[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Title:	Topics of Interest to Women
Notice:	V3 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open.
Moderator:	REGENT::BROOMHEAD

Created:	Thu Jan 30 1986
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 30 1995
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1078
Total number of notes:	52352

800.0. "MALE-BASHING: Why America is picking on boys" by WLDKAT::GALLUP (What's your damage, Heather?) Mon May 06 1991 15:18


    MALE-BASHING:  Why America is picking on boys
    	by Kathryn Robinson (staff writer for Seattle Weekly)

    Copied w/o permission:  The Boston Phoenix, 3 May 1991


    Maybe the Gulf War inflamed everybody's gender itch.  It was during
    that time that a good number of my friends and colleagues suddenly
    began, quite unexpectedly, spewing anti-male propaganda.  One, a
    housewife I know who writes fiction in the evenings after her four
    children have gone to bed, angrily dusted off the old feminist bromide
    that she wielded in her Vietnam protesting days.  "This isn't a war
    about oil -- it's a war about testosterone," she seethed.  Days later,
    a male friend in his early 40s -- a bit of a philosopher -- admitted he
    believed, all things considered, that women in our culture were superior
    to men.

    Then I began to read "Iron John", by Robert Bly, the poet who's become
    the most visible spokesman of the burgeoning men's movement.  "Oh
    goody," responded two very smart women friends of mine, on separate
    occasions.  "I hope you crucify him GOOD."

    Insidiously, male-bashing seems to have found its way onto the list of
    enlightened endeavors -- right alongside recycling and writing Amnesty
    International letters for prisoners of conscience.  Pundits of both
    sexes seem to feel free to disparage men in ways they'd never dare to
    use against the other sex.  Scorning men, after all, is a way to effect
    the elevation of women -- however backhanded the approach.  Curiously,
    it often seems to be regarded as one way of affirming the sanctity of
    feminism.

    But it seems to me that what it actually reveals is the failure of
    feminism to have equalized much of anything.  Men are the politically
    correct targets because men still represent the power establishment;
    women are not because women are still cast as victims.  If that weren't
    the case -- of equality had been achieved -- then bashing would be
    replaced by lively intellectual argument, and both sides would engage
    in it freely.

    Instead, since the feminist revolution of the '60s, the bashing has
    been conspiciously one-sided.  This seems to have left a rather deep
    dent in the masculine psyche.  A few years ago, I began informally
    polling any man or woman who would listen about what, if anything, they
    believed to be the inherent positive qualities about each gender. Where
    they bought the premise -- that there were ANY inborn gender-specific
    qualities -- they tended to agree on the women's stuff, using words
    such as empathy, nurturing, creativity, gentleness, and sensitivity. 
    That was the easy part.

    Then their attention turned to the masculine attributes.  "You say they
    have to be POSITIVE things?" one woman asked, after a longish pause. 
    "Well," she replied after a while, "my husband's very sensitive."

    No, no, no, I pressed -- sensitivity had been listed as a tradionally
    feminine quality.  I was looking for masculine strengths equal and or
    opposite to feminine strengths.  Qualities men had adopted from the
    feminine model -- though noble -- didn't count.

    As people considered the question, their answers generally fell into
    one of two distinct categories.  First was a hapless "I give up"
    response, usually from men, who clearly had no idea what constituted
    the Masculine Good.  Most of these folks ended up shamefacedly
    descending to a list of men's inborn depravities -- a litany they have
    clearly heard before.  "Yea -- I'm a destructive, messy, power-hungry,
    aggressive, oppressive bastard," answered one well-educated lawyer in
    his late 20s. "That what my girlfriend tells me."

    When positive masculine qualities were hit upon -- and there were
    precious few -- their proponents revealed them sheepishly, often
    looking down at their feet.  These qualities tended to be the very
    ones that feminists have been taught to loathe.  "Men are good
    protectors," said one fortysomething woman, bravely.  "I know that's
    hopelessly old-fashioned, but it's really what I love about men."  Men
    are better than women at taking action, offered a social-services
    professional in her late 20s.  "What I like in a man," admitted an arts
    professional in her late 30s, "is when he makes me feel taken care of." 
    (She was REALLY inspecting her shoes.)

    In short, what this informal field work seemed to suggest was this: 
    feminism has defined maleness as a bilious blend of the inherently
    negative and the politically incorrect.  Over the last three decades,
    liberated women have beaten their men assiduously about the head with
    the dictums of their new enlightenment:  to be decent human beings,
    men must throw off the inherent barbarism of their gender and become
    gentle, sensitive and sympathetic.  From this they've learned that the
    qualities specific to their own gender were things such as aggression
    and destruction and power -- things responsible for the oppression of
    women for thousands of years.  In the name of atoning for the sins of
    their precursors, they've been taught that they should hate
    themselves.

    I find this -- and for this I know I'll be drummed out of the feminist
    corps -- utterably sad.  This is not to say that feminism hasn't
    achieved astonishing new freedoms for women (it has, God bless it), or
    that women haven't been oppressed and victimized since the first
    caveman belched and demanded his eggs over easy (we have, God damn it). 
    But the notion that feminism has unwittingly nurtured along the way --
    that men are bad and women are good -- has managed to turn the tables
    in a thoroughly ignominious manner.  Our oppression seems to have
    become womankind's most noble quality, justifying all kinds of
    below-the-belt kickboxing.  Feminists haven't taken the high road --
    we've ended up doing the same thing to men that we'd complained of men
    having done to use.  We've pronounced them less than human.

    One might view all this as one more case of whiny genital-gazing if it
    weren't overflowing into graver territory.  In nine states, a
    "battered-woman's defense" is being considered, which would allow
    testimony about "battered-woman's syndrome" -- an abused woman's loss
    of self-esteem and growing sense that violence against the man is the
    only way out -- to be introduced as evidence in the cases of women who
    are charged with killing their abusers.  The recent hoopla over date
    rapes has suddenly defined all sexually ambiguous situations between
    men and woman as male assault.  Even a man's eyes have recently been
    deemed a weapon.  The issue du jour on at least one Midwestern college
    campus is the "masculine gaze," that penetrating or expectant or
    patronizing or just downright mean way that mall professors, female
    students say, have of looking at female students.

    At the risk of seeming unaware of the real injustices done, every day,
    in every one of the aforementioned realms, it seems that we're growing
    less and less able to see men in other than predatory terms.  I've had
    the uneasy feeling for awhile that this very diminishment of men is
    masquerading as the triumph of feminism -- when it's really an affront
    to our humanity.

    And that's where Robert Bly fits in.  What he puts forth in "Iron John",
    albeit murkily, is that men carry around a profound sense of inadequacy
    where their sense of maleness ought to be.  Lost, he asserts, is the
    masculine role model -- the involved father, the initiator of ancient
    cultures who led boys into manhood -- to lead men into a rich and
    complete sense of themselves.  In its place, boys live their emotional
    lives almost entirely through women, and turn to macho John Wayne
    characters as models, or bond with gangs, or psychologically stultify
    in a state of self-doubt, or lose themselves in any one of a number of
    other dysfunctional quandaries.  In other words, says Bly, men are
    confused -- and have good reason to be.

    That he makes this point in 259 pages of sweeping pronouncements,
    questionably relevant mythology, odd leaps of logic, embarrassing
    therapies, and swampy poetry is enough to leave the READER confused. 
    But his underlying notion -- that men can be nobler than they've been
    told they can be -- is so surpassingly refreshing in this current
    climate that it's nearly irresistible.  It heartens me in the same
    simple way that the cornerstone of child psychology always has:  tell a
    child that he's mean often enough, and he'll never believe in his own
    capacity for kindness.  But tell a child that he's kind and good, and
    watch him fulfill the prophesy.  Likewise, tell a man he is made of
    strength, creative drive, kindness to women, and emotional depth -- and
    what men we might see!

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
800.1	Men are the trail-blazers.	ASDG::FOSTER	Montreal-bound calico cat	`Mon May 06 1991 15:40`	26
	I don't know that its so hard to come up with things that males tend to do well in society. They have shown themselves to be good at doing things: building and destroying, for good or for bad, leading and dominating, for good or for bad, surviving alone, trail-blazing in terms of science, space, exploration, etc., for good or for bad. I think men may be better at trail-blazing than women. I think they often make better hierarchical leaders (i.e. one at the top model), because they are men. I think they are typically stronger, and we owe a lot of our homes and buildings to them. They symbolize protectors. Their presence is often a greater deterrence to threats of violence from others. This says nothing about the fact that men are often protecting women and children from other men. I'm quite adept at male-bashing, and one of the reasons that I am so is because I often don't look at society's need for the things I've listed. Sometimes I think the things I've listed are over-developed in comparison to other things. But it is actually true that without men, we would have less construction and probably less trail-blazing, and fewer hierarchical leaders. In a word society would be different. I really think that men do far more things "just for the heckuvit", to see if it can be done, than women do. And society has often benefitted from this.
800.2	The whole person...balancing energies, not genders...	MISERY::WARD_FR	Going HOME---as an Adventurer!	`Mon May 06 1991 16:03`	40
	re: .0 Kudos to the writer. As a heavy generalization it has been stated that men have had and have "power" but don't know what to do with it, while women have "power" but have never realized it. I do not agree with all Bly writes, mostly because I don't believe in his means of male-bonding, nor his "we're poor victims, here, too," but I do agree that it isn't as one-sided as many if not most are being led to believe, i.e., that men are bad-guys and women are good-guys. It can soon become apparent to any seriously interested person that it is far more powerful for a victim to stop allowing the victimization than it is for a bully to stop the victimizing. That is, a bully has nowhere to turn if the victim prevents the victimization (they cannot be bullies anymore.) Whereas a victim will always be a victim unless they decide to let go of it (and change it...for a victim will always find a scapegoat.) It is inappropriate, in my mind, for women to attempt to become as men. It is only slightly more appropriate for men to attempt to become more like women. I think it is by far more important for both men and women to become more like the whole person...that whole person representing a balance of both masculine and feminine energies (as I mentioned in another note several weeks ago.) But the current anger women feel at men (and paradoxically at women, too, for having allowed their status to still exist) though justified, can also become RIGHTEOUS. This does not obviate the awareness of the humanistically growing man, who suddenly becomes afraid realizing that there are no role models, for him, at all (while there are at least some universally respected models of strong, balanced women.) The author has a point. The solution is not to pity men, anymore than it is to pity women. The solution is for each person to decide for him/herself what it is they want in their life and then to develop or discover the proper balances necessary to achieve their goals. Frederick
800.4	Keep it in the closet... not like "Bud Dry" comercials!	ASDG::FOSTER	Montreal-bound calico cat	`Mon May 06 1991 16:36`	23
	I don't get the feeling that male-bashing is uniquely "feminist". I think its certainly a sour-grapes attitude held by a number of single women, myself included, but it doesn't have a lot to do with our politics. Its usually more attributable to the fact that we are venting more vocally about male-female differences and the age old problem that the sexes often don't understand each other. I know its hard for me to understand why men have to be so stoic sometimes, unemotional, unable to be emotionally supportive. And I don't understand why there's this "male" thing about commitment. Or fear of it. And I'd hazard a guess that the erosion of the male-as- provider image has a lot to do with men not wanting marriage, since it often entails enduring that role for some part of the marriage. I bash men out of sheer frustration at not being able to find the right one. And because I run into some traits over and over in the ones I like that clash with who I am as a woman. Traits I find my friends running into, and stumbling over, as well. But, to be perfectly honest about it, I really wish that male-bashing would go back into the closet. The fact that the greeting card companies are capitalizing on it makes me a little sick. Its bad enough that we do it... its worse when we do it in public.
800.5	Agree with 800.3	SMILEY::LEMEN		`Mon May 06 1991 16:41`	15
	I agree with Brian---my feelings are also mixed. Why do so many people need to have an equation that says feminist = male basher? I don't think that's what feminism means to a significant number of feminists, and that's the big quarrel I have with this article. I agree that men have been bashed. Why couldn't the author just say "men have been bashed and that's wrong and bashing men doesn't help either men or women" instead of saying "feminists have bashed men"? Because that wouldn't make it nearly as interesting reading, would it?
800.6	call me a patriarchy-basher.	GEMVAX::KOTTLER		`Mon May 06 1991 17:04`	8
	Thanks, Brian! As I see it, the problem is patriarchy. How about giving feminists a little credit for their attempts to (as the bumper sticker urges) tip it over? D.
800.7		ASDG::FOSTER	Montreal-bound calico cat	`Mon May 06 1991 17:16`	19
	Dorian, I'm not sure I really agree that its "patriarchy-bashing". Walk into a Hallmark store and check out the cards with the scribbled women. "This year, for your birthday, I hope your man gives you the one thing you've always wanted.... (inside) Foreplay!" This is not bashing the patriarchy. Its playing on the battle of the sexes, the things about men and women that cause us to not understand each other. I think that this is the male-bashing that the article is talking about. Its definitely not a good thing. But I don't think it should be linked to feminism at all. Women have been bashing men for years. And men bash women. But it doesn't belong in the public domain. I'm looking at what I'm saying, and I'll bet it sounds pretty crazy. But most of the women who are men-bashing aren't the ones who don't want to have anything to do with men. Its the "can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em" group. The frustrations of the sexes may NEVER go away. They have to be vented somehow. I guess that's why I'm not denouncing bashing as much as might seem appropriate.
800.8		GLITER::STHILAIRE	Food, Shelter & Diamonds	`Mon May 06 1991 18:41`	17
	re .7, I agree with 'ren that the frustrations that many women feel over their dealings with men have to be vented somehow! What are we supposed to do, just smile and keep our thoughts to ourselves? Personally, though, I think some of those Hallmark cards are quite cute and have even sent a couple to other women who also note in this file! (But, I will name no names!) :-) It is true that male-bashing does not equal feminism, because I had begun male-bashing long before I ever knew about feminism. I'd go crazy if I couldn't complain about men sometimes, and besides men have been complaining about women for ages. (take my wife, please! etc.) When I saw this article over the weekend I just knew I'd see it again in womannotes. I wasn't impressed by it. Lorna
800.9	what I really think...	GLITER::STHILAIRE	Food, Shelter & Diamonds	`Mon May 06 1991 18:50`	7
	I guess the truth is that I don't really believe male-bashing exists. I think a large percentage of women have finally got the courage to criticism the way men do things and men have decided to call that "male-bashing" in order to shame them and make them shut-up again. Lorna
800.10		GLITER::STHILAIRE	Food, Shelter & Diamonds	`Mon May 06 1991 18:51`	4
	re .9, I mean criticize, sorry. Lorna
800.11		LEZAH::BOBBITT	Lift me up and turn me over...	`Mon May 06 1991 19:16`	6
	said in my best, most breathless, Marilyn Monroe voice... "Bash men? But why? Some of my best friends are men!" -Jody
800.12		GUESS::DERAMO	Be excellent to each other.	`Mon May 06 1991 21:57`	3
	I don't feel picked on or bashed at all in =wn=. Dan
800.14		WMOIS::REINKE_B	bread and roses	`Mon May 06 1991 23:28`	1
	thanks for the card lorna ;-)
800.15		WLDKAT::GALLUP	What's your damage, Heather?	`Tue May 07 1991 10:15`	12
	> re .7, I agree with 'ren that the frustrations that many women feel > over their dealings with men have to be vented somehow! Is it "okay" for men to women-bash to vent their frustrations about women (in the same manner that women can male-bash)? kath
800.16	very insecure individuals	LUNER::MACKINNON		`Tue May 07 1991 10:19`	8
	re .9 I agree with this. Also I feel that these men who call such critisism male bashing are not secure of themselves as men. Michele
800.17	the males species vs. the female species	TLE::DBANG::carroll	assume nothing	`Tue May 07 1991 11:07`	26
	> > re .7, I agree with 'ren that the frustrations that many women feel > > over their dealings with men have to be vented somehow! > Is it "okay" for men to women-bash to vent their frustrations about > women (in the same manner that women can male-bash)? Kath, only in the same way that it is okay for women to do it. That is, women bashing men is understandable, maybe even justifiable, but not good, not desireeable - which is why 'ren said it should go back into the closet. I think frustrated-straight-women-bashing-men falls into the "fact of life" category. I don't have to like it, but then, I don't have to like gravity either. Straight-men-bashing-women is also a fact of life - I don't like it, I don't support it, I don't want to hear it, it isn't "okay", but I will grudingly resign myself to its existence. As (who?) pointed out, woman-bashing has been around forever - so has man-bashing. It has nothing to do with feminism so much as frustration. My human sexuality instructor used to say that when you look at the differences between males and females of our species, both biological and psychological, the amazing thing wasn't so much that they didn't get along well but that they got along at all! It was his contention that males and females might as well be treated as different species, so vast were their differences. (He was an MD so his opinion was weighted toward the physiological differences, but he also meant other differences.) D!
800.18	At your own risk	NECSC::BARBER_MINGO		`Tue May 07 1991 11:10`	6
	Re : .15 I guess you can ... but you had better lay low afterwords. Cindi
800.19	musings about types of bonding	CADSYS::PSMITH	foop-shootin', flip city!	`Tue May 07 1991 15:20`	55
	I thought the article in .0 was excellent and made me think. I have noticed this trend, particularly about being able to make comments about the male sex that are verboten to make about the female sex, in equal-to-equal conversations. For instance, in a group of mixed-sex peers, it is common for me to hear teasing conversations about how cute some passing man's butt is, but not to hear teasing conversations about how cute some passing woman's butt or breasts are. Any comments about the man are either received in silence or a chorus of agreement, any comments about the woman are usually protested, either laughingly or seriously. Perhaps one explanation of this phenomenon of male-bashing (in terms of not being able to list men's strengths as easily and confidently as women's strengths) is that it is a swing of the pendulum. I feel it may be related to the feminist movement as an unanticipated and unwanted side-effect. Robert Bly, who I agree is insightful and, for some, an acquired therapeutic taste, talks movingly about the lack of male-to-male family bonding and the need to reestablish a sense of "maleness". I see the difference in my family with how my mother relates to me and my sister and how my father relates to my three brothers. Mom is connection-oriented and matrilineal-oriented; Dad is distant and uneasy about people, which is what he learned from his family (oldest of 6 boys). I know lots of history and feelings about my mother and my grandmother and her mother ... down to my grandmother's best friend's names and my great-grandmother's putting aside her family for her career. I know very little about the men in Mom's line. Regarding my Dad's line, I don't think my brothers have the foggiest notion about what Dad's childhood was like. I doubt they can list his brother's names (they live in England), or even know what our paternal grandfather did for a living. Bonds between generations have been broken for men, in my family at least. So, to bring this note back into relevence for this topic, perhaps what has happened in our industrialized society has been a Cultural Reverence for male strengths, to make up for real male bonds? A generational bonding? Traditionally, there's been almost a religion around how wonderful and great and obviously superior men are to women. It always sounded insecure to me. Always sounded like each generation had to restate it, to link arms in solidarity. Now the pendulum is swinging the other way. Partly I think it's healthy to spend a few years extolling women's positive qualities, to make up for years of women-bashing. Makes us all think about what we've been brought up to believe. But partly I think there IS an insidious danger to it, if it goes on too long, or goes on without being examined. It turns into unreality, like not being able to see men clearly enough to see their strengths and good qualities. Doesn't feel good on either side, really. My hope is that the pendulum will eventually come to rest in balance, with each individual having their own combination of qualities. (So what else is new!) Pam
800.20		GLITER::STHILAIRE	Food, Shelter & Diamonds	`Tue May 07 1991 18:12`	11
	re .19, I think that most straight women could list things they do like about men as well as things they don't like about them. I think that most straight women who occasionally complain about men - and who may just for that moment sound as though they hate men - also like a lot of things about men. Can't women ever say a negative thing about a man without also quickly adding that, of course, there are many positive things about men, and of course she doesn't hate them, in fact, loves them really? Lorna
800.21	anything you say can and will be used ...	GUESS::DERAMO	Be excellent to each other.	`Tue May 07 1991 21:58`	11
	>> Can't women ever say a negative thing about a man without >> also quickly adding that, of course, there are many positive >> ... Yes. About "a man". About "some men". Even about "all the men I have ever interacted with". But if said about "all men" then, at least here, lots of abuse will be heaped upon the conference and upon feminists. Dan
800.22		LUNER::MACKINNON		`Wed May 08 1991 11:24`	25
	I was thinking more about the problem about listing mens strengths and weaknesses, and how that may or may not be related to how men react/interact around other men. At least in my family which was a single parent household, there was no father figure around. Consequently this gave way to a problem with my brothers not having a male figure to look up to and learn from. With the increase in divorces and single parent homes, this could be linked to the problem. Also, I feel part of the problem is within the generations. When I was in college (Engineering major) I was the minority. Yet the guys I hung out with had no problems with this male bashing thing. If a good looking girl would walk by they made their comments with me present, and I would do the same with them present about guys. There really was not an issue as to whether any of us were wrong for saying what was said. However, in the company of the folks I work with who happen to be on the average of 15-20 years my senior, the comments are not said. It would be interesting to get an average age of men who feel that women are male bashing.
800.23		CUPMK::DROWNS	this has been a recording	`Wed May 08 1991 11:51`	7
	The only man I care about is the man I live with, and I love everything about him! bonnie
800.24		WLDKAT::GALLUP	What's your damage, Heather?	`Wed May 08 1991 13:38`	24
	RE: .21 From another person's perspective (generically, I'm not saying my own perspective)... ...the same statement could be said in the reverse, couldn't it? "But if said about 'all women' then, at least here, lots of abuse will be heaped upon...." I think it's important in this topic to remember the matter of each sides perspectives.....after all, that's what a major portion of the article is about. I know I've seen many people derailed for making a statement about "all women...." that was negative. I think it works both ways, it's just that we are most sensitive to those issues that are nearest to us...sometimes we don't even see the other aspects. kath
800.25	Chore Girl -> Chore Boy	ESCROW::ROBERTS		`Fri May 10 1991 16:00`	17
	I think an important point being made in .0 is that it is somehow seems less of an offense to pick on men than on women. The question isn't exactly "Is it OK to pick on men?" but "Why is it more acceptible when it is done?" An example of this I noticed a while ago is the name of those copper scouring pads you can buy in the supermarket. They used to be called "Chore Girl" which women found offensive. (I know I did) Now the name has been changed to "Chore Boy" and no one cares. I think the point is that men have such a strong position in society that things like this don't have any effect on it. Women do not, and slights like this, when aimed at women, are akin to picking on the "little people". So when we pick on men and assume it's OK to do so, we're operating in this context at least to some extent. Of course, it's refreshing to be able to voice opinions against some traditionally male attitudes, etc and not have everyone against you.
800.26	one reinforces a stereotype, the other doesn't	TLE::DBANG::carroll	assume nothing	`Fri May 10 1991 16:04`	15
	> An example of this I noticed a while ago is the name of those copper > scouring pads you can buy in the supermarket. They used to be called > "Chore Girl" which women found offensive. (I know I did) Now the name > has been changed to "Chore Boy" and no one cares. This issue seems different to me. The problem with "chore girl" is that women have traditionally been the ones to do household chores - cooking, cleaning, etc - which scouring pads are associated with. Therefore calling it "chore girl" was promoting a stereotype. Men, on the other hand, have not traditionally been associated with household cleaning duties, and therefore there is no stereotype reinforced by calling it a "chore boy". D!
800.27		VIA::HEFFERNAN	Juggling Fool	`Fri May 10 1991 16:07`	3
	Humanists types refer to them as Chore People! ;-)
800.28		COBWEB::swalker	Gravity: it's the law	`Fri May 10 1991 17:38`	4
	Actually (having not known that they were once called Chore Girl, which would indeed have been much worse), I always assumed that they were called "Chore Boy" in reference to their superior "male" strength/power. You know, none of those sissy scouring pads. ;-)
800.29		GLITER::STHILAIRE	Food, Shelter & Diamonds	`Fri May 10 1991 18:43`	7
	re .25, I agree that so called "male-bashing" certainly hasn't appeared to weaken the position of men in society. Men still seem to have all the power and be running everything inspite of it. It's not like it was causing them to lose their jobs, or their money. Lorna
800.30		VMSSG::NICHOLS	It ain't easy being green	`Fri May 10 1991 19:27`	6
	re .-1 Are you making that statement to justify bashing? Or are you perhaps growsing that the tactic hasn't worked? Or perhaps, "it ain't be having any noticeable impact so what the hell are you men bitching about?" something else?
800.31	Seems she meant what she wrote....	WMOIS::REINKE_B	bread and roses	`Fri May 10 1991 21:20`	8
	No, Herb, she's saying that inspite of what women say about men, men stil have the best jobs, more money, more power, and what women say has no effect on the disparity..... It's more like, to me anyway, men are screaming "I have a hang nail" when women say "I'm bleeding to death" Bonnie
800.32		BTOVT::THIGPEN_S	Trout Lillies in Abundance	`Mon May 13 1991 10:17`	6
	funny. When I first saw the "chore boy/girl" thing, my first thought was that if a man OR woman of color was pictured on the package, that either name would have been derogatory. I think they ought to be called "Chore Dog", because my name for any dreary and dirty but necessary work (like scrubbing pots and pans) is "dog-work".
800.33	Unless it means "to have a bash," I don't see it.	COGITO::SULLIVAN	Singing for our lives	`Mon May 13 1991 11:15`	26
	I really reject the term "male bashing." When I think of the word "bash," it conveys (to me) the notion of a more powerful someone, reaching down and pounding someone that they have already subdued, like the motorist in LA who was stunned with a stunned gun and then kicked and clubbed - that's bashing. Or a man who grabs his wife, who already lives in terror and is just about completely disempowered by that terror, and then punches, slaps, stabs, etc. her. Seems like overkill to me. Though perhaps terrorism requires occasional actual acts of violence to be truly effective. Or violence against children. In other words, striking out at someone who can't run away. If you apply the term of "bashing" to verbal abuse, I think of the same power differential. (This is my personal definition that I'm describing here - others of you may define it differently). Anyway, I don't think you can "bash" something over which you have no control, even little influence. Males have been running the world (and making quite a mess of it, if you ask me) for millenia now, and some women and men are angry about it. And... an even smaller number of men and women are sometimes nasty about how they express their anger at the looting, raping, poisoning, mudering, abusing, and humiliating that (some) male humans have engaged in. sorry. <====== sarcasm) Justine
800.34		VMSSG::NICHOLS	It ain't easy being green	`Mon May 13 1991 11:29`	10
	your personal definition is at odds with one of the accepted public uses of the term. Furthermore, I don't understand what you expect to accomplish by denying that you are doing something, and offer as proof that you need be in power to do it. Seems to me it would be sort of like denying you are a bully because you are a woman and only men can be bullies.
800.36	How interesting.	REGENT::BROOMHEAD	Don't panic -- yet.	`Mon May 13 1991 11:35`	5
	"at odds with one" definition? In other words, she is using AN ^^^ accepted definition? But you don't want her to? Ann B.
800.35	if i relied on "accepted public uses" of things...	COGITO::SULLIVAN	Singing for our lives	`Mon May 13 1991 11:36`	11
	Herb, I also reject your suggestion that I need to "prove" anything to you or to anyone. I am merely stating my response to the word, my opinion about it, and why I have come to hold that opinion. You are free, of course, to disagree, offer your own opinion, or merely shoot at mine. The only thing I "expect to accomplish" is a clear explanation of my opinions, thoughts, and feelings -- that goal keeps me plenty busy. Justine
800.37		R2ME2::BENNISON	Victor L. Bennison DTN 381-2156 ZK2-3/R56	`Mon May 13 1991 11:46`	16
	>Males have been running the world (and making quite a mess of it, if >you ask me) for millenia now, and some women and men are angry about >it. And... an even smaller number of men and women are sometimes nasty >about how they express their anger at the looting, raping, poisoning, >mudering, abusing, and humiliating that (some) male humans have engaged >in. This is male bashing at it's extreme. I feel like a bloody pulp. Women have not been sitting in the sidelines all these millenia. They have frequently been the real power behind the throne (Livia, for example). Women have always had power. Most have used it to encourage men to do what they have done. Women cannot so easily slough off their half of the responsibility for the way things are or have been. Nice try, but it doesn't wash. - Vick
800.38	it was a joke, right?	TLE::DBANG::carroll	assume nothing	`Mon May 13 1991 12:04`	20
	>Women have always had power. Most have used it to encourage > men to do what they have done. Women cannot so easily slough off their > half of the responsibility for the way things are or have been. Nice try, > but it doesn't wash. Hahahahaha! Women have always had power... Hahaha...that's a good one... :-) :-) :-) "Ah, Ladies, men have have controlled the arts, the media, the government, the economy, but you, Ladies, have controlled the men - so everything is your fault." Chuckle. D!
800.39	congrats	VMSSG::NICHOLS	It ain't easy being green	`Mon May 13 1991 12:06`	2
	you should be real proud of yourself Ann, as far as i can tell you are the only woman in the conference who is still able to get me angry.
800.41		R2ME2::BENNISON	Victor L. Bennison DTN 381-2156 ZK2-3/R56	`Mon May 13 1991 12:19`	6
	What you really mean when you say women haven't had power is that the "right kind of women" had no power. But it's just as true that the "right kind of men" had no power. Gotta run. Hit me again, it feels so good. - Vick
800.42	Even `wrong' women with real power? Hilarious!	REGENT::BROOMHEAD	Don't panic -- yet.	`Mon May 13 1991 12:32`	13
	Ah, yes, Livia, given as an example of a woman with power. The Livia you are referring to is a character in a novel written by a poet. Are you certain that Robert Graves caught the reality? He didn't with Claudius (who once had the bears and lions turned on the spectators in the Colosseum, when they objected to his choice of animals). Perhaps you should consider why the "right" men and the "right" women don't have power. You might actually come to the conclusion that it has something to do with the design of the `power structure', which is sometimes called the `patriarchy'. Ann B.
800.43	and I may be a bit myopic.	GEMVAX::KOTTLER		`Mon May 13 1991 13:05`	10
	Women have power? Funny, you don't see too many of them running too many governments anyplace... 'Course, my tv reception is a little off these days. Mostly though, like congress and stuff...it looks like a whole lot of suits to me. Except for the beer commercials, ;-) D.
800.44		USWRSL::SHORTT_LA	Total Eclipse of the Heart	`Mon May 13 1991 13:20`	15
	It is my opinion that throughout history there have been plenty of women who had very real power. And as is stated before they haven't been the "right kind of women". Then again I haven't seen too many of the "right kind of men" in power either. I, however, don't believe this is a gender based problem, but rather a societal problem on the whole. If either sex objected to the way things were stridently enough I believe things would change. For the most part history shows that those in power have been the ruthless ones. Good guys finish last syndrome! ;^) L.J.
800.45	A more meaningful definition of the word "power"	MISERY::WARD_FR	Going HOME---as an Adventurer!	`Mon May 13 1991 13:24`	39
	re: several on "power" Using domination, manipulation, physical force, control, etc. as definitions of "power" one can easily agree that men have virtually always had it. In that arena, different types of "power" have held out over others (e.g., physical power taking precedence over writing abilities.) So, as long as those of you in here insist on using "fear" or ability to intimidate as a definition of "power," then you will continue to be correct (until such time as the "patriarchal hierarchy" alluded to earlier, falls.) I, however, have a different, borrowed definition of "power." I like the definition which defines "power" as THE ABILITY TO ACT. Using this definition, then it becomes clear that gender does not limit its implementation. That is, women can be just as powerful as men can be. In fact, using this definition, men can be seen as weak, relying on nothing more than brute manipulation, domination or control, while not truly being able to "be powerful." I suggest some of you make a note of this new (to you) definition. It may make some of the arguments more or less meaningful. I have never doubted that women have power. I have always felt it, from childhood on forward. Perhaps I'm unlike others, but most of my greatest emotional pains have come from the "power" women have had "over" me (I say all this knowingly coming from a position of victimhood or martyrhood or self-pity...in my past.) Much of my life has been determined by my desire to please a woman or women in my life. The "power" there is subtle, perhaps, covert, maybe, but absolutely present, nonetheless. Now that I've "grown-up" a bit farther, these motivators no longer work in the same manner...but as I have become aware of many of the perceived limitors that women ascribe to themselves, I have worked (in my mind if nowhere else) to do my part to not hold them to be "real." That is, I work hard to allow others, of either gender, equality. But I can't give it to someone else; they have to be willing to take it. Women must be willing to own their power, and not to use antiquated (male) definitions of it. Frederick
800.46		REGENT::BROOMHEAD	Don't panic -- yet.	`Mon May 13 1991 13:37`	11
	Frederick, In case you hadn't noticed, "the ability to act" is severely restricted in women. It is restricted by law, by custom, and by force. The only place a woman may freely "act" in all cultures is her own head. Once her "act"ions escape into the real world, they and she are faced with the battery of societal responses, and the less `acceptable' they are, the more negative will be the responses. Ann B.
800.47		R2ME2::BENNISON	Victor L. Bennison DTN 381-2156 ZK2-3/R56	`Mon May 13 1991 14:10`	22
	Let me try to get out of this with my skin still attached to my body. (A lot to hope for, I know.) By the way, if I weren't ardently supportive of the women's movement, my wife would have left me long ago, but I digress. You cannot escape responsibility for the way things are by saying that it's not your fault because you are handicapped, or a woman, or not a political person, or not in this or that political party or left handed or whatever. Pointing the finger is good exercise for the finger, but little else. If women are victims, they are victims who have colluded in their own victimization. I agree that society was at fault. It was a society roughly half of whom were women, individual women who had no less individual power then than individual women do now. The notion that the world would be a better place if women had always been in power instead of men, is counter-historical, and probably a myth. I don't see how bashing men and pointing a bloody finger at an entire sex (kind of like Hitler pointing at the Jews) is any way to help the world to become a better place for all of us. - Vick P.S. Yes I know Livia was fictionally drawn.
800.48	"I'm just this little, tiny, insignificant nobody..."	30849::WARD_FR	Going HOME---as an Adventurer!	`Mon May 13 1991 14:29`	46
	re: .46 (Ann) Yes, Ann, I have noticed that there is a difference in how that inherent ability is manifested/utilized. You may find that most (though not all) of the women who most people recognize as "powerful" (I refer to the note in this conference that lists historically notable women) did not resort to the ability to intimidate that men most frequently use as their manifestation of power. Often men use power in intimidating ways, to be sure, but usually if not always it is knowing that the risk involves a possible failure, loss of freedom or even death. Is it possible that women need to be willing (willingness does NOT mean that it will happen, only that the risk to gain must allow for the risk to lose) to equally risk failure, loss of freedom or even death to effectively express their power, too? I could argue that women have risked failure, loss of freedom and even death without using their inate power (this done, incidentally, by "giving their power away") so why not risk With power? I read so many of these notes that are beseeching women to "stand up," to "empower" themselves, to make a case for their own self-determination, and here you are arguing that you don't have it. Then what's the call to arms for? If you don't have it, forget it, relegate yourselves to the back-burners of humanity. I say you DO have it, that you need to recognize that you have it, that you've had it all along, that you will continue to have it. I say further that you (women, in general) have "given it all away." Take it back. Show and demonstrate to humanity that you now understand what power is, that it isn't defined in male terms of brutalization, and that you are continuing to risk...willing to risk...whatever is necessary as a person in order to guarantee your own self-identity and self-image. If you need to band with other women to feel powerful, then perhaps we aren't understanding each other. It may be helpful to link with other women, but the initial responsibility falls squarely on yourself, to make a commitment to your own individuated growth and assertive stance in the world. There are many men in the world, myself included, who will help you, silently or vocally. But none of us can or will do it for you. You must first indicate a willingness to stand up for yourself. Physically you may not be as over-powering as most men in the same culture, but even men have to find ways to overcome other, more physically dominating men to survive, live or blossom, within their own cultures, similarly, or in relationship to other cultures. Taking the position of weakness that you tenaciously argue for is "arguing for your own limitations." Get off it, Ann. Frederick
800.49		7375::BOBBITT	Lift me up and turn me over...	`Mon May 13 1991 14:39`	50
	re: .48 re: .48 > Is it possible that women need to > be willing (willingness does NOT mean that it will happen, only that > the risk to gain must allow for the risk to lose) to equally risk > failure, loss of freedom or even death to effectively express their > power, too? Oh, I risk failure, labeling, and offense merely by opening my mouth and speaking my mind much of the time...the last time I risked death was when I went rock-climbing. Sometimes I'd, in fact, much rather be dead than quietly ostracized, dead-ended, and glass-ceilinged out of the respect and responsibilities that I could earn with my abilities. > Then what's the call to arms for? If you don't have it, forget it, > relegate yourselves to the back-burners of humanity. I say you DO > have it, that you need to recognize that you have it, that you've had > it all along, that you will continue to have it. I say further that > you (women, in general) have "given it all away." Take it back. Tee hee. So I've had power all along. Well, shucks, now I'm no longer oppressed. Thank you. (apologies for the sarcasm). > If you need to band with other women to feel powerful, then perhaps > we aren't understanding each other. It may be helpful to link with > other women, but the initial responsibility falls squarely on yourself, > to make a commitment to your own individuated growth and assertive > stance in the world. If you think I don't need to band with other women to feel powerful, than perhaps you aren't understanding me (and others like me). It is IMPERATIVE I link with other women, as society has messaged many of us into quietude, servitude, being oversensitive to other needs, and constand self-denial. > You must first indicate a willingness to stand up for yourself. Isn't that what I've been doing here for the past 4 years? did I miss something? > Taking the position of weakness that you tenaciously argue for > is "arguing for your own limitations." Get off it, Ann. I am not arguing for my weakness, I am naming it so I can call it out to the world. I am arguing that it is difficult to overcome. -Jody
800.50	Warning: rathole ahead, and nobody's gonna like it.	ASDG::FOSTER	Calico Cat	`Mon May 13 1991 14:54`	59
	Let me start by generically defining power as the ability to make widesweeping decisions which directly affect many people. I have to agree with Ann and D!; when I look at the world, and I see who makes the laws, and who runs the religions, and who makes the decisions, I see men. Now maybe they aren't the "right kind of men", but I think most of our societies are structured so that this kind of man comes to power, and most people I know feel "powerless" against this situation. I also want to acknowledge that in several noted cases women have had very direct influence over a powerful man. So she had vast indirect power plus a lot of power over one person. Maybe from love, maybe from something else. But the security of that woman is OFTEN questionable. If the man stops loving her, which has been known to happen, her power ends. So, although I understand how some people would feel that women's ability to influence men in power constitutes power, I don't see it the same way. I also want to point out how in Justine's case, her viewpoint is rather special. As a lesbian, she is not likely to put herself in a position to be influencing a man in power. So, that particular power avenue is closed to her. Nor would she probably feel that such power is the way that the world should be, since it would keep all women like her from having any power. Moreover, in not being within the protective sphere of a man, the typical image of the male as protector is also closed to her, so perhaps she sees more keenly what happens to people who are unprotected. They are the most likely to fall prey to people who are out to do harm. In war, this is typically men. In terms of violent criminal activity, this is typically men. In terms of rape, this is typically men. If this is her reality, I don't see why it would be thought of as men-bashing. In talking to a friend recently, I commented that men, in not having as much of their bodies committed to the child-bearing, nursing and rearing processes, often have a lot of time to do many other things, and have done so for centuries. And in time, those things have come to be considered VERY important to our society. Working outside the home, organizing, forming governments and law-making and law-enforcing bodies, developing scientific and mathematical thought, testing theories, creating inventions and side inventions etc. All superfluous to the procreative process, but today, we don't know how to do without these things. And as long as there are men to do them, we will NEVER be without them. As long as there are men, men will probably be in power. Men will never be able to exert the kind of influence on a child for 9 months that a woman can. That process is closed to them. But for as long as a percentage of women are preoccupied with mothering, and for as long as the ratio of men to women does not decline to the point where men must spend all of their time siring children, men, in their need for purpose and activity, will do the things that society has become accustomed to. And the number of women who have the freedom, time and energy to be as committed to those activities as the men are will always be too small to create a non-gender biased power base. At any rate, that's my theory. Its not that people without the ability to make wides
800.51	Choose your weapons or choose your tools...	MISERY::WARD_FR	Going HOME---as an Adventurer!	`Mon May 13 1991 15:55`	65
	re: .50 (::FOSTER) There is no question, in my mind, that as long as you hold that men will probably always hold the positions you describe, that your reality will always reflect that probability. I happen to believe that belief precedes experience and therefore if you don't want the experience of that type of belief, change the belief. However, whatever it takes to make it happen, do it. In the reality I am working to consciously generate, more and more men are becoming aware of the limitations that women have allowed themselves to live under and are going to work to rectify that from within themselves (to change the way they see women, to change the roles they see women within, etc.) In my reality, too, women will more and more work to value themselves, to see themselves as equal contributors to humanity, as not being forced to take on particular roles and as powerful human beings who happen to have female anatomy. As more and more PEOPLE allow the roles to become a part of their lives, as more and more PEOPLE are willing to stop allowing themselves to be victimized, as more and more PEOPLE are willing to establish principles and then have the character to implement those principles, Then and ONLY then, will reality change. It will not change as long as present beliefs are maintained, it will not changed as long as we continue to feel powerless and helpless against the large world, it will not change as long as we sit around and wait for others to make it happen. It starts and ends with the self. Maybe you cannot change the entire world or maybe you don't change the entire world, but you can change yourself. You can work on your principles, your beliefs and even your attitudes. You not only can but Will have an impact on everything immediately within your sphere of reality as you do. You, too, "'ren," are arguing for the past, are holding onto generalized "facts" of a dying history, are seemingly unwilling to view the world differently. Let go of the cynicism, let go of the accusations, let go of the anger behind it all...(but by all means, I say this not trivially, but in terms of goals...) and take the bull within you by the horns and use your heart, as well as your intelligence, to make the world a different place. Instead of referring to what is, for example, how about working to see and say what might be, or what is becoming...or at least to say what is with you or what it is you are becoming. Try it for a few years...you've already had many, many years of doing it the other way and it didn't work too well. Try it differently. re: .49 (Jody) You argue for pity. I have already indicated that I have compassion, not only for women, but for all people who have suffered. For whatever reasons, right or wrong, good intentions or bad intentions, lots of lots of drama has been the ordinary lot of our history. Even as I look in today's newspapers I encounter the starvation of millions of people in Africa. Yes, there is lots and lots of victimization to go around. For those who have never learned how to empower themselves, then I have little answer. But for those, you included, who now know what you have allowed to happen and who now have means to make it happen differently, then being a victim is no longer a viable option. You can hold onto victimhood and hope to gain sympathy, or you can find your own inner resources, take your strengths, use them, forgive yourself your past, and surge powerfully forward into a different reality as I detailed to "'ren." The choice is yours. I am not the enemy. The real enemy lies within yourself, if you let it. Frederick
800.52	Its like apples and oranges, Mr. Ward.	ASDG::FOSTER	Calico Cat	`Mon May 13 1991 16:41`	60
	Frederick, You only know me through notes. You don't know the extent of my "power" or influence. You don't know what choices I make. I am sorry that you think I'm being cynical or that my examination of the past is a mistake that will prevent me from forseeing a different future. I was just making an observation. You can suggest to women that they take the reins and take charge etc. And I have certainly met MANY powerful women. But I don't think you're hearing me. Unless a woman makes the choice to spend NO time having children, she cannot spend as much of her time dealing with non-child- rearing issues within society as a man can. As long as a healthy percentage of women make the choice to spend their time focused on the needs of a small group of people, i.e. their children, then there will be more men than women who can focus their attention on the other things. Right now, as we speak, women are recognizing that they cannot do everything! It is exhausting! And some want to be able to make the choice to focus on their families. Now perhaps I forgot a caveat. If an equal percentage of men became as focused in terms of TIME on their families as many women are, then the power balance might also become less gender influenced. I speak in the present, Mr. Ward. The number of women with the time and courage to wield power (using my definition, previously stated) is far outweighed by the number of men in the same position. Unless something frees the time for women and reduces the time for men, this will probably not change. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that change cannot come about so that we have a more benevolent society. I'm not saying women don't value themselves. I am saying that the heads of state will continue to be primarily men, the congressional and senatorial and house leaders and representatives will continue to be primarily men, the religious leaders and in general the leaders in society will continue to be primarily men as long as the pool of PEOPLE WITH TIME TO COMMIT TO THE JOB weighs more heavily toward men. Even as women see the doors opening to them, they are frequently blown away by the fact that they are not always getting the support that they need to relenquish some of the needs of the home. The woman who can do it all is IN THE MINORITY. More and more women do not want to try. And many women don't like being forced to choose between family and non-family oriented activities. So, the women most likely to wield power are: the childless, those with household help, those with grown children, those with incredible drive and determination. MANY MANY WOMEN will not fall into any of these categories. I'm not sure why my analysis met with the response you gave it. I'm not dooming society at all. I think we could be doing a much better job of grooming our leaders (male and female) for the tasks ahead. But at the same time, I'm looking at a few statistical realities. Children on the average do not take up as much of the father's time as they do of the mother's. Many people are not sure they want this to change. Although people would love to see fathers get more involved, they are not sure they want to see mothers get less involved. This is what must change in order for more women to be available for positions of power over large numbers of people.
800.53		MCIS1::DHURLEY	Children Learn What They Live	`Mon May 13 1991 17:38`	12
	. 51 I am having a difficult time with the assumption that women are not struggling to stop being victims. Many many of the women that I know are fighting back, making a difference and are saying we are not going to take it any more...We are not going to say yes, we'll go quietly or behave.... We are fighting against years of being second class citizens... We are fighting to be heard in government... We are fighting to be heard in big business.... We are fighting to be an equal part of this world... denise
800.54	musings from a [mostly] RON'er	AYOV27::GHERMAN	I need a little time	`Mon May 13 1991 17:39`	33
	re 800.52 'ren- I agree with your assessment to a large extent. Biologically, women must spend more time per child out of the workforce/power structure than men. (Even if it is only a few days!) Women are forced to make a choice that men don't have to make (whether to stay out of the political power/workforce for a period of time to childbear) since no human can really do it all. And thankfully for our species' survival, many do! As long as the 'power structure' is focussed on non-childbearing activities, women are at a [minor] disadvantage. But certainly not to the extent that today's percentages portray (about 5% senior management/political leadership as opposed to 50% that population would dictate.) I wonder what has brought a 'minor' disadvantage (?) to such an extreme? And how can we correct it? Should we give more credence to childbearing? Should we penalise people who choose never to childbear? [I have this strange image of women who haven't borne any children and men being 'handicapped' as in a horse race. :^) Not eliminated but, since they haven't shown a 'full' experience, having to overcome a slight disadvantage to be 'elected'.] Or is it that it is not just childBearing but childRearing that is woman-focussed? The first may be biologically slightly imbalanced, but the latter is not. Cheers, George
800.55		GLITER::STHILAIRE	Food, Shelter & Diamonds	`Mon May 13 1991 17:50`	24
	re .'ren, I agree with your last two replies. Fred, have you ever read A Room of One's Own by Virginia Woolf? I find your suggestions as to why women haven't achieved as much power as men to be offensive, patronizing and bossy. If it were as easy for women to gain positions of power in our society as you claim the U.S. would, surely, by now have had at least a few female Presidents? Let's face it, there's a lot of women who are not as passive and scared as you suggest and, despite all their brains and ambition, they aren't getting to the top. Not the very top. We haven't even had a black, Asian or Jewish, male President, yet, nevermind a female? How many corporate heads in this country are female? How many state governors? It's too easy to put the blame on women...they don't have enough self-esteem, etc. (for years white men said black men couldn't get ahead because they were all lazy...i never believed that either. I think there's something else holding women back. Something like a white, male power-structure that runs this country. Lorna
800.56	surely you jest.	GEMVAX::KOTTLER		`Mon May 13 1991 17:54`	12
	- .1 >white male power structure that runs this country NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! Where? D.
800.57	choose your tools, then beat yourself with them	COBWEB::swalker	Gravity: it's the law	`Mon May 13 1991 18:10`	24
	Fred, try this for an exercise. Choose a situation you are powerless to change. Go home and tell yourself that you have created the situation. That you allowed it to happen, and that you have the power to change it. Tell yourself that in not marshalling your own inner resources, you are holding onto a past of victimization. Tell yourself that the real enemy lies within yourself. Now try to change that situation. When you fail (not "if you fail", because you will, since the premise was that you are powerless to change the situation, repeat the steps in paragraph 2 above). Do this for weeks. Months. Years. After this, your self-esteem ought to be pretty low. Ever wonder why so many women are chronically depressed and have self-esteem problems? In other words, Fred, you can cut the pep talking. If pep talking and "self-empowerment" were the solution, there would long ago have ceased to be a problem. In advocating this as a solution, you may be well-meaning, but (IMO) you're helping to perpetuate the status quo. Sharon
800.58		GUESS::DERAMO	Be excellent to each other.	`Mon May 13 1991 23:35`	11
	re .50, >> Let me start by generically defining power as the ability to make >> widesweeping decisions which directly affect many people. Well, that counts me out. But it reminds me of something I read once. It went something like, women feel powerless so they assume that men have the power; but what they don't realize is that men feel powerless too. Dan
800.59	nit	USWS::HOLT	quiche and ferns	`Mon May 13 1991 23:51`	7
	Dixy Lee Ray was governor of Washington. Ellen Grasso was governor of Connecticut. Ann Richards is governor of Texas.
800.60	:-)	GUESS::DERAMO	Be excellent to each other.	`Mon May 13 1991 23:55`	3
	Looks like 50% to me. Dan
800.61		GLITER::STHILAIRE	Food, Shelter & Diamonds	`Tue May 14 1991 09:19`	7
	re .59, okay, now name all the male governors, past and present. Lorna P.S. Besides, why do you call it a "nit"? I didn't say there weren't any. I asked how many there were?
800.62		BOOKS::BUEHLER		`Tue May 14 1991 09:44`	18
	.58 There's a difference between men who feel powerless and women who feel powerless. FEEL is is the operative word here. Men are not powerless as can be proven by watching any newscast, any list of credits after a movie, show, performance. Men have power. Watch any government forum, whether a town meeting or congress or the house. Count the pin striped suits and the,usually, red ties. During the Iraq mess, I was mesmerized by the number of red ties on CNN. And they weren't worn by women! Then, just for fun, count the number of women is any of the above. Perhaps the key here is that "feel" is the wrong word; this has nothing to do with feelings, it has everything to do with reality and fact. Maia
800.63	women's "power" in war	GEMVAX::KOTTLER		`Tue May 14 1991 09:58`	12
	- .1 Well said Maia! I think there was at least one newscast during the Iraq crisis that had something to do with women; oh I remember, that was when the women and children were blown up in the shelter... That's right too, Dorian
800.64		SA1794::CHARBONND		`Tue May 14 1991 10:23`	4
	Herb, try to stop fighting the feeling of powerlessness and really get into it. Then try to imagine going through all of _life_ with that feeling. Your empathy for what's being said here should sky- rocket ;-)/2
800.65	solution is obvious,she said,gazing haughtily at her fingernails	VMSSG::NICHOLS	It ain't easy being green	`Tue May 14 1991 10:27`	11
	ya know, maybe -after all- the reason this conference makes me so angry is because i feel so powerless here. It seems as though the only power men have _here_ comes from having the freedom to cede power to =wn= willingly. And if we are _not_ willing, the power is going to be denied us anyhow. Guess that really sticks in my craw. herb
800.66		VMSSG::NICHOLS	It ain't easy being green	`Tue May 14 1991 10:32`	2
	i think the order of the last 2 got reversed. Dana's looks like a response to an earlier version that i deleted
800.67		BTOVT::THIGPEN_S	Trout Lillies in Abundance	`Tue May 14 1991 10:43`	21
	I'm curious as to why you (as a man) have such a strong need to feel powerful in =wn=? I'm not trying to be hostile, Herb, I'm genuinely curious. This is a space where men are not shut out, but where the main focus is openly declared to be for, on, and about women. I don't understand why a man would need to exercise power here. It makes me suspect a man who would try. I'm trying to think of an analogy... not being too successful. If I as a Jewish woman entered a Christian Bible study group, should I expect my Jewish voice to be a strong power in that group? I might object if I thought it was advocating anti-semitism, as you have here to what you perceive as anti-male bias, but should I expect the Christians to discuss, and invite my (Jewish) opinion on, matters of Christian faith? I don't think so. I respect their faith, though I don't share it. Since my beliefs lie otherwhere, what positive effect could my asserting power there have? When a man tries to exercise power in a woman's group, which =wn= primarily is by charter and declared intent, it seems to deny legitimacy to that charter and intent on the face of it. If women attempt to resist such exercise of power by a man in a women's space, why should anyone be surprised? Sara
800.68	That struck a chord	YUPPY::DAVIESA	Just the London skyline, sweetheart	`Tue May 14 1991 10:51`	29
	Re .65 >ya know, maybe -after all- the reason this conference makes me so angry >is because i feel so powerless here. >It seems as though the only power men have _here_ comes from having the >freedom to cede power to =wn= willingly. And if we are _not_ willing, >the power is going to be denied us anyhow. >Guess that really sticks in my craw. You know, herb....if you would allow me to change your words just a little..... >ya know, maybe -after all- the reason this world makes me so angry >is because i feel so powerless here. >It seems as though the only power women have _there_ comes from having the >freedom to cede personal power to men willingly. And if we are _not_ >willing, the power is going to be denied us anyhow. >Guess that really sticks in my craw. ....and you have described precisely and succinctly how I feel as a woman trying to forge a path in this world. Thanks for the insight. Maybe we could view this place as somewhere where roles are sometimes reversed or altered so that we can all learn from the experience? 'gail
800.69	re .-2	VMSSG::NICHOLS	It ain't easy being green	`Tue May 14 1991 10:58`	16
	its not the need to feel powerful, its the need to avoid being powerless particularly to avoid misuse of power that feels directed _at_ me. To continue the religious analogy... On the evening of Yom Kippur (i believe) in 1967 i attended a service in a temple with my wife to be. Egypt had just attacked Israel. The rabbi vituperated against Christians in an almost crazed fashion. He specifically called attention to those of us Goyim who were there. I was powerless to do anything but walk out, and that would have insulted my wife (to be) and her friends who had specifically invited me to the temple. Her friends apologized to me after the service. Was the rabbi's anger just? Yes! Was it mis-focused, yes! I didn't want the power to preach my views, but i felt powerless to prevent an unwarranted harangue.
800.70	I even think I voted for Ella once...	TOMK::KRUPINSKI	C, where it started.	`Tue May 14 1991 11:15`	11
	One nit: > Ellen Grasso was governor of Connecticut. That's Ella Grasso. And an addition: Madeline Kunin was Governor of Vermont. Tom_K
800.71	Maybe not a hostile environment, just an inappropriate one...	MISERY::WARD_FR	Going HOME---as an Adventurer!	`Tue May 14 1991 13:04`	84
	I will respond very briefly. First off, I stated in one of my few and initial entries that I felt that this space (WOMENNOTES) is dedicated to women. Therefore, as a man, I feel uncomfortable here. This has been true with every entry I have made. It further makes me uncomfortable to watch the numbers of entries by a few of the men, who "talk too much" in here, in my opinion. I do not wish to be considered as one of them though often the discussions are enticing. As a couple of you who have read me in other notesfiles could probably attest, I feel as though my entries in here have been restrained (for me, at any rate.) I actually gave my entries in here extra effort in an attempt to be as considerate as I felt was justified. Unfortunately and not surprising, a few here and there have reacted unfavorably. Well, a part of me wants to reply in a "free-wheeling" fashion, but that goes against my perceived secondary placement in here and I don't wish to center on myself here, either. Also, I don't like arguing and won't do it long, if I allow it at all. Oneupmanship and competition and comparativeness is nothing more than a loose negative ego. So, basically, what I'm saying is that I will not engage in bantering back and forth. I am also saying that I intend to be even more silent in here than I have been, if I ever again speak at all. Those of you who wish to label me as something-or-other are obviously free to continue to do so. But I will state my INTENTION for my entries thus far to be as follows: It has been my intention to offer a view, in those replies I made, that had not been expressed before, it was further my intention to add a couple of points of "truth" (that is, examples of which I had knowledge) that had not been mentioned and it has further been my intention to show that not all men are as bad as the consensus in this file likes to make them out to be, and I had hoped to "demonstrate" that I could serve as an example of that. Initially, of course, I, too, hoped I could learn something about women and to help myself overcome some of the limitations I have in regards to women (chauvinism and sexism are a part of my make-up, though I have worked at reducing and minimizing it.) It seems as though my intentions went awry, however. Well, I know that we can't live on intentions alone, no matter how noble they are. But I also know that there are some beliefs and principles that are not worth compromising. That many of you can't see the bitterness you hold and the destructiveness of that anger/rage underneath is sad to me. That many of you can't see that there is a state, beyond that harmful emotional state, that can produce the results you say you desire is not surprising. That you can't understand that there are blockages and limitations and payoffs in your way to the desires and dreams you long for isn't news to me, for I have done the same thing repeatedly in my life. Unfortunately, from my standpoint, most of you continue to point to "out there" rather than "in here." Most of you continue to say that society or men are to blame, or that there is some other cause at play. I'm sorry, I cannot accept that. For me, personally, that is no longer acceptable. I take and am taking full, complete and total responsibility for my reality. Yes, things have happened to me...things have been done to me, too, perhaps as "bad" as many of the things you all (generalized) constantly bitch about... but I have grown and learned that the common denominator in all the things that have happened to me was ... me. I know, from total experience, how hard it is to take even partial responsibility, let alone "total" responsibility. So to even suggest it can sound "patronizing," as Lorna pointed out. I'm sorry, Lorna, and anyone else who agrees with her, I stand by my current perceptions. I will not argue against the history we all have shared; I will, however, be the first to say let's shuck it...let it go, let it die... Women are powerful. No, they (collectively) do not know it. Men are powerful. But men often abuse it, unguided in its misuse. It is time for men to learn how to share that power...it is time for men to allow feminine energies into their realities. It is time for women to know that they have power and to be strong enough to show it. This doesn't mean in rebellion, necessarily, but in self-determination and strength of character. Sorry if this seems like a pep talk, Lorna (and I single you out since you are the one accusing me of such,) but it is how I feel. But I also realized something last night (as I was thinking about the negative couple of responses I'd read before leaving) and realized that maybe, just maybe, many if not all of the women in here really primarily want a place to vent. That's all. Nothing more. No looking or analyzing...just venting. Venting of justified angers, hurts, frustrations, anxieties, sadnesses...in the hopes of getting a few strokes, hugs, and relief...and perhaps on account of this, my entries have been "too much." Too much to swallow when all that was wanted was a little understanding and compassion. So, though I understand and have compassion, maybe I went too far in here. So, on account of that, I will probably be very, very quiet in here henceforth. But I still stand behind that which I wrote. Frederick
800.72		GLITER::STHILAIRE	Food, Shelter & Diamonds	`Tue May 14 1991 13:30`	12
	re .71, all I did before was disagree with your opinion. Here's a generalization for you. In my experience many men seem to get very upset when a woman presumes to disagree with their opinions on life, politics, economics, what-have-you (serious things). I can't understand why so many men would get so upset when women disagree with them on things, unless it's because so many men are so used to thinking they know more than many women do. Sorry to seem bitter, or to banter, or whatever it was... Lorna
800.73	It's a whole different world.	REGENT::BROOMHEAD	Don't panic -- yet.	`Tue May 14 1991 14:21`	70
	Frederick, I would bet that most of the women who have written of "the bitterness" and "that anger/rage underneath" are trying to represent the views of women other than themselves. I know I am. I've had a good life; it's been pleasant and easy; my life has been deliberately threatened by a man on only two occasions; I can afford the amenities of life; my lover is a kind, intelligent, feminist man; et cetera. I have no complaints. There are women out there who do have complaints -- or should. Their lives are not controlled by their perceptions and attitudes, but by real, external forces which are genuinely unaffected by them. (One of the 12 Steps of AA is to recognize that one is "powerless over alcohol". This is apparently a very hard step for most [Caucasian] men to make, because they believe so deeply that they have some control of everything in their lives. It is an effortless step for most women; they know there are entire fields of their lives over which they have no control, and never did.) You write, "It is time for men to learn how to share that power...it is time for men to allow feminine energies into their realities." Yet it seems not to occur to you that it WILL NOT HAPPEN to any man who does not want it to happen. That is all it takes. A man just has to have a desire to keep any part of the status quo, and then nothing will change -- even assuming the validity of your claims. Yes, it is possible for women to take control of their lives, to empower themselves, to achieve their entitlement. Here are quotes from some of them: "I felt as if a stone hand had been lifted off my head." "I knew I could take a walk, call my mother, laugh." "The kids and I had fun for the first time in years." "Even <person>, suddenly can't do enough to help me." How did these women empower themselves? You're not going to like the answer. You certainly don't want other women to use this method. These women murdered their husbands. Here's the complete final paragraph from _Women_Who_Kill_: Women who kill their battering husbands or lovers almost always express great remorse and sorrow. They say they still love the dead man and grieve at his loss. Some feel so guilty and depressed that they try to take their own lives, or say that they would if they did not have children to care for. But at the same time, many of them experience an exhilarating sense of relief. "Even when I knew I would have to go to prison," said one woman, "I felt as if a stone hand had been lifted off my head." Another said, "suddenly I knew I could take a walk, call my mother, laugh -- and it would be all right. For the first time in eleven years, I wasn't afraid." Another said, "While I was out on bail waiting for trial, even though I'd done such a terrible thing, the kids and I had fun for the first time in years." Some women experience a new sense of themselves when people begin to treat them with a certain deference. "Even the sheriff, who laughed off the beatings for fifteen years, suddenly can't do enough to help me," one woman reported. Many of them use their painfully acquired self-respect to aid others through programs for battered women. Their message is always the same: "Get out -- you don't have to take it." And some women use their power directly. One woman, who served eight years for shooting her husband to death, was asked what she would do if she found out that her daughter were being battered by a husband or boyfriend. "I think I'd just take the man aside and have a little talk with him about nonviolence," she said. "And then I'd tell him who I am." Think about it. Your reality has never come close to their reality. Your method of changing your reality would never come close to changing their reality. Ann B.
800.74	A quick response	MISERY::WARD_FR	Going HOME---as an Adventurer!	`Tue May 14 1991 14:34`	22
	re: .73 (Ann) Sorry, I don't like 12-step programs...they don't and won't work for me...I especially don't like the "I am powerless..." approach...everything you write around that is crap FOR ME. As far as understanding killing someone over whom I felt powerless,,,sorry, you don't know me nor my life and I'm not about to share this in here. But I also know that that was much earlier in my life and my approach now would be very different. I no longer align myself to it. I will add, however, that it could certainly be the "last" alternative...but that it would represent a massive failure on my part to have been able to avoid it. Once done, then I would set about learning about my failure and how to avoid it in the future (like coping with any other tragedy...it's not about blaming or punishing, either self or someone else.) re: .72 (Lorna) I don't believe you. Frederick
800.75		R2ME2::BENNISON	Victor L. Bennison DTN 381-2156 ZK2-3/R56	`Tue May 14 1991 14:46`	11
	Lorna, I don't think many of the guys monitoring this conference are nearly as hostile as we make you feel we are. There are a couple of books floating around on why women and men have trouble communicating. I think it's even harder in an electronic media. If we had all been sitting in a conference room somewhere, I think the discussion would have felt much more civilized and fewer feathers would have been ruffled. But then the whole thing might not have started in a conference room, because I'm kind of a quiet unaggressive guy except in notesfiles. :^) - Vick
800.77		REGENT::BROOMHEAD	Don't panic -- yet.	`Tue May 14 1991 15:02`	9
	Frederick, Well, since Lorna was clearly telling the plain, unvarnished truth, it would seem that your reality has no room for such things. This is likely to have the attractive side effect of causing lots of people to think, "Oh, gee. I don't have to believe anything Frederick writes. What an easy way to empower myself. I'll do it." Ann B.
800.78	Can I stop now?	MISERY::WARD_FR	Going HOME---as an Adventurer!	`Tue May 14 1991 15:20`	18
	re: .77 (Ann) Sorry, I should have elaborated a bit more...I meant I disagreed with her first sentence (which I took with the following tone "poor little ol' me, I would never do such a thing, I was only ...") As for the rest, I could probably agree. But as for your statement, Ann, the "plain, unvarnished truth" is never "plain, unvarnished truth." There is no such thing. There is always a "greater truth." I do not limit myself to someone else's conception of physical reality, thank you, and in my mind you don't have a very solid (if you'll pardon the pun) handle on it. My reality apparently has more room in it than yours does, in case you haven't noticed. As for empowerment, either I don't know what you are talking about or you don't. Frederick
800.79	either/or -> inside and outside are related	VIA::HEFFERNAN	Juggling Fool	`Tue May 14 1991 15:54`	3
	Isn't this a false dicotomy that you can either change inside or change the outside?
800.80		USWRSL::SHORTT_LA	Total Eclipse of the Heart	`Tue May 14 1991 19:14`	30
	Just some further thoughts after reading the new notes: I don't like the 12 step program either. I believe in being responsible for many if not all aspects of my life. Not others lives, but my responsibility to myself would not let me stay with a self destructive individual. I also don't like the fact that it centers on giving yourself over to some diety. I'm an athiest and this obviously puts a crimp in that plan. I have never felt powerless...even when my ex was abusing me I didn't feel powerless. I could change things and did. I was lucky enough to be raised with the idea that I can do and be anyone or anything I want to be. So far, this has been true. I have never not gotten anything I put sincere effort into. Until I moved out of California (temporarily, thank goodness) I didn't even know these type of problems existed. I didn't know people would still hurt other because of their skin color or preferences. I was very naive. And now I find out that a lot of the women out there still feel they're not getting a fair shake. Sadly in this case, I guess we continue to learn throughout our lifetime. L.J.
800.81	..I hate me too..	OSL09::PERS	Do it The NORway	`Wed May 15 1991 04:13`	9
	I hate me too notes...but then again.. there is no way I could have put my opinion/thoughts better than what Frederick did in .71. Thank you. PerS
800.82	..balanced argument?..	OSL09::PERS	Do it The NORway	`Wed May 15 1991 04:26`	13
	AnnB, Are you seriously saying you would use this paragraph from _Women_who_Kill_ to picture the general misuse of power in the men/women relations? IMO, this is a typical unbalanced argumentation, where nothing agreeable will evolve. Especiallly as an answer to (again IMO) a very balanced note from Frederick. PerS
800.83		GUESS::DERAMO	Be excellent to each other.	`Wed May 15 1991 08:42`	15
	re .62, >> There's a difference between men who feel powerless and women who feel >> powerless. FEEL is is the operative word here. Men are not powerless >> as can be proven by watching any newscast, any list of credits after >> a movie, show, performance. Men have power. Watch any government [...] I don't think this can be dismissed so easily. Even if everyone with power was male, that still only means that some men have power. Most men don't. Ask your average male coworker whether he feels he has any power over things like: layoffs, schools, tax rates, prices, inflation, government policy, etc. Dan
800.84	my opinion...	GLITER::STHILAIRE	Food, Shelter & Diamonds	`Wed May 15 1991 10:11`	16
	re .83, but your average male worker still makes a lot more money than your average female worker. Your average male still has a lot more women to pick from for romance than your average female does men. Your average male doesn't have as much pressure on him to be handsome as your average female does. Your average male doesn't get cramps every month with his period, or worry about getting pregnant, or not getting pregnant. Your average male doesn't have a clue what it would be like to be female, because they've been do busy talking and haven't done enough listening or reading. Your average male doesn't realize that what he considers to be a feeling of powerlessness is nothing compared to the way women feel. Lorna
800.85		CADSE::KHER	I'm not Mrs. Kher	`Wed May 15 1991 10:26`	2
	And to add to Lorna's list - men from the most powerless classes typically have more power than women from the same class.
800.86		USWS::HOLT	quiche and ferns	`Wed May 15 1991 14:07`	2
	what would you do about these inequalities?
800.87		GLITER::STHILAIRE	Food, Shelter & Diamonds	`Wed May 15 1991 14:59`	6
	re .86, for starters, I'd discuss it in womannotes and see how well the enlightened, educated men of Digital understood what I was talking about. Lorna
800.88	!	DECWET::JWHITE	from the flotation tank...	`Wed May 15 1991 15:10`	3
	brava!
800.89		USWRSL::SHORTT_LA	Total Eclipse of the Heart	`Wed May 15 1991 22:19`	7
	re:.86 No one said we should blame it on the patriarchy. Maybe this is reason poking it's head above the knee jerks. L.J.
800.90		GUESS::DERAMO	Be excellent to each other.	`Wed May 15 1991 23:32`	4
	Lorna your .84 was a very convincing response to what I said in .83. "Brava!" seconded. Dan
800.91	We're waiting.	REGENT::BROOMHEAD	Don't panic -- yet.	`Thu May 16 1991 14:34`	41
	Frederick and Per, In 800.71, we all had the benefit of Frederick's wisdom in informing us that now is the time for men to learn how to share their power with women; i.e., "it is time for men to allow feminine energies into their realities." (I take this to mean that when men and women think differently about themselves and each other, then they will behave differently towards each other. This seems quite reasonable, if a bit tautological, to me.) In 800.81, Per firmly stated that his thoughts and opinions were the same as Frederick's on these matters. In 800.86, Robert Holt asked how this change was to be implemented. He did not address his question to anyone in particular, but since Frederick and Per were willing to state that they believed they had an answer, and no one else was, I think that one or both of those two should reply to Robert. You have now had twenty-four hours in which to formulate your answer. So I'd like to know, what is it? What concrete proposal do you have to teach all 5,000,000,000+ people on this planet that men must share their power and that women actually have enormous power? Of course, you cannot claim that this step is a mere implementation detail, an exercise left for the reader. We are all familiar with the motto, "Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it" and we will not fall into the trap it implies. (Naturally, since Frederick's reality has so much more room in it than my poor, cramped reality, it should be trivial for him to show women why they should want to work one-third less, but receive nearly twice their current wages, and about double their current wealth. (See Note 819.15.) However, I still can't imagine how he is going to persuade men that it is in their best interests to work fifty percent harder, receive about half their current wages, and give up half their current wealth. Moreover, I cannot fathom why those men, who are the owners of most of the means of communication, would even help spread these ideas, but it's probably just my "loose negative ego" getting in my way.) Ann B.
800.92		CSOA1::GILBOY	We play real nice together!	`Sat May 18 1991 18:41`	5
	-1. I take it you believe that wealth is power? Why? --Judy
800.93		MR4DEC::RON		`Sun May 19 1991 01:34`	21
	Re: .8 by GLITER::STHILAIRE, > ... the frustrations that many women feel > over their dealings with men have to be vented somehow! Sorry, that does not make sense to me. Would a white person be justified in bashing, say, all Hispanics (or all Blacks or all Orientals or all <insert your favorite bashable ethnic group> ), just because they have been frustrated by their dealings with certain members of that ethnic group? > What are we > supposed to do, just smile and keep our thoughts to ourselves? No. But it seems reasonable to deal with the specific source(s) of said frustration, rather than bash the whole generic group. -- Ron
800.94	How not?	REGENT::BROOMHEAD	Don't panic -- yet.	`Mon May 20 1991 11:37`	9
	Judy, There are, according to Susan Brownmiller (and others), twelve kinds of power. Money is only one of them. Eleven of the twelve are convertible; e.g., if you have monetary power, you can get political power. Can you have read about the events at, say, the Kennedy Compound in Florida, and not realized that money exerts power? Ann B.
800.95		GLITER::STHILAIRE	Food, Shelter & Diamonds	`Mon May 20 1991 13:37`	29
	re .93, as a WASP, I have often heard white men verbally vent their anger towards Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, you name it. In this instance white men are the group with power venting anger towards the underdog. When women vent their anger at men, it is the underdog venting anger towards the ones in charge. It is human nature for people to complain about how difficult it is to get along with other people. Until the human race finally reaches Utopia, this will always continue in some form. However, it is one thing for people of equal power to bash each other, and another thing for people with power to bash people with less power (as in whites bashing blacks, etc.), and still another thing for people with less power to bash those in power (as in women bashing men). However, I don't really think that anyone has ever bashed all men in this notesfile. I think people have vented anger at certain individuals in their lives, and because what they said wasn't worded as explicitly as it could have been, some other people chose to interpret the statements as male bashing. I think we all really know that when someone is upset they may generalize. This happens all the time in personal conversation. It's just that in notes everyone gets to read it, pick it apart, and turn it against each other, for their own purposes, like trying to prove that their are womannoters who hate all men. Lorna
800.96	Stay in your own victimhood, you like it.	MISERY::WARD_FR	Going HOME---as an Adventurer!	`Mon May 20 1991 15:43`	26
	re: .91 (Ann-tithesis) Hi, Ann. Sorry I didn't respond to you sooner. I was out from Thursday onwards...also, this notesfile is borderline for me... that is, it comes in at a lower priority than others mostly because as I have explained earlier I do not feel that this notesfile is a comfortable place for me to participate. Added to that that there is an incredible amount of dialog in here (over 500 notes since I was here last) and it takes a while to get through stuff. Finally, getting to something that directly involves me (that is, addressed to me) requires looking at the entry and determining several things, among them whether I wish to involve myself or not. So I will reply. However, I will not reply at your level. Your entry was hostile and condescending towards me, Ann. I do not appreciate your attitude at all. I have always admired and respected your intellectual capabilities but I have little admiration for the attitudes of hostility you express in various areas, especially towards men and now "logically" projected onto me. Your cynicism is absolutely nothing more than thinly veiled anger...and I suggest even rage. I will not reply to your request in the dark of your anger. It is abundantly clear to me that you would work feverishly to produce a lose-lose situation for me. Sorry, I will not play by your rules. I am off your game-board. Frederick
800.97		REGENT::BROOMHEAD	Don't panic -- yet.	`Mon May 20 1991 16:57`	8
	I see, Frederick. Although you have the answer to sexism, you are going to hide it from the world. You are going to do this, not because you did not like the way Robert asked the question, but because you don't like the way I pointed out the question. Is that a fair statement of your position? Ann B.
800.98	A reply	MISERY::WARD_FR	Going HOME---as an Adventurer!	`Tue May 21 1991 14:32`	78
	re: the question, which I take is "how do we eliminate sexism?" (Frankly, Ann, I hadn't noticed the question being directed at me...I'm still not sure it is. I will not engage you in combat, go fight someone else, if that's what you want. I am responding here as a simple reply to a question, and with intentions of not martyring myself in the process.) First, I apologize for the lack of depth this reply will have, time does not permit me to write a dissertation. Secondly, I apologize for not taking the time to make it shorter...I am coming off the "top of my head." Sexism is pervasive. There are only a handful of societies on Earth where sexism comes close to being in check or in balance, if at. It is pervasive because it comes from core beliefs. To think that I, or anyone, have a solution for world sexism is naive or self-defeating. But what I can do is to work on the sexism within. What I can do is to watch myself, to notice my prejudices, to question my values, to inquire about my own feelings, to ask for help and to work at consciously taking responsibility for my interactions and the world that lies outside my skin. I am grateful for those people, women mostly, who "catch" what they believe to be sexist attitudes or expressions. For then it allows me an opportunity to question my beliefs and to discover what it is that I am about. As I grow and learn, then I can apply my awareness to my activities and hopefully reflect that onto others, who can then perhaps learn from me. If anything, it is my task "to inspire, not impress." I am not a leader...each of us is our own leader, though most of us allow others, whether they be people or things, etc., to usurp their power. Therefore, most find themselves powerless and led. But what I can do and be is self-determined. You've heard the words. Nelson Mandela was one of the latest individuals to have publically, powerfully used this phrase. Think about what it means. This does not mean running around pointing fingers at everyone telling them how they are to blame. It means recogizing and acknowledging that things are this way now, and maybe they are a mess, but that no one is going to fix it unless you fix it yourself, first. Fix it within yourself, first. When I have talked about power in here, there was a tremendous chorus (it seemed to me) of complaints, about how powerless all these women are. Well, I said, and will continue to say, that as long as those individuals (whether as individuals or as part of a pack wherein they can give their individual power or hide from it, whichever the case is for them) refuse to change their beliefs about their own effectiveness then nothing is going to make any difference. You, as an individual, you, especially as a woman, must first of all see that you do most assuredly have power. You must learn to see where that power lies, how it has hidden itself from your eyes, your awareness, your consciousness. You must see where it is that you have placed the power (since you have it, but aren't using it, it must be "somewhere,") and then "take it back." By whatever means is necessary, take it back. Some means are more elegant than others, some are more appropriate than others, and eventually, the means will be seen as more important than the ends. But formulate your principles and then have the courage and character that it takes to implement them. If you change, then the world must change. Even if it were to only be in attitude, which is not the singular truth, the world around you will change. There are examples after examples of this in this notesfile. Woman after woman who had such-and-such happen to her, who has now "changed" and Definitely will not let that such-and-such event re-occur. You see, it was an individual change. And the world around that individual also changed. As for men, don't worry, as women change, they must, too, whether embracingly or bitterly, that choice is theirs. As you change, you tell them, you inform them, you teach them. Show men how the power that men have always acknowledged has been poorly used, how it has been done at a great price. Show them that they can keep their power, but that it has to be used more appropriately. But if you can't change yourself, you can't change anything else. To the extent that you can change with rapidity, so can other things also change to keep up. Demanding, confronting, attempting to dominate or manipulate is to do the same things that men have done. Don't give in to the temptation of doing it that way. Do it a different way. Sorry, but I must go now. Frederick
800.99	Springboard....	JUMBLY::BATTERBEEJ	Kinda lingers.....	`Mon Oct 28 1991 07:20`	4
	Me bashed?, nah! Jerome.
800.100	Got to do it.....	JUMBLY::BATTERBEEJ	Kinda lingers.....	`Mon Oct 28 1991 07:22`	4
	There you go Dan, another one bites the dust :-) Jerome - Trainee x00 snarfer.
800.101		WMOIS::REINKE_B	all I need is the air....	`Mon Oct 28 1991 11:35`	6
	Jerome, I take back my tongue in cheek chide to Suzanne, please stop doing .99s to get .100s that spoils the whole point of the game. Bonnie

Conference turris::womannotes-v3

800.0. "MALE-BASHING: Why America is picking on boys" by WLDKAT::GALLUP (What&#039;s your damage, Heather?) Mon May 06 1991 15:18

800.0. "MALE-BASHING: Why America is picking on boys" by WLDKAT::GALLUP (What's your damage, Heather?) Mon May 06 1991 15:18