Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    It is one mighty screwed up world where getting your a** shot at is
    referred to as a "career-enhancing opportunity". And it really *is*.

Premise 1: Females should have the same priviliges as Males in this 
           society.

Premise 2: With any privilige comes responsibilities.

Premise 3: If women should have the priviliges, they should have the 
           responsibilities as well.

Conclusion: Women should experience the same possibility of being shot
            at (and of shooting back, of course) that Men do.

                                                      -Robert Brown III

.0 -

>  Speaking to a news conference, Ireland said Congress would not have
>  authorized the war if women comprised half its members, instead of 5
>  percent.

>  ''The Congress that authorized use of force is 95 percent male, 95
>  percent white and has no acknowledged lesbians. It is hardly a
>  representative body,'' she said.


I'm glad somebody's awake out there.

D. 

    re .3, really, what a privilege for women to have the opportunity to
    kill and die in a war they didn't get to vote on.
    
    Perhaps soon men (in congress) can actually send women out to fight and
    die in wars that only men get to decide on?  This is equality for
    women?  
    
    Thanks, anyway, but I'd rather wait til there are more women in
    congress before I'd agree women should be drafted.
    
    I do think that women who *volunteer* for combat duty should be
    eligible.  
    
    I don't think anyone (men or women) should be drafted, anyway.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    hmmm I thought that a lady from the north east had come out. (but I
    sure ain't gonna repeat her name here, cuz maybe i'm wrong)

    Well, if women are given the privilege of fighting and dying in
    war, then they'd better be given ERA as well. If I remember correctly,
    one of the arguments some women had against the ERA was that then
    'we would become equal enough to go to war.'  I agree with Lorna;
    let's see women senators, representatives, supreme justices in
    equal numbers first.
    
    I've seen so many pinstriped suits and red-white-blue ties on the
    TV this past week to last me a lifetime.
    
    maia
    

    There are more women in combat than the public realizes. 
    
    In last night's briefing, Lt. General Kelly very carefully
    referred to the men *and women* who were flying the reconaissance
    missions that were assessing the bombing damage (planes getting
    shot at just like the bombers) and operating the refueling jets. 
    The only position he's consistently used only male pronouns for is
    the crews of the bombers and fighters.
    
    I think it's more a matter of getting credit for work that's
    already being done than of women into new areas.
    
    --bonnie

    Molly Yard and other members of NOW have had many profound things to
    say.  For the most part I support them.  Women in combat is not an area
    I agree with them.  I spent a year in Viet Nam and would not wish the
    combat experiene on ANYONE.  Military personell are exploited in ways
    too numerous to mention.  To view combat as a 'career enhancing
    experience' is just so ludicrous.  In Viet Nam I had three friends die
    in my arms and I wasn't a Medic or Corpman.  I flipped out and tried to
    push one of my friends intestines back in his body.  It's a scene that
    took me years to balance out.  The sight of the blood and steam mixed
    with the mud, leaves and organs will be with me forever.  The point is
    that we have to find a better way to settle our differences.  We have
    to find a way to get men OUT of combat, not women IN.  
    
    The other assumption is that women in the drivers seat would make
    better decisions than men.  I see no evidence of this.  Margaret
    Thatcher's invasion of the Falklands seems just as fascist as George
    Bush's invasion of Panama and our current involvement in the Middle
    East.  Golda Meir had the same rascist attitudes toward Arabs as
    Yitzach Shamir.
    
    While I feel strongly that women need much more representation in all
    branches of government, I see no evidence that simply because they are
    women they will do a better job.  

    re .7, but what about ground forces?
    
    Usually nobody gets to fly a plane who doesn't want to, and I agree
    that women who are already doing this should be given credit. 
    
    Lorna
    

    <let's see women senators, representatives, supreme justices in
    <equal numbers first.
    
    
    And then theoritically we might see our elected officials do a better
    job of peace?
    
    Let me suggest an alternate hypothesis
    
    The only way they could get to be in a position to exercise such
    power would be to nurture their competitive instincts, (and suppress
    their nurturant instincts). In so doing they would (likely) compromise
    those values which are consistent with maintaining peace.
    
    All of which is a very fancy way of saying ...

    In order to get elected, women, in large part typically lose or at
    least compromise extensively, or - i dunno- never had?, those
    attributes/drives/instincts that y'all would like to believe are female
    character traits.
    
    
    				herb
    
    
    

    RE: .10
    
    Then again, when enough women have "seen combat" and gotten into
    (finally) positions of power in places like the Pentagon, Congress,
    and the Executive branch....maybe *then* we'll have the leadership
    that figures out how to manage without violence.
    
    If you're right, and those qualities do not exist in females, either,
    the species might as well blow itself away, anyway, for as useful as it is.
    
    One way or another, the situation will be solved.
    
    --DE
    

    .8 I agree completely.
    
    I very much believe that we need greater numbers of female
    representation in all branches of government.  That will not ensure,
    however, that we have better government.  Or even different government,
    although I'd WISH that it would.
    
    Women and men in the armed services are there by choice.  They should
    have (based on rank, job, etc) the same responsibilities, be subject to
    the same risks, and be afforded the same privileges.
    
    But like .8 said, the key is getting men OUT, not women IN.

    re: .9, Lorna
    
    I don't know as much about ground forces.  I know women don't
    actually operate the rocket launchers, but they do operate the
    radar and sighting equipment that controls the rockets' course. 
    Many supply units (driving munitions trucks, etc.) have many women
    in them; such convoys are frequently targets of bombing attacks.
    My daughter's best friend's brother is in a Marine Corps unit
    includes women; they expect to be part of any large ground
    movement.  I don't know what exactly  their specialty is, though.
    
    re: .8, the awfulness of death
    
    When I heard my male friends telling stories like that, I wished I
    *had* volunteered for Viet Nam.  It did not seem fair -- still
    doesn't seem fair -- that they should have to face suffering like
    that when I didn't even have to think about it.  
    
    I figure that if I want equal rights, I have to take it across the
    board, even if that includes being forced to choose between dying
    in an unjust war or leaving my country.   
    
    --bonnie
    
    

re .4

>    re .3, really, what a privilege for women to have the opportunity to
>    kill and die in a war they didn't get to vote on.

	Huh? Did the Nineteenth Amendment to the US Constitution
	get repealed while no one was looking?

					Tom_K

    I think there's a direct connection between the number of women in 
    Congress and the fact that women are barred from combat duty, although
    I am less willing to accept the premise that this war would have been
    prevented if Congress were half women.

    Military service is typically seen as a positive factor in political
    candidates.  (When was the last time you read a summary of the backgrounds
    of various candidates for Congress - or president - that *didn't* include 
    mention of military service?)  However, women are discouraged from joining
    the armed forces because of the fact that it is *not* an equal opportunity
    employer.  For an ambitious women who wants to be running the show herself
    someday, the military is not an optimal career choice, because her 
    advancement is limited.  Yet, this is the same sort of ambition that
    leads people into government.  So it becomes a vicious circle to some 
    degree.

    It also affects the decision-making level.  A woman, for example, would
    never be in Colin Powell's position - and yet his influence over those
    in Washington who make the decisions about whether or not to wage war is
    undeniable.  If women are barred from some positions, and men are not,
    it is unlikely that women will be represented proportionally. 

    Women are in combat today, even if they personally are not dropping the
    bombs.  They're just not going to get the credit for it, because of 
    institutionalized discrimination.  Saying that this is a policy that 
    shields women from the dangers of the front lines makes it publicly 
    more palatable than it would ever be if it were in the civilian sector 
    - but it doesn't make it true, and it doesn't stop it from being
    patronizing.
    
    Although I agree fully with .8 that the key is getting men OUT of combat, 
    not women INTO it, .0 is right on target.  I'm so glad to hear someone
    else saying what I've been thinking all along.

	Sharon

    .10
    
    Pat Schroeder is one woman.
    

    re .15 
    I saw a repeat of a Colin Powell Q & A session this morning. At one
    point -discussing the Iraqi soldiers in Kuwail, Powell said (with about
    the same affect as your tax advisor has when he tells you will be
    receiving a $15.00 rebate) Powell said something like ...
    
    First we will cut him off from his supplies.
    Then we will kill him
    
    Precise, sterile, surgery
    
    I totally agree with you. 
    I think -as already said- the personality traits that female
    representatives would value (statistically at least) would include
    those associated with war service. Time to ship our girls 'over there'.
    Sounds like you may see some 'truth' in the hypothesis that the more
    *power* women have, the 'less like wimmin' they will become. (or perhaps
    I missed something?)

    re .16. Yup!
    
    (I don't pretend to suggest that the Pat Schroeder citation says
    anything, except possibly a bit of anecdotal trivia)
    
    ( i think she is quite a lady by the way. She has done a superb job of
    working to improve our society's sensitivity to child care issues.)
    
    				h

The solution is NOT to "get men out" it is to make sure that both men and women
believe in peace. I personally don't have a lot of faith that a woman who
would volunteer for combat duty is going to have the same attitude about going
to war that I do...

	-- Charles

    RE: .19
    
    Yup. That's the crux of it. 
    
    Although, "believe in peace" might be a bit general. I doubt there's
    anyone, including Mr Bush, who would say he didn't believe in peace.
    
    How about: "believe in peaceful, non-violent actions; and
    peaceful, non-violent solutions."
    
    
    And BTW, I often wonder how much we can tell about what women's
    actions/ideas are in this society, and what they would've been
    without centuries of patriarchy.
    
    --DE
    
    

    re. 19
    
    <<The solution is NOT to "get men out" . . .>>
    
    What do you see as the solution?
    
    What makes you think that your attitude about going to war would be
    different than that of a woman's?
    
    patrick

> What makes you think that your attitude about going to war would be
> different than that of a woman's?

I believe that killing people to achieve your ends is always immoral. I doubt
that my hypothetical woman combat aviator feels the same way.

> What do you see as the solution?

Universal belief in the tenets of non-violence.

	-- Charles

    re.  22
    
    When I said the solution was to get men OUT instead of getting women
    IN.  I meant that we should solve our differences in a non-violent
    manner instead of finding different ways of killing each other.  I
    think we are both saying the same things in different ways.
    
    I feel that your attitude toward killing would differ from *some*
    combat soldiers but certainly not all.  I had your feelings about war
    when I was in the middle of the Viet Nam war so I personally know of
    one exception.  I just don't see it divided along gender lines.
    
    patrick

> I feel that your attitude toward killing would differ from *some*
> combat soldiers but certainly not all.  I had your feelings about war
> when I was in the middle of the Viet Nam war so I personally know of
> one exception.  I just don't see it divided along gender lines.

I said in .19 "... a woman who would volunteer for combat duty."

Note the word "volunteer." I chose my words carefully.

	-- Charles

    re.  24
    
    Charles,
    
    Ok I see what you're saying but I don't agree.  I just personally know
    too many exceptions.  Grant it the exceptions are all men.  I spent 4
    years in the military and a year in Viet Nam.  There was a draft then
    and I didn't volunteer for combat duty but I knew a lot of soldiers. 
    While it's true that naive, young, testorone driven males may volunteer
    for combat, it didn't take long for them to realize the folly of their
    ways.  The military pumped us up to believe that we we're fighting
    for a cause, that the enemy were somehow sub-human, godless beings that
    really didn't mind dying anyway.  The human element was replaced with
    acronyms and other substitutes.  We didn't kill people we 'hit
    targets', or 'held strategic positions'.  Missions were often described
    in terms of football games.  There is no doubt that even volunteer
    women would buy this BS.  There is also no doubt that many of them will
    realize that they have been exploited just as many of the men do.
     
    There is a disproportionate number of blacks in todays military and
    particularly in ground troops.  When you realize that in America today
    a black male between the age of 18 and 25 is TEN TIMES
    more likely to be killed violently, you can understand why many of them
    'volunteer' for the military.  It beats working at MacDonalds.  Many of
    them are lied to and told that their lives will be much better in the
    military.  When these ground troops are eventually sent in to Kuwait to
    attack a heavily armed and well protected Iraqi army, thousands of them
    will be slaughtered.  Did they volunteer?  YUP!  Do they want to kill? 
    NOPE!  If there were women in these troops would they feel any
    different?  I don't think so.  
    
    Charles, I feel like the biggest dove I know.  I am very upset about
    what's going on in the East right now.  It brings back all kinds of
    feelings for me.  I also feel that I would not be a such strong pacifist
    if I hadn't seen the effects of war first hand.  I feel that many
    soldiers will return from this war with the same feelings that I did. 
    My point of all this is that just because someone 'volunteers' for the
    military or even combat duty doesn't mean that they feel different than
    you and I about killing.

    	NOW has my support for their demands that women be given equal
    	opportunity to serve in combat positions.
    

>    	NOW has my support for their demands that women be given equal
>    	opportunity to serve in combat positions.

I strongly agree. Women have the moral right to choose for themselves. I respect
any woman willing to fight and die for her country - however strongly I disagree
with her.

	-- Charles
   

    I think this topic is fascinating.  I also support NOW's insistence
    that women be allowed to serve in combat postions, although I for
    one do not believe in the efforts of war.  I don't think women will
    ever be considered equal to men if we are excluded from hand to hand
    combat.  If we want equality--which I desperately do--then we better
    be ready to take it all the way across the board. 
    
    One of the issues in this note that a friend and I were just discussing
    is the attitudes of women in government.  I made the statement that
    if women were ruling this world, I don't think we'd find ourselves in
    wars (please note: IMO).  Yes, we would find ourselves at each other's
    throats, but I don't think we would be as apt as men to use war 
    as a solution.  
    
    She pointed out Margater Thatcher's handling of the the Falklands,
    and said it was no different than the way any man would handle the
    same situation.
    
    Ah, BUT, I told her, you're missing the point.  Margaret Thatcher
    is a female politician operating in a white man's world.  She has
    to play the white man's game or she looses everything she had hoped
    to gain for women (when in Rome do as the Romans, and all that).
    I'm sure Margaret has had to ignore her own principals on numerous
    occasions just to be able to maintain and accumulate her power.
    
    It won't be until women have a true representation in politics 
    before we start to see women politicians acting like women and
    not men.   It's sad but true.  I see it every day.  You can't change
    the rules until the majority of the people playing want the same
    rules as you do.
    
    Shirley 
            

    I would give Margaret Thatcher some credit; I think she really believes
    what she says.  While I don't agree with her principles, I think she
    does adhere to them.
    
    -- Mike

    .17, Herb,
    
    well, I feel strongly that if you are going to fight at all, you should
    fight with all your heart and will, to win.  Given that, and his role
    and job (aside from any judgement of that role, for the moment), I have
    no problem with what Gen. Colin Powell said.
    
    And ain't I a woman?
        
    Sara

  >>I don't think women will
  >>  ever be considered equal to men if we are excluded from hand to hand
  >>  combat.
    
    
    I find this the most depressing concept I have ever heard.  More so
    becuase it is almost certainly true.
    
    E Grace

    re .30
    
    If I am reading your reply correctly I think you may have misunderstood
    my comments in 17. I quite agree with your comments. simply meant to be
    underlining the clinically chilling reality that war is.
    
    				herb
    

    
>    She pointed out Margater Thatcher's handling of the the Falklands,
>    and said it was no different than the way any man would handle the
>    same situation.
 
	I disagree completely, If the Labour government were in power with
	Kinnock at the head - I bet thinks would have been slower, messier,
	and half-hearted.
   
>    Ah, BUT, I told her, you're missing the point.  Margaret Thatcher
>    is a female politician operating in a white man's world.  She has
>    to play the white man's game or she looses everything she had hoped
>    to gain for women (when in Rome do as the Romans, and all that).
>    I'm sure Margaret has had to ignore her own principals on numerous
>    occasions just to be able to maintain and accumulate her power.
 
	I do not believe that Maggie is the type of person who would ever ignore
	her own principles.

	Whether you agree with her or not, she always did what she said she 
	would do, and I cannot think of anyone else we've had as PM that
	has stuck by their beliefs and priciples.

	Maggie didn't care what other people thought, she was not swayed by
	anyone else.
   
>    It won't be until women have a true representation in politics 
>    before we start to see women politicians acting like women and
>    not men.   It's sad but true.  I see it every day.  You can't change
>    the rules until the majority of the people playing want the same
>    rules as you do.
 
	What do you mean by "women acting like women, not men"?

	Heather


	PS, Maggie did not invade the Faulklands, the Argentinians tried to 
	invade the Faulklands, we went to protect the Faulklands at their 
	request.

.28 -

I agree -- electing a whole lot more women to public office, especially 
Congress, might make a big difference in how likely we are to get into war. 
(Remember women -- the ones who create, generally care for, and in many
cases value, human life, and who've been all but absent from the news
lately?) 

oops - better duck


(duck)<------------------------------------------------------------(Thatcher!)

     

    re .31, I wonder if that means that to be a man, as well as to be equal
    to men, one must participate in hand to hand combat?  That is a
    depressing concept, to realize that a person's importance is still, in
    these enlightened times, determined by hand-to-hand combat.
    
    That's okay...I'm not sure I really wanted to play anyway...
    
    Lorna
    

Patrick,

Your comments on Vietnam are very illuminating.  Thanks for sharing
them.

john

    re .33, Heather, "Maggie didn't care what other people thought..."
    
    That's the trouble with most world leaders.  Half the time they *don't*
    seem to care what other people think!  :-(
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I suggest we coin a word that means to throw Thatcher at you when you
    just suggested that a world run equally by women and men might be a
    less warlike one than a world run almost entirely by men. To "thatch"?
    As in, "She 'thatched' me when I said that"? or "She 'maggied' me when I
    said that"? "He 'ironed' me?"
    
    Fresh out of ideas here,
    
    D.
    

	I do not believe that the percentage of women in a government has any
	effect on the likelyhood of that country of going to war.    

	People are people.

	Now, a government full of Kinnocks might be a different matter.


	Another interesting fact.....

	It has been announced that WRENS are to be recruited to fly navy 
	aircraft.

	By the mid-90's women will also be serving alsongside male fliers.

	This decision has come about because of the "impressive performance" by
	female pilots and aircrew already under training in the RAF.


	Heather

    People who have never been in a combat situation (including Pat
    Schroeder) are not showing me any superior intelligence by volunteering
    their sisters for combat trauma and death.
    
    By definition if you say that women would be better at making war/no
    war decisions simply because of their gender you are a sexist.  In my
    opinion gender still has nothing to do with it.  Power has a lot to do
    with it.  To accept a position of power in a government is to indicate
    to me that this person has a MEGA ego.  That is where these decisions
    come from not from the genitals.  
    
    Testostorone doesn't cause wars.
    
    patrick

    RE: .39
    
    Women no more likely to affect war/peace policy? How depressing.
    We're totally out of genders to effect peace, then.
    
    RE: hand-to-hand combat necessary for males?
    
    Certainly. Ever supervised an elementary school playround? Junior
    High school corridors? Hand-to-hand combat starts early among males.
    I believe a large part of a boys' growing up (at least in the US,
    which is the only country I'm that familiar with) has to do with
    concerns about this combat, and either how to *do* it or how to 
    *deal* with it. 
    
    Remember all those 50's movies with Dad teaching Junior how to 
    "handle himself" so he won't be seen as a <note the word, here>
    wimp. Or worse, a pussy.
    
    --DE
    

    well, not to get into a rathole but testosterone may have a larger
    role than we think in causing wars; I'm simply thinking of the
    'boys will be boys' comment; how boys are expected to fight in
    school, how hockey players spend most of their time swinging at
    each other and not at the puck...
    
    This isn't meant to offend, simply that hormones, chemicals, genes,
    whatever do tend to play  role in our actions and reactions.  Look
    at all the PMS hype nowadays.
    

    The Nature/Nurture controversy probably won't be solved by us. It's
    extremely difficult to determine what affects a person more.
    
    Still, testosterone hasn't adversely those who demonstrate peaceful
    attitudes and solutions...and have beards, for example. ;-)
    
    How we treat boys vs girls starts AT birth. How infants are picked up
    differs depending on their gender. And it only gets worse from there.
    Boy babies are far more likely to get thrown up in the air and caught
    that girl babies are. A boy baby is far more likely to have Dad "play
    fight" (soft punches, etc) with him, than a girl baby.
    
    It starts so immediately on birth that it's extremely difficult to
    say Nature or Nurture. 
    
    We're in a situation in which two men from different cultures obviously
    believe that certain behaviours are signs of "weakness". It may, then,
    be Nature...or it may be that (patriarchal) Nurture is that pervasive 
    on the planet.
    
    --DE
    

    aw cummon...
    
    Since Alan Alda played the role of a Doctor in M.A.S.H (mobile army
    surgical hospital?) he obviously speaks with authority about such
    matters, right?
    
    

    re. 669.44 and 39.19
    
    I understand the argument . . . I just feel it's over simplication. 
    If there is Testostorone poisoning then there must be Estrogen
    poisoning.  This gives the camp that says women should not be allowed
    to fly commercial airliners ammo.  To say that humans have no control
    over their chemistry is to accept a victim status.  Testostorone and
    Estrogen (in my opinion) is fuel.  You can use that fuel to torture
    captured pilots (Saddam Huessin) or you can use that fuel to pursue
    peace (Perez de Cuellar).

    Alan Alda is as much an authority on Physiological Phychology as Ted
    Bundy was on pornography.

    re 669.46
    
    I think I understand the argument in .44 too. I think its called
    guerrila warfare.

    I don't think Alda's comments were meant to be taken at face value, 
    ie, he is not seriously suggesting that we take an inbuilt hormonal
    situation and call it a malignant condition.  He is using medical
    terminology to make a point about social behavior.  It's rhetoric.
    His point is not necessarily that men are poisoned by their hormones, 
    but that there is *something* about being male that leads nearly all 
    males in all societies to activities more violent than those engaged 
    in by women.  That *something* may be environmental; it may be all
    the traditional stereotypical conscious and unconscious roles forced
    upon young male children, which are different from the roles forced
    upon young female children.  I find it far more valuable to recognize
    the symptoms, the conditions, the background of his hypothesis, and
    recognize that his label "testosterone poisoning" is merely his way of
    tying all those observed facts together.  If you don't like the label
    or the implication that male hormones do influence the behaviors of all 
    men, then it behooves you to come up with an alternate explanation for
    the observed facts; ie, men are statistically much more prone to commit
    acts of violence than are women.  Why?
    
    DougO

    Can somebody tell me what  ;-) means 
    
    I can't tell whether that's a 
    
    smile, a smirk, or a sneer

    re. .49
    
    To say that male behavior is affected by a myriad of factors including:
    
    1.  Environment
    2.  Heritage
    3.  Diet (ie sugar, caffiene etc)
    4.  Religous training
    5.  Schooling
    6.  Peers
    7.  Siblings
    8.  Body chemistry
    9.  on and on
    
    is realistic.
    
    To say or imply that ONE of these factors is the predominent factor is
    drastic oversimplification.  

    
Hey wait a minute. Can we say t*st*st*ron* in here?

D.

    It's a smile with a wink, Herb.
    
    Nit: Estrogen and testosterone are so different in their capabilities
    that it is grossly inaccurate to say `Estrogen is to <a> as
    testosterone is to <b>.'
    
    						Ann B.

    re .52
    I suggest you not bother. It seems clear to me that .49 is serving the
    purpose of an apologistic entry.
    
    
    you know, sort of like -oh say- William Buckley explaining perhaps
    Anita Bryant?

    thankyou, Ann

    re .53>can we say...
    
    Yes, *if* your tone of voice is properly respectful >;-)

re: .38

>    I suggest we coin a word that means to throw Thatcher at you when you
>    just suggested that a world run equally by women and men might be a
>    less warlike one than a world run almost entirely by men.

Dorian,

    Much as I sympathize with your frustration, I can't believe that the
    solution lies in coining another term which demeans a woman.  Thatcher
    can no more be taken as a representative of all women than Gandhi or 
    Hitler are of all men.  I think that's understood - but the fact remains
    that until the world *is* run equally by men and women, there won't be
    any hard data about the correlation between the gender of the rulers
    and the degree to which the world is warlike.

    It drives me crazy to see women in politics held up and scrutinized as
    examples of "what women in power are like" by the same people who insist
    there's a world of difference between, say, Bush and Dukakis (even though
    they're both men).  Coining terms which encapsulate the stereotypes those 
    women have come to represent does nothing to help the situation.

    All that Margaret Thatcher proves is that the mere fact of having two 
    X chromosomes won't prevent a leader from declaring wars.  

	Sharon

    Herb,
    
    if Alda is too subtle for you, just say so and we'll leave it at that.
    
    The observations upon which his hypothesis was based were clearly
    spelled out.  Go ahead, try this on yourself:
    
    > men are statistically much more prone to commit acts of violence 
    > than are women.  Why?
    
    DougO

        
    	.57
    
	I'm afraid this could be *mb*rr*ss*ng to the m*n.

	D.

    re. .59
    
    re:  Men being statistically much more prone to commit acts of
    violence.
    
    Statistically, a black male between the age of 18 and 25 is TEN TIMES
    more likely to die violently than his white counterpart.  The people in
    this note that blame violence on testostorone would have to conclude
    that black males have TEN TIMES more testostorone that while males.  I
    conclude, (and I think you concur Doug) that there are many other
    factors involved.

    re .52,
    
    > 1.  Environment
    > 2.  Heritage
    > 3.  Diet (ie sugar, caffiene etc)
    > 4.  Religous training
    > 5.  Schooling
    > 6.  Peers
    > 7.  Siblings
    > 8.  Body chemistry
    > 9.  on and on
    
    I'd reformat that, myself:
    1- environment(Diet, Religion, Schooling, Peers, Siblings, Parenting, etc)
    2- heredity(heritage, body chemistry (incl gender-based differences), etc)
    
    So, we look at the question again:
    
    > men are statistically much more prone to commit acts of violence 
    > than are women.  Why?
    
    And we see Alda proposing either (per Herb) an hypothesis that cat 2 is
    more important or (per my interpretation of his rhetoric) that while
    cat 2 is the obvious difference, his evidence clearly falls into cat 1
    as well, and we are all supposed to think about it.
    
    DougO                        

    re .61, dieing violently is not the same as committing acts of
    violence.  10x higher probability of death by violence .ne. 10x
    higher probability of committing violence.
    
    DougO

    re. .63
    
    The KKK is not going into the inner city and killing blacks.  This is
    blacks killing blacks.  This violence is the result of poverty,
    desperation, and many of the other factors I've already mentioned.

    So Doug, does the content of your participation in this discussion
    indicate that you have now become enlightened and thus oppose the war
    in the Persian Gulf?  ;-)
    
    -- Mike

    Mike, you know what you're supposed to do if you meet the Bhudda on the
    road, right?  No, I'm not making any claims to be 'enlightened'.  What
    the content I'm describing is about is recognizing the human frailties
    that are part of being male; as discussed by Alda, as misunderstood by
    Herb.  I'm still opposed to the war in the gulf, the one that began
    last August, yes.  I'm still of the opinion that so long as there are
    so many of these prone-to-violence people, mostly males, in this world,
    their more heinous acts of aggression must be opposed.  Interpret that
    in a catchy two-liner if you wish.  Please recognize that some of my
    bitter irony in this situation is indeed reserved for myself.

    DougO                                                        

    ps- congratulations on your impending transition.  I mean it :-) 

	***************************************
	******************************************
	***********.

	D.

    re .64, so, don't get me wrong.  I'm trying to follow this.  You're
    suggesting that the evidence of black-on-black violence, interpreted
    through Alda's testosterone-poisoning argument, suggests that blacks
    have 10x the testosterone of white, which is patently false, which
    invalidates Alda's hypothesis.  Did I get that right, is that your
    position?
    
    DougO

    'Testosterone poisoning'in this conference is not used as a diagnosis, it
    is used as a cuss. Although I don't *know* the cause of violence I
    do deplore it. I even tried to deal with the matter seriously in among
    other places 669.10,.17.
    I don't know why 'males are more violent'. Neither do you. Neither does
    D. Kottler. Neither does Alan Alda. 
    And it doesn't help to get nasty about it.
    (and in case there was any doubt, *i* feel the nastiness was started by the
    ridiculous reference to an earlier reference to Alan Alda

    who by the way is one of my all time favorite people, both as a man and
    as an actor.

    But for information on the etiology of violence, i would prefer someone
    slightly more orthodox.

    Of course, maybe Laetrile (ground up apricot seeds) cures cancer.
    And maybe the occasional 'bitchiness' in this conference can be attributed
    to the menstrual cycle too.
    
    p.s.
    If someone feels the nastiness was started by me, please point out the
    response if I agree I will delete it and apologize

    In answer to .68
    
    My position is:
    
    a.  Body chemistry, including hormones, is only one factor driving human
        behavior.
    
    b.  Saying that women would do a better job running this country simply
        because they are women is by definition, sexist.
    
    c.  I see more correlation between power and war than testostorone and
        war.
    
    d.  To suggest that men in genral are singularly influenced
        (testostorone again) is oversimplication.  And if you hold this to
        be a truth, then you must conclude the same for estrogen in women.
    
    e.  The reasons for the disparity of behavior between men and women are
        many and body chemistry is just one factor.
    
    f.  My reference to black violence is merely to point out the
        discrepancy of thinking that testostorone alone causes violence. 
        What I'm saying is that IF testostorone alone causes violence then
        logically we must conclude that black males have ten times more
        than white males.  This, of course, is absurd and so is the
        argument that testostorone alone causes violence and/or war.  And
    	so is the implication that
        because women's levels of testostorone are much smaller than men's
    	they would necessarily make fewer choices to engage in war if given
        the authority.  
    
    g.  I support more women in governing bodies but not because I think
    	they are superior simply because they are women.  I support them
    	because they have new and innovative ways of looking at old
    	problems.  Problems that the 'Good ole boy' network can't see
    	reasonable solutions to.  
    
    h.  I am a Dove.  I used to belong to Viet Nam Veterens against the
    	war.
    
    i.  Everyone has the right to defend themselves.  The people of
    	Nagasaki and Hiroshima did not attack the United States and neither
    	did the citizens of Iraq.
    
    patrick

    Herb, my .49 was not an attempt to be nasty.  But I sure didn't like
    your .55 in response.
    
    DougO

    Patrick, my .49 is not in disagreement with you.
    
    DougO

    re. .72
    
    DougO,
    
    I have felt that we have been in agreement all along.  I hope you
    didn't think I was ripping you.
    
    patrick
    

    
    .69
    
    I think you mean b*tch*n*ss.
    

    I intended to be angry in .55. I did not believe that .49 was a sincere
    attempt to understand. I believed .49 was intended to be 'damage
    control' for .44. Which is where I feel the nastiness began. If that
    interpretation is incorrect I apologize. In any case, I am glad to bow
    out of this discussion.
    
    
    				herb
    

    Patrick,
    
    This makes the second time you've objected to the idea that women
    would make `better' leaders than men.  I have read the base note
    twice, and I have not found that concept in there -- unless you
    mean "more representative" == "better".  In short, I think that
    you are objecting to an idea that has not been presented.
    
    Testosterone is a steroid; estrogen is not.  Testosterone is one
    of the few hormones in the whoooole world that operates by tying
    two molecules together (This is how it builds muscles.) rather
    than by tearing one molecule into two parts, the way dull, ordinary
    hormones work.  An excess of testosterone is the cause of at least
    one mental disorder; there is no such implication for estrogen.
    An injection of testosterone has a good chance of killing you; again,
    estrogen carries no such risk.
    
    Now that you know something of what makes testosterone so special,
    I hope you won't treat it as the mere equivalent of estogen anymore.
    :-)
    						Ann B.

    Ann,
    
    I think you missed my point which is that to assume that testostorone
    ALONE causes violence (see the Alan Alda note) is oversimplification.  
    
    I'm not saying that testostorone and estrogen are identical chemically,
    I'm saying that I don't believe that we as humans are controlled by our
    chemistry.  Influenced, yes, controlled, no.  This is true for men and
    women.
    
    There are a couple of replys that make reference to Margaret Thatcher
    and state or imply that if she were left to her 'nature' (ie female)
    she would not have been agressive and would not have ordered troops to
    the Falklands.  I maintain that gender has nothing to do with it.
    I also maintain that gender has nothing to do with leadership or
    superiority/inferiority.
    
    Also check your reference again, estrogen is a steroid hormone.

	EASTERN SAUDI ARABIA (UPI) -- While women soldiers may remain confined
to support roles in the Persian Gulf war, some of them have been pushed
ahead of infantry troops to set up supply lines near what is likely to
become the front in a ground battle.
	``I didn't think I was going into the combat zone,'' said Pvt. 1st
Class Amy Deever, a 20-year-old from Alabama as she trudged along with
backpack and flak jacket. ``I didn't think women could go so close.''
	She pondered the policy restricting combat role by women.
	``They said as long as we were up here and we were attacked we would
have to fight, but otherwise we're not considered a combat unit,'' she
added. ``It sounds silly now we're so close up. At night you hear the
firing and you wonder when they're all going to get us.''
	Women, although remaining in support roles, have been pushed forward
along the lines this past week in Saudi Arabia, even ahead of most of
the infantry, by the need to establish forward supply bases.
	The female soldiers make up 8 percent of the troops at a main forward
Marine logistics base, where Marine Lance Cpl. Patricia Perez has begun
having second thoughts.
	``I don't feel women should be up here unless their job calls for it,
'' said Perez, who works for the decontamination unit of the base and
would be expected to go forward and treat soldiers caught in a chemical
attack.
	``I see a lot of females here doing nothing,'' said Perez of
Rochester, N.Y. ``There's no sense of having a female out here when it's
pretty clear that they can't accomplish as much as a man can and can't
compete in strength.''
	But, she said, ``If they need me I'll have to go and I want to go.
This is the furthest women have been in the combat zone. I want everyone
to know the part I played, because when it happens I will have been
right in the middle of it.''
	Some support units decided to leave their women behind when they were
ordered to the Persian Gulf. Initially, the Marines were slow to deploy
any women.
	Their arrival has drawn mixed reviews from men. While many are
pleased to have female companionship, others claim women receive special
treatment and could simply get in the way if fighting breaks out.
	``It's a big adjustment for the guys,'' Perez said. ``There's a lot
of things they have to hold back on, like swearing.''
	And sex, she said. ``When men are living in the desert, their loins
start tingling. They see a female and their heads aren't clear. They
want to go into combat with a clear head. Having women around can be a
pain in the butt.''
	Sexual relations between Marines are prohibited while on duty. And
during war, they are considered to be on the job 24 hours a day. At this
point, all seem more concerned about death than sex.
	``Nobody's going to keep me here in a body bag,'' Perez said. ``I
plan on going home.''
	But Staff Sgt. Jacqueline Bowling, 29, of Nice, Calif., said female
casualties are almost inevitable.
	``The day the first woman Marine is killed is going to cause problems
with public opinion,'' she said. ``I just don't think that the public in
general is quite ready to accept it.''
 

    re.78
    
    Amazing because:
    
    1.  The military censors let UPI print this.  I understood that because
    	of Saudi's views of women, they were ordered to keep a low profile.
    
    2.  Lance Cpl. Perez is ripping her fellow female soldiers.
    
    3.  The Marine Corp allowed her to speak to the press.  Usually the
    	people you see on camera etc. are screened and briefed as to what
    	they can say and how they are to say it.  Bad mouthing any member
    	of your unit if definitely a no-no.
    
    4.  This supply unit is seemingly un-protected as they are "ahead of
    	the infantry troops" and thus there is nobody between them and the
    	Iraqis.  

    We will never resolve the hormone debate until we have facts. 
    Therefore, I say we check out Maggie Thatcher's hormone level and see
    if it is unusual.  Would someone over there volunteer to collect a sample?
    
    After we check that out, and if the result is inconclusive, we can
    compare the hormone level of Dorian and Heather.  Finally, to have a
    male perspective (us men want equal representation too), we can collect 
    Doug and Patrick's.  We can only hope that, by then, this deep and 
    inspirational debate will come to an end.
    
    Eugene

>    RE: hand-to-hand combat necessary for males?
>    
>    Certainly. Ever supervised an elementary school playround? Junior
>    High school corridors? Hand-to-hand combat starts early among males.
>    I believe a large part of a boys' growing up (at least in the US,
>    which is the only country I'm that familiar with) has to do with
>    concerns about this combat, and either how to *do* it or how to 
>    *deal* with it. 
    
 
	I don't think so, there were just as many fights in the boys playground
	as in the girls playground.

	And I can remember jumping over the chains into the boys playground to 
	protect my younger brother who was being bullied by older boys.


	However, we shall see how much hand-to-hand combat actually occurs in 
	this crisis. I, personnaly believe it will be Zero, and if not, so
	minimal that it won't make any difference.

	
	Heather

    Re: -.1
    
    Heather,
    
    You had sexually segregated playgrounds? With chains no less!  That's
    something I never encountered in the US.  Is it still that way in the
    UK?  What was the reasoning behind it?
    
    Mary

    School playgrounds were segregated in the 40's in Boston, too.
    What was the reasoning behind it in Boston, you ask?
    	I don't know
    To 'protect' the girls, maybe? I think the tenor of the times would
    have said that it was *unnatural* for boys and girls to play together,
    and that boys were too 'rough' for girls.
    One might reflect on some other things that happened in Boston of
    the 40s. For instance, there were municipal laws requiring that female
    teachers be unmarried. And had to leave school if they got married! My
    hunch is that laws/customs of that kind were *intended* to *protect*
    spinster women.) (Boston of the 40s, remember; the only 'professional'
    positions available to unmarried women at the time were teacher, nurse,
    and, nun)
    

    School playgrounds were segregated, by sex, in the town I went to school 
    in, in Massachusetts, in the 1950's, too.  There were no fences but we were
    told to play in separate areas and, for the most part, did.  How dull. 
    I don't know when it changed, the 60's or 70's I guess.
    
    Lorna
    

    Schools in many towns had separate entrances for boys and girls.
    
    Also i think the prejudice against married teachers was more
    that the kids would be exposed to 'gasp' pregnant teachers...
    
    tho the reason for this, since their mothers were often pregnant
    escapes me..
    
    autre temps..
    
    

    I never *did* understand the reason for segregating the playgrounds...
    boys and girls of that age simply do NOT play together at school,
    anyway! (Cooties and all that!)
    
    When I was in junior high school, there was a boys' entrance and
    a girls' entrance to the school. Incredibly weird. At least, *we*
    all thought so...
    
    --DE
    

   I remember being separted on the playgrounds in grades 1-3 (1970-72).
   I also remember that the boys had about 3/4 of the playground...

	In the infants 5-7 we were NOT segregated in the playgrounds.

	In the juniors 7-11 we WERE segregated in the paygrounds, and also, we 
	had segregated classes in the last year.

	In senior school 11-18, I was in a single sex school, we were all girls.

	This was in the 60's/70's.

	My senior school went mixed sex in 82, but they are still not 
	comprehensive (you need to pass what we call the 11-plus exam, to 
	attend).

	I was reading articles in the Sunday newspapers, over the weekend, where
	some educational authorities want to go back to the 11-plus, and single
	sex schools. 

	I think that single-sex schools can be good for some people, not so good
	for others, and it doesn't matter to the rest.

	I class myself as "it didn't make any difference", I had a lot of 
	contact with boys outside school - 2 younger brothers, friends brothers,
	and with the swimming club, and the youth club............

	One of my friends was very shy, and she did very well academically, I
	believe she would not have done as well in a mixed school, HOWEVER, 
	she rarely had any contact with boys, and grew up to be very 
	uncomfortable in male company. I believe a mixed school would have 
	helped with this.
	She went into teaching in a mixed school, and never could handle this.
	She eventually got a job in a girls-only school, and was much happier.
	
	Heather

    
    I was not segregated at school up until the age of 12, but when I
    moved into senior school the playgrounds were segregated in "lower
    school"  (12-14 years).
    
    Then we were moved to another building for 15-18 schooling - that
    wasn't segregated.
    This was in 1971.
    
    Because the school used to be a fully segragated grammar school the
    buildings had all been built with separate boys and girls entrances,
    and fully symetrical so that classes could be segregated too. 
    Needless to say, the "mirror image" of the boys woodworking shops
    were the domestic science rooms on the girls side....
    Luckily, by the time I got there, both sexes were using most of the
    areas, though the gyms stayed separate.
    
    I thought it was weird at the time, but then I was too stunned and
    delighted at finding a building with curved corridors to really care...
    (I'd only ever been in straight corridors before :-)
    
    'gail
    

    
    I've never had either my classes or my play areas segregated, nor have
    I lived in any town where that was done.  Of course, later in life, my
    career choice often made me the only female in an all-male group, but
    that was because of the content, not through any official decree.
    
    It's really interesting, I waas speaking with my sister a while ago and
    she mentioned that segregating schools (be it boy/girl, racial, or
    whatever) had the primary affect of crippling the children socially to
    some degree.  Because when they hit the REAL WORLD, it wouldn't be like
    that.  People tend to formulate ideas and opinions (superior, inferior,
    afraid, nervous, awkward) and attitudes about the unknown, and this
    really hits them when they go from protected place to real-world place.
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  I am not saying that people who choose to go to an all-boys or
    all-girls school are making a wrong choice, or that it is bad to
    support such things, I am merely stating there may be ramifications of
    an anything-only school (which I'm sure may be counterbalanced by
    other things that school can provide which another may not be able to)
    that might affect the person socially later on.
    

>   I am merely stating there may be ramifications of
>    an anything-only school (which I'm sure may be counterbalanced by
>    other things that school can provide which another may not be able to)
>    that might affect the person socially later on.
 

	Actually, at the time, there was no other choice, all the schools in 
	my area were run this way!.

	The only time I think it is "bad" is when the person is not sociable
	and has no interests outside school.

	My friend - who I mentioned before, had two other interest, one was the
	piano, and she had home-teaching for that, the other was the Girl 
	Guides, which was also single sex. She had no brothers, but 1 younger
	sister who was autistic.
	
	Most of my friends had other interests outside of school, where they 
	mixed with girls and boys, and these people didn't have these sort
	of problems.
	
	I believe my friend who has the problems, would have had them to some
	extent anyway. A mixed school may have inhibited her ability to develop
	academically, and so not have been able to become a teacher, although
	it may have helped her socially.
	
	The benefit for me, was that I always thought of boys and girls as 
	equal. I had no "conditioning", we were all taught we could do whatever
	our ability enabled us to do. (This was re-enforced at home too).
	
	I hadn't even heard of sexual discrimination until I was 21, and had
	then been working 3 years, and married for 2 years!
	
	Heather.

    My school had separate entrances for boys and girls from 1st through
    6th grades.  It seems ridiculous now, although at the time I just
    accepted it.  It was just the way things were.
    
    I sometimes think that because there were so many efforts to keep girls
    and boys apart when I was a kid, that it helped to make me think that
    males were much more interesting than girls.  
    
    Lorna
    

    in Springfield Mass, the boys and girls were never seperated in school
    except for the bathrooms, and from 7th grade on, gym, and shop-vs-home_ec.
    
    I did have a teacher yell at me, when I was in 2nd grade, for hanging
    by my knees on the monkey bars.  "Ladies don't show their underpants to
    boys" was her remark.  I thought she was dumb, anyone could see I had
    shorts on under my skirt!

Huh. I never heard of segregating the girls and boys in school.
I guess that was to keep the girls from chasing the boys and
kissing them, eh?

Kathy

	Nah, it was to stop them beating the boys at football, and games,
	and maths, and English, and..............     :-)

	Heather

    > It's really interesting, I waas speaking with my sister a while ago and
    > she mentioned that segregating schools (be it boy/girl, racial, or
    > whatever) had the primary affect of crippling the children socially to
    > some degree.  Because when they hit the REAL WORLD, it wouldn't be like
    > that.  People tend to formulate ideas and opinions (superior, inferior,
    > afraid, nervous, awkward) and attitudes about the unknown, and this
    > really hits them when they go from protected place to real-world place.
    
    Jody, from reports from some women of my acquaintance who have attended 
    all-women's colleges, I'd have to disagree with your sister's
    assessment.  I'd understood that finally out from under the cultural
    burden of always catering to male egos, that an all-women academic
    environment could be a wonderful developing ground for self-assertion,
    self-confidence, and to develop respect for the other women around one.
    Because nobody had to be quiet when Johhny speaks, anymore.  I'd call
    that primary affect not at all crippling.
    
    I'm sure that both affects can happen, though.
    
    DougO

    Actually, there have been studies done that show that women develop
    more self-confidence and assertiveness in all-female schools. Studies
    of newly-integrated ex-single-gender schools show that even when
    boys/men are in the minority, they dominate all interaction in the
    classroom. 
    
    Erm...is this a rathole?
    
    --DE
    

    > is this a rathole?
    
    I was wondering when someone would notice?  I felt rather proud of
    myself for ratholing a war topic so well :-)
    
    Mary
    

    > It's really interesting, I waas speaking with my sister a while ago and
    > she mentioned that segregating schools (be it boy/girl, racial, or
    > whatever) had the primary affect of crippling the children socially to
    > some degree.  Because when they hit the REAL WORLD, it wouldn't be like
    > that.  People tend to formulate ideas and opinions (superior, inferior,
    > afraid, nervous, awkward) and attitudes about the unknown, and this
    > really hits them when they go from protected place to real-world place.
    

	Having spent most of my education in single-sex schools, and lived in a
	city of 250,000 people - where all the schools were single-sex schools,
	(after the age of 10 - and many before) I don't agree. (there are 
	400,000 now - something must work!!!!!).
	I believe this happens only if the girls had a problem anyway, 
	and a mixed school would actually make them more introverted, and 
	cause more problems.

	The other thing to consider is that school isn't everything.
	You mix with people outside of school, in groups , in youth clubs, in
	sports clubs, with family, with friends, during the holidays, in the
	evenings, at weekends, with "discos" and outings organised between 
	all-boys and all-girls schools.......etc....
	I never thought of boys as "unknowns", just kids who I played with.

	There isn't the distraction of having your "boyfriend" in the same 
	class!
	
	Heather

    Who was it who pointed out that co-ed schools are bad for women because
    it makes them act more like "women", but good for men because it makes
    them act more like "humans"?
    
    (BTW, all the evidence I've personally seen supports this theory.  The
    men I've met from all-male or overwhelmingly-male schools seem to have
    more difficulty coping with Real Life than women from overwhelmingly-
    female schools.  Pace Denis Diderot....)
    
    (Also BTW, but on the topic, some of the arguments against integrating
    combat troops were used in the past against integration of schools.)
    
    Ray

>    Who was it who pointed out that co-ed schools are bad for women because
>    it makes them act more like "women", but good for men because it makes
>    them act more like "humans"?
    
    
>    (Also BTW, but on the topic, some of the arguments against integrating
>    combat troops were used in the past against integration of schools.)
    
 
	Ah, me, I always act like a "woman"

	pass the hockey stick,


	Heather

�	pass the hockey stick,
    
    Hey, wait 'til I get the padding on!
    
    Ray

    well the only all-women place I have been is Brownies.
    
    My niece is in her first year of college.  She is the younger of 2 kids
    in her family; her brother is 3 yrs older.  All her life, she has known
    that _she__comes__second_.  He was raised to believe himself the hub of
    the universe.  For ex, she wanted a horse.  They live on 30 acres in a
    rural town, and her uncle has a dairy farm (ie, he has a barn) just up
    the road, but her dad doesn't like horses and she couldn't have one.
    Her brother went sailing on the lake with a friend on a Friday, and
    came home raving about sailing.  His dad, whose sister says he has not
    opened his wallet in 30 years, and who I have seen freeze in panic in a
    canoe, went out Sat. a.m. and *borrowed* $1200, bought a sailboat that
    day.  I could bore you all day and into the night with this, but you
    get the idea.
    
    Well, she was accepted at every college she applied to, but when she
    chose Smith College (Northampton, Ma) I cheered wildly.  My niece
    *needs* to be in a place where WOMEN COME FIRST!

At age 8 I received 6 strokes of the cane for "entering the girls playground".

That I hadn't done so was no defence...

/. Ian .\

>At age 8 I received 6 strokes of the cane for "entering the girls playground".
>
>That I hadn't done so was no defence...

	
	Ian, I had similar punishment on numerous occaisions for entering the 
	boys playground.
	I had extra strokes for fighting the boys who were beating up my 
	brother.


	I also read the note regarding girls colleges.
	
	I have been thinking if I would choose a girls-only school if I had 
	the option.
	Yes, I would, but I wouldn't choose a girls-only university, however I 
	had the advantage of being treated equally at home.

	I really can't believe that parents can still be so one-sided, they are
	very lucky that their daughter seems level-headed enough to make
	her own decisions, and has not rebelled completely. 
	
	Heather

    Heather,
    
    You show all the charateristics of a woman who has gone to all
    woman/female schools, you are strong minded, arguementative and
    don't take any garbage from anyone.
    
    and  I mean the above as a compilment.
    
    Further...
    
    at my 20th reunion at Mt Holyoke college, ( the oldest college that
    admitted women in America ) people spoke on the the achievements
    of women at women only schools..
    
    I already knew we were far more outspoken....I used to be a 'shy
    person' (to paraphrase Garrison Keelor) but a woman's college gave me
    the courage to speak up for my self...
    
    but also, more women's college grads have gone on to advanced degrees,
    to graduate from law school and med school and to take advanced
    positions in universities and corporations.
    
    Yet women's colleges, now that most of all mens colleges have been 
    made open to both sexes are under attack.
    
    The number of all women's colleges that remain are less than 1/3
    of those that existed when I was in college.
    
    reasons:
    
    my guesses
    
    1. meeting men is/was artifical. the all women's academic colleges
    that survive have found ways (shared courses between other schools
    as the 5 college system here in Mass) for women to interact socially
    with men (those who wish to) in a way prob far more natural than
    in my day when we met only at parties.....a lousey way to really 
    get to know people as people for the vast majority of men and women.
    
    
    2. People now use homophobia, now that homosexuality is more open..
    'why do you want to do there, it is a lesbian college?' is a common
    remark.....this hits not only a kind of nasty homophobia, but
    it attacks the value of an education free of men for many straight
    women......i.e.
    
    you study harder, learn more, and are more out spoken when you
    separate/compartmentalize your academic and social life for a 
    period of time in your late teens.
    
    Bonnie
    
    p.s. how about we start a sep note on all women's schools, and 
    ask Jody to reference the earlier notes on this subject in
    v-1 and v-2?
    

    
>    You show all the charateristics of a woman who has gone to all
>    woman/female schools, you are strong minded, arguementative and
>    don't take any garbage from anyone.
 

	and people tried to tell me it was because I'm an Aquarian!  :-)

	....do you remember me saying that all the schools in the city I lived
	were like this, well, my mum and gran attended all-women schools, as did
	my sister, friends, friends mums, and.....etc....

	(You should have heard some of our "discussions"!)

	The city itself is known for it's independance, and non-conformity.

	It still has the eleven-plus, and still has single-sex schools for 
	those who choose. It was the last place to adopt comprehensive 
	education, and this was 1 token school.

	It had Micheal Foot, it still has David Owen, and Janet Fookes as
	MP's.


>    Yet women's colleges, now that most of all mens colleges have been 
>    made open to both sexes are under attack.
 
	I wonder if it is "supply and demand?" , or just a trend-of-the-day. 
	It would be interesting to see how the number of applicants-per-place 
	there are for the all-women, all-men, and mixed colleges.
    
>    p.s. how about we start a sep note on all women's schools, and 
>    ask Jody to reference the earlier notes on this subject in
>    v-1 and v-2?
 
	It looks like a good idea, with the discussuion that's gone on in the
	last few weeks.   

	Heather

    Excluding women from war is another example of male domination. 
    Men don't want women to go to war because they don't want their
    personal property (women) damaged. The ultimate fear is that their
    women will be taken prisoner and raped. That concern is the core
    behind every male objection about women fighting. In truth,
    females can fight equally well as males can fight. There is no
    logical reason to exclude women from any and all war activities. 

    In ancient times rape was a consideration, but not the major concern,
    to exclude women from battle. Women were excluded from battle
    for two reasons: 1. Brute strength was extremely important in
    ancient wars because wars were primarily hand-to-hand combat;  and
    2. women were needed at home to take care of the children and
    crops.

    These reasons do not exist today. Brute strength has little to do
    with war. Women can shoot rifles, drive tanks, fly airplanes,
    shoot missiles, repair trucks, navigate ships, maintain and run
    electronic equipment, hand out supplies, cook for hundreds, etc.,
    etc., as well as any man. Women can endure heat and cold, thirst,
    fatigue, etc. as well as any man. They can endure the fear,
    boredom and interminable waiting between active battles better
    than most men.

    There are a few jobs, mostly in the army and marines, that do
    require brute strength Few men and even fewer women qualify for
    them. There are very few men or women, for instance, who can
    qualify to join mountain troops, be paratroopers, underwater
    demolition divers, etc. Most of these jobs, in peace and war, have
    been filled by volunteers. Those who do qualify and volunteer,
    male or female, should be given the chance.

    In frontier America women shot bears and Indians (and let's not
    get ratholed on that), often putting down a nursing infant to
    pick up the rifle. In colonial New Hampshire, for instance,
    Hannah Dustin killed and scalped several Indians who had
    kidnapped her, another woman, and a boy. There was no question as
    to whether this was appropriate feminine behavior.

    Women in occupied countries have always played important
    resistence roles. During World War I and II they helped escaped
    prisoners of wars, provided valuable information and often
    performed sabotage. In Vietnam 200-pound American male soldiers
    were killed by 85-pound Vietnam women. In Isreal today both women
    and men serve in the aremd forces.

    If we exclude a few androgen-driven gung-ho males in their late
    teens and early 20s, few people want to fight a war. But people
    of both sexes are willing to fight if they believe the cause is
    strong enough. People who feel that way should be given that
    choice, regardless of their gender.

    Bruce

    well, speaking only for myself, if I was a soldier in war and was taken
    prisoner, *I* would worry about being raped, and not because of how any
    man or anyone else felt about it!  I would want the means to take my
    own life, if I felt it was necessary.
    
    as a citizen, I should have all the rights and responsibilities that
    any other citizen has, and gender should not affect responsibility for
    military service, or for type of service.  I believe that a citizen
    (volunteer, or universal-service) army is the right kind for the U.S.,
    and that combat or fighter-pilot or latrine-sweeper jobs should be
    available options to any and all who qualify, and that gender itself
    should not be a determining factor.
    
    I do feel that, in a family with children, only one parent should be
    required to serve in war.  Sort of like the "sole surviving son" rule
    used to be.
    
    Sara
    

    
    RE .112
    
    Sara,
    What is "sole surviving son" rule and why is it not done any more...
    You used the term "used ot be".
    
    A non-American
    

vets, correct me if I'm wrong.

Used to be a draft in the U.S., drafting men only.

There used to be a rule that exempted a man from (the draft? a combat 
assignment?) if he was the only, or the only surviving, son in a family.

If that rule were kept, I'd guess it would have to be "sole surviving child".
Similarly, I would favor a rule that said that both parents in a family with
minor children could not be required to serve.

>    I do feel that, in a family with children, only one parent should be
>    required to serve in war.  Sort of like the "sole surviving son" rule
>    used to be.
    

	I agree that the armed services/reserves should be volunteer only.

	I don't agree with your other comments.

	If both parents , or a single parent, join the armed services/reserves,
 	then they should be eligible to fight if a war breaks out. That's what 
	we pay them in peacetime for - to fight if we have war.
	Also, if they have joined, we shouldn't stop them going to war because 
	they have children.
	
	If they are not prepared to go to war, they should not volunteer to 
	join in the first place.
	If we're going to stop them going to war, then we should turn them down,
	or expel them when they find themselves in this situation.

	Heather

    only or sole surviving son exemption meant that said son was exempted
    so he could carry on the family name, us being a sorta patrilineal
    society.  goes back to old right of succession traditions.
    
    sue

    Did anyone see the little spot on NBC news last night that mentioned
    that in the field, the men were assigned to do the "fighting", and the
    women were out running supplies and fixing the planes, etc?
    
    This seemed to me to follow traditional gender roles and put women in
    a lower position than men.  Those women running the supplies are just
    as close to the enemy as the men, and if there was an attack they'd be
    just as likely to die.  
    
    A question for those more familiar with the military, if your specific
    task in the army is to run supplies, and there's an attack, and you
    save lots of lives, would get the same recognition as someone who's
    official task is "combat" who does the same thing?
    
    Just a question.
    
    Lisa

>If that rule were kept, I'd guess it would have to be "sole surviving child".
>Similarly, I would favor a rule that said that both parents in a family with
Zminor children could not be required to serve.


	Now that's an idea, if each couple/single parent had one child, then
	there would be no more war!

	Heather

    
     hi lisa,
    
    �A question for those more familiar with the military, if your specific
    �task in the army is to run supplies, and there's an attack, and you
    �save lots of lives, would get the same recognition as someone who's
    �official task is "combat" who does the same thing?
    
     my understanding is that you have to be in a _combat_ unit to be
    awarded the honor medals that may result from service while under
    attack. i seem to remember that this came up during our invasion of
    panama, where women were directly involved in the conflict but because
    they were part of the Military Police they were not given the same
    accomodations as the men who were part of the combat unit.
    
    ~robin-who-spent-the-first-9-yrs-of-her-life-"in-the-military". 
                                                              

    re .118, I don't think the "sole surviving son" rule applied to
    families that only had one son, or child, to begin with.  I think it
    only applied to families that had already lost a son in war.  Does
    anyone know for sure?
    
    Lorna
    

    I believe you are correct, Lorna.  Here is an extract from note 342.251
    on the 4-G classification:

        4-G (Surviving Son) is what most people think of as the "only son"
deferment.  In short, if you have had a father, mother, or blood sibling
killed in action or in the line of duty, killed by wounds received (in the
line of duty), or declared MIA, you are eligible for a deferment.  *This is
not available, unfortunately, if Congress declares a war or a national
emergency.*   There is no "only son" deferment.
 
    -- Mike

.115, which quoted me as follows:

	"...only one parent should be required to serve in war..."
				       ^^^^^^


	required <> allowed.

    On this subject, my dear friend Tony Lewis always says, "No culture
    ever voluntarily arms its slave class."  Tony loves to be provoking.
    
    						Ann B.

    Also, what about any women who might not want what is thought of as
    "equal status" and who are happy playing a traditional role?  If women
    were drafted for combat duty, I wonder if some women could be considered
    exempt on the grounds of not being feminists?  After all, who are we
    feminists to tell all women that they should be required to do
    everything men do.  Perhaps some women don't want to.  Maybe these
    women could stay home and tend the crops.
    
    Lorna
    

    In a recent visit to the Post Office, where young men turning 18 can go
    to register for the draft, the form has a male AND female block (ok,
    pick one).
    
    It doesn't have a block for heterosexuality or homosexuality or for
    Conscientious Objector status.
    
    BTW, it has been determined that gays are good enough to die for their
    country, the US military won't discharge them during the war.  After
    the war, they are still subject to discharge.  So much for loyal and
    faithful service in defense of the country.
    
    sue

    re: .119
    
    I'm not sure if it's the same now as when I was in Viet Nam but here's
    how it was then.
    
    If you were in country while there was an offensive (ie Tet) you
    received a medal, in this case the Viet Nam Service Medal.  You also
    received a tiny bronze star that went through the fabric part of the
    medal one for each offensive or campaign.
    
    If your unit was given a citation for whatever, each member of the unit
    regardless of participation was cited. From clerk to gunner.  For
    example if your unit was MEDEVAC and your pilot put the ship down in
    the middle of a firefight and evac'd wounded everyone in the unit might
    get cited even though the jockey made the decision and you were just
    along for the ride.  The wounded would not receive the citation because
    they were not part of the unit even though they were in the same shi*
    as you were.
    
    If an individual 'saves lots of lives' they would be individually
    cited.  I saw very few American women in Viet Nam.  The only ones I
    knew were nurses.  If they had 'saved lots of lives' through some act
    other than hospital duties I can't believe the military would not cite
    them.  It just didn't happen in Viet Nam.
    
    I am opposed to women in combat.  Not for the trite reasons like
    strength etc. as I believe women can be just as sadistic and brutal as
    men.  I want to find a way to get men OUT not women IN.  I have stated
    this before.  The one thing women should consider is the history of
    blacks in combat.  Blacks were forbidden to be members of regiments etc
    up to the  Civil War.  They were segregated for a long time after that. 
    Of course in Viet Nam there was no segregation but I believe there was
    and is undue exploitation.  Here we have a group of people who felt
    that they HAD to fight to achieve any equal opportunity.  What has
    happened is that there is now a DISPROPORTIONATE number of blacks in
    the military and most of them are ground troops.  How many black pilots
    did you see interviewed?  Well you're going to see a lot of blacks being
    packed into body bags because even though the ground war is just
    beginning there are already more KIAs and WIAs in the ground troops
    than in the rest of the war casualties put together.  Of the 500,000
    American troops in the Middle East, 475,000 are Army and Marine ground
    troops.  They won't give the percentage of these 'grunts' that are
    black but you can bet your butt it's more than 20%.  It's probably more
    like 35%.
    
    Women in this note seem to want to follow this path.  Blacks wanted to
    fight, women want to fight.  Blacks wanted equal rights, women want
    equal right to 'career enhancing opportunities'.  What a bunch of horse
    shi*!  What have blacks achieved by their brothers blood?  SQUAT!  The
    only thing they got was the opportunity to give more blood.  You won't
    see Niel Bush in Kuwait carrying an M60.  What you will see is
    thousands of black soldiers trying real hard not to piss their pants. 
    Sure Collin Powell is a hot dog and he probably deserves to be there but
    for every Collin Powell there are 500,000 young blacks that joined
    the Army to escape the ghetto.  They are being duped!  Women will
    follow in their footsteps.
    
    patrick

    Patrick, this isn't argument, just more information.
    
    Since (by law) women are not currently assignable to 'combat'
    positions, they are not allowed to earn certain decorations
    that are reserved (by military regulation) for veterans of combat.
    
    The particular decoration that was disputed in Panama was the CIB,
    the Combat Infantry Badge.  Two instances occurred where women were
    unexpectedly involved in combat; I only remember the details of one.
    An MP Captain and her troops were assigned to take a kennel, where
    no resistance was expected.  They got resistance, they took their
    objective anyway.  The Captain herself crashed a jeep through a locked
    gate to lead the assault.
    
    The argument being made herein is that in modern warfare, women in
    support units are quite likely to see combat situations.  All people
    exposed to such should be similarly decorable.  One can go about it by
    appealing to have the military reg overturned or (better, imo) the law
    against women in combat rescinded, because it conflicts with other laws
    regarding composition of the forces, and it ignores real life.
    
    DougO

    re .126, I agree with you completely.
    
    Lorna
    

    oh, and one other thing.
    
    > American troops in the Middle East, 475,000 are Army and Marine ground
    > troops.  They won't give the percentage of these 'grunts' that are
    > black but you can bet your butt it's more than 20%.  It's probably more
    > like 35%.
    
    They have given it.  It's around 31%.
    
    DougO

    	RE: .126  Patrick
    
    	It's nice of you to be so concerned about women making a choice
    	you think would be a mistake, but it should be up to women as
    	individuals to make such decisions about our own lives.
    
    	Don't you think so?

    re. 130
    
    I acknowledge women's rights to make a choice BUT, and this is a big
    one, when the law is passed and then couple that with the draft, you
    have no more right to refuse than blacks did in Viet Nam.  Pat
    Schroeder, in my opinion, is cheering for women combatants in wars she
    will never fight in.  I see this as expoitive.  She is not volunteering
    herself but rather she is volunteering the lives of others.  When this
    happens you as a woman have given up rights.  By getting men OUT of
    combat instead of women IN everyone gets more choices.  
    
    In 1968 my draft number came up.  I was 18.  I did what I thought was
    right.  It was only AFTER I got out of the service that I realized that
    I had been painted a picture of valor and honor and 'career enhancing'
    stuff.  Being a Viet Nam Vet was not an advantage as they had promised. 
    I finally quit telling people that I had served.  The point is that
    women are believing the same lies I believed back then.  I'm here to
    tell you that it's a lie.  There is no honor in killing.  No one 'wins'
    a war, especially the soldiers.  And by the way it's not just women I'm
    talking to, I will tell anyone who will listen and even some that won't
    listen that 'Fighting for peace' is like drinking salt water; it may
    feel right at the time but it's futile.
    
    If women want to fight and die in combat they eventually will.  I'm not
    here to 'protect' women, I'm here to be the voice of someone who was
    there.
    
    patrick
    

    	RE: .131  Patrick
    
    	If we allow men and women to volunteer as individuals, we won't ever
    	need another draft.  Then, each person can choose (rather than having
    	the choice made FOR women as a group, regardless of what each of us
    	might choose for ourselves as individuals.)
    
    	You can think and say what you like about combat, but what right do
    	you have to force your views on women as a group (by supporting laws
    	that prevent us from having a choice about it?)
    
    	It's paternal, Patrick.  Nice of you and all, but I'd rather see
    	women have the opportunity to make such a personal decision on
    	our own.

    re. 132
    
    I have never seen myself as 'paternal' but anyway.  I don't expect you
    to really understand what I'm saying.  Each combat veteren knows what
    I'm talking about but you can't.
    
    Think of it this way.  You're in a street gang.  Everyone tells you how
    great it is to be a member of the (fillin)s.  You are very young and
    they won't 'let' you go with them to drive by shootings etc.  You don't
    really know what it's like to face another human being (other gang)
    that hates you and wants to see your guts on the pavement.  The other
    gang members do.  They tell stories of the 'glory' and 'honor' of it
    all.  You want to be a part of it to increase your status in the gang. 
    They are not telling you the whole story though.  The only way to
    experience the 'whole story' is to go out and kill.  Kill people who
    are just like you but wear a different colored bandana.  By the time
    you realize that it was not as glamourous as they said, you are either
    dead, wounded or have killed or wounded another.  Then you will have to
    sing the chorous' songs to justify your perverted actions.
    
    I'm not denying you choice merely trying to explain that combat is not
    what it seems.  When you are in the middle of it you've given up your
    choice to participate.  What was once 'seeing action' quickly becomes a
    reoccurring nightmare.  Choosing not to have these nightmares is very,
    very difficult.

    do I want women to be drafted?  NO
      but it is discriminatory to draft only young men.
    
    do I want women to serve in combat? NO
      but it is discriminatory that only men are exposed to this risk.
    
    Indeed, I feel that no one should serve in combat.
    
      Annie

    re:  135
    
    Show me where I said women do not have the right to choose.
    
    I'll say what I am saying a little louder:
    
    I'M NOT SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE.  EVEN IF YOU CHOOSE
    SOMETHING THAT WILL SCREW YOU UP FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.  I'M SAYING
    YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GETTING INTO BEFORE YOU MAKE THE CHOICE. 
    I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU WHAT YOU'RE GETTING INTO.
    
    If your get what I'm saying I have nothing more to say.  If you still
    don't get it I have nothing more to say.

    RE: .133  Patrick
    
    > I have never seen myself as 'paternal' but anyway.  I don't expect you
    > to really understand what I'm saying.  Each combat veteren knows what
    > I'm talking about but you can't.
    
    Patrick, I'm not debating your views on combat.  You can think anything
    you want about it.
    
    I'm talking about choice.  You shouldn't have the right to decide for
    tens of millions of women that you know what's best for us (by supporting
    laws that keep us from making individual choices that men are allowed to
    make.)
    
    Is it so hard to understand the concept of women having the opportunity
    to make the same sorts of life-decisions that men are allowed to make?
    
    It's all I'm trying to say.

    
    	RE: .135  Patrick
    
    	No need to yell.  I haven't been discussing the merits of the
    	choice itself - you did this on your own.
    
    	I've only tried to address the statement you originally made in
    	.126 - "I am opposed to women in combat."
    
    	It should not be your choice to make.  This is all I've been
    	trying to point out to you.
    

    re .137, the way I saw it Patrick was only expressing his opinion - "I
    am opposed to women in combat" is an opinion.  I think he has just as
    much right to express his opinion as anybody else.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	RE: .138  Lorna
    
    	I'm sure you'll agree that I had every right to express a strong
    	disagreement with his position, too.
    
    	"I am opposed to women in combat" is very similar to saying, "I am
    	opposed to women having the right to vote" or "I am opposed to
    	women in management."
    
    	It's especially bothersome when someone expresses this as being
    	for our own good in some way.  
    
    	I'm allowed to express how bothered I am by it.

    re:  139
    
    Wow you don't make small leaps do you?
    
    <<"I am opposed to women in combat" is very similiar to saying, "I am
    opposed to women having the right to vote" or . . .>>
    
    I guess since I also stated that I'm opposed to MEN in combat that I'm
    opposed to everyone having the right to vote.  Let's hear it for
    anarchy!
    
    (In case anyone misses it, I'm being sarcastic.  Please don't send me
    hate mail because you think I'm an anarchist)
    
    patrick 

    > Let's hear it for anarchy
    
    Sarcasm, eh.  I hope you weren't maligning us anarchists :-)
    
    Mary

    re:  141
    
    Mary,
    
    I won't malign you, but of course I can't vote for you.
    
    patrick

    	RE: .140  Patrick
    
    	Great - so you're also opposed to men in combat.  Then you didn't
    	need to make such a point of being opposed to women in this
    	capacity - you could have declared your distaste for combat in
    	general (and I wouldn't have commented to you about it at all.)
    
    	The thing that bothered me was the speech about how you think
    	blacks were duped into taking combat roles and that women seemed
    	about to follow this path (to be "duped" as well.)
    
    	It's condescending and insulting.  (And paternal.)  :-)
    
    	Never mind, though.  It appears we had a failure to communicate,
    	that's all.

    re .0 .1,
    
    No, I have no objection to women serving combat duties in the front
    line if that is what they want.  Just don't call it a "career-enhancing
    opportunity".
    
    Eugene