Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I'm currently looking for a womens only club to join...
    
    
    I like to keep things equal.
    
    -j(100% male)
    

    Re .0: Well, _now_ you've done it. If anybody mentions one in here,
    next thing you know there'll be all sorts of quasi-men trying to get
    in, and then you'll get the un-men, and whoops - there goes the
    neighborhood.
    
    I think you should start one, actually. You can invite only those
    people you want to be there (and who you can trust not to spill the
    beans to the undesirables), and hand out passwords or catch phrases to
    be given at the door ("Tarzan sent me"), and have peepholes and such to
    examine prospective visitors. (Just _what_ one might want to examine
    would be up to the host, one presumes.)
    
    [Lest anyone think I'm being frivolous, I do think people ought to be
    able to form private associations using any selection criteria they
    wish. That said, I _am_ being frivolous. (It's been a long day.) I
    haven't heard of any private mens' clubs this side of the Atlantic, but
    I expect there are some; they're probably just lying low.]
    
    -b

One of the oldest most unashamed is still going strong, the SF Bohemians.
A bunch of old geezers doing each other business favors, and paying highly
for the privilege.  $30K gets you a spot on the waitlist and no guarantee.

btw, it isn't really men only.  They let in prostitutes.

DougO

    re:.3
    
    Business favors?
    
    Oh my .. what a shame!
    
    Good thing we both know women don't do _that_.
    
    [wink] [wink]

    Any men only clubs remaining?  Ever heard of the Masons?   Boy Scouts?

    I'm a member of a men only club here in Beelersfield.  No membership
    dues, no formal organization, no other requirements other than an
    abnormal capacity for for a concoction made from malted barley, selected
    grains and hops ... 

    Bubba

>    Business favors?
>
>    Oh my .. what a shame!

for all the fun you poke at claims of inequities in patriarchal societies,
even you don't bother to dispute that the old boys get together in their
exclusive little clubs to leverage their economic influence illegally and
unfairly.  I consider it intellectual dishonesty, Michael.

DougO

    Oh, but of course they do.
    
    That doesn't mean those few men rule the world, though.
    
    You see, that's the difference between a realistic perspective
    and a knee-jerk exaggeration.

    There's a men only club in Ottawa that's presently under attack for
    being so.  It's a dingy sports bar where old men sit around and don't
    care whether their noses are running or not.  They talk about the old
    days when the Maple Leafs could actually make it to the playoffs.  And
    women's groups are going nuts that this esteemed establishment will not
    permit women to join.  
    
    In defence of their men-only status, members of the club came up with
    list of 27 organizations or clubs which do not permit participation by
    men - including women-only gyms, a women-only newspaper (which does not even
    print editorial letters by men), women-only special activity clubs
    (bridge, bird watching, sewing, etc).
    
    I was listening to the debate on the car radio and I almost swerved off
    the road when the lead "down with men-only club" spokeswoman responded
    to the list with the classic response - "Well, that's different."

ouch.

    re .9
    
    I think this is a bit *too* far beyond humor.
    
    fred();

re: .9

	...but Lorna, there's plenty-o-clubs that do just this already.
	These guys will even let you ride on the back of their hogs
	if you're not very nice, and don't mind their breath!

	Any inner city street corner is a likely meeting place for these
	boys in the 'hood.

	There's a lively group out of Lawrence that videotapes the neophyte's
	first grand larceny auto, as an initiation rite.  They keep this tape
	on file.  Isn't that nice and sentimental?

	(smirks)

	Mark

    
    
    The Club National
    The Lafayatte
    
    both are located in Nashua
    
    
    
    bonnie
    

    	There used to be a number of bars in the Boston area that were men
    only.  Among them were the Inn Square Mens' Bar and many others.  The
    "strident feminists" sued to have them opened to women in the early 70s
    (as I remember).  I guess that they were afraid that the old rummys
    were secretly holding meetings of the trilateral commision.  It's funny 
    that I now hear people who sound just like those "strident feminists"
    saying things like "RESPECT WOMANSPACE!!!" in notes.  I guess that it's
    different when the girls would like a little space of their own.
    						John
    

>Any inner city street corner is a likely meeting place for these
>boys in the 'hood.

OUCH!

    re .14
    
    Yeah but that's different.

    Lorna has a good idea, though.  
    
    Then we could have :
         
         "Women-only Whiner Clubs" 
    
         "Women-only Discrimination Against Males is a Form of Equality and
         Justice Clubs"
    
         "Women-only PMS Clubs"
    
         "Women-only Work Yer Husband to an Early Coronary by Bitching
         until He's Forced to Preserve his Sanity by Providing All Sorts of
         Material Goods, then Divorce Him and Take Half of All He Worked
         For and the Kids and then Demand Support Clubs"
    
         "Women-only Mechanical Ineptitude Clubs"
    
         "Women-only Low Person In the Corporation Clubs"
    
         "Women-only We Demand Equal Pay Even Though We Only Plan to Be
         Here Until We Get Knocked Up and Then We Plan to Soak the Company
         for Three Months Worth of Pregnancy Leave Club."
    
    You gotta like equality.

ouch.

	re:  777.5 Bubba
	
�    Any men only clubs remaining?  Ever heard of the Masons?   Boy Scouts?

    I don't know about the States but in Canada the Boy Scouts have been
    moving towards being a co-ed organisation for the last few years. 
    Slowly but they're getting there.
    
    �- Bob -�
    

    re .19
    
    Lorna,
    
    Perhaps it would be a happier world if one day we could all wake up.
    
    �- Bob -�
    

    Lorna,
    
    Maybe wake up not as something but with something ...
    
    tolerance, love, understanding ...
    
    ... or to reality ...
    
    that all people are the same, and different,
    
    that what you are is what you are and does not stop me from being 
    what I want to be.
    
    Overly simple of course and it couldn't happen here.
    
    �- Bob -�
    

    RE: .17
    
    > Lorna has a good idea, though.
    
    Her idea mentioned clubs about CRIMES committed (mostly) by men only.
    If you want to get into negative stereotypes, then YOU FORGOT a whole
    bunch of other clubs for men (to name but a very few):
    
    		Men-Only Testosterone Poisoning Club
    
    		Men-Only Raging Hormones ("We can't be expected to control
    		  ourselves in the presence of women or young children") Club
    
    		Men-Only Violence is the Biggest Part of Being a Real Man Club
    
    If you want to stereotype women for non-criminal behavior, then include 
    some "clubs" that do the same for men while you're at it.

    
    Just a question:
    
    I am interested in finding out why some men and some women need
    having their own space, separate from the opposite sex, as well as
    their definition of space. 
    
    My only experience as part of a men's group was when I was in the Army,
    during my military service (at Mexico).
    
    Art. (my friends call me Arturito)

    re:.9
    
    How are those grapes today?  A bit sour are they?

>    discover when we all wake up.  What if what we discover when we all
>    wake-up is that most men hate most women, and most women hate most men,
    
    What about all the women who hate most women and all the men who hate
    most men?
    
    Ray

>> even you don't bother to dispute that the old boys get together in their
>> exclusive little clubs to leverage their economic influence illegally and
>> unfairly. 
>
>    Oh, but of course they do.
>    
>    That doesn't mean those few men rule the world, though.
    
I'd *really* like to see any description of patriarchal society that defines
it as simply as 'a few men ruling the world'.  That's a strawman, Michael.
You knock any description of patriarchal culture, patriarchal societal rules
and regulations, without attempting to understand what that model really
implies; you reduce it to this simplistic "men ruling the world" so you
can throw it away, ignore it, pretend that the real world doesn't have all
of these built-in male-oriented traditions that result in the denial of
equal opportunity to anyone who isn't a white male.  Understanding the
patriarchy isn't a simple task, Michael.  Your inability to grasp and
discuss the real concepts is blatantly obvious.

DougO

    re .26, Mike, I find it interesting that you quickly accuse me of
    having sour grapes, after I make a couple of negative comments about
    men, but you've never had the same comeback for the various men, who
    have had bitter, cynical comments to make about women recently?
    
    On second thought, I don't actually find it interesting.  I just
    happened to notice it, that's all.
    
    As far as Men Only Clubs go, I have no problems with them, as long as
    the clubs are purely social and/or hobby oriented and are not clubs
    where, for example, male executives can connect and make plans that
    exclude female executives, and therefore contribute to holding back the
    careers of the females.
    
    Lorna
    

    re.25
    
    To answer you question for myself:
    
    I like being in all-woman groups because in them I more frequently find
    understanding and acceptance of those beliefs, feelings and values that
    I have due to a common bond of female-ness.
    
    The same principle applies when I'm in the company of only musicians
    and performers because of my background in the arts or the pleasure I
    find in a groups of Texas Aggies because that's where I studied
    engineering.  [in either of these instances gender is not the 'special'
    criterion]
    
    I don't desire to exclude people that are different, but they do change
    the feeling of the group.  Sometimes I enjoy the difference, sometimes
    not.
    
      Annie

>    unhappy to wake up as homosexuals, huh?)  (But, then, maybe sexual
>    orientation has nothing to do with who anyone hates!!) 
    
    That's sure the way it looks to me.  
    
    If anything, some people may be MORE prone to hate the types they're
    attracted to.  Indifference doesn't lead to the same rawness of feeling
    as desire does, with all its opportunities for betrayal or simple
    frustrating refusal.  I've met a number of gay male misogynists but few
    as obsessively mean as the much greater number of het male misogynists
    I've met.
    
    Of course it's more fun to like the people you love, but some people
    prefer conflict.
    
    Ray

    C'mon, Lorna.  You put a note in here which you knew would offend men,
    then you go off and lament that men and women just don't get along and
    maybe we should all be homosexuals.  
    
    If you're that adverse to heat why are you starting fires?

    re :.29
    
�    As far as Men Only Clubs go, I have no problems with them, as long as
�    the clubs are purely social and/or hobby oriented and are not clubs
�    where, for example, male executives can connect and make plans that
�    exclude female executives, and therefore contribute to holding back the
�    careers of the females.
    
    I seem to recall seeing something somewhere (OK I know people don't like
    unsubstantiated data but it's the best I can do for now) about a
    businesswoman's club whose purpose was to form an "old girl's club" and
    promote the careers of the members.  There were members of the "club"
    that would only do business with other women.  (If anyone has facts to
    corroborate (or otherwise) my recollections please fill in the blanks)
    
    There have been many arguments made which justifies the female only
    club, while decrying the male only, as a means of redressing the
    balance.  I just wonder when, if ever, the balance will be even and all
    male or all female groups (business or otherwise) will be acceptable.
    
    �- Bob -�
    
    PS.  I can see the need for single gender social clubs but hobby clubs?
    

    
    so, mebbe we'd need to put spies in all the clubs catering to
    evyl myn to verify that no buisness related conversation is
    taking place.
    
    of course we'd have to do that with the Andrea Dworkin clubs
    too, in order to be fair.
    
    

    
    re. .31
    
    Thanks Annie, that is the kind of input I was looking for.
    
    I hope I get more information from the community here.
    
    Now , to comment about the topic at hand:
    
    I never thought about things like this topic (.0) until recently. I
    guess that when one comes from the "third world", your mind is focused
    in totally different problems, or to use a better word, issues.
    
    Now that I am in the "first world" (soon to become a Canadian citizen,
    BTW), I am exposed to different issues. I guess my priorities are
    different, if I want to share something and I need support, I turn to
    my wife, my parents, the rest of the family. And then my friends.
    
    I have many things to learn. I now feel things are not always black or
    white. A balanced solution will require some painful compromises.
    
    God, I am talking as if there was a war out there.
    
    Anyway, thanks for listening.
    
    Arturito.

    Arturito,
    
    As a (relatively) new Canadian myself, may I welcome you to the
    Canadian Club.
    
    Best wishes,
    		�- Bob -�
    

    awe, cummon
    
    wymmin have clubs too?

>    
>    As far as Men Only Clubs go, I have no problems with them, as long as
>    the clubs are purely social and/or hobby oriented and are not clubs
>    where, for example, male executives can connect and make plans that
>    exclude female executives, and therefore contribute to holding back the
>    careers of the females.

How would that fit in with the Women's groups that have been set up within
DEC for that specific purpose?

-Joe

    that's different
    

>>    As far as Men Only Clubs go, I have no problems with them, as long as
>>    the clubs are purely social and/or hobby oriented and are not clubs
>>    where, for example, male executives can connect and make plans that
>>    exclude female executives, and therefore contribute to holding back the
>>    careers of the females.
>
> How would that fit in with the Women's groups that have been set up within
> DEC for that specific purpose?

There have been women's groups set up for the purpose of excluding male
executives within DEC, and thereby contribute to holding back men's careers?

Is that what you're asking, Joe?

DougO

    <<< Note 777.42 by FMNIST::olson "Doug Olson, ISVG West, Mtn View CA" >>>

>>    As far as Men Only Clubs go, I have no problems with them, as long as
>>    the clubs are purely social and/or hobby oriented and are not clubs
>>    where, for example, male executives can connect and make plans that
>>    exclude female executives, and therefore contribute to holding back the
>>    careers of the females.
>
> How would that fit in with the Women's groups that have been set up within
> DEC for that specific purpose?

>There have been women's groups set up for the purpose of excluding male
>executives within DEC, and thereby contribute to holding back men's careers?

Something along those lines, without the word 'executive' in it.  Yes.

I'd be interested to see the charter for such a group.  WADR, I don't believe
the picture you paint of it.

DougO

    Surely any X only club that promotes X and has the influence to 
    succeed does so at the expense of non-X. 
    
    Whatever your definition of X, aren't such clubs discriminatory and
    therefore wrong?
    
    �- Bob -�
    

>    Surely any X only club that promotes X and has the influence to 
>    succeed does so at the expense of non-X. 

sounds all nice and logical, doesn't it?  All things being equal, maybe
that would be true.  I happen to think that removing the context, pretending
that all things are already equal, all inequities are already solved, fails
to illuminate real-world problems or lead us to solutions.  You can't just
blithely post an "X" there and pretend anybody, in any society, is going to
react the same whether you plug in "black" or "white" or "straight" or "jew"
or "gay" or whatever; people are currently products of this very discriminating
culture, and all "X"s are not equal.  Now...they probably *should* be; under
the law, and as a goal for society to work towards.  But pretending that we're
already there, as in your "X" example, doesn't work.

Go ahead, plug it in;

"Surely, any male-only club that promotes men and has the influence to succeed
does so at the expense of women."
"Surely, any female-only club that promotes women and has the influence to 
succeed does so at the expense of men."

In *this* real world, with hundreds of male-only clubs connected from city
to city via ties of shared university, military, fraternal, and governmental
contacts, and a near-complete dearth of similar networking among women, that
juxtapositioning is stark; the first is a truism; the second, arouses laughter.
A woman-only club, within this patriarchal society, will find it has the power
to damage the careers of only a very, very few men.

DougO

    I don't know, DougO; sounds iffy.  I can see reasons for female-only
    groups in the business world, but ones which are for networking and
    advancing careers seem an awful lot like the "GIRLZ KEPE OWT" clubs. 
    
    Just from a practical point of view, it seems like a better idea to
    integrate all the clubs.  Otherwise we'd end up with 100% female middle
    management and 100% male upper management and then where would we be?
    
    Ray

    Hell no Bob, it's a common thing for both sexes to want to get away
    from each other every now and then to have a breather without worrying
    about the opposite sex being around.
    I like the odd occasion I spend with the guys having a few (hundred)
    beers without the ol' lady saying "haven't you had enuff?"
    I love her but if I wanna get stinkin' drunk ONCE in a blue moon I'll
    wanna do it without recriminations of the naggin' dragon. 
    Hey, I pay for it the next day !!!
    Mind you I let her go out with the girls for the same purpose and I
    don't have the same urge to nag her .
    I think single sex clubs are great so long as they don't dominate your
    life. A bit of absence is good for the soul and can make life a lot
    more bearable.
    Luv
    
    John M

    RE: .48  John
    
    > Mind you I let her go out with the girls for the same purpose and I
    > don't have the same urge to nag her .
    
    Wow - you really "let her" go out?  Does she have to get special
    permission from you?
    
    Who "lets" YOU go out (or do you just decide to do it and inform her
    of your plans?)
    
    (Just wondering...)

    re: .48 John M
    
�    Mind you I let her go out with the girls for the same purpose and I
�    don't have the same urge to nag her .
    
    John,
    
    I'm pleased to see that you *let* her go out with the girls.
      
    Presumably she also *lets* you go out with the boys.
    
    � 8-)
    
    	�- Bob -�
    

>    re .33, it's a complex world, Kris.
    
    Yeah, but somebody has to make sense out of it.  Might as well be you,
    cuz it isn't going to be me.
    

    DougO,
    
    I know that I was overly simplistic in my statements.
    
    I believe that old boy networks that are there to promote the interests
    of the members at the expense of others are wrong.  Not because they
    exist but of the power they have and the inequalities they create by
    their use of that power.
    
    As time goes on I expect old girl networks to wield more and more power
    and influence.  At what point do these become wrong?  
    
    	�- Bob -�
    

    
    >At what point do these become wrong?
    
    never - wimmun are right, a priori

>    I believe that old boy networks that are there to promote the interests
>    of the members at the expense of others are wrong.  Not because they
>    exist but of the power they have and the inequalities they create by
>    their use of that power.

I agree.  What's more, I think such organizations control far more in
the way of who our political candidates are, what policies run our banks, 
what domestic policy initiatives bear fruit and which fail, than any one
of us here dares to imagine or cares to admit.
    
>    As time goes on I expect old girl networks to wield more and more power
>    and influence.  At what point do these become wrong?  
    
Well, this is what Joe alien::melvin was alledging as having already happened
within the hallowed halls of Digital.  If we ever come to such a situation I
think I'll worry about it then.  I don't think it's ever gonna happen, though;
we've got too many examples of the entrenched privileged classes fighting on
every inch of the way, to imagine that 'old-girl' networks are going to just
spring up overnight or even within the decade, to protect and promote women
at the expense of men. 

	When government funded health care studies use women as research
	subjects 86% of the time, and men 14% of the time, the reverse of
	the current situation, then I'd be worried.

	When 97% of accused rapists do hard time and only 3% get off, the
	reverse of the current situation, then I'd be worried.

	When 96 Senators are women and 4 are men, then I'd be worried.

	When there are women on the boards of every company in the Fortune 
	500 and men on fewer than 30, then I'd be worried.

But we've got a heckuva long way to go before the so-called old-girls network
has anything like the power that the old boys do, much less has the situation
reversed.  That reversal will never happen.  Lets go for overturning such as
these obvious inequities, meanwhile, ok?  Worrying about the old girls when
its so easy to see where the real power lies is a waste of time.

DougO

    
    Sheesh, I was only trying to state that we have a fair and equitable
    lifestyle, I ain't no Saddam Hussein you guys !!!
    Some people can get very possessive and this leads to breakups and the
    such, so by getting some time to yourself every now and then can be
    benefitial to the MALE/FEMALE type thing which is what the single sex
    clubs should be for.
    

    re:.28
    
    Give the mantra a rest.

    re:.29
    
    Nice distraction.  We now return you to our regularly scheduled topic,
    already in progress ...

>    As time goes on I expect old girl networks to wield more and more power
>    and influence.  At what point do these become wrong?  
    
!Well, this is what Joe alien::melvin was alledging as having already happened
!within the hallowed halls of Digital.  

So, look around.  How many women reading this have membership in the
women's group as an item on their performance review?  How many men have
an item for memebership in the mystical 'old boys' netowrk that all men
seem to belong to?

!think I'll worry about it then.  I don't think it's ever gonna happen, though;
!we've got too many examples of the entrenched privileged classes fighting on
!every inch of the way, to imagine that 'old-girl' networks are going to just
!spring up overnight or even within the decade, to protect and promote women
!at the expense of men. 

So, how many men are in the upper management of NOW?  If it is only the
male gender that has privileges, what do you think the privileges are
that go with 'protected minority'?

>	When 97% of accused rapists do hard time and only 3% get off, the
>	reverse of the current situation, then I'd be worried.

Gee, I noticed you said nothing about GUILTY rapists, only accused...

>	When 96 Senators are women and 4 are men, then I'd be worried.

I guess only ment get to vote... Hmmm, I wonder where that woman vote
gets to....

>these obvious inequities, meanwhile, ok?  Worrying about the old girls when
>its so easy to see where the real power lies is a waste of time.

So, basically, you are saying women are powerless, right?

    
    thats just the "lets get even wid those mcp suckas" school of
    social justice...

    
    Last night on the news, they announced that six white male professors
    at University of Colorado at Colorado Springs are taking action against
    the University because they now make *less* than the women and
    "minority" professors at the University.
    
    fred();

    I believe they are suing on the basis of age discrimination, as they
    are all over 45.

    
    re .61
    
    >I believe they are suing on the basis of age discrimination, as they
    >are all over 45.
    
    Could be. Because before the age of 40 white males have absolutely
    *no* legal protection.  But the news report said nothing about age
    discrimination.  Haven't seen the newspaper report yet.
    
    fred();

    re .54, DougO, thank God men like you exist.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    But I disagree with DougO on this one!
    
    Ray

    Neither club survives on only one-issue. (but i spose it's possible that
    there are degrees of membership -sort of like the masons?)

>              -< re can i exist?: depends, are you 'cogito'ing? >-
    
    I _think_ I am...
    
    Anyway, DougO and I actually go to different non-men-only clubs.  Mine
    tend to be full of pierced tattooed androgynes with funny hair posing
    in black and to serve stuff other than brewski and to play horrible
    randomly generated noise on the jukebox.
    
    Ray

    reminds of the Little Engine That Could
    
    i think i am 
    i think i am
    
    i think i am i think i am
    i think i am i think i am
    
    I THINK I AM I THINK I AM
    I THINK I AM I THINK I AM
    
    
    I THINK I AM I THINK I AM I THINK I AM I THINK I AM
    I THINK I AM I THINK I AM I THINK I AM I THINK I AM
    
    
    
    		I   T H I N K,   	I   A M
    
    				h

.56>    Give the mantra a rest.

.28>    ...Understanding the patriarchy isn't a simple task, Michael. Your 
   >    inability to grasp and discuss the real concepts is blatantly obvious.

Giving up so soon?  How blatant.

DougO

.58> So, look around.  How many women reading this have membership in the
   > women's group as an item on their performance review?  

I have no earthly idea.  As I said to you previously, I'd like to see
the charter of this group, like to see how they define themselves.  You
obviously are afraid of them, but I don't know why, and I'm not getting
any straight answers from you.

> So, how many men are in the upper management of NOW? 

Are you trying *hard* to come up with trivial examples, or do they come
naturally?  How much power and influence do you imagine the leaders of
NOW actually weild?  And if so, why isn't abortion yet a sacrament?

>>	When 96 Senators are women and 4 are men, then I'd be worried.
>
> I guess only ment get to vote... Hmmm, I wonder where that woman vote
> gets to....

Ah, see?  Just like Michael, you're simplifying the concept of a complex
patriarchal culture way too much.  This society is so heavily laden with
traditional values that come from patriarchal traditions that of *course*
the voters aren't divided strictly upon gender lines.  But funny, isn't it,
how so few women have been elected to the Senate, even though women do have
the franchise.  

Yet.

> So, basically, you are saying women are powerless, right?

No.  Too simple.  I'm saying that the cultural traditions perpetuate 
male-oriented values, ie, this is a patriarchal society.

DougO

    by the way that's the approved spelling for tabula rasa, in Boston
    only.

.58> So, look around.  How many women reading this have membership in the
   > women's group as an item on their performance review?  

!I have no earthly idea.  As I said to you previously, I'd like to see
!the charter of this group, like to see how they define themselves.  

So, go ask them for one.  I am not privy to any official charter.  But
while you await one, please provide one for the 'old boys network'.

!You
!obviously are afraid of them, but I don't know why, and I'm not getting
!any straight answers from you.

Truely laughable, even for you.

> So, how many men are in the upper management of NOW? 
!Are you trying *hard* to come up with trivial examples, or do they come
!naturally?  

Perhaps not eveyone considers such things as trivial.

    I am a member of a Women at Work Forum.  No it isn't on the resume I
    submit internally.  It isn't germane.  No, it doesn't appear on my
    performance evaluations.
    
    Our mission and charter supports equal opportunity for advancement
    without regard for race, creed, gender, or disability status. 
    Additionally, are charter includes the stated goal of helping women to
    balance work and family issues and to lobby for job flexibility for all
    regardless of race, creed, gender or disability status.  Included in
    the charter is a goal to become obsolete and fold up our tent as
    greater equality is reached in workplace.
    
    Courses and seminars are offered and speakers are brought in to address
    issues of stress in the workplace, networking skills, resume writing,
    etc.  Such sources, seminars, and speaker series are tailored to a
    female audience but are not substantively different than other courses,
    seminars and speaker series offered via other channels here ate DEC.
    
    We formed as a group, not to destroy the 'old boy' network, but rather
    to gain the skills, confidence and competencies to be come a part of it
    -- in effect in order to move toward a network not based upon gender
    identity.
    
      Annie

>> So, how many men are in the upper management of NOW? 
    
>!Are you trying *hard* to come up with trivial examples, or do they come
>!naturally?  
>
>Perhaps not eveyone considers such things as trivial.
    
    I may disagree with DougO about whether old-girl-networking clubs are
    harmful, but c'mon, you have to admit there MIGHT be legitimate reasons
    for something called the National Organization of Women to have a
    preponderence of women as members and women as leaders. 
    
    My take on this might be illustrated by the following example: 
    Professional baseball isn't sexist because there are so few women
    baseball players.  Professional baseball is sexist because when a woman
    pitcher was working her way up through the minor leagues a rule was
    established making professional baseball men-only.
    
    Ray

    The Women at Work Forum sounds like what I was talking about when I
    said "I can see reasons for female-only groups in the business world".
    
    If that's what other people are talking about when they say "old girls'
    network" I think we have one of those nasty ol' disagreements again.
    
    Ray
    
    P.S. to Herb -- I thought of the Little Engine, too.  It's been a
    Little Engine kind of week...  I like the Michael O'Donahue version
    which went "I think I can, I think I can! I KNOW I can! I KNOW I can!
    HEART ATTACK! HEART ATTACK!"

    
>    I may disagree with DougO about whether old-girl-networking clubs are
>    harmful, but c'mon, you have to admit there MIGHT be legitimate reasons
>    for something called the National Organization of Women to have a
>    preponderence of women as members and women as leaders. 

Oh, I do!!!! I just think that men (should) have the same right!!! I do
NOT want to take that away from anyone.

ok, so now we have some statements from a 'woman at work' forum, from
someone who does not have it as a requirement on her review (so much
for the implication that this network is being promulgated by pressure
against people's jobs).  As described by Annie, seems quite a bit less
threatening to men than joe's earlier afrighted descriptions of it.

>>> How would that fit in with the Women's groups that have been set up within
>>> DEC for that specific purpose?
>>
>> There have been women's groups set up for the purpose of excluding male
>> executives within DEC, and thereby contribute to holding back men's careers?
>
> Something along those lines, without the word 'executive' in it.  Yes.

Go ahead, Joe.  Explain to us all how the charter in .72 contributes to
holding back men's careers.

DougO

    And that is the crux of the argument.  Can you establish a form of
    equity for one group by initiating repressive action against another
    group?
    
    If having women's studies programs in university is positive, how can
    it be negative to have a men's study program?
    
    Why is a women-only newspaper (or gym, club, organization) enlightened
    whereas a men-only equivalent is sexist.
    
    I support the fundamental principles of the feminist movement.  I
    believe that every human being must be treated with fairness and with
    justice and that no person should be denied their right to dignity and
    self fulfilment.  
    
    I do *not* agree that to achieve this equilibrium it is right or just
    that any other person should be denied their equivalent dignity.  
    
    To me, much of the credibility of feminism is lost because of this
    inequitable settlement of social acceptance.
    
    But that's different.

    Nothing repressive about men's studies (so labelled) or men's
    newspapers (so labelled) as far as I'm concerned.  In our society they
    seem kind of redundant ("Kris, can you name the male Presidents of the
    United States?") and too often run by blithering paranoids (see Camille
    Paglia for a similar viewpoint as regards women's studies (: >,),  so I
    probably wouldn't spend money for them myself. 
    
    The problem is when "English Literature" (so labelled) is men-only,
    "The New York Times" (so labelled) is men-only, etc.
    
    Gray areas are thing like "men's clubs" which decide executive and
    political futures "away from the little women", and the "Boy Scouts"
    which teach how to make knots and carve neat things with knives and
    circle j-- well, come to think of it, maybe some stuff IS men-only.
    
    Ray

Kris, I don't get it.  Most of what you're talking about I agree with.

>    If having women's studies programs in university is positive, how can
>    it be negative to have a men's study program?
    
Who say it is?  Not me.  I support men's studies programs.

>    Why is a women-only newspaper (or gym, club, organization) enlightened
>    whereas a men-only equivalent is sexist.

Where is *this* stated?  Everytime I've mentioned anything like it I've
added the explicit subtext that such male-only institutions are unfair
and illegal only insofar as they deny equal opportunities to women.  No
one has *yet* made the case that women doing the same activities would
also be doing the same harm; and I've shown that such is not the case
because women and women's networks aren't running this country; they don't
have the power nor the positions to do such harm.  Joe made mention of NOW
and how they're such an example because more men aren't running it, which
I dismissed as an utterly ridiculous example but it seems he requires that
I rub his nose in it.  So here goes.

Joe seems to think that because more men aren't running NOW that this 
somehow proves that 'women-only' clubs deny men equal opportunity and
damage men's careers.  Within the context of this country and what we're
talking about the power to make and break and damage careers in the corridors
of power is what the old-boy network is all about.  There exists a huge and
shadowy infrastructure of connections, people-who-know-people, among the law
firms, political parties, large corporations and their subcontractors and 
associated lobbyists, politians, think tanks, charitable institutions,
research organizations, news media, and lots more besides; that are the
very heart of how political influence is defined and exercised.  At least,
that's what *I* consider the old-boy network to be.  In connection with 
making and/or breaking careers, recommendations amongst these people who 
know each other are part and parcel of the exercise of influence.  Why did
Anita Hill contact the man who'd sexually harassed her five years after she
quit working for him?  To get a recommendation.  And he supplied it.  That's
the norm, in this kind of networking.  It is this entire, huge, widely-
separated sets of connections that can affect people's careers.  I suggest
that within this context it is *crazy*, shortsighted, lacking in fundamental
understanding of how the system works, to say that NOW's dearth of male
executives shows an effective networking that damages men's careers.  The
old-boys-network I'm talking about is so much vaster than any number of NOW
leaders could possibly hope to be in influential contact with, that I think
Joe just plain and simply doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about.

So that's why I chided him earlier, with this exchange:

>> So, how many men are in the upper management of NOW? 
>
> Are you trying *hard* to come up with trivial examples, or do they come
> naturally?  How much power and influence do you imagine the leaders of
> NOW actually weild?  And if so, why isn't abortion yet a sacrament?

And the reference to abortion is a reference to real political power.  Joe
couldn't answer that, he didn't even try; he didn't understand that influence
means getting political things accomplished.  If NOW was as powerful as Joe
thinks, to be able to damage men's careers, then they'd be easily powerful
enough to get abortion made legal, if not a sacrament.  (Don't get me started
on the political influence of the churches, and the corresponding influence
upon the churches of the political world.  Suffice to say it's part of the
old-boy network!)  But NOW is not that powerful, and no "old-girls-network"
is anywhere close to being that powerful.  So all this stuff that keeps coming
up, as Kris just brought up, neglects this entire societal context where the
ones, 99% of them men, who have the power are out there connected already.

>    Why is a women-only newspaper (or gym, club, organization) enlightened
>    whereas a men-only equivalent is sexist.

If the organization in question is going to exercise power and influence, in
a political or economic sense, then it will interconnect with the existing
power structure.  An all-women organization will connect to the 99%-male
power structure.  Is it going to be sexist in it's interactions with that
male power structure?  Not nearly so much as will an all-male organization
doing the same (connecting to the 99%-male power structure.)

>    I support the fundamental principles of the feminist movement.  I
>    believe that every human being must be treated with fairness and with
>    justice and that no person should be denied their right to dignity and
>    self fulfilment.  
>    
>    I do *not* agree that to achieve this equilibrium it is right or just
>    that any other person should be denied their equivalent dignity.  

Me, too.

>    To me, much of the credibility of feminism is lost because of this
>    inequitable settlement of social acceptance.
 
*What* inequitable settlement?

Now, we already know that this concept is too tough for Michael, he bailed
out way back in .56.  But Kris, I'd thought you at least could follow it.

DougO

    None of what I had posted was directed at you, DougO.  Since I think
    and type slowly, you got your note between me and the intended
    addressee.  But I'll call a few...
    
>Where is *this* stated?  Everytime I've mentioned anything like it I've
>added the explicit subtext that such male-only institutions are unfair
>and illegal only insofar as they deny equal opportunities to women.  No
>one has *yet* made the case that women doing the same activities would
>also be doing the same harm; and I've shown that such is not the case
>because women and women's networks aren't running this country; they don't
>have the power nor the positions to do such harm.
    
    You're looking at it from a global perspective and the betterment of
    each gender as a complete entity.  If you consider this on the level of
    the individual, which is where, at the end of the day, every single one
    of us lives, it is unfair to have any restriction based on sex. 
    Period.  Full Stop.  A woman who is denied access to medical school
    because of her sex is no more/no less disgraced and the injustice done
    is no greater/no less than the man who is denied access to medical
    school because of his sex.  And yet as a society today we would
    tolerate the man losing out more than the woman losing out.  The woman
    has recourse and women's rights groups which would jump down the throat
    and rip out the heart of any institution which would do that to a
    woman.  For the guy?  Well there's always trade school.
    
    I am not so interested in the power structure as you, DougO.  I find
    that I care little for its infrastructure and how this abstract entity
    functions and controls the directions of society.  I am interested and
    concerned with the more mundane world of everyday activity.  That world
    where women are permitted to be cub scout leaders for their sons but
    men are not permitted to be girls scout leaders for their daughters. 
    It's the world where the Nova Scotia supreme court upheld the right of
    a women-only newspaper (Pandoras Box) to deny employment to a male
    staff writer based solely on his sex.  The guy is the victim of legal
    sexism and gives not a hoot about how this affects the political
    infrastructure.
    
    You seem to have personified your resentment of societies ills into the
    doings of this "old boys network".  I do not deny that such networks
    exist.  I belong to many.  I guarantee that anybody reading this note
    belongs to some form of group wherein the interest of its members come
    before the interests of outsiders.  Even if this group is your own
    family.  But I do not see them as an insidious all spanning network
    of men trying to keep women in the dirt.
    
>If the organization in question is going to exercise power and influence, in
>a political or economic sense, then it will interconnect with the existing
>power structure.  An all-women organization will connect to the 99%-male
>power structure.  Is it going to be sexist in it's interactions with that
>male power structure?  Not nearly so much as will an all-male organization
>doing the same (connecting to the 99%-male power structure.)
    
    Yeah, so.  This is supposed to make the guy who can't get a membership
    to the gym because he happens to be a man feel better?  You mean I
    should be able to go up to my friend who just lost visitation rights to
    his children because of a lie perpetrated by his ex and say, "Nothing
    to be upset about.  You got shafted by the court because you're a man
    but at least you're an integral part of this global power structure of
    old boy's networks."
    
    Finally, we get back to the local story.  A bar  which does not permit
    women because it's patronage consists exclusively of men who would
    prefer to get drunk in the company of other men only is being forced to
    admit women customers.  Do you mean to tell me that this wino pit with
    the toothless men sitting at bars recalling how bad they had it during
    the depression, is somehow denying women access to some global power
    structure.  I think that it is a rather sad group of old men who have
    grown comfortable with things the way they are and should be permitted
    peace and the pursuit of happiness without placard-bearing "feminists"
    protesting outside the place.
    
    That is the inequity.
    
    For me and for the individual men I know, it has little to do with
    power.  It has everything to do with trying to live your everyday life.
    

>have the power nor the positions to do such harm.  Joe made mention of NOW
>and how they're such an example because more men aren't running it, which
>I dismissed as an utterly ridiculous example but it seems he requires that
>I rub his nose in it.  So here goes.

I mentioned NOW as an example of an area when men are not 'allowed'.  Apparently
not everyone can see an example for what it is... an example.  
You may or may not have noticed that I did NOT say that was a bad thing.  I am 
saying that men should be allowed to have their own space as well (I do not 
see that as happening). I do not see that that is a particularly difficult
concept to follow.  Do you?

>Joe seems to think that because more men aren't running NOW that this 
>somehow proves that 'women-only' clubs deny men equal opportunity and
>damage men's careers.  

No, Joe does not think that.  Please refrain from telling others what I may
or may not think.  It is NOT an area where you have shown ANY level
of expertise.

>talking about the power to make and break and damage careers in the corridors
>of power is what the old-boy network is all about.  

So, what is their charter?  WHo is the actual membership?  Any women belong?
You use Anita Hill as someone who benefits.  So, why call it the 'old boys 
network' since women belong as well and presumably do the same things?

>There exists a huge and
>shadowy infrastructure of connections, people-who-know-people, among the law
>firms, political parties, large corporations and their subcontractors and 
>associated lobbyists, politians, think tanks, charitable institutions,
>research organizations, news media, and lots more besides; that are the
>very heart of how political influence is defined and exercised.  

That certainly is quite a list.  I believe you forgot 'newpaper carrier'.

>that's what *I* consider the old-boy network to be.  In connection with 
>making and/or breaking careers, recommendations amongst these people who 
>know each other are part and parcel of the exercise of influence.  

Do women do any of this?

>separated sets of connections that can affect people's careers.  I suggest
>that within this context it is *crazy*, shortsighted, lacking in fundamental
>understanding of how the system works, to say that NOW's dearth of male
>executives shows an effective networking that damages men's careers.  
>The
>old-boys-network I'm talking about is so much vaster than any number of NOW
>leaders could possibly hope to be in influential contact with, that I think
>Joe just plain and simply doesn't have a clue of what he's talking about.

It is plain that YOU just don't have a clue.

>So that's why I chided him earlier, with this exchange:

Wow!  I was 'chided' and I did not even realize it!!!!

>And the reference to abortion is a reference to real political power.  Joe
>couldn't answer that, he didn't even try; he didn't understand that influence
>means getting political things accomplished.  

Of course, some people might want to actually go and think about the points
brought up, since it was something from out in left field, most likely to
derail the topic.

>If NOW was as powerful as Joe 
>thinks,

Where have I said how powerful I think NOW is?

>enough to get abortion made legal, if not a sacrament.  

yawn!!!  Do you ever manage to put YOURSELF to sleep with this?
If not, there truely ARE such things as miracles.

>up, as Kris just brought up, neglects this entire societal context where the
>ones, 99% of them men, who have the power are out there connected already.

And the evidence for the 99% figure is???????  And 'the power' is defined as
what?  Economic? Political? Electrical? 

    I'm not DougO, but I wear the same color hat.
    
>    where women are permitted to be cub scout leaders for their sons but
>    men are not permitted to be girls scout leaders for their daughters. 
    
    I think men should be permitted to be Girl Scout leaders.
    
>    It's the world where the Nova Scotia supreme court upheld the right of
>    a women-only newspaper (Pandoras Box) to deny employment to a male
>    staff writer based solely on his sex.  The guy is the victim of legal
    
    Seems, at best, like a gray area to me, but I don't know the newspaper
    or the guy or the story.  I can certainly understand why "On Our
    Backs", for example, might look askance at my asking to become the film
    critic.
    
>    This is supposed to make the guy who can't get a membership
>    to the gym because he happens to be a man feel better? 
    
    Huh?  Since when are men not allowed in gyms, and, if this is true, how
    come so many of them have bigger biceps than me?
    
>    should be able to go up to my friend who just lost visitation rights to
>    his children because of a lie perpetrated by his ex and say, "Nothing
    
    I dare you to find a single man or woman, good guy or bad guy, in this
    conference who thinks that this is OK.  The premise that women are
    naturally sweet li'l nuturers too stupid to lie and that men are
    naturally cold-hearted manipulative adulterers is NOT feminist!
    
>    Finally, we get back to the local story.  A bar  which does not permit
>    women because it's patronage consists exclusively of men who would
>    prefer to get drunk in the company of other men only is being forced to
>    admit women customers.  Do you mean to tell me that this wino pit with
    
    If the bar is so fantastic that women are willing, nay, EAGER, to brave
    the company of toothless wino misogynists, it must be one heck of a
    bar. If it's so crappy, won't the women get bored and leave?  So let
    'em in, then let 'em out.  Why insist on a "Men Only" sign? 
    
    Heck, most lesbian bars I absently wander into don't have a "Women
    Only" sign but I'm still able to figure out pretty quickly whether or
    not I'm comfortable there...
    
    Ray

    RE: .81  Joe Melvin
    
    > I mentioned NOW as an example of an area when men are not 'allowed'. 
    
    Not true.  "NOW" is the "National Organization FOR Women" (not "OF"
    women,) and not only does NOW have men as members (including some
    men right here in this file,) but NOW also allows men to serve as
    the heads of NOW chapters.
    
    At least one NOW chapter in New Hampshire is (last I heard) still
    headed by a male.

    For only about the zillionth time in my life, I got the NOW preposition
    wrong too.
    
    But I do know male members.  (No cracks, please.)
    
    Ray

    I don't think racially segregated bars and concert halls are legal, but
    that hasn't eliminated access to redneck atmosphere, if you desire such
    a thing, and the Apollo Theater was still in business last I heard.
    
    Ray

> I mentioned NOW as an example of an area when men are not 'allowed'.  
> Apparently not everyone can see an example for what it is... an example.  
> You may or may not have noticed that I did NOT say that was a bad thing.  I am 
> saying that men should be allowed to have their own space as well (I do not 
> see that as happening). I do not see that that is a particularly difficult
> concept to follow.  Do you?

Joe, if you don't think NOW is a good reverse example of what we're talking
about, then why'd you bring it up?  Here's the context you used:

> !think I'll worry about it then.  I don't think it's ever gonna happen, though;
> !we've got too many examples of the entrenched privileged classes fighting on
> !every inch of the way, to imagine that 'old-girl' networks are going to just
> !spring up overnight or even within the decade, to protect and promote women
> !at the expense of men. 
>
> So, how many men are in the upper management of NOW?  If it is only the
> male gender that has privileges, what do you think the privileges are
> that go with 'protected minority'?

YOU'RE the one who put NOW in the old-girls-network context with this reply, 
don't blame me that I took your example and shredded it.  It's ok, you can
backpeddle from the connection if you want.

> That certainly is quite a list.  I believe you forgot 'newpaper carrier'.

"news media" includes their delivery systems ;-).  I also left out the 
established religions.  I also left out the internationalists.  I also
left out dozens of other types of organizations.  So?  You haven't offered
any definitions of your own of the old-boys-network.  

>> And the reference to abortion is a reference to real political power.  Joe
>> couldn't answer that, he didn't even try; he didn't understand that influence
>> means getting political things accomplished.  
>
> Of course, some people might want to actually go and think about the points
> brought up, since it was something from out in left field, most likely to
> derail the topic.

Ducked again.  In the context of the old-boys-network and your contention that
NOW was a player in old-girls-networks with implied political influence, the
abortion example is directly related to political power.  It rather neatly
dismantled your argument, which of course makes it convenient that you're
backpeddling away from it so furiously.  Not left field, Joe; a fastball you
couldn't handle.

DougO

    Men are allowed at least to be Girl Scout co-leaders (troops usually
    have two leaders).  Men also serve on troop committees.  I've been
    a registered Girl Scout for 6 years and have served on my daughters
    troop committees, been on their camp-outs, etc.
    
    					- Vick

    re-.1
    And I'm real proud of you....
    
    Smirk
    
    -j 

>    Smirk
    
    Curly: "It's unfair that men aren't allowed to be Girl Scout leaders!"
    Larry: "Yes we are; I'm a leader."
    Moe: "What a sissy!"
    

    re: .88
    
    In Canada the "Boy Scouts" are moving towards being co-ed as I
    mentioned in a previous note.
    
    The "Girl Guides" on the other hand do not allow male participation,
    and in at least one instance wanted the removal of a party of scouts
    who had the temerity to camp in an adjacent field.
    
    �- Bob -�
    

    P.S.  Ray,  I more closely resemble Curly.  - Vick

  	There is a men only club in my hometown. It's made up
	local businessmen and politicians. They own a very
	old mansion that was donated to them many years by a
	descendant of one of the founders of the city. 

	I don't see anything wrong with men having these kind
	of clubs, where they can get together by themselves,
	and discuss things of interest with each other. 


	kits
	

~Joe, if you don't think NOW is a good reverse example of what we're talking
~about, then why'd you bring it up?  Here's the context you used:

I'll tell you what.  Why don't you just continue the conversation since
you claim to know what I am thinking etc.  So, you really don't need me
then, do you?  Just let me know how it turns out.

    
>    Not true.  "NOW" is the "National Organization FOR Women" (not "OF"
>    women,) 

Fine.  I sit corrected.

>and not only does NOW have men as members (including some
>    men right here in this file,) but NOW also allows men to serve as
>    the heads of NOW chapters.

And at the national level?

    RE: .96  Joe
    
    > And at the national level?
    
    Men are *allowed* at any level, as far as I know.  
    
    The national leaders are chosen via election by the membership.

how it turns out, Joe?  One more person, unable to successfully ridicule
the concept of a patriarchal culture as supported by the old-boys-network 
and numerous other traditional institutions, slinks off ala Michael to
scorn what he cannot understand.  Sayonara.

DougO

>    
>    The national leaders are chosen via election by the membership.
>

So are congress critters.  But not having 50-50 gender split seems to be
a problem there for some.  However, my intent was NOT to turn this into
a NOW note.  I merely want to have gender A treated the same way gender B
is, by both genders.  If someone demands their rights be recognized, they
should recognize those same rights in others.  No special treatment for
either gender.

    
    
    .19
    
    No, it would be sad...
    
    Anyhow. Since Humans still come in two genders, it is sad to see some
    folks trying to squeeze both genders into the same mold. 
    
    Boys are Boys. Girls are Girls. Like it or not, that hasn't yet
    changed. I hope it never does....that one Star Trek episode put into
    perspective what some people on this planet seem to be striving for
    (one big UNhappy gender)....
    Pretending the differences aren't there won't make them go away. 
    
    So, IMHO, leave the boys clubs for BOYS, the MENS clubs for MEN,
    the Womens Clubs for Women and the CO-ED clubs for the CO-EDS.
    
    cat (who likes lifeforms that come in TWO flavours...)
    

    Reality IS changeable.  Thank goodness.  I like being able to fly to
    Europe, for example.
    
>    Anyhow. Since Humans still come in two genders, it is sad to see some
>    folks trying to squeeze both genders into the same mold. 
    
    But earmarking some things "boys only" and other things "girls only" IS
    forcing people into a mold -- the only way they have a chance at a mold
    other than the one you're forcing them into is a sex change! 
    
    Humans come in two sexes, but they come in an infinite variety of
    "molds".  One's personality and talents are not completely determined
    by sex; if they were, then all men would be alike and all women would
    be alike.  Just a cursory check of this notesfile shows that's not the
    case. 
    
    There are vast differences within sexual boundries. Your pretending
    those differences aren't there won't make them go away, but it can
    certainly ruin lives and make for a blander more oppressive world.
    
    Ray

    RE: .99  Joe Melvin
    
    >>    
    >>    The national leaders are chosen via election by the membership.
    >>

    > So are congress critters.  But not having 50-50 gender split seems to be
    > a problem there for some.
    
    When the national leaders of NOW start being paid by the tax money of
    ALL CITIZENS (by law and regardless of their sex,) then you can start
    worrying about why members of your sex are in so very, very few of the 
    positions that YOU pay for with YOUR taxes.
    
    Ok?

    Suzanne,

    Is there a published list of men who are leaders or such in your group?
    Like there would be for our congressional offices? What is the
    percentages of men in the org and what is the percentages of men
    who hold office positions? 

    I am asking this question because it has been brought up in other
    topics of political percentages and influences. As in men are have
    tendencies to vote for things that have little value for woman's issues
    as women have tendencies to vote for things that have little or no
    values for mens issues.

    And I bring asking this question because you and some of the other
    noters indicate that this is a open and non bias org.

    Please, I am just asking a question and am not trying to undermine
    your cause. 
    
    Peace

    re.100  I agree!
    I'd have quit the boy scouts if girls were allowed back when I was
    involved they diden't belong(still don't) at that age I needed to
    be able to do boy stuff without girls around. When I entered the
    explorers (co-ed) I had gotten the boy stuff out of my system and
    welcomed young women as a vital part of the group. I feel my experience
    as a scout would have been diminished by the presence of girls and
    campouts which we did 1-2 times a month would have felt like a family
    outing.
    
    The system works fine without boys in girl scouts and girls in boy
    scouts why do some people feel compeled to mess up a good thing?
    
    
    -j	

>    When the national leaders of NOW start being paid by the tax money of
>    ALL CITIZENS (by law and regardless of their sex,) then you can start
>    worrying about why members of your sex are in so very, very few of the 
>    positions that YOU pay for with YOUR taxes.

Are there membership fees for belonging to NOW? 
Are there men that are members?
Are these men paying the fees?
What is the difference between the fees and taxes?

    RE: .105  Joe Melvin
    
    > What is the difference between the fees and taxes?
    
    Do you pay taxes on a voluntary basis (by "joining" the Internal
    Revenue Service as a strictly voluntary contributor?)
    
    If you decided to "quit" being a contributor to the IRS, would "voting
    privs" be all you could expect to lose?

>    Do you pay taxes on a voluntary basis (by "joining" the Internal
>    Revenue Service as a strictly voluntary contributor?)
    

Working at a given company is voluntary on the part of the employee.  if
they are not paid what they believe they should be, they can quit.  Are
they entitled to equality?  After all, working there IS voluntary and
if they feel things are not equal, they can always go elsewhere where
they believe things will be equal.  

People, even though they feel they are not represented equally, may very well
wish to stay because the goals are of higher importance.  That does not
mean that they are not due equal consideration.  Does it?

.97>    Men are *allowed* at any level, as far as I know.  
    
    And women are "allowed" at any level in any company.
    
    Is being allowed enough for a state of equality to exist?

    RE: .107  Joe Melvin
    
    > Working at a given company is voluntary on the part of the employee. 
    
    You asked for the difference between "fees" (the dues paid for
    membership in an organization) and taxes.  Money paid for such
    "fees" is voluntary.  Taxes are not.  (Your question has been
    answered.)
    
    > if they are not paid what they believe they should be, they can quit.  
    > Are they entitled to equality?
    
    If you're applying this principle to organizations (outside the realm
    of employment,) then let me ask you this:  Do you feel that women
    should NOT ONLY sue to be ALLOWED into all-male groups, but they should
    ALSO demand that the group elect 50% women to their highest group
    offices?
    
    If you're talking about equality, then surely you would agree that
    men should not expect anything more in a predominantly women's
    organization than they would support for women in an all-male (or
    predominantly male) organization.
    
    > People, even though they feel they are not represented equally, may 
    > very well wish to stay because the goals are of higher importance.  
    > That does not mean that they are not due equal consideration.  Does it?
    
    Fine.  Do you support women suing all-male clubs for membership AND
    for 50% of the highest organization offices (or not?)

    RE: .108  Mike Z.
    
    > And women are "allowed" at any level in any company.
    > Is being allowed enough for a state of equality to exist?
    
    So, do YOU think women should sue all-male groups for both membership
    AND demand 50% of the highest organizational offices?
    
    Would you regard this as a legitimate bid for "a state of equality"?

>    If you're applying this principle to organizations (outside the realm
>    of employment,) 

So, apply it to employment....

>Do you feel that women
>    should NOT ONLY sue to be ALLOWED into all-male groups, but they should

Changing the focus of this, aren't you?  The current issue here is about the 
level of equality accorded to men who have already joined a group, have been
accepted as members, and have paid their dues.  Do you believe that they
should be represented equally?

>    If you're talking about equality, then surely you would agree that
>    men should not expect anything more in a predominantly women's
>    organization than they would support for women in an all-male (or
>    predominantly male) organization.

True, but then I would also expect men to have the same legal recourse to
force the issues as well.  Right now, they do not, in my opinion.  Do
YOU think men have the same legal recourse?  Do you think in actual case
law that they have had 'equality' in the courts on this?

-Joe    

    re:.110
    
    You seem to have missed my point, Ms. Conlon.
    
    Perhaps if I would have called the leadership of NOW "the matriarchy"
    and then claimed that since men have only 10% of the leadership roles
    that matriarchy is deliberately oppressing males, then maybe you would
    have understood.

    As a member of NOW, my observation is that the proportion of males in
    NOW leadership is, if anything, excessive in proportion to the number
    of male NOW members.
    
    I do not understand what NOW has to do with this topic anyway.  It's
    open to both men and women, and so are leadership positions.  I'd
    think that women-only fitness centers might be worthy of greater
    discussion than they have been, compared to NOW.
    
    					Steve

    Steve, the evidence cited to justify a claim of oppression by
    the patriarchy relies on the ratios of men and women in the
    general population.

    RE: .112  Joe Melvin
    
    >> If you're applying this principle to organizations (outside the realm
    >> of employment,) 

    > So, apply it to employment....
    
    Ok.  If you are trying to say that a truer "equality" for men in an
    organization that is predominantly women would be if they shared the
    top positions in the organization (somewhere around 50%, let's say) -
    then do you seek the SAME THING for women in predominantly-male
    organizations?
    
    Do you think women should demand to hold 50% of the top jobs, in other
    words, in the same way that you seem to be suggesting that men be
    allowed a similar percentage of top jobs in a predominantly-female
    organization (such as a corporation or a club)?

    RE: .113  Mike Z.
    
    You folks are talking about "equality" for men in organizations that
    are mostly women - and in this case, "equality" seems to be defined
    as the number of men holding top positions in a predominantly-female
    environment.
    
    All I'm asking is whether you see this as a way to define "equality"
    for women, too?  Do you think the shortage of women in the top
    positions in corporate America (as well as in Congress, etc.) is a
    sign that women are not given equality in our country (and if so,
    should women DEMAND 50% of these positions?)

.117>    should women DEMAND 50% of these positions?)
    
    Should we conclude that you believe they're not already doing that?

    RE: .118  Mike Z.
    
    > Should we conclude that you believe they're not already doing that?
    
    Please cite the lawsuit where women are demanding 50% of the top
    jobs as settlement for discrimination.
    
    Back to my question:  If anyone here thinks men lack "equality"
    in NOW (because men haven't been elected to the top national
    positions by the organization's members,) then do you ALSO believe
    that women lack "equality" by not having 50% of the top positions
    in business and government in this country?
    
    If so, do you support the idea of demanding that this "inequality"
    (by your definition) be resolved through the courts?

>    Back to my question:  If anyone here thinks men lack "equality"
>    in NOW (because men haven't been elected to the top national
>    positions by the organization's members,) then do you ALSO believe
>    that women lack "equality" by not having 50% of the top positions
>    in business and government in this country?

Still avoiding answering the question asked of you:

Do you beleive that men should be equally represented in the national management
of NOW?  If not, why not?
    

    re:.119
    
    What on Earth are you talking about?
    
    Lawsuit?  Settlement for discrimination?  Huh?
    
    I asked a simple yes/no question.  Let's try this again ... should
    we conclude that you believe they're not already doing that?

.120>Still avoiding answering the question asked of you:
    
    Welcome to the club.

>
>.120>Still avoiding answering the question asked of you:
>    
>    Welcome to the club.

Well, so far its a Men's Only Club :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) 

    Shhhh, or they'll demand half of the membership openings ... ;^)

    Joe and Mike Z. - Where are the answers to the questions I've posed
    to you??

    You're the ones making an issue of deciding "equality for men" in
    NOW's leadership, so I'd like to know if you apply the same standard
    to assessments about "equality for women."  Do you think it's a sign
    of inequality that women do not hold 50% of the top positions in
    both business and government in this country - or not?

    If so, what should the mostly-male leaders of business and government
    be doing to eradicate this injustice?  (Who's responsibility is it to
    achieve equality for women?  Is it something MEN should be doing as
    the ones in power?)

    I ask this because I'm curious as to what you expect from ONE SOLITARY
    non-profit_organization_with_political_leanings whose membership is
    predominantly women.

    If you expect more from this one group than you expect from the 
    vast male majority leaders in the rest of the business and government
    in our country, then you're employing a double standard.

    As for me - I'll answer YOUR questions this way:  I most definitely
    do NOT ask more from predominantly-male business and government
    (W.R.T. giving women 50% of the top positions) than I expect from NOW.

    In other words, I do not DEMAND that women be given these jobs - nor
    do I think most other women are making this demand either.  What I
    expect from predominantly-male business and government is that they
    stop the widespread practices which prevent women from moving up the
    ladder to the top positions.  If such practices are also being employed
    by NOW (against men,) I'd expect NOW to stop them as well.

    So - do either (or both) of you expect MORE from NOW than you expect
    from predominantly-male business and government - or not?

>Do you think it's a sign
>    of inequality that women do not hold 50% of the top positions in
>    both business and government in this country - or not?

Men are not equally represented in the upper levels of NOW.  Agreed?
Does NOW espouse the fact that women should hold 50% of the upper level
positions in business/industry? 
If the answer to #2 is Yes, then why doesn't NOW have equal representation
in their upper level structure? 

>    If so, what should the mostly-male leaders of business and government
>    be doing to eradicate this injustice?  (Who's responsibility is it to
>    achieve equality for women?  Is it something MEN should be doing as
>    the ones in power?)

Men are not equally represented in the upper levels of NOW. Agreed?
Who's responsibility is it to achieve equality for men?  Is it something
WOMEN should be doing as the ones is power?

>    I ask this because I'm curious as to what you expect from ONE SOLITARY
>    non-profit_organization_with_political_leanings whose membership is
>    predominantly women.

Consistancy, in a word.  And the ideas being talked about apply to more than 
a solitary women-only group.  

>    As for me - I'll answer YOUR questions this way:  I most definitely
>    do NOT ask more from predominantly-male business and government
>    (W.R.T. giving women 50% of the top positions) than I expect from NOW.

>    In other words, I do not DEMAND that women be given these jobs - nor
>    do I think most other women are making this demand either.  

Well, it seems a common enough complaint in =wn=.  Surely you must have
seen the complaints there.

>What I
>    expect from predominantly-male business and government is that they
>    stop the widespread practices which prevent women from moving up the
>    ladder to the top positions.  

>    So - do either (or both) of you expect MORE from NOW than you expect
>    from predominantly-male business and government - or not?

The behavior exhibited by NOW is what I expect them to exhibit. 

-Joe

    re:.125
    
    I asked you first.

re .126 (Joe Melvin)
>Men are not equally represented in the upper levels of NOW. Agreed?

I thought that the last word on this was Brian Hetrick's .92.  Agreed?

Dan

>.92
>	  I would like to point out that the leadership of national NOW has
>     roughly the same proportion of men as does the membership of NOW --
>     currently about 10%.  It has _always_, since it was formed, had men as
>     officers and in other policy-making positions.
>
>	  I would also like to point out that the leadership of the various
>     state and local chapters of NOW with which I am familiar _also_ have
>     roughly the same proportion of men as is present in their membership.
>     There are and have been men committee chairs, chapter secretaries,
>     treasurers, vice-presidents, and yes, even presidents of chapters.
>
>	  Finally, I would like to point out that this is not by design --
>     there is _no_ sex-based exclusion or inclusion process in place.  A
>     person's gender is as completely irrelevant to her or his leadership
>     potential as is hair color.  That's why it's "roughly" the same --
>     there are no quotas in place, either way.
>
>	  I realize that this little dose of reality won't change anyone's
>     attitudes regarding either NOW or equality for women -- but perhaps it
>     will make some people realize that accusing NOW of man-hating and
>     anti-men discrimination only proves the ignorance of the accuser.
>
>				      Brian
>				NH NOW Secretary

.128>I thought that the last word on this was Brian Hetrick's .92.  Agreed?
    
    Should we conclude that you believe that equal representation in
    an organization be determined by comparing gender ratios in the
    leadership and non-leadership roles of that organization?

You've still got a backlog of questions to answer
before asking more.

Dan

    RE: .126  Joe
    
    > Does NOW espouse the fact that women should hold 50% of the upper level
    > positions in business/industry? 
    
    I've never seen NOW state that women should hold 50% of the positions
    in every business and government organization in this country - have
    you?  If so, please cite your source for this claim.
    
    > Consistancy, in a word.  And the ideas being talked about apply to 
    > more than a solitary women-only group.  
    
    NOW is not a woman-only group (as has been explained to you repeatedly.)
    Men belong as members AND hold positions of power within the organization.
    
    If you're so set on believing that men are being denied equality in
    NOW because they don't hold 50% of the top positions within the
    organization, then how about discussing whether or not you believe
    that women are denied equality in all the business/government 
    organizations where women don't hold 50% of the top positions.
    
    Are you espousing a double standard here?

    RE: .126  Joe
    
    >> In other words, I do not DEMAND that women be given these jobs - nor
    >> do I think most other women are making this demand either.  

    > Well, it seems a common enough complaint in =wn=.  Surely you must have
    > seen the complaints there.
    
    So now a "complaint" (about the glass ceiling) is a "DEMAND" (to be
    given the top jobs)???  Like hell it is.
    
    If the "lack of representation" (IN AND OF ITSELF) could be regarded
    in this country as definitive proof of discrimination, then women
    could clog up the courts by suing almost every business, group and
    political party in this entire country.
    
    Face it, Joe.  You accused NOW of not "allowing" men.  You were wrong.
    (Tough break.)
    
    Let's not spend the rest of our lives in the hole you've dug for
    yourself about it, ok?

    re:.130
    
    Workin' that damage control, eh?
    
    No biggie, 777.128 pretty much speaks for itself.

>re .129 (Mike Z.)
>    Should we conclude that you believe that equal representation in
>    an organization be determined by comparing gender ratios in the
>    leadership and non-leadership roles of that organization?

Not by result, but by process.  Reread the third paragraph.

>re .133 (Mike Z.)
>    No biggie, 777.128 pretty much speaks for itself.

Well, at least for those who don't deliberately ignore what
it says it does:

>.92 (Brian H., quoted in my .128)
>	  Finally, I would like to point out that this is not by design --
>     there is _no_ sex-based exclusion or inclusion process in place.  A
>     person's gender is as completely irrelevant to her or his leadership
>     potential as is hair color.  That's why it's "roughly" the same --
>     there are no quotas in place, either way.

The point is no quotas, either way; to have no gender based roadblocks
or shortcuts.

Now, is your "I asked you first." in .127 destined to remain the closest
thing to an answer that you can come up with in this topic?

Dan

    B for effort.

    D for execution and content.

    Kris, Z-man, and a few others have got the idea.
    This is not an equality issue, if it was then when are we men gonna get
    some !!
    I couldn't care less about NOW or any other new-age caring-sharing wus
    club. Hell, if a woman is good enough for the job she'll get it, she's
    gotta fight just as hard as the guys do if she really wants it though.
    These clubs are breathing spaces for the stressed males of the world,
    if we can't have somewhere we can go without the prescence of the
    female gender then SHOOT ME NOW MOMMA!!
    
    I have this theory....only the women who are TOMBOYS want to cause all
    this hassle, the LOOKERS can get the guys to come out of the clubs!!
    :^)
    
    JM

    
>    > Does NOW espouse the fact that women should hold 50% of the upper level
>    > positions in business/industry? 
    
>    I've never seen NOW state that women should hold 50% of the positions
>    in every business and government organization in this country - have
>    you?  If so, please cite your source for this claim.
    
What claim?  Do you under the concept of a question?  You will note that that
is what I had asked.

>    NOW is not a woman-only group (as has been explained to you repeatedly.)

Guess what?  I am aware that NOW is not a woman-only group.  I am also
aware, because of your previous replies here, that is is most certainly
predominately female.

>    Men belong as members AND hold positions of power within the organization.

At the national level?   <-- That there is another one of those 'questions'.
And is the power 'equal'?
    
>    If you're so set on believing that men are being denied equality in
>    NOW because they don't hold 50% of the top positions within the
>    organization,

Please do not tell me what I do believe, what I can believe, or what I
should believe.  Thanks.

    
>    Are you espousing a double standard here?

No, but I AM pointing out that there IS a double standard being applied.

>
>    So now a "complaint" (about the glass ceiling) is a "DEMAND" (to be
>    given the top jobs)???  Like hell it is.

So, perhaps you will enlighten everyone with your definition of 'demand'.
    
>    If the "lack of representation" (IN AND OF ITSELF) could be regarded
>    in this country as definitive proof of discrimination, then women
>    could clog up the courts by suing almost every business, group and
>    political party in this entire country.

>    Face it, Joe.  You accused NOW of not "allowing" men.  You were wrong.
>    (Tough break.)

Face it, I made no such accusation.  Please point out where I did so.
    
>    Let's not spend the rest of our lives in the hole you've dug for
>    yourself about it, ok?

I have dug no hole.  If you do not wish to discuss this, that is your business.  
No one is forcing you to enter replies here. No one is forcing you not to.  
Perhaps others do not consider this a rathole and will consider talking
about the issues.  

And the interesting thing about ratholes is that it generally needs more
than one side of issue to dig, wouldn't you agree?

>
>I thought that the last word on this was Brian Hetrick's .92.  Agreed?
>

No, I do not agree.  For reasons pointed out by MZ.

-Joe

  <<< Note 777.140 by BEING::MELVIN "Ten Zero, Eleven Zero Zero by Zero 2" >>>

>	  I would like to point out that the leadership of national NOW has
>     roughly the same proportion of men as does the membership of NOW --
>     currently about 10%.  It has _always_, since it was formed, had men as
>     officers and in other policy-making positions.

What are the actual numbers?

>	  I realize that this little dose of reality won't change anyone's
>     attitudes regarding either NOW or equality for women -- but perhaps it
>     will make some people realize that accusing NOW of man-hating and
>     anti-men discrimination only proves the ignorance of the accuser.

Who in this note string has accused NOW of being man-hating? 
If no one has, why do you bother to mention it here?

And who is/are the accuser(s)?  And just what are the accusations?  The
inclusion of the term 'man-haters' certainly implies that you perceive
something I am not aware of.

re .139,

>No, I do not agree.  For reasons pointed out by MZ.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Thanks for the day's entertainment.  Perhaps you can add to
the humor by providing a pointer?

Dan

>
>Thanks for the day's entertainment.  Perhaps you can add to
>the humor by providing a pointer?

I am glad you find it funny.

>    
>    > Consistancy, in a word.  And the ideas being talked about apply to 
>    > more than a solitary women-only group.  
>
>    NOW is not a woman-only group (as has been explained to you repeatedly.)

Ah... I do certainly see my error here!!!!  You are quite right (on this
point).     Conlon=1, Melvin=zip
    
-joe

    RE: .137  Joe

    >> *IF* you're so set on believing that men are being denied equality in
    >> NOW because they don't hold 50% of the top positions within the
    >> organization, [Emphasis added. SEC]

    > Please do not tell me what I do believe, what I can believe, or what I
    > should believe.  Thanks.

    Do you understand what the word "IF" means?

    > No, but I AM pointing out that there IS a double standard being applied.

    The double standard is being applied by you.  In a topic about "Men-
    only clubs" (which brings up the issue of whether men should be able
    to have clubs that DISALLOW women,) you bring up a mostly-women
    organization that DOES allow men to join AND to achieve positions of
    power - then you start hammering on about whether or not men share
    the positions of power in equal numbers.

    IF [let's hope you do know what this word means] you're trying to say
    that the lack of 50% male leaders in NOW justifies "Men-only clubs,"
    then it's one heck of a double standard.  IF NOT [need a translation
    for this?], then how is it relevant to this topic?

    >> Men belong as members AND hold positions of power within the
    >> organization.

    > At the national level?  And is the power 'equal'?

    Again, I must ask you:  Do you have the same concern for the numbers
    of women who hold positions of power in business and government in
    our country (or does this concern only apply to men in one particular
    organization that is predominantly women?)

    An officer (male) of NOW has told you here (in this very topic) that
    men are NOT held back from national positions in NOW by design.  

    I'm not a member of NOW myself, so he is by far a better authority on
    NOW leadership than I am (especially since he is actually an OFFICER
    of a NOW chapter.)  Why not accept his word (as a man who has GONE
    THROUGH the process of attaining a leadership role in NOW)?

    RE: .138  Joe
    
    >> Face it, Joe.  You accused NOW of not "allowing" men.  You were wrong.
    >> (Tough break.)

    > Face it, I made no such accusation.  Please point out where I did so.
    
    Face it - you most definitely did:
    
    .81> I mentioned NOW as an example of an area when men are not 'allowed'.  
    
    
    Thanks for acknowledging your mistake in .145, though.
    
    Now perhaps we can return to the topic at hand:  "MEN ONLY CLUBS"...

re .143,

>I am glad you find it funny.

I just have to know whether it was "I asked you first. :^)" or
"B for effort.  D for execution and content." that convinced
you.

Dan

>    Do you understand what the word "IF" means?

yes.

>    power - then you start hammering on about whether or not men share
>    the positions of power in equal numbers.

I have hammered on about nothing.  If that is the impression you got, or
wish to give others, that's your business.

>    then it's one heck of a double standard.  IF NOT [need a translation
>    for this?], then how is it relevant to this topic?

How is what you have written relevant to the topic?  Why should I, or anyone,
have to justify our entries to anyone else?

>    Again, I must ask you:  

Why not answer the question asked of you?

>    our country (or does this concern only apply to men in one particular
>    organization that is predominantly women?)

Well, this IS  MENNOTES.  Perhaps if I wanted to discuss it from the other
perspective, I would do so in =wn=.  

>    An officer (male) of NOW has told you here (in this very topic) that
>    men are NOT held back from national positions in NOW by design.  

The same person has also said the members of NOW were called 'man-haters'
in this topic.  I do not recall seeing that term used by anyone but the
officer.  I am sure we can get a male Digital manager to say women are not
held back either.  Would you accept that?

>
>I just have to know whether it was "I asked you first. :^)" or
>"B for effort.  D for execution and content." that convinced
>you.

Convinced me of what?

-Joe

    
>    Maybe they could form Men Only Rapist Clubs, Men Only Armed Robbery
>    Clubs, Men Only Serial Killer Clubs, Men Only Muggers Clubs.  That sort
>    of thing.  If all the men who commit those crimes were being kept busy
>    in men only clubs, think how safe the streets would be!!  :-)
    
 Sorry, we could not do that. There are to many women that qualify for these 
 clubes. 

	LEC     

    My my my ... someone has been busy deleting notes.
    
    Mr Melvin, do you know who wrote .140 and .144 and why they're now
    deleted?  Did you save copies of them?

    re .151, I don't think so.  Most violent crimes are committed by men,
    like it or not.
    
    Lorna
    

    less than 3% are committed by women according to a recent article in
    the Boston Globe.
    
    Bonnie

    I believe that percentage would be very different if child abuse could be
    accurately included.

    re .155, do you believe that more women, than men, commit child abuse?
    
    And, if so, why?  
    
    Lorna
    

    I think you are too angry to talk to right now(because of 778)
    
    but to answer your question 
    <do you believe that more women, than men, commit child abuse>?
    my answer is 
    
    "No but I believe that the percentage is one hellava lot greater than
    3%". I would -without strong proof- put the figure much closer to 30%"

    Lorna,
    
    I have to agree with Herb about this one.  I definitely believe that
    more than 3% of women abuse children.  The probelm here is that it's
    not recognized within our society just how many women are capable and
    do abuse their children verbally, mentally, physically and sexually. 
    The stats are probably much higher than what is currently being
    reported.
    
    Karen

    The 3% referred to women who committ violent crimes.

    child abuse is usually a violent crime.
    

>                             -< the mind boggles! >-

>    My my my ... someone has been busy deleting notes.
    
>    Mr Melvin, do you know who wrote .140 and .144 and why they're now
>    deleted?  Did you save copies of them?

Hmmmm... Well........ errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....

I believe I did.  I had entered the notes, noticed an error, replied to my own
note, made the change, and deleted the original.  All this at my own bidding,
all within about 45 seconds of entering the 'original' note.  I am sure
there is an easier way, but I have often gone for the more difficult :-).

ps, I promise to review the notes BEFORE I exit EDT in order to avoid this
problem.  I am sorry for any confusion this may have caused anyone!!

And what is with this "Mr" stuff??? I work for a living :-).

-Joe

    Fine, Herb, but the numbers I was quoting referred to shooting
    mugging etc, and did not include child abuse to my knowledge.
    
    Bonnie

    re .157, if 30% of all women commit child abuse, everybody must be
    keeping pretty quiet about it.  I, personally, have never known anyone
    who was abused by their mother, or, at least, nobody I've ever known
    has told me about it.  
    
    By contrast, I had one girlfriend who told me she was raped by her 
    stepfather when she was 12 yrs. old.
    
    Herb, if you think that 30% of all women abuse children, what
    percentage of men do you think abuse children?  I'm curious if you
    think higher, lower, or similar.  
    
    I'm not disputing it, since I don't know.  I guess I've been sheltered
    from hearing about it in my own life, or else it's kept under wraps.
    
    Lorna
      

    Lorna,
    I think the hypothesis is that 30% of all child abuse is committed by
    women, not that 30% of all women commit child abuse.
    
    	- Vick

    Vick, you are right.
    
    Karen

    I certainly grew up with many boys who were beaten severely by their
    mothers.
    
    But, the only hard fact I have is from a man who spent a weekend on
    retreat with 50 other survivors of childhood sexual abuse. He told me
    over 50% of them had been sexually abused by their mothers.
    
    <have never known anyone who was abused by their mother>
    ask them if their mother _knew_
    then ask them why their mother didn't protect them
    
    then ask yourself whether "not protecting" them is a form of violent
    abuse
    (that's called being an accessory in American juris prudence)
    (its also called collusion)
    

================================================================================
Note 777.162                     Men only clubs                       162 of 166
WMOIS::REINKE_B "the fire and the rose are one"       4 lines   6-APR-1992 14:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    <Fine, Herb, but the numbers I was quoting referred to shooting
    <mugging etc, and did not include child abuse to my knowledge.
    
================================================================================
Note 777.155                     Men only clubs                       155 of 166
VMSSPT::NICHOLS "it ain't easy; being green"          2 lines   6-APR-1992 13:12
                                  -< re .-1 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I believe that percentage would be very different if child abuse could be
    accurately included.

    re.166
    My mother beat the thunder out of me more than once my father
    would only give me 1 swat. Out of the beatings(spankings) that 
    I recieved (all deserved) my mother was more prone to lose control
    as she was more emotional(angry) about it. 
    
    
    -j

    >(all deserved)
    
    No, no, no, no, no!  Children never "deserve" to be beaten.
    
    					- Vick

    never

    re last two
    I hope you noted the spanking portion that I included to make clear
    what I meant. If you are saying no child deserves a spanking then
    I disagree but I agree that beatings(what seperates the two?) are
    not justifyed. FWIW- whatever it was they gave me I *did* deserve
    them trust me 8^)
    
    -j

    you said "beat the thunder"
    you characterized your mother as 'losing control'
    Inappropriate.
    
    I only hope that you don't believe your children (if you have had,
    have, or plan to have) deserve to be beaten.
    Any such beating is a failing of yours, not a failure of the children.
    

    Jerry,
    
    In some schools of thought these days hitting a child, even a swat on
    the butt, is considered child abuse.  In some schools of thought
    anything less than a nurturing environment is considered child abuse. 
    
    Karen

    I don't believe it's ever necessary, but don't think an occasional 
    swat on the bottom is going to ruin a kid for life.  Only once did
    I swat my oldest daughter.  It wasn't hard but she did cry.  I felt
    I lost control.  I've never swatted my youngest daughter.  
    
    					- Vick

 It's at the point where even harsh words are considered to be "emotional
abuse." There is no politically correct way discipline a recalcitrant child.
You tell the kid to go to her room and she pitches a fit. I guess you're
just supposed to let her misbehave, no matter what she does wrong. And there's
a question why human behavior is getting out of control...

    why the reductio ad adsurdum, Mark?
    
    
    				herb

    re.172
    Herb,
    I don't have any children but I do care for 4 children a couple of
    times a week I have found that treating them with respect works
    99% of the time a swat on the butt works the other 1%. If the need
    ever presents itself that a child in my care needs a spanking I
    won't hesitate to act and act fairly but *never* will I give a beating.
    IMHO a spanking becomes a beating when the spanker becomes emotional
    discipline must be handed out with a cool temper. 
    
    And yes I agree if I ever give a child a beating it will be a failure
    on my part but I also feel not giving a spanking when called for is
    also a failing on my part.
    
    -j
    

    yup
    
    

    re: spanking
    
    I was just talking with my folks about this last weekend.
    
    We pretty much agree that if a parents are to be held responsible for
    the child's behavior, and they are, then the parents should be allowed
    to raise that child in the way they see fit.
    
    If that includes a spanking, a slap, a shout, or a night withuot
    supper, then so be it.  Spare the rod, yes, but don't abandon it.

    re:.161
    
    Joe, I figured I missed some of the more juicy replies.
    
    In the future, you can DELETE NOTE and then REPLY/LAST.

    What about limits, boundries, communication and consequences?  When
    children act out what they want is to have limits set for them.  It
    does give them the feeling that they are loved and cared for.  I know,
    this can be hard to buy when you have a 3 year old pitching a fit in
    the grocery store.  Instead of hitting, let the kid scream and cry as
    you carry them out of the store and then the consequence is the next
    time you go to the store, he/she can't come with you.  Communicating
    what is acceptable and not acceptable goes a long way, especially when
    you take the time to put it into terms that the child can understand.
    
    I read a parent/child communication book several years ago.  It had a
    cartoon in there where the child wanted a certain kind of cereal and
    there wasn't any.  When the child got angry the mom, playfully, said "I
    wish I had 10 boxes of xyz cereal".  Then the child got into it and
    each one tried to top the other with "I wishes" until they got really
    silly.  It really hit home for me how easy it is to diffuse a potential
    temper tantrum.  I wish I could remember the name of the book, but
    sorry, I can't.
    
    I don't agree with an adult hitting a child.  An adult is so much
    bigger and the potential for the child really getting hurt is too
    great, IMHO.  
    
    Karen

>    why the reductio ad adsurdum, Mark?

 I wish that were all it was. It isn't. That's the party line. Even speaking
harshly is viewed in some circles as child abuse (emotional abuse.) Not
unexpectedly, the children of the people in these circles are frequently the
most poorly behaved.

.153 (George)

Three counter-examples, no matter how horrific, do not prove the statement
false.

George - direct question here:

Do you agree or disagree with the statement "Most violent crimes are committed
by men." ?


Ben

    Good thing reality isn't a popularity contest.  - Vick

    <Even speaking harshly is viewed in some circles as child abuse (emotional
    <abuse.)
    And oft-times it is. Berating, belittling, ...
    "don't you know any better than to...", "you little tramp", "why the
    HELL can't you remember what I told you to do" that sort of stuff.
    
    <not unexpectedly, the children of the people in these circles are
    <frequently the most poorly behaved.
    sure, If "being-haved" is defined from the adult perspective.
    One year old-kids are going to cry in church.
    Kids are going to be hungry and kranky if super-market shopping is done
    during their nap time, snack time.
    13 yr old kids are going to get restless by 11:00pm at a wedding
    reception when most of the adults have been drinking for 4 hours.

.186 (George)

It has very little to do with the base note, as the discussion got
sidetracked some time ago.  It was a response to your note.  I just
wanted to know if you really believed what you had implied in note
.183 (that most violent crimes are NOT committed by men).  And thank
you for answering the direct question.

Ben

    I don't understand these new-age (modernized) type of parents, who are
    afraid to touch their child in light that it may be called child abuse. 
    I was raised with a strong hand, and I came out alright.  Yeah, I got
    beatings!  boy did I get beatings, but I deserved them.  After one
    beating, did I stop?  Are you kidding?  I did something else that let
    me see what the beating was like the first time.  It's called being a
    kid.  Just talking to kids is not always the best way to do it.  If I
    were just talked to when I was a kid, I would have laughed at my
    parents.  I know a lot of you are thinking, "He didn't have very much
    respect for his parents."  Wrong-o.  I had a lot of respect for my
    parents but how was I to know when I was young what my limits were? 
    All kids must push the parents to find out what the limits are and if
    they don't get fire spitting mad at you then you haven't reached them. 
    All these parents that try to *REASON* with a child, give me a break. 
    How many children under the age of 12 and above the age of 4 do you
    know that can *REASON* or talk rationally about something that they've
    done wrong/bad.
    
    Paul

    People who were beaten, who felt they deserved it, who feel they deserve it
    will beat their children.
    That's how child abuse is perpetuated.
    
    				herb
    

    Just because someone doesn't believe in hitting his/her kids, doesn't
    mean they should be characterized as "new-age (modernized) type of
    parents".  It's really not a new concept.  My parents never spanked
    me.  With the single exceptional event previously mentioned, neither I 
    nor my wife ever spanked our kids.  They are both great kids.  Sarah
    made high honors last semester and takes all available honors courses.
    Emily got straight A's.  Sarah is 15 and has been testing her limits
    this year, but that's under control and we never needed to do more than
    ground her or remove her phone from her room or other such punishments
    to achieve that control.  We also let her know we are angry that she
    broke our rules and explain to her why we have those rules.
    
    The fact that you say that when you were beaten you just went out and
    were bad again, just proves that beatings don't work.  Either the child
    starts liking the attention he/she gets from the beating (because
    he/she isn't getting any attention otherwise) or becomes good at hiding
    the forbidden behavior.  The child learns that it is okay to violate
    another persons physical space.  The child learns that he/she is bad
    and "deserves" to be beaten.  And it's all so completely unnecessary.
    
    I might add, that from all we can determine, Sarah does not take any
    abuse from the kids she hangs out with.  She knows deep down inside
    that she doesn't "deserve" to be physically or mentally violated.  Part
    of that inner strength comes from the fact that we've never physically
    or mentally violated her.  
    
    					- Vick
    					

    re:.192
    
    Herb, teaching discipline through physical means is not necessarily
    child abuse, in my opinion.
    
    One can physically discipline a child with only a modicum of pain,
    and with no damage, except to the child's desire to misbehave.

    <Herb, teaching discipline through physical means in not necessarily
    <child abuse
    
    no sh*t

    Was it you that said children should never be hit?

    I don't think children SHOULD ever be hit. An occassional (probably not
    more than a coupla times a year as a guess) lite spanking is not of
    much consequence.
    Some unsolicited feedback
    When you start writing like that you lose me, because the message that
    I receive is that you would rather prove somebody wrong than enhance
    understanding.

    in re .185

    Do you mean that you disagree with the statistics printed in the
    Boston Globe about the number of women that commit violent crimes?
    What sources do you have other than anecdotes?

    
    Boy, can you people lose the plot !!!
    What the $#%@^%$%## has this got to do with "Mens Clubs" ???
    Take this namby-pamby stuff to the goody two shoes conference and fill
    the disk to ya hearts content.
    Is this MENNOTES or the MOTHERS CLUB convention.
    What a bunch of new-wave dweebs,Spock lovers,eccentrics,etc.
    I was hoping to get the addresses of some decent mens clubs but then
    the wymyn had to stick their noses in .
    

    Which only proves there are worse things I could be than a dweeb.
    
    					- Vick

    Do you classify  LYON's and ROTARI as Men clubs only in the States?
    
    I know that in Europe LYON's and ROTARI have started with women
    sections, is it the same in US ?
    
    THIERRY

 Rotary Clubs now admit women (and have for several years.)

    So do Lions..

    isn't it just some Rotary clubs?
    
    I know Westboro Rotary has no women.  I don't think it's an official
    policy...  but I do know that you have to be sponsored by a current 
    member to join...

re.  Child Abuse and Stats


Give me some numbers and I can tell any story ... when it comes to child abuse
2 things stick out in my mind.

1) There probably are at least two levels of child abuse.  "Violent" abuse and
   "Frustration" abuse.  The latter being a looser definition that incudes any 
   inappropriate behavior committed out of frustration.    

2) I would bet most "frustration" abuse is committed by full-time parents and
   what is the ratio of women/men full-time parents (lots more women).


Given these assumptions virtually anything can be said with careful wording (or
ambigous wording).

Men commit more child abuse (probably true if talking about violent abuse)
Women commit more child abuse (probably true if talking about all types of
                 abuse)

Men commit more "frustration" abuse (probably true if talking about % of
                 male full-time parents  vs. % of female full-time parents)
Women commit more "frustration" abuse (probably true if talking about the
                 number of women abusers vs the number of men abusers)


Greg

PS - No I do not have sources for my guesses of the relative number of child
     abusers among men and women.                                

>    Boy, can you people lose the plot !!!

Goes with notes!  

>    What a bunch of new-wave dweebs,Spock lovers,eccentrics,etc.

What's wrong with being eccentric? :-)

>    I was hoping to get the addresses of some decent mens clubs but then
>    the wymyn had to stick their noses in .

Well, you could have asked in .0, but the way that note is written, it sounds 
like a call for general discussion and not for specific information.. At least
to me.

-Joe

    .0 sounded to me like the kind of question one might find in SOAPBOX

    re .206. more child abuse committed by men.
    
    If you distinguish between fathers and boyfriends/setpfathers, my 
    personal observations indicate ( and I saw some stats somewhere or
    heard it on TV or radio somewhere that backs this up ) that most 
    abuse is by the mother or by the boyfriend/septfather.
    
    Maybe because they have more opportunity these days, but I think
    that even the divorce rate in the US these days doesn't account for
    all of it.
    
    fred();
    
    

    
    You guys are right, on both counts.
    First, I didn't write the note correctly (slap ma wrist mama)
    Secondly, I write in Soapbox too much (I'm on therapy)
    
    Thanks for straightenin' me out guys.
    
    :^)

Re: .211

A notes conference (PEAR::SOAPBOX) which encourages free-ranging discussions
on a wide variety of topics, including politics.

				Steve