Conference quark::mennotes-v1

> How do men feel after hearing 
> for so long how insensitive, uncommunicative, criminally aggressive, 
> oppressive, and even unkind they are? 

	I don't respond any longer. It used to bother me but I
	no longer care what man-hating venom spewing women think
	or whine about.

> How do they respond to hearing how 
end> lessly innocent, virtuous, victimized, and oppressed we women are.

	Again, I tune them out and disregard their moronic
  	comments. Comments such as the above, I feel, are nothing
	more than the rantings of insecure myopic people who are
	badly in need of the emotional crutch that the above remarks
	offer them. For them it's much better to cry and whine
	about their sorry plight instead of taking responsibility
	for their lives and doing something about it.

	Thankfully, only a small segment of the population
	spouts the garbage above. These people are in serious
	need of help. 

	I find that most men and women
	are indeed interested in working together toward a more
	equitable and fair society.

    re .0
    c.f. MENNOTES *.*

    how can we take serious this request for assessment when mnay people
    have been trying to articulate our reaction in this conference for
    years and have been getting bashed for it.
    In my opinion we have to start out believing we cannot trust people to
    hear our answers. People have shown unmistakably that they are
    unwilling to hear our answers.
    So when I see some of the adversarial feminists of ANY gender start
    tabulating their response to this and the other polls, THEN I will
    consider replying
    When

    Steve Lionel and
    Vick Bennison and
    Doug Olson and ...
    Greg Diercks and
    Brian Hetrick
    Ray Davis 
    .
    .
    .
    start answering in ways that I feel are supportive, THEN I will
    consider replying
    
    
    				herb
    bottom line
    i don't think its safe

    	Here we go again.
    
    	Folks, the author of the text quoted in the 716 basenote (and now
    	here) is AN ATTACK AGAINST WOMEN/FEMINISTS!
    
    	Men are not the enemy.  It's only an accusation made by the author
    	of this text (designed to stir men up to join in the attack against
    	feminists.)
    
    	It's as if someone said to you, "Joe thinks you're a real horse's *ss. 
    	So what do you think of him?"  Of course there will be a tendency to
    	be somewhat annoyed at Joe (which plays nicely into the hands of the
    	person who told you this, since this person happens to dislike/hate
    	Joe him/herself.)
    
    	Men's reactions to real aspects of the women's movement is one thing
    	- but reactions to some anti-feminist who goads men with "HA HA, they
    	hate you and regard you as the enemy - so what do you think of them???"
    	is BOUND to start a whole new round of the same arguments that occurred
    	in 716 and 724.
    
    	Imagine if we started a topic in Womannotes that said, "Men are
    	glad women get raped because they think we deserve it - so what do
    	you think of men now?"  Would this be fair and representative of
    	men as a group?  (NO!)
    
    	Bonnie, another approach to this would have been more productive.

    Suzanne
    
    You could have done this yourself you know. Maybe you and I should
    just stay out of the discussions for a while?
    
    Bonnie

    Yawn!!!!
    
    

    re .-1
    who are you yawning at? and why?
    Is it 'here we go again?' and assuming it is, is it
    	the base note
    	replies 1,2,3
    	reply 4
    	reply
    that is triggering your _booorrrring_ button?
    
    				herb
    p.s. Are you a man or a woman?
    
    

>    
>    	It's as if someone said to you, "Joe thinks you're a real horse's *ss. 
>    	So what do you think of him?"  Of course there will be a tendency to
>    	be somewhat annoyed at Joe (which plays nicely into the hands of the
>    	person who told you this, since this person happens to dislike/hate
>    	Joe him/herself.)

Hopefully, there is an unstated:

"The 'Joe' appearing in this note is a fictitious character.  Any resemblance,
to persons either living or dead , is a coincidence" :-) 

-Joe

    RE: .5  Bonnie
    
    > You could have done this yourself you know.
    
    Never in a million years would I have reposted the same old anti-women,
    anti-feminist propaganda after seeing how unproductive it was in the
    other topics.  I can't imagine why you chose to bring up the idea of
    "men's responses" in this particular way.
    
    > Maybe you and I should just stay out of the discussions for a while?
    
    Do whatever you like.  So will I.

    RE: .8  Joe
    
    > Hopefully, there is an unstated...
    
    Yes.  Sorry I happened to pick your first name for my analogy.

>    
>    Yes.  Sorry I happened to pick your first name for my analogy.
>

Sorry?  I found it amusing, actually! :-)  I realize it is used as a generic
type name ala Joe Schmoe, Joe Bloe, etc etc.

-Joe

    re .-1
    I think you may have misunderstood the title to .3.
    
    i asked you to prove me WRONG, not prove me right
    
    
    			herb

    Herb, do you want an honest response or a supportive one?  (Warning:
    That was a rhetorical question.)  You've shown many times that you
    consider anything I say which differs from the party line to be vicious
    propaganda. 
    
    Honest response:
    
    I have not "heard for so long" that I am uncommunicative, criminally
    aggressive, or oppressive; in fact I don't remember hearing it at all,
    and I read a fair amount of feminist (and non-feminist) writing and
    have had a fair number of feminist (and non-feminist) friends. 
    
    I've heard, in all-too-many specific instances, that I was being
    insensitive or unkind (from Herb, for example), but always coached in
    terms of my personality, not my genitalia.
    
    I don't remember hearing that women are endlessly innocent or virtuous;
    I'd certainly laugh if I did.  The victimization and oppression seemed
    pretty clear to me.
    
    Ray

Well, since I don't accept the premises of the quoted text, I really can't
answer the question.   When I do hear certain women spouting such nonsense,
I feel sorry for them, and I understand a bit of what prompts them to do
so, but I don't take it seriously and don't become defensive.  I imagine women
who listen to men who say that "all women are empty-headed and should be kept
barefoot and pregnant" often come to the same conclusions.  Some will take
such statements personally, others will shrug it off, and others still will
look beyond the obvious and look for reasons why such statements are made.

To accept the text in .0 as a valid representation of the way things are is
an invitation to a misdirected response.

					Steve

    it is the honesty of your response that -in my opinion- prevents a
    dialogue.
    I don't _know_ exactly how I FEEL about male female 'politics'. I do
    know that my feelings are 
    
    	VERY, VERY complicated, 
        very, very hard to articulate 
    	even harder to write about
    	differ substantially from what you just said, 
        are not amenable to challenge (they are too fragile, and tenuouos)
    
    

    Steve
    
    I don't accept the premises of the quoted text either. However I felt
    to divide up 716 and not include that paragraph could be viewed by
    some people as my not being fair about starting topics, i.e. leaving
    out one that I disliked. So I included it as a spin off topic.
    
    Bonnie

Re: .17

I have no problem with that.  It's a common enough perception, though perhaps
a bit exaggerated for effect, and worth discussing.

				Steve

>    	VERY, VERY complicated, 
>        very, very hard to articulate 
>    	even harder to write about
    
    As far as that goes, my feelings about male-female "politics" are
    similar.  That's why I'm still fascinated by feminism. Admittedly, the
    questions posed in the base note were easy for me to answer, but other
    male-female questions are more enticingly difficult.
    
    I've met lots of nice guys'n'gals who didn't have complicated and
    difficult-to-articulate feelings and so didn't see what all the fuss
    was about. 
    
    But I don't see any way to feel less fragile and tenuous about my
    feelings other than trying to articulate them and see them get
    challenged and sometimes (rarely, now that I'm in my dotage) even
    changing my mind.  And I just can't get why someone who doesn't want to
    articulate-and-so-on would bother to issue a challenge. It's like, why
    play softball if it bores you?
    
    Ray

    I am trying to use how I feel as an illustration for how many men in this
    conference MAY feel.
    For many of us males, feelings and emotions are more tenuous and
    difficult matters than they seem to us to be for many women. They are
    also not very safe.
    We don't talk about them well, we don't understand them well. When on
    top of that we feel that we are being 'attacked on all sides', our
    armor goes on and our other defenses -e.g. attack mode- are activated.
    
    It doesn't matter whether we are right. We feel like we are hurting.
    (by the way wrt to gender politics in 'real life' i DON'T feel like i
    am hurting -as distinct from in this conference)
    What we FEEL, FEEL, FEEL is something like people are telling us that
    we have no RIGHT to be hurting.
    Underneath all my bristling in both this conference and also in =wn= is
    the principle -i believe- that men AND women are hurting and being
    hurt; and that simply pointing fingers at men is NOT going to solve any
    problems. And right now, that is where I see things to be, finger
    pointing at men, in BOTH =wn= and also in mennotes.
    
    				herb

    10-4
    

>	  "It's damage- assessment time. Like generals, women are wondering 
>what condition the enemy is in after twenty solid years of bombardment with 
>the idea that every wrong and vile thing that ever happened on the planet 
>is their fault-the results of "testosterone poisoning," "male pattern 
>aggression," "big-*ick syndrome," et cetera. How do men feel after hearing 
>for so long how insensitive, uncommunicative, criminally aggressive, 
>oppressive, and even unkind they are? How do they respond to hearing how 
>endlessly innocent, virtuous, victimized, and oppressed we women are.

    My "feeling" about this is that silence is all too often equated
    as agreement.  That they have at best become cheap-shots, and at
    worst have become justification for excesses against men rather
    than reasons for the removal of injustices against women.  I also
    have some very strong fealings about being able to say "wait a
    minute" without being immediatly attacket as a (cheap shot) sexist,
    biggot, and/or parinoid.
    
    Despite the fact that the statment will rapidly be qualified with
    "but not *all* men" if challenged.  Statement immediatly before and
    after the denial often indicate that yes indeed they *did* mean
    *all* men.
    
    I think (and 716.0 supports) that more and more men *are* getting
    out of the "be big and tough and take it" and starting to say
    "wait just a %$# minute here".  The pendulum may be swinging back
    and there may will be a *real* backlash against feminism (from which
    most of these statements seem, true or not, to be comming).  A backlash
    that may (regretabley) wash back over some of the *real* concerns 
    and injustices.
    
    fred();

    RE: .23  Fred
    
    > Despite the fact that the statment will rapidly be qualified with
    > "but not *all* men" if challenged.  Statement immediatly before and
    > after the denial often indicate that yes indeed they *did* mean
    > *all* men.
    
    In other words, you decide what they meant by their words (despite
    anything and everything they might have to say about it.)  Great.
    
    > The pendulum may be swinging back and there may will be a *real* 
    > backlash against feminism (from which most of these statements seem, 
    > true or not, to be comming).  A backlash that may (regretabley) wash 
    > back over some of the *real* concerns and injustices.
    
    A real backlash is already happening - and it's happened several times
    during the women's rights movement in the past 150 years.
    
    The thing is - will the men and women who support equal rights accept 
    the regression (which occurs during each backlash) THIS TIME?
    
    I don't think so.  Too many people know now that the movement ISN'T
    about blaming or hating men, but is rather about addressing the
    injustices which HURT US ALL.  I don't think we'll all be turned
    back this time.

   <<who are you yawning at? and why?
   <<    Is it 'here we go again?' and assuming it is, is it
    	
    Yep, that about sums it up..  I find the whole topic a
    waste of time to talk about.  Seriously,  WHO CARES ? 
    
    I guess I'm just not a 'need to be intouch with the worlds feelings'
    type a guy..
    
    sort of guy.
    
    I see this whole topic, and related topics, as a reaction to
    stereotyping (which is where this whole issue  sits as far as I can 
    see), which only encourages more meaningless discussion..  
    
    I'd rather see some fun in this conference personally.  (Which is 
    why I  stay in read only 90% of the time..) 
    
    "Men -- the enemy",, oh pahleeze... be Serious... better
    yet, 'gimme a break
    
    But I digress.  The point is, the subject is moot to me..  There's
    jerks, and there's regular people. They come in both sexes..  Or so
    I've always thought.
    
    
    Ahh there I go, and after I promised my self I wouldn't get sucked 
    into this discussion.  
    
    PS: Last I checked, I was male..
    
    
    but after reading this note, most of you have probably reach that
    conclusion...  Yet another neandrathalic MALE barking his opinion...
    
    'Nay, he ought to be beating his chest'
    
    just call me 'The Enemy'
    

    Bonnie,

    		I think you started this series of strings with good
    intentions, but look what happened;


    Steve Lionel and
    Vick Bennison and
    Doug Olson and ...
    Greg Diercks and
    Brian Hetrick
    Ray Davis 
    Suzanne Conlon
    and others

    		came crawling out of the woodwork to right think us wrong
    thinkers. So, since 716 I have been insulted ( called a sissy ), baited,
    and ridiculed ( boarding on harassment ). Now, if Vick and others think
    they can continue to insult me and other men here, your wrong. As for as
    myself, I will invite any of you feminist manly men to go out for a
    beer with me so we can see just who the sissy is. If you haven't the
    inclination, then be nice, and I will too. I for one will give you back as
    much crap as you dish out.  


    		There were no intended threats here only an understanding
    among men " play the game, pay the price ".


    			Wayne

    re .21
    
    I corresponded with the author of .21 off-line. Basically I complained
    that I felt very hurt by .21 and didn't understand why he did it
    publicly. 
    He has given me a very clear statement as to why he did it. I request
    that he publish that answer here.

    Ray,
    
    		Care to show me where I said "hit list" or do you just have
    problems processing information.
    
    
    
    
    			Wayne

>    		Care to show me where I said "hit list" or do you just have
>    problems processing information.
    
    It was a descriptive term, Wayne.  You obviously have something against
    all the people on that list since you describe us as crawling,
    insulting, baiting, ridiculing, and dishing out crap. You obviously
    didn't derive that list from this topic since a number of people on it
    didn't reply here, which means you must maintain it outside of the
    current discussion.  Thus, "hit list".
    
    Perhaps I misinterpreted your feelings as regards crawling, insulting,
    etc.?
    
    Ray

    
   > In other words, you decide what they meant by their words (despite
   > anything and everything they might have to say about it.)  Great.
    
    In other words, I use all the informatin at my disposal to determine
    if they are telling the truth or not.  Again just because somebody
    *tells* you it's a hammer, don't necessarily mean you can pound
    nails with it.
    
    fred();

    From 11:21 (time stamp on .0) until now is about 5 hours.
    
    Was I right, or was I right.
    
    

>    Was I right, or was I right.
    
    Well, I did manage ONE reply about the base note before jumping into
    the squabbling ratholes.... 
    
    Ray

    >And right now, that is where I see things to be, finger
    >pointing at men, in BOTH =wn= and also in mennotes.
                
    Stop pointing your finger at me Herb.  I'm a man with complex feelings
    that I don't articulate well.
    
    					- Vick

    Re: .0
    
    If I ever hear a woman saying that I'll let you know how I respond.
    
    					- Vick

    I think I'm starting to understand why men have a shorter life
    expectancy than women....
    
    Ray

    No ray, crawling out of the woodwork and insulting is correct, hit list
    is not. Hit list denotes a list of people who are scheduled for
    retribution, I have no such list. Those are the people whom I've had to
    defend myself against in the past and I fully expect to do battle with
    them in the future, cause "I ain't going away".



    			Wayne

    I wonder if you understand how angry it makes people (well maybe i'm
    alone in this) feel when you write that way?
    I think you do. I think that is why you do it.
    You are gifted. 

    Dear Bonnie
    
    I think this last 5 hours has done a VERY lot to solidify and perhaps
    even intensify the hostilities in this conference.
    I know that wasn't your intent, Bonnie. I know you meant well. It's sad.
    
    
    			herb

    I have a feeling that I'm being confused with Greg Diercks...  :-)

    No matter.  In response to the base note:

    >How do men feel after hearing
    >for so long how insensitive, uncommunicative, criminally aggressive,
    >oppressive, and even unkind they are? 

    	This man feels he is none of these things so he doesn't take
    	such accusations personally.

    Actually, I've heard quite a bit about how "men" (meaning "the man
    I've been dating, or "the man at the office" or "my dad") are the
    cause of much frustration in both women and men's lives.  But I've
    never had the perception that such comments were intended to be
    extrapolated to the entire male population.  Thus, I don't think
    such a question is a valid starting point (for me) for a discussion
    of gender issues in general or "men's problems" in particular. 

    >How do they respond to hearing how
    >endlessly innocent, virtuous, victimized, and oppressed we women are.

    	This man knows all too well that woman can not be categorized
    	in this way.

    I do hear a lot about women's problems.  I feel bad that these problems
    exist (just as I feel bad that men's problems exist).  I do not feel
    guilty or responsible for such problems (generally speaking) so I do
    not get defensive when women (or men) speak about them.

    As an aside, I see many parallels between what the feminist movement
    hopes to gain and what the gay liberation movement hopes to gain so I
    think it is only naturally that I be inclined to gravitate towards a
    feminist point of view.   However, I do not think feminists have *THE*
    answer anymore than anyone else does.  So I chose my "battles"
    carefully, I don't "tow the party line" and I remain open to alternate
    points of view - or at least I try to (no one is perfect).

    /Greg

    Wayne, I don't care if you go away or not.  If you'd care to discuss
    the topics occasionally, I'd be interested in reading what you have to
    say about them.  While you resort to insulting anyone who disagrees
    with you, I'll occasionally get suckered into responding hostilely,
    although I wish I didn't.
    
    It's a male thing,
    Ray

>    I think this last 5 hours has done a VERY lot to solidify and perhaps
>    even intensify the hostilities in this conference.
    
    The other topics aren't as seriously ratholed.
    
    (Please please please no one take this as a challenge...)
    
    Ray

    RE: .35  Fred
    
    Ok, fine.  Next time you're called a liar, don't be surprised.  Other
    people decide for themselves whether something is really a hammer, too.

    re: .26
    
    C'mon Wayne, of all the guys I was definitely NOT talking about in my
    "sissies" note, you reign supreme (well maybe Herb).
    
    					- Vick

    	It's a big relief to find out that someone is "smiling" when
    	starting another round of name-calling against other Digital
    	employees.
    
    	If the person wasn't smiling, after all, some of us would be 
    	looking to build fall-out shelters in our cubicles.
    

    Actually, after applying proper changes to the two phrases enclosed by
    quotes, Zarlenga's reply seems like pretty sane advice.
    
    Ray

Well, well, well, so this is what passes for civilized discussion
here?  We've got .2 (Hank Modica) with comments like
>	man-hating venom spewing women
>	their moronic comments
>	the rantings of insecure myopic people
(but at least he ends well and limits those words to)
>	only a small segment of the population
Moving on we find .26 (Wayne Linville) who gives us a list of
people who are all
>	crawling out of the woodwork
but don't let that fool you, as it is really he (Wayne) who is
being insulted, not those on the list, as he says again in .42
>	crawling out of the woodwork and insulting is correct
Then there is .49 (Mike Zarlenga) dehumanizing noters as
>	pit bulls

Something is wrong here.

Can't you discuss the issues without resorting to name calling?

Dan

    I think we're all indirectly answering the topic question, Dan.  "How
    do men respond?"
    
    Ray

    I keep hearing the term "discuss" but what I see is debate. Everybody
    wins in a discussion ( I would hope ), but in the debates that have
    masqueraded as discussions here, someone has to lose, why? 


    How about we "discuss" this string as males and leave "defending
    feminism" to womennotes for a while. Just a thought ( I'm willing ).



                                 Wayne

>	  "It's damage- assessment time. Like generals, women are wondering 
>what condition the enemy is in after twenty solid years of bombardment with 
>the idea that every wrong and vile thing that ever happened on the planet 
>is their fault-the results of "testosterone poisoning," "male pattern 
>aggression," "big-*ick syndrome," et cetera. How do men feel after hearing 
>for so long how insensitive, uncommunicative, criminally aggressive, 
>oppressive, and even unkind they are? 

    	To quote an old movie " We're mad as Hell and we're not going to
    take it anymore". On the serious note though, I personally have
    stopped, looked at my responsibility in these iniquities, and came to
    the conclusion that I will not pay for something someone else
    did/didn't do. 


>How do they respond to hearing how 
>endlessly innocent, virtuous, victimized, and oppressed we women are.

 		As above. I am not responsible to or for the women of the
    world. I take care of myself and they can take care of themselves. I
    don't say that to be cruel, it's just how reality is. I'm not "Big
    Daddy".

    		I fully support "EQUAL" rights not special group
    privileges.


    				Wayne

>    How about we "discuss" this string as males and leave "defending
>    feminism" to womennotes for a while. Just a thought ( I'm willing ).

Why should "defending feminism" be left to womannotes?
Right there in note 1.1 it says

>Welcome to the MENNOTES conference.  Topics discussed here cover
>just about anything related to men.

There are male feminists, and it is perfectly reasonable for them
to discuss their various philosophies and politics here.  Just like
it is reasonable for you to discuss your beliefs here.

So why are you trying to shut them up?  How would you feel if
someone suggested you not discuss your beliefs here but left them
for WayneNotes instead?

Dan

    Thanks Dan, for showing me trying to be reasonable is fruitless. Your
    on, LET'S BATTLE UNTIL SOMEBODY GIVES UP.
    
    
    			Wayne

    RE: .54  Ray
    
    > I think we're all indirectly answering the topic question, Dan.  "How
    > do men respond?"
    
    Well, except for the name-calling (which is appalling in a business
    environment, no question about it) - I don't blame some men for being
    goaded by the quoted text in the basenote.
    
    It was written to incite people to rile against feminism, after all,
    for those willing to be 'incited' (which adds to the hostile atmosphere
    that was created the *first* time this quote was posted.)
    
    Just goes to show that "hostility is more hostile...the second time
    around..."

>    Thanks Dan, for showing me trying to be reasonable is fruitless. Your
>    on, LET'S BATTLE UNTIL SOMEBODY GIVES UP.

Wayne,

What I wish I could show you is that insults, name calling, and
asking people not to discuss their issues here, is fruitless.
I don't equate those things with "trying to be reasonable."

Disagreement doesn't have to be a battle until submission.
Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Let's agree to disagree."?

Dan

    Mike,

    		It's pretty obvious that feminism is going to be
    interjected into every topic discussed here. I would be willing to bet
    if we started a fishing topic somehow feminism would be discussed more
    than fish.


    Dan,

    		I did not ask the feminst-men not to note in this string, I
    said "how about giving feminism a rest for a while so we can discuss
    issues concerning men". God forbid but some of us don't think about
    women all the time. I can go a whole day and not worry about their
    plight in world, but then I get into MENNOTES and you and others beat
    me to death with feminism. I'm beginning to really dislike feminist
    propaganda, and it's due to the unceasing, shrill rhetoric in notes. I
    will vote and do what is right for the average woman whenever I have
    the opportunity, but feminists can fight their own battle without this
    man's help.

    		I can say it "we agree to disagree".


    			Wayne

Wayne, by now I think I've got a fairly good idea where you're coming from, 
but you make it so damned hard to sympathise.

You persistently confuse men's issues with men's space, and I'm now convinced 
it's the latter you are looking for.  There are very few, if any, peculiarly 
male issues which are not naturally offset by their female counterpoints.  It 
is almost impossible to obtain a complete understanding of most men's isues 
without understanding them in their context of male-female relations (yes, 
I'm ignoring gay issues but I'm concentrating on the 90% for the sake of the 
point).

It's common knowledge that I've attacked certain streams of feminism as 
thoroughly and vigourously as anybody here.  It's certain that no-one would 
accuse me of being PC.  But even I acknowledge the inevitability and 
oft-times necessity of understanding the feminist position in order to 
illuminate and understand my own.

For example, people don't divorce in a vacuum.  What happens to one party can 
only be understood in terms of what is happening to the other, and together 
it can only be understood in the broader context of culture and history.  To 
try and view it from only one perspective is foolish and doomed to failure.

This is not to say I don't value men's space.  I do.  I would, from time to 
time, like to see FMO notes.  But don't keep harping on about how the 
feminists keep popping up out of the woodwork every time you want to discuss 
a male issue.  Instead, use them to refine and understand your own position - 
and, quite frankly, it could do with some improvement.

    RE. all,
    
         What's the big deal?  If people would see others and themselves 
    as individuals and not belonging to some group/stereotype; would equal
    rights even be an issue?  
    
    ::CONLON,
    
        Do you think that men, in genral, are going to read .0 and respond as 
    you described?  Something to the effect of it being a rallying cry
    against the women's movement...  If so, don't you think that's a rather
    large assumption?  Most Men are indivuals and have minds of their own.  
    Just like women.  We don't all see the note a call to arms for a
    brother.  More like the writings of someone that has obviously had some
    bad experiences with the women's movement.  .0 doesn't hold true to me,
    however I can see some accuracy in it also.  There is no black and
    white, only shades of gray....IMO.
    
                                                   Capt. Scott
                                                              

    re .21
    
    Would you say the same thing to a woman complaining about how "the
    system" hurts her?  If not, then you are expecting a man to "take it
    like a man", but not a woman; surely this does not promote equality.
    
    Yes, giving preferenential treatment to the disadvantaged would move us
    towards the balance point at a faster rate.  It also has a higher
    probability of ovreshooting the balance point, causing a desire to give
    preferential treatment to the new set of disadvantaged.  The only safe
    way to move to the balance point is to do it through equality and the
    fact that the people that have benefited through unequalities will
    leave through replacement.  The pace may be slower, but the chances of
    missing the target are significantly less.
    
    Rich

re .62,

>.61>Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Let's agree to disagree."?
>
>    Dan, have you?

Mike,

You just don't get it, do you?

I went back and looked over your notes in this topic.
There are three of them, .49, .56, and (quoted above
in its entirety) .62.

Neither .49 nor .56 addresses the topic.  Both characterize
unnamed noters as animals.

Before we can agree to disagree, you have to say
something intelligent.

Dan

    The issue is that people cannot be civil to each other. I believe it is
    silly to attempt to have any discussion of any difficult matters until
    people can be civil to each other. I donot believe that is possible in
    this conference. I doubt that it is possible in any conference to
    discuss really emotion packed issues.
    
    				herb
    
    

    I believe the key factor missing in this conference is caring.
    I believe that people consider it much more important to correct
    somebody than to understand.

    Herb,  Listen to your own advice.  Apply your criticism to your own
    noting.  It fits.  - Vick (not ducking guilt, just passing it around)
    
    

    
    re: .53 
    
    Hi Dan,
    
    	Look, All I did was answer the question posed in the
    base note. I didn't attack or reference any noter(s).
    If you have any questions about my note, please ask.
    However, I do wish you wouldn't grade my notes as you have
    in note .53.
    
    						regards
    
    							Hank

    I, up front and solid, will acknowledge that I do not care about most of
    the people in the list I constructed earlier. I now enjoy it when I
    see something that looks like one of the appropriate subset has been
    insulted, or otherwise hurt. 
    I no longer care about them for many reasons that I have cited before.
    A new reason is ...
    
    
    I also believe that 'politically correct' people have a greater
    responsibility in this regard for caring and sensitivity than non
    'politically-correct' people.
    
    
    			shame on you
    			herb

 This petty squabbling is most distasteful and shows the downside of this 
medium.

    Understood.  731.30 was to prove a point, but the point really wasn't
    worth proving.  My apologies, and the reply is now deleted.
    
    Ray

    I do not think it is petty, Mark.
    I _do_ think it is vicious.
    I am inclined to say that the squabbling is more a reflection of
    the people than the medium. The medium -in my opinion- just makes it
    easier.
    On the other hand, recently Wayne told me that one of the 'pit bulls'
    is really nothing like that in person. 
    
    
    				herb

    My guess is that all of us "pit bulls" are pussy cats in person.
    
    					- Vick

    >I also believe that 'politically correct' people have a greater
    >responsibility in this regard for caring and sensitivity than non
    >'politically-correct' people.
    
    It's an awesome burden we PC people have to bear.  No wonder we break
    under the pressure.
    						- Vick

    c.f. .43
    

    I believe that most of the politically correct people in this
    conference have been writing in a patently and blatantly disrespectful
    way for years.
    I have lost respect for them in the process. In addition, I have
    decided that I don't want to be associated with them. I am embarrassed
    that I used to consider myself politically correct.
    
    
    				herb

    Herb,
    Okay, I'll be a little more straightforward and less snotty.  It
    doesn't come easy for me.  Anyway, we are all people.  I believe that
    all people share equally in the responsibility to be caring and
    sensitive (if there is such a responsibility).  Just because you've
    decided I'm a PC person doesn't place any additional responsibilities
    on me to be anything.  
    					- Vick

    fine, you sympathize
    
    I'm proud of the stands I have taken on many issues in this conference.
    
    
    			herb

    I've been beating my chops so intensely, that I lost a tooth.
    
    
    			herb

    Let see if I can clarify my position. Some of the people have it
    completely wrong.

    		1. I do not want to suppress women.
    		2. I believe totally in Equal Rights.
    		3. I do not believe in rights for one group at the expense
    of another.
    		4. I am interested in getting back the rights that men have
    lost, not to one up on anybody, just equal.
    		5. I believe men need a men's space ( women have proven
    that ).
    		6. I believe men need to regain their identity as a gender.
    		7. I personally have nothing to apologize for, either to
    minorities or women.
    		8. Men, especially white men have been beaten into
    submission in the last 20 years, I am fighting to stop it ( for all men
    ).
    		9. I am fighting for men to respect men.
    	       10. I am against men being the focal point for any groups
    failure to take responsibility for their actions.


    	Some of you may want to pick this note apart, you can do that but
    it won't change anything. I won't defend or debate my statements. I'm
    just trying to do what is right from my perspective.

    		Men have some grave issues that must be dealt with, if not
    here then somewhere else, but they will be heard. I am far less radical
    than some women who participate here and in WOMENNOTES. I can be pushed
    into the radical fringe if men's issues are continually down played, and I
    don't think I am alone. We can continue this polarization or we can
    work together. I'm talking and so are others, but some of you aren't
    listening. I am not the patriarchy, please stop laying that one on
    myself and other average men.



    				Wayne
    

    I don't want to "pick apart" the things you said but I would like to
    comment on some of them.  And again, if I disagree, it isn't that I
    don't respect your opinions. 
    
    >		4. I am interested in getting back the rights that men have
    >lost, not to one up on anybody, just equal.
    
    Have we really lost rights, or are we aware of rights we now want that
    we never really had (again we can get tangled up in the definition of
    rights)?  I suppose it would get me nowhere to assume the attitude of
    whoever it was who kept asking Suzanne to list all the rights women
    didn't have, and ask you what are all the rights men don't have.
    
    >		5. I believe men need a men's space ( women have proven
    >that ).
    
    I agree.  That's why I'm in a men's group.  I don't think this
    notesfile will ever be that space, even in a FMO note.
    
    >		6. I believe men need to regain their identity as a gender.
    
    This sends up a red flag for me.  I tend to interpret that as meaning
    that you have some idea about what manliness is and think that men
    should all recognize that as the standard to live by.  I don't feel
    I've lost my identity as a man.  I guess what I feel is that the
    understanding of what that identity is (wouldn't that have to include
    homosexuals?) has to perhaps change first, before we regain our
    indentity, assuming we really ever lost it, which isn't clear to me
    either.
    
    >                8. Men, especially white men have been beaten into
    >    submission in the last 20 years, I am fighting to stop it ( for all
    > men  ).
     
    Don't bother on my account.  I simply can't identify with this
    statement.  I don't feel beaten, let alone into submission.
    
    >		9. I am fighting for men to respect men.
    
    There isn't a person who notes in this file that I don't respect.  It
    is possible for me to lose respect for people, but it hasn't happened
    yet in this notesfile, and probably won't.  So if you would include me
    in the list of men who don't respect men, you are wrong.  And if you
    mean that people who disagree with you are showing any disrespect, you
    are wrong also.
    
    Otherwise I generally agree with what you said.
    
    					- Vick

    RE: .90
    
    Vick,
    
    I wanted to offer supportive, constructive (and honest) feedback to 
    Wayne's note and what you just wrote is pretty close to how I feel.
    
    Thanks,
    
    /Greg

    
>    Have we really lost rights, or are we aware of rights we now want that
>    we never really had (again we can get tangled up in the definition of
>    rights)?  I suppose it would get me nowhere to assume the attitude of
>    whoever it was who kept asking Suzanne to list all the rights women
>    didn't have, and ask you what are all the rights men don't have.
 
	  	Good point.
    
>    I agree.  That's why I'm in a men's group.  I don't think this
>    notesfile will ever be that space, even in a FMO note.
 
	  	It could be a better place than it is.

    
>    This sends up a red flag for me.  I tend to interpret that as meaning
>    that you have some idea about what manliness is and think that men
>    should all recognize that as the standard to live by.  I don't feel
>    I've lost my identity as a man.  I guess what I feel is that the
>    understanding of what that identity is (wouldn't that have to include
>    homosexuals?) has to perhaps change first, before we regain our
>    identity, assuming we really ever lost it, which isn't clear to me
>    either.
 
	  	By your confusion and questions it is clear you are unclear 
	  as to what the male identity is, I don't have the answer. I'm looking 
	  myself. 
   
     
>    Don't bother on my account.  I simply can't identify with this
>    statement.  I don't feel beaten, let alone into submission.
 
	  	I'll give you time on this one. 

 

   
>    There isn't a person who notes in this file that I don't respect.  It
>    is possible for me to lose respect for people, but it hasn't happened
>    yet in this notesfile, and probably won't.  So if you would include me
>    in the list of men who don't respect men, you are wrong.  And if you
>    mean that people who disagree with you are showing any disrespect, you
>    are wrong also.
 
	  	This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with me
	  in a notesfile, it more global in concept. I could in no way explain
	  what I mean in this forum. I'm sorry for not being more precise. 
	  This concept would take time and face to face discourse to explain.

 

   
>    Otherwise I generally agree with what you said.
 
	  	Thanks.


	  	Wayne

Wayne,

Thank you for entering your .57, .89, .92.  Compare the replies
.90 - .91 to them with the replies to your .26 and .42 ("crawling
out of the woodwork").  Issues *can* be talked about here and I
am glad you have chosen to do so.  Perhaps some day Mike Z. would
like to do so as well.

Dan

    I wish you could see yourself, Dan, because you're doing
    everything you're accusing me of doing.

Then I'm sure you won't mind posting the numbers of
notes where I characterized other noters as animals,
barking and howling, as for example your 724.7 did.

Dan

    Gentlemen:
    
    I have read through this note file with a great deal of interest, and I
    have observed something that I find refreshing and would like to share
    it with you.
    
    While the comments and statements were heated at times and yes
    sometimes there were verbal attacks there was one thing that was very
    positive and that was that you continued to communicate with one
    another.  I find this very exciting because, in my opinion, the more
    one expresses (him/herself) the better (he/she) becomes at expression
    and if we all keep working at this the male/female issue may give way
    to honest communication between individuals.
    
    el
    

        re .98		    -< "You're all Great!!" >-
        
        "Gentlemen:"?  But I noticed that both your message and
        your title were more inclusive than that beginning.
        
        Dan

    Dan snarfs up another one.  - Vick

    Guess Dans got a new nick name! :) Snarf or 100 snarfs, or 100. 
    
    Snarfed again!
    
    George

    DAN
    
    Keep on communicating.  My opinion hasn't changed.
    
    el
    

I wasn't trying to change your opinion, though I am curious if it
extends to all of the writers or just to the gentlemen.

Dan

    Dan,
    
    My opinion applys to all "gentlemen".
    
    My definition of "gentleman" is any man who treats himself and others
    in a gentle, respectful way.  
    
    And, I've never met any man, who was treated this way has not lived up
    to my definition.
    
    Hope this clarifys my position.
    
    El

>.105    Hope this clarifys my position.

Well, no.  In .98 you said

>.98    Gentlemen:
    
>.98    one expresses (him/herself) the better (he/she) becomes at expression

>.98		-< "You're all Great!!" >-

So it wasn't clear if you were referring to just gentlemen (see first
quote from .98) or if you were including women and nongentlemen men as
well (see second and third quotes from .98).  I wasn't arguing, I just
didn't know which you meant.

In .105, you say

>.105    My opinion applys to all "gentlemen".

>.105    My definition of "gentleman" is any man who treats himself and others
>        in a gentle, respectful way.  

>.105		-< ALL MEN ARE GENTLEMEN >-

The first two would have answered my curiosity about .98, but the
title contradicts them.  .105 does suggest that the "him/herself"
and "he/she" in .98 didn't include women, although that's a strange
way to word it if that was your intent.  But it is still unclear
to me whether you intended to include or exclude nongentlemen men.
Or don't you believe there are any?

Dan

    Based on my experience.
    
    All men are gentlemen (my definition).
    
    el

    Thank you for your response.
    
    I see no insults, just dilogue.
    
    You're all still great.
    
    El

    Thank you all for responding to my observation.  It's time for me to
    back out of this file and let you get back to the issue at hand.
    
    You're responses have confirmed my belief that all men are "gentlemen"
    and when treated with kindness and respect their true nature will take
    over.
    
    I want to share a little secret with all of you.  Women will respond
    with their true nature if they receive the same treatment.
    
    Thanks again.
    
    Ellen

    Thanks, I guess.  Hmmm, now where did I leave my leather underware and
    my chrome plated .....never mind.
    
    /p

>    Thanks, I guess.  Hmmm, now where did I leave my leather underware and
>    my chrome plated .....never mind.
 
	
	i don't know what you did with the leather...but i got the
	chrome thingie.............do you want it back??
   

    Leather Jacket, what are you reading?   As far as the Chrome plated
    thingy goes....well, I'll ignore that.
    
    /p

    
    	Z,
    	has it anything to do with a trailer hitch???