Men on the Verge
Stephen Gilman
By Kate Zernike, Globe Staff, 05/17/98
OUNGSTOWN, Ohio - Three decades after the dawn of feminism forever changed
the American workplace, home and mores, the second wave of the gender
revolution is building.
This time it's men, fighting back against the broad brush of a women's
movement they complain too often paints all men as behaving badly, all dads
as deadbeats, one that has made male a four-letter word. While sexual
harassment claims and sniping between the sexes escalate, so do confusion
and exasperation. As one Internet site promoting men's rights moans, ''Can't
we all just get along? Can't we all just get a date?''
The Million Man March and Promise Keepers mobbing the Mall in Washington
were merely the most public recent displays of the new male agitation. Less
visibly, it is in commissions on the status of men in several states, in the
emerging power of the divorced fathers' movement after years on the fringes,
and in 2 million stay-at-home dads networking to face down the suspicious
stares of mothers on playgrounds.
What some are calling ''masculinism'' is also on scores of Web sites like
Backlash.com, tracking anti-male sexism. And it is here in this faded
Midwestern factory town, where in March, young academics in stiff tweed
jackets nodded intently as scholars at a conference of the American Men's
Studies Association presented papers on the wounds of boyhood and how men
are stereotyped in the pages of Cosmopolitan.
At least 500 colleges nationwide now offer courses on men and masculinity.
And after years of worrying about how schools shortchange girls, a
burgeoning body of research argues that the ones suffering the most are
boys.
The government is taking note of men's struggles, and so is Hollywood.
Congress is considering $2 billion for ''Fathers Count'' programs this year,
while five TV sitcoms are featuring single dads. And now, just as the Pill
gave women power over their bodies at the start of the feminist movement,
Viagra is promising new potency for men.
Masculinism ranges from outright misogyny to earnest introspection. Between
those extremes, it suggests a growing frustration among American men.
''We've had the first wave, which was feminism, and it's by no means over,
but it's on its way,'' says William Pollack, co-founder of the
three-year-old Center for Men at Harvard's McLean Hospital in Belmont. ''For
men, it's a beginning. Men are trying to catch up. If we see all these
things through separate lenses, they look like a bunch of grains of sand. If
we step back, we see that they've all grown out of massive economic and
social changes. They're responses to the changes in women, and they are the
second wave of the revolution. Some may want to move back, not forward, but
this is going to make a major shift.''
To sense the anxiety among men today is only to watch the sparks flying
around discussions of the Clinton sex scandals, or the Boston lawyer who
sued to get into a women-only gym. In the most cynical version of the old
question, men ask: What do women want - equal opportunity or special status?
And what, exactly, are the appropriate rules of engagement in the office
these days?
Consider the creatures of men's imaginations. In the early days of feminism,
a man created ''The Mary Tyler Moore Show,'' making audiences cheer as the
single woman with spunk trumped gruff Lou Grant.
Today, a man creates single lawyer Ally McBeal. In a skirt that might be
mistaken for a rubber band, she beguiles judges and clients, tongues the
froth of her caffe latte from her lips. She slaps a sexual harassment suit
on her boss. And wins.
In a bittersweet way, men's changing perception of the opposite sex suggests
how many gains women have made.
When Mary Richards went to work at WJM-TV in 1970, women made up only 37
percent of the workforce, and earned 62 cents for every dollar a man made.
They held 19 percent of all management positions, while men were the chief
breadwinners in 70 percent of families. Now, women make up 46 percent of the
workforce and 44 percent of the nation's management positions. They earn 75
cents to a man's dollar, and dual-income families are the norm. The
percentage of women earning more than their husbands has risen to 23 from
less than 5 in 1970.
Of course, by almost any statistical measure, men are still ahead of women.
Ally McBeal may work in a tony law firm, but real-life women lawyers earn
$300 less per week than their male counterparts. In all jobs, the wage gap
has widened: Women's 75 cents to a man's dollar is down from 77 cents in
1993. The report of the federal Glass Ceiling Commission in 1995 found that
men held 95 percent of management positions in the Fortune 500.
But if men still hold the power, masculinism takes root in a feeling that
they are increasingly powerless. Men aren't the sole breadwinners anymore,
so what are they supposed to be? While feminism created options for women in
the workplace, institutions and stereotypes often make it hard for men to
make a comparable move into the family. Today, everything men were raised to
be often inspires collective distaste: Protecting is now patronizing, power
is oppressive, while being strong and silent risks being accused, in the
''Venus-Mars'' lexicon, of ''withdrawing into the cave.''
''So much has changed in the last 30 years, and for a lot of men who were
going about their lives not paying attention to the women's movement, they
feel like they've just woken up in the middle of the movie,'' says Rob Okun,
associate director of the Men's Resource Center, which offers counseling in
Amherst. ''The landscape that the conventional man is walking on has
completely changed.''
Pollack, of the Center for Men, talks about creating the new model for men
as ''Eve's Rib,'' with its genesis in the changes wrought by women.
''Masculinity is in crisis,'' he says. ''Men don't know what it is to be a
man. Is it the old traditional provider role, the new sensitive role, or
something in between?''
The organizers
Like any group bidding for civil rights, men are organizing.
Whatever men's movement there was in the late '60s and early '70s stood
shoulder to shoulder with the sisterhood. Consciousness-raising groups
declared men's support for feminism, eager to atone for male privilege.
Today, the men's movement has fractured into several factions. But what they
all share is attention to the uncertainty over men's roles.
Movements with conservative and religious overtones, like Promise Keepers
and the Million Man March, encourage men to reassert their traditional roles
as providers and caretakers. Followers of Robert Bly, whose arrival at the
top of the bestseller list in the early '90s was the initial sign of the
rebirth of the popular men's movement, avow that feminism has so suppressed
their masculine energy that men must retreat to the woods to regain it. Then
there are the men's rights groups, and at the other end of the spectrum, the
profeminist groups - still standing in solidarity with women.
The tone differs, but their arguments are largely the same.
Yes, society restricted women for years, but the same values have bound men
to their roles as aggressors. To women's arguments about glass ceilings and
wage gaps, men say that they have higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse,
and stress-related diseases. Men are more likely to drop out of college, and
- the ultimate ceiling - they die seven years younger.
With this as its frame of reference, men's studies seeks equal time
alongside women's studies.
The number of programs has risen more than tenfold since 1984. While they
prompt almost obligatory snickers in women's studies departments and
feminist circles generally, men's studies is gaining in legitimacy. In the
Ivy League, the University of Pennsylvania has a program. The universities
of Southern California and Minnesota boast men's studies pioneers on their
faculties. Hobart College, in Geneva, N.Y., a year ago became the first
college to offer a major in men's studies. And the College of St. John in
Collegeville, Minn., offers not merely men's studies courses, but a men's
lecture series, men's groups, a black men's think tank, and alumni men's
studies trips.
But unlike women's studies, which aimed mostly to establish the
contributions of women in canons dominated by men, men's studies look more
at the question long asked by women: Why are men the way they are?
Curriculums examine ideals for men through the ages - John Wayne to Alan
Alda - and how culture reflects the shifting models of manhood and men's
struggles. ''Death of a Salesman'' has become a primer, with its portrait of
father-son relationships, a man struggling to maintain his dignity in the
face of economic struggle. Many students also read Tim O'Brien's Vietnam
chronicle, ''The Things They Carried, '' and David Mamet's study of
workplace machismo, ''Glengarry Glen Ross. ''
At Hobart, students watch ''Deliverance'' and interview their fathers and
grandfathers about their definitions of manhood and how they've changed;
they write term papers answering the question, ''What's difficult about
being a man?''
''When you're the norm, you're not aware that you have a particularity, that
you're a male and not just a human being,'' said Stephen Boyd, a professor
at Wake Forest University and head of the men's studies association. ''We're
looking at our particularity, the same way the women's movement, civil
rights, the gay liberation movement, looked at theirs. It's like that old
proverb: The fish are the last to be aware of the water.''
Men to boys
The younger brother to men's studies, research on boys, is also going
through a growth spurt, with the publication in two years of four books
aspiring to be the Hamlet counterpart to the bestselling chronicle of girls'
problems, ''Reviving Ophelia. ''
When the American Association of University Women produced ''How Schools
Shortchange Girls'' in 1992, schools began training teachers to give girls
the attention they weren't getting and lift their math and science skills to
the level of boys. With a report a year later about sexual harassment in
schools, they focused on making hallways less hostile.
But now more recent research suggests that boys fall farther behind girls in
reading and writing than girls do in math and science. Michael Gurian's
''The Wonder of Boys'' notes how boys are twice as likely as girls to take
Ritalin or be in special classes for bad behavior. Girls earn more A's, boys
drop out of high school more often. Pollack's upcoming ''Real Boys, '' based
on research at the private Belmont Hill School, notes that boys are less
likely to attend college. And Carol Gilligan, the Harvard professor whose
research gave voice to young girls in the '80s, now lectures on the
emotional problems of boys in elementary school, and heads a research
project on boys.
Leaders in both men's and boys' studies insist they are profeminist, as much
as they are ''male positive.'' But those involved also note a conservative,
even reactionary, shift in men's organizations.
While this year's conference of the American Men's Studies Association
included papers on women as mentors for men, it also included one arguing
that if women want true equality, they should agree to combat duty.
''The political climate is such that people don't want to be perceived as
antiwomen,'' said Bret Burkholder, a counselor at Pierce College in Tacoma,
Wash., who was at the Youngstown conference to present a paper entitled
''The Endangered Species: Male College Students at Risk.'' ''So who's really
oppressed? Who's really being told to shut up and stay in their place? A lot
of men are starting to say, `Hey, this has not been the cakewalk of male
privilege.'''
Men's rights
The line between men's studies and men's rights blurs more and more. Warren
Farrell, whom Gloria Steinem praised when he wrote ''The Liberated Man'' in
1975, has now become the sage of the men's rights movement with books like
''The Myth of Male Power,'' written after his conversion to the belief that
as feminism has liberated women it has oppressed men.
And in the global hothouse of the Internet, the anger caucus of the men's
movement is thriving. Rod Van Mechelen grins out from the Backlash.com
publisher's page, basking in his notoriety as the Steinem of the men's
movement. Fired from Microsoft after a charge of sexual harassment, his
magazine includes a table of contents to his book, ''What Every Man Should
Know About Feminist Issues'' (''Initiating Relationships: When Will Women
Share Responsibility?'' and ''Sexual Revolution: Few Men Have Benefited.'')
MenWeb includes interviews with Farrell and Christina Hoff Sommers, the
Clark University professor and author of ''Who Stole Feminism?, '' as well
as jubilant reviews of books by women critical of feminism.
While adherents of men's studies insist they are not out to create another
class of victim, most men's rights groups apparently have no such worry. A
sampling of their grievances: Men are awarded custody of their children in
only a fraction of divorce cases, prostate cancer research gets six times
less funding than breast cancer research, men get longer prison terms than
women do for similar offenses.
Their activism reaches beyond the computer screen. Arguing that men have
become expendable, a mere extra paycheck to women, a group of men held a
wallet burning in San Francisco earlier this year. Men's advocates in New
Hampshire, among other states, passed legislation establishing a commission
on the status of men. The National Coalition of Free Men sponsored a Boy's
Career Day in November at Lucent Technologies in Chicago. Sponsored by
Lumen, the company's male advocacy group, the event was modeled on the
five-year-old Take Our Daughters to Work Day at corporations nationwide.
In the world of men's rights, a slight quickly becomes bias. And no slight
seems too inconsequential: In Western Massachusetts, a group of men has
started a write-in campaign taking issue with Dunkin' Donuts television ads
that show no men, threatening a boycott if upcoming commercials do not
feature men ''in a highly positive way.''
Men's rights groups insist they don't represent a backlash, just a move to
get more air time for men. It's a matter of equality, they say, albeit a
hostile brand of equality. ''Our purpose is to honor men and make their
issues known,'' blares the Men's Rights Web page. ''To make media heed
masculinism. To pressure politicians to listen to half the world. To show
feminists to be the sexists they are ... . We are proud to be M-E-N.''
Male majority
Certainly, the vast majority of men aren't attending conferences tracing the
roots of modern masculinity or scrolling Internet pages debunking
''femigogue'' tenets. Most would probably rather be playing golf.
But in conversations with men and psychologists who work with them, it
becomes clear that masculinism reflects the angst among average men trying
to make sense of their place in a postfeminist world. As feminism has
matured and come to mean different things to different women, men still tend
to look for one definition of what it all means for them.
''Women have spent a lot of time preparing for a world that's different. Men
have not done that,'' says Michael Kimmel, author of ''Manhood in America''
and a leader in men's studies. ''The models keep shifting. You have a lot of
men groping toward something else. But we don't know what we want to be.''
In many cases, men feel they've been asked to change, yet prevented from
doing so. Nowhere has this resonated so much as with fatherhood.
While mothers have enlightened or shamed many companies into offering a ''
mommy track'' of flex time, fathers complain there is a stigma associated
with their taking advantage of similar programs.
''Companies say, sure, take time off. You realize, of course, that you'll
never make partner,'' Kimmel says. ''That's the daddy track.''
Leave for new fathers is often what Kimmel calls a ''don't ask, don't tell
paternity policy'': After the child arrives, fathers inform their company
they intend to be sick for the length of their allowed sick leave, then take
their vacation time.
Out of sentiments like this come efforts like the National Fatherhood
Initiative, which has attracted a range of political supporters, from Vice
President Al Gore to House Speaker Newt Gingrich. States like Massachusetts
are following suit with commissions on fatherhood. Stay-at-home fathers, in
a more quiet way the most radical of the changing men, commiserate in
newsletters and offer tips on how to change diapers and make feeding time
less frenzied.
Doubtless, many young mothers would have loved such networks of support. But
the new dads argue that mothers already had them, in playgroups or on
playgrounds, where many fathers say women presume they either have the day
off, or are there looking for children to molest.
''People will say, `Do you work? ' And when I tell them I take care of him,
they say, `Yes, but you have a job, right?''' says Nat Heffernan, a
Lexington father, at a stay-at-home dads' play group in Burlington. He
dashes across the room to block his one-year-old son, Liam, from climbing
the stairs, then retrieves Liam's blocks from a three-year-old playmate.
''They call me `Mr. Mom,' but I don't like that term, because it implies I'm
bumbling, like I'm just standing in.''
Armageddon?
So what do men want? And can't we all just get along?
Those who study or counsel men look at the gender skirmishes and the gender
divide in polls over issues like the Clinton sex scandals as signs that men
are becoming more reactionary, that men and women are moving farther apart.
Pollack warns that the current trend will escalate into ''gender
Armageddon'' if left unchecked, with men and women on separate ramparts,
each suspecting the other of sexism, men determined to reestablish the old
hierarchy. ''You can't find a word that's too strong,'' he says.
Kimmel suggests the genders can come together on parenthood issues, to make
the workplace friendlier to fathers and mothers. Pollack says what's needed
is gender empathy, each sex making a concerted effort to understand the
other's perspective and experience.
''Women need to acknowledge that most men aren't power-hungry, rapacious
bastards, and men need to understand how women have felt controlled and
disempowered, and how they are sensitive, perhaps hypersensitive, because
they have been struggling for equality,'' he says.
Ultimately, men and women need to realize they have more in common than
they're now admitting.
''Crises aren't always bad,'' Pollack adds. ''It's how we cope with them. It
could be the start of something.''
This story ran on page A01 of the Boston Globe on 05/17/98.
© Copyright 1998 Globe Newspaper Company.
© Copyright 1998 Globe Newspaper Company
Extending our newspaper services to the web Return to the home page
of The Globe Online
--
Stephen R. Gilman Check out my stupid videos at
e-mail: medi...@ncf.ca www.stupiditv.com!
Darwin was a Christian too.
Michael Snyder
Stephen Gilman wrote:
>
> Men on the Verge
> By Kate Zernike, Globe Staff, 05/17/98
>
> OUNGSTOWN, Ohio - Three decades after the dawn of feminism forever changed
> the American workplace, home and mores, the second wave of the gender
> revolution is building.
>
> This time it's men, fighting back against the broad brush of a women's
> movement they complain too often paints all men as behaving badly, all dads
> as deadbeats, one that has made male a four-letter word. While sexual
> harassment claims and sniping between the sexes escalate, so do confusion
> and exasperation. As one Internet site promoting men's rights moans, ''Can't
> we all just get along? Can't we all just get a date?''
>
> The Million Man March and Promise Keepers mobbing the Mall in Washington
> were merely the most public recent displays of the new male agitation. Less
> visibly, it is in commissions on the status of men in several states, in the
> emerging power of the divorced fathers' movement after years on the fringes,
> and in 2 million stay-at-home dads networking to face down the suspicious
> stares of mothers on playgrounds.
>
> What some are calling ''masculinism''
Masculism. The majority of men's rights proponents call it Masculism,
not masculinism.
> is also on scores of Web sites like
> Backlash.com, tracking anti-male sexism. And it is here in this faded
> Midwestern factory town, where in March, young academics in stiff tweed
> jackets nodded intently as scholars at a conference of the American Men's
> Studies Association presented papers on the wounds of boyhood and how men
> are stereotyped in the pages of Cosmopolitan.
What -- no mention of "Ms"?
> At least 500 colleges nationwide now offer courses on men and masculinity.
OK, I was unaware of that. Points for revealing it, if it's true.
I would like more details, though, if anyone has them...
> And after years of worrying about how schools shortchange girls, a
> burgeoning body of research argues that the ones suffering the most are
> boys.
Indeed.
> The government is taking note of men's struggles, and so is Hollywood.
> Congress is considering $2 billion for ''Fathers Count'' programs this year,
Good, but not good enough. Giving money to men for being fathers is
a start, but where they really need money is for being victims, of
DV and of false DV propaganda. Give us that money to fight feminist
propaganda, and we MIGHT start to do some good with it.
> while five TV sitcoms are featuring single dads. And now, just as the Pill
> gave women power over their bodies at the start of the feminist movement,
> Viagra is promising new potency for men.
Er, weak analogy, but we'll chalk it up to journalistic license.
>
> Masculinism ranges from outright misogyny to earnest introspection. Between
> those extremes, it suggests a growing frustration among American men.
Heh -- backhanded compliment. No support for the claim that masculism
includes outright misogyny, and no balancing comment to the effect that
feminism includes outright misandry.
> ''We've had the first wave, which was feminism, and it's by no means over,
> but it's on its way,'' says William Pollack, co-founder of the
> three-year-old Center for Men at Harvard's McLean Hospital in Belmont. ''For
> men, it's a beginning. Men are trying to catch up. If we see all these
> things through separate lenses, they look like a bunch of grains of sand. If
> we step back, we see that they've all grown out of massive economic and
> social changes. They're responses to the changes in women, and they are the
> second wave of the revolution. Some may want to move back, not forward, but
> this is going to make a major shift.''
>
> To sense the anxiety among men today is only to watch the sparks flying
> around discussions of the Clinton sex scandals, or the Boston lawyer who
> sued to get into a women-only gym. In the most cynical version of the old
> question, men ask: What do women want - equal opportunity or special status?
> And what, exactly, are the appropriate rules of engagement in the office
> these days?
>
> Consider the creatures of men's imaginations. In the early days of feminism,
> a man created ''The Mary Tyler Moore Show,'' making audiences cheer as the
> single woman with spunk trumped gruff Lou Grant.
Perpetuating the myth that men and men alone control hollywood and TV...
> Today, a man creates single lawyer Ally McBeal. In a skirt that might be
> mistaken for a rubber band, she beguiles judges and clients, tongues the
> froth of her caffe latte from her lips. She slaps a sexual harassment suit
> on her boss. And wins.
>
> In a bittersweet way, men's changing perception of the opposite sex suggests
> how many gains women have made.
Nothing bittersweet about it, unles you're a woman who enjoys
seeing women on top...
> When Mary Richards went to work at WJM-TV in 1970, women made up only 37
> percent of the workforce, and earned 62 cents for every dollar a man made.
Only if you use blatantly misleading statistical methods.
> They held 19 percent of all management positions, while men were the chief
> breadwinners in 70 percent of families. Now, women make up 46 percent of the
> workforce and 44 percent of the nation's management positions. They earn 75
> cents to a man's dollar,
A lie. Or to put it more gently, a blatantly misleading statistic.
Even Marg has admitted that this is a feminist lie.
> and dual-income families are the norm. The
> percentage of women earning more than their husbands has risen to 23 from
> less than 5 in 1970.
>
> Of course, by almost any statistical measure, men are still ahead of women.
And there we have it. The big lie. Make a few concessions, and then
throw this turd into the punch bowl. By **WHAT** statistical measures
are men ahead of women? This is the essence of feminism right here,
folks. Make an outrageous claim such as "by almost any statistical
measure, men are still ahead of women", and then move on without saying
boo to back it up.
> Ally McBeal may work in a tony law firm, but real-life women lawyers earn
> $300 less per week than their male counterparts.
A lie. When you compare lawyers with the same credentials,
qualifications,
and experience, women earn within ONE PERCENT of what men earn. The
only
way the author could have possibly come up with the above number is by
comparing ALL women lawyers with ALL men lawyers (which, coincidentally
enough, is also the only way she could have come up with the earlier
75 cents to the dollar figure). Of course the author just got done
pointing out that 30 years ago there were almost no women lawyers, so
how surprising is it that today there are almost no women lawyers who
have 30 or more years experience?
> In all jobs, the wage gap
> has widened: Women's 75 cents to a man's dollar is down from 77 cents in
> 1993.
I would love to see the source for this, but in the context of the
similar lies presented here I can be pretty sure this is a lie also.
> The report of the federal Glass Ceiling Commission in 1995 found that
> men held 95 percent of management positions in the Fortune 500.
Since the Glass Ceiling is a lie, it is safe to assume that
any statement produced by a "federal Glass Ceiling Commission"
is a lie.
> But if men still hold the power, masculinism takes root in a feeling that
> they are increasingly powerless.
Men do not "still hold the power", and in fact they never did.
So the article has now devolved to the point where its basic
premise is a lie. This is another feminist appology. The author's
basic point is that men are whining because they no longer hold
all the power.
> Men aren't the sole breadwinners anymore,
> so what are they supposed to be? While feminism created options for women in
> the workplace, institutions and stereotypes often make it hard for men to
> make a comparable move into the family. Today, everything men were raised to
> be often inspires collective distaste: Protecting is now patronizing, power
> is oppressive, while being strong and silent risks being accused, in the
> ''Venus-Mars'' lexicon, of ''withdrawing into the cave.''
Hmm... and then she turns around and makes a half-way-decent point.
Difficult to tell where this author is coming from. Perhaps her
intentions are good, but she just can't see over the top of her
feminist brainwashing.
> ''So much has changed in the last 30 years, and for a lot of men who were
> going about their lives not paying attention to the women's movement, they
> feel like they've just woken up in the middle of the movie,'' says Rob Okun,
> associate director of the Men's Resource Center, which offers counseling in
> Amherst. ''The landscape that the conventional man is walking on has
> completely changed.''
>
> Pollack, of the Center for Men, talks about creating the new model for men
> as ''Eve's Rib,'' with its genesis in the changes wrought by women.
>
> ''Masculinity is in crisis,'' he says. ''Men don't know what it is to be a
> man. Is it the old traditional provider role, the new sensitive role, or
> something in between?''
How about the "out in the cold" role?
> The organizers
>
> Like any group bidding for civil rights, men are organizing.
>
> Whatever men's movement there was in the late '60s and early '70s stood
> shoulder to shoulder with the sisterhood. Consciousness-raising groups
> declared men's support for feminism, eager to atone for male privilege.
>
> Today, the men's movement has fractured into several factions. But what they
> all share is attention to the uncertainty over men's roles.
>
> Movements with conservative and religious overtones, like Promise Keepers
> and the Million Man March, encourage men to reassert their traditional roles
> as providers and caretakers. Followers of Robert Bly, whose arrival at the
> top of the bestseller list in the early '90s was the initial sign of the
> rebirth of the popular men's movement, avow that feminism has so suppressed
> their masculine energy that men must retreat to the woods to regain it. Then
> there are the men's rights groups, and at the other end of the spectrum, the
> profeminist groups - still standing in solidarity with women.
Solidarity would not be the word I would use. Supplication, perhaps...
In no wise to female feminists regard male ones as equals.
> The tone differs, but their arguments are largely the same.
>
> Yes, society restricted women for years, but the same values have bound men
> to their roles as aggressors. To women's arguments about glass ceilings and
> wage gaps, men say that they have higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse,
> and stress-related diseases.
ALL diseases. And all causes of death, including suicide.
> Men are more likely to drop out of college,
And high school...
> and - the ultimate ceiling - they die seven years younger.
And occupy the vast majority of jail cells and sidewalk sleeping
situations.
> With this as its frame of reference, men's studies seeks equal time
> alongside women's studies.
And I'm glad there are 500 mens studies COURSES in american colleges,
but this is a long way from equal time with all the thousands of
women's studies DEPARTMENTS...
> The number of programs has risen more than tenfold since 1984. While they
> prompt almost obligatory snickers in women's studies departments and
> feminist circles generally, men's studies is gaining in legitimacy. In the
> Ivy League, the University of Pennsylvania has a program. The universities
> of Southern California and Minnesota boast men's studies pioneers on their
> faculties. Hobart College, in Geneva, N.Y., a year ago became the first
> college to offer a major in men's studies. And the College of St. John in
> Collegeville, Minn., offers not merely men's studies courses, but a men's
> lecture series, men's groups, a black men's think tank, and alumni men's
> studies trips.
>
> But unlike women's studies, which aimed mostly to establish the
> contributions of women in canons dominated by men, men's studies look more
> at the question long asked by women: Why are men the way they are?
Uh-oh... I don't like the sound of that. It suggests "what's wrong
with men" rather than "what's wrong with what HAPPENS to men?"
> Curriculums examine ideals for men through the ages - John Wayne to Alan
> Alda - and how culture reflects the shifting models of manhood and men's
> struggles. ''Death of a Salesman'' has become a primer, with its portrait of
> father-son relationships, a man struggling to maintain his dignity in the
> face of economic struggle. Many students also read Tim O'Brien's Vietnam
> chronicle, ''The Things They Carried, '' and David Mamet's study of
> workplace machismo, ''Glengarry Glen Ross. ''
Yep. This is all about what men do, not what is done TO men.
> At Hobart, students watch ''Deliverance'' and interview their fathers and
> grandfathers about their definitions of manhood and how they've changed;
> they write term papers answering the question, ''What's difficult about
> being a man?''
Yep. Entirely the wrong focus. This is the feminist version of men's
studies.
>
> ''When you're the norm, you're not aware that you have a particularity, that
> you're a male and not just a human being,'' said Stephen Boyd, a professor
Based on the false (feminist) premise that being male is the norm...
> at Wake Forest University and head of the men's studies association. ''We're
> looking at our particularity, the same way the women's movement, civil
> rights, the gay liberation movement, looked at theirs. It's like that old
> proverb: The fish are the last to be aware of the water.''
Right. Now we're the fish -- a moment ago we were the bicycle.
Feminist switcheroo.
> Men to boys
>
> The younger brother to men's studies, research on boys, is also going
> through a growth spurt, with the publication in two years of four books
> aspiring to be the Hamlet counterpart to the bestselling chronicle of girls'
> problems, ''Reviving Ophelia. ''
>
> When the American Association of University Women produced ''How Schools
> Shortchange Girls'' in 1992, schools began training teachers to give girls
> the attention they weren't getting and lift their math and science skills to
> the level of boys. With a report a year later about sexual harassment in
> schools, they focused on making hallways less hostile.
>
> But now more recent research suggests that boys fall farther behind girls in
> reading and writing than girls do in math and science. Michael Gurian's
> ''The Wonder of Boys'' notes how boys are twice as likely as girls to take
> Ritalin or be in special classes for bad behavior. Girls earn more A's, boys
> drop out of high school more often. Pollack's upcoming ''Real Boys, '' based
> on research at the private Belmont Hill School, notes that boys are less
> likely to attend college. And Carol Gilligan, the Harvard professor whose
> research gave voice to young girls in the '80s, now lectures on the
> emotional problems of boys in elementary school, and heads a research
> project on boys.
Hmmm... mostly good, but the last sentense about Carol Gilligan
scares the HELL out of me.
> Leaders in both men's and boys' studies insist they are profeminist,
Right. Stop right there. There's the problem.
> as much
> as they are ''male positive.'' But those involved also note a conservative,
> even reactionary, shift in men's organizations.
>
> While this year's conference of the American Men's Studies Association
> included papers on women as mentors for men, it also included one arguing
> that if women want true equality, they should agree to combat duty.
And that's "conservative, even reactionary"?
What would it be if I suggested they should register for the draft?
Fascist?
> ''The political climate is such that people don't want to be perceived as
> antiwomen,''
Boy, THAT'S for sure...
> said Bret Burkholder, a counselor at Pierce College in Tacoma,
> Wash., who was at the Youngstown conference to present a paper entitled
> ''The Endangered Species: Male College Students at Risk.'' ''So who's really
> oppressed? Who's really being told to shut up and stay in their place? A lot
> of men are starting to say, `Hey, this has not been the cakewalk of male
> privilege.'''
It hasn't been a cakewalk AND it hasn't been male priveledge.
My buds. Go to www.ncncfm.8m.comm to learn more about this group.
> Men's advocates in New
> Hampshire, among other states, passed legislation establishing a commission
> on the status of men. The National Coalition of Free Men sponsored a Boy's
> Career Day in November at Lucent Technologies in Chicago. Sponsored by
> Lumen, the company's male advocacy group,
Wow, I did not know that Lucent had a "male advocacy group".
OK, that's two worthwhile bits of info that this article has provided.
> the event was modeled on the
> five-year-old Take Our Daughters to Work Day at corporations nationwide.
>
> In the world of men's rights, a slight quickly becomes bias.
Wow! What a slap! How about in the world of women's rights, honey?
There, a slight can get a man FIRED! From a tenured professorship,
no less.
> And no slight
> seems too inconsequential: In Western Massachusetts, a group of men has
> started a write-in campaign taking issue with Dunkin' Donuts television ads
> that show no men, threatening a boycott if upcoming commercials do not
> feature men ''in a highly positive way.''
>
> Men's rights groups insist they don't represent a backlash, just a move to
> get more air time for men.
Some of us are quite open about the fact that we represent a backlash.
> It's a matter of equality, they say, albeit a
> hostile brand of equality. ''Our purpose is to honor men and make their
> issues known,'' blares the Men's Rights Web page.
"blares"???
> ''To make media heed
> masculinism. To pressure politicians to listen to half the world. To show
> feminists to be the sexists they are ... . We are proud to be M-E-N.''
>
> Male majority
>
> Certainly, the vast majority of men aren't attending conferences tracing the
> roots of modern masculinity or scrolling Internet pages debunking
> ''femigogue'' tenets. Most would probably rather be playing golf.
Hell, most WOMEN would rather be playing golf. Even if they hate golf.
> But in conversations with men and psychologists who work with them, it
> becomes clear that masculinism reflects the angst among average men trying
> to make sense of their place in a postfeminist world.
False supposition. We do not live in a postfeminist world.
Though hopefully we will in our lifetimes...
> As feminism has
> matured and come to mean different things to different women, men still tend
> to look for one definition of what it all means for them.
Yeah -- oppression.
>
> ''Women have spent a lot of time preparing for a world that's different. Men
> have not done that,'' says Michael Kimmel, author of ''Manhood in America''
> and a leader in men's studies. ''The models keep shifting. You have a lot of
> men groping toward something else. But we don't know what we want to be.''
This is bullshit. Men have spent a lot of time MAKING a world that's
different -- FOR WOMEN. What no one has gotten around to doing yet
is making the world different (better) for men too. The author
studiously avoids noticing that the legislators who passed all these
pro-female laws were mostly men, that the college administrators
who created all those women's studies departments were mostly men...
> In many cases, men feel they've been asked to change, yet prevented from
> doing so. Nowhere has this resonated so much as with fatherhood.
No -- we've been asked to change to benefit women, while nobody
(men or women) has been asked to change to benefit men.
> While mothers have enlightened or shamed many companies into offering a ''
> mommy track'' of flex time, fathers complain there is a stigma associated
> with their taking advantage of similar programs.
Stigma hell -- they're mostly not ALLOWED to take advantage of similar
programs. There mostely AREN"T any similar programs.
> ''Companies say, sure, take time off. You realize, of course, that you'll
> never make partner,'' Kimmel says. ''That's the daddy track.''
That's the BEST CASE daddy track. Oh, by the way, you know Karen down
in Steno? She'll be a partner when you come back...
> Leave for new fathers is often what Kimmel calls a ''don't ask, don't tell
> paternity policy'': After the child arrives, fathers inform their company
> they intend to be sick for the length of their allowed sick leave, then take
> their vacation time.
And then stress out trying to make up the missed work, without
taking any actual vacation...
> Out of sentiments like this come efforts like the National Fatherhood
> Initiative, which has attracted a range of political supporters, from Vice
> President Al Gore to House Speaker Newt Gingrich. States like Massachusetts
> are following suit with commissions on fatherhood. Stay-at-home fathers, in
> a more quiet way the most radical of the changing men, commiserate in
> newsletters and offer tips on how to change diapers and make feeding time
> less frenzied.
Funny how being fathers is one of the only roles that can
earn men any slack. Oh for the day when men are seen as
whole individuals and entitled to the same consideration as
women WITHOUT being fathers.
> Doubtless, many young mothers would have loved such networks of support.
Had 'em...
> But
> the new dads argue that mothers already had them, in playgroups or on
> playgrounds, where many fathers say women presume they either have the day
> off, or are there looking for children to molest.
>
> ''People will say, `Do you work? ' And when I tell them I take care of him,
> they say, `Yes, but you have a job, right?''' says Nat Heffernan, a
> Lexington father, at a stay-at-home dads' play group in Burlington. He
> dashes across the room to block his one-year-old son, Liam, from climbing
> the stairs, then retrieves Liam's blocks from a three-year-old playmate.
> ''They call me `Mr. Mom,' but I don't like that term, because it implies I'm
> bumbling, like I'm just standing in.''
Like you're doing a female job. Just as offensive as calling a female
lawyer "Mrs. Lawyer".
> Armageddon?
>
> So what do men want? And can't we all just get along?
>
> Those who study or counsel men look at the gender skirmishes and the gender
> divide in polls over issues like the Clinton sex scandals as signs that men
> are becoming more reactionary, that men and women are moving farther apart.
>
> Pollack warns that the current trend will escalate into ''gender
> Armageddon'' if left unchecked, with men and women on separate ramparts,
> each suspecting the other of sexism, men determined to reestablish the old
> hierarchy. ''You can't find a word that's too strong,'' he says.
Why is it that everyone who protests against the new injustice
is accused of wanting to reistablish the old hierarchy?
> Kimmel suggests the genders can come together on parenthood issues, to make
> the workplace friendlier to fathers and mothers. Pollack says what's needed
> is gender empathy, each sex making a concerted effort to understand the
> other's perspective and experience.
Except that men have already been doing that for 30-plus years...
What's REALLY needed is for women to catch up, to do the equivalent
of 30 years' worth of introspection about men's perspective and
experience.
> ''Women need to acknowledge that most men aren't power-hungry, rapacious
> bastards, and men need to understand how women have felt controlled and
> disempowered, and how they are sensitive, perhaps hypersensitive, because
> they have been struggling for equality,'' he says.
Because they've been being told by the media that they
have had to struggle for equality. Because everyone has
been telling them that they're oppressed.
> Ultimately, men and women need to realize they have more in common than
> they're now admitting.
>
> ''Crises aren't always bad,'' Pollack adds. ''It's how we cope with them. It
> could be the start of something.''
>
> This story ran on page A01 of the Boston Globe on 05/17/98.
Aha -- that explains the "5 years of TODTWD" comment.
I knew it had been longer than 5 years...
Michael Snyder
>
> Stephen Gilman wrote:
>
> >Men on the Verge
> >By Kate Zernike, Globe Staff, 05/17/98
>
> >workforce and 44 percent of the nation's management positions. They earn
> >75 cents to a man's dollar,
>
> that old lie for ourselves.
Correct. The author repeats this lie again and again in this piece.
> >The report of the federal Glass Ceiling Commission in 1995 found that
> >men held 95 percent of management positions in the Fortune 500.
>
> That's because men work harder and longer. They tend to be first into work
> and last out, with fewer days off for illness. But she doesn't mention that.
Correct. It's also because women have not been in the management
pipeline
as long as men have, and because women tend to be more passive, and you
have to promote yourself and push for upper mananagement positions.
They aren't just handed to you.
> >The tone differs, but their arguments are largely the same.
>
> >Yes, society restricted women for years, but the same values have bound
> >men to their roles as aggressors.
>
> Most men disagree with the concept that women were "restricted" by men.
> Fifty years ago men had the worst jobs, the shortest lifespan, the lowest
> health care, the longest prison sentences and no seats on the lifeboats.
You're correct, Ian, except that I would disagree with you in your
"most men" statement. Unfortunately, I think that most men are
in fact deceived by feminism. Maybe it's a function of where I live
(San Francisco Bay area) as opposed to where you live...
> The only thing that's changed for the better is that men now take a seat
> on the lifeboat, even if it means a female drowning.
I'm not so sure that's changed...
> >The number of programs has risen more than tenfold since 1984. While they
> >prompt almost obligatory snickers in women's studies departments and
> >feminist circles generally, men's studies is gaining in legitimacy.
>
> Looks like an admission that women's studies and feminism are
> interchangeable. Are universities supposed to promote one particular
> political party?
No, and this is probably the only instance in which they do so.
> > In the
> >Ivy League, the University of Pennsylvania has a program. The universities
> >of Southern California and Minnesota boast men's studies pioneers on their
> >faculties. Hobart College, in Geneva, N.Y., a year ago became the first
> >college to offer a major in men's studies. And the College of St. John in
> >Collegeville, Minn., offers not merely men's studies courses, but a men's
> >lecture series, men's groups, a black men's think tank, and alumni men's
> >studies trips.
>
> No *white* men's think tank?
Of course not. That would be racist. <g>
> >Leaders in both men's and boys' studies insist they are profeminist, as
> >much as they are ''male positive.'' But those involved also note a
> >conservative, even reactionary, shift in men's organizations.
>
> These "leaders" in men's and boys' studies are to be avoided. They're just
> another wing of feminism.
Yep.
> >''The political climate is such that people don't want to be perceived as
> >antiwomen,'' said Bret Burkholder, a counselor at Pierce College in Tacoma,
>
> See what I mean? They are "profeminist" and confuse "antiwomen" and "antifeminist".
Yep.
> >And in the global hothouse of the Internet, the anger caucus of the men's
> >movement is thriving.
>
> Anger...
>
> >Rod Van Mechelen grins out from the Backlash.com
>
> Grins out...
>
> >publisher's page, basking in his notoriety as the Steinem of the men's
> >movement. Fired from Microsoft after a charge of sexual harassment, his
>
> Basking... Fired... Sexual harassment...
>
> You can see where this is going, can't you?
>
> We'll not mention that a charge of sexual harassment is just an accusation
> by some female who's having a bad period.
>
> It's not rape or indecent assault because that would have meant police
> involvement and jail. Jail isn't mentioned so it's just another poor soul
> who's lost his job because of feminism.
>
> >MenWeb includes interviews with Farrell and Christina Hoff Sommers, the
> >Clark University professor and author of ''Who Stole Feminism?, '' as well
> >as jubilant reviews of books by women critical of feminism.
>
> Jubilant...
>
> She's got all the key words, this bitch. She knows how to make the innocent
> look guilty.
>
> >In the world of men's rights, a slight quickly becomes bias. And no slight
> >seems too inconsequential:
>
> Now the more direct insults. The poor, little, iddy-biddy men shaming
> tactic.
>
> Never let a female shame you. Once you realise that their opinions are
> worthless you'll stop giving a damn what they say.
>
> >In Western Massachusetts, a group of men has
> >started a write-in campaign taking issue with Dunkin' Donuts television ads
> >that show no men, threatening a boycott if upcoming commercials do not
> >feature men ''in a highly positive way.''
>
> And that's a bad thing?
It's certainly one of the most trivial examples she could have chosen.
There are hundreds of examples of male stereotyping and denigration
in advertising, and many examples of those being successfully challenged
by men's groups.
>
> >Men's rights groups insist they don't represent a backlash, just a move to
> >get more air time for men. It's a matter of equality, they say, albeit a
> >hostile brand of equality.
>
> Hostile equality?
Yeah -- no mention of feminist hostility?
> She's scraping the barrel now but some fools might be swayed.
>
> >''Our purpose is to honor men and make their
> >issues known,'' blares the Men's Rights Web page. ''To make media heed
>
> Blares...
Ian, you're good at this game. You know exactly the
"languaging" to look for.
> >masculinism. To pressure politicians to listen to half the world. To show
> >feminists to be the sexists they are ... . We are proud to be M-E-N.''
> >Certainly, the vast majority of men aren't attending conferences tracing the
> >roots of modern masculinity or scrolling Internet pages debunking
> >''femigogue'' tenets. Most would probably rather be playing golf.
>
> She knows what most men would rather do. Must be the "women's way of
> knowing".
Alas, she's probably right. I've been pretty unsuccessful at getting
the men in my family to even look at any of the pro-male
counter-feminist
stuff I've sent them. The brainwashing runs deep.
> >But in conversations with men and psychologists who work with them, it
> >becomes clear that masculinism reflects the angst among average men trying
> >to make sense of their place in a postfeminist world. As feminism has
> >matured and come to mean different things to different women, men still tend
> >to look for one definition of what it all means for them.
>
> Now we're into the psychobabble. It sounds good and says nothing.
Still making use of "languaging", though. Feminism has "matured", while
men merely struggle with their angst and tend to look for a definition.
> >''Women have spent a lot of time preparing for a world that's different. Men
> >have not done that,'' says Michael Kimmel, author of ''Manhood in America''
> >and a leader in men's studies. ''The models keep shifting. You have a lot of
> >men groping toward something else. But we don't know what we want to be.''
>
> We don't, huh? Who cut off his balls?
You know perfectly well who did that...
> >Pollack warns that the current trend will escalate into ''gender
> >Armageddon'' if left unchecked, with men and women on separate ramparts,
> >each suspecting the other of sexism, men determined to reestablish the old
> >hierarchy. ''You can't find a word that's too strong,'' he says.
>
> About the most sensible thing said so far.
>
> Unfortunately, neither Pollack nor Zernike are prepared to admit what the
> result of Armageddon will be. It won't be pleasant for feminists - or
> anyone who profited from them.
>
> >''Crises aren't always bad,'' Pollack adds. ''It's how we cope with them.
> >It could be the start of something.''
>
> It *will* be the start of something. A freedom that ordinary men have never
> known.
>
> --
> Women want toasted ice. - Arab proverb
> Read: http://www.ukmm.org.uk/
jzs
"Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:3A4E246B...@redhat.com...
> >
> > Today, the men's movement has fractured into several factions. But what
they
> > all share is attention to the uncertainty over men's roles.
> >
> > Movements with conservative and religious overtones, like Promise
Keepers
> > and the Million Man March, encourage men to reassert their traditional
roles
> > as providers and caretakers. Followers of Robert Bly, whose arrival at
the
> > top of the bestseller list in the early '90s was the initial sign of the
> > rebirth of the popular men's movement, avow that feminism has so
suppressed
> > their masculine energy that men must retreat to the woods to regain it.
Then
> > there are the men's rights groups, and at the other end of the spectrum,
the
> > profeminist groups - still standing in solidarity with women.
>
> Solidarity would not be the word I would use. Supplication, perhaps...
> In no wise to female feminists regard male ones as equals.
Not only that, but she intones that to side with the feminists is to stand
in solidarity with ALL women.
Another feminist lie.
>
> > The tone differs, but their arguments are largely the same.
> >
> > Yes, society restricted women for years, but the same values have bound
men
> > to their roles as aggressors. To women's arguments about glass ceilings
and
> > wage gaps, men say that they have higher rates of alcoholism, drug
abuse,
> > and stress-related diseases.
>
> ALL diseases. And all causes of death, including suicide.
>
> > Men are more likely to drop out of college,
>
> And high school...
>
> > and - the ultimate ceiling - they die seven years younger.
>
> And occupy the vast majority of jail cells and sidewalk sleeping
> situations.
>
>
> > With this as its frame of reference, men's studies seeks equal time
> > alongside women's studies.
>
> And I'm glad there are 500 mens studies COURSES in american colleges,
> but this is a long way from equal time with all the thousands of
> women's studies DEPARTMENTS...
Not only that, how many of these courses are run by WOMEN trying to define
men's masculinity for them?
This would be very interesting to find out, maybe even take a course by one
of these women or men to see what
kind of lies/information/conditioning is being broadcast.
>
> > The number of programs has risen more than tenfold since 1984. While
they
> > prompt almost obligatory snickers in women's studies departments and
> > feminist circles generally, men's studies is gaining in legitimacy. In
the
> > Ivy League, the University of Pennsylvania has a program. The
universities
> > of Southern California and Minnesota boast men's studies pioneers on
their
> > faculties. Hobart College, in Geneva, N.Y., a year ago became the first
> > college to offer a major in men's studies. And the College of St. John
in
> > Collegeville, Minn., offers not merely men's studies courses, but a
men's
> > lecture series, men's groups, a black men's think tank, and alumni men's
> > studies trips.
> >
> > But unlike women's studies, which aimed mostly to establish the
> > contributions of women in canons dominated by men, men's studies look
more
> > at the question long asked by women: Why are men the way they are?
>
> Uh-oh... I don't like the sound of that. It suggests "what's wrong
> with men" rather than "what's wrong with what HAPPENS to men?"
>
Like I said, pro-feminists brainwashing. In and of itself the question
seems valid, but for a premise
it's rather weak.
> > Curriculums examine ideals for men through the ages - John Wayne to Alan
> > Alda - and how culture reflects the shifting models of manhood and men's
> > struggles. ''Death of a Salesman'' has become a primer, with its
portrait of
> > father-son relationships, a man struggling to maintain his dignity in
the
> > face of economic struggle. Many students also read Tim O'Brien's Vietnam
> > chronicle, ''The Things They Carried, '' and David Mamet's study of
> > workplace machismo, ''Glengarry Glen Ross. ''
>
> Yep. This is all about what men do, not what is done TO men.
What about examining the current political and social situation of men?
>
> > At Hobart, students watch ''Deliverance'' and interview their fathers
and
> > grandfathers about their definitions of manhood and how they've changed;
> > they write term papers answering the question, ''What's difficult about
> > being a man?''
>
> Yep. Entirely the wrong focus. This is the feminist version of men's
> studies.
>
Of course we all know universities are run by the left leaning feminist
women and men. Give us their "men's studies courses" , only they get to
write the curriculum.
ROFL
Love how she broadcasts this guys personal life, and fails to say wheather
or not he was cleared of the charges.
Sounds like he was innocent if he went to all the trouble of creating this
site.
es interviews with Farrell and Christina Hoff Sommers, the
> > Clark University professor and author of ''Who Stole Feminism?, '' as
well
> > as jubilant reviews of books by women critical of feminism.
> >
> > While adherents of men's studies insist they are not out to create
another
> > class of victim, most men's rights groups apparently have no such worry.
A
> > sampling of their grievances: Men are awarded custody of their children
in
> > only a fraction of divorce cases, prostate cancer research gets six
times
> > less funding than breast cancer research, men get longer prison terms
than
> > women do for similar offenses.
> >
> > Their activism reaches beyond the computer screen. Arguing that men have
> > become expendable, a mere extra paycheck to women, a group of men held a
> > wallet burning in San Francisco earlier this year.
>
> My buds. Go to www.ncncfm.8m.comm to learn more about this group.
>
These guys sound cool.
> > Men's advocates in New
> > Hampshire, among other states, passed legislation establishing a
commission
> > on the status of men. The National Coalition of Free Men sponsored a
Boy's
> > Career Day in November at Lucent Technologies in Chicago. Sponsored by
> > Lumen, the company's male advocacy group,
>
> Wow, I did not know that Lucent had a "male advocacy group".
> OK, that's two worthwhile bits of info that this article has provided.
>
> > the event was modeled on the
> > five-year-old Take Our Daughters to Work Day at corporations nationwide.
> >
> > In the world of men's rights, a slight quickly becomes bias.
>
> Wow! What a slap! How about in the world of women's rights, honey?
> There, a slight can get a man FIRED! From a tenured professorship,
> no less.
>
> > And no slight
> > seems too inconsequential: In Western Massachusetts, a group of men has
> > started a write-in campaign taking issue with Dunkin' Donuts television
ads
> > that show no men, threatening a boycott if upcoming commercials do not
> > feature men ''in a highly positive way.''
Hmm I can't help thinking of the scores of other commercials that represent
men in a bad
way not just an absent way. I mean there are so many other male bashing
commercials that deserve this kind
of attention. Energy focused improperly.
> > Men's rights groups insist they don't represent a backlash, just a move
to
> > get more air time for men.
>
> Some of us are quite open about the fact that we represent a backlash.
>
> > It's a matter of equality, they say, albeit a
> > hostile brand of equality. ''Our purpose is to honor men and make their
> > issues known,'' blares the Men's Rights Web page.
>
>
> "blares"???
>
hostile? Anything that doesn't agree with the feminists and their
collaberators is considered hostile.
Just another way to brand all men as being aggressive. Pathetic.
N.''
> >
> > Male majority
> >
> > Certainly, the vast majority of men aren't attending conferences tracing
the
> > roots of modern masculinity or scrolling Internet pages debunking
> > ''femigogue'' tenets. Most would probably rather be playing golf.
>
> Hell, most WOMEN would rather be playing golf. Even if they hate golf.
>
>
> > But in conversations with men and psychologists who work with them, it
> > becomes clear that masculinism reflects the angst among average men
trying
> > to make sense of their place in a postfeminist world.
>
> False supposition. We do not live in a postfeminist world.
> Though hopefully we will in our lifetimes...
>
> > As feminism has
> > matured and come to mean different things to different women, men still
tend
> > to look for one definition of what it all means for them.
>
> Yeah -- oppression.
ROTFLMAO
>
> >
> > ''Women have spent a lot of time preparing for a world that's different.
Men
> > have not done that,'' says Michael Kimmel, author of ''Manhood in
America''
> > and a leader in men's studies. ''The models keep shifting. You have a
lot of
> > men groping toward something else. But we don't know what we want to
be.''
>
> This is bullshit. Men have spent a lot of time MAKING a world that's
> different -- FOR WOMEN. What no one has gotten around to doing yet
> is making the world different (better) for men too. The author
> studiously avoids noticing that the legislators who passed all these
> pro-female laws were mostly men, that the college administrators
> who created all those women's studies departments were mostly men...
>
Good point.
y cases, men feel they've been asked to change, yet prevented from
> > doing so. Nowhere has this resonated so much as with fatherhood.
>
> No -- we've been asked to change to benefit women, while nobody
> (men or women) has been asked to change to benefit men.
>
But don't you know? Women benefiting benefits men! LOL
LOL!!!!
Yeah ....no mention of C4M....no mention of any of the new ideas, ideals,
equalities.
>
> > Kimmel suggests the genders can come together on parenthood issues, to
make
> > the workplace friendlier to fathers and mothers. Pollack says what's
needed
> > is gender empathy, each sex making a concerted effort to understand the
> > other's perspective and experience.
>
> Except that men have already been doing that for 30-plus years...
> What's REALLY needed is for women to catch up, to do the equivalent
> of 30 years' worth of introspection about men's perspective and
> experience.
>
>
> > ''Women need to acknowledge that most men aren't power-hungry, rapacious
> > bastards, and men need to understand how women have felt controlled and
> > disempowered, and how they are sensitive, perhaps hypersensitive,
because
> > they have been struggling for equality,'' he says.
> Because they've been being told by the media that they
> have had to struggle for equality. Because everyone has
> been telling them that they're oppressed.
>
Yeah they have been conditioned to think that, and any women who doesn't is
a mysoginist.
Parg2000
>From: Ian Newman door...@nym.alias.net
>Date: 12/30/00 1:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <2000123021260...@nym.alias.net>
>
>Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>> The only thing that's changed for the better is that men now take a seat
>>> on the lifeboat, even if it means a female drowning.
>>
>>I'm not so sure that's changed...
{Parg} It seems reasonable that those who are best able to survive help those
least able. Therefore, if I were in a disaster, and unharmed, it would be my
duty to help those disimilarly situated. Me, I'm a swimmer, so if the crises
were a situation where swimming would help, I could swim longer than many
others.
Several years ago a car ferry went down off Sweden. Most of the passengers>were
men, as were most of the survivors. But somebody had a look at the passenger
manifest and the survivor rolls and did a few calculations.
>
>I can't remember the exact figures but something like over 70% of the>men
survived while under 40% of the women made it. In theory, women are better
built to survive immersion in cold water so something was wrong.
>
{Parg} Not necessarily. In order to really know what went wrong, you'd have
to know how many men vs women knew how to swim.
In many countries more men than women have the opportunity to swim.
>It turned out that getting on board the inflatable liferafts was difficult>for
those with weak arms. There was a disincentive for those already on board to
help because the things were unstable, so men were more likely to
>get on board.
>
{Parg} I doubt that. In situations of crises people generally rally, be they
male or female. However, it may be true that those with less arm strength had
a more difficult time.
>Interestingly, almost every one of the few children on board survived and>so
did the women travelling with their husbands.
{Parg} I don't believe you know anything at all about status of married vs.
single women in this dissaster. More patri-posturing.
The highest mortality was>suffered by females travelling alone, mostly
businesswomen, students and
>elderly widows.
>
{Parg} Oh Pshaw! Show me the study. <G>
<cut>
>>
>>Alas, she's probably right. I've been pretty unsuccessful at getting>the men
in my family to even look at any of the pro-male>counter-feminist
>>stuff I've sent them. The brainwashing runs deep.
>
{Parg} No, YOUR bitterness runs deep. The men in your family are probably
more rational than you, and understand the difference between civil rights and
social choices. IOW, those men have the same civil right to survive as the
next person AND they also have the social choice to save someone less able.
>Change your tactics. Bombard them with feminist propaganda. Do it often.
>Tell them all sex is rape and send them the books to prove it. Tell them>the
Judaeo-Christian Patriarchy is a plot to establish white supremacy over
>minorities like women who invented electricity in their husbands' names.
>
{Parg} Well, he can send them what he likes but those who actuall spend time
reading the material understand quite well that Dworkin never DID say all sex
was rape.
>Tell them that they should have their balls cut off in sympathy with
the>female eunuchs. And, if that doesn't work, have yourself adopted.
>
{Parg} That adoption thing might work best; there should be some bitter boy
brigand who would love to take him on.
<G>
John Reinhagen
Hash: SHA1
From the hand of Parg2000:
>It seems reasonable
You are not much of a judge of what's reasonable.
>that those who are best able to survive help those
>least able.
Why should we? Men have NO GREATER DUTY to help women than the reverse, nor
do men have a greater duty to help women than to help men. If I were trying
to save as many people as possible, I'd concentrate on saving people who
were likely to survive.
JCR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://www.gnupg.org/ -- GPLed OpenPGP-compatible encryption
iD8DBQE6TltRscO9RwHeJVURAhHWAJ0WIK9YWCU0OFji60UV5/f7FC0mYQCfYJhG
4Xd1r3gfqCT2xtc/z7S9QP8=
=WHh8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jill
the ether:
>>Subject: Re: Men on the Verge
>>From: Ian Newman door...@nym.alias.net
>>Date: 12/30/00 1:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <2000123021260...@nym.alias.net>
>>
>>Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The only thing that's changed for the better is that men now take a seat
>>>> on the lifeboat, even if it means a female drowning.
>>>
>>>I'm not so sure that's changed...
>
>{Parg} It seems reasonable that those who are best able to survive help those
>least able. Therefore, if I were in a disaster, and unharmed, it would be my
>duty to help those disimilarly situated. Me, I'm a swimmer, so if the crises
>were a situation where swimming would help, I could swim longer than many
>others.
>
>Several years ago a car ferry went down off Sweden. Most of the passengers>were
>men, as were most of the survivors. But somebody had a look at the passenger
>manifest and the survivor rolls and did a few calculations.
>>
>>I can't remember the exact figures but something like over 70% of the>men
>survived while under 40% of the women made it. In theory, women are better
>built to survive immersion in cold water so something was wrong.
>>
>{Parg} Not necessarily. In order to really know what went wrong, you'd have
>to know how many men vs women knew how to swim.
>In many countries more men than women have the opportunity to swim.
ROFL! Are you really inferring that most of those on the Titanic died
of drowning? What a moron you are!
>
>>It turned out that getting on board the inflatable liferafts was difficult>for
>those with weak arms. There was a disincentive for those already on board to
>help because the things were unstable, so men were more likely to
>>get on board.
>>
>{Parg} I doubt that. In situations of crises people generally rally, be they
>male or female. However, it may be true that those with less arm strength had
>a more difficult time.
>
>>Interestingly, almost every one of the few children on board survived and>so
>did the women travelling with their husbands.
>
>{Parg} I don't believe you know anything at all about status of married vs.
>single women in this dissaster. More patri-posturing.
Prove it.
>
> The highest mortality was>suffered by females travelling alone, mostly
>businesswomen, students and
>>elderly widows.
>>
>{Parg} Oh Pshaw! Show me the study. <G>
I'm still waiting for your studies, cites, references, etc. Porky for
dozens of insane claims you've made on soc.men.
Don't you think you should produce your back-"proof" before asking
others to provide proof to you? I sure think it is your turn first.
<snip a bunch of patronizing and erroneous PSYCHO analysis from Porky>
Michael Snyder
Ian Newman wrote:
>
> Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I've been pretty unsuccessful at getting
> >the men in my family to even look at any of the pro-male
> >counter-feminist
> >stuff I've sent them. The brainwashing runs deep.
>
> Change your tactics. Bombard them with feminist propaganda. Do it often.
> Tell them all sex is rape and send them the books to prove it. Tell them
> the Judaeo-Christian Patriarchy is a plot to establish white supremacy over
> minorities like women who invented electricity in their husbands' names.
<chortle> Oh, you're evil. I think they'd suspect something
was up, though.
Michael Snyder
Parg2000 wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: Men on the Verge
> >From: Ian Newman door...@nym.alias.net
> >Date: 12/30/00 1:26 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <2000123021260...@nym.alias.net>
> >
> >Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> The only thing that's changed for the better is that men now take a seat
> >>> on the lifeboat, even if it means a female drowning.
> >>
> >>I'm not so sure that's changed...
>
> {Parg} It seems reasonable that those who are best able to survive help those
> least able.
Unles only a limited number can survive -- then it becomes
a conflict of interest.
> Therefore, if I were in a disaster, and unharmed, it would be my
> duty to help those disimilarly situated. Me, I'm a swimmer, so if the crises
> were a situation where swimming would help, I could swim longer than many
> others.
>
> Several years ago a car ferry went down off Sweden. Most of the passengers>were
> men, as were most of the survivors. But somebody had a look at the passenger
> manifest and the survivor rolls and did a few calculations.
> >
> >I can't remember the exact figures but something like over 70% of the>men
> survived while under 40% of the women made it. In theory, women are better
> built to survive immersion in cold water so something was wrong.
> >
> {Parg} Not necessarily. In order to really know what went wrong, you'd have
> to know how many men vs women knew how to swim.
> In many countries more men than women have the opportunity to swim.
In Sweden? I think not. Are you trying to do the old feminist
switcheroo by pretending we're talking about third world countries
again? I thought you wore that one out when we talked about
Tina Turner and marriage.
>
> >It turned out that getting on board the inflatable liferafts was difficult>for
> those with weak arms. There was a disincentive for those already on board to
> help because the things were unstable, so men were more likely to
> >get on board.
> >
> {Parg} I doubt that. In situations of crises people generally rally, be they
> male or female. However, it may be true that those with less arm strength had
> a more difficult time.
Then why do you "doubt that"? Because you can't understand that
the people in the crowded life raft would be risking their lives
by pulling more people into it?
> >Interestingly, almost every one of the few children on board survived and>so
> did the women travelling with their husbands.
>
> {Parg} I don't believe you know anything at all about status of married vs.
> single women in this dissaster. More patri-posturing.
So you think that it's impossible to collect such data?
If Ian posts his sources, will you patri-lick your own posterior
by way of appology for calling him a liar?
> The highest mortality was>suffered by females travelling alone, mostly
> businesswomen, students and
> >elderly widows.
> >
> {Parg} Oh Pshaw! Show me the study. <G>
And if he does, will you admit you were wrong?
> <cut>
> >>
> >>Alas, she's probably right. I've been pretty unsuccessful at getting>the men
> in my family to even look at any of the pro-male>counter-feminist
> >>stuff I've sent them. The brainwashing runs deep.
> >
> {Parg} No, YOUR bitterness runs deep.
Oh pshaw! So you don't believe Ian can read a published study,
yet you're sure that you know my family better than I do?
Your omniscience would be impressive, were it not all wrong...
> The men in your family are probably
> more rational than you, and understand the difference between civil rights and
> social choices. IOW, those men have the same civil right to survive as the
> next person AND they also have the social choice to save someone less able.
Now you're confusing my mention of my family with Ian's story
of life boats. You'd be funny, were you not such a worm...
> >Change your tactics. Bombard them with feminist propaganda. Do it often.
> >Tell them all sex is rape and send them the books to prove it. Tell them>the
> Judaeo-Christian Patriarchy is a plot to establish white supremacy over
> >minorities like women who invented electricity in their husbands' names.
> >
> {Parg} Well, he can send them what he likes but those who actuall spend time
> reading the material understand quite well that Dworkin never DID say all sex
> was rape.
Really? What did she say, then? BTW, no one mentioned Dworkin,
so even if you could prove what you say, it would have no bearing...
> >Tell them that they should have their balls cut off in sympathy with
> the>female eunuchs. And, if that doesn't work, have yourself adopted.
> >
> {Parg} That adoption thing might work best; there should be some bitter boy
> brigand who would love to take him on.
Good idea. Anyone here want to adopt me? I say we all form
a family right here in this newsgroup. Marg 'n' Parg can be the
embarrassing secret we keep in the basement.
Society
> >
> > Men on the Verge
> > By Kate Zernike, Globe Staff, 05/17/98
For the article, see
http://x74.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=709340491
> > At least 500 colleges nationwide now offer courses
> > on men and masculinity.
>
> OK, I was unaware of that. Points for revealing it, if it's true.
> I would like more details, though, if anyone has them...
Check Warren Farrell's book, _Women Can't Hear..._.
Most of those "men and masculinity" courses are
in college Women's Studies departments.
> > Of course, by almost any statistical measure,
> > men are still ahead of women.
>
> And there we have it. The big lie. Make a few concessions,
> and then throw this turd into the punch bowl. By **WHAT**
> statistical measures are men ahead of women?
Life expectancy? No.
Quality of life? No.
Custody of children after divorce? No.
Men's versus Women's government agencies? No.
Amount of money spent by or on behalf of? No.
Likelihood of dying in military combat? No.
Likelihood of being conscripted? No.
Being rescued by stranger of the other sex? No.
Glass cellar job? No.
These were just off the top of my head, mind you.
BTW, if Kate Zernike visited those "masculinism"
web sites she mentioned, she could not have made
that remark honestly.
> This is the essence of feminism right here, folks.
> Make an outrageous claim such as "by almost any
> statistical measure, men are still ahead of women",
> and then move on without saying boo to back it up.
After two generations of spreading their Big Lies,
feminists simply handwave and mumble "everyone knows".
---
Honor your inner masculine.
Tell it straight. Reject lies.
jet
Society <soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote in message
news:Tgz36.13108$XW4.6...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> "Michael Snyder" <msn...@redhat.com> wrote in message
> news:3A4E246B...@redhat.com...
> >
> > Stephen Gilman wrote:
> > >
> > > Men on the Verge
> > > By Kate Zernike, Globe Staff, 05/17/98
> > > [...]
>
> For the article, see
> http://x74.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=709340491
>
> > > At least 500 colleges nationwide now offer courses
> > > on men and masculinity.
> >
> > OK, I was unaware of that. Points for revealing it, if it's true.
> > I would like more details, though, if anyone has them...
>
> Check Warren Farrell's book, _Women Can't Hear..._.
> Most of those "men and masculinity" courses are
> in college Women's Studies departments.
>
> > > Of course, by almost any statistical measure,
> > > men are still ahead of women.
> >
> > And there we have it. The big lie. Make a few concessions,
> > and then throw this turd into the punch bowl. By **WHAT**
> > statistical measures are men ahead of women?
>
> Life expectancy? No.
You'll have to complain to Mother Nature about that one.
> Quality of life? No.
How so?
> Custody of children after divorce? No.
> Men's versus Women's government agencies? No.
> Amount of money spent by or on behalf of? No.
> Likelihood of dying in military combat? No.
> Likelihood of being conscripted? No.
There is no draft in the US.
> Being rescued by stranger of the other sex? No.
Huh?
> Glass cellar job? No.
Huh?
J
Michael Snyder
Hey, that's Jen's line. ;-)
It's out there. Amongst all that "evidence".
Probably its buried under the pyramids.
Michael Snyder
Lie. Women's life expectancy has been greater than men's for
less than a century. The two lines crossed about 1911.
It is medical science (created by men), not Mother Nature,
who you have to thank.
>
> > Quality of life? No.
>
> How so?
Less net spendable income? Less share in the actual spending?
Go look at a typical mall, and measure how much floor space is
devoted to stuff women want vs. stuff men want. Go count who's
actually driving most of the convertibles and sports cars.
Then look at who's in the prisons and living under the bridges.
And while you're at it, have a look at who's committing suicide.
> > Custody of children after divorce? No.
> > Men's versus Women's government agencies? No.
> > Amount of money spent by or on behalf of? No.
> > Likelihood of dying in military combat? No.
> > Likelihood of being conscripted? No.
>
> There is no draft in the US.
Gee Jet -- you're so cute when you pretend ignorance.
The selective service is sitting on the top shelf, ready
to be taken out as needed -- and when it is, it will be men
and men alone who are drafted. Last I checked, there was
still REGISTRATION for the draft, you sanctimonious bitch,
and only men had to register.
> > Being rescued by stranger of the other sex? No.
>
> Huh?
How many women lost their lives while trying to save the life
of a male stranger this year, Jet?
> > Glass cellar job? No.
>
> Huh?
How many women work as coal miners, Jet?
How many women work as garbage collecters, Jet?
How many women work as janitors and night watchmen, Jet?
C.V. Compton Shaw
Ian Newman wrote:
> Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> >> The only thing that's changed for the better is that men now take a seat
> >> on the lifeboat, even if it means a female drowning.
> >
> >I'm not so sure that's changed...
>
> Several years ago a car ferry went down off Sweden. Most of the passengers
> were men, as were most of the survivors. But somebody had a look at the
> passenger manifest and the survivor rolls and did a few calculations.
>
> I can't remember the exact figures but something like over 70% of the
> men survived while under 40% of the women made it. In theory, women are
> better built to survive immersion in cold water so something was wrong.
>
> It turned out that getting on board the inflatable liferafts was difficult
> for those with weak arms. There was a disincentive for those already on
> board to help because the things were unstable, so men were more likely to
> get on board.
>
> Interestingly, almost every one of the few children on board survived and
> so did the women travelling with their husbands. The highest mortality was
> suffered by females travelling alone, mostly businesswomen, students and
> elderly widows.
>
> >>> Most would probably rather be playing golf.
> >>
> >> She knows what most men would rather do. Must be the "women's way of
> >> knowing".
> >
> >Alas, she's probably right. I've been pretty unsuccessful at getting
> >the men in my family to even look at any of the pro-male
> >counter-feminist
> >stuff I've sent them. The brainwashing runs deep.
>
> Change your tactics. Bombard them with feminist propaganda. Do it often.
> Tell them all sex is rape and send them the books to prove it. Tell them
> the Judaeo-Christian Patriarchy is a plot to establish white supremacy over
> minorities like women who invented electricity in their husbands' names.
>
> Tell them that they should have their balls cut off in sympathy with the
> female eunuchs. And, if that doesn't work, have yourself adopted.
>
> --
> Women want toasted ice. - Arab proverb
> Read: http://www.ukmm.org.uk/
It is clear to me that in modern Sweden, one of the most feminist countries in
the world, modern Swedish men, have developed a distaste for modern Swedish
women which only readily becomes apparent when the normal civil safe guards and
laws are not enforceable. Then it becomes a brutal reality.
Michael Snyder
Not necessarily. Maybe the men have just developed a healthy sense
of self-preservation. Sacrificing one's life to save someone else's
is not the "neutral" thing to do, after all. The fact that they've
stopped doing that does not mean that they've moved to a less neutral
position. It could in fact be viewed as more neutral.
Stephen Morgan
This isn't right. Going by something I remember from 'Lost Empire: Rome'
on the history channel, women's life expectency has nearly always been
higher than men's. They remarked on that when they were talking about the
medical system of the Roman army increasing the lifespan of the menfolk.
Not surprising when you think that men have always done all of the
dangerous jobs.
--
"[...]a most curious arched vault or crypt, supported by a row of
pillars in the middle, and having loops and embrasures towards the river,
in which were planted cannons in the civil wars. At one end are some
remains of the entrance to a subterranean passage, said to have gone a
great way under ground."
-- White's Directory of Nottinghamshire 1853, on the crypt beneath the
Castle at Newark-on-Trent.
rndthms
> > Lie. Women's life expectancy has been greater than men's for
> > less than a century. The two lines crossed about 1911.
> > It is medical science (created by men), not Mother Nature,
> > who you have to thank.
>
> This isn't right. Going by something I remember from 'Lost Empire: Rome'
> on the history channel, women's life expectency has nearly always been
> higher than men's. They remarked on that when they were talking about the
> medical system of the Roman army increasing the lifespan of the menfolk.
I'm pretty sure they were wrong. From what I've read, it's pretty much
established that historically men's lifespan was longer than women's.
I even saw it mentioned on some feminist documantary, I don't remember
the name, though.
Society
thrash around with their "I sorta recall" musings, I ran a search
with Google and quickly turned up:
[I]t appears that women have outsurvived men at least since
the 1500s, when the first reliable mortality data were kept.
Sweden was the first country to collect data on death rates
nationally; in that country's earliest records, between 1751
and 1790, the average life expectancy at birth was 36.6 years
for women and 33.7 years for men.
from "Why Women Live Longer than Men"
by Thomas T. Perls, M.D., M.P.H Harvard Medical School, and
Ruth C. Fretts, M.D., M.P.H. Harvard Medical School
_Scientific American_, June 1998
http://www.sciam.com/1998/0698womens/0698perls.html#authors
These figures discredit the (a) women have it worse claims
and (b) the spectre of a vast holocaust of women dying during
childbirth.
I couldn't find any figures from the medieval or ancient periods
other than off-hand remarks about women living to age 40 made
without cites and unaccompanied by any mention of men's
lifespan at the time. (Nor did I find supportable claims that
men outlived women at any time in history.)
Henry
>>
>> It is clear to me that in modern Sweden, one of the most feminist countries in
>> the world, modern Swedish men, have developed a distaste for modern Swedish
>> women which only readily becomes apparent when the normal civil safe guards and
>> laws are not enforceable. Then it becomes a brutal reality.
>
>Not necessarily. Maybe the men have just developed a healthy sense
>of self-preservation. Sacrificing one's life to save someone else's
>is not the "neutral" thing to do, after all. The fact that they've
Especially if the men have been put through the wringer by
feminists.
Stephen Morgan
Part of feminist belief is that women have been short-changed in medical
care. I'd be more likely to believe a History Channel documentary on
Nazism than a National Socialist Party Political Broadcast.
Parg2000
>
>How many women lost their lives while trying to save the life>of a male
stranger this year, Jet?
{Parg} ???? Why would that matter to civil rights?
>
>> > Glass cellar job? No.
{Parg} Why would a social choice serve to dictate a civil right?
>>
>> Huh?
>
>How many women work as coal miners, Jet?
{Parg} Who cares? Social choices are available to all, so why would it matter
whether more women or men choose to be coal miners?
>How many women work as garbage collecters, Jet?
{Parg} Why would a social choice to lug garbage have anything to do with civil
rights?
>How many women work as janitors and night watchmen, Jet?
{Parg} Same thing, Michael. If you don't want to BE a coal miner, or garbage
collector, you have the choice to not be those without having your civil rights
removed.
>
>
>
>
>
Michael Snyder
>
> <cut>
> >
> >How many women lost their lives while trying to save the life>of a male
> stranger this year, Jet?
>
> {Parg} ???? Why would that matter to civil rights?
How can I answer you, when you've cut out ALL the context?
What you have left uncut has NO BEARING on "civil rights" whatsoever.
I'm not even sure who said the above (though I think it was me)
since you've cut all the attributes.
Why would this matter to the price of eggs in denmark?
Parg2000
>Date: 1/6/01 12:13 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A577C6B...@redhat.com>
>
>Parg2000 wrote:
>>
>> <cut>
>> >
>> >How many women lost their lives while trying to save the life>of a male
>> stranger this year, Jet?
>>
>> {Parg} ???? Why would that matter to civil rights?
>
>How can I answer you, when you've cut out ALL the context?
>What you have left uncut has NO BEARING on "civil rights" whatsoever.
{Parg} Good. So, you must agree that women should have equal rights even tho
they don't always make the same social choices?
Michael Snyder
Of course I do. I have never said anything different.
Please quote me if you think I have.
Kathi Kelly
In article <3A57B337...@redhat.com>,
Michael Snyder <msn...@redhat.com> writes:
> Parg2000 wrote:
> >
> > >How can I answer you, when you've cut out ALL the context?
> > >What you have left uncut has NO BEARING on "civil rights" whatsoever.
> >
> > {Parg} Good. So, you must agree that women should have equal rights even
> > tho they don't always make the same social choices?
>
> Of course I do. I have never said anything different.
> Please quote me if you think I have.
You have never said anything different, Michael.
But parg certainly has said differently in past threads.
> {Parg} Who cares? Social choices are not the same as civil rights.
> And after they have made their social
> >choice .. it will then affect other women's social choice?
>
> {Parg} Tough noogies
> >And wouldn't that be wrong?
>
> {Parg} It certainly would if you had your facts straight, but you still don't
> understand the difference between a civil right and a social choice. <G>