Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    Once every 6 seconds, in the US of A, a woman is raped by a man.
    That means in the time it's taking me to type this reply, there
    have been at least five rapes, by men, of women.
    
    I'm angry because we are not safe from male violent behavior.
    
    Carla
    

    I'm angry because after years in the workforce proving we can do the
    job, women are still not taken seriously.  I'm angry because women
    aren't supposed to get mad.  we are still expected to look and act like
    perfect sub-people.  Listen up I am not a sub-person I am real!!!!
    
    I'm angry at the violence perpetrated on women just because they are
    women, and generally by the people who say they love us.
    
    I'm angry at psuedofeminist people who say I would listen to you if you
    would just fit my idea of how you are supposed to be.  I'm angry about
    being told that I have no sense of humor when correcting a sexist
    behaviour, joke, or comment.
    
    I'm angry that the "words for powerful people" are all male in context. 
    Dammit! the last time I checked I didn't have brass balls, now a
    stainless steel clit might be more like it ;-0  I'm tired of having to
    point out that the appropriate work unit in our group is specialist
    hour not man hour.  The fact that 25% of my team isn't included in a
    work unit really p*sses me off.
    
    Oh my, opp.  I guess I just express a little tiny bit of anger.  Oh
    dear.  Well I guess I will go retreat back to the women's room and try
    to remember my place.
    
    Meg

    What am I angry about?
    
    I am angry when people call me 'Mrs. Richard Johnston', my name is
    "Annie" dammit!!! or even 'Ann'  All politesse aside, I find it grossly
    offensive that anyone would strip me of my personhood by collapsing me
    to a modified version of another person.
    
    I am angry that I am asked how many children I have before I am asked
    what I do for a living.
    
    I nearly sputter with anger whenever someone asks first 'How does Rick
    feel' about something happening to me or something I'm planning. 
    Immediately I think 'whose f*cking life are we talking about, anyway?'
    followed quickly by 'I'm an _adult_ dammit -- don't you think I've
    considered this significant person?!?'
    
    Which brings me to the anger at being called 'selfish' whenever I think
    of myself at _all_ --- let _alone_ what I'm called when I think of
    myself _first_.
    
    I'm angry that the man who raped me has benefited monetarily from our
    prior relationship.
    
    I'm angry that otherwise sensible people view women as vessels or means
    to an end when fertility/child-bearing are at issue.
    
    I'm angry that women are so often treated as if they were mental
    defectives when it comes to choosing what's right for themselves -- and
    frequently _protected_ from making life choices for themselves.
    
     Annie

    
    I am not angry about the general situation women are in becuase 
    there's no one for me to focus that anger on.  However, for
    specific situations, I am angry.
    
    	- driving down the highway when horny men make passes at me
    	I am afraid.  Will they follow me?  Will a court say I encouraged
    	the problem because my knees are not glued together as I drive
    	my stick-shift car?  That fear makes me angry.
    	- driving home, again and I get off at my exit and notice a
    	car behind me.  Again I am afraid and drive to the police station,
    	pull in and let the car drive by.  That fear too, makes me angry.
    	- I cannot walk my dog without being afraid in broad daylight,
    	in a populated park.  God forbid something would happen, I know
    	that I can count on my fellow citizens to stand by and watch.
    	- I cannot go for a bike ride in my neighborhood because it is
    	too risky and since it's a lousy neighborhood, I could be
    	found partially at fault should anything happen.
    
    To sum up, I would say that being female means being a prisoner in
    your home when it's dark out and even sometime when it's light out.
    THAT makes me angry.  Oh yeah, and "the alleged rape victim", THAT
    makes me angry.
    
    
    
    Rachael

    I am angry because...
    
    I have to fear because I am a woman.
    
    I can't bring my boys camping without fearing for my safety, and
    therefore, their safety.  I can't close my eyes to sleep in my tent
    without fearing and mentally preparing for what I would do in my
    own defense should an intruder assault me.  
    
    Because one day, when I dressed nicely, felt good about myself, and
    had a smile on my face, a manager remarked to my manager, "Kim's
    looking pretty good--must be looking for a husband again."  
    *Seeth* Damn it, I was feeling good about myself, for myself, because
    of myself and I was happy.  
    
    Because I transitioned out of a secretarial role into WC4 after five
    long years of paying attention at meetings, hounding my manager, and
    taking on work outside of my job description, and some people think
    I slept my way here.  I worked my *ss off, and still am!
    
    Because when I was a secretary my ex-husband referred to me as a 
    "SEX-etary".  
    
    Because my 8 yr old son has already made sexist assumptions, and he
    hasn't gotten them from ME.  
    
    And I am sure there is more....
    
    kim

    Why am I angry?
    
    I'm anygry that I live in a society where men (I do believe
    unconsiously, maybe) constantly use their power in order to render
    women 'powerless'!  Physically, mentally anyway they can.  
    
    I'm angry that I am considered a minor!  Now who the f*ck decided that?
    I'm not a minor or a major, I'm Estelle!
    
    I'm angry that in a meeting when a man speaks up he is labeled as
    'assertive', when a woman speaks up she is labeled 'aggressive'.
    
    I'm angry when I'm having a bad day and a man asks, "Is it that time of
    the month?"
    
    I'm even angrier when a man will ask, "Are you going thru the
    'change'?"
    
    I'm angry when I feel that I have to explain my every move and justify
    my feelings.
    
    I'm angry (and this is something I try so hard to correct) that all
    household chores are considered "MY" responsibility.
    
    I'm tired of men making the rules and their superior attitudes towards
    women. 
    
    Please understand that these are all opinions taken from MY OWN
    experiences.  I DO NOT MEAN THAT 'ALL' MEN FEEL THIS WAY.  JUST A LOT
    MORE THAN THERE SHOULD BE!
    
    There could be more stuff that I'm angry about, however, I'm sure this
    is enough for now.
    
    Estelle
      

    I am angry because, when I was a bookkeeper/accountant looking for a
    job, agencies made me take a typing test.  I explained I was not
    looking for secretarial work, and they still made me take a typing
    test.  
    
    They said it was the "Policy".
    
    They did not make male bookkeeping/accounting applicants take a typing
    test.
    
    
    I am angrier because I let them get away with it; I felt powerless.
    
    E Grace

because I must fear violence from men who are strangers, men who are friends,
and even men who are parents

because the percentage change in income for a women with children when she
is divorced is -22% and the change in income for a man when he is divorced
is +33% - (these stats courtesy of the US government.) Someone somewhere isn't
paying his full share...and I continue to hear mean complain about the ex
ripping them off for child support.  

because my earning power for doing the same d&mned job is $0.67 for every
dollar a co-worker who happens to be male earns

because many men actually feel they have the RIGHT to take a woman's body
hostage for the duration of a pregnancy.....that many of these same men
will allow children to go hungry, without a home, without warm clothes
because they don't "believe" in welfare.  Nor do they seem to be willing
to pay the additional expenses surrounding the care of handicapped children...
"Make sure they are born, and then forget it" seems to be the credo here....

because there is a movement afoot to make a woman's body the property of the
federal and/or state governments - or at least her reproductive organs -
and NONE OF THE MEN IN CHARGE ARE WILLING TO ADMIT THAT TO DO THIS MAKES 
ALL WOMEN OF REPORDUCTIVE AGE SLAVES OF THE STATE.  Either women's 
reproduction is controlled by the state - and we are slaves - or we are 
equal citizens under the law and our reproduction is controlled by OURSELVES.

because I see so many of the women I know buy into the "plan" get married
in your early 20's, have one or two children (and get fatter, thicker in
the waist, and more tired taking care of the kids, house, yard, and working
a full-time job while he works a full-time job..period)...and then in her 40's
he has to "find himself" which seems to include finding a much younger,
thinner, narrower in the waist woman so he can start the cycle over again...
and the first wife struggles in poverty with the children....this is ugly
and cruel - marriage in the 20th century.

because I don't know many men who really RESPECT their mates and women
co-workers...like, perhaps even love, but not RESPECT their opinions, ideas,
feelings, needs...

    I'm angry that despite 20+ years of struggle by my generation -- to say
    nothing of the struggles of those before us -- things are only
    marginally better for my 22 year old daughter.
    
    I'm angry that because so many of the blatant behaviors have gone away
    -- e.g. asking women college graduates applying for jobs if they can
    type -- too many people assume that the discrimination is all in the
    past.
    
    I'm angry because, in a time when the company is supposedly eliminating
    redundant jobs and laying-off people who no longer have work to do, I
    see numerous old boy rescues going on.
    
    I'm angry because we are continuing to lose a disproportionate number
    of women, particualrly senior women and it's written off as OK because
    they "wanted to spend more time with their children" or they "got a
    terrific opportunity".  What's wrong with Digital that women have to
    leave to have those things?
    
    I'm angry because I'm tired and the struggle continues.......
    
    Polly

    Women  are still asked if they can type when applying for jobs in which
    there should be no typing.
    
    E Grace

    I'm angry because this past Sat. afternoon my daughter and I couldn't
    walk down the sidewalk in Provincetown without being verbally assaulted
    by 3 males and then "rescued" by another male.  We were walking along,
    minding our own business, when 3 guys around the ages of 18-22 started
    yelling, "Hey, girls!  Where ya goin'?" across the street to us.  We
    ignored them and kept on walking.  They ran across the street and began
    walking right in back of us loudly saying things like, "Howa you girls
    doin' today?  Where ya headed?  Whatsa matta, doncha wanna talk to us?" 
    It was obvious to me that they hadn't realized that I was Melissa's
    mother and old enough to be the mother of any one of them.  I thought,
    "Oh, god, what are they going to say when they realize how *old* I am?" 
    But, Melissa said over her shoulder, "She's my mother!"  and one of the
    guys said, "She is!  Really!  Well, she's kinda cute anyway!  We don't
    mind!"  and they kept following us.  Suddenly, a man with gray hair,
    who looked around 50, and just happened to be walking near us and
    notice what was going on, caught my eye and said, "Well, you think
    you're about ready to get going now?"  I realized he was trying to help
    me out and said, "Yes, I am.  I think I've had about enough."  And he
    said, "Okay, let's go the car." and he started walking with me and
    Melissa.  One of the boys asked the man, "Are you with them?  Are you
    her father?" (meaning Melissa)  I said, "Yes, he is!" over my shoulder,
    and we walked off and the boys finally left us alone.  A little way
    down the road, Melissa and I turned into a restaurant to eat, and I
    said to the man, "Well, thanks.  We're going in here."  He said, "Okay,
    take care of yourselves!  Watch out for those guys." and went about his
    business.
    
    Now, if this situation didn't remind me I'm living in a world
    controlled by men, I don't know what would.  These boys felt they had a
    right to force my daughter and I to pay attention to them, and they
    only left us alone when they thought a passing stranger was my husband. 
    This was an interaction between men.  Three guys thought they had a
    right to verbally force themselves on us and one older, kinder man felt
    it was his duty to protect two strange females.  This is a man's world
    and we were momentarily caught up in a situation where 3 boys thought
    we were there's for the taking and another man felt he had to protect
    us.  Even though I appreciated the older man's kindness,and took
    advantage of it as an easy way out, I felt that we were sort just
    passed between the men, as though the younger boys admitted, "Oh, okay,
    we see they're not up for grabs, they belong to you."
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	I get angry when I say I had a night out with the girls
    	and someone says "your husband lets you go out without him?"
    	My husband doesn't *let* me do anything.  I'm my own person
    	and need my own space and time tyvm!
    
    	I get angry when I say I had a night out with the girls
    	and someone says "but you're *married*!"  I'm married yes,
    	dead, no.  I have a life outside the realm of my marriage.
    
    	Why is it so hard for people to fathom this?  I get it 
    	mostly from men, but unfortunately, some women have
    	expressed the same feelings to me.
    
    	JJ
    

    Why am I angry?
    
    For the same reasons of each and every previous reply!  Thank you all
    for saying what I'm thinking but couldn't put into words.  Womennoters,
    you're really the greatest!!
    
    -Dotti.

    re.14
    
    you just reminded me of a time I nearly laughed myself into a barfing
    fit:
    
    "whaddaya mean you had a night out with the girls?  didn't you give up
    girls when you got married?"
    
    jeez louise, hasn't anyone ever heard of _friends_ ...
    
      Annie

    I get angry when I think about the impact male violence toward females
    has had, and still has, upon my life.
    
    I get angry that there are many places I can't go alone, without being
    verbally or physically assaulted.
    
    I get angry when managers comment on my looks and dress, rather than my
    professional acumen, which never happens to my male colleagues.
    
    I get angry when people make assumptions about my intelligence, or
    about what I can and can't do, or what I should and shouldn't do,
    because I'm a woman.
    
    I get angry that there are so many negative things that I have to be
    aware of, when I'd rather focus on things that are positive and make me
    happy.
    
    cheryl

    I get angry (and angrier) because everytime women say what makes them
    angry, the men get all in a huff and says things like "Well how would
    you like us to just ignore you, huh?"  I get angry because women aren't
    supposed to get angry and that PISSES ME OFF!
    
    D!

    I get anger because women are physically and emotionally still
    abused....by those who claim to love them....
    
    I get anger when some young men are still treating women the same as
    their fathers and grandfathers did.....society hasn't changed, I still see
    young men trying to keep women as property....have babies and tend to
    housework....It amazes me that again and again I hear myself saying....
    Don't talk to her like that, don't call her those names....men have to
    help with bringing children up.....and the double standards that these
    young men have are incredible...it's ok for me but not for my wife or
    girlfriends......
    
    I get anger that women are still raped, killed, and toss away as if we are
    nothing.....
    
    I get very anger when I hear the stories of so many women of the hurt
    and pain that they have felt because of the injustices that they have
    had in their lives..........
    

    I am a woman and I am not angry or get angry easily...
    What makes the basenote think that all women are angry?
    
    I am in my "half-way" life more or less, (upper 40's) and in all that 
    time, I have always been treated very nicely by everyone around me.
    Why should I be angry? at whom? or why?
    
    I treat everybody as best as I can and with respect, and  that's
    exactly the way people treat me, so please, take me out of your group of 
    angry women... (do you really have that many?)

    I get angry when something said to me is in direct relation
    to how "his mother did it" and that I am not meeting his
    expectations.  No, I am not a perfect housekeeper (not even
    close...I hate housework! (-;) and things have to slide so
    I can fit things to do/things I want to do in!!!!
    
    			AArrrggghhhh!
                                                            
    
    I get angry when someone doesn't have the "brass" to talk
    to me about something, and goes behind my back to the boss....
    I get angry when they do this, because all it seems to do is
    make me look like a B*tch, and gives people fuel towards the
    wrong opinion some butthead already gave them....
    
    HRH

I get extremely angry with men using "backlash" power and thereby making a
weapon out of some hard fought gains.  Some examples:

	Reverse discrimination suits - tries to take power from Affirmative
	 Action and throw it back in our faces (I HATE these).

	Labelling beliefs/people as PC tyrants - trying to make it cool to
	 be non-PC or at least make those who attempt to be PC look like
	 oppressors.  Makes it a lot easier to do the wrong thing, huh?

	Total Denial - Hey!  Didn't you know?  Discrimination based on sex
	 no longer exists - we took care of that a long time ago.  FFfffttt!

Barb

p.s.  What the h*ll IS reverse discrimination anyway?  I mean, thing about
       it....

    
    
    I am angry at WOMEN. 
    
    Women who are too weak to say NO.
    Women who have no pride.
    Women who can't see passed their own front door.
    Women who pass on the ignorance to their children.
    Women who blame all of the woes of the world on men but refuse to stand
    up and make a CHANGE.
    
    
    Mostly, I am talking about those who continue to get pregnant every nine
    and a half months, imposing a terrible burden on the planet, let alone
    the social system. Those who "Just CAN'T say  no" and are stupid enough
    to believe that keeping Bill around is just a matter of sex.
    And (I'm angry at)those who defend a womans right to have as many offspring
    as she can put fourth, thereby overriding the rights of every other
    human being on the planet.
    
    
    AND (since I've already dug the hole pretty DAMNED deep)
    Since it seems to be the general opinion of this note that all men are
    walking breathing sex machines, who ELSE is going to take responsibility
    for the overpoplulation and social problems created by TOO MANY BABIES?
    
    Women. JUST SAY NO! (at least after the 5th abortion and 6th kid...)
    
    So that's what I think women SHOULD be angry about, among some other
    very good points mentioned so far...  
    
    :-)
    Cathy  
    
    Oh, and while we're at it, we should ALSO be angry at those who
    continue to 'sell out' the female gender by prostituting themselves in 
    such a way as to feed the idea that women are bodies with staples in
    their navals. 
    GET A REAL JOB.   And those who defend that person while complaining to
    NOT understand why men oggle women the way they do. WHAT DO WE EXPECT?
    
    ..I feel much better now!
    
    

    
    	There's a name for that - "internalized misogyny."
    
    	It's far easier to suffer from it than to realize that it's
    	happening (and it afflicts many of us - which is one of the
    	things that makes *me* angry.)
    

    
    re .25:  I guess I'm guilty too, then, Suzanne.  Because so
    far, .24's reply has made angriest of all I've seen to date.
    

    
    	RE: .26  Ellen
    
    	Being angry at an individual's words is not the same thing as 
    	telling other women we "SHOULD" (in capital letters) be angry 
    	at women as an entire class.
    
    	I'd regard .24 as an instance of internalized misogyny - I
    	didn't see anyone else here tell other women that we SHOULD
    	be angry at men as a class, for example (I only saw women
    	express their anger at behavior, eg. the various injustices
    	that are visited upon women.)

    I am angry that human beings still treat cats, in general, 
    as throw-away objects.  That they do not seem to 
    realize/care/whatever, that these and other animals DO feel 
    hunger, cold, pain......  
    
    I'm also angry that my sister, who I thought had finally pulled
    herself up by the bootstraps and proceeded on with her life, (after
    the death of her husband 5 yrs ago..), is still floundering with
    the "poor me, I'm just a helpless woman" attitude.  Arrgghh!!!!
    
    
    	HRH

    
    re .25
    
    "internalized misogyny".
    
    Using that logic, then all of my problems are not really MY problems
    but rather the fault of someone else, most probably a man. Any man.
    All men. 
    Wow. If I'd known it was that easy...
    
    isn't there a word for someone who won't take the blame for ANYTHING?
    
    Also, I never said that I HATE women. I don't. But I refuse to say that
    all men are to blame for everything. Women can "give in to the 
    uncontrollable sexual urges of men" and STILL NOT GET PREGNANT.
    It isn't necessarily the man's fault that a woman gets pregnant. 
    But it's easier to say that men are mindless sex machines that to take
    some blame for not having enough GUTS to either say NO or to take some
    responsibility for our own lives. 
    
    I do NOT hate women. In fact I don't even remember saying that.
    
    I said that I am *ANGRY* at women who find it much easier and more
    comforting to sit back and blame men for everything, than standing up
    and taking some responsibility for their own actions or lack of. 
    
    I've seen one point constantly driven into the ground in this
    notesfile.
    This point is that men are mindless sex ogres who would run rampent on
    the streets if they thought they could get away with it. 
    I don't necessarily agree with this opinion, but if this IS true, if
    men are really just clean cut versions of their cave men ancestors,
    then why don't WOMEN take some responsibility for things that concern
    their OWN well being? What I'm trying to say is, if you KNOW that dogs
    chase cats, and that dogs will ALWAYS chase cats, and you accept that
    that's the way dogs are and have always been, then you BETTER protect
    your cat.... :-)
    
    P.S-- I DON'T believe that all men are walking talking sex machines!!!
    (So you men noters out there can put your hatchets away!!)
    
    Cathy
    

    
    re .29:  Stuff it in a sock, Cathy.
    
    Rape is not a choice, and women do get pregnant that way.
    Saying "no" just doesn't work sometimes, as has been *well*
    pointed out by many individual women's stories in this file.
    

     
    
    re .26
    
    Ellen (?)
    
    What part didn't you like??
    
    Cathy
    

    
    
    
    re last bunch.
    
    whoah now ladies.
    DID I say anything about rape??  
    NO.
    
    Did I say anywhere that women are responsible when they are raped?
    NO.
    
    Don't jump to comclusions. And please leave my socks out of this.
    
    I am talking about women who think that abortion is the alternative to
    saying no, or that popping babies out if okey dokey cause daddy wants
    sex.....
    
    relax ladies. READ what I said. I did NOT bring rape up. You did. With
    continuing regularity I might add.
    
    cathy (and socks)

    	RE: .29
    
    	Internalized misogyny includes the fact that you attribute a long
    	list of your own overblown assumptions to women.  In our culture,
    	women don't mean what we say - we mean what other people SAY we
    	mean (in this case, what YOU say we mean since you are the one
    	engaging in misogyny.)
    
    	It's not that unusual to be socialized to internalize misogyny
    	(or homophobia, as another example of the same phenomenon.)

    I have never really talked about this....but it is something that has
    made me angry and I will never understand why it happened....a woman was 
    killed by her estranged boyfriend because she left him....she wasn't
    happy to be with him....so she left.....
    
    I guess this has always haunted me because I knew who she was....she
    was like me....my age...lived in the same area....she worked.....
    taking care of a child....wanted the best out of life....
    
    This could easily happen to another women that I know or it could
    happen to my sisters or a close friend....now I know that this threat
    is always there and that angers me.....
    
    denise
    

    Way back in .0, Justine asked us not to make judgements of anyone's
    entries in this string.  I think it is a good idea.  That way we could
    have *one* *bloody* GOSH DARNED STRING IN THIS FILE WITHOUT ANY 
    ARGUMENTS RAGING!
    
    
    E Grace

	re:  many previous


	Let me get this straight.  If a woman is critical of some woman's
	actions or value system, this is "internalized misogyny" ?

	If a man is critical of some woman's actions or value system,
	he is a sexist pig ?

	Steve H

    rep .33 Suzanne
    
    Sorry, you lost me after the second "say what we mean".
    
    But I do think that I've figured out what makes Women angry??
    
    Women (at least if the last dozen or so notes are any indication)
    get really angry if another woman doesn't jump on the "Men are the skum
    of the earth" band wagon. 
    Women get angry when someone tells them to take some responsibility for
    their own lives.
    Women get angry over laundry (that's all I can figure about the 'sock'
    thing  ;-)
    
    
    Ok, so in the interest of NOT getting everyone on the "I hate Cathy"
    train, let me just say that I DO take after my father. See, there IS
    a man behind this   
    
    :-)  sorry ladies. Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers!
    
    Cathy
    

FWIW, I don't see Cathy's .24 as exhibiting internalized misogyny, I see
it as an anger at women who support attitudes that she feels contribute
to the way society views *her*.

I took the fact that she directs her anger at women to mean that she thinks
these women are making a larger contribution to the problem than are men
with similar attitudes.

    I don't hate you, Cathy! (-;
    
    HRH

    	RE: .37  Cathy
    
    	You didn't take any responsibility for any of the untrue, unfair
    	things you accused other women of doing.  All you did was to
    	show an exceptional amount of prejudice against other women (NOT
    	including yourself.)
    
    	Big deal.  Our culture is full of such prejudice.  What makes
    	you so special for engaging in it yourself (for jumping on the
    	"women are evil and nasty" bandwagon yourself, especially when
    	none of what you said is designed to include you.)
    
    	Congrats.  You're a hero.  You tried to tell the evil, nasty
    	women off (distinguishing yourself as not "one of us.")
    
    	In a society that spends so much time doing what you just did,
    	you took the easiest escape route.  Not the one requiring the
    	most courage, but certainly understandable (since you are most
    	definitely as much a target of this prejudice as any other
    	woman when you aren't busy engaging in it yourself.)

    Re .40: I don't want to get into this, but - what "untrue, unfair"
    things? Surely, there are women who do those things, and if those are
    the women whose behavior makes her angry, what's the matter with
    saying so?
    
    The reply in this string that made _me_ the angriest was the one in
    which someone said that, since s/he'd always been nice to people and
    people had always been nice back, there wasn't anything for him/her to
    be angry about. Not that people don't have a right to not be angry (if
    you're following me so far), but the attitude that "if it isn't
    happening to _me_ it doesn't matter" does tend to start the smoke
    coming out of my ears.
    
    Even though I have been guilty of that attitude myself at times...
    
    -b

    Suzanne et al.,
    
    It appears to me that Cathy Pitt responded fully in the spirit of this
    string.  She said what makes her angry.  As requested by Justine in .0,
    she did not take potshots at anyone else's anger.
    
    You have collectively set yourselves up as being better than she is,
    entitled to judge her and pick at her anger without allowing her the
    same privilege.  I'm not a woman, but your visibly self-righteous
    condemnation of Cathy's remarks makes me angry.
    
    E's request that this string not degenerate into ping pong is worth
    heeding.
    
    -d

    	Cathy told US what "SHOULD" (she used capital letters for this)
    	make us angry - and it was "WOMEN" as a class.
    
    	Further, she accused the women *HERE* of not taking responsibility
    	for anything (simply because women in 992.* expressed anger at things
    	like violence against women.)  She assigned motives for why women
    	dislike crimes committed against us.
    
    	Cathy is using the old misogynist copout that if women dislike
    	the way we are treated, it's a sign of hatred of all men (and
    	she used the words "all men.")
    
    	Cathy attacked the people of this string, basically, and this
    	makes ME angry (especially to see misogyny used as a weapon
    	against people here for daring to express what makes us angry.)

    I see nothing Untrue/Unfair about Cathy's assertions.  She has every
    right to be angry.   I feel angry that her assertions were questioned
    and invalidated and mislabelled.  I agree with Cathy.  Men aren't
    totally at fault.  Women share the blame. 
    
    Kathy  
    

    
    	No one said men were totally to blame - NO ONE.
    
    	But as long as you and Cathy are so interested in taking blame,
    	then blame yourselves for the rapes of women every 5 minutes.
    	It'll be interesting to watch.
    

    
    Well, Cathy, I honestly just don't see where you're coming
    from.
    
    It's so far away from my experience in life and that of those
    I've been associated with (family and colleagues) and those
    I've chosen to associate myself with (friends), that I guess
    I can't understand *why* the things you mentioned make you so
    "ANGRY", as you said.  I mean, I certainly can't get upset
    over the things you mentioned.  Some of the things you mentioned
    sound like things that stupid people do.  So what?  There are
    a lot of stupid people in the world.  It doesn't necessarily
    make me "angry".
    
    I can't say that *I* regularly bump into women who have
    "gotten pregnant every 9 1/2 months" as you seem to be so angry
    over (unless this includes my own sweet, dear mother and I'm
    guessing since you don't even know her that you couldn't possibly
    have meant her, but if you did, then I am justifably *very*
    angry!).
    
    I also can't say I know many (or any?) women who don't or
    can't or won't live their lives without blaming men.  Just what
    kind of women do you associate with anyway, Cathy?  I'll admit
    that there are ignorant, stupid women out there - just like
    there are *men*!
    

>    	then blame yourselves for the rapes of women every 5 minutes.
>    	It'll be interesting to watch.
    
	This conference has to be the most popular meeting place
	of the non-sequitur club !

	Cathy's assertions of her distaste for women who take the
	easy route in bad relationships, or who have children
	for the extra AFDC checks, or who have abortions casually
	does not have anything to do with rape !

	Geez.

	Steve H

    	Steve, you're responsible for your own lack of attention.
    
    	Cathy accused women here of not taking responsibility for the
    	things that made them angry.  Most of the things listed were
    	crimes against women.
    
    	So, if Cathy wants women to take responsibility for the crimes
    	against women (that they listed as making them angry,) then
    	Cathy can put her money where her mouth is and show us how to
    	take the blame for national crime.

    Steve,
    
    I don't know what notes you've been reading, but I don't recall
    Cathy -- or anyone in this string -- writing about women taking
    the "easy route in bad relationships" (although Cathy did urge women
    to get angry about women who used their sexuality to maintain a
    relationship) or about women "who have children for the extra AFDC
    checks" (although Cathy did urge women to get angry about women who
    had large numbers of children) or about women "who have abortions
    casually" (although, as part of urging women to get angry about women
    who had large numbers of children, Cathy did urge women to get angry
    about women who had <mumble greater than two> children and <mumble
    greater than two> abortions).
    
    						Ann B.

Flipping through these responses reminded me of an evening I experienced
about two weeks ago when I was in Ohio to attend a family reunion.

I spent an evening with my second cousin, Elaine, her brother Norman, and 
a good friend of Elaine's. They wanted to take me out to one of Cleveland's 
'hot spots' so we headed off to "The Flats"... Within the flats is a place
called the Powerhouse... an old ...well, powerhouse that was converted into a
mini shopping mall. Down on the ground floor, at one end of the Powerhouse is
the Howl of the Moon Saloon. You could hear people singing tunes from the 60's
and 70's anytime you were down in that end of the mall. A very popular night
spot with a line of people waiting to get in. 

I do enjoy parties with large groups of people but I'm not especially fond of
bars/saloons ... why pay a $3-$5 cover to stand in a jam packed room, people
bumping into you all the time, music so loud you have to yell to talk to the
person next to you and eyes hurting from the smoke? I sensed that they wanted
wanted to check the place out and I didn't have any real objection to going in
so I figured what the heck...... maybe I'd enjoy a few hours in a festive
setting hearing some tunes which I haven't heard for a long time. We waited in
line and as we entered were singing the song "You picked a fine time to leave
me Lucile" Wow... I haven't heard that one in YEARS! People were singing along,
swaying back and forth and I could feel a good_time_party mood coming over me.
There was no place left to sit so we stood off to one side of the stage. On
stage there were two pianos and two piano players belting out the tune.
Everybody was really into it.... Finally the chorus came up ...... 

	You picked a fine time to leave me Lucile....
 
(at this time MOST of the male population in the saloon... along with some of
the females joined in, punching the air over their heads and YELLING at the
top of their voices...)

	YOU BITCH!!!!!
	YOU SLUT!!!!!!
	YOU WHORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

	...with two hundred (200?) children and a crop in the field....

I could feel my eyes open a little wider and my jaw sag a little while at the
same time my brain is going 'Whoa... this is a little....... unusual.' They
finished the song and went on to a couple more songs from the 60's and 70's.
By this time I was beginning to think 'Well, maybe the Lucile song was a
one time "let's pick on women" thing that they do.... meant to be in jest
although I felt it was in poor taste.' All the time they were playing people
were putting notes along with dollar bills on the pianos and every once in a
while one of the piano players would pick up a note...

"Is Jane Amari here?..... where's Jane???.... (people point to Jane) 'Cmon up
here Jane..." 

Jane, looking more like she's moving towards the stage due to prodding from
friends than of her own free will, threads her way up to the stage.

"OK folks... it says here that today is Jane's birthday and we're all 'gonna
sing Happy Birthday to Jane"....

(everybody sings...)

	Happy birthday to you... JANE!!!!
	Happy birthday to you... JANE!!!!
	Happy birthday dearrrrrrrr Jane......
	YOU BITCH!!!!!
	YOU SLUT!!!!!!
	YOU WHORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	Happy birthday to you!

Jane turns red, giggles, and makes her way back to her seat and I'm thinking
'Sheesh! I don't believe this place!..... I can't imagine that a place like
this would go over well in the Boston area!..... at all!'

  This practice continued over the next hour or so. In fact I began to notice
that whenever a woman's name was mentioned...either in a song they sung or
as a result of a note left on the piano "she" always got a round of

	YOU BITCH!!!!!
	YOU SLUT!!!!!!
	YOU WHORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

from everyone in the room! The thing that got me was the men really seemed to
be into this chant... it wasn't just a 'fun thing' I could see the attitude
really was 'You Bitch, You Slut, You Whore' and the women were just taking it
all in!!!!... like yup.... that's our role...we're bitches, sluts and whores!
The 'acceptance' of the whole thing is what got to me and I was beginning to
feel a bit uncomfortable with the whole situation.

   About this time they decided to sing "Joy to the World" (Three Dog Night
version - not the Christmas carol) and the piano players were showing the
people in the saloon the hand motions that go with the song...

	Joy....		(Open hands on either side of face - BIG smile)
	to the world..	(Use both hands to outline a big circle)
	All...		(Arms out to the sides)
	the boys	(rub hands on crotch)
	and girls	(rub hands on chest)

	and so forth....

So they did the song a couple of times and then got a 'volunteer' from the
audience.... female of course. One piano player stood behind her, his arms
under hers and extending out in front of her while the other piano player
informs everyone...

"OK now we're 'gonna do the song again and if there are ANY foul ups we're
'gonna hafta start the song allllllllll over again!!!!!!"

(whoops and cheers from the people in the saloon... volunteer very embarrassed)
I'm not entirely sure that I believe what I'm seeing/hearing. He isn't
*really* going to do this........ is he? 

They start....

	Joy to the world,
	All the b.....  (volunteer crosses her hands over her crotch)

"Oh no..... now we gotta start allllllll over again!"

another false start.... another .... and another.... and another.... again....
obviously they seem very intent on going through with this and are not going
to let her get out of this. I believe in frustration she finally gives in
and stands like statue and they make it through the song. I was feeling
RATHER disgusted with the whole thing. This is supposed to be fun? For what
it is worth I don't think the piano player actually touched her crotch or
her breasts but I felt she was 'raped' just the same.

I turned to Elaine and said "I've seen enough - I'm ready to go any time you
are".

"OK - Just a minute."

   They get another (ahem) 'volunteer'..... only this time they put her behind
the piano player and now she is going to go through the motions. The piano
player is 'adjusting himself'.... tugging at his pantleg as if his penis
goes all the way down to his knees. (audience roars it's approval).

"Remember if you don't go through with it we'll 'hafta start alllllll over
again!..... Here we go...."

They start and when they get to "all the boys" she has her hands about 4-6
inches in front of his crotch and wiggles them....

"Un Unh...... No Good!.... We 'hafta start all over again and we're gonna
do it until you get it right!!!!!!"

Well, after 6....7....8 false starts the piano player who is still at his
piano overhears a woman behind him say something....

"OK... OK... we got someone over here who says she'll do it!!!!"

So the get her up on stage and they start....

	Joy to the world,
	All the boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooys
	and girlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllls

   and she did it.... she didn't just touch - she caressed and the crowd went
crazy. They did it again and this time she did 'boys' with one hand going
between his legs from behind and another one around his hip with a chorus
of whoops and yells from the saloon. The piano player who has been playing
all this time jumps up and yells *** MY TURN!!!!!! ***

  We left shortly after that. I breathed a sigh of relief just to get out of
there and upset that I had 'supported' this type of behavior simply by being
present not to mention paying a cover charge to get in! There was still a long
line of people waiting to get in when we left. 

It's sad to see that not only is sexism very much alive and well, it's also a
form of ENTERTAINMENT heavily supported by (much of?) the public. It is
encouraged by places like the Howl of the Moon Saloon that only reinforce this
type of behavior while making a LOT of money in the process.... and that makes
me angry. Sexism is LEARNED behavior and it was sad to see this being passed on
to the next generation. School was in full session and what I saw was a room
full of straight A students!

I enjoy a good dirty joke once in a while .... jokes about women... jokes
about men - and all the kidding and horsing around that can go on between the
sexes that is clearly (I hope!) meant to be in fun and nothing more. But what
I experienced was way, way over the line of 'just having fun'...... it was
the brainwashing of a whole generation...... It is still going on and it won't
stop until "we"...... men and women together, change the status quo. I am
angry about what I saw - and I'd like to see it changed.

   Rick

    I'm not really angry about the following...
      but it fits in with some of the things that were mentioned earlier.
    
    When I first began looking for a job 2 years ago (Dec wasn't hiring
    so my internship was moot) the technical employment firms told me
    that I should take any job, at any level.  They also pointed out,
    strongly, that my CS degree was not enough, and if I had to be an
    operator and/or take a very low salary (less than many secretaries),
    I should... so that I could "get my foot in the door".  They did
    not, even with all of this, locate a job.
    
    I went to a temp/type agency to get work ... for the interim.
    After the typing test (No snickers please...I can do OK sometimes..)
    they informed me that they would love for me to work through them.
    However... my CS degree made me OVER-qualified for their jobs.
    One temp agency found a contact...who had a contact... who had a contact,
    and they placed me with a company that... AFTER taking and blowing away
    a CS aptitude test, agreed that they would hire me for customer
    support, Quality Assurance, and an occasional code rewrite.  They
    did it, however, at the secretary's salary...since I had come in
    from a temp agency.
    
    Six months later, the firm hired a male that I was to orient and
    train to perform the same job I did.  He earned $6,000 a year more
    than I did.
    
    This was my introduction to the corporate structure.
    
    Cindi
    
    P.S.- A year later, a couple of the guys in the computer techinical
    firms called me back to see how I was doing.  When I explained the
    work I had done... they suddenly changed keys and decided that I
    was ... as they termed it "golden" ... and if I wanted to move
    to a new technical job...I should just tell them... 
    
    I thought it was kind of funny... When I first went to them... they
    had acted very differently.

    It just proves the old addage...that "sex" sells.....
    
    HRH

    
    sounds like its time to send Cheka to Cleveland..

    re .51
    
    Thank you Rick, for sharing that story.  It is that sexist attitude that
    has made me angry for years.  Why can't men and women see each other as
    people, instead of all the epitaphs we use for each other???????
    
    What else makes me angry? Child abuse and our systems failure to help
    those children in need.
    
    Karen

    
    I'm angry because up until about 8 months ago I couldn't GET angry!
    
    I was told I had to be nice all my life and couldn't get angry or
    nobody would like me (particularly not boys!  and you know how
    important it is to please them!)
    
    I was so BILKED into the "you-gotta-get-a-man" that I felt I was
    nothing without one.
    
    I am ANGRY.  I feel CHEATED.  I want to take the girl children of the
    world and SHAKE them and pipeline into their brains the facts that they
    are fine AS THEY ARE, being fully THEMSELVES, complete with the
    standard emotions (ALL OF THEM) and identity (ALL OF IT, ALL BY
    HERSELF).
    
    And her FREEDOM.
    
    -Jody
    

    I'm angry because I heard one of those trite comments,
    i.e. "women don't know how to drive"....This coming
    today, after my neighbor's son fell asleep at the wheel and
    took out two cars before he hit the guardrail this past
    weekend.
    
    HRH

    
    
    re .40
    
    chill out susie.
    
    I will take your insults and mull them over with the attention thaty
    they deserve. 
    And thank you for you time. 
    
    Cathy
    
    

    I'm kind of wry on these two too...
    
    In high school, I gave my applications to my CS professor for
    College.  The ones for Harvard, I found a few months after the deadline
    in his desk at school.
    
    I saw him one day, on Campus at Columbia, strolling accross the
    campus.  He said hello, and was very cordial.  
    
    "So you've come here" he said. "It will be good for you, Barnard
    will be a lot of fun". Barnard is the female division of the
    University.
    "I do not attend Barnard", I replied,"I believe I attend YOUR
    Alma Mater/Subdivision... the former BOYS division of Columbia
    College.  They admit women you know."
    He looked stricken, "But why!" he almost shouted, his eyes
    opening wide "Barnard is right accross the street, and you could
    take almost all of the same classes at the Girls School."
    
    This was the man that was supposed to have written my recommendations.
    ...apparently, even though he had even have me teach some of his
    classes when he was out, he presumed that because I was female,
    I should attend the female school.  Maybe for Harvard...I should
    have handed him something that said "Girls' Division".  He might
    have mailed it.
    
    
    ---------------------------------
    
    My gradmother was real hyped on the concept of my husband graduating
    from law school in a couple of years.
    This Christmas, she sat in the home where my computer job pays the
    bills, ate the DEC turkey, and said :
    
    "Now you be sure to hold on to that husband of yours...he's going
    to be somebody.  Make sure you hang tight, and eventually, once
    he establishes himself, you can be his secretary."
    
    I'm not sure on this one, what I am the most wry about... The fact
    that she ignored my career entirely, the fact she ignored the 60k
    her own daughter spent so I could do CS, the fact that my Mom is
    CS also(which paid for their trip to MA from NYC), the fact
    that she apparently attended my graduation without knowing what
    I had been there for, or that there are MANY women of her generation
    who STILL may think the same thing in that situation. 
    
    Definately a crooked smile for these two, one for a male bias,
    one for a female...
    
    CINDI  

    	RE: .58  Cathy Pitt
    
    	> chill out susie.
    
    	You called me Suzanne, earlier.  Change of game plan?
     
        > And thank you for you time. 
    
    	My pleasure, Cathy.

    I get angriest at abuse, any, but especially of children.
    
    I was angry at my sister, when she stayed with an abusive man.  My
    (male) friend said, 'where are your brothers???' but I believed then,
    and told him, that until and unless she decided for herself to get rid
    of the deadbeat, chasing him off wouldn't work because she could always
    find another if she couldn't find him again.  (happy ending, she dumped
    him long long ago.)  But as an adult, she needed to take the step, the
    responsibility; I could not do it for her.
    
    still, I had murder fantasies about the deadbeat.

     re .60
    
    No change of game plan. *I* am not playing a game. 
    I simply thought that I would address you with the same total lack of
    respect and consideration and disdain that you address others. 
    
    I did not comment in this note to have a personal battle of 15
    syllable words with you. 
    
    In the interest of perserving the peace, I will withdraw my use of the
    word SHOULD. Let me restate that it BLOWS ME AWAY that women are NOT
    angry at women for NOT saying "ENOUGH" to starving babies and homeless
    children caused, in VERY MANY cases by women NOT saying "ENOUGH".
    
    I am not asking you to LIKE what I said, or even Understand it. But I
    DO have the right to say any damned thing I want, and BE anything I
    want. If you choose to label every women who doesn't bow to your men
    hating ideas, then so be it. There are labels for everyone. I'd rather
    be wearing mine right now. 
    
    Cathy
    
    

    RE: .62  Cathy
    
    > I simply thought that I would address you with the same total lack 
    > of respect and consideration and disdain that you address others. 
    
    Changing someone's first name is a petty form of retribution, though.
    
    > In the interest of perserving the peace, I will withdraw my use of the
    > word SHOULD. Let me restate that it BLOWS ME AWAY that women are NOT
    > angry at women for NOT saying "ENOUGH" to starving babies and homeless
    > children caused, in VERY MANY cases by women NOT saying "ENOUGH".
    
    Who are you talking about when you categorize "women" (as in "women are
    NOT angry at women...")??  There are over 2 billion of us on the planet.
    How do you know that none or few of us are angry at the same things as
    you?
    
    And, who are the "women" who don't say "ENOUGH" to starving babies
    and homeless children?  Are you talking about poor women?  Black women?
    Hispanic women?  Young women?  Inner city women?  Who?
    
    > I am not asking you to LIKE what I said, or even Understand it. But I
    > DO have the right to say any damned thing I want, and BE anything I
    > want. 
    
    So do I, including the right to comment on your notes, and BE Suzanne.
    
    > If you choose to label every women who doesn't bow to your men
    > hating ideas, then so be it. There are labels for everyone. I'd 
    > rather be wearing mine right now. 
    
    Believe me, internalizing misogyny is the far safer road to take in
    today's world.  If you didn't spend so much time insulting women as
    a group, you'd be in danger of being labeled a man hater, too, by
    default (for daring to have opinions.)

    
    
    
    SUZANNE,
    Sorry, but your 'greater-than-thou' attitude brings out the worst in
    me.
    
    You can believe that I hate women and even give it some big term that
    you picked up in PSYCH101. Obviously I also hate my mother and was
    probably abused as a child but am hiding it deep in the back of my
    memory. I should seek therapy and know that you care....
    ok. fine. I feel much better now. 
    
    And what makes PEOPLE angry? People with attitudes. People who choose
    to know everything. 
    
    Ok, so now pull my note apart one line and a time. Tell me what Uncle
    Sigmund would say. 
    
    I have REAL work to do.
    
    Cathy
    
    
    

    	RE: .64  Cathy
    
    	If you weren't prepared to discuss who the women are that you keep
    	talking about here, no problem.
    
    	All the other junk about "PSYCH101" and "Uncle Sigmund" is just
    	noise.  I have no idea in the world where you dug those up in
    	relation to me, but I presume it's part of the same process you
    	used when you chose a nickname for me.
    
    	I'll tell you what it means to "internalize" misogyny some day
    	when you aren't in a snit, ok?

    And to think you two actually *work* near each other!  ;^)
    
    
    
    
                                     L.J.

    There are a couple of things that make me angry, in addition to all the
    obvious injustices that have been mentioned here earlier.
    
    I'm angry that I'm afraid to walk out on my own. I live in the UK, & to
    be honest, the chances that I would be raped/mugged/killed are pretty
    remote, but the fact that it's a possibility makes be afraid, and that
    makes me mad. Partly at the world in which this happens, partly at
    myself for feeling like this, it affects what I do. I mean I've always
    been wary about where I go etc, but it annoys me that I'm so concious
    of it now, I'm more scared than I used to be when I was younger.
    
    What makes me really, really, really mad though, is when an
    intelligent, considerate, lovable person makes a stupid sexist remark
    when they really ought to have the intelligence to know better. One of
    my friends did this once, he made some comment that perhaps there
    should be a law to make women stay at home & look after their kids
    while they were very young. I was *wild* !!! Particularly cos he is a
    bright guy and if he'd really stopped to think about what he'd said, he
    would have agreed no-one ought to dictate what anyone else *should* do
    in that sort of circumstance. If he'd said, "generally, I think it's a
    good idea that..." I wouldn't have agreed, but I wouldn't have been so
    mad. As it was, I managed to make him eat his words by the time I'd
    finished with him !!!!
    
    Another thing that's sort of bugging me at the moment is a conflict
    within me. I have always been bright & expected to have a career etc,
    but I've also wanted to get married & have kids. I feel like there's no
    role models out there, I feel a conflict like intellectually I feel I
    deserve a gtood job etc, but perhaps emotionally I still haven't learnt
    to be independent. There's still a bit of me that want's someone to
    look after me a bit I suppose. (I know, I know, 28 years old & still
    growing up - well I never thought I would stop.) I guess what it is
    that makes me mad is whilst I've been encouraged to do well
    intelectually, I've not been encouraged to take responsibility for
    myself enough. I don't really blame anyone for this, & I'll take the
    responsibility foer working on it, but I can't help wishing my parents
    had been a bit less protective. Ah well, I expect I'll make the same
    mistake when the time comes...
    
    
    	Sarah.

    re .64:  "greater-than-thou" attitude?

    That's funny you should say that, Cathy, 'cause I definitely
    feel that coming from you.  See my reply in 998.49.

    

    I'm sorry, but I can't even understand what you were talking about, let
    alone respond to you.
    
    You talkin' to me??
    
    Cathy

	I can't think of anything that makes me really angry at the moment,
	however, some of the concerns that people seem to have seem a little
	off-kilter with the facts.

	Young men are 10 times likey to be attacked and injured in the street 
	than wommen.
	So why do many women say they feel afraid to walk anywhere because
	of fear of attack when men don't - it doesn't seem logical.
 
	I don't feel afraid, I regularly walk to and from the pub, and many
	other places, about half of the time I'm by myself.

	I have walked home an old gent, who was a little afraid to walk past
	a few youths sitting on the corner, but I can remember sitting on
	corners myself, and I suppose people might have been a bit afraid
	of us - tho for no actual reason!

	I believe many women could do more for themselves by concentrating on
	themselves and what they do well, than by concentrating on
	percieved predudices, which in reallity, may not be there at all, or
	may be brought on themselves by their own attitudes and perceptions.

	I don't think that women have a monopoly on this tho', except I see
	more women putting themselves in this position than men.

	Heather

    
    I get ... I don't know if angry is the right word, perhaps sad ... at
    women who have an attitude as in .9 - that women who get married in
    their early 20's and perhaps have children are "buying in to the plan", 
    throwing their life away, and all they've got to look forward to is 
    getting fatter and losing their husbands to younger women once they're
    in their 40s and even thicker round the middle.
    
    For a start, that statement is, if ever I saw one, a reinforcement of
    the old idea that women who are "thick round the middle" aren't
    attractive.  But that's not really my point.  I am 22 and have been
    married a year.  I haven't got any children but expect we'll be
    starting a family (joint effort) in about 4/5 years.  Why am I "buying
    in to the plan?".  Why shouldn't I be young, married and happy?  Why
    should I feel that having children will make me a fat, unattractive,
    exhausted, nervous wreck and that my husband will bear none of the
    load/responsibility?
    
    I am not throwing my life away at an early age by tying myself to a
    man.  It annoys me that some people assume I am.  I have a good job (in
    which I have never been either complimented on the way I look rather
    than the way I work, or made to feel that I am inadequate because I am
    female, and I work in a group of five males and me), I am married to a
    man I love, and I have retained my independence in that I still go out
    with my friends regularly, I decide how I do my hair etc.
    
    My husband is one of those rare (or so you might think from reading
    some of the notes in this string) men who actually *help around the
    house* ... he does all our ironing, he does vacuuming, he does
    shopping, he does washing up, among other things - he's been doing all
    this for two years now!  He works full-time, he's not sexist ... and
    I'm sure he's not the only one out there!
    
    Honestly, I'm happy being young and married - please don't tell me I
    shouldn't be!
    
    Sam
    

    
    
    re .70 and .71
    
    Great notes! But you two better take shelter...  :-)
    
    cat
    

    Well, I've read just about every reply to this topic, and am, once again, 
    thoroughly disappointed in my own gender's "shortcomings" (for lack of a 
    better word) ...but now that it's been established as to the various 
    gender-associated reasons for women being angry at men...what do people 
    intend to do (or have already done) to lessen the anger associated with 
    these circumstances/conditions? 
    
    Are people going to just grit their teeth and bear with these atrocities of 
    rape, abuse, inequality, and defamation (etc.) because people feel it's 
    "a man's world and will never change..." or do we try to change these 
    patterns of thinking which have been perpetuated over generations and 
    generations?
    
    If not for the entire female gender, then how can people change these
    circumstances/conditions of their own world that they live, work, and play
    in? Instead of our complaining about the subject matter, how do we, as a 
    society or as individuals, intend to try and modify things for the better?
    
    

    re.73
    
    Indeed the song remains the same ... as does the counter-melody.
    
    "Tell us what you're doing to <end the anger ... whatever> instead of
    just stewing in you anger"
    
    As if somehow saying I/we are angry or being angry automatically
    short-circuits all higher brain function.
    
    The two a separate, but related, issues.  There is abundant discussion of
    what women are doing and striving for in this conference. Yet any time
    a woman states she is angry, there is a near-immediate request that she
    get off her fat back-side and _do_ something about it.
    
    Does woman's expression of angry cause an immediate brain-dump on the
    part of her hearers of all non-anger-professing expression to date?
    
    Some women are angry that women are over-represented as victims of rape
    and domestic violence.  I see here in =wn= _many_ positive
    actions/reactions to this anger, running the gamut from founding a
    organisation devoted to educating women on their self-defense options
    to attempts to educate children to grow up not to look upon women as
    property or prey.
    
    Some women are angry that women are under-represented in positions of
    prestige, power, and responsibility in corporate life.  I see here in
    =wn= many expressions of how women are working to change this ranging
    from Valuing of Diversity Seminars to mentoring.
    
    Some women are angry that there are som many un-wanted children brought
    into the world only to be forgotten, neglected and abused once they are
    here.  The instances of women acting to combat this problem are
    _legion_ in =wn=:  Pro-Choice activism, contraceptive education,
    adoption/adoptee activism.
    
    I could go on and on and on; but do I really _need_ to do so?
    
      Annie

    
    Thank you, Annie.

    
    Re: .70 & .71 (especially)
    
    Amen! & Amen!  Now, these two think like Young Ladies (With a CAPITAL
    Y&L)!!! 
    
    Re: .71
    
      I started cheezing (interpreted: Smiling), when I read your reply.
    It's should be very enlightning to the rest.
    
    Keep it up!
    
       Lorenzo
    

    Gack!  Who wants to be a lady?  Tomboys have more fun...
    
    HRH

    Re .76: 
    
    Enlightening? That a person, having chosen a life that pleases her, is
    happy? Hmmmm - what a concept!
    
    Or did you mean that all the rest of us should marry her husband too?
    
    ;-)
    
    [Actually, I think all Lorenzo's notes are very amusing; only problem
    is, I keep "hearing" them in an Andrew Dice Clay tone of voice...]
    
    -b

	A young lady.

	There I am, walking home through the middle of Reading after the pubs
	kick out, walking past the youngsters who are worse for their drink,
	ignoring the macho men who are only making fools of themselves, I
	didn't quite picture myself as a young lady!

	However, being called young cheered me up!

	Heather - whos husband is a much better cook than she is, and has
		  someone in to do the cleaning and ironing.

    re.78 Umm, Lorenzo's expressed attitudes are not so surprising.
    Sounds to me like this community has largely forgotten that
    the Eastern_Mass._liberal mindset is _not_ the default attitude 
    in most of the world. Living, as I do, in a town populated largely 
    by imigrants from a country where that type of machismo is taken 
    for granted, Lorenzo sounds like a lot of my neighbors. You may
    not like it (I don't) but Lorenzo does illustrate (vividly ;-) )
    what it is that needs to be overcome in the struggle for equality.
    
    Dana

    re.80
    
    umm, Dana?
    
    Do you honestly believe that we've 'forgotten that the
    Eastern_Mass._liberal mindset is _not_ the default attitude of most of
    the world?'
    
    If so, I'm quite surprised.
    
    I may be going out on a limb here, but I believe I can speak with
    utter certainty when I state that we've _ALL_ encountered this attitude
    in the world at large -- with family, with neighbors, with aldermen,
    with carpenters, with prospective employers, -- the list may vary by
    individual, but I'm sure we all have encountered it, even in 'liberal
    eastern Massachusetts.'
    
    So what if it's a vivid illustration?  Do you _really_ think we are so
    sheltered, naive and stupid?
    
    Haven't you been reading what it said here?
    
      Annie

    Annie,
    
    Dana is just hurt because no one has acknowledged that he is qualified
    to be a woman.
    
    Now, since (by Lorenzo's definition) I am womanly, I'll determine who
    are women for sure.  Since I've always liked Suford and Tony's
    definition of feminine, I'll use that as my first criterion:  "Feminine
    is the quality of killing quickly and without pain.  Ex. `Emma Peel
    is very feminine.'"
    
    So, Beth Rust is in (Nice stroke.  One of the few times that overhand
    grip works best.), Cathy Bence is in (A surgically precise stroke to
    the heart, wasn't it?), and Nancy, Eagles and Dana work so hard at
    developing lethal accuracy that they must be in too.  Jamie, m' peti',
    I trust that Harry has taught you that skill set, so you're both in.
    
    Anyone who can cook, ior sew, ior clean is in.  Anyone who has ever
    worn a dress, skirt, stockings, pantyhose, bra, corset, long hair,
    jewelry, ior makeup is in.
    
    Anyone who has ever so much as contemplated becoming pregnant ior
    giving birth is in.
    
    						Ann B.

    Guess one of my old boyfriends qualifies.
    
    ps  He couldn't sew or clean...
    
    N :)

    re.81 My comment was aimed at the total hostility expressed here.
    All I see is Lorenzo insulted to pieces because he presents what
    is, to a great many people, a normal viewpoint.
    
    re,82 Ann, that's the nicest compliment you've ever paid me ;-)

No -- It's not his viewpoint. It's how he jams it up your, er.. ah, down your 
throat and insists that his is *the* only way.

Bruce

I do everything but knit and wear bras (and some other clothing), so I am 
pleased to hear that I qualify.

    RE-.74
    
    I stated, quite clearly, that if there was anything "we as a *people*"
    could do to initiate change, we should then do it, before another
    generation grows up with some of these same misconceptions which cause
    such acts (and emotions) to occur. I never singled out women, nor was I 
    putting women down in any way, nor did I say that they should get "up off 
    their lazy backsides and do something besides complain" about these issues.
    I believe you may have mis-interpreted what I wrote. These are problems
    of a society (ours), and not gender-specific.

    re.84
    
    I see.  
    
    There are many instances where 'a great many people' hold a 'normal
    viewpoint' that, while I can accept it, I cannot condone it or even be
    remotely civil about it.
    
    In my interactions with Lorenzo, I endeavoured to maintain some measure
    of civility. However, if hostility shone through, it is most probably
    because if am greatly offended.  I do not find Lorenzo's attitude
    inherently offensive -- it works for him and that's wonderful.  I don't
    expect him to change his expectations -- ditto.
    
    However, to be urged to change who I am, to be told I am _not_ who I
    am, is grossly offensive.  If I desired to be Lorenzo's wife or
    lady-friend, one of us would have some changing to do, yes indeed! But
    it is not what I desire, and I would be stupified if it was his.
    
    I have lived places where it was a normal, mainstream, viewpoint that
    all Catholics [Anglo- & Roman- ] are condemned to spend eternity in
    the fiery pit of Hell because they drink blood.  Being Anglican, I
    find the contention both ludicrous and false.  I don't condemn these
    normal, mainstream people for holding this opinion; but I put up a
    _serious_ defense when asked to convert to their way of thinking. [once
    when nothing else was working with a particular woman, I offered to
    drink _her_ blood since I was destined to burn anyway -- but, in the
    end, that was counter-productive...]
    
    In the world where I grew up, a normal viewpoint to hold was that
    Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Italians ... _anyone_ other that those of
    Northern European ancestry ... where only fit to be servants, factory
    workers, and agricultural workers.  This is a norm that sends me into
    ORBIT!!! I get _very_ hostile when confronted with this one; yet many
    very normal people still believe it. Shall I quietly sit back and allow
    these masses of normal people spout their narrow views as immutable
    truth?
    
    I think not.
    
      Annie

    I have to say that it's my belief that it isn't the "style" of Lorenzo's
    notes, it's the content that rankles people.  Blaming "style" is the
    same thing to me as the Soviet's use of "illness" as the reason for the
    disappearance of various political leaders.  It's easier to deal with
    in that it avoids the whole thing altogether.
    
    I believe L. raised such a rukus specifically because he *is* normal!
    Specifically because the views he's expressed are exactly the views
    women come up against, (regardless of all the rhetoric around), and his
    views represent the views *most* men have been raised with and the
    views *most* men secretly wish would still be acceptable to hold.  Life
    is *indeed* much easier for men if woman is narrowly defined and easily
    controllable within tight limits.  It's the same as the playpen for
    children.  They are *indeed* easier to manage when you are confident
    their range is limited.
    
    It becomes problematic for "society", (men), once women want to exercise 
    the full range of human emotion and the full range of human potential.  
    Suddenly the population on the planet "doubles".  Suddenly there is an 
    entire "species" to consider where one didn't exist before.  Suddenly the 
    competition for jobs and resources is doubled.  Suddenly men have to think 
    about more and different people than they ever did before.  Even the black 
    man at the country club was still a man and still had the most basic quality
    in common with the power structure - maleness.  But woman can never
    cross this line.  Woman isn't male and never will be.  And rather than
    have to take the time to learn, rather than have to have the patience
    to listen and understand and find the willingness to accept and
    incorporate, it's been far easier to merely legislate and control via
    laws and good ole basic muscle if need be and keep her within a
    societal "playpen".  And part of keeping her there is "accusing" women 
    who step out of those limits, threatening them with poverty, (no on will 
    marry you), and undesirability, (no one will marry you), and loneliness, 
    (no one will marry you), in an attempt to bring them back within the 
    acceptable limits - safe in the background where they don't have access to 
    the full range of human emotion and expression and so don't "bother" men 
    as much.  Men can visit "the playpen" when they wish, take one out, be
    nice to her, etc, but they always expect the playpen to be there,
    safely containing women who aren't currently being "furloughed" by a
    man.  They do not want to find lone women in the boardroom or on the
    flightdeck.  They are not comfortable with women moving through life
    with autonomy equal that of men, (which means you'll find them in the
    boardroom and on the flightdeck).  A woman is supposed to be "chosen"
    for special priviledge beyond the playpen limits, certainly not put on
    her jeans and scale the walls and jump out herself.
    
    Woman as human forces man to deal with "humans" more cognitively and
    less physically.  Where he could punch the black man on the shoulder in
    a gesture of acceptance, he doesn't know what to do with the woman. 
    "Accepting" her means finding something other than the standard,
    physical male expressions - it means men finding the "woman" in
    themselves in order to understand and meet women halfway.  Women have
    always been willing to meet men more than halfway.  We've sat, bored to
    tears, through football games, listened endlessly to the joys of having
    a good gear ratio, proudly presented a home-cooked meal when we can't
    cook.  Instead of setting themselves apart, viewing us from a distance
    and in judgement, men would do much better to lay down their arms and
    find the woman in themselves that really isn't much different from the 
    women in their lives.  But for men who can't or who won't do that, it's
    certainly easier to insist that woman "complete" them instead, and do
    it by insiting they be and only be those parts they cannot or will not be 
    themselves.  And in those cases it isn't the whole being greater than the 
    sum of its parts, it's the two parts being less than half of the whole to 
    begin with.  And that's a shame.
    
    Sandy   

I am angry when I hear the  "sweet young things" state how happy they are
and that "their" husbands will never leave them for a younger woman after the
kids are born. Why am I angry? Because I've seen the divorce statistics and I
know that most of them will have a rude and painful awakening. I see their
sisters all around me struggling as single parents. Do they know that many
divorces happen within two years of the child being born? Do they know how many
women are discarded after 20 years of marriage?

I am angry that being over 40 "devalues" me while it increaes a man's value. I
am angry that any gains made by women incite a backlash from men who feel that
any piece of the pie we get is taken from them.

I am angry that I'm not responsible if don't fight back and bitch if I do. liesl

    
    what makes you think that myn over 40 are valued any differently than
    wimmyn over 40 ?
    
    

 Re. .89

 > Do they know how many
 > women are discarded after 20 years of marriage?

        Just what the H**L does this mean. After X years of marriage a man
    decides it's not working and leaves. So what...The woman is an adult
    and responsible for herself. The man does not owe her. A man gives
    time,money, and love because he wants to not because he owes a woman.
    If women still believe men owe them something it's time to wake up and
    smell the coffee women brewed. If there are some women in this
    notesfile that believe men are their escape from the 9 to 5 world all I
    can say is to bad it's a new day done a new way. Men do not owe women a
    living. So if a man leaves a woman she can take care of herself.
    After all she is an adult.


    		Wayne

     Re: Bob
    
     Myn over 40 often have a fair amount of moula, and are valued
    accordingly. Wimmin over 40 often have lost the young look, and are
    valued accordingly. Not always true, but often enough to be noticed...
    
     re: Wayne
    
     There are circumstances, such as when a woman is a wonderful wife for
    20 years, raises all the kids, etc and gets dumped by the man for
    another woman (usually younger and prettier and a whole lot more fun in
    the sack) when it's pretty bogus to expect her to walk away with
    nothing for all the years she put into the relationship. If we sanction
    that, we can expect women to forgo the mommy track to work on their own
    careers, otherwise they are at the economic mercy of their husbands.
    
     The Doctah

	It happens the other way too you know, but I am a firm believer that if
	one half of a couple goes off with someone else, then the partnership 
	had serious problems.
	The "third" person is not the cause, they may be the catalyst.

	I left my older husband, he had just started to go grey and loose some
	hair. It could easily have been seen that I was leaving because I no 
	longer thought him young enough for me.
	In reality, he still acted like a 19 year old, and I could no longer
	live with someone who was so immature.
	I was strong enough to do this without having to have another 
	relationship to help me through. Many people aren't.
		
	If someone leaves just because of looks, seriously consider that you 
	could be much better off for it, however traumatic at the time.

	Heather

    
    Re: .89
    
    IMO, what a horribly cynical view of love and marriage.  I am probably
    one of those "sweet young things" you're talking about ... I know I
    can't guarantee that my husband will never leave me but I believe that
    he won't - otherwise why the h*ll would I have married him?  It makes
    me really angry to hear people trot out the old "You're happy now, but
    it won't last" line.  Why on earth can't we have a little optimism? 
    The divorce statistics may be high, but to be honest I wasn't thinking
    about them as I walked up the ailse.  I'm sorry if you've had a bad
    experience, or you may really believe that we'll all end up divorced,
    alone and miserable, but please, spare a thought for those of us who
    like to view life, not through rose-coloured spectacles, but with a
    fair degree of realistic optimism.  I'd rather not spend the next 20 
    years worrying about the "rude and painful" awakening I'm (according to 
    your note) more than likely to get.  I'll bet you're alot of fun at 
    weddings!
    
    Re: .76
    
    I think Lorenzo read me wrong here.  I wasn't trying to say I'm a Young
    Lady and happy to fit in to the "playpen" mould.  I am independent, I do 
    believe in freedom of choice for women, sex equality, equal career
    opportunities and equal pay, etc, etc, etc ... so does my husband!  The 
    point I was trying to make was that that doesn't all change just because 
    I married (in some people's opinion) "young".
    
    I really think that men should be given *some* credit.  Sure, there are
    alot of men out there who are sexist and believe women should be kept
    at home, but there are also alot who *aren't*.
    
    Sam
    

    Re: .94 re: .89
    
    Optimism is all well and good, until one examines the *reasons* for
    divorces and the identities of those who file the suits.  40ish women
    file charging adultery and desertion.  40ish men file charging things
    like  "irreconcilable differences."  That phrase is a euphemism for
    many things, but from what I have seen and read it most often means
    "I don't think she's cute anymore" or "She's not giving me what I want
    in the sack anymore."
    
    I'm perfectly willing to give men credit when they deserve it, same as
    I do for women.  Sometimes they (either or both) don't deserve it.  In
    re: liesl's note .89, many men don't deserve it.  Sam, I suggest you
    read a book entitled _Jennifer Fever_ by Barbara Gordon.  It may sound
    like a lot of psychobabble, but I assure you it isn't.
    
    -d

>    Optimism is all well and good, until one examines the *reasons* for
>    divorces and the identities of those who file the suits.  40ish women
>    file charging adultery and desertion. 

	Just because you file something, doesn't mean that that is the reason.

	After some time, I brought my husband round to agreeing that, whatever
	the cause, there was no marriage left to save.
	To get divorced quickly (less than 2 years) one of us had to accuse the
	other of something. He suggested I file because of his adultary (which
	was not the case). I did, it worked, the decree absolute was through 
	10 weeks after filing.
	It was what was filed, but it was not the *reason*.
	
>    40ish men file charging things
>    like  "irreconcilable differences."  That phrase is a euphemism for
>    many things, but from what I have seen and read it most often means
>    "I don't think she's cute anymore" or "She's not giving me what I want
>    in the sack anymore."
    
	If they have filed for divorce, then I would assume that they are
	pretty well down the road to having irreconcileable differences,
	whatever the basis, and back to my previous point - if that's all they
	want from a relationship, then think hard, 'cause you're probably better
	off without them.
	
	Heather

    Re: .94
    
    Sam,
    
      No, I read you right, and I agree with you. 
    
    Lorenzo
    

Many married women now in their 40s and 50s have limited work experience. When 
they got married 25-35 years ago it was more or less expected that they would
stay home and be housewives and mothers. Their husbands were expected to be the
bread winners and career people.

Today most of the men in this age group are more or less established in careers
and jobs, and earning more or less substantial salaries. Many of the women have
taken jobs, full-time or part-time, often because of economic pressure. In most
cases they earn substantially less than their husbands because they don't have
the equivalent years of training and work experience that the men do. And many
of these women have no work experience at all.

When these middle-age couples divorce, the woman usually takes a severe
reduction in lifestyle, while the man continues with the same salary he had
before. Alimony and child support (if the kids are still at home) rarely are
adequate enough to maintain the former lifestyle. Some women have to go to work
for the first time in their lives after 30 years of being a housewife and
mother. What kind of job and salary can they expect? 

This is one reason why divorce in later years can be so much more devastating
for the woman.

Bruce (who has just described his marriage situation, more or less, except that
we are not contemplating divorce)   

    Lorenzo,
    
    You still have not answered my question in 993.64
    
    Bonnie

    I am angry because the D.A. in Suffolk (Essex?) County, MA, wants to
    try a 16 year old boy as an adult.  Why?
    
    I am putting in a form feed for those of you who prefer not to read
    this.  It is violent.
    
    
    Because he allegedly murdered his 14 year old girlfriend.  She was
    stabbed repeatedly, had her throat slashed, and then she was weighted
    down with rocks and her body was tossed in a pond.
    
    
    
    E Grace

    E Grace
    
    I'm confused, are you angry that the DA wants to try him as an 
    adult or angry at the murder of the girl?
    
    Bonnie

    Because a 16 year old boy (allegedly) would *do* that!  Sometimes I
    wonder what hope there is.
    
    
    E Grace

    Thanks, that's what I thought you meant. The descriptiond of his
    actions printed in the paper nearly made me retch!
    
    Bonnie

    On the same line, I'm angry that people can *listen* to a young
    man talk about HOW he is going to murder his girlfriend and think
    that theis is not serious!  (the interview with a former girlfriend
    of the boy charged with the murder of his 14 year old girlfriend-she
    claims that the boy talked about it all the time, and even described
    how, where ad what to do with the body.  AND NOBODY FOUND THIS
    ODD?!?!? EVEN THOUGH FELLOW STUDENTS CLAIMED TO BE AWARE THAT THIS 
    BOY CONSTANTLY USED PHYSICAL FORCE WITH THE GIRL).
    
    Christine

>Many married women now in their 40s and 50s have limited work experience. When 
>they got married 25-35 years ago it was more or less expected that they would
>stay home and be housewives and mothers. Their husbands were expected to be the
>bread winners and career people.
>
>Today most of the men in this age group are more or less established in careers
>and jobs, and earning more or less substantial salaries. Many of the women have
>taken jobs, full-time or part-time, often because of economic pressure. In most
>cases they earn substantially less than their husbands because they don't have
>the equivalent years of training and work experience that the men do. And many
>of these women have no work experience at all.

	And their are many women, like my mother who was married in her early 
	20's, gave up work to raise the 4 of us, and is now in her early 60's 
	and my parents have just had their 40th wedding annaversary.

	She went back to work in her 40's, as 3 of us had started work, and
	she was bored. As we were earning money for the family, she didn't need
	to go to work, or scrimp and save as she had to before.

	She went into nursing, and worked her way up to be the most senior
	nursing officer in the South West Health Authority in England.
	Her salary outpassed my father (a carpenter) many years ago.

	She retires soon, and the pension she has built up will provide for them
	in future years (my father will only get the standard pension which is
	under �3000 a year).

	I have noticed lately that this conference is tending to focus on 
	the bad things, and without also spending some time on the positive
	things that women can do, no matter where they start from.

	Just because you've had no training, and are in your 40's doesn't mean
	you can't have a good, well paid, career.

	Focus on what can be done.

	Heather

>	I have noticed lately that this conference is tending to focus on 
>	the bad things, and without also spending some time on the positive
>	things that women can do, no matter where they start from.

Ah, but this _IS_ the "Why Are Women Angry?" note. Perhaps you should
start a "Why Are Women Proud?" note....

Kathy

Heather, your mother sounds like a remarkable and talented women.

Bruce

    Re: .105
    
    Heather,
    
    What Bruce said in .107.  I'm impressed and pleased to know, even at a
    distance and obliquely, a person like your mother.
    
    But, if I may, allow me to point out first that these "negative" notes
    are discussing what *is* rather than what *can be*.  There are many of
    the latter type scattered through the file as well.
    
    (Currency figures in the following are adjusted for rates of exchange
    at the times in question.) 
    
    My own situation is that my wife stopped work at 20, in 1967, to have
    our two children; we decided we could do it on one income (at that time
    I was making about #1700 ($4800 for those in the USA) a year.  From
    that time until 1983 she held no paid position.  For a few years then,
    she worked part time, in the home, for an annual stipend of about #1000
    ($2000).  Now she is working half time in a semiskilled position for
    #3700 ($7500).  She took these jobs not bewcause she needed to work but
    rather for the satisfaction derived from them.  She was not, and is
    not, trying to build a career!
    
    Bear in mind, Heather, when you read the above numbers, that salaries
    are a great deal higher generally in the USA than in the UK.  The cost
    of living is higher, too.
    
    The point of all this is that, as Bruce says, if I were to divorce my
    wife today she would be stuck on a sub-survival income.  I, on the
    other hand, would have my current salary (minus a small alimony) plus
    (quite likely) the substantial salary of my new mate, were I to marry
    again -- which would almost certainly be the only reason for my
    divorcing this unattractive, untalented, woman of no financial value
    that I'm married to now.  (This description is not accurate, by the
    way.  It is to make the point that this is why middle-aged men often
    divorce.)  As I said to Sam, read Barbara Gordon's _Jennifer Fever_ to
    see how the "system" works.
    
    On the off chance that something tragic happens to me before my pension
    and other sources of retirement income become available, there is my
    life insurance -- but she would still have to scramble to make a go of
    it.
    
    So you see, Heather, my wife is to a great degree trapped.  It's not
    stupidity or laziness; it's simple trust based on the agreement we made
    years ago that we would divide the labor of being married parents who
    maintain a home in the way we have done -- but it is a fact.
    
    -d

    Re: .94
    
    >I am probably one of those "sweet young things" you're talking about
    
    Probably not.  "Sweet young things" implies a certain attitude toward
    marriage and life which you apparently don't share.
    
    I don't think anyone is asking you to believe that your husband will
    divorce you in twenty years.  I'm asking you to believe that it has
    happened, is happening and will happen to other women, and it _could_
    (however small the probability) happen to you.

    I got really annoyed at a young man who said his wife would have the
    most important job in the world -- staying home and raising the kids. 
    If it's such a great and wonderful job, why isn't he interested?
    
    I get ballistic when I'm stereotyped as a glass-chewing feminazi, as
    if all women believe the same thing about men and women, like I have no
    mind and thoughts of my own, I _have_ to follow some party line which
    was conceived by the very people who are calling me a feminazi.  Yo! 
    Listen to what I _say_!!!

    I hate people calling me a PYT (or YT if they don't like chunky).
    I'm not quite sure how long the marriage will last.  The way I figure
    it, anything longer than a year and a half is good.
    It was a strong generalization that even the explaination did not
    take the sting out of.
    It makes it sound like young women who like their men were missing
    a level of understanding.
                   
    Cindi

    
    Re: .109
    
    I said in my note that I can't guarantee my husband won't leave me -
    who can?  The point is that I _know_ he _could_, but I want to believe
    that he _won't_.  The thing that made me angry was the noter in .89
    saying that they get angry when they hear young women saying
    (basically) that they're happy, their husbands are wonderful and they
    don't think they'll ever split up.  What's wrong with a little
    happiness?  Optimism and realism aren't mutually exclusive.  I agree
    with .111, you could get the impression that young women who like their
    men are missing a level of understanding.
    
    Also, I think that the scenarios described regarding divorced/separated
    women in their 40's and 50's and their poor financial situation will
    largely have changed for the better by the time I am 40.  I already
    earn more than my husband, and I know a few other couples in their
    mid-twenties where the woman earns most.  I can only see this trend
    continuing (for myself, anyway).  I am sure I will continue to work
    once we have children (for financial reasons mainly).  Therefore, even
    if I do end up divorced, the situation should not be as grim as depicted
    so far.
    
    So I'll continue to be optimistic.
    
    Sam
    

    
>    What Bruce said in .107.  I'm impressed and pleased to know, even at a
>    distance and obliquely, a person like your mother.
 
	Thanks for the praise for my mother, I'll pass it on and let you know
	the reaction, as my mum doesn't think she's an ordinary type of person.
   
>    But, if I may, allow me to point out first that these "negative" notes
>    are discussing what *is* rather than what *can be*.  There are many of
>    the latter type scattered through the file as well.
 
	My mother, and what she has achieved *is*. By showing people what 
	actually is, can encourage many people to try for something.
	By saying it's possible, without any examples, does not reap the same 
	benefits.   
    
   
>    Bear in mind, Heather, when you read the above numbers, that salaries
>    are a great deal higher generally in the USA than in the UK.  The cost
>    of living is higher, too.
 
	Nursing salary in the UK, when my mother went back, was less than
	working in the local store. However, she found that she could make the 
	job more satifying, and also help more people as she progressed up
	the carreer path. I am sure if she didn't, she would have moved to
	another job and career.

>    The point of all this is that, as Bruce says, if I were to divorce my
>    wife today she would be stuck on a sub-survival income.  I, on the
>    other hand, would have my current salary (minus a small alimony) plus
>    (quite likely) the substantial salary of my new mate, were I to marry
>    again -- which would almost certainly be the only reason for my
>    divorcing this unattractive, untalented, woman of no financial value
>    that I'm married to now.  (This description is not accurate, by the
>    way.  It is to make the point that this is why middle-aged men often
>    divorce.)  As I said to Sam, read Barbara Gordon's _Jennifer Fever_ to
>    see how the "system" works.
 
	Strange, my brother is currently divorcing his wife, they have 2 
	children.
	He has to pay the children �350 a month and �700 a month debts his 
	ex-wife built up. He earns �1050 a month for a basic 40 hour week.
	He is currently working 85 hours a week to survive, and lives in a 
	bed-sit.   
	His wife earns �600 a month + car doing part-time district health 
	service care.

	It looks like a different "system" than you explained.
 
    
>    So you see, Heather, my wife is to a great degree trapped.  It's not
>    stupidity or laziness; it's simple trust based on the agreement we made
>    years ago that we would divide the labor of being married parents who
>    maintain a home in the way we have done -- but it is a fact.
    
 
	Your wife obviously trust you enough not to feel trapped, I hope you
	have some joint agrrements so that if the marriage does not work out,
	neither of you will be in the position that my brother finds himself in.


	Heather

    Why are women angry? It is an interesting question upon which I
    would like to make a subtle distinction.
    
    There is a difference between questioning why a woman is angry,
    and questioning why a woman is hostile.
    
    There are, as we know, and have seen many times brutalities, cruelties,
    and inequalities heaped upon women.  We could discuss them forever.
    These things, to just about any thinking or feeling individual can
    cause a fully justified anger.  In fact, to me, this anger is so
    justified and obviously invoked all around us, that to ask WHY women
    are angry is almost ludicrous.  Sometimes, with the bulk and weight
    of the negatives women have had to swim through, we could ask in
    stead "Why is any woman NOT angry".
    
    I would like to consider, therefore, a suble twist to the issue.
    It can be summed up by asking "Why are some women hostile?".  When
    I pose this question, I mean to investgate the following: What have
    women done with their justified and fully qualified anger?
    
    Some, in my opinion, do not concentrate on, or think about the
    issues that can bring about the pain or anger.  They try to ignore
    it by and large.  As long as none of the troubles immediately happen
    to them, they do not consider it, and hence, are neither hostile,
    nor angry.  A lot of women, IMO, fall within this category.  Many
    women, for generations, have been trained to be this way.
    
    After one or several of the inequalities begin to affect them in
    ways even the most diligent of pollyannas can not ignore, there
    are but a few courses of action left.  Some pretend that the things
    did not happen (a defensive self protective measure).  For the most part,
    it lets them imagine, for a while, that they still maintain the
    bliss that the untouched often affect.  The downside on this, tends
    to be flashbacks.  The mind tend to breaks through the pretend
    perfect world.  The payback for the fantasy is hell.
    
    Another course of action is to go on offense.  This is often, IMO,
    seen as "female hostility".  The natural anger/pain is surrounded
    by a strong protective flame.  Before any more anger/pain can be
    induced, if the woman can help it, she will attack first.  Another
    form of this is that she will not even let you get close enough
    to her to invoke more anger.  Some women, IMO, do this on a global
    scale.  Some women do this on a personal scale.  
    
    Women, at various parts, at various stages in their lives, rely
    on different aspects to get them through.  It is up in the air
    as to which one leads to the most healthy for the WOMEN concerned.
    
    I would wager that men prefer the peace and passivity they enjoyed
    when either ingoring it or imagining it away were the only "socially
    acceptable" paths to be taken.
    
    It is their inability to accept the third one that prompts them
    to ask questions like "Why are women angry?"
    
    My answer to why are women angry/hostile is: It is a natural reaction
    to suppression.
    
    Cindi

    I'm angry because my fiance doesn't seem to see that I/women have
    reason to be angry! I don't see that as his fault, though, and I _am_
    educating him!
    
    Alice T.
    
    

    My wife, who is not a DECcie and threfore cannot note here except
    indirectly through me, has what I think is an interesting attitude
    toward all the expressed anger around her.
    
    She is bothered, as are many who have expressed anger here, but she
    prefers to channel her anger into things she can do something about
    rather than venting useless noise and hostility on things she has no
    power to affect.  Things she cannot affect, she watches and waits for
    chances to make an impact.  She realizes women are ofttimes treated
    unfairly, but there are so *many* things that are unfair -- not *all*
    the unfairness in the world is against women, although to read this and
    similar strings one might assume that it were.
    
    She devotes her charitable giving to organizations that target
    disadvantaged women.

    Re: .116
    
    >venting useless noise and hostility
    
    Venting is of itself useful; therefore, any noise produced by venting
    cannot be useless.  It's like saying that cheering produces useless
    noise and excitement.

    RE: .116  -d
    
    > She is bothered, as are many who have expressed anger here, but she
    > prefers to channel her anger into things she can do something about
    > rather than venting useless noise and hostility on things she has no
    > power to affect. 	
    
    One would hope that neither of you is attempting to characterize the
    voices of others here as "useless noise, etc." since neither of you
    is in a position to judge what others do with their lives.
    
    > She devotes her charitable giving to organizations that target
    > disadvantaged women.
    
    Quite admirable.  We all do what we can.

    Actually, Suzanne, I do characterize at least some of what I read here
    as useless noise.  To a large extent, it is preaching to the converted.
    
    -d

    
    	Who's in a position to tell someone else what is 'useful' for them?
    

    RE: .120  Suzzanne,
    
    
                         What -d's wife said may or may not "sit" well with
    you, but she does have a right to state them.  Your statement "Who's in
    a position......" is a *VERY* honest and IMHO, true statement. 
    Considering that statement is important when you decide you disagree
    with anothers womans thoughts.  It seems to be very easy to "take off"
    on another when your beliefs do not coincide with theirs.  
    
    
    Dave

    	Neither -d nor his wife have any call to decide whether or not 
    	someone else's statements are 'useful' to the ones who say them 
    	- it's purely a subjective experience for the speakers.
    
    	It's one thing to disagree with what others say, but to decide
    	that their comments have NO USE (EVEN TO THEMSELVES) has no place
    	in an objective discussion (since 'usefulness' of one person's words
    	is something only the speaker can determine.)
    
    	You can say whatever you like about me, but it has no bearing on this.

    RE: .122  Suzanne,
    
                        Lets pretend that *ALL* I say is in a calm voice and
    not angry or harsh.....because it *IS* how I am speaking...ok?
    
    
    >Neither -d nor his wife have any call to decide whether or not
    >someone else's statements are 'useful' to the ones who say them
    >- it's purely a subjective experience for the speakers.
    
    
            First "having a call" or not is beside the point.  She, like
    you, have the right to state an opinion and reall with the 'header' on
    these reply's, it seems to me to be obvious who's opinion it is. 
    Second, isn't *ALL* life purely subjective?  We all live different
    lives and if we are to be objective, I feel we need to consider those
    other differences.
    
    >it's one thing to disagree with what others say, but to decide
    >that their comments have NO USE (EVEN TO THEMSELVES) has no place
    >in an objective discussion (since 'usefulness' of one person's words
    >is something only the speaker can determine.)
    
    
         We all have opinions Suzanne and I think all she was doing was
    stating her's.  I don't see that as bad, quite the contrary really.
    *ALL* opinions have a 'place' in objective discussion...IMHO of course.
    
    
    >You can say whatever you like about me, but it has no bearing on this.
    
    
         PLEASE Suzanne.....Don't take my disagreement as a personal
    affront.  I like you....I don't often agree with you :-)  But I do
    respect your opinions.
    
    
    
    Dave

    	RE: .123  Dave
    
    	C'mon, Dave, OF COURSE -d is expressing his own opinions about the
    	subjective experiences of others - but such opinions have no bearing
    	on what these others ACTUALLY think or feel (or find "useful" in their 
    	lives.)
    
    	Nothing you can say will change this.
    

    Suzanne,
    
    Whether my opinions, or my wife's, have any bearing on what other
    people actually think or feel is directly related to whether they are
    open to hearing and evaluating those opinions in light of their own
    experience.  If they see value in our opinions and change their own
    thought atterns, then our opinions have in fact had an effect.
    
    -d

    paraphrasing from .114, Cindi Barber-Mingo --
    
    There is a difference between ... why a woman is angry, and ... why a
    woman is hostile.
    
    Thank you, Cindi!  I think all kinds of people, from their own points
    of view, can easily mistake one for the other.
    
    Sara
    

    RE: .125  -d
    
    > Whether my opinions, or my wife's, have any bearing on what other
    > people actually think or feel is directly related to whether they are
    > open to hearing and evaluating those opinions in light of their own
    > experience.
    
    You called other people's notes "useless noise."  How could you
    possibly know enough about someone else's life to determine whether
    or not their words were "useful" to them?
    
    > If they see value in our opinions and change their own
    > thought [p]atterns, then our opinions have in fact had an effect.
    
    So if someone called your notes "useless noise" (as you have done to
    people here,) it would be meaningless since they couldn't possibly
    know *either* whether or not your notes are "useful" to anyone.
    
    See what I mean???

    
    	-d, let's just drop this.
    
    	If it wouldn't bother you at all for someone to describe YOUR notes 
    	as "useless noise," then perhaps we have different understandings of 
    	what the term means.
    
    	Think about it.
    

    re: 117, Yes!  Brilliant comparison!

    re: .119 -d, I know you used a figure of speech, but I'm not preaching 
    to anyone.  Expressing feelings is not useless, even if no one hears 
    that expression.  In fact, I do a lot of my "expressing" when and where
    I am sure no one can hear me (and it's not easy to find a place!).  I 
    benefit by it in at least one way -- I get to see how it feels to say, 
    forcefully, that I AM MAD!  This is good because my automatic response
    to a particularly strong negative feeling is to disassociate.  When I 
    can find that feeling and grab onto it and "go for a ride", it's 
    exhilerating.  (Yes! This is me! I exist! I am mad!)  (For example) I 
    feel a huge relief when I "yell at my mother" -- for not wanting me, 
    not loving me, negating my feelings, etc., etc., etc.  The weird and 
    wonderful thing about it is that I can say it now, almost 40 years 
    later, she doesn't have to hear it, and I feel much better for it.

    I doubt that this note has anything to do with preaching.

    CQ

    RE: .114, Cindi, GREAT NOTE! I have felt that way too but I was not
    able to articulate it. 
    RE:117 YEAH to you too! Venting is NOT useless.
    
    But something about that note hit me funny, it felt minimizing, I
    think (the note saying that venting was useless). It didn't
    necessarily sound like an opinion as much as a put-down to those 
    dealing with anger/hostility in different ways. Its nice when I/we can
    affect change with our energy, but the opportunity is not always there.
    
    Hannah

    Being judged makes women angry.
    
    Some women don't like their notes judged "useless noise"
    
    Others don't like their notes judged "internalized misogyny"
    
    Mary

    Mary and Cindi, lights through the smoke of this topic...
    
    Sara
    

    I have seen, in the most recent replies, an interesting illustration.
    
    One perspective strikes me as the type that ignores, or focuses
    away from the obvious anger sparks.  On perspective strikes me as
    that of a venter, or exibiter of female hostility.  IMO, both
    must be allowed to exist as it best benefits each woman.  For the
    good of the sex, it would be better if they were taken separately
    and accepted for their own merits.
         
    Women must use whatever works best for them, whenever it works for
    them.  If people persist in calling one or the other useless in
    any form, this topic may become ratholed.  That would be a shame.
    It is such a meaty topic.
    
    JMO,
    Cindi
                             

    
    
    Venting??! I thought I was just learning how to break through my
    conditioning and express my feelings -
    one of which is anger.
    
    
    In these notes I get to try out feeling and thoughts that "aren't ready
    for prime time".  =wn= is a wonderful forum for figgerin' out what *I*
    really *do* feel... and what I want to do about it.
    
    'course, your mileage may vary
    Jamd 

    I'm angry that women are conditioned to be the caretakers, and if we're
    not, then we aren't doing our "job" as women.
                                                                
    I'm angry at the people that spout off how much they understand and
    sympathize with women over the problems they face, when in reality these
    people are often times the root cause of the problems they purportedly
    understand. 
    
    I'm angry that society has taught us to suppress our feelings, resulting
    in insecurity that forces us to play a role society will accept, instead
    of being who we really are.
    
    I'm angry in learning that not all people are to be trusted.
    
    I'm angry at my dog for whizzing on the carpet.  (Okay, so she's 14+
    years old...I forgive her.)  :-)
    
    -Janice

    Re .134-
    
    Was venting a bad word?  I use venting to mean very close to what you
    then proceded to describe.  I do not see the inconsistency.
    
    Venting, for me, is the release of concepts, opinions, or emotions.
    That seems to fit.  Some women are very conciliatory or passive about
    it.Some women are very vocal, or forward about it.
    
    It all counts, and IMO, tends to be bolstering for the venter.
    
    Have we crossed paths?
    
    Cindi
    

I would like to add a couple of things to the "Why are women angry?"
list.  I consider these things that some women have the right to
be angry about.

    From the past-

	300 plus years of selling children from their mothers in
	a supposedly civilized society
        
	300 plus years of societal justified rapes in a supposedly
	civilized society
        
	300 plus years of killing, selling, and degrading our men
        
	Prevention of reading for 200 years, and then the subsequent
	ignoring of that fact when discussing educational difficulties
	today

     From the present-
	
	The number one cause of death is violent crime

	The psyche which allows the concept "I may be a woman,
	but at least I am not a Negro"	
         
	Racial Epithets written ONLY on the FEMALE dorm rooms

 	The fact that after reading these, if they get that far,
	many people will consider the difficulties described in
	these lists as fundamentally Black problems and believe
	they should be better listed in Blacknotes.


IMO, the things listed above are full justifications for some women
to be angry.  However, the presentation of hostility on these points
is another issue. I will post in a moment.
            

>>            <<< Note 992.137 by CSCMA::BARBER_MINGO "Exclusivity" >>>
>>          -< Some more reasons to be angry, in case you needed more >-

these are reasons for all women and men to be angry.  There is no such thing
as "just an African-American problem".  When a child bleeds, the blood is 
always the same color.

>     From the present-
>	
>	The number one cause of death is violent crime


	Could you post the statistics that back this up please?

> 	The fact that after reading these, if they get that far,
>	many people will consider the difficulties described in
>	these lists as fundamentally Black problems and believe
>	they should be better listed in Blacknotes.

	I don't see them as such.

	Heather
            

    I believe violent crime _is_ the number one cause of death, but
    for one segment of the population (black teenage males) and not 
    the general population.

Choosing to exhibit hostility over injustice is an all or nothing
    lifestyle.
    
When faced with the possibility of guilt for wrong doing, people
will go to great lengths to protect themselves.  Some will minimize
the crimes.  Some will try to invalidate small portions of the
discussion to remove the focus from the greater problems.  Some
will outright deny known truths.  Some will delude themselves
into believing the crimes were never true.  Some will beg off claiming
"I didn't do it personally, I just benefit from it."

Hostility is an emotion that, when encountered, is not easily minimized,
invalidated, or denied, deluded about, or begged off.  No matter how
individuals have protected themselves from implied guilt , they can
not easily seal of intense negatively charged energies directed at them.
The only, sometimes effective, way out of it is to ask the victimized
group "What is wrong with you? Why are you treating me so negatively?
Why are you being so irrational? You are such a RADICAL!".  It is the old 
poke 'em in the eye and then ask 'em why they are crying procedure.	

This procedure is an art form, which is so ingrained in some groups
that they do not even have to think about it.  They can do it by
rote.  It is almost a law now IMO.  Hostile individuals, no matter
how justified they are in their hostility, are irrational.  They can
not be "team players","good guys","reasoned thinkers","great planners",
or "working to benefit the whole".  I am not saying this is just or
right.  I am saying in many places, this is true.

If someone were to ask me, therefore, "why can't a woman be hostile?", 
the obvious answer is, because hostility from suppressed groups is
frightening to guilty, or implied guilty people.  You can risk it,
if you wish. However, many of these people have power, and are known
to use it against people, groups, individuals, or ideals that frighten
them.  So whatever you choose to be openly hostile about, BE SURE you are
willing to go to the limit to defend your hostility. 


Cindi
    
P.S.- Moved from 992.138 to correct exhibit.    

    Re .140-
    Sure, I will pull the most recent stats I can find.
    Six or so years ago in High School public health and hygiene,
    they explained that the number one cause of death for black
    females within my age range was homicide.  I had no reason
    to dispute the stats they handed me.  I shall get up to date
    and post them by Wednesday. (It was to be a research weekend anyway)
    
    Re .141-
    Although I have heard the same thing recently on the news
    and throughout the black community about the males, I have not
    seen those stats myself.  I will post the chart when I get it.
    
    Cindi

>    Sure, I will pull the most recent stats I can find.
>    Six or so years ago in High School public health and hygiene,
>    they explained that the number one cause of death for black
>    females within my age range was homicide.  I had no reason
>    to dispute the stats they handed me.  I shall get up to date
>    and post them by Wednesday. (It was to be a research weekend anyway)
 
	Thanks, could you look to see if they were for a specific city, or
	state, or country? Death from violent crime is fairly rare in this 
	country. If it happens, it's front page National news for at least a
 	couple of days.
   
	Heather

    Ok, if I recall correctly, it was country wide, but I will check
    stats US, NYC, and Boston.
    
    About the front page news part.  I have it in my experience that
    murders of all peoples are not front page news.  I know of two
    folks within my own generation who have been killed within the
    past ten years, and it never made a peep in the papers.
    
    Cindi

    Cindi,
    
    Are you aware that Heather is writing from England?
    
    and I've also seen the statistics that Cindi is talking about
    for the United States.
    
    Bonnie

    Hello Bonnie!
    
    I just read the mail from Heather and responded to it.
    I was remiss. I must learn to think and post more globally.
    For those, not in America, I will post the stats as soon
    as I can get them.
    
    
    Cindi

	And I'll see if I can get stats from the Royal National Lifeboat
	Institute, and from Humane societies, on how many drownings their
	are each year, I am sure this is our major cause of death, especially
	in the under 40 age range.

	
	Heather
	(who has pulled over 50 people out of the sea on one 500 yard stretch
	of beach in a 6-week period, and did not succeed in reviving 7 of them).

    I am angry when I discover that woman-space != safe-space.  I am angry
    when I am forcibly disillusioned regarding the sanctity of Lesbian
    space and the open-mindedness/prejudice-free of the women's community.
    
    Women's Festivals are supposed to be safe.  They are supposed to be
    made up of women who have rid themselves (or have at least recognized
    and are trying to rid themselves) of the prejudice and oppression that
    is an inevitably artifact of growing up in a patriarchal, hierarchal
    elitist eclusionary society.
    
    So when at Rhythmfest, after Faith Nolan sings a song about oppression
    of Black Women ("...if you're white, you're alright, if you're brown
    you can hang around, if you're black, get back, sister, get back...") I
    hear of a woman saying that she "has never liked n!ggers" and wishes
    "they would just leave their causes at home"...
    
    ARRRGGG!  I wanted to cry or scream or hit her... we were stunned.  I
    know, call me naive for thinking that we were somehow special and
    therefore immune to the stupidity of the outside world, but I did and I
    am ANGRY when my dream is shattered.
    
    D!

    
    what is a whitemiddleclassmale attitude? 
    
    are you defaming white males?
    

    re -1
    
    	You can here the tap shoes going all the way here in Colorado.
    
    
    		Wayne
    

    Re - .150
    I do not presume to speak for the noter.
    I am MORE than sure enough that she can note for herself.
    
    However, your open ended question calls to me.
    Were someone to ask me, I would imagine it was an attitude
    held by some white middle class males.  She probably just forgot
    to say some first.
    
    It would appear by the text that she is illustrating dismay at
    racial bias that remained in a place where sexual bias was unwelcome.
    The reality is IMO, that disliking one, at least in America, does
    not equal disliking the other.
    
    I have dealt with several middle class white males for whom 
    negative racial bias is not abhorrent.  The number has been sufficent
    for the generalization "more than a few".
    
    Will you feel that white males would be lest defamed if she said
    morethanafewwhitemiddleclassmales attitude?
    
    Cindi

>	(who has pulled over 50 people out of the sea on one 500 yard stretch
>	of beach in a 6-week period, and did not succeed in reviving 7 of
>       them).
      Dont bother Heather,
      we both know that these people could not pay their poll tax and
      therefore had no option but to jump. 8-),
      Rgds,

When I read .149 by D!, I suspected it might draw some fire, but it was
a wonderful note for me.  Her anger is well expressed and the sadness of
her dream shattered touched me.

To me the note wasn't all that defaming to straightwhitemiddleclassmales.
It expressed anger at the realization that straightwhitemiddleclassmales
do not have a monopoly on predjudice.

On the other hand I think it was a bit unfair to claim that one group
"infected" another with predjudiced attitudes.  Prejudice was not invented
by straight white males. Its part of the human condition.  Had some other
group been the dominant one throughout history, I think it is safe to say
that predjudice would still be a part of that history.

It is my belief that to assign the blame for prejudice to one group is
in itself prejudice.  'tis better to fight the attitude, not a particular
class of person.
    
    Mary

    .153 .151
    Help me out a second eh?
    What are you Talking about?
    
    Cindi

    
    .153 is a joke, but it has to do with things English.  The poll tax was
    (is?) very unpopular.  I think that's putting it mildly.
    
    I'm as stumped as you on .151; I don't understand the reference to tap
    shoes.  What ever could it mean?
    
    CQ

    Re .151-
    
    Someone sent me a note on this. 
    I explained that I did not quite get what .151 was trying to say.
     
    I was hoping I was mistaking the meaning.
    However, unless the author of .151 shares their intended meaning
    with the file, it remains open to the more negative of speculations.
    
    If it is indeed intended to be the connotation I perceive, then we
    can all add it to the "Reasons to be angry list".  
    It can, provided the author is indeed, white, middle class...then
    we can just add him to the ranks that do not find racial insensitivity
    abhorrent.
    
    Interesting. We would have a live specimen.
    
    Cindi
                          

    Any racial intent of .151 went right by me.  I though it was just
    saying "get ready for another song and dance".  JMO
    
    Mary
    

    I'm not wild about Linville's notes but I don't think he meant
    anything as a racial slur.  I've heard the term "tap dancing"
    used all my life to refer to someone using fancy footwork to get out of
    a tight spot they've gotten themselves into. 
    

    The irony of both .151 and .153 is their possible negative meanings.
    In America, the Poll tax was also a vehicle used to prevent Blacks
    from voting.  Jim Crow laws were involved.  
    I thought it would be better, however, to request than assume.
    As for .153, I think I understand what you are saying.  I do not see,
    however, how it is applicable to "Why are women angry", but maybe
    you just think differently.
    
    .151- I guess I will just have to wait until later to find out about.
    
    Cindi

    I just reread .153, in light of what Cindi said about the U.S. poll
    tax.  The first time I read it, knowing that Heather is in England
    I assumed it was the poll tax over there.  Communication sure is
    tricky and I'd like to extend some kudos to Cindi for asking questions
    first.
    
    Mary

    
    re: .157 I guess I really am stumped because the author hasn't come 
    forward to explain.  It hit me the way you described, however.  I think
    it's a trash note, regardless.
    
    CQ

>      Dont bother Heather,
>      we both know that these people could not pay their poll tax and
>      therefore had no option but to jump. 8-),

	Firstly, this was a beach not a cliff, these people walked to their 
	death.
	Secondly, Poll tax was not in force at the time,
	And thirdly, I was very distressed when we could not resucutate these
	people, I can assure you it was not a laughing matter.

	And to the people who are querying the reference to poll tax, it is 
	the slang term which referes to the community cahrge, which is the
	current way the local governments in the UK collect money to pay
	for local services.

	The average charge is 280 pounds a year per adult.
	Adults who study pay 20% of this charge, 
	and adults who cannot afford it get rebates on a sliding scale - up
	to 100%.

	Some people, like Mr. Binger who does not currently live in the UK,
	but has his son educated here do not like this system , others, like 
	myself, are very unhappy that this system will be changed for next year.

	(You may want to think how much local and state taxes you pay, and
	other taxes to your local government!)

	Heather

    As you requested Heather.
Following are the latest statistics that were available in BU's 
American Statistics Microfiche.

It is referenced from the 1988 Microfiche.  The reference number
4146-6 in the American Statistics Index was not on file for 1991, 1990,
or 1989.

Statistics from.
US Decennial Life Tables or 1979-81
Volume 1 number 3
United States Life Tables
US Department of Health and Human Services

Extracted from the tables on Black Females
    
    If you have any questions, you can pull out ASI 4146-6 out for 
    yourselves to confirm it.
    
Number Dying of the following causes of 10,000,000 born alive

		age-		15-20		20-25		25-30
Causes
Septicemia	 		159		211		332
Malignant Neoplasms Lymph	2234		3020		5827
Malignant Neoplasms Respiratory	24		100		230
Diabetes			159		422		882
Heart Disease			1722		2710		5356
Isch. Heart Disease		147		255		831
Cerebro Vascular Disease	476		1143		2492
Arthero Sclerosis		0		0		0
Pneumonia and Influenza		464		768		1316
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary	354		389		703
Chronic Liver Disease		85		422		2466
Motor Vehicle Accident		3883		4609		4666
Other Accident			2676		3345		4362
Suicide				977		1744		2084
Homicide/Legal intervention	6217		11808		12144

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The statistics for young black men are even worse.
According to several news sources in the US, there is reason to believe
that this has gotten much worse since these statistics were taken.

Cindi	
    
    

In order to help place the previously posted statistics in
perstective, I will now post an extraction from table B of:

US Decennial Life Tables or 1979-81
Volume 1 number 3
United States Life Tables
US Department of Health and Human Services

Table B- Was the probability that a person born during the
statistics gathering period would die of a given cause.
I have listed here the probabilities of death from unnatural
causes.

KEY: 
	BW- Black Women
	BM- Black Men
    	WW- White Women
	WM- White Men 
	E - Everyone

	race-sex	BW	BM	WF	WM	E
Cause

Total Accidents		.02540	.05663	.02601	.04832	.03768
Motor Vehicle Accident	.00633	.02157	.00964	.02367	.01635
Other Accident		.01907	.03507	.01638	.02465	.02133
Suicide			.00187	.00754	.00510	.01507	.00944
Homicide		.00934	.04403	.00236	.00708	.00723



----------------------------------------------------------------------

Cindi
    

             <<< IKE22::$3$DIA5:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 992.168                 Why are Women Angry?                     168 of 168
NECSC::BARBER_MINGO "Exclusivity"                    64 lines   8-SEP-1991 09:07
                         -< My take on the statistics >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Following is my take on the statistics from the research I did this
    weekend.
    
    Re- .166
    
    From 15-30 Black Women in America die at the hands of others more
    than ANY other single cause.  I was told in high school that it
    was a statistic I was going to have to live with for the next 15
    or so years.  It does not promote a rosey outlook.  IMO, allow
    it to stay on the list of things WOMEN can be angry about.
    
    As for the children of Black Women who are born Male.  The numbers
    are much worse.  More people were familiar with this problem.  I
    did not post the stats.  However, now you know the case is true for
    young black WOMEN also.  One could be angry that that fact is
    generally ignored by the press.  Young women are beeing killed at 
    alarming rates, and the general populace doesn't even KNOW it.  IMO, 
    we can keep it on the list.
     
    
    Re- .167
    
    If any Black woman makes it past her 30's, she then has a chance to
    die like the large majority of Americans do, from heart disease.  We
    may not be eating right. Heart disease was slated to probably kill
    half of the Americans for All races.  
    
    There are a few things to be happy about:
    1> White women are by far th LEAST likely to die at the hands of
    another in this country.  They are nearly three times less
    likely to be killed than the nearest sub group (white males).
    2> Black women, even when faced with their harsh futures, are LEAST
    likely to kill themselves.  For the most part, they struggle through.
    3> Black women also hold the honor of being the least likely to
    die in a motor vehicle accident.  I think it is because we can
    not afford to have cars in general.  It could be, becuase by and large,
    we do not ride with white males.
    
    There are a few intereting things to note:
    1> MAD-Mothers against Drunk driving have a serious statistic to
    contend with for their male children.
    2> It has become very clear to me why an insurance company might
    wish to charge more for a male to drive a car.  The next time I
    hear someone say "Women drivers" in a derogatory way, I think I
    will laugh out loud.  I will not laugh too hard. I have ridden
    with my husband.  He is 22.  I can actually FEEL why they die.
    Unfortunately, in my household, I have to pay the premium.  It
    just makes me wish that they would LET someone hold them up
    in the left hand turn lane without being obliged to dart out 
    around them (however,it may be a man thing, that I just don't understand).
    3> There appears to be something to this "white males under pressure"
    thing.  They kill themselves a lot.  It strikes me as unusual for
    the theoretically strongest (by virtue of their dominance) group
    to be so likely to try and take themselves out.
    4> A little over 4 out of every hundred black men within the checked
    interval will die at the hands of another.  I am almost afraid to
    bring a male child into the world.  Add that to the list.
    Also, do not give me, "But that doesn't really apply to you.  You
    don't LIVE in THOSE neighborhoods with THOSE people."  It just
    makes me angry.  My family and friends DO live there.  At times,
    I HAVE lived there.  The justification will fall quite short.
    
    Regards,
    Cindi 
    

    we all live there.

    Re- .169
    Point
    These ARE American statistics.

	I've gone into the local library and asked them where I could get 
	these type of statistics for the UK, and have a blank stare and a 
	"uh......... don't know" back.

	Does anyone in the UK (or elsewhere) know where I might be able to find
	these statistics (and if we collect them at all?) 

	Heather

    
    I am angry because there are STILL some goddamn know-it-alls out there
    who are trying to "educate" and "enlighten" me.  Whether they think "I
    need it" or "it's for my own good", I'm not sure.  But if they give me
    no choice, I feel preached at and put on the spot.
    
    Talk with me, not at me, and I will more than likely listen.
    
    -Jody

    Some figures from a UK national newspaper today:


    Total number of murders in UK in 1982     			      566
    those of which were men who killed wives/ex-wives/girlfriends     102 (18%)

    Total number of murders in UK in 1989     			      580
    those of which were men who killed wives/ex-wives/girlfriends      87 (15%)

    No further numbers or break-down except a statement which is difficult
    to translate into actual figures "The 25% of murders that follow 
    violence by men includes women who murder their tormentors in
    retaliation or self defence."

    A sobering thought - are women are safer in the streets, than they are 
    in their own homes.

	Heather

    Re .172-
    
    I know the feeling.
    I keep getting preached at all of the time.
    Sometimes it is about feminism.
    Sometimes it is about black issues.
    
    I figure it is just because people do not know me.
    I realize that in notes, my typos, and spelling errors
    may make it seem that I am uninformed.  I have to rest
    with that image and work around it.
    I inform them gently that I understand and hope that they
    understand better with time and communication.
    
    The anger I feel on that one is brief.
    It is too brief for me to even feel hostile.
    However, if the anger is a good motivation for you, enjoy it.
    
    Cindi

    
    Every 15 seconds, a woman in America is beaten by her husband
    or boyfriend.
    
    Carla
    

	doing some arithmetic,

	the US (murder-type) figures

	30,169        deaths for 10,000,000 population,


	The UK figures for 1982 are:

	113           deaths for 10,000,000  	(566 deaths per 50,000,000)


	Heather 

    Cindi,
    
    A few years ago (meaning, after 1988 and those stats.) the FBI
    announced that it suspected that murders of women were being
    underreported; i.e., that many `accidental deaths' and `suicides'
    of women were really murders.  Now you can wonder if there was a
    racial bias in this too:  Were the [white] police as willing to
    call the suspicious death of a black woman an accident as they
    were that of a Caucasian woman?
    
    Don't you wish reality didn't ever look so much like paranoia?
    
    						Ann B.

    Re .177
    
    I do wish the truth did not invoke doubt.  
    It is understandable.  It is a scary and horrible thing that many
    people will do anything to avoid. If they have to doubt the
    actual numbers calculated from the death certificates, they will.
    
    I think it helps keep folks from getting depressed.
    It may keep others from being angry.
    It may also prevent others from being hostile.
    Some, it just keeps from feeling guilty.
    
    Just me talking,
    Cindi

I have been away for a few days. So with respect to note 151. 
The reply in 159 explained it rather well. I said it in jest thinking the
people in this notes file had a little humor left in them. I was wrong.

	I have lost my humor concerning the racist satements made against
white males. I do hope this type of noteing will stop. I will drop out 
and be read only but be asured I will monitor for racist staements made
against white males.

	I had not even condidered anyone could think a very common saying
about avoidance was meant to be racist. I forgot whom I was dealing with in
this notesfile.


			Wayne

    
    	A sure sign of the dominance (and hostility) exhibited towards
    	people who are non-white-males in our culture would be the idea 
    	of having "racism" charged for merely stating the race (at all) 
    	in the term "white males" (along with the charge of sexism for
    	daring to use the term "male" - <gasp!>)
    
    	Luckily, most people in our culture aren't that radical.
    

    
    what would you say if it had mentioned any race but white, or
    any gender but male?
    
    you advocate a double standard. how do you justify this (other than
    by snide references to "the list")?
    

    Re .181
    
    I probably would have requested that they say some first in
    the case that it was not male and it was not white.
    Sweeping generalizations or discrimination by ENTIRE class
    are illegal.
    
    I didn't ask for a double standard. I asked that she say
    somemiddleclasswhitemales' attitude.  That way she would not be
    making a full race, sex, or class specification.  
    
    I do not see in that a request for a double standard.  I have
    had enough living on the down side of several double standards
    to know how badly it feels.  I do not wish it on others.  Show
    me where I requested a double standard, and I will retract
    the statement, delete the note, and apologize to the class
    of persons that I slighted.
    
    If you can not,  your allegation is unfounded.  In that instance
    I must request that you apologize, retract your statement, and delete 
    your last note.  It would only be parity.
    
    All of this is of course presuming that you are addressing me.
    
    If you are not addressing me, please give us a hint who you are
    noting to.
    
    Cindi

    	His claims of double-standard are unfounded (he may be addressing
    	me, too, since his note followed mine) - either way, he has no
    	grounds.
    
    	Don't expect a retraction, etc., though -
    

    ahh, scuse me, but (.176)
    
    "	doing some arithmetic,

	the US (murder-type) figures

	30,169        deaths for 10,000,000 population,"
    
    that's more than 700,000 for the population.  Is that per year?
    Do you believe those numbers?
    
    ed
    

>    ahh, scuse me, but (.176)
>    
>    "	doing some arithmetic,
>
>	the US (murder-type) figures
>
>	30,169        deaths for 10,000,000 population,"
>    
>    that's more than 700,000 for the population.  Is that per year?
>    Do you believe those numbers?
 
	Cindi said they were from the US Decennial Life Tables, US dept.
	of Health and Human Services.

	I added up the homicide/legal intervention numbers  for 15-20 year olds,
	20-25 year olds, and 25-30 year olds, and is for black females.
	6217 + 11808 + 12144.

	However, now I've re-looked, I see there are no figures for 0-15 year 
	olds and 30+ year olds, and the figures don't include any men, or 
	white females so I guess the number I quoted is wrong, and it should 
	be much higher.

	or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

	Heather

    Oh, Decennial Life Tables.  I produced one of those once.  It seems
    that in the census data available there were no married males age 10-15
    However in the population being studied there was one suicide married
    male age 13.  That skewed up the data royally.
    
    Knowing the haphazard manner in which the numbers are produced (publish
    or perish also applies to gov't statisticians) I doubt them all.
    
    Be wary of numbers ...
    
    ed

    Re- Heather
    
    I have quoted the references for you.
    Do not base your decisions on "Cindi Said".   Go and get them for
    yourself.  They have the totals for ALL homicides within this
    country.  Sadly, they are MUCH HIGHER than we like to consider.
    Do you have a university library you could check in on?  If not,
    I will see what I can do about getting the tables copied from microfiche.

    Re - Fisher                                        
    You must also check the general Mortality tables.
    I cross checked with the standing mortality rates.
    I can not tell you how much faith you should have in the US Government
    statistics.  I can only state that they do not stand to gain anything
    by misrepresenting the death certificate lists.  You may have had
    one when you created your own table.However, I have a hard time
    understanding what the Governments benefits of not counting them
    correctly are.
      If you, however,
    have any proof that they are lying, and you are not just being cynical
    to get around the issue, PLEASE contact the news services and school
    boards immediately.  Thy are damaging the entire populace perspective
    by inaccurately printing simple tally's on the causes of death. 
    I'm not quite sure how anyone could count "haphazardly", however,
    you seem very sure. These tables also contained the statistics that
    helped the government determine what crime prevention, medical aid,
    driving laws, and research funding was needed.   If you could explain
    to them how they messed all that up, it could clear up a lot.
    
    In addition, the AIDS statistics were also there.
    While you are at it you could clarify those.
    
    Just ask them where the bodies are.
    When they can not find them, I guess it will all be resolved.
    
        
    Cindi
    

>    Re- Heather
>    
>    I have quoted the references for you.
>    Do not base your decisions on "Cindi Said".   Go and get them for
>    yourself.

	Cindi you said you would get some info, and you have. 

	I have no idea where to go and get this info in the UK Or even if
	this type of info is collected). I have tried my local library, and 
	they have no idea either. 

>     Do you have a university library you could check in on?  
	
	I'll phone Reading University to see if they keep this type of 
	information.

	Heather