity in our persuits
    these statements and the like stand in the way. 
    
    Too many people operate off of these things. They're not fleshed out
    enough which I feel weakens their prejudical aspects.
    
    Mac

    re .39, and *why* it is/was so important to men that women's sexuality
    be 'under control'....
    
    Basically, it's back to this idea that men want to know which kids are
    theirs.  If a woman's sexuality isn't strictly controlled, she might
    have sex with lots of different guys, and then how could they be sure
    that the child they were leaving property to was really theirs?
    
    Alison 

    If you are interested in the topic of women in early civilizations, and
    how they differed from our civilizations, please see also:
    
    Womannotes-v1
    518 - beliefs in early civilizations
    
    womannotes-v2
    84 - beliefs in early civilizations, rev.
    
    
    -Jody
    

    RE .36
     
    Sharon
    
    Don't feel funny about walking down the street. If I understand your
    note correctly your interpeting my note to say that some action is 
    very difficult to control. Its not the action its the thought only.
    You should'nt let what some strange man thinks bother you.
    
    I would like to hear what some other guys think about my honesty on
    this subject. Since I got involved with this note I"ve asked some
    friends the questions " When you hear a girls name like Lisa, or Judy
    what's the first thing you think of?" The unanimous responce was...
    I wonder what she looks like. next question.. If she looks good, whats
    the first thing you think of? Without getting to explicit, the answer
    was sex, also unanimous. BTW I asked 17 friends, all male. Now is it
    just me and my friends or what? I don't think so. I honestly think its
    another case of the 80, 20 rule. 80% of the men think sex as a first
    reaction. 
    K.C.
    

re: 46 Sharon

>    I would like to hear what some other guys think about my honesty on
>    this subject. Since I got involved with this note I"ve asked some
>    friends the questions " When you hear a girls name like Lisa, or Judy
>    what's the first thing you think of?" The unanimous responce was...
>    I wonder what she looks like. next question.. If she looks good, whats
>    the first thing you think of? Without getting to explicit, the answer
>    was sex, also unanimous. BTW I asked 17 friends, all male. Now is it
>    just me and my friends or what? I don't think so. I honestly think its
>    another case of the 80, 20 rule. 80% of the men think sex as a first
>    reaction. 

	Being very hetro in orientation I more often than not think of
women in sexual terms. This doesn't seem to stop me from thinking and 
responding to them in other terms though.

	As far as defining their roles within this context...wouldn't I just
love to.....probably get bored real fast though. Women also do some defining
of male response roles when and where they can...at least the few women I've
been intimate with in my lifetime. Is the difference that its not as primary
a focus for women as for men?


MAC

	

    There are still some men out there who believe that a 
    woman's place is in the home taking care of him and 
    the babies.  How about that gals!  Sounds good to me.
    Betty

    >    There are still some men out there who believe that a 
    >    woman's place is in the home taking care of him and 
    >    the babies.  How about that gals!  Sounds good to me.
    
    Betty, I hope your choices work out well for you, and that you've
    found the kind of man who suits your hopes and dreams.
    
    At the same time, I hope that no woman ever again has her own hopes and 
    dreams squashed by her association with some man who thinks that way.
    
    DougO

    Re: .47
    
    You must have spoken to a conservative male in Utah!  Fortunately,
    that stereo type is beginning to weaken around here (slowly, I might
    add)...
    
    Barb