greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (06/15/85)
So there's this article in net.flame, see, and it's some guy who is claiming
that women are treating men exactly as the women would rather the men *not*
treat them. And the guy makes a good point --- why he doesn't even mention
rape once. He's talking attitudes, see, and everybody breathes a sigh of
relief, see, 'cause this is real stuff. We are talking a man's emotion
and how he feels that he might be getting the raw end of a deal, and so
he makes a complaint.
And then you come along and say "No. Rape is the issue." and bring up rape
when the guy wasn't speaking about it.
And the guy wasn't just speaking about his gonads. He was speaking about
a whole bunch of stuff, including the mens problems of today. You don't
have any? See the Subject above. You've never made an innocent comment
and had it taken as a sexist one? You've never held a door open for a
women and been scorned for doing it. How about paying for dinner --- you
never had a problem with who pays based on sex? You've never seen a
women that appeals to you and are afraid to say "Hi", cause you don't
want to appear to be coming onto her. You've never wanted to have a
person that you can speak to that happens to be of the opposite sex
not want to speak to you because of your sex? You've never met one of
those rabid manhaters we all hear about that hates you for your genitilia?
Boy, you are lucky!
There sure is a hell of a lot to think about in the "new" attitudes that
society has given to both men and women. I don't think that either of the
two sexes have a handle on it. And I think that's a valid thing to speak
about. So don't you dare try to shut this guy up, and don't turn everything
over to the idea that women's only problem and concern are about rape.
Men *do* have a lot of valid concerns and problems with their own place in
society today. And only *one* of their concerns is about rape.
Now you might disagree with me. Just don't make this into a flaming
contest.....
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York
--------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<---------
I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.
------
"There's something wrong in the world. There's always been. Something no one
has ever named or explained" --- Francisco d'Anconiagreenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (06/19/85)
I guess the followup article misses the point: Jeff was
saying that (forgive me for the paraphrase) that men have no problems
as compared to women who have to constantly worry about rape. This
was in response to an article that started to mention other issues
besides the ones normally in this news group: changing roles of
*men and women*.
Certainly the items that I brought up do not qualify as legitimate
major concerns --- when each is considered by itself. However when
they are all taken as a package, it means that I (for example) still
haven't figured out how to deal with the *new* women, and still
be me.
There is a portion of me that says that I should treat women as total
equals in the home, at the job site, and in bed. Then there is
another portion of me that keeps on wondering how I can do that
when women (or at least the ones on the net) keep on talking about
womens' superior this and that (i.e. who says women are more
closely in tune with their emotions?). Or the other portion that
says that women do not have a need to be protected (as they
can protect themselves), and then the women on the net tell me that *I*
must educate my fellow *men* to the idea that (as example) rape is
wrong.
There is a whole bunch of contradictions that men must now deal with
for the first time. This is a topic that really doesn't get expressed
too much in this group as we battle over the semantics of the
word "provocative". Look, we all know what the word means. So
we use the fourteenth definition in Archibalds New World Dictionary
to make *our* point. There really isn't a need, I feel, to battle
over such garbage.
Since I am male, I can legitimately only tell you of the feelings
that I attribute to my maleness. We have a choice:allow the attribution
as sex dependant, which indicates that there are differences
between the sexes, or reject the idea that feelings and/or thoughts are
sex dependant, in which case we're all the same (I'm not :-)).
It is wonderfull to discuss the idea of education in the future solving
all the problems that we consider sex based. But I have to live today. So
when I see a pretty women crossing the street, and I wouldn't mind
getting to know her better (she "appeals to me"), I would
love to say: "I'd like to buy you a cup of coffee", and expect her to
think "What the hell", instead of me saying to myself "She might
take that as a sexual come on. I wonder what I should say to her instead".
And it would be nice if she could say the same to me instead of having
to consider that asking me out for coffee is equivilent to saying
"I want to have sex with you".
There really are legitimate male concerns that really should be talked
over with open women --- women who aren't afraid that every man will
rape them, and that understand that persons like the Scott Turners
of the world are not representitive of anything male (I wonder
whether his mother is proud of him?).
There are things that we can learn about each other through each other.
There are things that I, as male, can never understand that every women
knows (what do period cramps feel like? How does it feel to have
a live body kicking inside of you? What does an orgasm feel like?)
And there are equivilant things that you women will never understand.
Why don't we agree on that, and try to reach some common understanding?
And the first step is in realizing that we each have our own problems,
that we don't know how to deal with. And that *maybe* these concerns
and problems are because my generic sex doesn't understand how
to get the point across to your generic sex. Or vice versa.
But maybe *you* do.
Whew! Long winded, and I apologize. But I'm really tired
of not seeing any co-operation in this group as we have
to insult each other due to our genitilia.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York
--------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<---------
I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.
------
"There's something wrong in the world. There's always been. Something no one
has ever named or explained" --- Francisco d'Anconiajs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (06/20/85)
> = Ross Greenberg (sp?) > I guess the followup article misses the point: Jeff was > saying that (forgive me for the paraphrase) that men have no problems > as compared to women who have to constantly worry about rape. This > was in response to an article that started to mention other issues > besides the ones normally in this news group: changing roles of > *men and women*. Actually, it was in response to an article which said that women should give more consideration to men's problems, and gave only one example of a "man's" problem: the author apparently doesn't like being aroused by the sight of a provocatively dressed woman in public. I pointed out that a lot of people don't have any problem with this kind of thing and that if it *is* a problem, it's a 'people' problem, and not a 'man's' problem. I also said that men's problems (those problems which only men have) are trivial compared to women's problems. This is the second time Ross has told us good things about the original article, without ever including a word of it, of course. I'm beginning to wonder why. Does anyone know how you can find out the article number of the beginning of a discussion? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "I went down to the Scrub and Rub, but I had to sit in the back of the tub." - Dylan
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (06/20/85)
In article <959@mhuxt.UUCP> js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) writes: > This is the second time Ross has told us good things about the >original article, without ever including a word of it, of course. I'm >beginning to wonder why. Does anyone know how you can find out the >article number of the beginning of a discussion? >-- >Jeff Sonntag main() { while (TRUE) printf("Sigh....\n"); } You just can't win...If I had included the entire article (which you obviously had read as you mention various parts of it) I prob'ly would have been nailed for including too much. Assume that I stand chastised and debased before you. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson. ------ "There's something wrong in the world. There's always been. Something no one has ever named or explained" --- Francisco d'Anconia
whitehur@tymix.UUCP (Pamela K. Whitehurst) (06/23/85)
O.K. Ross, lets discuss a few of these topics In article <251@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >... > You've never made an innocent comment >and had it taken as a sexist one? I have had innocent comments taken as sex related comments, and probably as sexist also. Ambiguity is a problem with human language. The only solution I have found is to clarify the comment as soon as the mistaken meaning is noticed. Or to ignore it and let people realize the comment does not fit my style and that I must have meant something else. >You've never held a door open for a >women and been scorned for doing it. I actually enjoy having the door open for me. (I didn't in my earlier years!) I also find myself opening doors for others. I decided a few years ago the appropriate response to having a door held open was a smile and a "thank you". Most men do it out of courtesy, and those who have other reasons are not going to change because I am rude to them. >How about paying for dinner --- you >never had a problem with who pays based on sex? When it isn't a date, I pay my own way. Otherwise the person who suggested the dinner should be able to cover it all, or let it be known that the tab is being split or covered by the other person before ordering. >You've never seen a >women that appeals to you and are afraid to say "Hi", cause you don't >want to appear to be coming onto her. I find this one hard to comment on. If you had left out the "appeals to you" part I could say that her reaction to your greeting should decide whether you wish to continue the conversation. I am also uncertain about your definition of "coming onto her". There are a lot of reason women do not want to talk to anyone else besides feeling that the man is "coming onto" them. They could be distracted with other problems, not want to interrupt their current activity, or they could just be relishing the solitide. If you want to develop any kind of relationship, you have to risk rejection. And the rejection may have nothing to do with you. >You've never wanted to have a >person that you can speak to that happens to be of the opposite sex >not want to speak to you because of your sex? Lots of times! I can remember sitting in on conversations in college and having my comments ignored because all the guys felt I had nothing to contribute. One of them would make the same comment and it was *great*. I eventually found others to hang around with. >You've never met one of >those rabid manhaters we all hear about that hates you for your genitilia? I don't remember anyone hating me because I was a woman. I remember people not taking my goals and dreams seriously. I remember hating some institutions that allowed boys more privledges and responsibilities that girls based on their genitilia. That was a long time ago, I don't hang around such places or people now, whenever I can avoid it. >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------ >Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York > --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- > See, men aren't the only ones who have these problems. The are people problems created by differing attitudes and expectations. We just learn to live around it and do what we feel is best. It isn't always easy. -PKW-