Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Is supporting health care, literacy programs, and equal
    educational/economic opportunities for women is bad for families?
    
    Gee, I guess I must be confused.
    
    meg

    Did he define 'family'?
    
    D.

re Note 1118.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

        Can anyone get any documents prepared by the UN (or for the
        UN) for this conference?

        It sure would help to understand what we're discussing before
        either praising or condemning it.

        Bob

    D,
    
    I believe Dobson subsribes to the belief that the only family is a
    nuclear family, with a male head of household, his female spouse and
    whatever children.  I still fail to see why better healthcare, access
    to education, and economic equity is such a bad thing for the family.
    
    meg

    
    Hi Meg,
    
    Let me translate for you.
    
    The U.N. equals buearacratic control of sovereign govts and families.
    
    Better healthcare equals abortion (coerced even) and euthanasia.
    
    Access to education equals quotas, govt control of education, forced
    changes in cultures.
    
    Economic equity equals all of the above.
    
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    But none of that is in the documents.  However training for midwives,
    and other care providers for the pregnant are, as is access to better
    family planning methods, which actually prevents abortions in the first
    place.  Not to mention the fact that better prenatal care leads to
    better pregnancy outcomes for both children and mothers.  There are
    places in the world where the chances of dying from a pregnancy related
    issue are 1 in 1000.  The infant mortality rates in these countries are
    simalarly awful.  
    
    Better economic opportunities?  Other than the fact that a woman can
    support her children should something happen to her SO, i see nothing
    that could be destructive there.  
    
    Education enables people to be something besides the low wage end of
    the scale.  Is this a bad thing?
    
    meg
    
    

re Note 1118.6 by CSC32::M_EVANS:

>     But none of that is in the documents.  

        Do you have the documents?

        Bob

    .5
    
    Are you on Dobson's mailing list?
    
    Richard
    

    	re .1
    
    	If that were all they were concerned about, you would have
    	reason to be confused.
    
    	You know as well as anyone that there is more agenda to it --
    	that gender feminism, and abortion rights, and all sorts of
    	things many Americans reject are going to be pushed.  That
    	our U.S. delegation is dominated by lesbians and feminists
    	speaks volumes.  And to push these agendas, they are hiding
    	behind the truly sad situations that exist in the world.  They
    	are using as human shields the delegations that are fighting 
    	for true needs such as potable water, and literacy, and 
    	antibiotics.
    
    	Your reply in .1 is, at best, deception through gross
    	understatement.
    
    	That this women's convention is being hosted by China -- a
    	nation known for sinister violations of women's rights such
    	as forced sterilizations and abortions, and gender-specific
    	abortions and infanticide to the degree that some provinces
    	are nearly 65% male (and you certainly know all about these,
    	Meg, for you have used these very examples to claim that laws
    	to restrict abortion might somehow grow to these very same 
    	atrocities here) -- that China is hosting this conference in 
    	the face of these violations is an outrage.  
    
    	I don't understand why you, Meg, and other women do not take
    	this as an insult!  Instead you are all falling over yourselves
    	to support this.
    
    	Politics makes strange bedfellows!

re Note 1118.9 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>     	You know as well as anyone that there is more agenda to it --
>     	that gender feminism, and abortion rights, and all sorts of
>     	things many Americans reject are going to be pushed.  

        What's "gender feminism"?  Is there feminism that has nothing
        to do with gender?

        Abortion rights are the law of the land in the U.S.
        (generally reaffirmed even by the recent court decisions), so
        there's nothing at odds with American policy there.

>     	our U.S. delegation is dominated by lesbians and feminists
>     	speaks volumes.  

        Since a feminist is anyone concerned with advancing and
        protecting women's issues, *by definition* the delegation
        should be 100% feminist.  Nothing strange there.

>     	Your reply in .1 is, at best, deception through gross
>     	understatement.
  
        But then Dobson's is deception through gross overstatement
        (such generalizations serve no purpose).
          
>     	That this women's convention is being hosted by China -- a
>     	nation known for sinister violations of women's rights such
>     	as forced sterilizations and abortions, and gender-specific
>     	abortions and infanticide to the degree that some provinces
>     	are nearly 65% male (and you certainly know all about these,
  
        Sounds like an *excellent* reason for the rest of the world
        to use this opportunity to bring messages of women's rights
        to the heart of a land that needs to hear them.  (Sounds like
        a strange argument from a Christian -- "that nation is so
        wicked that we'll have nothing to do with them".)

>     	atrocities here) -- that China is hosting this conference in 
>     	the face of these violations is an outrage.  
  
        So who else offered to host it?  Did Dobson? Did the Vatican? 
        Did you?
          
>     	Politics makes strange bedfellows!

        That the most materialist of philosophies and Christianity
        should have been wedded in the religious right certainly
        proves this!

        Bob

<<< Note 1118.10 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)" >>>

>        What's "gender feminism"?  Is there feminism that has nothing
>        to do with gender?
    
    	It is a philosophy that pushes the concept of the absence of
    	gender roles and characteristics.
    
    	What purpose it serves in a conference that is supposed to
    	get drinking water and literacy for third world women is
    	beyond my understanding.

>        Abortion rights are the law of the land in the U.S.
    
    	And it is not so for other countries.  Why should activist
    	women from the US be pushing their reproductive agendas on 
    	countries who do not believe in the atrocity of abortion?  
    	How will this help underdeveloped countries get drinking
    	water?  SOme countries have complained that they can get
    	all the IUDs and condoms they want, but they can't get
    	staple foods.

>        Since a feminist is anyone concerned with advancing and
>        protecting women's issues, *by definition* the delegation
>        should be 100% feminist.  Nothing strange there.
    
    	There is a big difference between feminism defined as "pertaining
    	to womens issues" and political feminism.  If you have to ask, 
    	I don't have the patience to explain it.

>        But then Dobson's is deception through gross overstatement
    
    	I do not agree that it is an overstatement.
          
>        Sounds like an *excellent* reason for the rest of the world
>        to use this opportunity to bring messages of women's rights
>        to the heart of a land that needs to hear them.  
    
    	That sounds naive to me, but I truly hope that you're right.
    
>        (Sounds like
>        a strange argument from a Christian -- "that nation is so
>        wicked that we'll have nothing to do with them".)
    
    	Shake the dust from your feet...
    
    	But more than that, this conference is far from a Christian
    	outreach to a wicked nation.  The conference itself is about
    	as anti-religious as it can get.

>        So who else offered to host it?  Did Dobson? Did the Vatican? 
>        Did you?
    
    	This reply from you is rather offensive as I perceived it.  
    	Hopefully I'm just misinterpreting it.  Perhaps you are
    	unaware that several other cities also lobbied for this
    	conference, and Beijing was selected.

    Joe,
    
    "Gender feminism" sounds like one of those new "straw feminist" terms
    made up by the MC to try to derail anything that will improve women's
    lots in life.  In fact Dobson, and his ilk are the only people I have
    read use that term.  If giving women equal opportunities in this world
    is gender feminism, color me one.  If giving men the opportunity to
    nurture as well as economic parity is GF, then I am definitely one, as
    you well know.
    
    One other thing, unless people recieve a message of freedom, and that
    includes reproductive choice, how can you expect things to change?  I
    would think in your zeal to evangelize the world to your dieties, you
    would understand that ignorance of your god happens by refusing to go
    to said places.  Besides if this is such an evil place, (and you and I
    know that forced reproduction, as well as forced non-reproduction is
    evil) and the dust should be shaken from one's feet, then why is Dobson
    sending a delegation of observers?  
    
    Have you read any of the 12 major points of the UN Document, or only
    what you have had filtered by a man with what I percieve to have as an
    agenda, a way to continue the status-quo for women in the world,
    including that of China.
    
    meg

  
  >  	our U.S. delegation is dominated by lesbians and feminists
  >  	speaks volumes.  And to push these agendas, they are hiding
  >  	behind the truly sad situations that exist in the world.  They
  >  	are using as human shields the delegations that are fighting 
  >  	for true needs such as potable water, and literacy, and 
  >  	antibiotics.
   
    
    Joe,
    
    there is quite a bit of bigotry and hatred that comes through in that
    note.  It is sad.
    
                                  Patricia

    <<< Note 1118.12 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    If giving women equal opportunities in this world
>    is gender feminism, color me one.  If giving men the opportunity to
>    nurture as well as economic parity is GF, then I am definitely one, as
>    you well know.
    
    	These are not gender feminism.
    
>    One other thing, unless people recieve a message of freedom, and that
>    includes reproductive choice, how can you expect things to change?  
    
    	Taking the life of one's offspring is a terrible example of
    	"freedom".  Linking the social, governmental and political
    	acceptance of it to grants for clean water and education is
    	a terrible abuse of power.
    
>    would think in your zeal to evangelize the world to your dieties, you
>    would understand that ignorance of your god happens by refusing to go
>    to said places.  
    
    	There are plenty of missionaries throughout China.  The
    	purpose and focus of some of the elements in this conference
    	are far from evangelical, and far from Christian in nature.
    	Holding a womens conference in Beijing makes as much sense as
    	holding a capitalism conference there.
    
>    then why is Dobson sending a delegation of observers?  
    
    	To be a first-hand observer.  To ensure that we hear the 
    	truth of what is going on there.  To tell the world that 
    	most of the USA does not adhere to the ideologies of the
    	Bella Abzugs there who pretend to be our official 
    	"representatives" to this conference and who push these
    	extreme positions.
    
>    Have you read any of the 12 major points of the UN Document, or only
>    what you have had filtered by a man with what I percieve to have as an
>    agenda, a way to continue the status-quo for women in the world,
>    including that of China.
    
	I have read them all.
    
    	And I also contend that your perception of Dr. Dobson speaks
    	volumes about your own agenda.

    	Patricia --
    
    	I see truth in my entry.  You see bigtry and hatred.
    
    	I see bigotry and hatred in your entries.  You see truth
    	in them.
    
    	I see little chance in ever bridging the chasm of our
    	ideological extremes.

    Joe,
    
    You still haven't defined gender feminism in any way that makes sense. 
    I am really trying to understand.  Your original statement was that
    feminists who believe that gender roles aren't necessary or right
    already makes me an apparent gender feminist.  Then you say that the
    same ideas of economic, educational, and freedom for women and men
    aren't gender feminism.  Are these statements gender masculanism then,
    or gender humanism?  
    
    Dobson has completely ignored the goals of the Women's conference to
    focus his own narrow agenda as far as I can see.  I have read the
    points and I don't understand how he can still refer to this as
    "Satan's Trump Card."  Maybe you could enlighten me?  
    
    meg

    And BTW:
    
    I happen to havwe a lot of respect for Bella Absug.  She at least cared
    about humans, something I find difficult to believe some observers of
    the conference do.  Using her name to try and besmirch women and the
    feminist movements is a little like trying to use the crucifixion as an
    excuse to besmirch the Jewish religion.
    
    meg

    <<< Note 1118.16 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    Maybe you could enlighten me?  
    
    	Maybe I can, but from past experience I've come to learn that
    	I probably cannot, or if I can, it is far too much pain and
    	effort given our respective ideologies and the associated 
    	pre-defensiveness with which we seem to approach each other.
    
    	You've already told me here what your prejudice is regarding
    	Dr. Dobson.  I'm not interested in trying to overcome that.
    
    	And you know very well my prejudices with certain current 
    	social trends.  I wonder if you are really expecting to 
    	overcome them, or if you are using this to beat me over
    	the head with it.  I don't see the former as very likely,
    	and I don't see the latter as very useful.
    
    	Bye.

    	re .17
    
    	Fine, Meg.  This just goes to show how far apart we are, and
    	how absolutely hopeless we are of coming to understanding.
    
    	I see Absug as about as far out in left field as a person
    	can get.  I see your perspective as you've presented it in
    	notes over the years in much the same way.  I expect no less
    	than for you to have a lot of respect for her.
    
    	You have no respect for Dobson, much as you have no respect for
    	my perspective.  I have every respect for the man.  Surely you
    	would expect nothing less from me.
    
    	And you and I will both proudly proclaim allegiance to these
    	respective philosophies, and we'll wear each others' mutual
    	disrespect for the other's philosophy with pride.
    
    	Have I pretty much summed it up?
    
    	Is there anything with respect to this particular issue worth 
    	discussing that won't be hopelessly derailed by our respective
    	beliefs?

re .18


i would also like to know what "gender feminism" is?

since you use the term joe, what do you mean by it.


andreas.

    In my opinion, I believe it is a fallacy that the roles of men and
    women can always be interchangable.  I believe each gender was created
    equally but with distinct gender roles.  My guess is that gender
    feminism calls for the conclusion that the genders are not
    differentiated in regards to roles.  If this is the case, I disagree
    with it.
    
    Not knowing too much about the conference, I personally am not happy
    with the delagation.  Mizvinski is about as left as they come and I
    personally have no use for Hillary Rodham Clinton.  I also find it
    interesting that no conservative women were considered as part of the
    delegation for any kind of balance.  I find this to be quite
    disingenuous and also misrepresentative of the diversity of the United
    States.  I find this extremely hypocritical since it is typically the
    left who voices the diversity thing...where in this case diversity is
    NOT valued by any means.
    
    -Jack

    Joe,
    
    Do you own any running shoes, cross trainers, etc.
    
    What brand are they?
    
    Gender feminism, from what I can tell is still a made-up word.  The
    fact that no one has successfuly defined it in itty bitty english words
    so I can understand it, says to me that it is one of those sound-bites
    phrases that have popped up ever since Abigail Adams, and Dolly Madison
    asked that women be remembered in the constitution.
    
    meg

    	Every word is a made-up word at some point.
    
    	I've already told you that I'm not getting into it here
    	for I know what your (and others') response will be, so
    	I see no value in it.

don't expect to be taken seriously if you choose to make a display 
of what can only be called mountains of prejudice or downright ignorance.




andreas.

    	Whatever, andreas.
    
    	Frankly, I don't expect to be taken seriously by many of
    	you in here anyway.  You're going to call things what you're 
    	going to call them, no matter how much volume of discussion
    	I hold with you.  I've said what I'm going to say, and it
    	has apparently roused you enough to at least catch your
    	attention.  The incremental cost to me for anything more
    	just isn't worth it to me.

I figured that maybe putting in the points of the UN Conference on 
women might help shed light, rather than filtered misconceptions on
the conference.  I will put the main 12 points in as I have time 
over the next few days.

meg

 12 Critical Areas of Concern,
a blueprint for women's advancement in countries around the world,
which will be the main document to be adopted at the Fourth World
Conference on Women to be held in Beijing, China, September 4-15,
1995      


1.  "THE PERSISTENT AND INCREASING BURDEN OF POVERTY ON
WOMEN" portion of the Proposed Platform of Action, 12 Areas of
Concern to be considered for action at the 4th Women's Conference to
be held in Beijing Sept. 4-15, 1995:
      * Women constitute nearly 60 percent of the world's 1.2 billion
poor.
      * The total number of rural women living in poverty was
estimated in 1988 to be 564 million.  This is an increase of 47 per  
cent above the numbers in 1965-1970.
      *  One-third of families worldwide are headed by women. The
highest proportion of female-headed households in developing regions
is recorded  for Africa, followed by the least developed countries as
a group.
      * In the US almost half of all poor families are supported by
women with no spouse present, and their average income is 23 per
cent below the official poverty line.
ACTIONS PROPOSED BY PFA INCLUDE:
      * Analyze, from a gender perspective, the impact of national
programs and policies; develop policies and programs to promote
equitable distribution of resources within the household;
restructure and target the allocation of public expenditures to
promote women's equal and more equitable access to productive
resources; revise laws and administrative practices to give
women full and equal access to economic resources; strengthen links
between the formal banks and non-formal lending institutions to
enhance women's access to credit; review the impact of structural
adjustment programs for reducing negative impact on women.

Re: .26 Meg

>                            -< UN COW first point >-

The humor of that particular acronym didn't strike me until now. :-)

				-- Bob

2. Education Statistics:
      Though a rough parity in enrollment has been achieved for
girls and boys at the primary level, girls continue to be denied
quality education, especially in such fields as science and technology.
Drop-out rates among girls are also much higher than among boys.
Almost two thirds of all illiterate people in the world still are women,
the majority of them rural adults.
      Of the world's 1 billion illiterate adults, two-thirds are women; 
among women over 45 years of age, illiteracy rates in developing
countries are usually 50 percent and exceed 70 per cent in Africa
and Asia; approximately 500 million children start primary school, but
more than 100 million children, two-thirds of them girls, drop out
before completing four years of primary school.
      Women are increasingly entering colleges and universities. In
1990 the average ratio of women to each 100 men in tertiary
education were in Africa (32), Asia and the Pacific (84), Western
Europe and Other (94), Eastern Europe (104), and Latin America and
the Caribbean (106).
      Actions proposed include: Provide, by the year 2000, universal
access to basic education and completion of primary education by at
least 80 percent of primary school-age children; close the gender gap
in primary and secondary school education by the year 2005, and
universal primary education in all countries before the year 2015;
reduce the female illiteracy rate, especially among rural,  migrant,
refugee, internally displaced, and disabled women, to at least half the
1990 level; develop non-discriminatory education and training,
including vocational training, especially in science and
technology.

           3. INEQUALITIES IN HEALTH AND ACCESS TO APPROPRIATE
     HEALTH CARE SERVICES
           Throughout their lives, women experience special health
     problems due to biological difference and social conditioning,
     including lack of access to and inadequate health care services.
     Despite significant advances in primary health care, high morbidity
     and mortality rates of women due to inadequate attention to
     reproductive health persist. More than 500,000 women die each year
     due to complications from pregnancy and half of all adults newly
     infected by HIV/AIDS are female.
           The Platform states that the right to health is a fundamental
     human right vital to women's ability to participate in all areas of
     public and private life.      
           Women now constitute 40 percent of HIV-infected adults. By the
     year 2000, more than 14 million women may become infected  with the
     virus.  Each year at least half a million women  die from
     complications due to pregnancy and another 100,000 due to
     unsafe abortions.
           ACTIONS PROPOSED INCLUDE: 
           By Governments (in collaboration with the UN system, the
     medical community, research institutions, NGOs, media and others):
     Design  and  implement  gender-sensitive  health programs; Provide
     affordable primary health-care; Give particular attention to the needs
     of girls; Ensure  women's  involvement  in  decision-making relating
     to HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, facilitate the
     development of strategies to protect women from HIV and other STDs,
     ensure the provision for affordable preventive services for STDs and
     HIV/AIDS;
           Promote research on women's health, increase the number of
     women decision-makers in the health sector, develop and encourage
     dissemination of data and research findings on women's health;
     Increase funding for health care and social services. 

     4. VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
           Violence against women is a global problem. Historically, men
     have dominated women and discriminated against them. Women's lack
     of access to legal information, aid or protection, the lack of laws 
     and inadequate efforts by public authorities to enforce existing laws in
     some cases increase violence against them. The Declaration on the
     Elimination of Violence Against Women condemns gender-based
     violence encountered by women and girls within the family and
     community. This includes domestic violence, rape, sexual harassment
     and intimidation in the workplace and in educational institutions,
     harmful traditional practices and State condoned violence against
     women and girls. All violate fundamental human rights. Cultural
     patterns that perpetuate women's lower status also contribute to
     violence against them.  Violence against women is now recognized as
     a global problem which transcends ethnic groups, religion, age, and
     level of development. It is abetted by women's lack of legal literacy,
     by inadequate laws, and lack of enforcement of existing laws. Media's
     treatment of women is another contributing factor.
           In the US, a woman is physically abused every eight
     seconds and one is raped every six minutes. In India, five women are
     burned in dowry-related disputes each day. In Papua, New Guinea, 67
     percent of the women are victims of domestic violence.
           Actions proposed by PFA include:
           By Governments: Condemn violence against women and not use
     any custom, tradition or religious considerations to avoid their
     obligations to its elimination; Adopt measures to modify the social 
     and cultural patterns of men and women; Provide well-funded shelters
     and relief support for victims of violence; Assist female victims of
     violence due to prostitution and trafficking; Consider ratification 
     and enforcement of international treaties on trafficking and slavery.
           By Governments, employers, NGOs and others: Develop programs
     and procedures to eliminate sexual harassment and other forms  of
     violence in all educational institutions, workplace and elsewhere. 
     Promote research on violence against women, encourage
     the media to examine the gender stereotypes and take measures to
     eliminate them.

        

        
5. EFFECTS OF ARMED OR OTHER KINDS OF CONFLICT ON WOMEN
          
Since the end of the Cold War, armed conflict has not decreased; in fact,
ethnic and religious conflicts are an on-going reality in nearly every
region. Women and girls suffer the consequences of armed conflict and
militarism in special ways due to their status in society and their sex.
The impact of violence is experienced by women of all ages who are
subjected to acts of terrorism, torture, disappearance, rape and
displacement: 80% of the world's 25 million refugees are women and
children. 
          
New approaches to peace and security are urgently needed. The draft
Platform argues that while women have been under-represented,if not
altogether absent, at the highest levels of decision-making, in matters of
security and peace,the time has come to include them. It states "The
perspectives of women could provide a more constructive approach to the
use of power and to the resolution of conflict. If given the opportunity,
women have shown an ability to resolve conflicts, at both national and
international levels." 
           
Women often are also victims of torture, disappearance, and systematic
rape as a weapon of war.  Women and their dependents constitute 80 percent
of the world's 23 million refugees.  More than 20,000 women were reported
to have been raped in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the first months of the war
there.  ACTIONS PROPOSED BY PFA INCLUDE: By Governments:  Strengthen the
role of women in peace and security activities;  Hasten the conversion of
military resources and related industries to (development) purposes; 
Undertake new ways of generating financial resources, through reduction of
military expenditure, to provide more funds for social and economic
development;  Consider ratifying international treaties on protection of
women and children in armed conflicts. Take steps to ensure safety and
physical integrity of refugee women; Condemn the systematic practice of
rape and other degrading treatment as a deliberate instrument of war and
ethnic cleansing. 

       6. INEQUALITY IN WOMEN'S ACCESS TO AND PARTICIPATION IN
     THE DEFINITION OF ECONOMIC STRUCTURES AND POLICIES AND THE
     PRODUCTIVE PROCESS
           Though women are primary producers of food and contribute
     significantly to economic life everywhere,  they are largely excluded
     from economic decision-making.  In most societies they lack equal
     access to and control over, various means of production, including
     land, capital, and technology, and their work is underpaid and
     undervalued. However, experience shows that, when given access to
     resources, technology, and training, women can take the lead in
     expanding production.
            The globalization of the economy is also undermining women's
     self- reliant initiatives of savings, production, and trade. There 
     has,
     however, been a growth in women's self-reliant activities in the
     informal sector and in the numbers who are owners and managers of
     small and medium-sized enterprises. 
            About 854 million women - about 32 percent of the global labor
     force  -  were estimated  to  be economically active in 1990. The
     proportion of women in top governmental decision- making positions 
     (ministerial level  or  higher) is relatively low:  6.2  percent  of  
     all 
     ministerial positions; in economic ministries, only 3.6 percent. In
     144 countries, there are no women at all in these areas and at these
     levels.
           At the corporate level, US companies have eight women for
     every 100 men. Most female managers are concentrated at lower
     levels. In the 1,000 largest corporations outside the United States,
     only one of 100 executives is a woman.
           Actions proposed include: Enact and enforce legislation to
     guarantee the rights of women and  men to equal pay for equal work
     or work of equal value;  Adopt and implement laws against sex-based
     discrimination in employment;  Devise mechanisms and apply positive
     action to enable women full and equal participation in economic
     decision-making; Strengthen women's access to credit and capital.

         7. INEQUALITY BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN IN THE SHARING OF
     POWER AND DECISION-MAKING AT ALL LEVELS
           Women have made little progress in attaining political positions
     in legislative bodies or in achieving the target of 30% in decision-
     making levels proposed by the Economic and Social Council. Although
     they constitute at least half of the electorate in almost all 
     countries
     and have had the right to vote and hold office for more than a
     generation, few women are candidates for public office. According to
     the draft Platform "Discriminatory attitudes which permeate education
     and training, political party culture and government structures
     restrict women's political participation and deprive the world of
     women's leadership and vision."
           In 1993, there were only six female heads of Government
     worldwide. At the UN only six of the 186 Member countries have
     women Permanent Representatives. More than 100 countries have no 
     women in parliament at all. Developing countries have a better record
     of women's parliamentary representation (12 percent) than the
     industrialized nations (9 percent).
           Actions proposed include: Commit to establish the goal of
     gender balance in governmental bodies and committees. Consider
     examining party structures and procedures to remove discrimination
     against women's participation. Develop mechanism to appoint women in
     senior posts in UN organizations;

      8. INSUFFICIENT MECHANISM AT ALL LEVELS TO PROMOTE THE
     ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN
           Though national institutions (e.g. ministries, statistical 
     offices,
     research units etc.) for the advancement of women have been created
     in most countries, they often lack financial and human resources to
     perform adequately. Similar problems exist at the international level.
     Mechanisms to promote the advancement of women as an integral part
     of mainstream political, developmental or human rights initiatives are
     similarly weak, due to lack of commitment at the highest levels.
           The UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) provides direct
     technical and financial support to help improve the living standards
     of women in developing countries. The International Research and
     Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) of the
     UN carries out research, training and information activities to
     promote women as key agents for sustainable development.
           Actions proposed: Create national machineries for women's
     advancement at the highest possible level. Carry out gender analysis
     before making policy decisions. Establish direct links with national,
     regional and international bodies dealing with women's advancement.
     Promote better collection and analysis of data related to human rights
     of women.

     9. LACK OF AWARENESS OF, AND COMMITMENT TO, INTERNATIONALLY
     AND NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED WOMEN'S HUMAN RIGHTS

           The 1994 World Conference on Human Rights reaffirmed that the
     human rights of women throughout the life cycle are inalienable, 
     indivisible and an integral part of universal human rights. All 
     efforts for the advancement of women are based on universal respect 
     for these rights. In many countries, the lack of awareness of one's  
     rights and how to exercise them remains a considerable obstacle to  
     women's enjoyment of their full and equal participation in society. 
     The Platform also calls for the full implementation of the 
     Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against 
     Women and other human rights instruments.
           Women may have rights guaranteed by law but are often unable to
     exercise them fully. This is due to a failure by Governments to 
     promote and protect those rights. Appropriate  recourse mechanisms 
     at national and international levels are also lacking. Women's 
     rights are not secured in countries that have not accepted the  
     Convention on the Elimination  of All
     Forms of Discrimination against Women.

Point 10 -"Insufficient use of Mass Media to Promote Women's Positive
Contributions to Society - Advances in information technology have led to
the development of international media organizations which transcend
national boundaries and which have the power to shape public policy and
influence private attitudes. They promote greater interaction among people,
rapid exchange of knowledge and accessible sources of information.  But
they continue to project stereotyped images of women, and they fail to
provide an accurate picture of women's roles and values in a changing
world. There  are still too many programs which include images of violence
and dominance, with women invariably portrayed as victims.
      "The draft Platform states that women are now using the expanding
electronic information highways to link up with each other and to establish
networks which provide them with alternative sources of information. It
adds that "this will strengthen their ability to combat negative portrayals
of women internationally and to challenge the power of an industry which
is outside public control and is self-regulatory."
      "The draft Platform's objectives seek to increase and enhance
women's access to decision-making in and through the mass media and to
promote a positive image of women by the media."

      Point 11. Lack of Adequate Recognition and Support for Women's
Contribution to Managing Natural Resources and Safeguarding the
Environment.
      All regions of the world are affected by accelerated resource
depletion and environmental degradation, due to drought, desertification,
deforestation, natural disasters, and polluting substances. Awareness of
these disasters has increased markedly in the past decade. Women,
however, are still largely absent from public decision-making in
environmental management, protection, and conservation while being critical
actors at the grassroots level.
      The draft Platform argues that women, particularly indigenous women,
have pivotal roles in environmental conservation. It identifies a linkage
between poverty and deteriorating natural environments and states that
the strategic actions needed for sound environmental management requires
a holistic, multidisciplinary, and inter-sectoral approach. The proposed
actions are designed to promote the involvement of women in environmental
decision- making at all levels and to ensure the integration of women's
needs, concerns, and perspectives in policies and programs for
environmental and sustainable development.
      In most developing countries, women are responsible for obtaining
water and fuel and in managing household consumption.  As a result, they
are especially concerned with the quality and sustainability of the
environment. Yet, because women are largely absent from decision-making,
environmental policies often do not take into account the close links
between their daily lives and the environment.
  *  Women account for half of the food production in developing
countries.  In some African countries, they have to walk 10 kilometres or
more to fetch water and fuel.
  *  Much of the soil conservation in East Africa over the past decades
has been carried out by women.
  *  In India, women provide 75 per cent of the labour for transplanting
and weeding rice, 60 per cent for harvesting, and 33 per cent for
threshing.

    I haven't received point 12 yeat and will happily post it when I
    can get my hands on it.
    
    I fail to see any references to coerced breeding or sterility, "gender
    feminism" (whatever that is), or the practice of satanism.  I fail to
    see what the issue is for people here.
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    Actually, the root problems in the titles are worthy of exploration and
    resolution to the betterment of societies.  Actually, alot of them but
    not all of them.  Consider the following hurdles which in mind creates
    a battle that is already lost.
    
    The earth is made up of thousands of cultures.  This is going to come
    as a shock to many here but guess what?  Not all cultures are good.  In
    fact, there are many many cultures out there that are deplorable and
    worthless.  This is why I am against multiculturalism and I resist the
    notion that good comes from all cultures.  This is a myth.  Therefore,
    one must conclude that the conference will fail to turn any of these
    valued propositions to the positive since there are many cultures where
    women are looked upon as chattel and there is no hope in sight in the
    near future...or even the distant future.
    
    Knowledge is power, therefore, education is power.  The world is full
    of women who are resistant to change, even to their betterment.  If
    they don't want the power, they will continue to live in squalor.
    
    This is an important point and I particularly hope Patricia reads this. 
    You, Meg, have adaquately pointed out that humanity is basically bad
    and will continue in depravity.  As stated, women and children in alot
    of cultures are looked upon as chattel and are not held in high esteem
    as the apostle Paul commanded men in the local church to do.  I find
    this misuse of mens roles to be distasteful; but there you have
    it...thousands of cultures, especially China, where paradigms are in
    place and women are losing out.  
    
    In this light, the conference is an exercise in futility.  If the UN
    can't even get their act together in Yugoslavia, I am hardpressed to
    understand how they would manage a task of this proportion.  
    
    What needs to be implemented is a change of heart and attitude.  Then
    the paradigms will break and change will follow.  I just think its a
    shame that the liberal wing of woman attending are intolerent of
    diversity.  How can they possibly understand the scope of different
    cultures if they can't understand difference in ideology within their
    own culture.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Again, the one diversity that I am not going to honor is bigotry!
    
    I happen to believe that every personal action makes a difference.
    
    It means a lot to me as a women that such a diverse group of women is
    getting together and saying that it is NOT OK that women are mistreated
    and subjected to inferior status.
    
    We are all a part of an interconnected Web.
    Every member of the web makes a difference.
    
    It is not OK for anyone to say, that it is hopeless so we don't have to
    do anything.
    
    I just happen to believe that each one of us is incarnate with the
    Spirit of Goddess/God and that each one of us is co-creators with
    Goddess/God in bringing about the Reign of the Divine, here on earth! 
    
                                   Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    ZZZ    Again, the one diversity that I am not going to honor is bigotry!
    
    If...and I repeat, IF bigotry as you use it is in the context of my use
    of multiculturalism, then I stand by what I said.  I still submit there
    are cultures that are reprehensible and beyond hope.  This has nothing
    to do with bigotry, it has to do with observation and considering the
    way these cultures treat women, I'd be hard pressed to understand why
    you wouldn't agree with me.
    
    I agree with you that every action makes a difference...minut though
    they be.  Let's just say that this conference will have about as much
    an impact in changing the lives of women throughout the world as the
    impact I would make in the ocean level by throwing a 20 pound rock in
    it.  Like I said, there are many parts of the world that are simply
    beyond hope.
    
    -Jack

         <<< Note 1118.40 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    It means a lot to me as a women that such a diverse group of women is
>    getting together and saying that it is NOT OK that women are mistreated
>    and subjected to inferior status.
    
    	Perhaps the conference itself will be a diverse gathering, but
    	do you think the US delegation will be diverse and representative
    	of US women?

    
    I'll answer your question, Joe.  No, the U.S. delegation is in no way
    diverse.  It is dominated (exclusively?) by left-wing feminists and
    liberal internationalists.
    
    jeff

.0> upcoming UN conference on the rights of women.  "You would not believe
.0> what they hope to accomplish there, including the complete destruction
.0> of the family," said he.  Dobson went on to call the conference "the most
.0> radical, atheistic and anti-family crusade in the history of the world."

having now read 11 of the 12 points (thanks for posting them, meg), i fail
to see how the conference is supposed to 'completely destroy the family'.
would anyone who understands dobson's claim be kind enough to explain?

also, why are half of all poor families in the US supported by women 
with no spouse present? are there so many men who run away from their 
responsibilities?



andreas.

    I can answer that Andreas.  These are primarily men who are
    cowards...who have little sense of responsibility or conviction, and
    who are not following the precepts of spiritual leadership in the
    family.
    
    -Jack

    Jack, I'm confused.  You have said there are cultures that are 
    worthless because of the way women are treated within those 
    cultures....yet the US was mentioned (by name - the only country
    singled out, in fact) several times in the 12 points as a culture
    where women are victimized by rape, excluded from the highest
    positions of economic power, and disproportionally represented
    among the poor and disenfranchised.

    I would be interested in how you'd compare our culture to the 
    cultures you know to be " deplorable and worthless" - using the
    treatment of women as a yardstick...

    /Greg

    Sorry, I didn't mean to use the treatment of women solely as a
    yardstick.  I was pointing out to Patricia that the UN Conference is
    met with a dubious feeling due to the fact that the world is made up of
    different cultures...all with different paradigms.  Many of these
    cultures consider women to be chattel and many of these cultures are
    bad...bad....bad!  It is inconsistent to say that there is something
    good in all cultures when in fact the UN document is saying that the
    world is full of these inequities between the genders. 
    
    Then again I could be showing my bias since I believe the Clinton
    Administration is cowering behind the UN and the UN should be booted
    out of New York...and we should consider leaving them anyway.  The UN
    can operate military exercises about as well as a Eunich can procreate!
    
    
    -Jack

    Maybe my confusion stems from my assumption that you consider
    our culture to be good.   I mean, there are inequities between
    the genders in our country but women here haven't been openly 
    treated as chattle for decades.  
    
    I'm still not sure how you define a "bad" culture...but it 
    isn't that important.
    
    /Greg

         <<< Note 1118.44 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    I believe that US delegation will be diverse.  My guess is the the
>    better educated, more socially, more independent and powerful women
>    will attend.  
    
    	"Will be"?  Save for deciding whether Hillary Clinton will
    	be a part of it, it is pretty much set.  And no conservatives
    	are on it.  
    
    	If your statement is true, you are suggesting that no "better
    	educated, more socially, more independent and powerful women"
    	are conservative...

    Yes.  In some circles, that would be considered an elitist attitude!
    
    -Jack

    No, My concern is that almost all groups do not adequately represent
    all people.  It is not the conservative who get left out but the poor,
    and invisible.
    
                                         

 ZZ    It is not the conservative who get left out but the poor,
 ZZ    and invisible.
    
    Patricia, this is a very broad brush statement.  So we can assume that
    all the downtrodden in this country are not conservative?  
    
    You also make the false assumption that if somebody is poor or
    downtrodden, then they were certainly treated with injustice in their
    life.  This is simply a fallacy.  I firmly believe that if one becomes
    reasonably well off, then it is mainly because they have a vision for
    their lives and have the desire to excel in their lifetime.  They
    establish goals and go through the steps to achieve them.
    
    Go to any street in Boston, pan handlers exist because they went to
    Vietnam and couldn't cope...or they did drugs...or they are
    alcoholic...or yes, they simply lost their job.  But please don't sit
    there and tell us that the poor and invisible are a creation of the
    conservatives.  Please remember that Bill Clintons cabinet is all
    millionaire and they are about as liberal as they come!  
    
    -Jack

re Note 1118.39 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     This is why I am against multiculturalism and I resist the
>     notion that good comes from all cultures.  

        What does "multiculturalism" have to do with the above?  The
        *only* reference to culture in the above 11 points would
        agree with you, i.e., that there are aspects of cultures that
        are harmful to women and which should be opposed.

        Why do conservatives always bring up straw men like
        "multiculturalism" or "gender feminism" in attempts to
        discredit unrelated concepts?

        Are you really suggesting that there are cultures that are
        evil in toto?  Obviously *all* cultures have some negative
        aspects, but are you really willing to say that there are
        some societies that are totally depraved and have absolutely
        no valuable aspects of their culture?

        (Obviously, we are not talking about things like the "drug
        culture" or "prison culture", right, but rather mean the
        culture of a certain city, nation, or ethnic group.)

        Bob

    re .53
    
    It is a typical reactionary approach to poverty to blame the poor for
    their being poor.   I don't buy it.  There are systemic injustices that
    separate those who have and those who don't.  
    
    It may be very comforting for you to feel that you deserve what you
    have and those who are suffering have nothing to do with you and they
    too deserve their poverty.  
    
     It just ain't that simple!  
    
     Some of us are just luckier than others!
    

    
    Luck has nothing to do with it!
    
    jeff

    Well, I agree Patricia that some of us are more blessed than others...
    but this of course depends upon ones measurement of what a blessing is.  
    Societry has set yet another paradigm which states that if you aren't
    rich...or even a little below the ability to make ends meet, then you
    are a victim...or you aren't treated fairly.  
    
    I reject that teaching just as you reject my philosophy.  You claim
    that people are impoverished due to the lack of fairness and justice in
    the world today.  This to me is both true and false.  I believe a
    business for example, exists secondly to provide a service but
    primarily to make a profit...and to make the most they can.  If this
    means paying the lowest wage possible, then so be it.  This is clearly
    pointed out in Jesus' parable of the workers in the vineyard.  The
    workers who started at sunset got paid the same amount as the workers
    who started ten hours before them.  Moral:  Be content with your wages
    and be happy with the contracts you make.
    
    I don't consider my salary at Digital to be anything spectacular...bvt
    I agreed to the verbal contract and am supplementing it on my personal
    time with delivery routes.  I could easily sit at home and complain
    that Digital is victimizing me...and taking advantage of me.  Other
    than the fact this is false, the bottom line is that Digital owes me
    nothing more than we agreed to.   Likewise, the impoverished who have
    the drive to better themselves, despite all cultural obstacles, CAN do
    so.  
    
    I have very little patience with individuals who complain and don't
    display the desire to better themselves.  Your on the streets, your
    down and out...hey, it could happen to me to.  But darn it establish a
    vision for your life...even if it takes some time, do it!  Don't hang
    around the Fenway pan handling for change.  It doesn't have to be that
    way!
    
    -Jack

re Note 1118.57 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     I believe a
>     business for example, exists secondly to provide a service but
>     primarily to make a profit...and to make the most they can.  If this
>     means paying the lowest wage possible, then so be it.  This is clearly
>     pointed out in Jesus' parable of the workers in the vineyard.  The
>     workers who started at sunset got paid the same amount as the workers
>     who started ten hours before them.  Moral:  Be content with your wages
>     and be happy with the contracts you make.
  
        Perhaps you didn't *intend* to pull a logical
        bait-and-switch, but you just did:  you try to prove that it
        is moral for the business owner to pay as little as they can
        yet the proof you offer is that the workman should abide by
        the contract into which they entered.

        These are two different roles of two different individuals!

        (This kind of position -- that the business owner is morally
        obligated to pay as *little* to the laborers as the business
        can get away with -- is a perfect example of the melding of
        that most materialistic of philosophies, secular capitalism,
        with Christianity.  As I have pointed out before, this is no
        more reasonable than attempting to merge materialistic
        socialism with Christianity.)

        Bob

    Actually, I didn't say a business owner was obliged to pay the lowest
    wage.  What I was saying was that it is ethically permissable to pay
    the worker what is agreed to within legal limits.  If a worker accepts
    minimum wage, then there shouldn't be anything to accuse the capitalist
    of.  
    
    -Jack

re Note 1118.59 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Actually, I didn't say a business owner was obliged to pay the lowest
>     wage.  What I was saying was that it is ethically permissable to pay
>     the worker what is agreed to within legal limits.  If a worker accepts
>     minimum wage, then there shouldn't be anything to accuse the capitalist
>     of.  
  
        Oh?  From Note 1118.57 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     I believe a
>     business for example, exists secondly to provide a service but
>     primarily to make a profit...and to make the most they can.  If this
>     means paying the lowest wage possible, then so be it.  

        "business ... exists ... primarily to make a [maximum] profit
        ..." -- it is hard to escape the conclusion from what you
        write that a business owner would be wrong to pay even one
        more cent than the owner could get away with for any expense,
        including labor.

        Bob

    Let me word it this way.  It is in the best interest of the company to
    pay the wage commensurate with the industry.  Business doesn't owe
    society this...not at all.  Business does it because it is compelled to
    due to competition and the desire to hold on to talented individuals.
    Companies pay more BECAUSE it is economically beneficial to them.  Not
    because they are morally compelled to.  
    
    This is the unfortunate fact but it is better than communism...which
    has brought to China and Russia the plight they are currently dealing
    with!
    
    -jACK

Re: .61 Jack

Of course, in a democracy like the United States the people have decided
that business needs a gentle push from the government sometimes to help
them do the right thing by their employees, like paying them at least the
minimum wage, providing sanitary and safe working conditions, limiting
working hours to 40 hours a week or paying overtime (except for "exempt"
employees who are generally well-paid anyway), etc.

				-- Bob

    I was pondering that very thing this weekend.
    
    I happen to believe this gentle push actually increases the quality of
    life for everybody.  What I find...most disgusting...is when government
    in the process of pushing too much, actually perpetuates mediocrity, 
    interference in the business and causing the business economic
    instability and harm, then this is when I cry foul!
    
    Dissolve the IRS!
    
    -Jack

    We know from whense mediocrity comes.  And we know the wonders of the
    Puritan work ethic.
    
    Scrooge learned that humanity was his business.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    I'm not disagreeing with you...but the fact still remains, you can't
    force the business world to believe this anymore than you can legislate
    morality!
    
    -Jack

    I'm simply saying there is no need to encourage business to neglect
    the sake of humanity, either.
    
    Richard
    

    Business doesn't need to be encouraged to neglect the sake of goodwill.  
    It comes natural to them.
    
    What motivates business is the bottom line Richard.  And I see
    governments intrusion in this as wrong for the most part.  There are
    times when realizing the benefit of something doesn't justify weakening
    a business from trying to make a profit.
    
    On the coin in 1953, the words, "In God we Trust" replaced the words,
    Mind Your Business.  I think we should go back to that!
    
    -Jack

>    I'm simply saying there is no need to encourage business to neglect
>    the sake of humanity, either.
    
>    Richard
 
    Business cannot run without people.  Companies enjoy the labor and 
    productivity of people and people enjoy the wages and products of business.
    Every encouragement of business concerns the sake of humanity as business 
    provides jobs and a place to exercise our souls, minds and hands.
    
    I'm afraid the phrase "for the sake of humanity" has become a catch-all
    for liberal ideaology, particularly forced wealth redistribution.
    
    jeff   

    "The profit principle is not evil.  The profit principle as the
    Ultimate Concern is evil"
    
    
                                 P  Flanagan
                                 1992
    
    A collective is as morally responsible as an individual.
    Just as an individual should not be allowed to pursue an individuals
    self interest at the expense of everybody else, so to collectives of
    individuals cannot pursue profit at the expense of everything else.
    
    There is Corporate Morality just as much as there is individual
    Morality.  Individuals and Corporate can be sinful.  Individuals and
    Corporates can live moral existence.  It is the responsibility of every
    Christian(and other ethical peoples) to make sure Associations act
    morally.  This can be done through the individual actions of persons
    employed, consumer purchasing power, and political lobbying.
    
    Ethical people can assure that Corporations are just to individuals,
    respectful of the earth on which we live, and collectively responsible.
    

    ZZ    There is Corporate Morality just as much as there is individual
    ZZ    Morality.  Individuals and Corporate can be sinful. 
    
    Hmmm....interesting.  You just made a great point as to why more people
    should peacefully picket clinics and lobby our congresscritters to end
    abortion on demand.
    
    Corporate morality is the same as societal morality, correct?
    
    -Jack

re Note 1118.67 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     On the coin in 1953, the words, "In God we Trust" replaced the words,
>     Mind Your Business.  I think we should go back to that!
  
        I'm sure this statement doesn't frighten you, Jack, but this
        comes awfully close to a one-line summary of the "devil's
        pact" that it seems many Christians in America would be ready
        to strike with secular capitalism.

        Bob

    Jack,
    
    there is no abortion on demand!
    
    If a person sincerely believes that abortion is murder, then that
    person should do what is necessary to eliminate abortions.  My
    discussion in womannotes and Christian on the issue leads me to believe
    that "abortion as murder" is just the hype used by "Christians" to
    attempt to influence one aspect of their agenda.  It really is an issue
    of trying to control what woman do with their bodies.  The concern is
    much more that women are deciding to engage in sex according to each
    woman's own ethical and moral code.  Women are deciding to have or not
    have children according to each woman's own timetable and desire and
    ethical considerations.
    
    If "Christians" were truly interested in stopping abortion they would
    make education and birth control readily available and make sure that
    every woman with live children was able to feed, clothe, shelter, and
    educate those live children.
    
    "Christians" are trying to save souls, institute repressive sexual
    morality, and control the lives of women all in the name of helping the
    'innocent fetus'.  I've done enough probing in Yukon in particular to
    realize what the hidden agenda is.
    
    Patricia

   ZZ     I've done enough probing in Yukon in particular to
   ZZ     realize what the hidden agenda is.
    
    If I may divert from the string a second because I believe this to be
    important.
    
    Patricia, you have just proved to me and possibly to many others...that
    we will never have a colorblind society....and any differences between
    the genders will not be resolved...in our lifetime anyway.  The lack of
    trust simply doesn't warrant compliance for either racism or
    sexism...and as long as your deep suspicision exists, you may consider
    yourself your own worst enemy.
    
    To make a blanket statement that abortion is all about men wanting to
    control womens bodies is completely absurd.  In my years of speaking to
    men on this issue, not once have I heard anything in confidence even
    remotely resembling this.  Your statement is equivalent to me saing
    that all gay people are gay by choice....and they are lying because
    they want to be accepted and assimilate comfortably in society.  If I
    made this statement, you of course would consider that absurd. 
    Therefore, when you say abortion is a tool for men to oppress women,
    how can you expect me as a man to think any differently of you?  
    
    -Jack

    A very interesting column by Albert Hunt in the 24 August edition of
    The Wall Street Journal, entitled "The Assault on the Women's
    Conference Is Specious." He dispels the F.U.D. spread by far
    right-wing politicians and doom-sayers.

    First and foremost he explains the differences between the official
    delegation and NGO's (Non Governmental Organizations). 

    "The favorite target of those claiming the U.N. conference is being
    directed by anti-family radicals, insensitive to the Chinese, is Bella
    Abzug... But the always vocal Ms. Abzug is going to Beijing as one of
    the NGOs after her efforts to become part of the official delegation
    were rebuffed.

    "The head of the U.S. delegation will be U.N. Ambassador Madeleine
    Albright, the mother of three children; a native Czech, she and her
    family fled both the Nazis and Communists. The director of the U.S.
    delegation is former Democratic Rep. Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, the
    mother of 11 children, five adopted.

    "Other members of the U.S. delegation include Thomas Kean, president of
    Drew University and former GOP governor of New Jersey; Elizabeth
    Coleman, chairwoman and CEO of Maidenform Inc.; Sister Dorothy Ann
    Kelly, a Ursuline nun who is the president of the College of New
    Rochelle; and Susan Weld, a Boston College law professor and wife of
    the Republican governor of Massachusetts. This distinguished group is
    far closer to mainstream American women than its wacko critics."

    He goes on to address criticisms that the conference agenda is
    anti-mother and anti-family; that it embraces gay, lesbian and bisexual
    sexualities. Other criticisms are also addressed including the
    criticism of the location of the conference in China.

    Your local library should have a copy.

    Eric

    It is similar in the late arguing of the location of the women's
    conference.  This was set 2 years ago (at least, these conferences
    don't just coalesce in months) and there was little to no complaining
    about the location until the last few months.  go figure.
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    Why not...I'll spell it out for you.  China in my mind is the largest
    concentration camp in the whole world.  I wasn't real aware of the
    conference until the last few months.  Secondly and no doubt you will
    disagree with me.  I believe alot of the delagation from this country
    are just baaaad people.  Their hearts may or may not be in the right
    place...or they might be 60's individuals who simply never grew up.  
    
    I was hoping Hilaary wouldn't go..simply because I dislike the woman
    and I don't think she represents the voice of women in this country. 
    Only a small number of them.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1118.76 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     place...or they might be 60's individuals who simply never grew up.  
  
        I resent that -- the spirit of the '90s is trash compared to
        the '60s.

        Bob

    'infecting'...?  would that be like a virus or something?
    
    (or a vira?)
    
    Dorian

    It was on the PBS news hour last night that Chinese officials are
    having a hard time containing the message of the women attending the
    UN conference and preventing it from infecting the regular citizenry.
    
    Richard
    

    .79 Dorian,
    
    A metaphor.  It seemed like the Chinese were attempting to squelch
    protest through quarantining vocal activists.
    
    Richard
    

    
    > I believe alot of the delagation from this country are just baaaad
    > people.
    
    Like who? Are you confusing the real delegation with the NGO?
    
    > Their hearts may or may not be in the right place... 
    
    I think "baaaad" people do not have their hearts in the right place, by
    definition. Wouldn't you?
    
    > I was hoping Hilaary wouldn't go..simply because I dislike the woman
    > and I don't think she represents the voice of women in this country.
    
    Describe for me what you think are Mrs. Clinton ideas regarding women,
    that make her such an oddity in the minds of "most women." 
    
    Eric

    > I resent that -- the spirit of the '90s is trash compared to 
    > the '60s.
    
    
    The spirit of the '90s is a direct result of the spirit of the '60s.
    
    -steve

    But then the spirit of the '60s could be said to be the direct result
    of the spirit of the '20s, '30s, '40s and '50s.
    
    Richard
    

    Jack,
    
    Do you own any running or excercise shoes?  What brand?  have you
    researched where they are made and who made them?  
    
    I believe your statements about the women, are not only innacurate, but
    your open dislike of someone who has done NOTHING to you other than
    standing by her husband, (something I thought was supposed to be
    admired, according to the Bible), is less than honorable.  Do you know
    who the real women are who represent the US delegation?
    
    meg

    Oh,
    
    And Jack, did you read who many of the delegates are in .74?
    
    meg

    To my Fellow Readers:
    
    Let me take this opportunity to apologize for my rash judgements in
    this area.  Yes, I do have disagreements with some of the
    individuals...such as Hillarycare which I am deeply indebted to folks
    like Senator Phil Gram for lobbying against what could have been a
    total disaster.  Mizvensky for her lack of forsight in voting in favor 
    of the 1992 tax hike to which I am indebted to the public for finally
    waking up and voting these thick minded individuals out of Congress.
    I do have personal beefs with some of these people but as I read Megs
    replies as well as Erics, I really don't qualify as an expert on this
    conference.  I am a fake...I am simply mimicking what I hear on talk
    radio (not Rush).  
    
    Bob, equality took a big step forward in the 60's.  I didn't mean that
    all ideals of the 60's were bad.  I don't believe however, that
    rebellion through the drug culture, free sexual identity and the like
    are necessary ingredients to progress in the arena of equal rights.
    I also believe that the New Society has continued the spiral down
    effects of the inner city and government dependence.  It is the people
    who won't admit failure in these areas that need to grow up.
    
    -Jack

    	What's this I hear about an article in the Rocky Mountain News
    	describing some of the workshops at the UN conference:
    
    	.  Lesbian flirtation techniques
    
    	.  Dildos and inflatable dolls
    
    	.  Gender livestock
    
    	What does this have to do with education, health, or economic 
    	status of women?

    
    > What does this have to do with education, health, or economic status
    > of women?
                            
    Nothing, I guess. But what does this have to do with the *official*
    United Nations conference? I don't deny that the the NGOs have their
    fair share of fringe groups, but, once again, these folks are not
    recognized UN delegates.

    I would be very interested in a copy or transcript of the entire
    article to which you refer.

    Eric

    PS. Actually, if "Gender Livestock" means women as chattel, then I think
    that does have a place in the discussion of the state of women in the
    world.

    Joe,
    
    do you realize there is an unofficial conference as well as the
    official one?  the NGO's (Non Governmental Organizations) conferences
    indeed do look at things differently from the official Conference o
    Women.  I am surprised that you didn't read the difference in either
    the GT or the RMN.
    
    meg

    What I heard on the news this morning is that there is going to be an
    official UN document stating that women can and have a right to say no
    to sex.
    
    This of course will have about as much power, if that, as a restraining
    order here in the United States.  The fact is that women in civilized
    cultures have always had the right to say no; the problem is that in
    many cases men overrule the no's and the word no becomes meaningless.
    I guess I am just curious as to how effective a document such as this
    would be.  If you have a woman in a third world country who says no,
    then the husband could quite possibly leave her on the spot and find
    somebody else.  This would leave her poor, destitute, and without
    resource.  This leads me to conclude, amongst other reasons, that such
    a document would be moot at this point.  More symbolic than anything.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Then I guess you are saying the US is not a civilized country?
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    As has been stated in Soapbox on many occasions, you cannot legislate
    morality...and a document such as that is impossible to enforce in a
    multicultural world such as our own.  Accountability is a vital
    ingredient and right now, much of the world holds no allegiance to the
    UN.  They may be members but they have no love for them.  Quite
    honestly, a document like that is more apt to raise more middle fingers
    than receive compliance.
    
    Such an adherence to a policy like that can only be made by likeminded
    couples who COMM-UN-I-CATE with each other and set their own policies
    in the home.  The UN is impotent in such matters.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Understand that the symbolic is of critical importance.
    
    A UN document saying women have the right to say no provides one more
    step to empowering women.
    
    How many women do undoubtedly know that they have a right to say "no"
    at any time and at any stage of the sexual encounter.  Worldwide.  In
    every situation.  Married women and unmarried women.  Teenagers and
    adults.
    
    THe symbolic is important.
    

    I agree that it can't hurt matters any.  But as you have stated many
    times, the problem is one of oppression, not one of misunderstanding a
    woman's needs.
    
    When a nation such as Iraq for example, conquers another nation, then
    the UN typically condemns the aggressor.  The Serbs for example,
    received such condemnations numerous times by the UN and unfortunately,
    these writs meant absolutely nothing to the Serbs.  Consequently,
    military force ensued.
    
    I believe there is a potential for the womens conference to make the
    same mistake it claims pro lifers make...that is, believing a governing
    body has the right to enter your bedroom and make policy.  It would
    seem that what is good for the goose isn't good for the gander.  It
    isn't appropriate for the UN to establish world policies within the
    bedroom.  It cannot be enforced.
    
    -Jack

a theme of the conference is violence towards women. legislation which
protects women from (any form of) violence will in the very least go some
way towards changing the mindsets of men in their interaction with women. 
the value of the aforementioned resolution is, that it prepares the ground 
for backing up the resolution with legislation. even if such legislation 
is first implemented in a few progressive countries only, this is a sensible
step in the right direction.




andreas.

    Yes, changing mindsets on violence against women is what is needed. 
    Changing the paradigms.  
    
Z    even if such legislation 
Z    is first implemented in a few progressive countries only, this is a
Z    sensible step in the right direction.
    
    Our local police cannot control such matters in our own back yard. 
    Therefore it is safe to assume the United Nations will be impotent in
    enforcing or even encouraging this.  Secondly, any legislation outside
    the borders of the United States may run into problems since our
    Constitution takes prescedence over it.  
    
    A problem such as this will subside only when spouses can communicate
    and families get back to church.  Otherwise it is doomed to failure.
    
    -Jack

    You have to start somewhere.
    
    Richard
    

.96

    A problem such as this will subside only when spouses can communicate
    and families get back to church.  Otherwise it is doomed to failure.

Jack,

I don't know how to tell you this, but there are ways other than 'church' 
to help with social problems, many of which seem to be fostered by the 
'church'. I agree that communication is the first step, regardless of who 
or what fosters it.

I find your smug assertion that any solution not based in religion (and I 
assume you mean your particular flavor of religion) is doomed to failure to 
be arrogant, insulting and flat out wrong.

(I must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning...)

Steve

Z    I find your smug assertion that any solution not based in religion (and
Z    I assume you mean your particular flavor of religion) is doomed to
Z    failure to be arrogant, insulting and flat out wrong.
    
    Steve:
    
    The datum is there.  Families who have a common faith in God and bring
    their children up in a faith are more likely to remain together and to
    communicate better.  And no, I actually wasn't addressing a particular
    flavor of faith or religion.  Therefore, my answer was not smug but
    factual.  
    
    Check the record.  Most men who abuse their spouses are alcoholics,
    drug abusers, involved in direct criminal activity and 99% of the time 
    have to tie into a faith community. 
    
    I was sitting in the cafeteria a few years ago and a good close friend
    of mine along with a few others were doing coffee.  I was asked what my
    plans were for schooling Gregory (only 2 at the time) and I stated that 
    my plan was Christian School because overall private schools provide a
    higher quality education than public.  Now this friend of mine thought
    the same of me as you do right now.  She was very insulted at my
    assertion because she was sending her son to public school.  She
    allowed her emotions to override her logic and override fact; but the 
    datum is there to prove it.  Children who are able to attend private
    school get more individual attention and get higher SAT scores; and yet
    I was considered smug...and arrogant for telling the truth. 
    Unbelievable.  
    
    -Jack

    If I may be so bold....  Jack, I think you are making a common error.
    That of turning the common or likely or expected into the absolute.

    It is one thing to say that religious families are statistically
    more likely to remain together.  It is quite another to assert
    that *ANY* solution not based in religion is doomed.  As there
    happen to be non-religious families that DO remain together, your
    assertion is NOT factual.   And if a member of such a family
    were to read your assertion that their existence is doomed (or
    impossible even) why should you be surprised if they are insulted?

    Likewise your statement about private .vs. public schools.  Not
    all private schools are better than all public schools.  Chances
    are a child will get a better education in a private school, but
    that doesn't mean your friend in the cafeteria has doomed her
    child to failure.  Millions of happy and successful people have
    been educated in the nation's public schools.  There are many
    problems, yes, but they are not a complete and utter failure.

    In your zeal to announce the truth to one and all, it might 
    serve you well to be a bit more careful with these distinctions.

    Respectfully,

    /Greg

    Greg:
    
 ZZ     Millions of happy and successful people have
 ZZ       been educated in the nation's public schools.  
    
    Correct and the context of my comments was societal and not person by
    person.  The UN is making edicts that on a person to person level, may
    in fact help somebody; however, on more of a macro scale, we will not
    realize any changes...simply because morality cannot be legislated and 
    governing bodies simply cannot control what happens in the bedroom.
    
    On a national perspective, the common group of society members who
    sustain an active life of faith as a rule tend to enjoy closer family
    ties, less dysfunctionalism, and more fellowship amongst their spouses
    and family members.  All the UN edicts in the world are not going to
    stop the violent alcoholics, the drug abusers and the criminals who
    molest and propogate acts of violence on women.  There has to be a
    heart change in order to receive the proper results we are looking for.  
    Rhetoric is cheap.
    
    -Jack

    Jack, you're jumping all over the place.  I was simply stating
    that you can't look at a statistic indicating a trend or a 
    pattern and extrapolate a universal truth (e.g. all non-religious
    families are doomed).  Incidentally, some of the violent alcoholics,
    drug abusers and criminals who molest children and attack women
    come from religious families.  No family or family model is perfect.

    And you have a curious perspective on this women's conference.  
    Precisely what is *wrong* with the UN issuing an edict that says 
    women ought to have civil rights?  Yes, it is completely obvious 
    the edict will be ignored by many.  So?  Your pessimistic view that 
    "we will not realize any changes" is pretty far reaching.  How do
    you KNOW this?  Some will see yet another institution making a 
    statement; The oppression of women is wrong.  And maybe some women 
    will fight harder for their rights, and maybe some men *will* have a 
    change of heart.  How can that be harmful?   

    /Greg

  Z      Precisely what is *wrong* with the UN issuing an edict that says 
  Z      women ought to have civil rights?  Yes, it is completely obvious 
  Z      the edict will be ignored by many.  So?  
    
    Nothing is wrong with it at all.  I was only saying that if violence
    against women is hardly contained at the local level...and it is hardly
    contained, then a UN document will prove to be a moot document at this
    point in world affairs.  First, it cannot be enforced.  Secondly, you
    can't legislate morality, it has to come from a changed heart. 
    Thirdly, there are societies and cultures in the world that treat women
    as chattel and will scorn a document or totally disregard it as a
    viable edict.  
    
    Nothing is wrong with it but it will be a symbolic gesture that will
    simply fade away when the conference ends.  I hope it doesn't but
    please don't shoot the messenger.  I am dubious of it's success because
    human nature and reality tell me to be so.
    
    
    
   Z     Your pessimistic view that 
   Z     "we will not realize any changes" is pretty far reaching.  How do
   Z     you KNOW this?  Some will see yet another institution making a 
   Z     statement; The oppression of women is wrong.  And maybe some women 
   Z     will fight harder for their rights, and maybe some men *will* have a 
   Z     change of heart.  How can that be harmful?   
    
    Understand that I never said it would be harmful.  Keep in mind that
    right now in the United States, there is suspicion and resentment
    toward our own government.  There is a strong suspicion of world
    governing bodies who attempt to legislate over our borders...in this
    case, the United Nations.  I see the United States distancing itself
    from the UN as time goes by.  If the US starts doing this, then how can
    one expect third world countries to start taking the UN seriously?
    
    Also, the edict of a woman having the right to say NO to sex is a
    fallacy.  Women have always had that right.  The problem is that men
    don't recognize that right and unfortunately, will flip the bird at any
    organization who tries to enforce it.  Respect and love for ones
    significant other involves mutual giving and trust me, the world is
    very far away from becoming a feminist utopia.
    
    Again, please don't shoot the messenger!
    
    -Jack

    You keep skipping over my main point.   Curious....
    
    Anyway, I think the conference is a good thing.  What you say may be
    true.  Glad to know you at least don't consider it harmful, unlike
    Dobson and company.
    
    /Greg

    Dobson tends to give the UN more creedence than he should.  Very few of
    the US citizenry, including myself, hold any allegiances to the UN. 
    Quite frankly, I hope we remove ourselves from it, kick them out of New
    York, and maintain our own sovereignty.
    
    -Jack

    Re: Your main point.  I apologize and yes, one cannot extrapolate a
    universal truth such as all non faith families are doomed.  This is a
    fallacy.  I was using societal trends and the trend is as I mentioned.
    Societies such as ones in central Africa for example, who have no faith
    foundation and husbands are sleeping around and spreading AIDS
    rampantly are more likely to look upon women as chattel.  Not all of
    them but the trend is in that direction.  
    
    The United States is also setting a trend.  The fruits of that trend
    are the typical ones....suicide, abortion, crime, divorce, violence, 
    school drop outs, deviance...the list goes on.  Like I said, not all
    are doomed but the odds are there.
    
    -Jack

>    Dobson tends to give the UN more creedence than he should.  Very few of
>    the US citizenry, including myself, hold any allegiances to the UN. 
>    Quite frankly, I hope we remove ourselves from it, kick them out of New
>    York, and maintain our own sovereignty.
 
    I'm in full agreement with you on this.  However, I suggest you look up
    how treaties are viewed (under Ariticle VI of the Constitution), then
    do some reading on the United Nations Treaty and the U.N. Participation
    Act of 1945 (signed by Truman and the US Senate).
    
    Most revealing, especially since the UN isn't a nation, and treaties
    can only legally be made with another nation.
    
    Our VETO power in the UN is waning, as well.  Under new resolutions
    (particularly GATT that recently passed, also see resolution No. 1760), 
    we get one vote, just like all the other members.  And trust me, the third 
    world nation member of the world do not care a whit for us, other than our 
    ability to send massive amounts of money their way- taxpayer money.
    
    
    
    -steve 

.99

    The datum is there.  Families who have a common faith in God and bring
    their children up in a faith are more likely to remain together and to
    communicate better.  And no, I actually wasn't addressing a particular
    flavor of faith or religion.  Therefore, my answer was not smug but
    factual.  

Jack,

Your statement was that the only way to fix societies problems are through 
religion, that is smug. (Your last sentence here is also smug. :^) As has been 
pointed out in other replies, you are also wrong. Non-religious unions do 
work. 

Families that have a common ground (in whatever, the concept of God is 
obviously one of the more common beliefs) are more likely to stay together. 
This is no big revelation. As I think about my friends, the incidence of 
marital problems seems to be just about the same for my religious vs. 
non-religious friends and family. Interestingly enough my friends with mixed 
views (one religious, one not) seem to be the most stable. 

The last I saw, around 90% of all Americans proclaim a belief in God. Does 
this mean that the 50% divorce rate is made up of the other 10% marrying and 
divorcing each other in a frenzy, while everyone else remains stable? I think 
not...

Steve

    	So are you suggesting that we shouldn't pay any attention to the
    	NGO conferences?
    
    	Why bother having them then?

re .103

> Z      Precisely what is *wrong* with the UN issuing an edict that says 
> Z      women ought to have civil rights?  Yes, it is completely obvious 
> Z      the edict will be ignored by many.  So?  
>   
>   Nothing is wrong with it at all.  I was only saying that if violence
>   against women is hardly contained at the local level...and it is hardly
>   contained, then a UN document will prove to be a moot document at this
>   point in world affairs.  

>   First, it cannot be enforced.  

no legislation is enforced perfectly. what's your point?


>   Secondly, you can't legislate morality, it has to come from a changed 
>   heart. 

legislating the matter that a woman can determine herself when she has sex
has nothing to do with legislating morality. why do you think that protecting 
a very basic civil right such as this is, is legislating morality?


>   Thirdly, there are societies and cultures in the world that treat women
>   as chattel and will scorn a document or totally disregard it as a
>   viable edict.  

you can start by cleaning your own back yard first before you go and tell 
others how they should run their lives. this is the idea behind backing up 
UN resolutions with legislation in the more progressive countries first.




andreas.

Z   you can start by cleaning your own back yard first before you go and
Z   tell others how they should run their lives. this is the idea behind backing
Z    up UN resolutions with legislation in the more progressive countries first.
    
    Which is exactly my point.  If you cannot enforce something, then the
    perpetrators are not going to respect it.  You speak of backing up UN
    resolutions in progressive countries first and I'm telling you that the
    UN is a paper tiger with no teeth, at least amongst people I talk to
    and listen to in this country...both from the left and the right.  
    
    Furthermore and as I said, the backing of a UN document is meaningless
    symbolism in regards to private issues like women saying no to sex.  
    It cannot be enforced and local authorities themselves are impotent in
    these matters.  It just won't work although it is a good gesture.
    
    -Jack

Jack,

You keep saying that you cannot legislate morality, which may be true. You 
can, however, legislate behaviour. By implying that you can't change morality 
you imply that we should take all laws off the books, which I don't think you 
mean.

Steve

    	I think that Jack is throwing the "can't legislate morality"
    	argument back at those who use that same argument against
    	abortion laws, obscenity laws, and other morality-centered
    	initiatives.

    Correct.  What I mean is that legislating behavior is dismal on the
    local level and that trying to do so from an international level is
    like chasing after the wind.  Besides, we are now dealing with
    sovereignty issues by trying to enforce resolutions dealing with civil
    laws on US soil.  I am against this.
    
    -Jack

.114

    sovereignty issues by trying to enforce resolutions dealing with civil
    laws on US soil.  I am against this.

Why do you think that there would be any attempt to enforce these 
resolutions here? The only way that would happen is to put them into law, 
and that would have to go through the normal channels. This is not a treaty 
we're talking about here...

Steve

    Steve:
    
    Then in that case, the edicts of the UN are about as powerful as a
    sermon from the pope.  Well intentioned but only as strong as the will
    of the people to act upon them.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    the last I knew AID's is popping up in predominately muslim, catholic,
    Bhuddist, other christian countries.  Or are the Muslim, Bhuddist,
    Hindu, and Christian  countries not religious?  
    
    Just curious,
    
    meg

 Z   Societies such as ones in central Africa for example, who have no faith
 Z   foundation and husbands are sleeping around and spreading AIDS
 Z   rampantly are more likely to look upon women as chattel.  Not all
 Z   of them but the trend is in that direction.  
    
    I assume you are speaking of this.  The only reason I picked central
    Africa is because the AMA deemed Central Africa a "Lost Cause" in the
    fight for AIDS.  
    
    No doubt there is misery all over the world...including the United
    States.
    
    -Jack

    re:  .115
    
>>    sovereignty issues by trying to enforce resolutions dealing with civil
>>    laws on US soil.  I am against this.

>Why do you think that there would be any attempt to enforce these 
>resolutions here? The only way that would happen is to put them into law, 
>and that would have to go through the normal channels. This is not a treaty 
>we're talking about here...

    I suggest you take the advice I gave a few notes back.  Go research the
    United Nations Participation Act of 1945.  Also check up on resolution 
    1760 of the UN.  Resolutions of the UN does indeed affect us, as we are
    effectively in a treaty with the UN (and under Article VI, such
    treaties supercede the Constitution).
    
    Oh yes, we are dealing with sovereignity issues- only we are
    looking at them after the fact.  The real give-a-way of national
    soverignity took place long ago, only recently has our veto power (our
    only real power within the UN was the right to veto any
    resolutions that contradict with our Constitution/threaten our
    interests) been widdled away.  With its impending total dimise, we have
    no legal authority left to resist the usurption of our sovereignity.
    
    Article 25 of the Charter states: "Member nations agree to accept and
    carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the
    present charter." 
    
    In 1950, the General Assembly (without any legal authority) met and
    adopted the "Uniting For Peace" Resolution (it has been greatly
    expanded since 1950, but I'll spare you the extra details).  This
    resolution permitted the General Assembly to exercise the powers of the
    Security Council.  Since then, the General Assembly has been making the
    law of the world (so to speak) by ratifying resolutions by a 2/3
    majority vote.  When the resolution is ratified it is sent down to
    the Chief Executive of the Member State and  and the Executive is
    obliged to accept and carry out the provisions in the resolution.
    
    The governments concerned must ignore, abolish, revise and rescind laws
    in tehir territories which conflict with the resolutions of the General
    Assembly, and pass other laws that will put these resolutions into
    force.  'One man, one vote' comes into play through resolution #1760.
    This means that the US gets only ONE vote, and being slowly stripped of
    our veto power, we are effectively under world law.  Our Constitution
    is no longer the law of the land via our treaty with the UN (which
    supercedes the Constitution via Article VI of the Constitution).
    
    I agree that the above is a lot of legalisms, but isn't that pretty
    much how law is viewed by government (and most citizens) today? 
    Legalistics over spirit? 
    
    What should shine a little light on events that seemingly make no sense
    under a supposed Constitutional Republic, are that our agricultural
    laws, health and welfare laws, labor laws and our foreign aid laws all
    come from resolutions of the General Assembly or treaties of the UN,
    ratified by our Senate.  You may find this as hard to believe as I do,
    but do some research.  Try to prove that the above is nonsense.  I look
    forward to such findings.
    
    Do not take UN resolutions lightly.  Research the UN Treaty, the UN
    Participation Act of 1945 (signed by Truman withe the advice and
    consent of the Senate)- then read Article VI of the Constitution.  
    
    To me, it's all a load of illegal garbage, but my opinion isn't worth
    much in the realm of how the US government looks at the Constitution
    and legalities.
    
    
    -steve

    	re .117
    
    	Get real.  If anything, those trends show how those societies
    	are crumbling in their religious traditions and foundations.

| <<< Note 1118.120 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| Get real. If anything, those trends show how those societies are crumbling 
| in their religious traditions and foundations.

	I read this, and with the first part of it, the get real part, made me
laugh. The 2nd part is quite a good answer. But lets get real for a minute. If
what you said is happening, shouldn't we look into the why's? 



Glen

                  <<< Note 1118.121 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>The 2nd part is quite a good answer. But lets get real for a minute. If
>what you said is happening, shouldn't we look into the why's? 
    
    	If you agree with the 2nd part (thus you say, "The 2nd part is quite
    	a good answer") then why do you then suggest that it might not be
    	happening?  ("If what you said is happening")
    
    	To be frank, Glen, my primary purpose for getting involved in notes
    	is to draw light to the many "whys", namely the breakdown of the
    	family, the villification of religious morality, society's focus
    	on self-before-others -- in short practically anything that Dr.
    	Dobson and Focus On The Family stands for (just to tie this back
    	to the topic title...)  Yet at nearly every turn you (among others) 
    	attack that focus.  
    
    	Why do you now suddenly call for examining the "whys"?

| <<< Note 1118.122 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| >The 2nd part is quite a good answer. But lets get real for a minute. If
| >what you said is happening, shouldn't we look into the why's?

| If you agree with the 2nd part (thus you say, "The 2nd part is quite a good 
| answer") then why do you then suggest that it might not be happening?  

	Because your first part you said, "get real". You then went into the
2nd part. The get real part made it seem like the other person wasn't being
real. Still real, just from different angles.

| To be frank, Glen, my primary purpose for getting involved in notes is to draw
| light to the many "whys", namely the breakdown of the family, the vilification
| of religious morality, society's focus on self-before-others -- in short 
| practically anything that Dr. Dobson and Focus On The Family stands for (just 
| to tie this back to the topic title...)  

	Joe, by getting real we could also look at the reality that people like
Dobson make people want to push away. That is a fact that I'm sure even you
could agree with. You do look at some of the reasons, but a lot of times I see
you dismissing other reasons that are real, just because you do not agree with
the people who think they are a problem to them.

| Yet at nearly every turn you (among others) attack that focus.

	Many people don't agree with what Dobson has to say on a lot of things.
But everyone is wrong.

| Why do you now suddenly call for examining the "whys"?

	Because you dismissed what was being talked about earlier when you
said, "Get Real".


Glen

                  <<< Note 1118.123 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Because your first part you said, "get real". You then went into the
>2nd part. The get real part made it seem like the other person wasn't being
>real. Still real, just from different angles.
    
    	You are really hung up on the "get real" phrase, aren't you?
    
    	I made that statement in reply to .117 for two reasons.  First,
    	the entry gave the hint that somehow the predominant religions
    	mentioned somehow are contributing to the spread of AIDS.  Second,
    	the direct question was asked whether those countries are not
    	religious.
    
    	"Get real" was (and still is) my resposnse.  You have expressed 
    	your disagreement with that response.  I accept your disagreement.  
    	Now we move on.

>	Joe, by getting real we could also look at the reality that people like
>Dobson make people want to push away. That is a fact that I'm sure even you
>could agree with. 
    
    	Yes, I agree with that.  To be blunt, ANYONE will end up pushing
    	SOMEONE away.  That's because everyone is a jerk to somebody.
    	It's human nature.  We can't escape it.  Diversity of opinion
    	is what makes this world go 'round.  Just because Dobson turns 
    	some people off does not diminish what he has to say -- except
    	to you perhaps, because you are one of those people.
    
> You do look at some of the reasons, but a lot of times I see
>you dismissing other reasons that are real, just because you do not agree with
>the people who think they are a problem to them.
    
    	Fine.  You agree that I look a "some of the reasons", but as I
    	said in my last reply, you disagree with me at nearly every turn.
    	You even quoted that below, yet didn't disagree with it.  But you
    	see fit to blame me here for that very same thing.  Take the board
    	out of your own eye before looking my way.

>	Many people don't agree with what Dobson has to say on a lot of things.
> But everyone is wrong.
    
    	"But everyone is wrong".  That seemed to be your response in
    	soapbox the other day when everyone was telling you that you
    	were wrong...
    
    	Now, I'm not sure what Dobson has to do with my statement to 
    	which you were posting this answer, but let me assure you that
    	far more people agree with Dobson than disagree, so I'm not
    	sure what value you attempt to create in suggesting that people
    	disagree with the man.

The 1995 UN Women's Conference in Beijing is over (probably much to the relief
of the Chinese government).  The next is slated for AD 2005.  A location is
yet to be decided.  I nominate Colorado Springs.

Shalom,
Richard

    	Hey!  I'll second that nomination!

    	In support of my position in response to .117, here is an 
    	example showing one reason why predominately religious 
    	localities are losing their religious influence.
    
    
Bavarians at school amid German crucifix uproar
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service

NITTENAU, Germany (Sep 12, 1995 - 09:01 EDT) - More than a million Bavarian
children returned to school on Tuesday amid nationwide controversy after the
deeply Catholic German region defied a supreme court ban on crucifixes in
state schools.

[Note: The foreign press has consistently incorrectly reported the ruling,
which struck down the Bavarian law requiring crucifixes in every classroom,
but did not ban their presence. --jrc]

The southern state's culture and education ministry in Munich said the
school year started without any demonstrations against the court decision,
which the conservative state government has vowed to defy.

Ernst and Renate Selers, the couple who brought the suit against the image
of a dying Christ, were relieved there were no protests outside the
secondary school their three children attend in the small town of Nittenau,
near Regensburg.

"We're glad it all went smoothly," said Ernst Selers, who has received death
threats and hate mail since the court ruled last month that a law requiring
crosses in schoolrooms was unconstitutional.

But the school's director turned away journalists who wanted to talk to
teachers and pupils at the school.

In the state capital Munich, state premier Edmund Stoiber presided over a
cabinet meeting to discuss drafting a new law that will allow Bavaria to
keep crosses mandatory in schools.

Stoiber's conservative government, arguing that the ruling had struck a blow
to Bavaria's soul, has broken a long-held taboo in defying a ruling by the
once-sacrosanct Federal Constitutional Court.

Pope John Paul II, Chancellor Helmut Kohl, christian groups, clergy and
several leading politicians have also criticised the ruling.

"Most people want the crosses to stay in the classrooms. Why should we take
them down just because a minority does not want them?," asked a school
teacher in Nittenau, a picture-book country town where streets are named
after local priests and tiny altars are set up at the roadside.

The Selers family started a campaign 10 years ago against hanging images of
the crucified Jesus Christ in classrooms after their daughter was startled
and upset by what her parents say she regarded as a "dead body."

The Selers fought the custom prescribed by the state's school regulations --
a practice unique among German states -- until it reached the highest court
in the land.

"I doubt the crosses will be taken down straightaway, as their school must
receive instructions from the education authorities first," Ernst Selers
told Reuters.

"But if they do not receive those orders in the next few weeks, we will take
our case to the Constitutional Court again which will order the crosses down
if the regional court in Munich refuses to," he said.

None of the parents interviewed by journalists outside schools in Nittenau
agreed or even sympathised with the Selers family, whose campaign has
sparked a rebellion in the deeply traditionalist state that normally prides
itself in being law-abiding and God-fearing.

"We think that not only the Catholics, but every religious community should
be allowed to put up their religious symbols in the classrooms," said one
father dropping off his 10-year-old boy at school.

"But we don't see why anyone should have to take symbols away," he said.

| <<< Note 1118.124 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>



	Thanks for clearing up the "get real" phrase. 

	I agree with what you have to say about Dobson for the most part. But
if the delivery isn't one that is effective, then it can deminish the message
itself. 

| Fine.  You agree that I look a "some of the reasons", but as I said in my 
| last reply, you disagree with me at nearly every turn.

	I may tend to highlight the disagreements more often then the
agreements, that much is true. But I think we do agree that we don't really
agree with each other on most things. :-)

| You even quoted that below, yet didn't disagree with it. But you see fit to 
| blame me here for that very same thing.  

	Blame? No. Point out? Yup. As did you. Or were you blaming me? :-)

| >	Many people don't agree with what Dobson has to say on a lot of things.
| > But everyone is wrong.

| "But everyone is wrong".  That seemed to be your response in soapbox the other
| day when everyone was telling you that you were wrong...

	Sorry I wasn't clear on this. I was actually talking from your
perspective. I should have put that. Sorry bout that. Is the message that
everyone who disagrees with Dobson wrong?

| Now, I'm not sure what Dobson has to do with my statement to which you were 
| posting this answer, but let me assure you that far more people agree with 
| Dobson than disagree, 

	Based on what Joe? When you say far more people agree than disagree,
are you talking Christians as a whole, or just those who follow him? 



Glen

   Friday September 15 5:16 p.m. EDT

   Women's Meeting Adopts Declaration on Rights

   BEIJING (Reuter) - The world women's conference approved a hotly
   disputed blueprint Friday, setting forth a plan of battle for sexual
   equality into the 21st century that enshrined women's rights as human
   rights but avoided commitments to pay for action. 

   The U.N. Fourth World Women's Conference passed its Platform for Action
   and Beijing Declaration after a cliffhanging finale that pitted an
   informal bloc of the Vatican and conservative Islamists against Europe
   and South Africa in 11th-hour wrangling until dawn over the fine print. 

   ``We now need a tidal change,'' Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem
   Brundtland told the closing ceremony. ``Women will no longer accept the
   role of second-rate citizens.'' 

   An overnight compromise enabled proponents and opponents of new sexual
   rights to claim victory at the world's biggest gathering of women,
   launched Aug. 30 with a spirited grassroots forum. 

   More than 30,000 women converged on a tent city erected in a Beijing
   suburb where they met and talked, danced, wept and demonstrated for 10
   days to lobby for their rights in the Platform for Action -- despite
   rain, heavy-handed Chinese police surveillance and host-country curbs on
   free speech. 

   The event, held once in 10 years, concluded with the more solemn United
   Nations conference and its milestone declaration. 

   ``Women's rights are human rights,'' the declaration said. 

   The platform says women should not be punished for abortions in
   countries where it is illegal, offers protection against rape and war
   crimes, calls for a more powerful role in politics, recognizes unpaid
   labor and goes into battle against poverty. 

   ``I believe firmly that if we all do our little bit, no matter how small
   it is, we shall succeed in making even the impossible, possible,''
   Secretary General Gertrude Mongella concluded. 

   ``As our Chinese hosts say, the journey of 1,000 miles begins with one
   step,'' she said, declaring an irreversible social revolution to a
   standing ovation. 

   However, some delegates swiftly voiced doubts about the power of a
   platform for action that urges governments to act but does not bind them
   to do anything. 

   The Vatican launched a stinging attack on the refusal of developed
   countries to open their purses to fund specific implementation of the
   platform. 



   Copyright � 1995 Reuters NewMedia. All rights reserved.  

re .127


in the german speaking parts of europe, the loss of religious influence 
by the roman catholic church is quite likely due to karol woytila's arch-
conservative church politics. at least three major church initiatives which 
are currently under way in austria, germany and in switzerland are a direct
result of the vatican's unyielding dogmatism. a great many good catholics
in this part of europe are deeply concerned that under the current leader,
the curch is set to lose many more followers.



andreas.

 Where does it say the Church is to bend to the people's will?  "Jesus
 Christ is the same, yesterday today and forever".





 Jim

    Yesterday, Jesus was a physical presence available to the people of 1
    century Jerusalem.  Today Jesus is a mystical presence available to
    those able to discern him.
    
    Jesus is not the same today as he was in the 1st Century.

    Joe,
    
    I sincerely think you should read .106 and then figure out if I am
    "unreal"  (Gee last time I checked I was firmly in reality, the sore
    gum from too much spicy food says I am)  
    
    meg

    Meaning that I am unreal??

    No meaning you might want to look at the religious practices of an area
    before making a judgement.  East Africa is heavily Muslim and Coptic
    Christian.  The Phillipines are heavily Catholic and Muslim.  Thailand
    is Bhuddist, with a sprinkling of Catholics, Muslims, and Hindus.
    
    I don't accuse breathing peopl of being unreal.  They are far too real
    in this world, as is ignorance.
    
    meg  

    So the moral of the story is regardless of what label one puts upon
    themselves, they are all subject to the frailties of sin, IMO.
    
    -Jack

    	I fail to see your point, Meg.

                  <<< Note 1118.128 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	I agree with what you have to say about Dobson for the most part. 
    
    	I don't believe you do.  Let's just leave it at that, for I don't
    	see much potential for positive fruit in us discussing this 
    	particular man or his beliefs or his ministry.
    
>	Sorry I wasn't clear on this. I was actually talking from your
>perspective. 
    
    	Well you're the one who is always trying to take people to task
    	for "telling others what they think".  One would think that you
    	would be sensitive to doing the same thing yourself...
    
>Is the message that everyone who disagrees with Dobson wrong?
    
    	That you are still asking this question tells me you aren't
    	paying attention.

>	When you say far more people agree than disagree,
>are you talking Christians as a whole, or just those who follow him? 

	I say that without qualification of the statement.

   <<< Note 1118.130 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>in the german speaking parts of europe, the loss of religious influence 
>by the roman catholic church is quite likely due to karol woytila's arch-
>conservative church politics. 
    
    	You are posting this in response to an entry that tells about
    	outside influences trying to force schools to remove the
    	crucifix from classrooms.  I fail to see how the Pope's 
    	actions are a cause of that...
    
> result of the vatican's unyielding dogmatism. 
    
    	The "vatican's unyielding dogmatism" is the same as it always
    	has been.  Under that "unyielding dogmatism" Catholicism has
    	flourished in areas such as the one described in .127.  Why
    	do you suggest that suddenly that "unyielding dogmatism" is
    	now a problem when it has apparently been the perfect medium
    	for fostering the propogation of the faith before?

| <<< Note 1118.138 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| >	I agree with what you have to say about Dobson for the most part.

| I don't believe you do.  

	Joe, a little clarification. I don't believe in what he says for the
most part, but I was agreeing with your talking about him being blunt, and the
effects it could have. 

| >	Sorry I wasn't clear on this. I was actually talking from your
| >perspective.

| Well you're the one who is always trying to take people to task for "telling 
| others what they think".  One would think that you would be sensitive to doing
| the same thing yourself...

	You are correct. A ? should have been where the . was. I need to
proofread a little more. :-) Sorry bout that. 

	How about addressing the point I was making in .128 now?

| >Is the message that everyone who disagrees with Dobson wrong?

| That you are still asking this question tells me you aren't paying attention.

	No, it has more to do with you haven't been very clear. 

| >When you say far more people agree than disagree, are you talking Christians 
| >as a whole, or just those who follow him?

| I say that without qualification of the statement.

	Ahhh.... more games, I see. How about putting a qualifier on it? So
that we all will know who this majority you're talking about is?


Glen

                  <<< Note 1118.140 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>


>| That you are still asking this question tells me you aren't paying attention.
>
>	No, it has more to do with you haven't been very clear. 
    
    	Sorry about that, but I've said what I'm going to say.  It's
    	clear to me, and I'm not about to get bogged down in another
    	endless loop with you.

    >	How about addressing the point I was making in .128 now?
    
    	Which makes this question rather moot, I'd say.
    
>| I say that without qualification of the statement.
>
>	Ahhh.... more games, I see. How about putting a qualifier on it? So
>that we all will know who this majority you're talking about is?
    
    	No games.  There are no qualifiers needed.  More people agree
    	with Dobson than disagree.  End of statement.  No further
    	qualifier needed.  I don't see the problem here...

| <<< Note 1118.141 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| >	How about addressing the point I was making in .128 now?

| Which makes this question rather moot, I'd say.

	No, it is just another avoidance by you.

| No games. There are no qualifiers needed. More people agree with Dobson than 
| disagree. End of statement. No further qualifier needed. I don't see the 
| problem here...

	Let me spell it out for you. More people DISAGREE with Dobson than
agree. I don't need to add qualifiers for this to equal your statement. My
statement is true. 

	Without qualifiers, you can make your claim, I can make my claim, and
both are true. So yes, you seem to be playing more games. imho


Glen

                  <<< Note 1118.142 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Let me spell it out for you. More people DISAGREE with Dobson than
>agree. I don't need to add qualifiers for this to equal your statement. My
>statement is true. 
    
    	No it is not.  TENS OF MILLIONS follow Dobson's ministry 
    	specifically because they agree with him.  Now, you can 
    	argue that that the rest of the world does not agree with
    	him, but it is more likely because they have not heard him
    	than because they disagree with him.  How can people 
    	disagree with someone they've never heard?   When you can
    	show me some sort of proof that more people disagree with
    	Dobson, we can continue this discussion.

    
    > TENS OF MILLIONS follow Dobson's ministry specifically because they
    > agree with him.

    How does one "follow Dobson's ministry?" 

    How are they counted?

    Where can I get this information?

    FWIW, "tens of millions" is more than all the Anglicans in North
    America.

        Eric

| <<< Note 1118.143 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| No it is not. TENS OF MILLIONS follow Dobson's ministry specifically because 
| they agree with him. 

	Without qualifiers, both statements are correct. We both know the
majority of people agree (for you), disagree (for me). 

	Shouldn't 10's of millions be following Jesus' ministry? 

| Now, you can argue that that the rest of the world does not agree with him, 
| but it is more likely because they have not heard him than because they 
| disagree with him.  

	How do you know? More likely? 

| How can people disagree with someone they've never heard?   

	You're asking me to answer a question that you can't even prove exists? 

| When you can show me some sort of proof that more people disagree with Dobson,
| we can continue this discussion.

	I hope we have more than your word to go on for this 10's of millions
stuff. Like some qualifiers? Let's see, one person agrees with one thing he
says, so add her/him to the count. So clear that up if you would.


Glen

RE: 144


	Eric, very good note. I can't wait for the reply.

    I believe a good way to measure this is by his success as an author, a
    family psychologist, and a teacher.  His works have been well spoken of
    for years and he is well respected in his field by peoples from all
    different perspectives.
    
    -Jack

There's a good chance Dobson doesn't kick his dog, either.

I don't go along with much of Dobson's child-rearing doctrine.  And who
knows?  Maybe I'm paying for it now.  But being 15 and being the father
of a 15 year old at this time in history are no easy tasks, not that they
ever were.

Richard

 I believe that had my then wife and I been consistant in utilizing Dr. Dobson's
 ideas on discipline, I wouldn't have a 24 year old son facing 15 years in 
 prison.  Children must be taught consequences for their actions, and parents
 must be consistant (where I failed) in doling out the consequences.



 Jim

   <<< Note 1118.144 by APACHE::MYERS "He literally meant it figuratively" >>>

>    How does one "follow Dobson's ministry?" 
    
    	The number of people who utilize his ministry's resources -- 
    	subscribe to the various magazines, purchase the books and
    	casettes and videos, listen to his radio broadcasts (he is
    	aired on over 1500 radio stations worldwide), etc.

    Richard:
    
    I don't believe anybody will always agree with somebody 100%.  For
    example, Dobson brings forth the idea that one uses a stick as the rod
    for corporal punishment.  My understanding is the wisdom of this is
    that the hand of the mom/dad will not be the instrument of discipline
    but only the source. 
    
    I am a believer in corporal punishment and as the children have grown I
    have rarely needed to use it.  I use my hand for spanking because I
    believe the use of a stick or rod as a foreign object is hard to detect
    the severety of impact.  With my hand, I can control it.
    
    Now one might say that corporal punishment is cruel, violent, and based
    on anger.  I submit that the examples of these displays are from people
    who are clueless in the areas of corporal punishment.  I have also seen
    first hand a home without discipline.  As bleak as it sounds, two words
    come to mind when I think of my nephew....Prison or Suicide.  Neither
    are very pleasant!
    
    -Jack

                  <<< Note 1118.145 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Shouldn't 10's of millions be following Jesus' ministry? 
    
    	To be accurate, Dobson often states that it is not "his
    	ministry", but rather Jesus' ministry which Jesus has 
    	entrusted to Dobson.
    
>	I hope we have more than your word to go on for this 10's of millions
> stuff. Like some qualifiers? Let's see, one person agrees with one thing he
> says, so add her/him to the count. So clear that up if you would.
    
    	Are you suggesting that if someone disagrees with even one thing
    	Dobson says that they disagree with him in general?  If so, then
    	I was wrong, for under those parameters practically EVERYONE 
    	disagrees with Dobson.
    
    	I would suggest that a compilation of those who use FotF materials
    	would be a good indicator of those who generally agree with Dobson.
    
    	I just called FotF.  I was wrong in my previous entry that there
    	are 1500 stations that carry his broadcast worldwide.  There are
    	actually 1583 in the USA alone that carry all the daily FotF
    	broadcasts (many of them run them several times a day.)  There 
    	are 2489 in the USA (including the 1583) that broadcast some or
    	all of the broadcasts (besides the daily FotF program, there is
    	a daily "Adventures in Odyssey" broadcast, and a weekly condensed
    	version of what ran daily that past week.)  In addition, FotF
    	broadcasts are heard in 140 other countries translated into many
    	different languages.  FotF can only estimate their worldwide
    	listenership, and they estimate it at 25 million.
    
    	I leave to you the exercise of guessing what portion of that 
    	listenership generally disagrees with Dobson's viewpoints.
    
    	In addition to listenership they have readership.  Their mailing
    	list for their major subscription product -- Focus On The Family
    	Magazine -- is 2 million families.  I strongly doubt that these
    	people pay their subscriptions so that they can disagree with
    	Dobson.  And understand that most subscribers are families, not
    	individuals.  In addition to that magazine are smaller mailing
    	lists for target groups -- Clubhouse Jr for preschool kids,
    	Clubhouse for grade schoolers, Brio for teen girls, Breakaway
    	for teen boys, Single Parent for single parents, Parental
    	Guidance for parents of teens, and a few others whose names
    	escape me at this time, but are targetted for groups like 
    	teachers and pastors among other groups.
    
    	Besides periodical publications, FotF publishes books and videos.
    	Dobson has written several million-copy NY Times best seller
    	books, most of which I would assume were purchased by people
    	who agree with Dobson, not by his detractors.  FotF offers a
    	whole library of other books and videos too -- and one of the
    	videos, 'Sex, Lies and the Truth' was even aired on TV by the
    	FOX network.
    
    	These multi-millions are the ones who are countable because
    	of their listening/reading/watching Dobson's materials, and
    	the only ones I'm considering in my statement.  How many 
    	more might there be who don't even know Dobson exists?
    
>	You're asking me to answer a question that you can't even prove exists? 

    	The ball is now in your court.  I'm asking you to provide some
    	reasonable counter-examples for guessing the number of people
    	who disagree with Dobson.
    
    	So far we have a count of 2 -- you and Richard.

    
    So it's kind of an unscientific guess. 

    Assuming that "TENS OF MILLIONS" means more than one multiple of ten
    million, that is at least 20 million, you are referring to a number
    greater than the entire population -- every man, woman and child -- in
    the state of Texas. A number greater than 10% of the adult population
    of the United States. A number approximately ten times the number of
    people in the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines, combined.

    I have no doubt that Dobson appeals to a large number of people, and in
    fact I even agree with him on some points. But I think the estimates of
    followers is a bit generous.  

    Eric

    Figures based on information from the 1990 US Census and the Department
    of Defense and published in the Information Please Almanac

    
    >	Besides periodical publications, FotF publishes books and videos.
    >	Dobson has written several million-copy NY Times best seller
    >	books, most of which I would assume were purchased by people
    >	who agree with Dobson, not by his detractors.  FotF offers a

    Just a nit, the NY Times Best Seller's list is an indication of units
    printed, not units sold. I have seen many NYT "Best Sellers" at various
    book warehouses. Dobson included.

    If a person listens to a radio broadcast, buys two books, and
    subscribes to FotF newsletter. Does that count as one follower or four?

    	Look, Eric.  You can nip and pick at the edges.  You can try
    	to compare this to Texas when I clearly stated worldwide.  But
    	all your picking doesn't diminish the fact that Dobson has a
    	far-reaching and widely-followed ministry.  Whether it is
    	20 million or the absolute minimum of 2 million (based on their
    	subscriber list and counting whole families as simply one entry)
    	there is no doubt that Dobson has a large following, and that
    	was all I really was saying way back there when this got ratholed
    	into semantics and specifics.

| <<< Note 1118.152 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| To be accurate, Dobson often states that it is not "his ministry", 

	So far, so good.

| but rather Jesus' ministry 

	Very very good!

| which Jesus has entrusted to Dobson.

	This is where the chain gets broken. It is His ministry, period. Not
entrusted to a human. A human could be a tool, but for *me*, I am leary of one
who says God entrusted them with something that belongs to Him.

| Are you suggesting that if someone disagrees with even one thing Dobson says 
| that they disagree with him in general?  

	Thank you Joe. You're starting to clear things up a bit. 

| If so, then I was wrong, for under those parameters practically EVERYONE
| disagrees with Dobson.

	Why is it hard for you to list the parameters you meant back when you
wrote 10's of millions believe. 

| The ball is now in your court. I'm asking you to provide some reasonable 
| counter-examples for guessing the number of people who disagree with Dobson.

	Sorry, Joe. You list some things, and say for me to figure it out who
agrees with Dopson. Explicitly list your parameters. Is that so hard? Are you
afraid that it will show your 10's of millions isn't quite so high?


Glen

    
    > Look, Eric.  You can nip and pick at the edges.  You can try to compare
    > this to Texas when I clearly stated worldwide.

    I wasn't trying to pick at the edges, I was trying to address your
    claim of "tens of millions" head on. The stats I quoted were merely to
    give some perspective of the enormity of the claim. Worldwide or not,
    claiming tens of millions disciples, or followers is huge.

    > But all your picking doesn't diminish the fact that Dobson has a
    > far-reaching and widely-followed ministry.

    And I said as much in my note. I questioned, but did not disprove, the
    degree of breadth of the following.

    > and that was all I really was saying way back there when this got
    > ratholed into semantics and specifics.

    Semantics, specifics... facts, truth... The devil's in the details, eh.

    Eric 

| <<< Note 1118.155 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| But all your picking doesn't diminish the fact that Dobson has a far-reaching 
| and widely-followed ministry. Whether it is 20 million or the absolute minimum
| of 2 million (based on their subscriber list and counting whole families as 
| simply one entry)

	18 million is a lot of people to say one is picking at the edges, isn't
it? Come on Joe, that's a pretty big margin.

	Also, you did not address Eric's question of 1 person buying/listening
to 4 things. How do they distinguish 4=1?

| there is no doubt that Dobson has a large following, 

	On this I think we all can agree. 

| and that was all I really was saying way back there when this got ratholed
| into semantics and specifics.

	Wow.... you make a claim of 10's of millions, and now try to slide out
of it by saying it's due to semantics and specifics? Too funny Joe, too funny.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    This is a Strawman.  Let's say 2 million and end it here.  
    
    -Jack

                  <<< Note 1118.156 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| which Jesus has entrusted to Dobson.
>
>	This is where the chain gets broken. It is His ministry, period.
    
    	You must have no concept of stewardship.  Go read the parable
    	of the talents.

   <<< Note 1118.157 by APACHE::MYERS "He literally meant it figuratively" >>>

>    I wasn't trying to pick at the edges, I was trying to address your
>    claim of "tens of millions" head on. The stats I quoted were merely to
>    give some perspective of the enormity of the claim. Worldwide or not,
>    claiming tens of millions disciples, or followers is huge.
    
    	It's not *my* claim.  It's theirs.  And I still see no reason
    	to doubt them -- even with your perspectives.  And their 
    	estimate of 25 million certainly *IS* huge.  So?  The 
    	population of Texas is a mere speck when compared to the
    	world population.

>    Semantics, specifics... facts, truth... The devil's in the details, eh.

    	I provided facts and specifics.  What have you have provided?
    	Perspective?

                  <<< Note 1118.158 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	18 million is a lot of people to say one is picking at the edges, isn't
> it? Come on Joe, that's a pretty big margin.
    
    	What 18 million are you talking about?  Do you really think that
    	Eric has come close to showing such a discrepancy?  If you do,
    	then you only show your willingness to ignore facts to attack
    	me.

>	Also, you did not address Eric's question of 1 person buying/listening
>to 4 things. How do they distinguish 4=1?
    
    	I missed that question, and if I didn't originally say so, I 
    	fully intended to mention that possibility myself.  Again,
    	that doesn't diminish the 25 million.

>	Wow.... you make a claim of 10's of millions, and now try to slide out
> of it by saying it's due to semantics and specifics? Too funny Joe, too funny.
    
    	Obviously I'm not doing that.  What I *DO* see here is your
    	unwillingness to provide some way to estimate who disagrees
    	with Dobson.  You claim that more disagree with him than agree.
    	You want me to be wrong.  You are so eager to attack ME.  Well 
    	put something concrete where your mouth is or take a hike.
    	You've overstayed your welcome in this discussion with your
    	hollow claims.  Even provide us with evidence of 2 million
    	if you can.

| <<< Note 1118.159 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| This is a Strawman.  Let's say 2 million and end it here.

	Jack, when one shouts out, TENS OF MILLIONS, this is not a strawman. He
is the one who made the claim, Jack. How can specifics be a strawman?


Glen

| <<< Note 1118.161 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| >    Semantics, specifics... facts, truth... The devil's in the details, eh.

| I provided facts and specifics.  What have you have provided? Perspective?

	Joe, when you made the statement, "It's not *my* claim. It's theirs.",
you have done nothing more than provide their perspective. You have not
provided specifics, so the number could very well be very bogus. Eric made a
good point of asking you the questions he did. You have chosen not to address
them for <insert whatever reason>. Unless you can provide specifics, you have
done nothing more but give a blanket statement, which without specifics is
nothing more than a perspective.


Glen

| <<< Note 1118.162 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>



| >	18 million is a lot of people to say one is picking at the edges, isn't
| > it? Come on Joe, that's a pretty big margin.

| What 18 million are you talking about?  

	You yourself said it could be 2 million. For it to be 10's of millions,
you need at least 20 million. Subtract the two, and you got your outrageous
margin of error.

| Do you really think that Eric has come close to showing such a discrepancy? If
| you do, then you only show your willingness to ignore facts to attack me.

	I see we're on the attack stuff again. I suppose that is one way to
deflect, but I hadn't realized that you're such the victim. And there are no
facts that are being ignored, as all you did was say a blanket statement, and
have provided no facts.

| What I *DO* see here is your unwillingness to provide some way to estimate who
| disagrees with Dobson. You claim that more disagree with him than agree.

	Yes, that is a true statement. It was a statement that was made after
your statement. You need to define yours, and I will define mine. It's called
listing the parameters.

| You want me to be wrong.  

	I want you to define your parameters explicitly.

| You are so eager to attack ME.  

	Kill the victim act Joe. It's getting old. You come off as vague, and
when someone asks for you to define your parameters, you do the victim thing.
I know you think that I am so eager to attack you. But the statement is false. 

| Well put something concrete where your mouth is or take a hike.

	Such a way with words, Joe. People have been asking you to put some
concrete in here, but you have refused to. But I don't think anyone has stated
for you to take a hike.

| You've overstayed your welcome in this discussion with your hollow claims.  

	Joe, you are not the judge in who overstays their welcome. You should
not be, anyway, a judge of anyone. (same for anyone) As far as the hollow
claims go, you have beared false witness once again.



Glen

                  <<< Note 1118.164 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, when you made the statement, "It's not *my* claim. It's theirs.",
> you have done nothing more than provide their perspective. You have not
> provided specifics, so the number could very well be very bogus.
    
    	I have provided numbers from the horse's mouth.  It is up to
    	you to prove them wrong.
    
    	But frankly that's not even the issue.  You seem willing to 
    	accept a number of 2 million.  So show me some sort of
    	evidence that 2 million people specifically disagree with
    	Dobson's general positions.
    
>You have chosen not to address
>them for <insert whatever reason>. Unless you can provide specifics, 
    
    	I have addressed them directly.  I have provided specifics
    	from the organization itself.
    
    	It is up to you to disprove them.

    Glen:
    
    How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?
    
    Answer:  Who cares!
    
    The point is that Dobson is well renowned and respected by people
    throughout his field, both conservative and liberal.  Low million or
    high million matters not!
    
    -Jack

                  <<< Note 1118.165 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	You yourself said it could be 2 million. For it to be 10's of millions,
>you need at least 20 million. Subtract the two, and you got your outrageous
>margin of error.
    
    	I did not agree to 2 million.  I only conceded to it for 
    	the sake of argument.  And even at that lower number you
    	are unable to provide support for your assertion that more
    	than that number disagrees with Dobson.
    
    	I still stand by FotF's 25 million number.
    
>| What I *DO* see here is your unwillingness to provide some way to estimate who
>| disagrees with Dobson. You claim that more disagree with him than agree.
>
>	Yes, that is a true statement. It was a statement that was made after
>your statement. You need to define yours, and I will define mine. It's called
>listing the parameters.
    
    	Great.  For the sake of argument I'll let you work with the
    	2 million number.  A concrete number of a mailing list that
    	exists specifically because those people agree with Dobson
    	in principle.  Now provide me with some similar mailing list 
    	that exists because those people disagree with Dobson.

>| Well put something concrete where your mouth is or take a hike.
>
>	Such a way with words, Joe. People have been asking you to put some
>concrete in here, but you have refused to. But I don't think anyone has stated
>for you to take a hike.
    
    	In the other topic you and Patricia have suggested that I not
    	note here.  You were saying?
    
    	It's "put up or shut up" time for you on this issue, Glen.

I don't know why I'm joining such a pointless argument, but...

Re: .167 Jack

>    The point is that Dobson is well renowned and respected by people
>    throughout his field, both conservative and liberal.  Low million or
>    high million matters not!
    
Could you give examples of liberals who respect Dobson?  What percent of
liberals respect him?

				-- Bob

	Joe, go poll gays, go poll liberals, go poll anyone who has a mind of
their own. Btw, I did notice how you changed from believing in Dobson, to
believing in general. You see, there are probably very few, if any, who agree
with Dobson 100%. You see Joe, when the parameters come into play, you can
begin to see the picture. You have not listed parameters, and that could be due
to they did not specifically list the parameters. 


Glen

    Bob:
    
    I don't think there is any polling data on this.  I'm including liberal
    factions because I've heard them speak well of Dobsons understanding of
    the human psyche and behavioral sciences.  Not that they necessarily
    agree with his methodologies...most of them probably don't.
    
    I do know this.  There are currently over one million men alone who are
    Promisekeepers.  So that alone would account for half of my estimate.
    I picked 2 million arbitrarily but I'm sure there is alot more people
    who believe the same as Dobson and consider him a viable Psychologist.
    
    -Jack

    Glen:
    
    Dobson has a very big following.  That's what is trying to be
    communicated here.  Seems like we're trying to contemplate our navals
    here! :-)

re Note 1118.169 by GRIM::MESSENGER:

> I don't know why I'm joining such a pointless argument, but...
> 
> Re: .167 Jack
> 
> >    The point is that Dobson is well renowned and respected by people
> >    throughout his field, both conservative and liberal.  Low million or
> >    high million matters not!
>     
> Could you give examples of liberals who respect Dobson?  What percent of
> liberals respect him?
  
        I don't know if I qualify, but I've always respected (and
        read) Dobson's work on child discipline.

        To me, Dobson and politics is like Linus Pauling and
        politics, the men are (in Pauling's case, were) brilliant in
        their fields but don't understand their own limits.  (They
        are both counter-examples to C.S.Lewis' "Lord, liar, or
        lunatic" argument that Jesus *couldn't* be merely a "great
        teacher".)

        Bob

    		<<< Note 1118.170 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, go poll gays, go poll liberals, go poll anyone who has a mind of
>their own. 

    	No, Glen, YOU go poll gays, and liberals.  And while you are
    	at it, to be fair you should also poll hets and conservatives.
    	And anyone who has a mind of his own.  (Unbelievable that you
    	seem to suggest here that anyone 'with a mind of his own' cannot
    	agree with Dobson!  And you were trying to chastise me for being
    	judgmental!)

>Btw, I did notice how you changed from believing in Dobson, to
>believing in general. You see, there are probably very few, if any, who agree
>with Dobson 100%. You see Joe, when the parameters come into play, you can
>begin to see the picture. 

    	Yes, I see the picture.  You've painted yourself into a corner
    	and now can't walk away.  See my second sentence of .152 again.
    	By your reasoning nobody can agree with anybody.  Likewise, then,
    	nobody can fully disagree with anybody as well.  How can you say
    	that ANYONE disagrees with Dobson, for "You see, there are probably
    	very few, if any, who [dis]agree Dobson 100%."  So it comes down 
    	to a matter of degree, I guess.  

>You have not listed parameters, and that could be due
>to they did not specifically list the parameters. 

    	I have listed my parameters.  There is a mailing list of
    	2 million families who are willing to pay to be on that
    	mailing list.  I fully doubt that they pay because they
    	generally disagree with Dobson.  I challenge you to provide
    	a similar list that can show me an equal number (or more)
    	who are on some list because they DISAGREE with Dobson.

    	I've let you off the hook, Glen.  You don't need to worry
    	about 25 million.  Just a paltry 2 million.  So far you've
    	provided me 2.

    	There you have it.  Concrete.  Defined parameters.  Now back
    	up your words.

| <<< Note 1118.174 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| No, Glen, YOU go poll gays, and liberals.  

	I don't need to Joe. You see, by not giving the parameters of what a
person's claim is, it is quite easy to make it include anyone. Most people do
disagree with Dobson.... at some point. That's a no brainer. If we were to go
just with that one parameter, you already said you would agree with it. Listing
something without breaking it down can make a point that favors just about any
side. It's done with statistics all the time. So that's why your blanket
statement of 10's of millions, doesn't hold water at this time because we don't
know explicitly just what goes into the making of the numbers.

| Yes, I see the picture.  You've painted yourself into a corner and now can't 
| walk away.  

	In your mind, yes, but in reality, no.

| By your reasoning nobody can agree with anybody. Likewise, then, nobody can 
| fully disagree with anybody as well.  

	Joe, you still don't get it. It is an exercise about presenting
specifics. Something that would be nice to see from you.

| I have listed my parameters. There is a mailing list of 2 million families who
| are willing to pay to be on that mailing list.  

	That's 18 million shy of the minimum possibility of 10's of millions,
and 23 million behind the claim of 25 million you made. You don't have
specifics to back the 25 million claim. The claim you screamed out. That is why
it is hard to take the claim seriously.



Glen

                  <<< Note 1118.175 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	That's 18 million shy of the minimum possibility of 10's of millions,
>and 23 million behind the claim of 25 million you made. You don't have
>specifics to back the 25 million claim. The claim you screamed out. That is why
>it is hard to take the claim seriously.

	I've let you off the hook, Glen.  2 million is all you have
    	to support.  Less talk and more action, Glen.  The more you
    	squirm with this smokescreen, the more you show your claims
    	are empty.

    

| <<< Note 1118.176 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| -< Claim stands:  More agree than disagree with Dobson. >-

	Go reread .175 again. 


| Less talk and more action, Glen. The more you squirm with this smokescreen, 
| the more you show your claims are empty.

	Reread .175 again. 

    	Bye, Glen.

 Hey, we're really having fun now, eh?

    Greetings Jim!

	Now if you want specific groups Joe, add in, People for the American 
Way, Ground Zero, NOW (at least 1 million members there alone), centrist to 
liberal churches, witches (another million or so). 


Glen

    
    Not to mention the 7 million Jews and 3 million Muslims in North
    America. Nor the millions of Americans that support safe legal and rare
    abortions.
    
    	Eric
    
    [The original assertion was that more people agree with Dobson than
    don't. I took that to mean his religio-political views and not his
    opinons on, say, Tai food.]

                  <<< Note 1118.181 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Now if you want specific groups Joe, add in, People for the American 
>Way, Ground Zero, 
    
    	Counter that with the Christian Coalition, the Catholic League,
    
> NOW (at least 1 million members there alone), 
    
    	One million?  LIE!
    
> centrist to liberal churches, witches (another million or so). 
    
    	The sum total of Christian Evangelical Churches, the majority
    	of mainstream Christians...
    
    
    	Sigh.  Got any more?

   <<< Note 1118.182 by APACHE::MYERS "He literally meant it figuratively" >>>

>    Not to mention the 7 million Jews and 3 million Muslims in North
>    America. 
    
    	Now, why would these groups disagree with Dobson?  Dobson's 
    	positions are about family values, not religious doctrines.
    
>    Nor the millions of Americans that support safe legal and rare
>    abortions.
    
    	And what about the equal millions who do not?
    
    	Don't you two see, for each generic group you suggest, there 
    	is at least as many that can be caught under the opposite
    	generic umbrella.  Such arguments (on either side) can't
    	prove a thing.  I've given you specifics.
    
>    [The original assertion was that more people agree with Dobson than
>    don't. I took that to mean his religio-political views and not his
>    opinons on, say, Tai food.]

    	Dobson isn't about religio-political issues. He is about family
    	issues.  Just today on his broadcast he said that exact thing.
    	Sure, he supports his case with Christian religious arguments
    	because that's his perspective, but most times the same arguments 
    	can be made from a Jewish point of view, or a Muslim point of 
    	view, or a Catholic point of view, etc.

    
    Re: 1118.184
    
    Oh I see; my mistake. You were saying more people agree with
    *something* Dobson believes, than disagree with everything the man has
    said or done or believes. Well I assume he's against wife beating so
    count me too. So what did you mean by the words "follow [his]
    ministry?" 
    
    I see a *lot* of double dipping in your head counting.
    However I thing the Jewish populations and Muslim populations that I
    cited are mutually exclusive. Freedom of choice types *may* also be
    Jewish or Muslim, though.

    Dobson and FotF are, in my opinion, are religio-political to a fault.

    Eric

   <<< Note 1118.185 by APACHE::MYERS "He literally meant it figuratively" >>>

>    Oh I see; my mistake. You were saying more people agree with
>    *something* Dobson believes, than disagree with everything the man has
>    said or done or believes. 
    
	Ignoring your wife-beating quip, I was saying that more people
    	agree with him in general than disagree with him in general.
    	"In General" (if it must be explained) means to me that someone
    	agrees or disagrees with the majority of what he says.
    
    	I do not agree with everything Dobson says.  But I count myself
    	among those who agree with him.  You do not disagree with
    	everything he says, but you have counted yourself among those
    	who disagree with him.
    
    	I really don't see what's so difficult with this.
    
>    I see a *lot* of double dipping in your head counting.
    
    	Well of course there is!  There is an equal amount of double
    	dipping in ALL the general groups that have been thrown around
    	in this discussion today.
    
    	There is no double dipping if we use just one clear-cut
    	list -- such as their mailing list -- and I'll even let
    	that number stand at 2 million for the sake of discussion
    	eventhough many on that list are families and not 
    	individuals.
    
>    However I thing the Jewish populations and Muslim populations that I
>    cited are mutually exclusive. 
    
    	Fine, and I've showed you why they can't be used as blanket
    	groups.

>    Dobson and FotF are, in my opinion, are religio-political to a fault.
    
    	There is not much I can say about this other than it's your
    	opinion and you are entitled to it.  As I already said, just
    	today on his broadcast Dr. Dobson refuted such an opinion.
    	Your only option at this point is to call him a liar.

    
    Seriously, thanks for replying.

    > Your only option at this point is to call him a liar.

    Or simply mistaken.

    Please provide me with pointers to Dobson's writings and speeches and I
    promise I'll re-evaluate my opinion. 

    Thanks,

    Eric  

    	Write Focus On The Family at:
    
    	Focus On The Family
    	Colorado Springs, CO 80995
    
    	Or call them at 800-A-FAMILY 
    	               (800-232-6459)
    
    	and ask for a listing of all their publications, 
    	books, videos.  I'll bet that your library carries 
    	the Focus On The Family magazine, and perhaps even 
    	the smaller-target-group magazines.  Look up Dr. 
    	James Dobson in your Library's card catalogue.
    	You'll probably find plenty of books to start with.

    Joe,
    
    Is this the same Dr. Dobson who is threatening the republican party if
    they don't start pandering to his views completely?  The same one who
    supports the Christian Voters Guide?
    
    Just curious,
    
    meg

    	 re .-1
    
    	Oh, I suppose YOU would interpret it that way.
    
    	Pandering to his views COMPLETELY?  Haven't we been through
    	all that today already?
    
    	Dobson (not by himself, of course you understand that) is
    	calling for pro-family voting.  He doesn't care if it comes
    	from republicans or democrats.  When faced with the likes
    	of NARAL and Act-up and ACLU and so many other political
    	forces pushing for anti-family legislation, do you expect
    	us pro-family types to simply roll over and go away?
    	Turn the other cheek?  
    
    	Focus On The Family spends a full 4% of its money on
    	political issues.  (There was a TV news magazine show
    	on this evening that did a piece on FotF and they gave
    	that figure.)  Surely you don't intend to make that
    	4% into "religio-political to a fault", do you?
    
    	And I don't know that much about the Christian Voters Guide,
    	so I'd be interested in you telling me what parts of it
    	are not family-oriented.
    
    	Did you know that Dobson does not support organized prayer
    	in schools?

    
    On a "Day One" report this evening, Dobson said that candidate who
    didn't support his self defined "pro-family" platform would be opposed
    by him. He mentioned the Republican party specifically, implying the
    Democratic party was beyond consideration.

    Pandering may not be exactly the right word, but they showed an
    interesting change of heart in Phil Gramm after meeting with Dobson
    four times. 

    >	Focus On The Family spends a full 4% of its money on
    >	political issues.  (There was a TV news magazine show
    >	on this evening that did a piece on FotF and they gave
    >	that figure.)  Surely you don't intend to make that
    >	4% into "religio-political to a fault", do you?
     
    Yes, 4% on direct legislative issues. Certainly they don't include the
    cost of air time or newsletters that Dobson spends on spreading his
    political ideas and encouraging people to petition politicians. Nor
    does it indicate the influence he has in courting the Republican
    candidates. I stand by my assertion. 

    > Did you know that Dobson does not support organized prayer in
    > schools?

    He doesn't support *government* initiated school prayer in *public*
    school. He certainly has no problem with student organized prayer in
    schools.

    Eric

    P.S. I forgot how many radio stations carry Dobson's broadcasts, but
    just as and FYI, there are about 9,000 radio stations in the US (1990).

    ZZ    He doesn't support *government* initiated school prayer in *public*
    ZZ    school. He certainly has no problem with student organized prayer
    ZZ    in schools.
    
    Oh gosh...I would think most people would support student organized
    prayer...considering it is protected under the 1st ammendment.
    
    -Jack

    
    .192 

    I support student organized prayer in the same way I support student
    organized singing. That is, as in an extracurricular forum and not
    during the regular school day, including home room periods.  
    
    Eric

    Well..I agree with that.  After school activities are
    appropriate...just as they are for the scouts.
    
    -Jack