From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 5 Jan 93 00:33:21 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: glia.biostr.washington.edu

In <1993Jan4.011716.17141@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael Stanley) writes...
[ apparently further author quotes have been lost ]
>>>> 2) Who does the majority of bullying in school?
>>>> - Boys
>>>Who reinforces their socialized roles of toughness?
>>>- girls/women
>>*BEEP*  Wrong answer.
>>Interesting.  I would have said boys/men reinforce socialized roles of
>>toughness.  That's how it was when I grew up.  Most of the girls/women
>>I met thought the boys/men were kind of stupid for what they did.  That
>>is when they weren't shocked at some of the brutality of it.
>*BEEP*  Wrong Answer!

I think what I said has to be ``an answer'' BEFORE it can become a wrong
answer.  Since I was making a statement, you appear to have ``messed up''
your repartee.  So sad when one doesn't know how to needle someone back
correctly. :)  But I'm sure a little work on the social skills could get
you back up to par.

>Sure, the girls/women might have been shocked by it, but did you ever see
>them dating the non-athletic bookworms who didn't "shock" them?  No, they
>mostly seemed to prefer the athletes.  Apparently, the same things that
>"shock" them, also seem to attract them.  The question is ... WHY?

No, your reasoning doesn't seem to follow.  I saw women being shocked by
the violence.  I didn't see *one* of them rushing after a guy after he
bloodied someone up.

I did however see some women pursuing popular guys.  *SOME* of these popular
guys were tough, some were not.  So I have to say that the correlation
you are speaking of simply didn't exist in any of the schools I've ever
attended either here in the US or in Europe.

>Believe me, if you've ever been to high school, which I am sure you have,
>you'd know *just* how popular our athletes were.  These are the same
>"brutes" who would call me "nerd" one minute and then the next minute
>I'd see them arm-in-arm with a girl.  I was jealous, and *almost* thought
>of abandoning my studies to concentrate on athletics, but somehow it just
>didn't happen.  :-)  Of course, I ended up getting the last laugh, almost -
>I don't recall having seen that many of them when I was in university...

Yes, many athletes were popular (as were many non athletes).  And even
among the athletes, many weren't ``toughs''.  And a fair number of the
popular people were not much into physical pursuits.

>So before telling us that "macho" standards of athleticism are only a
>male-only-originated concept, realise for whom these shows of strength
>are ultimately directed.

I never said that macho standards were a male-only-originated concept.
I have no idea where the concept originated and would hesitate to make
a guess on little knowledge.  However in my experience, it still holds
true that boys/men reinforce socialized roles of toughness.

>>>> 4) Who legislated draft registration?
>>>> - legislative bodies which are comprised overwhelmingly of men
>>>Who voted for these legislators?
>>>- men and women
>>This WOULD be a point if we could have voted all women into office.
>>Unfortunately that wasn't possible.  So this is not a point.
>Oh?  Why not?  Sure, I'll hold my breath waiting for Diane Feinstein to
>propose a motion to expand the draft to include women....

I'm sure that most feminists are going to spend their time trying to obtain
the rights they deserve.  I agree that women should be included in the draft.
But a male only draft is an unfairness directed at men.  And if you as a man
don't like it, get off your a** and do something about it.  Do you really
expect Diane Feinstein or anyone else to fight your battles for you?

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism