Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Lorenzo,

This topic is at the root of much of what is said throughout this file.

The consensus, I think, is that the people in control of the media are
predominantly male, and it just wouldn't do to acknowledge one's own
group as evil when there is a scapegoat so handy.   Similarly, if one
is in control, one can safely expose all of the other group's attributes
without regard to whether the other group objects.  Having one's own
group completely exposed is dangerous -- why, it might give the other
group *power* over one.

It is also the consensus here, I think, that women would not naturally
be expected to behave in the same manner.  The reasons for the perceived
difference have not been satisfactorily explained, but we've discussed
the whole thing at great length.

Read everything here, and see if you can sort out the answers to your
questions.

-d

    Why????  Because the powers that be are male and that's the way they
    want it, that's why.
    
    "White Palace" isn't too bad although the requisite nipple scene is
    there.  Maybe men won't work on a picture unless they get at least one
    nipple shot.  If I were a movie maker, I'd get James Spader and Rob Lowe
    under exclusive contract.  These men seem willing to do what women in
    the movies have been forced to do forever - attempt to excite the opposite
    gender.  Then we could celebrate them in magazines everywhere, have
    them and their wannabees pouting and teasing us in commercials, from
    billboards, mag covers in the supermarkets, we'd have men on the street 
    imitating them to catch our attention and before you know it, we'll have 
    sex-object equality! 
    
    But I agree.  In general, the gaze of the camera is and with painfully
    few exceptions always has been a male gaze.  We get the back of his head 
    or the suggestion of his body under the sheet... if we're lucky.  I
    think it's a combination of male fear of being compared and their
    intense desire to compare women.  (Can you say the golden rule?)
                                       
    Sandy
    
    S.

    
    Brien,
    
     I don't know, why don't you tell me.
    
    
    Lorenzo
    

    Good heavens. Men have been portraying women as evil since the rumor
    went around about Eve giving the apple to Adam. 
    
    'Course Adam knew it wasn't true, but *he* wasn't talkin'... ;-)
    
    --DE
    

     re .1
    
    Lorenzo is definitely not SUBURB material. I know him from Blacknotes,
    and he's not trying to jerk anyone's chain. He's jerked mine without
    trying on occasion, but its definitely not deliberate.

    Lorenzo, et al:
    
    This topic almost doesn't deserve an answer. I disagree with the basic
    premise. In many movies women are shown as beautiful, good and smart.
    Sometimes only beautiful. Sometimes beautiful and evil. Sometimes other
    combinations.
    
    On the other hand we have countless movies where men are shown as
    ruthless killers or idiotic boxers.
    
    Now with respect to nudity. Most men certainly enjoy the visuals, I
    think we are, as a sex, more excited by the eye than the female gender.
    However, if you go to a library you will see thousands of little rosy
    novels with "grey-eyed counts" with cruel grins that seem to turn women
    into trembling bowls of jelly. To each his/her own I guess.
    
    The other reasons are due to anatomy: the male genitalia is quite
    visible and  therefore the cameramen have to be careful. I disagree
    that men control the media. There are lots of magazines (including
    Playboy) that are run by women. And many movies glorify women nowadays. 

Jorge,

If you think Playboy is run by women, you are sadly deluded.  It is
*operated* by a staff including many women, but Hugh Hefner is the
person who runs it.

Your "grey-eyed counts" turn women to jelly in novels because that
is the stereotype promulgated by male-oriented literature over the
past 2500 years.  Women have been subverted into believing that they
are weak and men are strong.  The tight corsets worn by Victorian
women went far toward making this myth into fact; the poor women could
hardly breathe, so it's little wonder they fainted at every opportunity.
This, I point out, was specifically for the purpose of making themselves
attractive to men.

It is always possible to find counterexamples to rebut any claim.  That
fact does not mean that the claim has no validity, especially when the
reason we see women portrayed intelligently more often now than before
is that they have fought tooth and nail to gain that kind of respect.

-d

    Re. .9
     
      Accepted.  What does SUBURB means?
    
    Lorenzo
    

    I'm sorry but I just have to say something here, and if I offend
    anyone, then I apoligize again.
    
    Maybe I am too young, too inexperienced, or haven't seen enough movies,
    but I think you all are over doing it a bit.  I don't think woman are
    always portrayed as being evil any more than men are!  I just think
    some people are a bit blind and only see what they want to see.
    
    How can you people say that the reason why women are portrayed as being
    evil, or "sex objects" is because the majority of producers are men! 
    That's a laugh!  I agree that the majority are probably men, but I
    don't think they are make woman look evil, or that if they ever do,
    they are doing it because they think woman ARE evil, or just want them
    to look that way.  There are just as many men in movies and programs
    that are the "bad guys", the murderers, the con-men, the evil, hatefull
    sinister people.
    
    Re: -1
    
    "Why????  Because the powers that be are male and that's the way they
    want it, that's why.
    
    
    Give me a break!  Listen, if these woman didn't want to show their
    "parts" in movies, they either wouldn't, or they are not brave enough to
    refuse to do it, so they deserve what they get.  In general, (and I
    know this is a sterotype but this is how too many woman act) woman act
    defenseless, like they don't have any rights, but all they do is stand
    around and complain instead of trying to change whatever it is they
    want to change.  I can't believe these women in these movies show their
    naked bodies in movies because "the powers that be are men and that's
    they way they want it!"  I bet they love it!  That's probably why they
    do it!  They get a thrill out of knowing  that all these people are going
    to be looking at them and its a kind of power!  They're hungry for it!
    
    I'm sure there are some out there with different circumstances, maybe
    they don't have any money so they will do anything for it, and some may
    have drug problems so they do this to support their problems. 
    
    The major problem here is, you can speculate all you want, but you do
    not have enough facts to make any kind of a judgement.
    
    Whew!  Sorry about that blow-up, but I just can't STAND it when I hear
    women feeling sorry for themselves because their women!
    
    Dawnne
        

    
    re .12:
    
    You and I have very different responses.  I don't see anyone
    "feeling sorry for themselves" in this note, merely explaining
    this society's power structure.
    
    I do, however, find *your* note offensive in the extreme.
    Perhaps someone with more patience and eloquence than I will
    explain to you why it is so offensive.
    

    Re. .10
    
    I am not "sadly deluded"! How patronizing can you get! I probably know
    a great deal more about Playboy and its staff than you. I have written
    and received answers from Christie Heffner where we discussed the trend
    that Playboy is taking trying to become a household magazine! Even
    their humor column and cartoons are now run by women. As a result, they
    are not nearly as funny to men as they used to be.
    
    I agree with almost everything else you say, except with your phrase:
    "Women have been subverted..." It ignores women's complicity in the
    process and perhaps there's some glandular reason connecting excitement
    and a little fear which you may be ignoring too.
    

    re .12, I find your note offensive in the extreme, also. 
    Unfortunately, I don't have any more patience or eloquence than Ellen
    does, though, so I'm not up to explaining why at this time.  On the
    other hand, maybe, as you said, you just haven't seen enough movies.
    
    re .8, no movie producer or director ever asked me if I'd get excited
    by seeing handsome, big name, naked males in the movies.  Personally, I
    think I'd get a lot more excited at a peek at Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford
    Dennis Quaid or Matthew Broderick naked than I would reading about a
    "grey-eyed count".  When I saw The Grifters and Annette Benning was
    prancing around naked I kept waiting for John Cusack to whip off his
    clothes but it never happened. :-(
    
    Lorna
    

    re .14, maybe you've confused "women's complicity" with the instinct
    for survival.
    
    Lorna
    

    >Listen, if these woman didn't want to show their "parts" in movies, they 
    >either wouldn't, or they are not brave enough to refuse to do it, so they 
    >deserve what they get.
    
    You pretty sure you want to say this?  Plenty of actresses say no.  And
    the producers just go and get some other woman sub her own body in
    because the actress's body *must* be shown, even if the audience only
    *thinks* they're seeing it.  The producer makes the decisions on the
    final cut, generally not the actors.  And I'll say again what I've said
    before.  As long as a culture keeps its women at an economic
    disadvantage, they can wave the big bucks at her when she does what
    THEY want and thus guarantee themselves an adequate number of women who
    are "willing".  If using your brain paid as well as flashing your bod,
    far, FAR fewer women would be flashing their bods.
    
    And the line that "men are more visually excitable than women" is the
    same as the "frog with no legs, deaf" joke.  Ask someone how it goes if
    you don't know it, I've quoted it in notes often enough.  Suffice it to
    say it's pretty poor reasoning, lousy logic and just plain bad science.
    But then it does allow men to continue keeping their media one-sided,
    the bodies of their own gender covered up and the dignity of men intact
    while doing the complete opposite to women.
    
    >all they do is stand around and complain instead of trying to change 
    >whatever it is they want to change.
    
    You are woefully misinformed.  When women stand around and complain
    it's long after they've beaten their heads against the wall doing
    everything possible and have been thwarted by a male culture that wants
    to cling desperately to the status quo that favors them.  Besides, how
    much standing around and complaining do YOU do?  Why do you assume
    women do more of it?
    
    >They're hungry for it!
    
    Wow.
    
    >maybe they don't have any money so they will do anything for it, 
    
    You're getting warmer...
    
    >and some may have drug problems so they do this to support their problems. 
    
    The small minority in movies.  Women with drug problems of that
    magnitude aren't generally sought for their visual appeal.
   
    >you do not have enough facts to make any kind of a judgement.
    
    But you seem to have made quite a few judgements!
    
    >I just can't STAND it when I hear women feeling sorry for themselves 
    >because their women!
    
    Lordy.  Being a woman is the best PART of it!  I doubt very much it's
    their own gender they're upset with.  It's the other gender that tends
    to cause most of the angst in women's lives.  And I'm not simply taking
    about the romantic arena, either, so hearing about men's romantic
    troubles is not equalizing.  You seem to have some axe to grind about
    women "complaining" and "standing around doing nothing" and being
    exhibitionistic and loving it.  This all seems *such* a blatant
    stereotype that I can't help but feel that you haven't really given
    this much thought but are simply parroting.
    
    Sandy

    Excellent point about "complicity", Lorna!  Sterling!
    
    S.

re: .12
    
>    I'm sorry but I just have to say something here, and if I offend
>    anyone, then I apoligize again.
    
    Thank you for apologizing in advance.  What you said felt kind of like
    a slap to those of use who feel the same way as the attitude you're
    rebutting/countering.

>    The major problem here is, you can speculate all you want, but you do
>    not have enough facts to make any kind of a judgement.
    
    If we don't, how can you?
    
    
    -Jody
    

    Jeez, in one note you read where women want to take their tops off
    and in another they don't.  
    
    I agree with basenote about all those sexy girly commericals,
    especially beer commercial.  I hate those commercials.  I'm not
    sure why, exactly.  Some of the best nude woman poses are presented
    by woman photographers.  I think women like to see beautiful nude
    women.  Perhaps some of us wish we were like them or similar and
    even would like some of the attetion showered on those gorgeous
    women.  I know some women like to expose their beautiful breasts
    to men.  They love the excitement of turning men on.  It probably
    turns on women too, even heterosexual women.
    
    But, I do hate the fact that most things in this world are presented
    in such a way, that implies or endorses beautiful people only. 
    And that men aren't exposed fully nude on R-rated movies.  I'd like
    to ask the film makers why not.  I'd like to see a few R-rated movies
    where the men are nude as well as the woman, I don't know if I'd
    be turned on, off or indifferent, but I'd like the opportunity.
    
    I'm sure the male actors would do it for the same reasons as the
    women do.

    G'Day,
    
    Re: .20
    
    The reason men are not also shown nude is that it is not allowed for
    the R classification.  I think all that can be shown is the breasts and
    pubic hair (minimal).  No genital exposure is allowed.  Now for a full
    frontal nude of a woman this can be done but it is a bit more difficult
    for a man.  It really is a ridiculous idea but that's what the censors
    have decided they want us to/not to see.
    
    David.
    

    re:.0
    
    	� Television would show the entire anatomy of a woman,
    	along with the elicit panting when a woman is at her
    	climax; but, when it comes to a man, only the top part
    	of his anatomy is shown... Why do you think that is? �
    
    All I can say is that you're either watching all the right programs
    or all the wrong ones. Television?? TELEVISION?? Since when has
    television shown "the entire anatomy of a woman"?  Maybe when R-rated
    films are shown on cable movies stations, but certainly not on your
    ordinary run of the mill TV programs.
    
    As for why it's true in films, well, this subject comes up again and
    again. And, as some previous replies have pointed out, it has to do
    with the visibility of the genitalia. And even then, it's not always
    the case that the male "equipment" is never visible. The obvious
    example that comes to mind is MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN, in which
    Graham Chapman "lets it all hang out" on screen (of course, that
    wasn't during a sex scene, but then, neither was the female nude shot
    in the film.)
    
    Personally, I think movies would be much better off if *people* were
    naked when it called for them to be naked. Nothing looks more stupid
    than when there's a passionate, good-parts-under-the-sheets lovemaking
    scene, and then the guy hopes out of bed and he's wearing boxers!
    
    re:.15
    
    You don't watch the right movies, Lorna. Mel Gibson was naked as a
    jaybird in LETHAL WEAPON 2. Not *all* of him was visible, but no less
    of him was visible than was true of Patsy Kensit, either.

    Recommended reading on the portrayal of women in literature:
    
    Gilbert & Gubar "No Man's Land" volumes 1 and 2 -- detailed feminist
    discourse on the role of women linguistically, metaphorically and
    stylististically throughout western civ.
    
    The basic dichotomy of women as reward or monster is prevelant in all
    layers of our literature:
    
    REWARDS:  Eve (for one chapter anyway), Andromeda, Cinderalla, Sleeping
    Beauty, Brunnhilde, Mimi, Desdamona, Cordelia, Hermia, Kate, etc...
    
    MONSTERS: Lillith, Eve, Pandora, any Grimm Stepmother, The Wicked Witch
    of the West, the Rheinmaidens, Medusa, Regan and Goneril, etc...
    
    I'll bring in some good quotes tomorrow, but you get the basic point
    here...
    
    -----
    \ D /
     \ /

    Re: .21
    
    Is the R classification different in Oz, David?  As Jerry points out,
    "Life of Brian" showed full male frontal nudity.  So did "A Room with a
    View" -- albeit in neither case as part of a sex scene.  ("A Room with
    a View" showed no sex whatever beyond having the young man's hand rub
    his new bride's clothed breast in the final scene.)  Both of these
    films were shown in the US under R ratings.
    
    -d

    re front male nudity, it doesn't count if they don't have an erection. 
    Who cares about seeing them without one? BFD :-)
    
    Well, Jerry, I certainly see a lot of movies for somebody who doesn't
    see the "right" ones! :-)  Also, I'm not talking about bun shots.
    
    
    Lorna

    re:.25
    
    	� [...] it doesn't count if they don't have an erection.
    	Who cares about seeing them without one? BFD :-) �
    
    Ah...Lorna...if they don't have an erection, it certainly couldn't
    be a Big *or* Fv<|<ing deal, now, could it? :-)
    
    --- jerry

    >Jeez, in one note you read where women want to take their tops off
    >and in another they don't.  
    
    They are two entirely different situations and the societal restriction
    against one of them while practically requiring the other speaks volumes 
    about society's, attitude toward women, (and the "societal" attitude is
    the male attitude).  But then I always get in the most trouble in notes 
    when I attempt to interpet or make some sense out of thing like this.
    You know, 'how could I know', and stuff like that.  Living with it isn't 
    good enough, I guess.  If a man hasn't TOLD me, I cannot assume I
    understand.  
    
    So without any interpretation at all, (because, of course I don't have
    enough information from a mere 38 years of living in men's world), you 
    decide for yourself why you think the following two situations are con-
    sidered completely different.
    
    The first situation is where women want to take their tops off to get tan, 
    to stay cool, to feed their children.  In short, for reasons of THEIR
    OWN.  But none of these reasons are good enough for society and women will 
    not be allowed to bare their breasts in public for any of them.  However!  
    If women want to take their tops off to dance for men, to display in a 
    movie or a magazine, (for men), or any other reason that is solely directed
    at men, in short for HIS reasons, it is not only allowed, not only
    encouraged, but in the media, practically required!  The reality of
    woman, (hot on warm days, needing to feed her children, enjoying a suntan,
    being pregnant, etc), is constantly hidden away, deemed "obscene", "too
    graphic", etc, while the fantasy of woman, (as defined by what men
    would like them to be), is deified.  And that's how you can have the
    seeming paradox you noted above.  Women want to make their own decisions 
    about their own bodies for their own reasons but they aren't allowed.  
    They're pretty much limited, (by society), to expressing themselves *only* 
    in ways that benefit men or not at all.  And it's in that climate of what 
    women MUSTN'T do that makes what they MUST do so suspect.  You couldn't SELL
    Playboy if women everywhere were free to be what they wanted.  You
    couldn't deify a fantasy breast, drape it in satin and bow to it if you 
    saw it feeding children all your life.  It would look as corny to men
    as it already does to many women.  Can you imagine draping a penis in
    some kind of special fabric, powdering it, getting it into its ready
    state, photographing it in the right light and then making a double
    sized print of it to be the highlight and anchor of a magazine??? 
    Pretty corny stuff, huh?  But that's because the reality is allowed,
    (men's reality is *always* allowed!), and so the fantasy simply doesn't
    work.
    
    The totem and taboo work in synergy.  And in order to have the totem, 
    (the centerfold, the stripper, the nipple scene, etc), you must have the 
    attendent taboo to keep the mystery spellbinding, the men feeling 
    special, priviledged and awed and the money pouring out of their wallets.
    
    I've often thought that women who needed to nurse should seek out the 
    closest strip joint and have at it.  What could the law do?   Say you can't
    expose your breasts *there*?  By doing such a thing, you'll find out the 
    real motives behind their laws, traditions and local ordinances.  And it 
    ain't to make THIS half of the taxpayers happy!
    
    S.       

    re .27, great reply.  I agree totally.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Sandy, as always, brava!
    
    Carla
    

   >> The reality of
   >> woman, (hot on warm days, needing to feed her children, enjoying a suntan,
   >> being pregnant, etc), is constantly hidden away, deemed "obscene", "too
   >> graphic", etc, while the fantasy of woman, (as defined by what men
   >> would like them to be), is deified. 
    
   >> I've often thought that women who needed to nurse should seek out the 
   >> closest strip joint and have at it.  What could the law do?   Say you can't
   >> expose your breasts *there*?  By doing such a thing, you'll find out the 
   >>  real motives behind their laws, traditions and local ordinances. 
    
    Not to pick nits, but it seems to me that the same people who are
    against female topless sunbathing and public nursing also fight hard
    against strip joints and adult book stores in their towns.
    
    On the other hand, the people that enjoy strip joints could usually
    care less about the sunbathing thing.
    
    Nick
    

    re.30
    
    Nick,
    
    While you bring up a perfectly reasonable assumption, don't you think
    it's significant that these same people aren't able to effect the same
    result?
    
    The topless joints are open to entertain with Parade-O-Breasts _and_
    women are frequently cited for nursing or sunbathing or trying to stay
    cool.
    
    If these folks were such a significant force for public ordinance,
    wouldn't they be able to stop both?
    
    Contrariwise, if they can't stop Parade-O-Breasts, how are they able
    to stop nursing mothers?
    
    There is obviously more that one 'special interest group' in action if
    breasts out to entertain is 'free speech' while breasts out to feed a
    child or get a tan is 'public lewdness'
    
      Annie
    

    RE:  .13, .15
    
    Well, I apologized ahead of time so I am not going to apologize any
    more.  And I know why it's offensive, but then the truth hurts,
    doesn't it?  :-)
    
    Dawnne
    

    re.31 Maybe if breast-feeding were made an art form we could do
    away with this nonsense? Let's see, first we need a prominent 
    critic or art professor to review a display of breast-feeding-as-art,
    then a trial case ("If a professor critiqued, it, it _must_ be
    art,") then a Supreme Court ruling. ;-)/2

    re .32, why do you bother with the smiley face?  If your intention is
    to "hurt" me, why be hypocritical about it?  (Incidentally, I don't
    think you've managed to hit on the truth yet, so maybe you'll have to
    try another method.)
    
    Lorna
    

I know that in Europe, female breasts are both erotic and funtional
    and that culture does not have the "moral" problems as witnessed
    in the U.S.  I am not going to say that by seeing female breast
    out in the street on hot days is going to desensetize any arousements
    from the male or female population.   I think that exposure of nude
    parts on both sexes should be allowed and just fine in the appropriate
    environment.   I do not live in Africa or in a tribe where women
    are topless.  I've not been raised that way and see no reason to
    start.  I also don't believe that since these tribal women are topless
    all day long, that the men aren't excited when it come playtime
    by their female companion's breasts.  It all depends in the context
    and the situation.  Jeez, do you actually doctors walk around with
    hardons all day, that they've become desinsitized by nudity?
    
    I, enjoy movies that display nudity.  I guess 'cause it's erotic,
    it's not me for everyone to see, it's fun.  I just feel it's unfair
    that women are portrayed to maximize men's enjoyment while this
    woman is there sitting on the couch with her dude.  You know, it's
    just wierd.  Men should be put on the edge just a little as well.
    To have to check out a X-rated flick to see nudity get a fair shake
    is not exactly fair.  Reason: seems most of those films are geared
    for men, no intricate plots, no great story line, no popular,
    well-known actors, or even good looking actors.  
    In order to be fair to both sexes, in the movies, when the couple
    is in sex, both frontals exposed entirely seems the way to go.
    
    I see no big deal with nudity of either sex shown in medical cable
    or commercials dealing with appropriate context that exposure would
    be natural.
    
    
    

    
    re .32:
    
    Another example of an arrogant, obnoxious subjective opinion
    disguised as "truth" for the sake of "winning" a disagreement.
    
    Are you always right, Dawne?
    

Thank you, Annie, that's just what I was going to point to - the 
relative effectiveness of the various groups.

>    re.31 Maybe if breast-feeding were made an art form we could do
>    away with this nonsense?

Not *just* and art form, but an art form to het men.  I give you Mapplethorpe's 
beautiful and highly artistic photographs as a case in point.  Vanity
Fair's cover as another.  Everything *except* the image of a young woman or 
women with no males in the picture and ripe for male plucking is generally 
considered obscene.  That one exception, however, the young, ripe and ready 
woman is "art" and "free speech".  Simply add a male to such a picture and it 
starts getting a little "gritty" for society, (some Obsession ads or Demi's 
photo which suggests the presence of a male).  If she's not looking at or 
touching the male, then it's merely "uncomfortable" or "borderline" or "odd".  
But if she's alone with the viewer, no male past, present or future, it's "art"!

The Mickey Rourke/Lisa Bonet film about voodoo, (I can't remember the title), 
got an X rating until Mickey's bun shot was eliminated.  Now we're not talking 
genitalia, here!  But his buns did nothing to further male fantasy and in fact 
might have fueled a female one or two so it was a no-go and had to be left on 
the cutting room floor.  Lisa's buns, of course, weren't deemed nearly as 
obscene.  ;>  Those were perfectly ok for an R rating.  Uh-huh.

The important point isn't what's exposed, it's the message behind the image. 
Is it geared to pleasing het men or not?  If yes, it's "normal", if not, it's 
"deviant". 

The sex and nudity in movies is no less subject to this rule than any other 
aspect of the media.  What is het male is what is "mainstream" and is what 
will be on everyone's diet and if you complain, you're just admitting your 
own "deviance".  So that's why you'll have jutting nipples pointing at you 
in the supermarket but a pregnant belly covered up.  And why you'll have 
the actress panting and sweating with breasts heaving in full view and the guy 
in boxer shorts if you get to see him at all.  It's preptty clear which 
gender makes the decisions.

>  It all depends in the context and the situation. 

Exactly.  But in our culture, the only context of woman is a sexual one.
Women ARE sex in this culture because they are to men.  A woman is either
failing or succeeding as a sexual object but that's pretty much the main
criteria on which she's judged, (and I'm not talking about job interviews 
although a lot of them include appraisal of her "sex-quotient" as well).  
Anything else about her is merely "nice" and if it's more than nice, if she's 
an astronaut or an accomplished pianist, it only serves to up her sex quotient.
Men get something MORE.

>Men should be put on the edge just a little as well.

Gee, what do you mean?  It's been stated time and time again that women 
shouldn't be "on the edge" about this - that those who complain are prudes 
or jealous or insecure or ugly or deviant or all of the above.  We're supposed 
to just sit there when the Coors commercials come on and think nothing of it 
because "boys will be boys" and women aren't as turned on anyway, (and 
whatever other rationalizations men have come up with to insure themselves 
plenty of stimulation and little competition).  

But don't try to do the same to men with images of them or they will think 
quite a bit about it!  And they will make their feelings known as only 
those in power can - with the weight of law and tradition on their side.  
And the first thing they might think is how "slutty" women are, how 
"obsessed" they are, how "deviant" they are.  It's so unusual, that a woman who 
pays almost as much attention to male bodies as men do to female ones certainly
CAN seem obsessed.  But men equally obsessed or even more obsessed are just 
"red blooded" or whatever else they use to excuse themselves and allow it
to continue. 

> or even good looking actors.  

Dagwood and Blondie.  She sports the symbols of male desire and he's just a 
dork. George and Jane Jetson.  Same thing.  Jessica and Roger Rabbit.  Same
thing. Denis the Menace's parents.  Same thing.  Remember Hazel?  Pretty 
blonde woman married to an old fat man with greasy hair?
                                                                  
Women in the media are *required* to pander to male tastes, the men are 
required *not* to have anything sexual about him that women might enjoy.  I 
want to see a cartoon where some fuzzy little dorky female rabbit is married 
to some sexual dynamo with overly exaggerated characteristics who walks to 
underscore his ability to please and satisfy and who loves his fuzzy little 
wabbit more than anything because she makes him laugh.  Think we ever will?  
Pretty "deviant" sounding, eh?  ;^>  Roger Rabbit sure seemed just as 
deviant to me!  But they had to make sure that while Jessica was "drawn 
to please", she wasn't out to GET pleased.  That large woman was perfectly 
satisfied with a dorky fuzzy rabbit no bigger than 1/3 her size.  She does 
not lust, (she chose her husband on laughter alone), so she cannot offend 
men and make them uncomfortable, (but of course women aren't supposed to 
ever be uncomfortable by displays of male lust), she can only please.

Also, the few porn flicks that DO cater to women include "warnings", (lest 
the ladies get carried away and start expending sexual energy away from 
their men!).  During any and all of the hot scenes, large lettering flashes 
across the screen, obscuring the picture, saying "For viewing purposes only".

Now given all this, what can you conclude?  (And I said I wasn't going
to do this!  I lied!  ;>  )   That men are overly paranoid about female 
sexuality and so fearful of it they've made every aspect of it that doesn't 
directly benefit them illegal?  I think so.  And I think that underlying fear, 
is what shapes the media and produces the kinds of movies that get made in the 
first place, and then get shown in the second.  Female sexuality is ok as long 
as it's under control and doesn't go off on its own and risk making a man feel 
inadequate.  But at the same time, women have no right or reason to feel
inadequate in the face of the endless het male porn in mainstream media.  
Uh-huh.  That makes sense.  They're red-blooded, we're insecure. 
    
It has nothing to do with actresses being hungry for showing off their bodies 
and everything to do with men wanting endless female variety while insuring 
that their women will be safely tucked away with no similar opportunity for 
comparison or for lust her man didn't inspire and fears he cannot satisfy.  Or 
at least she'll get as little as humanly, (and rabbitly!), possible.  One
Playgirl, (with severe restrictions), to 25 men's mags with no restriction 
other than insertion, (which isn't that important anyway and so is an ok
restriction).  One "White Palace" and one "Masquerade" to all the rest for
men.  Although the preference is for NO outside stimulation for women, it's a 
ratio they've learned to tolerate.
    
S.

    re the main point
    The only  E V I L  on the part of women is that some women buy into it.
    And the way to stop buying into it is to recognize that you buy into it.

    And the message for OTHER women who put up with it, is NOT that men are
    b*st*rds (which we are) for doing it but rather that they -the poor
    shlubs who put up with it- should stop putting up with it.

    Convince them that the solution is something they have control over
    -THEMSELVES- rather than something they have little control over -the
    b*st#rds.

    <Plenty of actresses say no.  And the producers just go and get some other
    <woman sub her own body in because 
    That suggests 
    	it's the producer's responsibility for asking, 
    	but not the sub-woman's responsibility for not saying NO

I've always understood, from the small sample of women to whom I've been
close enough to ask, that most women aren't interested in magazines or
movies that focus entirely on male anatomy.  If this is true, it would
follow that making such magazines or movies wouldn't make much money,
and I'm sure no-one would want to underwrite such a venture just to prove
a point.

What I'm saying is that the ratio of mags-for-guys to mags-for-gals is
determined by market factors, not by a male conspiracy to suppress
female sexuality.

I'm willing to be proven wrong, however, and this might be a good place
to ask:  Is the demand for hunky-guy-mags or -flicks greater than the 
current supply?  Are any of you having a hard time purchasing same?

Ben

    Is the demand for hunky-guy-mags or -flicks greater than the  current
    supply?
    
    mags - no
    
    flicks - yes
    
    Mary

    I agree - flicks - Yes (Big name, good looking actors only)
    
    Lorna
    

    G'Day,
    
    Re: .24  I was mainly talking about TV classifications.  It is more
    correctly AO not R.  At the cinemas full frontal male nudity is allowed
    but as Lorna said there must be no hint of an erection.  Pretty bloody
    stupid if you ask me.  After all it's just the same thing, just a
    little (lot??) bigger and pointing in a different direction
    (hopefully :-) ).
    
    What really annoys me with all this is that our public broadcasters, ie
    government run stations (both radio and TV) allow themselves to
    broadcast what they like but the same government restricts what the
    other stations can transmit.  There is often sex scenes (not really X
    rated material) and words that would get a private station's license
    revoked broadcast on the gov. stations.  Now don't get me wrong, I'm
    all for this but why the double standard?
    
    David.
    

    re.38
    Excellent! Thanks for your input.
    
    re.40
    That's kinda true, but I think there's a definite market for the
    films.   The "playgirl" mags don't turn me on.  I've never purchased
    one, just skimmed them.  But, the "playboy" mags are more erotic
    to me, even though I'm a het. woman.  I'm just being honest.  And
    I'm not out trying to get laid  as if I'm constantly horny neither,
    just that there are plenty of women out there are just as enticed
    by sex as men and that should be O.K., it's perfectly normal.
    
    This is something that's kinda embarrassing to me....those "Chippendale
    style" strip shows that come into town every now and then.  Those
    guys do nothing for me.  I watched this video once on this show,
    those women were all clapping and grooling, seemed so silly to me,
    and giving away all those dollar bills in those garters.   Same
    thing with Groupie Girlies, so silly.  I think it's probably the
    spirit of the whole experience that draws those women.  I mean really,
    telling your husband, oh, hey hon, I'm going with the girls to the
    downtown strip joint to see those naked male dancers.  Don't worry,
    I'll only slip about $10 in their garters and I won't go home with
    any of them.  It's a night out."  But, can you imagine your husband
    saying the same thing to you in reverse.  So what's the deal.  Sandy
    really shed some true light on this topic.  Women only relaxing,
    just having fun, while the guy's are out lusting.  I don't know,
    really, this could be different
    topics, but in general, sex is just different to both women and
    men.   We should be able to admit that, but in the same token admit
    that women like it and seek it and that's just fine too.

    White males run the media and that's the reason why women are
    presented as evil?
    
    This would be funny if people didn't really believe it.
    
    There are lots of instances where the men are evil characters and
    the women are not. Men seem to be the dummies more times than women
    in TV shows, why is that?  Because white males run the media?
    
    The general purpose scapegoat theory "it's because the white males
    are in charge" is getting to be a panacea.

    
                                      L.J.
    

    Well, it seems to me that the reason why topless bars are OK and
    nudity in films is OK but public "topfree" situations are not is
    because the latter *is* public.
    
    A person who doesn't want to see (or doesn't want their child to
    see) a bare female breast can choose not to go into a topless bar
    or see an R-rated film. It's understandable if they don't want to
    have it exposed to them on the street.
    
    Nota bene: I don't *agree* with "their" position. I'm just pointing
    out that the two situations cannot be equated.
    
    re:.38
    
    	� The Mickey Rourke/Lisa Bonet film about voodoo,
    	(I can't remember the title), �
    
    ANGEL HEART.
    
    	� got an X rating until Mickey's bun shot was eliminated.
    	Now we're not talking genitalia, here! But his buns did
    	nothing to further male fantasy and in fact might have
    	fueled a female one or two so it was a no-go and had to
    	be left on the cutting room floor. Lisa's buns, of course,
    	weren't deemed nearly as obscene. ;> Those were perfectly
    	ok for an R rating. Uh-huh. �
    
    Sorry, Sandy, but I'm going to have to call you on this one. I don't
    know where you got your information on this, but it was definitely
    *not* "Mickey's buns" that gave the film an X-rating. You don't have
    to think very hard to see how patently absurd this assertion is. Did
    DANCES WITH WOLVES get an X-rating because of Kevin Costner's cheeks
    being on display?  Did LETHAL WEAPON 2 get an X-rating for showing
    Mel Gibson's buns?  There are any number of similar counter-examples.
    
    What garnered an original X-rating for ANGEL HEART was an excessive
    amount of blood being shown pouring down during that scene. The
    filmmakers did some cutting to "staunch the flow" as it were, and
    the film was given a "R". It had nothing at all to do with Mickey's
    buns.
    
    I have no disagreements with the thrust of your argument. But false
    assertions in support of your argument doesn't help.
    
    --- jerry

    re: .39 (Herb)
    
         I usually have a hard time reading you (for the angry tone
    in so many of your entries) but this time I want to acknowledge
    a really valuable entry (from my point of view.)  What you stated
    is exactly what "empowerment" is all about (sorry to all those
    who don't like the word.)  As has been stated elsewhere, the 
    bully cannot be a bully if the victim doesn't allow it.  The
    one with the most power is the one being bullied.
    
    Frederick
    

    thankyou Frederick.
    
    
    				herb

    The bully cannot be a bully if the victim doesn't allow it?  Sounds
    nice but I think we've been through this before.  The bully makes the
    rules.  The victim can only run and *hope* to get away, *hope* that the
    bully gives up or attempt to placate the bully.  In terms of men and
    women, women do plenty of running, hoping and placating.
    
> most women aren't interested in magazines or movies that focus entirely 
> on male anatomy.

I'm not interested in the ones I've seen, either.  But it isn't due to my
lack of interest in men's bodies, it's due to the style of photography in 
those mags.  Was it Ellen that said she found men's mags more "interesting" 
even though she wasn't interested in women?  So do I.  And I think the reasons 
are the photographic styles which, in woman's mags, reflects the "we shouldn't 
really be doing this for women" attitude.  

In women's mags the lighting is generally flat, often broad daylight, there 
are very few props, maybe just some natural background, the man is rarely 
posed in any kind position except "here I am", his uh, demeanor is that of 
sleep, and his face rarely reflects any interest at all.  And then there are 
the subjects themselves!  Lyle Waggoner?  Andre Previn?  Muscle-bound muscle 
heads?  Granted it's getting somewhat better but...  The whole "feel" of the 
mag is very tongue-in-cheeck, almost as if the guys are laughing at their 
audience and that's a no-no.  

Men's mags on the other hand are deadly serious.  The photos feature ex-
cruciating detail, soft lighting, plenty of props, (*mostly* props), the model 
looking as ready for sex as humanly possible and appearing to be serious in 
her attempt to please.  The overall tone is far more erotic.  Now lest you 
think I'm just inventing this to suit my own agenda, there was one female
photographer, Tana Kaleya, whom I've mentioned before in notes.  She did a 
series of photographs for the now defunct Visa magazine and she photographed 
those men in ways that would make Bruce Webber green with envy.  She started 
with slim-hipped, lanky but well shaped young men without excessive body hair. 
She placed one in a bed on a beautiful and very wrinkled sheet and shot him 
from the side at eye level.  The lighting was soft and angled to suggest 
more depth.  His face was turned away from the camera in such a way to suggest 
a passionate disconnection with his surroundings and his arm was tensed and 
disappeared behind a raised thigh.  It was a photograph that involved the 
viewer just as surely as those in men's mags always do and women's mags almost 
never do.  And that was just one picture...  Usually the pix in women's 
magazines look no more erotic than shots from a backyard BBQ.  

Then there was the long haired model from New York named Atilla and I can't 
even begin to describe that man...  But most people never hear of this.  It's 
not really mainstream.  It's "deviant".  It isn't what's generally offered to 
women.  I contend that if it were, you'd find a surprising amount of interest 
in the visual among women.  But David Hasslehoff against a completely white 
background, (as clinical as possible!), in flat lighting, naked as a jaybird, 
with a couple of Sharpei puppies strategically placed on his lap and a smirk 
on his face just doesn't cut it.  And that's what Cosmo did for its 25th 
anniversary issue.  What an insult.  What a joke.  I can't believe he agreed 
to it.  How about Matthew Broderick waking up in the morning?  How about 
Steven Segal working out?  How about that Soloflex model?  The potential is 
definitely there.  The culture squelches its development even as it fine tunes 
the erotica for men so that the pictures they now get are the result of years 
and years of exploration and study and trial and error such that's it now 
pretty much a scientific formula.  Paint the nails, get out the high heels, 
throw on some jewelry, wet the lips, ice the nips, fluff the hair, etc.  
The woman may change, but the picture remains the same because it works. 
But no such equivalent exists for women and the culture rationalizes that 
women "just aren't visual" and gives us David Hasslehoff and his puppies to 
prove it.  And hides Atilla.  And doesn't give Tana Kaleya any more 
assignments or publish any more of her work.

>    Well, it seems to me that the reason why topless bars are OK and
>    nudity in films is OK but public "topfree" situations are not is
>    because the latter *is* public.

We could make nude beaches as "private" as strip clubs, couldn't we?  Or 
will someone then argue about walls?  But accepting what you say for a 
minute, then do you suppose that a woman could breastfeed in a strip joint 
without a legal hassle?

>    It's understandable if they don't want to have it exposed to them on the 
>    street.
    
It's nice that we're so understanding as a culture.  But I personally don't 
want to see another hanging beer gut exposed to ME on the street.  I don't 
want to see another mechanic's behind again, ever.  Is that also 
"understandable" to the same extent?  Or are only men's wishes
"understandable"?

> Did DANCES WITH WOLVES get an X-rating because of Kevin Costner's cheeks
> being on display?

No, nor Richard Harris' in "A Man Called Horse", Rob Lowe's in "Masquerade"
and a few others.  I missed Lethal Weapon but I can pass on Mel.  But Mickey's 
buns were, um, in motion.  Sure, there was a bit of blood but it was the buns 
in motion that caused the problem, it just wasn't offered in the main media 
as the reason, given the overexposure of women's bodies and the obvious 
hypocrisy.  But it *was* admitted long before the movie ever came out, when 
they were still shopping around for a distributor.  There's quite a bit of 
blood in movies, don't you think?  The scene at the dinner table in Alien was 
kinda bloody.  No big.  All the slasher movies feature a good bit of blood.  
Bid deal.  In "The Shining", the entire hotel corridor was drenched with a 
tidal wave of blood!  Blood and guts is a movie STAPLE.  The problem with 
Angel Heart was the camera focusing on Mickey going to town instead of on the 
woman in the scene.  I'm not trying to make things up to further my agenda. 
The very fact that these little things are not well known, that one has to 
stumble across them or search them out is just another illustration of what 
I'm saying - that the media, (like everything else except the typing pool
and the nursing staff), is male and its traditions and codes reflect that.
I concede that it IS changing ever so slowly, but male porn is also
increasing in volume and intensity and stays a quantum leap ahead of the 
still rudimentary industry for women.  Maybe we get a few bun shots now, 
(but no Atilla, no Tana Kaleya, nothing *really* erotic), but men now get 
B&D on their MTV and Penthouse pictures in soda commercials.

S.
    

Re: .48

To a point your statement is true, Frederick.

But it is undeniably true that as a child I was severely pummeled more
than once by the local bully, not because I wouldn't allow it but rather
because I simply had no power to prevent it.

In many cases, women are in that precise position.  They can refuse to
react to it, but that may just serve to encourage the perpetrator(s).

-d

    re: 50
    
    Sandy, what you said about the unsexiness of the pictures of naked men
    really impressed me.  I've always thought those pictures were a bore
    and assumed the reason why was that I, as a woman, just wasn't affected
    by visual things like photos.  I mean, I bought that line without 
    thinking about it. But you're absolutely right, it's the pictures that 
    are lacking sexuality, not my vision.  A picture of a man I thought
    attractive, in a setting that looked real, with an expression that
    looked real instead of the standard smirk - then, yes, I think that
    would be, uh, not boring.
    
    Sue 
      

    On the other hand, I doubt I would pay to buy a magazine full of
    pictures of men, no matter how appealing.  I think there is some
    real difference in how women and men react to pictures.  One thing
    that has always boggled me: years ago, a male friend showed me a
    "pen" someone had given him.  When you looked in it, there were
    pictures of breast, pictures of vaginas.  I can't see what appeal this
    would have for anyone over the age of puberty.  Disembodied body
    parts are creepy to me, certainly not sexy.
    
    Sue

    I believe Sandy is right, I did buy Playgirl for a while, but dropped
    it when it got *too* insipid!  The entire magazine to me seemed to be
    very condesending, even the articles seemed to imply they thought they
    were talking to an airhead!  I do appreciate pictures of men that are
    *erotic*, I've just never seen any of them in Playgirl.
    
    Gee, I can't stand those Mechanic's backsides either....But you knew
    that, right?! ;-)
    
      -HA

    RE: .54
    
    >Gee, I can't stand those Mechanic's backsides either....But you knew
    >that, right?! ;-)
    
    Just say "NO" to crack.

    I've always thought those pictures were a bore
    and assumed the reason why was that I, as a woman, just wasn't affected
    by visual things like photos. 

Try looking at some *sexy* pictures of men.  Most of the pictures of men
that I find sexy are aimed at - *gasp* - other men.  Robert Mapplethorpe's
photo's, for instance.  The soloflex ads.  Herb Ritt's photo's.  Next time
you are in the mall, stop by the store that sells prints and look at Herb
Ritt's posters - sexy as hell.  I have one of a woman on my wall, but he
also has sexy male ones.  Then you'll find out if you are really visually
stimulated.  (Of course if you *aren't* stimulated by those photos, it
doesn't mean you necessarily aren't stimulated visually - it could just
mean you haven't found the style that appeals to you.)

Most of the "men-for-men's rags" are cheap and sleazy, and no more appealing
than "men-for-women"s rags.  I'm not sure why this is, but I haven't found
a gay-oriented porno mag that was as well-produced, with slick pages,
*great* photography, etc, as the big women-for-men's magazines, such as
Penthouse and Playboy.  (Whether or not those magazines anger or appeal to
you, you have to admit the photography and production values are superb.)

D!

    <The bully cannot be a bully if the victim doesn't allow it?  Sounds
    <nice but I think we've been through this before.  The bully makes the
    <rules.  The victim can only run and *hope* to get away, *hope* that the
    <bully gives up or attempt to placate the bully.  In terms of men and
    <women, women do plenty of running, hoping and placating.
    
    
    Well, Sandi
    
    I respect you too much to accuse you of disingenuousness, so I don't
    know what to say expect that i would be STUNNED if you felt that
    paragraph applied to you. 
    
    It is inconceivable to me that you believe that you (as victim) 
    <can only run and *hope* to get away, *hope* that the bully gives up or
    <attempt to placate the bully
    
    But, perhaps you are making a comment about say 'many OTHER' women.
    If that is true, it seems to me you are in fact supporting an
    implication of both FREDERICK's point -and my point- that the existance
    of bullies requires the existence of victims. 
    
    It certainly is the case that
    No Bullies = No Victims (but it is also the case that
    No Victims ~= No Bullies which is both more enobling and -i believe
    easier to attain. 
    
    Clearly, one way of 'getting rid of bullies' is to convince them
    they ARE bullies and that they SHOULDN'T be bullies (untrain the
    bullies). This is typically very difficult to do. Among other things it
    involves in a paradoxical kind of way trying to "get in the Bully's
    Good Graces" (which is a kind of oxymoron)
    
    An alternate way of 'getting rid of bullies' is to cut down on their
    supply of victims. Untrain the victims.  (And i'll bet you consider
    yourself -with pride- a fine example of an 'untrained victim'
    
    Which, i believe brings me back to my original point.
    
    				herb
    p.s.
    As a final point, very few bullies are more than emotionally
    intimidating, NOT physically intimidating, even though bullies try to
    appear physically intimidating as well. (and furthermore, the principal
    part of this discussion is not about physical bullying in any case)
    
    

    re: .57 (Herb)
    
        Yes.  "Untrain the victims."  I agree.  But I also can 
    understand that the first step in the process is to determine
    FOR ONESELF whether one is a victim or not.  If not, then no
    problem.  But if that determination is made, then it would 
    seem to necessitate its unraveling in order to become "untrained."
    A determination to not allow oneself to be further victimized
    is probably the ensuing step.  This means (here I go again  :-} )
    taking responsibility and not allowing oneself to feel all
    victimy, all self-pitying, etc.  Changing attitudes, realizing
    that one has more to say about it than what one previously thought,
    that by projecting positiveness and control or say-so has a
    large, positive impact, by standing for one's principals, etc.
    (Sounds like somethings I've already written in here, doesn't it?)
    Oh well, Herb, I like taking back my power.  I have been victimized
    plenty, in lots of ways, but as I take back more and more
    responsibility, it seems odd and maybe somehow doesn't make logical
    sense, but being victimized has been happening far less in my
    reality than it used to.  Conversely, those who continue to run around
    all victimy, seem to never run out of things to be victimized by.
    (And, in case it isn't very clear, I feel lots of compassion for
    those individuals to whom lots of ugly things *have* happened.  Most
    of those things can't be undone, unfortunately, so the only reasonable
    alternative is to start anew from where we sit.)
    
    Frederick
    

    re: .58, Frederick
    
    Just curious.  I've read many of your notes on victims and
    responsibility and all, and I'm still not sure what you're
    saying.  Perhaps you'll answer this question for me (actually
    it could be two questions):  Do you think people can not be
    victims but still be on the receiving end of shit or are they
    totally "responsible" for all the bad (and good) that happens
    in their lives?
    
    Thanks,
    nla
    
    p.s.  I know - this belongs in the rathole topic, but I'm too
          motivationally challenged to put it there!
    

    I just re-read the basenote, and I thought I'd comment on the portrayal
    of women as "evil" on TV. The most often women are on TV in any given
    day is probably soap operas, but I think this may hold true for
    nighttime drama as well. 
    
    Every soap has had, as a staple, since the beginning of time, The
    Resident B*tch. This woman wove her "evil" thru everyone's lives,
    wreaking havoc wherever she went. These are the women you "love to
    hate". 
    
    But in interviews with the actresses playing these "evil" women, you
    find that  they LOVE these parts. Why? Because it's *these* women who
    actually get to *do* something! There's actually acting talent involved
    in playing them!
    
    And movies?! Women playing evil roles in movies? Where? When? Excepting
    "Thelma and Louise", when was the last movie that was **ABOUT** women? 
    (Which is to say, basically, when was the last movie Meryl Streep
    starred in) And, to many minds, Thelma and Louise are, indeed, "bad" - 
    so here we go again. "Evil" women get to *do* stuff. "Good" women hang
    around as window dressing for the men. 
    
    Even porn movies aren't *about* women. They're about male fantasy. (For
    a better and more articulate analysis, re-read Sandy's notes.)
    
    --DE
    

re: .59 (nla)
    
        "Do you think people can not be victims but still be on the 
    receiving end of shit or are they totally 'responsible' for all
    the bad (and good) that happens in their lives?"
    
        Victimization, I believe, is the "low end" of the self-pity
    scale.  Martyrhood is in the middle.  Self-pity "in the raw" is at the
    "high end."  
        Victimization is usually very vocal.  That is, people express
    it quite freely.  Martyrhood tends to be silent.  Self-pity tends
    to be hidden or denied, even from self.
        Self-pity, in all it's forms, is usually one of several possible
    blockages (a blockage is a negative boundary--principles are positive
    boundaries.)  
        I believe that we live on a disharmonious planet.  I also believe
    that we strive or use as our ideal a planet that would be in total
    harmony.  I further believe that crises are an integral and necessary
    part of reality.  However, I have become convinced that struggle and
    pain and sacrifice, etc., have been nobilized by humankind way beyond
    any true point of value.  We all have pain.  Some of us endure 
    some truly incredible pain!  But, in almost any case that I have
    ever explored, most if not all of it could have been eliminated or
    lessened.  Unfortunately, this gets harder and harder to see as
    awareness becomes less and less enlightened.  That is, an infant or
    a child has an entirely different set of reality than an adult would
    have (for instance, a child knows how to cry to "manipulate" but 
    has little awareness of traffic that could hurt it.)  Often we are
    ignorant of truths that could have helped us avoid the pain we
    have found ourselves dealing with.   Does this make someone subject
    to blame, then?
         I don't think so.  Blame, to me, has a negative connotation.
    It means accusing, fixing a responsibility that someone else wishes
    to deflect, and then implying penance or punishment.  Responsibility,
    on the other hand, implies owning the reality.  Some things are easy
    to take responsibility for.  Other things are more difficult...but 
    even this is individualized.  For example, some people can see that
    brushing their teeth is their responsibility...some people *don't*
    brush their teeth and then BLAME their parents for not having 
    taught them appropriately.  Same act, different levels of
    responsibility.  The responsibility taken says absolutely nothing
    about punishment or blame or giving the power away.  It is owning
    up to the reality and realizing that somehow, some way, this could
    have been different.  Punishing oneself for mistakes, however, is
    absolutely not taking responsibility.  Punishing oneself, in fact,
    to me is anathema to taking responsibility.  For even if the mistake
    has been made, it becomes important to recognize it, own it,
    and then forgive oneself before working to take steps to do it
    differently in the future.  Remorse, by the way, is the positive
    energy within shame, which is an emotion that also has negative
    connotations.  (Guilt is another negative emotion--serves no useful
    purpose at all.)
        I believe in lots of things which many people in here do not
    believe.  It becomes difficult for me to attempt to describe something
    which works in my system which likely won't fit in theirs.  I have
    given up on many of those same systems precisely *because* "greater
    truths" didn't fit.  I will not make a huge effort to fit my statements
    into other, incompatible systems, therefore.  
        As a part of this, I believe in reincarnational events.  I believe
    that we enter this lifetime with certain things to clear up.  Often,
    we enter this lifetime with issues of negative ego or issues of 
    blockages that we seek to resolve within that lifetime.  This, then,
    is part of the "set-up" that "happens."  This is why a child may have
    cancer, for example.  Or this is why a child is born retarded
    (something I've thought about since my brother is this way.)  What's 
    the lesson?  Difficult to say, but an example of the latter could 
    be learning patience.  A retarded person may have a grander opportunity
    to learn to deal with patience than a person of greater ability.  
    But there are lots of ways of dealing with similar issues.  
         You know, I squirm around a great deal answering stuff like this
    in this fashion, for I make myself vulnerable to "attack" without 
    having a very appropriate opportunity to defend myself (after all,
    I don't want to spend my day writing...[martyring myself...;-} ] )
    But if you really think about it, how many issues have we ignored,
    even when we hear about them, until they happen to us?  When they
    happen to us, you better believe we notice!  We are then given a 
    truly momentous opportunity for resolving all the issues that 
    surround the event.  Why are we living?  To learn, to grow,
    to stretch farther...  How do we do it?  Usually, not by looking
    within, but rather by looking outside ourselves.  If we looked 
    within first, would we still manifest that stuff outside?  Sometimes.
    It depends on the focus.  It depends on the impeccability of the
    thoughts.  
         To answer your "yes or no" question, :-} , I think people can
    have victimy things happen to them and still get past it, can
    still get on with their lives, can allow for whatever mistakes 
    they made, can allow for their own lack of understanding, etc.
    or whatever it was that made the event occur and still have 
    wonderful, positive future life ahead of them.  As I stated in 
    another note, this can be conscious.  Usually, however, lots of this
    stuff is sub-conscious, *sometimes* it is un-conscious.  But we
    are the ones in charge of both our sub-conscious and our unconscious.
    It is totally accessible.  We *Can* become consciously aware and
    even in control of our sub-conscious and unconscious minds.  Therefore,
    if I can end this gracefully, I believe that the conscious
    responsibility is ours to take.  I also understand (certainly because
    I have and continue to do so myself) that things manifest which 
    I have responsibility for but never take...namely my sub-conscious and
    my unconscious.  I do not wish to be punished by anyone, including
    myself, for my failure to take responsibility.  It has only happened
    because I didn't learn it or because I ignored it or because of 
    other things I have done.  But as I learn, I take on more and more
    responsibility, I clean up my negative blockages (and other parts
    of the "dark shield") and move to replace all that negative 
    programming with positive stuff, positive outlooks, positive 
    beliefs, positive attitudes.  As a part of this, I align myself
    more and more to others who see life similarly...and as a consequence,
    more of the reality immediately available is similarly positive.
    AS I expand, so can I expand my circle...to perhaps eventually
    someday include the entire planet.  But it starts with me.  I
    am my own greatest responsibility.  Mistakes, pains and all.
         Please, understand that I have responded to this at great
    length with the intention of providing a fuller answer to some
    of my beliefs.  I do not seek confrontation here with this.  If
    you wish to discuss it, I will give it a shot.  If you wish to
    take a shot, I won't discuss it.  I don't know if I have adequately
    answered you, but thanks for asking and thanks for the opportunity
    to allow me to express myself.
    
    Frederick
    
    

Well now, one easy way to stop being a victim is to get a gun and shoot any man
that attempts to victimize you. I just don't see my attitude stopping a rapist
once he has chosen me. Or a child determining not to be a victim of an adult
relative that molests them. Half the time others won't even aknowledge it's
happening.

This "just say no" stuff doesn't ring true to me. It leaves too much room to
blame the victim by saying "oh, they *allowed* it happen". I do believe that
attitude and self determination are a factor in life. I don't believe they will
stop a determined perpetrator. Look at all the women who have left abusive
husbands only to be hunted down and killed. liesl

    	RE: .62  Liesl

    	> This "just say no" stuff doesn't ring true to me.  It leaves too
    	> much room to blame the victim by saying "oh, they *allowed* it
    	> happen".

    	Agreed!!  When I hear this stuff, I try to imagine saying to
    	myself, "Yes, it's *MY* responsibility that the meteorite fell
    	on my home and destroyed all my belongings.  I own this!  If
    	I'd lived somewhere else, it never would have happened to me.
    	I'm not a victim.  I'm taking responsibility for this, and it
    	will give me power."

    	It's getting to the point where a person doesn't dare claim to
    	be a "victim" of any sort of injustice (whether it involves a
    	robbery, rape, discrimination, hit-and-run accident, bullying,
    	or whatever.)  Suddenly, the person is acting "victimy" (and
    	is instructed to "OWN" it, and to get therapy for what they
    	did to own it, and to be re-trained to stop doing whatever
    	they did to own it.)

    	Nah - it doesn't ring true to me, either.  It's basically a way
    	to gloss over the injustice (putting the victim "on trial" 
    	instead) rather than addressing the fact that society isn't
    	equipped to do much else about it.

    	Manipulating the targets is a much more feasible endeavor, it
    	seems.

    re: last two
    
    double bingo!
    
    I don't really know how the 8 year-old me could have much have chosen
    *anything*  Somebody did this *to* me, and I didn't have a say in the
    matter.
    
    -daniel

    re .64
    
    Yeah!  I think that's the main problem I have with Frederick's views
    on responsibility.  It takes so much to try to let go of the guilt I 
    feel for what was done to me when I was 8; I can't accept that I
    could have chosen not to be abused.
    
    Frederick, I think your ideas are becoming clearer to me, though, and
    some of the ideas I get out of it, I agree with.  Living in constant 
    fear and dismay at possible victimization is not positive.  However, 
    being cognizant of the risks out there and responding reasonably is 
    positive.  I think where my views most diverge from yours is, that I 
    believe that we are not responsible for the bad things that happen 
    to us, but we can, by the way we respond to our experiences, make it 
    less likely for more victimization to recur.  For me, I think the 
    mechanisms I developed for coping with my abuse make me more vulnerable 
    to being hurt again.  For example, I am sometimes very insensitive to 
    verbal and non-verbal cues from people, I will often "split" if I feel 
    emotionally threatened.  This makes me vulnerable to being hurt.  
    Becoming aware of these coping mechanisms, and how they make me 
    vulnerable, can help me modify them and become less vulnerable.  
    However, I can't accept the idea that if I am victimized again, 
    I am responsible.  To an extent, I can and will protect myself, but 
    not only am I small and physically vulnerable to men who are in 
    general bigger and stronger than I, but I am still scarred by my 
    experiences, still trying to heal, and I could easily be hurt again.
    
    cheryl

    I think Fred may be confusing the feelings one has after the fact with
    the power to prevent the problem in the first place.  True, once one
    has been victimized, it is healthy to mourn, then to get angry, then to
    do something about it and then put it away and move on.  But that
    ability, however keen it is in one, cannot prevent one from being
    "bully fodder" in the first place.  And that's where I think a lot of
    people are having a problem with this.  I started to write this reply
    yesterday and deleted it but it echoed what Liesl said - carry a gun
    and know how to use it and then maybe you can own almost complete 
    responsibility for your victim/non-victim status, (except of course if
    you're victimized in the workplace, kept at the lower levels because of
    your gender/race/orientation. You can't just shoot the boss!)
    
    Otherwise, even staying in your own home and minding your own business is 
    no protection.  The majority of rapes occur in women's own homes, for 
    instance.  A large percentage occur on dates.
    
    And Fred, blame is not always negative.  Making accusations are not
    always wrong.  It can be very empowering to first recognize and then point 
    to the real source of the problem, whether it's within or without. 
    That's assessing blame and it's gotta be done!  What you seem to be
    advocating is a "take it all" attitude, a kind of "kick me again, life,
    I can take it" stance.  A strong, defiant, stone-faced person who
    carries willingly the weight of the world on hir shoulders.  And that
    seems pretty close to martyrdom to me and not at all healthy.  True, it
    keeps you "protected" from the agression around you.  You take it
    quietly, never complaining, safe within your stone walls.  But that isn't 
    living.  And it isn't as "forgiving" as you might think.  It isn't 
    "humanitarian" either.  Nor is it a demonstration of a superior human
    quality.  It's using the negativity in the world to build your own self 
    up.  It's a kind of neurosis in which one gains increasing self-
    righteousness proportionate with the amount of suffering one endures.  
    One's self-image becomes *dependent* on the existence of negativity and
    suffering.  For if it doesn't occur, how can you feel that you've
    successfully "taken responsibility" or "risen above it"?
    
    Having my ego and self-image dependent on negativity and agression is not 
    the way I want to live.  I'll take responsibility for the things I'm truly 
    responsible for.  I won't walk into a frat party drunk and naked.  I won't 
    prowl the bad side of town with ten dollar bills hanging out of my pockets.
    But when I've done all I can and some A-hole decides to "teach me a
    lesson" about something, I'll be pointing in hir direction, assessing
    blame, making accusations, accepting no guilt and taking no responsibility 
    for it.  I won't wallow in the situation, smearing it on me like mud so
    I can show the world how strong I am, nor will I wear a hair-shirt.
    
    And that, to me, is healthy.
    
    Sandy

    re 930.*
    
    c.f 28.* that's all _i_ mean to be saying
    
    			herb
    

>        <<< Note 930.60 by THEBAY::COLBIN::EVANS "One-wheel drivin'" >>>
>                       -< Evil women get to *do* stuff >-

    Yep. At least as far as I can tell from literary studies, the
    characterization table since Medieval times has been:
    
    		Active			Passive
    Male....	Good			Evil
    Female..	Evil			Good
    
    (For you English major types, an ultimate example of this is Phillip
    Sidney's "Arcadia", which features all four table slots in a variety of
    cross-dressing situations.)
    
    Ray

    re: .66 (Sandy)
    
         You know, I give you lots of credit for your intelligence,
    your willingness to communicate and your determination to act.
    Yes, I do.  But whether or not you impress others and get nominated
    into the "Hall of Fame" is of no real consequence to me.  I 
    realized, as I have for several years now, that I was swimming
    against the grain...salmon-like, to reclaim my home, perhaps.
         So, I say that just to let you know that I respect you but
    don't necessary advocate your focus or what to me sometimes appears
    as single-mindedness.  
         Clearly I have not expressed myself well or at least not fully.
    I really didn't think I could...though 100+ lines is a lot in here,
    it's infinitesimally small next to the body of communication that would
    be necessary to fully communicate all of this.  So, no, Sandy, I
    did not confuse the problem in the first place.  I believe that I
    create my own reality, fully, 100%...and anything short of this belief
    by one of any two conversants generates the communications logjam that
    I've been experiencing.  
         I believe that blame is always negative.  Blame says that you
    wish to punish.  "Eye for an eye" sorts of thoughts.  Blame means
    that you had nothing to do with it and therefore have nothing that
    you can do *about* it.  That position is a weak one.  Even if you
    take responsibility it does *not* mean that something didn't 
    happen to you without your permission or by surprise.  Even if
    you take responsibility you could still have something manifest 
    directly from your sub-conscious or un-conscious mind without
    any conscious awareness of it at all.  Are you a victim then?
    Well, yes, until you are willing to clear out the sub-conscious
    and unconscious thougts, etc. that can manifest.  
         "Take it all..."  *is* martyrhood.  No question.  That's like
    Job in the Bible.  A great example of martyrhood and nobilized
    struggle.  That isn't living to me, either.  That's self-abuse and
    self-punishment, as far as I'm concerned.  You see, you can't see it
    because you're trying to take it on all at once.  No one that I 
    know can take total responsibility all at once.  It comes in steps.
    But let me add this:  the more responsibility one takes, the more
    freedom one experiences.  Further, the child wants total freedom
    without any responsibility.  The *adult*, on the other hand, can
    expect total freedom *only* by taking total responsibility.  Think
    about it...if someone/something else is responsible for any-little-
    thing, you have no freedom around the stuff that deals with that
    any-little-thing.
         I don't have time to expound on the tenets here, I apologize
    for making this short...but lastly, for now at least, let me also
    clarify something else.  At the end of your entry you ask how
    we can take responsibility for something that hasn't occurred.
    You know, that is scary to me.  Know why?  Because basically what
    you are saying is that you *Expect* something negative to happen.
    If it doesn't, you'll question the love, you'll question the 
    power, you'll question the conscious determination that you've held
    to make positive things happen.  *IF* you are clearing out your
    "dark shield" (as partially defined earlier by me) and are putting
    out consciously responsible and positive energy/thoughts/feelings,
    *AND* you are getting good results, THEN you can recognize that 
    you have done so, acknowledge yourself for doing so, have GRATITUDE
    for having done so, and then CONTINUE to do so.  Don't sit around
    and look for negatives to validate yourself...don't you see?  THis
    is what gets us where we are in the first place.  Constantly waiting
    for the other shoe to drop, never really living in the joy.
         As always, there is more to say.  But thank you for the tone
    towards me...it was much easier for me to read (than some others
    have been.)  
    
    With respect,
    Frederick
    

    You know, Frederick, that it *is* possible for someone to understand
    you and still disagree.
    
    Many people in notes (and in life) claim time and time again that they
    are misunderstood.  I claim that most times they *are* understood...
    
    D!

    RE: .69  Frederick
    
    > I believe that I create my own reality, fully, 100%...and anything 
    > short of this belief by one of any two conversants generates the 
    > communications logjam that I've been experiencing.  
    
    Do you also create reality for our whole planet, or just for yourself?
    
    If your creation doesn't extend to everything and everyone, then you
    don't really have power over much beyond yourself, do you?
    
    How will that help you if a person who has power over his own actions
    decides to vent some random violence (or some other crime) against
    you?  Won't that be a matter of the role he had in creating his *own*
    reality when he decided to do this to you?
    
    Where is your power in this situation?

    Suazann,
    
    I think Fredericks "believing you create your own reality" depends on
    also being a solopsist.  It's the only way I can see to make it work -
    and it is a short jump from believing you are the only person in the
    universe to believing that you control reality.
    
    D!

    	RE: .72  D!
    
    	Agreed.
    
    	Something else I was thinking about earlier - try to imagine if
    	the legal system in our country truly adopted a policy that
    	assigning "blame" is a negative thing (and that victims of crime
    	should believe that they hold responsibility for them, either
    	consciously or subconsciously.)
    
    	Come to think of it, our legal system already does a pretty good
    	job of this with rape cases.

    re .73, gee, we could let everybody out of prison since all the victims
    were really to blame, and not the so called criminals.  We wouldn't
    need insurance policies against theft since it's obviously a person's
    own fault if somebody steals from them.  If somebody walks into a 7-11
    and shoots the cashier, or walks into a McDonald's and kills all the
    customers, or randomly shoots kids on a playground, I guess we should
    just let the guys who did it walk away free because, obviously, if the
    victims had been in better control of their own lives these incidents
    would never happen.
    
    Lorna
    

    Frederick...
    
    I'm pretty certain I have a good take on what you are saying.  Sounds
    like solipcism with a heart dosage of Foucault.
    
    I agree to a certain extent that, yes, we create our own realities. 
    It is doubtful that any two people see the world exactly the same way,
    so our perceptions affect how we feel about "reality"
    
    However, I think that the extreme about which you speak is a *luxury*
    And one that I have never been able to afford.  If I say that reality
    is up for grabs then I loose my ability to get angry and if I loose
    that, in my here and now, I'll be pretty much a void.
    
    There is a *big* truth in my life and that is that someone did this to
    me, and there is a hell of a lot of blame for that bastard.
    
    Your philosophy just isn't one that will work for people on a day to
    day basis with some of the "truths" we have to face.
    
    respectfully,
    
    Daniel

    re: .61

    Frederick-

    Thanks for answering/discussing my question.  It does indeed help
    me to better understand your point of view.  

    You bridged the biggest gap in my understanding by mentioning
    reincarnation.  I'm no expert (so correct me if I'm off base), but
    don't you think it's difficult -- if not close to impossible --
    for anyone who doesn't share that belief to accept that something
    from a past life (which they don't remember and probably don't
    even believe in) can influence what happens to them in the
    present?  
    
    If I've got this right, it's no wonder so many people have had
    trouble understanding your point of view:  this is a *huge* gap
    between belief systems.

    I don't get the sense that you believe in solipsism; quite the
    opposite, I think you believe in connection and continuity.  I
    do too, but not to the same degree.  You wrote that you thought
    that kind of knowledge and understanding was "totally accessible";
    I don't think we're capable of seeing that intricate a web.
    
    You also wrote "Often we are ignorant of truths that could have
    helped us avoid the pain we have found ourselves dealing with. 
    Does this make someone subject to blame, then?  I don't think so." 
    Aren't *we* someone too?  Is it right to always blame (i.e. fix
    responsibility) on ourselves?

    Obviously, I disagree with you on this point. 8*)  Actually, I
    think you're terribly hard on yourself.  In some ways I think
    you've put yourself at the opposite end of your self-pity scale;
    in my experience living at an extreme is a tough way to go.  (I've
    been trying to bend *my* straight lines into circular shapes.)

    Thanks again for your explanation; it was helpful to me.  And I
    wish you much success on your quest; I think you've chosen a
    difficult path.

    nla
    

But then, I don't like Ayn Rand much, either.

D!

    In my opinion, nobody has said or believes that the guilty go free.
    I certainly do not believe that.

    I believe the guilty should be stopped from doing whatever they have
    been doing, and also be prevented from doing that again. I believe that
    such actions are punitive and justifiably punitive. However, it
    does seem clear to me that such actions do little to de-program
    offenders. (Although it DOES get them out of the way, thankfully)
    
    I believe that one of the most important impacts of this conference is
    that it convinces women (and hopefully through them their children)
    that women are getting a very bad deal in our society. I am CERTAIN
    that there are many woman who did not understand this prior to
    'subscribing" to this conference. (it may even convince a few men of
    the need to change our behavior)

    I also believe that as the 'bad deal' message becomes clearer and
    clearer that the conference has an additional opportunity. And that
    opportunity is to help educate and empower women about the
    self-assertive steps that can be taken to protect themselves and to
    pave the way toward equality.

    I believe the kinds of things that Nancy Biddle talks about -such as
    getting gun permits- are intended to be, and are effective as
    trailblazers in this regard. More power to her! (even though i
    disapprove of guns).

    I also believe that with respect to the abuse -in its widest sense-
    that women are subjected to and that are certainly well documented in
    this conference, there are lots of steps that women can take to
    impoverish the abusers. There are some abusive situations that come
    about as a result of the co-operation of both parties. Overt on the part
    of the abuser, covert on the part of the victim. Intentional on the part
    of the victimizers, inadvertent on the part of the victim.
    
    I believe that as women become more self-confident and more aware, they
    will be better 'armed' to avoid such abusive situations. I mentioned
    some of the avoidance techniques in 28.8. There are many, many others.
    Some of which have been eloquently expressed by women in this
    conference.
    
    So, in summary, I believe that IN ADDITION to victimizer related
    				   ^^^^^^^^^^^
    programs and actions, it is useful for victims and potential victims to
    take action aimed at preventing future victimization. 
    
    I don't understand why some seem to feel it is necessary to ridicule
    such an opinion by reducing it to absurdity.
    I don't understand why is it that people are so hostile to that. Why is
    it that somehow i feel that some are responding as if the very
    expression of those ideas was itself abusive?
    
    				herb

    re:  Lorna
    
    I like it!  I like it!  direct, to the point...we can argue til we're
    blue in the face, but that says it all!
    
    btw:  this line makes 0 sense to me:
    
    "Blame means you had nothing to do with it and therefore have nothing
    you can do *about* it."
    
    In my own experience, recognizing I had nothing to do with it is what's
    allowing me to do something about it!!!  
    
    *rathole alert*  Frederick, allow me to be pedantic for a moment, and
    make everyone cringe with my attention to trivial details of language.
    You've created a word "nobilized" in this string at least twice.  I
    would like to call your attention to a perfectly serviceable word that
    already exists in the English language, ennobled, that I believe
    possesses the meaning you are trying to convey.  ;^)
    
    cheryl (displaying idiosyncratic behaviour)
    

>     I don't understand why some seem to feel it is necessary to ridicule
>    such an opinion by reducing it to absurdity.
>    I don't understand why is it that people are so hostile to that. Why is
>    it that somehow i feel that some are responding as if the very
>    expression of those ideas was itself abusive?

More likely, Herb, that people didn't see the ideas Frederick expressed in
quite the way you did; and given a different interpretation, the expression
is hostile and contrary to some of the interpretation you've read into it.
That's why Frederick's response generated some of that hostility, in my opinion.

In particular, when you say

>    I also believe that as the 'bad deal' message becomes clearer and
>    clearer that the conference has an additional opportunity. And that
>    opportunity is to help educate and empower women about the
>    self-assertive steps that can be taken to protect themselves and to
>    pave the way toward equality.

I think you ignore part of Frederick's message about blame.  This part.

>>          I believe that blame is always negative.  Blame says that you
>>    wish to punish.  "Eye for an eye" sorts of thoughts.  Blame means
>>    that you had nothing to do with it and therefore have nothing that
>>    you can do *about* it.  That position is a weak one.  Even if you
>>    take responsibility it does *not* mean that something didn't 
>>    happen to you without your permission or by surprise.  Even if
>>    you take responsibility you could still have something manifest 
>>    directly from your sub-conscious or un-conscious mind without
>>    any conscious awareness of it at all.  Are you a victim then?
>>    Well, yes, until you are willing to clear out the sub-conscious
>>    and unconscious thougts, etc. that can manifest.  

There are other ways of taking the word blame and using it as part of the
descriptive process, identifying just what the problems are in a person's
life and identifying that oneself is not to blame that an abuser picked
one to abuse!  This is part of empowerment, part of healing, and its a
very basic part.  And I know you know that, but I don't think you care to
acknowledge that Frederick's version of "blame" seems to deny that as part
of a legitimate healing process.  Blame does NOT say "I wish to punish".
Blame says "if there were perfect justice, you would suffer equally for the
harm you have inflicted", it is more an assignment of responsibility.  But
Frederick's words seem to deny this, and that is what people are reacting
to, in .73 and .74.  I think.

DougO

    I was talking about myself, not Frederick. I felt that the entries in
    930.74 and 930.73 were at least partially in response to 930.39, &
    930.57 (and some others). That was what my response in 930.78 was based
    on

Well, for reasons of timeliness, I rather don't think so, Herb.
I think Frederick's .69 directly triggered .73 and .74, but the
courteous thing would be to ask the writers of .73 and .74 if that
is so.  You may wish to do that.

DougO

    who the hell are you kidding?
    
    those two women and I have not been courteous to each other for two
    years

    this has become one great big enormous unbelievable RATHOLE
    
    was there a basenote hiding under all of this?
    
    -----
    \ D /
     \ /

I went back and re-read from .69 onward, and every note refers explicitly to
the previous one, ie, a direct conversational link.  true, Suzanne did say,
"Something else I was thinking about earlier", and it is possible that this
opens a topic that is referred to in your earlier notes.  But as I read your
earlier notes which discuss the issue from the point of view that a victim
can take to empower herself, vs Suzanne's comment on the legal system, it
really appears to me, still, that .73 and .74 were more prompted by the
ongoing reactions to discussion of Frederick's note, and not at all directed
at you or your point of view.  I'll step out of this one, though.

DougO 

    re .83, why, Herb, I hadn't even realized we'd met, let alone had
    the opportunity to ever be discourteous!
    
    (It was Frederick's reply, and then Suzanne's reply, which I agreed
    with, that inspired .74)
    
    Lorna
    

    Thankyou for saying you were not responding to my comments.
    
    if you meant to be saying quite simply that we haven't met, then
    thankyou
    
    If on the other hand you were trying to emulate Ann Broomhead
    then you forgot to say...
    
    "with her eyes a flutter...
    looking down her fingernails..."
    
    Ann is VERY difficult to emulate. Takes a LOT of class!

    re .87, since you admit you've never met me I don't think you have any
    idea whether I have any class or not, Herb.  You've been in here all
    day complaining about how people have insulted you and yet in .86 you
    attempt to insult *me* by insinuating that I have no class.  I think
    you should pay more attention to your own tactfulness, and less to that of
    others.
    
    
    Lorna
    
    

    As I said if you were simply meaning to state we had never met and that
    the comment .74 was not directed at me then my sincerest thankyou
    Under those circumstances, I'm glad and I regret my unfortunate
    comments.
    If you were not trying to emulate Ann Broomhead then my class comment
    is irrelevant. I regret that it appears otherwise.
    

    
    About women being portrayed as evil....
    
    I was thinking again about the movie Thelma and Louise (has anyone not
    seen this yet?  I was the last to see it, right :-)...  Ashamed to
    admit, I don't know how to insert a form feed, I'll hit return a bunch
    of times...
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Anyway, I was thinking about how T&L were presented as heroes, much
    like the male bandit/heroes we've seen in so many other movies
    (westerns, jail/jail-break flicks, cops+robbers, etc).  In those
    movies with male heroes, the good guy is often running from the law
    because of some (possibly quite) bad thing he's done (often it's
    a wrongful death, but he/we know that his story won't be believed,
    so he's on the run).  That's kind of the story in T&L except for one
    major difference --
    
    We see her do the "bad" thing.  We don't just hear about it.  We see
    it, and we feel and see her experience all the ambivalence surrounding
    the event, so we're uneasy in our admiration for her.  She did kill
    someone, and it wasn't exactly self defense (my sweetie and I were just
    talking about what crime she committed - murder, manslaughter,
    justifiable homicide?).  What feels significant here for me is that
    in the case of the woman-hero, we couldn't love her unconditionally
    (at least not so easily) as we could the male heroes that we meet when
    they're already on the road, running from the law, having cool car
    chases, and serving justice on the bad(der) guys.
    
    Coincidence?  Or do you think there was some sense (maybe not
    conscious) that the US was not ready for a totally lovable woman-hero?
    
    Justine
                                                       

Justine, I think that one's in the filmmaker's lap.  Good ole boys running
aren't usually shown feeling any of the ambiguities, any remorse.  They're
just running, sympathetic characters.  (So we seldom get to *know* them.
BC &SK were an exception, I remember the bicycle scene even though I haven't
seen the movie in a long, long time.)  We got to *know* Thelma and Louise
by seeing what scared them, angered them, excited them, by getting to feel
negative emotions along with them, which I think is a credit to the film
and the filmmaker...but rather removes this one from comparison with the
other typical outlaw-on-the-run movies.  I don't care if all the critics
say its comparable, to me, it isn't.

DougO

                   -< one possible reason for your reaction >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Maybe it's the notion of a _woman_ dispensing summary justice that
    catches at you? (Good gals take it to court, go through all the
    channels, play by all the rules, etc.; good guys kick butt and to
    heck with the rules; like the movie said, they are 'Above The  Law'.)
    
    Looking forward to 'V.I. Warshawski'

    
    OK, so you see it as goodness, and I do, too -- that they were more
    fully human that the usual stick figure superhero we get to see, but
    can you see the other side of it, too?  I mean, why couldn't we
    just see 2 women having an adventure -- they could still have real
    feelings, but how come we had to feel bad/not-so-good about them?
    Reminds me of how in so many films that let a gay man be a good guy
    (Partners?  Kiss of the Spider Woman?), he ends up dead.  Many of us
    in the lesbigay community call it "the only good faggot is a dead
    faggot syndrome."  I mean, why can't the gay man (or the woman, the
    other-than-white-presented-as-straight-male- succeed, do the right
    thing, be a good guy AND have some happiness?  I can't help but think
    that the only role open to the nontraditional hero is one of martyrdom/
    tragedy.  I guess it's a slight improvement over the virgin/whore
    choice, but it still doesn't seem very fair to me.
    
    Justine

    re .89, with all due respect to Ann, I wasn't trying to copy her.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .93
    
    Well, there is "Torch Song Trilogy"
    
    Yes, there *is* a lot of hardship, but it is not unrealistic and Arnold
    does end up happy and with much of what he's always wanted.
    
    Lovely film, IMHO
    
    -----
    \ D /
     \ /  p.s. I don't know if there are any well-known films primarily
    about lesbians -- how, if at all, do filmmakers approach lesbians?

Is Vic really coming to theatre near me soon?!  

Signed,

Hope Springs Eternal

     \ /  p.s. I don't know if there are any well-known films primarily
    about lesbians -- how, if at all, do filmmakers approach lesbians?

Lesbians don't usually die, they just end up unhappy. Or straight.

ala Personal Best, Desert Hearts, etc.

D!

    bleah. yucko. doesn't it figure and why is Hollywood controlled by
    straights?
    
    \D/ We Are Everywhere (you just wouldn't know from looing at pop
    culture...

    er...that was looKing at pop culture...
    
    

    i dunno, Daniel, looing at pop culture held a certain appeal for me....
    
    

Yes, Justine, I can see the other side of it, and I definately agree
that in this movie, the film maker killed them off because he didn't
know what else to do with them, ie, they were 'bad' and had to go.
insofar as we identified with them and they got surrounded at the end,
we can empathize with the choice to continue pursuit of the illusion
even unto certain death.  Better than stopping.  But I seem to recall
the end of Body Heat showed Turner as having gotten away with it...
sometimes they'll break the stereotype.

DougO

    re .97, well, there was one movie about lesbians where one of them
    wound up dying...crushed by a tree I believe.  I think it was made in
    the late 60's and was based on a D.H.Lawrence novel and starred Sandy
    Dennis.  The name was The Fox, or The Foxes or something like that.  I
    remember I thought it had a horrid ending.  One woman had to be crushed
    so that her lover would be left to go off with a man.
    
    re .95, oh! "A Torch Song Trilogy" - Alan was one of my all-time
    favorite characters...I fell in love with him.  *sigh*  Matthew
    Broderick looked better in that movie than any other human being I have
    ever seen.  (very sad, though)
    
    re .101, Thelma & Louise, I thought it ended the way it did because
    that was the only way that T&L could remain true to their ideals.
    
    Lorna
    

    One of the lines in one of my favorite movies of all time goes, "Not
    all of them bump themselves off at the end of the story!".  It was
    spoken, screamed actually, by a gay male character, (Michael), having a 
    hard time accepting himself.  "The Boys in the Band" remains one of the 
    best movies I've ever seen.  Even after 20 or so viewings.  (It was
    made in the 60s).  It isn't "about" gayness, it's about love.  And I feel 
    the straights are left holding the emotional bag when it's over.  You 
    don't see too much of that.  It's quite the blaster of stereotypes. 
    Nothing to do with women actually, but it's a movie where the "deviant"
    doesn't always lose.  And the straight isn't always the good guy.  I'd
    say it shows there's hope but it *was* made in the 60s and as much of a
    trailblazer as it was, (and still is), precious little has followed
    suit.  Even in Torch Song, sweet, adorable Matthew had to get beaten up.
    Lord, that was heart-rending.
    
    S.

    	RE: .85  Doug Olson

    	Although it appears that this particular rathole closed up hours
    	ago, I just wanted to let you know you were correct in this:

    		>  ...it really appears to me, still, that .73 and .74
    		>  were more prompted by the ongoing reactions to 
    		>  discussion of Frederick's note, and not at all
    		>  directed at you or your point of view.

    	The phrase "Something else I was thinking about earlier" was a
    	reference to myself (i.e., a time earlier in my own life, during
    	the hours prior to this statement, when I was writing my own note
    	and stopped short of bringing up some particular point in the note
    	I was composing then.)  It was just something I meant in passing.

    
    Hi all,
    
    This is well off the current rathole, but I've wanted to ask this
    question for awhile so I'll pose it to you.  This may be well known
    information, but I've never had it confirmed for me or read it 
    anywhere.  Does anyone know if the word 'evil' is derived from the
    name 'Eve', or vice versa?
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

    According to the Digital-issue American Heritage Dictionary, the word
    evil comes from the Old English "yfel".  
    
    So that is basically no help.
    
    E Grace

Webster's says it comes from Old English yfel, and is probably akin to
the Old High German ubil, meaning, not surprisingly, evil.

-d

    
    So, it doesn't look like 'evil' is sourced from 'Eve' or vice versa.
    Next question, in a religious context was there a connection made
    between the two?  
    
    Carole

Re: .108

Without doubt some religious individual has made the connection.  It is
my experience that there are some people, religious and otherwise, who
will distort fact as easily as putting on a hat if the distortion will
serve their purpose.

-d

    
    RE: .109 -d
    
    Yes, this is what I am wondering.  Particularly in the Judeo-Christian
    world view, woman has been held to be evil to one degree or another.
    Was the woman in the creation story given the name Eve based on the
    world 'evil', or was the word evil created based on the name Eve?  When 
    these thoughts hit me, part of me said 'yes - these ponderings have some
    basis in fact'.  And then I got really sad.  I hope my sense of this
    is incorrect, because if it is true it shows again how very deep in
    humanities collective unconscious these ideas/feelings can and do go.
    
    Carole

    I thought the snake represented evil.

    just to clarify...
    
    Eve from the Torah is a Hebrew name written in Hebrew.  It is very
    unlikely that the English word "evil" is derived from it.  Not the same
    base languages at all.
    
    \D/

    
    What is the Hebrew word for 'evil' and what was it derived from?
    Not knowing the Bible well at all, I'm assuming that the OT was
    written in Hebrew...right?
    
    Carole

    a mix if Hebrew and Arabic...don't know Hebrew for "evil"  I'll try to
    dig up a Hebrew dictionary from my library...but I don't know if the
    modern word is equivalent

    
    Thanks \D/!  Curious _pn_ by the way. ;^)
    
    Carole

    source of p/n:  "Howl" by Allen Ginsberg
    
    ;-) we poets are a strange lot -- just read "Howl" ai yai!
    
    \D/

    That's Hebrew  and Aramaic, not Hebrew and Arabic. Aramaic was the
    language  of contracts in the Talmudic era. It survives today only
    in contracts whose form hasn't changed since then. The most common
    example is the "Ketubah" or marriage contract.

--David

    oops...good call!
    
    mea culpa? or is that mixin' metaphors?

> source of p/n:  "Howl" by Allen Ginsberg
    
> ;-) we poets are a strange lot -- just read "Howl" ai yai!

Have it memorized...

	"I saw the best minds of my generation
	Destroyed by madness,
	Starving, hysterical, naked."

Cheerful stuff you read there Daniel.

	"Moloch, moloch, moloch, to heaven."

	-- Charles

    Hm.  I realized just last week that evil is "devil" without the "d"
    and good is just "god" with an extra "o".  Is this coincidence?  
    
    Karen.

        And "Elvis" and "lives" are anagrams.
        
        Dan

    
    wait a minute....this must all mean....that
    
    VANNA WHITE IS THE ANTICHRIST!
    
    AUUUUUUGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!
    
    -Jody
    

    ohmygawd!!!! Jody you are the *best*!!!
    
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    
    with love,
    cheyenne

    
    set mode="mae west"
    
    hmmmmm, that's what they tell me!
    
    
    -Jody