Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
Jayne, take it easy! One of these days you are going to give yourself a heart attack getting so upset about realities of the modern world. I sympathize with you, really! It must be very hard being born a few centuries too late, and finding the world alienating. You are a nice woman, and very lucky to have found a good husband who also likes to live in the past. [] LOL. My husband is an SCA member who has been spending all his spare time lately reading about medieval history. We are even more centuries off than you thought.

Isn't it great that we live in a time when each of us can use
the century we want to live in?!! I mean, you can live the life
you want and we can live how we like. If we were born a few
centuries ago we would be force to live like you -- I would die :-)
Just focus on your happy life and ignore the fact that women are now independent human beings in par with men, and not merely creatures solely in service of men. It's just so hard for me to believe that women can be happy that way.

I know! For some odd reason I actually understand you!!
I would be miserable.

See, you just have to use your intellect (which you have plenty)
instead of emotion sometimes. You MUST know that if all
women felt like you, they would do as you do -- unless you
think every woman but you is a masochist :-)

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:405648F2.3802C27A@hotmail.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: Jayne, take it easy! One of these days you are going to give yourself a heart attack getting so upset about realities of the modern world. I sympathize with you, really! It must be very hard being born a few centuries too late, and finding the world alienating. You are a nice woman, and very lucky to have found a good husband who also likes to live in the past. [] LOL. My husband is an SCA member who has been spending all his spare
time lately reading about medieval history. We are even more centuries off
than you thought. Isn't it great that we live in a time when each of us can use the century we want to live in?!! I mean, you can live the life you want and we can live how we like. If we were born a few centuries ago we would be force to live like you -- I would die :-)

You wouldn't be you if you were born a few centuries ago. You would have
been socialized differently and would have a different personality. Most
likely you would take men's leadership for granted and make the best of it.
You might even like having the men be in charge.

(BTW, my husband tells me that, while he attends SCA meetings, he has not
officially joined. So he is not actually a member like I said.)
Just focus on your happy life and ignore the fact that women are now independent human beings in par with men, and not merely creatures solely in service of men. It's just so hard for me to believe that women can be happy that way. I know! For some odd reason I actually understand you!!

Good.
I would be miserable. See, you just have to use your intellect (which you have plenty) instead of emotion sometimes. You MUST know that if all women felt like you, they would do as you do -- unless you think every woman but you is a masochist :-)

Not necessarily. Women get a lot of mixed messages and it seems to me that
we often feel ambivalent about our place in the world. Women could have
feelings like mine but have them mixed with other feelings that lead them to
other choices than mine. There is some evidence that there are a lot of
unhappy women out there. There are also a lot of women who read romances
who are presumably fantasizing about having a husband like mine. (Sometimes
I feel so guilty about having him all to myself. <g>)

Jayne

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:39:53 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas"
<momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:405648F2.3802C27A@hotmail.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: > Jayne, take it easy! One of these days you are going to give yourself > a heart attack getting so upset about realities of the modern world. I > sympathize with you, really! It must be very hard being born a few > centuries too late, and finding the world alienating. You are a nice > woman, and very lucky to have found a good husband who also likes to > live in the past. LOL. My husband is an SCA member who has been spending all his sparetime lately reading about medieval history. We are even more centuries offthan you thought. Isn't it great that we live in a time when each of us can use the century we want to live in?!! I mean, you can live the life you want and we can live how we like. If we were born a few centuries ago we would be force to live like you -- I would die :-) You wouldn't be you if you were born a few centuries ago. You would havebeen socialized differently and would have a different personality. Mostlikely you would take men's leadership for granted and make the best of it.You might even like having the men be in charge.(BTW, my husband tells me that, while he attends SCA meetings, he has notofficially joined. So he is not actually a member like I said.)

Oh be warned there is a lot of politics involved with the SCA. But it
is still a lot of fun. > Just focus on your happy life and ignore the fact > that women are now independent human beings in par with men, and not > merely creatures solely in service of men. It's just so hard for me to believe that women can be happy that way. I know! For some odd reason I actually understand you!!Good. I would be miserable. See, you just have to use your intellect (which you have plenty) instead of emotion sometimes. You MUST know that if all women felt like you, they would do as you do -- unless you think every woman but you is a masochist :-)Not necessarily. Women get a lot of mixed messages and it seems to me thatwe often feel ambivalent about our place in the world. Women could havefeelings like mine but have them mixed with other feelings that lead them toother choices than mine. There is some evidence that there are a lot ofunhappy women out there. There are also a lot of women who read romanceswho are presumably fantasizing about having a husband like mine. (SometimesI feel so guilty about having him all to myself. <g>)

Heh I don't feel guilty at all abut having my husband. I just feel
damn lucky.Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:c35luh$24sk8p$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de...
Not necessarily. Women get a lot of mixed messages and it seems to me
that we often feel ambivalent about our place in the world. Women could have feelings like mine but have them mixed with other feelings that lead them
to other choices than mine. There is some evidence that there are a lot of unhappy women out there. There are also a lot of women who read romances who are presumably fantasizing about having a husband like mine.
(Sometimes I feel so guilty about having him all to myself. <g>)


You might be projecting a bit. Women are all individuals, just like men,
and we really wouldn't all be happy with the same kind of life. A lot of
it is just inborn personality. I've had a real "want to do my own thinking
and don't need anybody else to tell me what to do" personality as long as I
can remember. It runs in my family. I really wouldn't be happy in a
marriage like yours, although I'm delighted that you and your husband have
each found somebody so compatible with you. It just wouldn't work for me.
(FWIW, even though I read a few books a week I don't read romances at all,
because I tend to find both the male and female characters extremely
unappealing. Definitely not an object of fantasy for me).

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
Isn't it great that we live in a time when each of us can use the century we want to live in?!! I mean, you can live the life you want and we can live how we like. If we were born a few centuries ago we would be force to live like you -- I would die :-) You wouldn't be you if you were born a few centuries ago. You would have been socialized differently and would have a different personality. Most likely you would take men's leadership for granted and make the best of it.

Yes, I am well aware of how social expectations and
enforcement can shape personalities. I am intimately
familiar with women in parts of the world where the
supremecy of men is taken as a god given law, expected
and accepted by everyone. And many women do take
it just as the fact of life. They literally resign to the station
that they are assigned to, and as you say try to make the
best of it. However, the *best of it* is still a sorry situation!
You might even like having the men be in charge.

I might have accepted it, and since I wouldn't have
had the opportunity to be in charge myself, find
it the only way to live. But I am sure that if I would be
given the taste of self reliance and control, I would take
it in a blink!

It is interesting to observe some of the women who come
to U.S. from the more traditional countries. It doesn't take
more than the time that they need to learn about their rights
and potentials for them to rebel against the centuries
worth of training and brain washing about where they belong!
Do you know young immigrant women from, say, middle east,
who have had the opportunity to escape (even a little) from the
control of their family and tradition? It's amazing how fast they
unlearn all the things that you think is hardwired in them!
See, you just have to use your intellect (which you have plenty) instead of emotion sometimes. You MUST know that if all women felt like you, they would do as you do -- unless you think every woman but you is a masochist :-) Not necessarily. Women get a lot of mixed messages and it seems to me that we often feel ambivalent about our place in the world.

Not all of us! I don't feel ambivalent at all, nor do most of
the women that I know. Some of us aren't so gullible to take
every message that is given to us to heart! We do find our own
place in the world, regardless of mixed messages.
Women could have feelings like mine but have them mixed with other feelings that lead them to other choices than mine.

Sure, I never thought you were the only one! But you seem
to think those who say they don't feel like you are in denial
or something!

I have noticed that you speak on behalf of women quite a bit
(especially in your soc.men posts!). It seems like you do a
lot of projection and have a lot of trouble seeing beyond
your personal experience.
There is some evidence that there are a lot of unhappy women out there.

There are many unhappy people in the world, and each
for their own reasons. Just because women are unhappy
doesn't mean they would be happy becoming a submissive
follower of men!
There are also a lot of women who read romances who are presumably fantasizing about having a husband like mine.

Ah... the classic *romance novel* fantasy claim. Yes, there
are many women who enjoy romance novels with heroes who
are handsome and kind and loving and sweep them off their
feet and take them on their white horses. What you don't
realize is that these fantasy heroes do what *the woman* wants.
In other words, when a woman loses herself in that
image, she is not imagining doing something disturbing and
gross because her hero likes it! It is the ultimate fantasy of
getting what you want without asking and working for
it, and just having someone knowing exactly what you want
and provide it for you!
(Sometimes I feel so guilty about having him all to myself. <g>)

Don't. Just count your blessing to have found a perfect
match for yourself. That is what I do. I am very well aware
of the fact that being in that lucky position is a privilege
that not everyone can enjoy.

"Rauni" <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:5gqc50tcfuplhe9aq5dm6j0hckht0lks07@4ax.com... On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:39:53 -0500, "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:

[](BTW, my husband tells me that, while he attends SCA meetings, he has notofficially joined. So he is not actually a member like I said.) Oh be warned there is a lot of politics involved with the SCA. But it is still a lot of fun.
[]

I've never been involved in a group that didn't have a lot of politics. It
seems to me that this is just how people are.

Jayne

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40567D3E.F446D6D@hotmail.com...

[] I have noticed that you speak on behalf of women quite a bit (especially in your soc.men posts!). It seems like you do a lot of projection and have a lot of trouble seeing beyond your personal experience.
[]

I make a conscious effort to be clear about when I am writing of my own
experiences and when I am writing about my impressions of women in general.
I might not always succeed, but I do try. While I frequently speak as a
woman, I rarely speak on behalf of women.

I do think that there are many women who have feelings similar to mine. I
suspect that you think that there are many women with feelings similar to
yours. I do not see myself as any more guilty of projection than you are.

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
You wouldn't be you if you were born a few centuries ago. You would have been socialized differently and would have a different personality. Most likely you would take men's leadership for granted and make the best of it. You might even like having the men be in charge.

And yet when you read literature from centuries ago, it's rarely about
subservient women and men in charge of everything. Take Jane Austen,
for example. Men had many more legal rights and traditional powers, and
they used them, but that doesn't mean women weren't running things in a
lot of families. Force of personality counts for a lot. In fact, I
can't think of many Austen heroines who are as subservient as you are.
Fanny maybe.

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1gaqn3f.pikepgzgxkbaN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: You wouldn't be you if you were born a few centuries ago. You would
have been socialized differently and would have a different personality.
Most likely you would take men's leadership for granted and make the best of
it. You might even like having the men be in charge. And yet when you read literature from centuries ago, it's rarely about subservient women and men in charge of everything. Take Jane Austen, for example. Men had many more legal rights and traditional powers, and they used them, but that doesn't mean women weren't running things in a lot of families. Force of personality counts for a lot. In fact, I can't think of many Austen heroines who are as subservient as you are. Fanny maybe.

Austen's novels are about young women facing obstacles in the "course of
true love" until they end up with husbands. These husbands will be expected
to provide for and protect their wives. I can think of no Austen heroine
who decides to be independent and look after herself rather than marry. As
for how these heroines would treat their husbands, we know very little since
the story usually ends at the point where they get engaged. As they are
admirable women, I find it hard to imagine them with no sense of obligation
to their husbands.

And that is basically what my "subservience" is - a sense of obligation to
my husband. I appreciate what he does for me and am grateful. He is a
wonderful man and I want him to know that I respect, admire and love him.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
I have noticed that you speak on behalf of women quite a bit (especially in your soc.men posts!). It seems like you do a lot of projection and have a lot of trouble seeing beyond your personal experience. [] I make a conscious effort to be clear about when I am writing of my own experiences and when I am writing about my impressions of women in general. I might not always succeed, but I do try. While I frequently speak as a woman, I rarely speak on behalf of women.

Well, I just haphazardly did a quick search in google with your name,
and the word "apologize"! I only opened the second entry in the list,
and here is a part of one of your posts:

"How are men going to be happy
when women treat them so badly? Men feel hurt and betrayed. We need
to
admit that we have done wrong, apologize for it and start appreciating
men.
It is up to women to make the first move because we are at fault."

Now, tell me you are not talking on behalf of women! And of course I
have no interest in doing an exhaustive search, but over time I've
read many posts by you where you refer to women in general (instead of
just yourself), in your desperate attempts to appease men who
themselves admit to hate women. This one little example will suffice.
I do think that there are many women who have feelings similar to mine.

I have never denied that, and believe anyone who has half a brain
understands that people are different and have different points of
views.
I suspect that you think that there are many women with feelings similar to yours.

I certainly do, and if you're smart you will believe that too.
I do not see myself as any more guilty of projection than you are.

You are free to see it or not, but I am totally capable of
understanding how a woman like you can be happy with her choices (and
I've told you so). Where you said, just in this thread : "It's just so
hard for me to believe that women can be happy that way."

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27f68249.0403161116.4aa9be83@posting.google.c om... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message I have noticed that you speak on behalf of women quite a bit (especially in your soc.men posts!). It seems like you do a lot of projection and have a lot of trouble seeing beyond your personal experience. [] I make a conscious effort to be clear about when I am writing of my own experiences and when I am writing about my impressions of women in
general. I might not always succeed, but I do try. While I frequently speak as a woman, I rarely speak on behalf of women. Well, I just haphazardly did a quick search in google with your name, and the word "apologize"! I only opened the second entry in the list, and here is a part of one of your posts: "How are men going to be happy when women treat them so badly? Men feel hurt and betrayed. We need to admit that we have done wrong, apologize for it and start appreciating men. It is up to women to make the first move because we are at fault." Now, tell me you are not talking on behalf of women! And of course I have no interest in doing an exhaustive search, but over time I've read many posts by you where you refer to women in general (instead of just yourself), in your desperate attempts to appease men who themselves admit to hate women. This one little example will suffice.
[]

That same paragraph also speaks of men in general. Would you say that I was
speaking on behalf of men?

As I understand the concept of speaking on behalf of a group, the idea I
express above would have come out more like, "I apologize for all times that
women have hurt and betrayed men." I was addressing a woman when I wrote
that passage. I was exhorting her to a course of action, not speaking on
behalf of women. I think my intent might be clearer if we looked at the
entire paragraph:.

"It seems to me the current situation is a state of gender war declared by
women. Women need to take responsibility for having taken feminism too far.
It has gone way beyond wanting respect and equality for ourselves to
perpetrating injustice and cruelty on men. How are men going to be happy
when women treat them so badly? Men feel hurt and betrayed. We need to
admit that we have done wrong, apologize for it and start appreciating men.
It is up to women to make the first move because we are at fault. Then men
and women will be free to have relationships of mutual admiration and
appreciation. Then people can be happy together."

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:27f68249.0403161116.4aa9be83@posting.google.c om... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > I have noticed that you speak on behalf of women quite a bit > (especially in your soc.men posts!). It seems like you do a > lot of projection and have a lot of trouble seeing beyond > your personal experience. [] I make a conscious effort to be clear about when I am writing of my own experiences and when I am writing about my impressions of women in general. I might not always succeed, but I do try. While I frequently speak as a woman, I rarely speak on behalf of women. Well, I just haphazardly did a quick search in google with your name, and the word "apologize"! I only opened the second entry in the list, and here is a part of one of your posts: "How are men going to be happy when women treat them so badly? Men feel hurt and betrayed. We need to admit that we have done wrong, apologize for it and start appreciating men. It is up to women to make the first move because we are at fault." Now, tell me you are not talking on behalf of women! And of course I have no interest in doing an exhaustive search, but over time I've read many posts by you where you refer to women in general (instead of just yourself), in your desperate attempts to appease men who themselves admit to hate women. This one little example will suffice. [] That same paragraph also speaks of men in general. Would you say that I was speaking on behalf of men? As I understand the concept of speaking on behalf of a group, the idea I express above would have come out more like, "I apologize for all times that women have hurt and betrayed men."

In that case, if you don't believe you are addressing some basic
asymmetry here, how about "I apologize for all times that people have
hurt and betrayed other people."
I was addressing a woman when I wrote that passage. I was exhorting her to a course of action, not speaking on behalf of women. I think my intent might be clearer if we looked at the entire paragraph:. "It seems to me the current situation is a state of gender war declared by women. Women need to take responsibility for having taken feminism too far. It has gone way beyond wanting respect and equality for ourselves to perpetrating injustice and cruelty on men. How are men going to be happy when women treat them so badly? Men feel hurt and betrayed. We need to admit that we have done wrong, apologize for it and start appreciating men. It is up to women to make the first move because we are at fault. Then men and women will be free to have relationships of mutual admiration and appreciation. Then people can be happy together."



Let me go on record, as a man, for saying that I disagree with you
about the premise of the above paragraph.

I'm wondering what you think "women" have done wrong (rather than what
"people" have done wrong), and how you think women specifically are at
fault.

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
As I understand the concept of speaking on behalf of a group, the idea I express above would have come out more like, "I apologize for all times that women have hurt and betrayed men."

OK, Jayne, I'll concede that I didn't think about the narrow
and precise meaning of "speaking on one's behalf". What I
meant was that you give yourself permission to assign action,
feelings, faults, etc. to all women.

If I cared about things that are said in newsgroups, then,
as a woman, I would be quite upset with someone who would
claim that women are at fault for this or that. Here is another
such example that made me laugh when I read it, but if I was
to take it seriously it would be very offensive:

Some Grizzlie Antagonist character, who identifies himself as
a misogynist who enjoys reading police reports on violent crimes
against women wrote (in response to your asking for pity for
women):
Well, I appreciate your sentiments, Jayne Kulikauskas, but for one thing women are not asking for pity on this particular point (however frequently they demand pity in other contexts) and for another thing, I consider myself to be the aggrieved party.

to which you responded by :

"I consider you to be the aggrieved party too. I'm not saying that women
deserve pity from you. It's that I think that you might benefit from
pitying us. As I understand things, feeling resentment towards people gives
them power over oneself, but feeling pity gives oneself power over them."

I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would
want *pity* from a creature like that? :-)

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nwptbcle2i.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:

[] "It seems to me the current situation is a state of gender war declared
by women. Women need to take responsibility for having taken feminism too
far. It has gone way beyond wanting respect and equality for ourselves to perpetrating injustice and cruelty on men. How are men going to be
happy when women treat them so badly? Men feel hurt and betrayed. We need to admit that we have done wrong, apologize for it and start appreciating
men. It is up to women to make the first move because we are at fault. Then
men and women will be free to have relationships of mutual admiration and appreciation. Then people can be happy together." Let me go on record, as a man, for saying that I disagree with you about the premise of the above paragraph. I'm wondering what you think "women" have done wrong (rather than what "people" have done wrong), and how you think women specifically are at fault.

People have set up structures in the name of equality for women that have
given the balance of power to women. I believe that individual women are at
fault in the specific cases in which they abuse this power. I also believe
that women in general are at fault for the wide-spread acceptance this state
of affairs. It is not equality. It is not justice.

Jayne

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40577550.D34434DC@hotmail.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: As I understand the concept of speaking on behalf of a group, the idea I express above would have come out more like, "I apologize for all times
that women have hurt and betrayed men." OK, Jayne, I'll concede that I didn't think about the narrow and precise meaning of "speaking on one's behalf". What I meant was that you give yourself permission to assign action, feelings, faults, etc. to all women.

I think that there are general trends in the behaviour and feelings of women
in this culture. I read, observe and draw conclusions regarding these
trends. Perhaps at times I have relied too much on the context to make
clear that I am speaking in generalities rather than making claims about all
women. I have no wish to make such claims.
If I cared about things that are said in newsgroups, then, as a woman, I would be quite upset with someone who would claim that women are at fault for this or that. Here is another such example that made me laugh when I read it, but if I was to take it seriously it would be very offensive: Some Grizzlie Antagonist character, who identifies himself as a misogynist who enjoys reading police reports on violent crimes against women wrote (in response to your asking for pity for women): Well, I appreciate your sentiments, Jayne Kulikauskas, but for one thing women are not asking for pity on this particular point (however frequently they demand pity in other contexts) and for another thing, I consider myself to be the aggrieved party. to which you responded by : "I consider you to be the aggrieved party too. I'm not saying that women deserve pity from you. It's that I think that you might benefit from pitying us. As I understand things, feeling resentment towards people
gives them power over oneself, but feeling pity gives oneself power over them." I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would want *pity* from a creature like that? :-)

My comments were not based on what you or any other woman want. I happen to
like that "creature" and was trying to be supportive of him.

Jayne

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:nwptbcle2i.fsf@noether.uoregon.edu... "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> writes: [] "It seems to me the current situation is a state of gender war declared by women. Women need to take responsibility for having taken feminism too far. It has gone way beyond wanting respect and equality for ourselves to perpetrating injustice and cruelty on men. How are men going to be happy when women treat them so badly? Men feel hurt and betrayed. We need to admit that we have done wrong, apologize for it and start appreciating men. It is up to women to make the first move because we are at fault. Then men and women will be free to have relationships of mutual admiration and appreciation. Then people can be happy together." Let me go on record, as a man, for saying that I disagree with you about the premise of the above paragraph. I'm wondering what you think "women" have done wrong (rather than what "people" have done wrong), and how you think women specifically are at fault. People have set up structures in the name of equality for women that have given the balance of power to women.

I see where if you believed that, you might think women are at fault.
I don't belive this to be the case, myself.

When I see men claiming this, it is often out of bitterness due to
something they felt owed which they never receieved. Most of us men
were not raised in a climate of equality with women, but were raised
to think women inferior. This has an effect on our perceptions.
I believe that individual women are at fault in the specific cases in which they abuse this power. I also believe that women in general are at fault for the wide-spread acceptance this state of affairs. It is not equality. It is not justice.

No, it would not be, were this actually the state of affairs.

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
Some Grizzlie Antagonist character, who identifies himself as a misogynist who enjoys reading police reports on violent crimes against women wrote (in response to your asking for pity for women): Well, I appreciate your sentiments, Jayne Kulikauskas, but for one thing women are not asking for pity on this particular point (however frequently they demand pity in other contexts) and for another thing, I consider myself to be the aggrieved party. to which you responded by : "I consider you to be the aggrieved party too. I'm not saying that women deserve pity from you. It's that I think that you might benefit from pitying us. As I understand things, feeling resentment towards people gives them power over oneself, but feeling pity gives oneself power over them." I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would want *pity* from a creature like that? :-) My comments were not based on what you or any other woman want.

But I AM a woman, and whether you like it or not, by referring
to *women*, or *us* you are including me and many other women
who feel just like me.
I happen to like that "creature" and was trying to be supportive of him.

And I fully support you in liking any creature you want! That is your
right, and if you want him to pity YOU you are more than welcome
to ask for it. You shouldn't try to support him at the expense of other
women, and when you plead with him to pity "women", that's exactly
what you are doing.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:c3766d$24trcv$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40567D3E.F446D6D@hotmail.com... [] I have noticed that you speak on behalf of women quite a bit (especially in your soc.men posts!). It seems like you do a lot of projection and have a lot of trouble seeing beyond your personal experience. [] I make a conscious effort to be clear about when I am writing of my own experiences and when I am writing about my impressions of women in
general. I might not always succeed, but I do try. While I frequently speak as a woman, I rarely speak on behalf of women. I do think that there are many women who have feelings similar to mine. I suspect that you think that there are many women with feelings similar to yours. I do not see myself as any more guilty of projection than you are.

Out of all the women I know, almost all of the ones under age 60 or so would
think like Ellie, instead of like you. This is based on the actual people I
know in RL. Would you say this is projecting? I would say that it does
indicate that, at a *minimum*, there are "many women with feelings similar
to [Ellie's]".

Joy

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:c3766d$24trcv$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40567D3E.F446D6D@hotmail.com... [] I have noticed that you speak on behalf of women quite a bit (especially in your soc.men posts!). It seems like you do a lot of projection and have a lot of trouble seeing beyond your personal experience. [] I make a conscious effort to be clear about when I am writing of my own experiences and when I am writing about my impressions of women in
general. I might not always succeed, but I do try. While I frequently speak as a woman, I rarely speak on behalf of women. I do think that there are many women who have feelings similar to mine. I suspect that you think that there are many women with feelings similar to yours. I do not see myself as any more guilty of projection than you are.

Out of all the women I know, almost all of the ones under age 60 or so would
think like Ellie, instead of like you. This is based on the actual people I
know in RL. Would you say this is projecting? I would say that it does
indicate that, at a *minimum*, there are "many women with feelings similar
to [Ellie's]".

Joy

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40578FF8.80D1B4F0@hotmail.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: Some Grizzlie Antagonist character, who identifies himself as a misogynist who enjoys reading police reports on violent crimes against women wrote (in response to your asking for pity for women): > Well, I appreciate your sentiments, Jayne Kulikauskas, but for one > thing women are not asking for pity on this particular point
(however > frequently they demand pity in other contexts) and for another
thing, > I consider myself to be the aggrieved party. to which you responded by : "I consider you to be the aggrieved party too. I'm not saying that
women deserve pity from you. It's that I think that you might benefit from pitying us. As I understand things, feeling resentment towards people gives them power over oneself, but feeling pity gives oneself power over
them." I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would want *pity* from a creature like that? :-) My comments were not based on what you or any other woman want. But I AM a woman, and whether you like it or not, by referring to *women*, or *us* you are including me and many other women who feel just like me.

Yes, that was the point.
I happen to like that "creature" and was trying to be supportive of him. And I fully support you in liking any creature you want! That is your right, and if you want him to pity YOU you are more than welcome to ask for it. You shouldn't try to support him at the expense of other women, and when you plead with him to pity "women", that's exactly what you are doing.

Why not? If we have split into two sides, why don't I get to choose which
side I am on?

Jayne

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40578FF8.80D1B4F0@hotmail.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: Some Grizzlie Antagonist character, who identifies himself as a misogynist who enjoys reading police reports on violent crimes against women wrote (in response to your asking for pity for women): > Well, I appreciate your sentiments, Jayne Kulikauskas, but for one > thing women are not asking for pity on this particular point
(however > frequently they demand pity in other contexts) and for another
thing, > I consider myself to be the aggrieved party. to which you responded by : "I consider you to be the aggrieved party too. I'm not saying that
women deserve pity from you. It's that I think that you might benefit from pitying us. As I understand things, feeling resentment towards people gives them power over oneself, but feeling pity gives oneself power over
them." I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would want *pity* from a creature like that? :-) My comments were not based on what you or any other woman want. But I AM a woman, and whether you like it or not, by referring to *women*, or *us* you are including me and many other women who feel just like me.

Yes, that was the point.
I happen to like that "creature" and was trying to be supportive of him. And I fully support you in liking any creature you want! That is your right, and if you want him to pity YOU you are more than welcome to ask for it. You shouldn't try to support him at the expense of other women, and when you plead with him to pity "women", that's exactly what you are doing.

Why not? If we have split into two sides, why don't I get to choose which
side I am on?

Jayne

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
> I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would > want *pity* from a creature like that? :-) My comments were not based on what you or any other woman want. But I AM a woman, and whether you like it or not, by referring to *women*, or *us* you are including me and many other women who feel just like me. Yes, that was the point.

Jayne, your writings are usually clear and coherent, but this one
puzzles me. If you meant to speak on *my* behalf (and ask for
the creature's pity for me), then what did you mean by saying
you were not basing your comments on what other women wanted?
Are you saying that you believe we SHOULD ask for his pity
regardless of how we feel? If so, then aren't you deciding for us,
or basically speaking on our behalf?
I happen to like that "creature" and was trying to be supportive of him. And I fully support you in liking any creature you want! That is your right, and if you want him to pity YOU you are more than welcome to ask for it. You shouldn't try to support him at the expense of other women, and when you plead with him to pity "women", that's exactly what you are doing. Why not? If we have split into two sides, why don't I get to choose which side I am on?

What two sides are you talking about? I am on my own side,
and no one else's. When I give my opinion about how some
women feel, it's based on my experience and observation,
WITHOUT denying others like you your views. I certainly don't
think I have a right to tell you you should ask forgiveness of
someone, or do it on your behalf.

I just read a post by Sheila in which she said you like to appease
men, and writing things to please them is a form of flirting for you.
As I said, I like your writings, and sometimes look them up in google.
I think she has it half right. You do have a need to appease men,
which is just fine. The problem is that you like to do that at the
expense of women -- and that's why you feel so much at home in
soc.men. I see a level of hostility towards women in your writings
that I wonder what experience you have had through life. I have
noticed that the more a man is openly hostile to women the more
you seem to be infatuated with him. You harshly criticize *men*
who are critical of other men, but never get even upset when men
say the most nasty things about women, even to the point of overtly
suggesting violence towards them. The most that you are willing to
say is that you don't agree with their "style" but think of them very
highly and understand why they feel as they do. You almost see
men as the source of good and women as the source of all evil in
the world. Like I said, it all makes me wonder what has brought
you to this point. I wonder if it has anything with your religious
views...

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
> I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would > want *pity* from a creature like that? :-) My comments were not based on what you or any other woman want. But I AM a woman, and whether you like it or not, by referring to *women*, or *us* you are including me and many other women who feel just like me. Yes, that was the point.

Jayne, your writings are usually clear and coherent, but this one
puzzles me. If you meant to speak on *my* behalf (and ask for
the creature's pity for me), then what did you mean by saying
you were not basing your comments on what other women wanted?
Are you saying that you believe we SHOULD ask for his pity
regardless of how we feel? If so, then aren't you deciding for us,
or basically speaking on our behalf?
I happen to like that "creature" and was trying to be supportive of him. And I fully support you in liking any creature you want! That is your right, and if you want him to pity YOU you are more than welcome to ask for it. You shouldn't try to support him at the expense of other women, and when you plead with him to pity "women", that's exactly what you are doing. Why not? If we have split into two sides, why don't I get to choose which side I am on?

What two sides are you talking about? I am on my own side,
and no one else's. When I give my opinion about how some
women feel, it's based on my experience and observation,
WITHOUT denying others like you your views. I certainly don't
think I have a right to tell you you should ask forgiveness of
someone, or do it on your behalf.

I just read a post by Sheila in which she said you like to appease
men, and writing things to please them is a form of flirting for you.
As I said, I like your writings, and sometimes look them up in google.
I think she has it half right. You do have a need to appease men,
which is just fine. The problem is that you like to do that at the
expense of women -- and that's why you feel so much at home in
soc.men. I see a level of hostility towards women in your writings
that I wonder what experience you have had through life. I have
noticed that the more a man is openly hostile to women the more
you seem to be infatuated with him. You harshly criticize *men*
who are critical of other men, but never get even upset when men
say the most nasty things about women, even to the point of overtly
suggesting violence towards them. The most that you are willing to
say is that you don't agree with their "style" but think of them very
highly and understand why they feel as they do. You almost see
men as the source of good and women as the source of all evil in
the world. Like I said, it all makes me wonder what has brought
you to this point. I wonder if it has anything with your religious
views...

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: > > I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would > > want *pity* from a creature like that? :-) > > My comments were not based on what you or any other woman want. But I AM a woman, and whether you like it or not, by referring to *women*, or *us* you are including me and many other women who feel just like me. Yes, that was the point. Jayne, your writings are usually clear and coherent, but this one puzzles me. If you meant to speak on *my* behalf (and ask for the creature's pity for me), then what did you mean by saying you were not basing your comments on what other women wanted? Are you saying that you believe we SHOULD ask for his pity regardless of how we feel? If so, then aren't you deciding for us, or basically speaking on our behalf?

Whats really amusing about this claim, is that you *snipped away*
the part where Jayne *didn't do that*...

Rather, she spoke of *her view* as to what most modern women might
" deserve ", *regardless* of what you " want "...

Trust Feminists to not grasp the meanings of *different words*...
> I happen to > like that "creature" and was trying to be supportive of him. And I fully support you in liking any creature you want! That is your right, and if you want him to pity YOU you are more than welcome to ask for it. You shouldn't try to support him at the expense of other women, and when you plead with him to pity "women", that's exactly what you are doing. Why not? If we have split into two sides, why don't I get to choose which side I am on? What two sides are you talking about? I am on my own side, and no one else's. When I give my opinion about how some women feel, it's based on my experience and observation, WITHOUT denying others like you your views.

LOL ! Yet, *you're trying to tell Jayne* what to think and say...

How... controlling...
I certainly don't think I have a right to tell you you should ask forgiveness of someone, or do it on your behalf.

Tough. That applies to you, and you, alone. If you don't *like* it
that someone else believes *differently*, then thats your problem.
I just read a post by Sheila in which she said you like to appease men, and writing things to please them is a form of flirting for you. As I said, I like your writings, and sometimes look them up in google. I think she has it half right. You do have a need to appease men, which is just fine.

Ah, the woman's " fine " that really is a passive aggressive way of
saying " wrong ! "...

Not to mention your *condecension* of her views...
The problem is that you like to do that at the expense of women -- and that's why you feel so much at home in soc.men.

Ain't it grand that your Ph D. in Psychology is coming in so
handy, analysing people you've *never met*...
I see a level of hostility towards women in your writings that I wonder what experience you have had through life.

Yes, Jayne does desire that women *be as responsible for themselves
as they oh so often demand that men be*...

Obviously, to you, offering women *equality* is " hostility "...

Uh huh.
I have noticed that the more a man is openly hostile to women the more you seem to be infatuated with him. You harshly criticize *men* who are critical of other men, but never get even upset when men say the most nasty things about women, even to the point of overtly suggesting violence towards them. The most that you are willing to say is that you don't agree with their "style" but think of them very highly and understand why they feel as they do. You almost see men as the source of good and women as the source of all evil in the world. Like I said, it all makes me wonder what has brought you to this point. I wonder if it has anything with your religious views...

Ah, now a wonderfully bigoted way to back handidly denigrate Jayne's
basis for her beliefs...

How marvelously dehumanising of you ! What a wonderful way to
*avoid dealing with what jayne actually wrote*...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Ellie (ellie_first@hotmail.com) writes: Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: > > I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would > > want *pity* from a creature like that? :-) > > My comments were not based on what you or any other woman want. But I AM a woman, and whether you like it or not, by referring to *women*, or *us* you are including me and many other women who feel just like me. Yes, that was the point. Jayne, your writings are usually clear and coherent, but this one puzzles me. If you meant to speak on *my* behalf (and ask for the creature's pity for me), then what did you mean by saying you were not basing your comments on what other women wanted? Are you saying that you believe we SHOULD ask for his pity regardless of how we feel? If so, then aren't you deciding for us, or basically speaking on our behalf?

Whats really amusing about this claim, is that you *snipped away*
the part where Jayne *didn't do that*...

Rather, she spoke of *her view* as to what most modern women might
" deserve ", *regardless* of what you " want "...

Trust Feminists to not grasp the meanings of *different words*...
> I happen to > like that "creature" and was trying to be supportive of him. And I fully support you in liking any creature you want! That is your right, and if you want him to pity YOU you are more than welcome to ask for it. You shouldn't try to support him at the expense of other women, and when you plead with him to pity "women", that's exactly what you are doing. Why not? If we have split into two sides, why don't I get to choose which side I am on? What two sides are you talking about? I am on my own side, and no one else's. When I give my opinion about how some women feel, it's based on my experience and observation, WITHOUT denying others like you your views.

LOL ! Yet, *you're trying to tell Jayne* what to think and say...

How... controlling...
I certainly don't think I have a right to tell you you should ask forgiveness of someone, or do it on your behalf.

Tough. That applies to you, and you, alone. If you don't *like* it
that someone else believes *differently*, then thats your problem.
I just read a post by Sheila in which she said you like to appease men, and writing things to please them is a form of flirting for you. As I said, I like your writings, and sometimes look them up in google. I think she has it half right. You do have a need to appease men, which is just fine.

Ah, the woman's " fine " that really is a passive aggressive way of
saying " wrong ! "...

Not to mention your *condecension* of her views...
The problem is that you like to do that at the expense of women -- and that's why you feel so much at home in soc.men.

Ain't it grand that your Ph D. in Psychology is coming in so
handy, analysing people you've *never met*...
I see a level of hostility towards women in your writings that I wonder what experience you have had through life.

Yes, Jayne does desire that women *be as responsible for themselves
as they oh so often demand that men be*...

Obviously, to you, offering women *equality* is " hostility "...

Uh huh.
I have noticed that the more a man is openly hostile to women the more you seem to be infatuated with him. You harshly criticize *men* who are critical of other men, but never get even upset when men say the most nasty things about women, even to the point of overtly suggesting violence towards them. The most that you are willing to say is that you don't agree with their "style" but think of them very highly and understand why they feel as they do. You almost see men as the source of good and women as the source of all evil in the world. Like I said, it all makes me wonder what has brought you to this point. I wonder if it has anything with your religious views...

Ah, now a wonderfully bigoted way to back handidly denigrate Jayne's
basis for her beliefs...

How marvelously dehumanising of you ! What a wonderful way to
*avoid dealing with what jayne actually wrote*...

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:31:24 GMT, Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: Some Grizzlie Antagonist character, who identifies himself as a misogynist who enjoys reading police reports on violent crimes against women wrote (in response to your asking for pity for women): > Well, I appreciate your sentiments, Jayne Kulikauskas, but for one > thing women are not asking for pity on this particular point (however > frequently they demand pity in other contexts) and for another thing, > I consider myself to be the aggrieved party. to which you responded by : "I consider you to be the aggrieved party too. I'm not saying that women deserve pity from you. It's that I think that you might benefit from pitying us. As I understand things, feeling resentment towards people gives them power over oneself, but feeling pity gives oneself power over them." I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would want *pity* from a creature like that? :-) My comments were not based on what you or any other woman want.But I AM a woman, and whether you like it or not, by referringto *women*, or *us* you are including me and many other womenwho feel just like me. I happen to like that "creature" and was trying to be supportive of him.And I fully support you in liking any creature you want! That is yourright, and if you want him to pity YOU you are more than welcometo ask for it. You shouldn't try to support him at the expense of otherwomen, and when you plead with him to pity "women", that's exactlywhat you are doing.
Not to mention he's creepy.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:31:24 GMT, Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: Some Grizzlie Antagonist character, who identifies himself as a misogynist who enjoys reading police reports on violent crimes against women wrote (in response to your asking for pity for women): > Well, I appreciate your sentiments, Jayne Kulikauskas, but for one > thing women are not asking for pity on this particular point (however > frequently they demand pity in other contexts) and for another thing, > I consider myself to be the aggrieved party. to which you responded by : "I consider you to be the aggrieved party too. I'm not saying that women deserve pity from you. It's that I think that you might benefit from pitying us. As I understand things, feeling resentment towards people gives them power over oneself, but feeling pity gives oneself power over them." I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would want *pity* from a creature like that? :-) My comments were not based on what you or any other woman want.But I AM a woman, and whether you like it or not, by referringto *women*, or *us* you are including me and many other womenwho feel just like me. I happen to like that "creature" and was trying to be supportive of him.And I fully support you in liking any creature you want! That is yourright, and if you want him to pity YOU you are more than welcometo ask for it. You shouldn't try to support him at the expense of otherwomen, and when you plead with him to pity "women", that's exactlywhat you are doing.
Not to mention he's creepy.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:18:55 -0500, "Joy"
<joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in messagenews:c3766d$24trcv$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40567D3E.F446D6D@hotmail.com... [] I have noticed that you speak on behalf of women quite a bit (especially in your soc.men posts!). It seems like you do a lot of projection and have a lot of trouble seeing beyond your personal experience. [] I make a conscious effort to be clear about when I am writing of my own experiences and when I am writing about my impressions of women ingeneral. I might not always succeed, but I do try. While I frequently speak as a woman, I rarely speak on behalf of women. I do think that there are many women who have feelings similar to mine. I suspect that you think that there are many women with feelings similar to yours. I do not see myself as any more guilty of projection than you are.Out of all the women I know, almost all of the ones under age 60 or so wouldthink like Ellie, instead of like you. This is based on the actual people Iknow in RL. Would you say this is projecting? I would say that it doesindicate that, at a *minimum*, there are "many women with feelings similarto [Ellie's]".
I agree I have *never* met a woman who feels like Jayne states.Joy

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:18:55 -0500, "Joy"
<joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in messagenews:c3766d$24trcv$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:40567D3E.F446D6D@hotmail.com... [] I have noticed that you speak on behalf of women quite a bit (especially in your soc.men posts!). It seems like you do a lot of projection and have a lot of trouble seeing beyond your personal experience. [] I make a conscious effort to be clear about when I am writing of my own experiences and when I am writing about my impressions of women ingeneral. I might not always succeed, but I do try. While I frequently speak as a woman, I rarely speak on behalf of women. I do think that there are many women who have feelings similar to mine. I suspect that you think that there are many women with feelings similar to yours. I do not see myself as any more guilty of projection than you are.Out of all the women I know, almost all of the ones under age 60 or so wouldthink like Ellie, instead of like you. This is based on the actual people Iknow in RL. Would you say this is projecting? I would say that it doesindicate that, at a *minimum*, there are "many women with feelings similarto [Ellie's]".
I agree I have *never* met a woman who feels like Jayne states.Joy

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<c37jas$24dcq6$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gaqn3f.pikepgzgxkbaN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: You wouldn't be you if you were born a few centuries ago. You would have been socialized differently and would have a different personality. Most likely you would take men's leadership for granted and make the best of it. You might even like having the men be in charge. And yet when you read literature from centuries ago, it's rarely about subservient women and men in charge of everything. Take Jane Austen, for example. Men had many more legal rights and traditional powers, and they used them, but that doesn't mean women weren't running things in a lot of families. Force of personality counts for a lot. In fact, I can't think of many Austen heroines who are as subservient as you are. Fanny maybe. Austen's novels are about young women facing obstacles in the "course of true love" until they end up with husbands. These husbands will be expected to provide for and protect their wives. I can think of no Austen heroine who decides to be independent and look after herself rather than marry.

Actually, if I recall correctly, most of Austen's heroines are faced
with an ethical dilemma. None of them have very good prospects *if*
they don't marry well. And yet, they want to marry for love, not
necessarily for money. As for deciding to be independent, it's not
that easy a decision, because her heroines usually have family members
reliant on them to marry well so that they will also be provided for -
mothers in their old age; sisters who will increase their own
prospects through introduction into a better society.

It's always a happy ending because her heroines just happen to fall in
love with men who are not only worthy, but *also* wealthy! That is
exactly the story line that appealed back then to her readers because
it wasn't a common scenario. It was the equivalent of winning the
lottery.

Now, if Austen's characters lived in modern day society, the dilemma
would be completely different. They wouldn't have to fret about
marrying well to advance their families. They'd only have to worry
about marrying for love, because they could get a job and make their
own fortunes. That was simply not an option for women in those times.
If you didn't marry well, you were doomed. That theme is quite loud
and clear in all of Austen's novels.

jen

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<c37jas$24dcq6$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gaqn3f.pikepgzgxkbaN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: You wouldn't be you if you were born a few centuries ago. You would have been socialized differently and would have a different personality. Most likely you would take men's leadership for granted and make the best of it. You might even like having the men be in charge. And yet when you read literature from centuries ago, it's rarely about subservient women and men in charge of everything. Take Jane Austen, for example. Men had many more legal rights and traditional powers, and they used them, but that doesn't mean women weren't running things in a lot of families. Force of personality counts for a lot. In fact, I can't think of many Austen heroines who are as subservient as you are. Fanny maybe. Austen's novels are about young women facing obstacles in the "course of true love" until they end up with husbands. These husbands will be expected to provide for and protect their wives. I can think of no Austen heroine who decides to be independent and look after herself rather than marry.

Actually, if I recall correctly, most of Austen's heroines are faced
with an ethical dilemma. None of them have very good prospects *if*
they don't marry well. And yet, they want to marry for love, not
necessarily for money. As for deciding to be independent, it's not
that easy a decision, because her heroines usually have family members
reliant on them to marry well so that they will also be provided for -
mothers in their old age; sisters who will increase their own
prospects through introduction into a better society.

It's always a happy ending because her heroines just happen to fall in
love with men who are not only worthy, but *also* wealthy! That is
exactly the story line that appealed back then to her readers because
it wasn't a common scenario. It was the equivalent of winning the
lottery.

Now, if Austen's characters lived in modern day society, the dilemma
would be completely different. They wouldn't have to fret about
marrying well to advance their families. They'd only have to worry
about marrying for love, because they could get a job and make their
own fortunes. That was simply not an option for women in those times.
If you didn't marry well, you were doomed. That theme is quite loud
and clear in all of Austen's novels.

jen

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<c37jas$24dcq6$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gaqn3f.pikepgzgxkbaN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: > You wouldn't be you if you were born a few centuries ago. You would have > been socialized differently and would have a different personality. Most > likely you would take men's leadership for granted and make the best of it. > You might even like having the men be in charge. And yet when you read literature from centuries ago, it's rarely about subservient women and men in charge of everything. Take Jane Austen, for example. Men had many more legal rights and traditional powers, and they used them, but that doesn't mean women weren't running things in a lot of families. Force of personality counts for a lot. In fact, I can't think of many Austen heroines who are as subservient as you are. Fanny maybe. Austen's novels are about young women facing obstacles in the "course of true love" until they end up with husbands. These husbands will be expected to provide for and protect their wives. I can think of no Austen heroine who decides to be independent and look after herself rather than marry. Actually, if I recall correctly, most of Austen's heroines are faced with an ethical dilemma. None of them have very good prospects *if* they don't marry well. And yet, they want to marry for love, not necessarily for money. As for deciding to be independent, it's not that easy a decision, because her heroines usually have family members reliant on them to marry well so that they will also be provided for - mothers in their old age; sisters who will increase their own prospects through introduction into a better society.

It also isn't an easy decision since (as women of their class and
time) they have no prospect for making an independent living
It's always a happy ending because her heroines just happen to fall in love with men who are not only worthy, but *also* wealthy! That is exactly the story line that appealed back then to her readers because it wasn't a common scenario. It was the equivalent of winning the lottery. Now, if Austen's characters lived in modern day society, the dilemma would be completely different. They wouldn't have to fret about marrying well to advance their families. They'd only have to worry about marrying for love, because they could get a job and make their own fortunes. That was simply not an option for women in those times. If you didn't marry well, you were doomed. That theme is quite loud and clear in all of Austen's novels.

Yes.

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<c37jas$24dcq6$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>... "Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gaqn3f.pikepgzgxkbaN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: > You wouldn't be you if you were born a few centuries ago. You would have > been socialized differently and would have a different personality. Most > likely you would take men's leadership for granted and make the best of it. > You might even like having the men be in charge. And yet when you read literature from centuries ago, it's rarely about subservient women and men in charge of everything. Take Jane Austen, for example. Men had many more legal rights and traditional powers, and they used them, but that doesn't mean women weren't running things in a lot of families. Force of personality counts for a lot. In fact, I can't think of many Austen heroines who are as subservient as you are. Fanny maybe. Austen's novels are about young women facing obstacles in the "course of true love" until they end up with husbands. These husbands will be expected to provide for and protect their wives. I can think of no Austen heroine who decides to be independent and look after herself rather than marry. Actually, if I recall correctly, most of Austen's heroines are faced with an ethical dilemma. None of them have very good prospects *if* they don't marry well. And yet, they want to marry for love, not necessarily for money. As for deciding to be independent, it's not that easy a decision, because her heroines usually have family members reliant on them to marry well so that they will also be provided for - mothers in their old age; sisters who will increase their own prospects through introduction into a better society.

It also isn't an easy decision since (as women of their class and
time) they have no prospect for making an independent living
It's always a happy ending because her heroines just happen to fall in love with men who are not only worthy, but *also* wealthy! That is exactly the story line that appealed back then to her readers because it wasn't a common scenario. It was the equivalent of winning the lottery. Now, if Austen's characters lived in modern day society, the dilemma would be completely different. They wouldn't have to fret about marrying well to advance their families. They'd only have to worry about marrying for love, because they could get a job and make their own fortunes. That was simply not an option for women in those times. If you didn't marry well, you were doomed. That theme is quite loud and clear in all of Austen's novels.

Yes.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4057A02E.519DFBD9@hotmail.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: > > I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would > > want *pity* from a creature like that? :-) > > My comments were not based on what you or any other woman want. But I AM a woman, and whether you like it or not, by referring to *women*, or *us* you are including me and many other women who feel just like me. Yes, that was the point. Jayne, your writings are usually clear and coherent, but this one puzzles me. If you meant to speak on *my* behalf (and ask for the creature's pity for me), then what did you mean by saying you were not basing your comments on what other women wanted? Are you saying that you believe we SHOULD ask for his pity regardless of how we feel? If so, then aren't you deciding for us, or basically speaking on our behalf?

I believe that it is better for people to feel pity than hatred. I was
encouraging Grizzlie to pity women rather than to hate us for his own sake,
not because women want it.
> I happen to > like that "creature" and was trying to be supportive of him. And I fully support you in liking any creature you want! That is your right, and if you want him to pity YOU you are more than welcome to ask for it. You shouldn't try to support him at the expense of
other women, and when you plead with him to pity "women", that's exactly what you are doing. Why not? If we have split into two sides, why don't I get to choose
which side I am on? What two sides are you talking about? I am on my own side, and no one else's. When I give my opinion about how some women feel, it's based on my experience and observation, WITHOUT denying others like you your views. I certainly don't think I have a right to tell you you should ask forgiveness of someone, or do it on your behalf.

Your comment about "the expense of other women" gave me the impression that
you think I owe some sort of loyalty to women against men. Perhaps I
misunderstood.

I do not ask forgiveness for other women. I have stated that I believe
women in general ought to be asking forgiveness.
I just read a post by Sheila in which she said you like to appease men, and writing things to please them is a form of flirting for you. As I said, I like your writings, and sometimes look them up in google. I think she has it half right. You do have a need to appease men, which is just fine. The problem is that you like to do that at the expense of women -- and that's why you feel so much at home in soc.men. I see a level of hostility towards women in your writings that I wonder what experience you have had through life. I have noticed that the more a man is openly hostile to women the more you seem to be infatuated with him. You harshly criticize *men* who are critical of other men, but never get even upset when men say the most nasty things about women, even to the point of overtly suggesting violence towards them. The most that you are willing to say is that you don't agree with their "style" but think of them very highly and understand why they feel as they do. You almost see men as the source of good and women as the source of all evil in the world. Like I said, it all makes me wonder what has brought you to this point. I wonder if it has anything with your religious views...

You are reading much more into this than belongs. The more hostile a man
is, the more he needs to be appeased. The angrier people are, the more they
need to be met with compassion and gentleness. My belief in meeting anger
with love is indeed based on my religious views, but there is nothing in my
religion about women being more evil than men.

Jayne

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4057A02E.519DFBD9@hotmail.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: > > I mean, really!! How dare you even think that as a woman I would > > want *pity* from a creature like that? :-) > > My comments were not based on what you or any other woman want. But I AM a woman, and whether you like it or not, by referring to *women*, or *us* you are including me and many other women who feel just like me. Yes, that was the point. Jayne, your writings are usually clear and coherent, but this one puzzles me. If you meant to speak on *my* behalf (and ask for the creature's pity for me), then what did you mean by saying you were not basing your comments on what other women wanted? Are you saying that you believe we SHOULD ask for his pity regardless of how we feel? If so, then aren't you deciding for us, or basically speaking on our behalf?

I believe that it is better for people to feel pity than hatred. I was
encouraging Grizzlie to pity women rather than to hate us for his own sake,
not because women want it.
> I happen to > like that "creature" and was trying to be supportive of him. And I fully support you in liking any creature you want! That is your right, and if you want him to pity YOU you are more than welcome to ask for it. You shouldn't try to support him at the expense of
other women, and when you plead with him to pity "women", that's exactly what you are doing. Why not? If we have split into two sides, why don't I get to choose
which side I am on? What two sides are you talking about? I am on my own side, and no one else's. When I give my opinion about how some women feel, it's based on my experience and observation, WITHOUT denying others like you your views. I certainly don't think I have a right to tell you you should ask forgiveness of someone, or do it on your behalf.

Your comment about "the expense of other women" gave me the impression that
you think I owe some sort of loyalty to women against men. Perhaps I
misunderstood.

I do not ask forgiveness for other women. I have stated that I believe
women in general ought to be asking forgiveness.
I just read a post by Sheila in which she said you like to appease men, and writing things to please them is a form of flirting for you. As I said, I like your writings, and sometimes look them up in google. I think she has it half right. You do have a need to appease men, which is just fine. The problem is that you like to do that at the expense of women -- and that's why you feel so much at home in soc.men. I see a level of hostility towards women in your writings that I wonder what experience you have had through life. I have noticed that the more a man is openly hostile to women the more you seem to be infatuated with him. You harshly criticize *men* who are critical of other men, but never get even upset when men say the most nasty things about women, even to the point of overtly suggesting violence towards them. The most that you are willing to say is that you don't agree with their "style" but think of them very highly and understand why they feel as they do. You almost see men as the source of good and women as the source of all evil in the world. Like I said, it all makes me wonder what has brought you to this point. I wonder if it has anything with your religious views...

You are reading much more into this than belongs. The more hostile a man
is, the more he needs to be appeased. The angrier people are, the more they
need to be met with compassion and gentleness. My belief in meeting anger
with love is indeed based on my religious views, but there is nothing in my
religion about women being more evil than men.

Jayne

shinypenny wrote:

<snip>
Actually, if I recall correctly, most of Austen's heroines are faced with an ethical dilemma. None of them have very good prospects *if* they don't marry well. And yet, they want to marry for love, not necessarily for money. As for deciding to be independent, it's not that easy a decision, because her heroines usually have family members reliant on them to marry well so that they will also be provided for - mothers in their old age; sisters who will increase their own prospects through introduction into a better society.

Also, her novels aren't only about courting relationships. We see many
examples of well matched couples who are in their middle years as well as
couples of all ages who married "neither wisely nor well".

It's worth noting that Austen eschewed marriage and scraped by on whatever
family money was available to her and the earnings from her novels. She was
engaged for around 24 hours to a good catch but seems to have taken fright
at the idea of marrying for convenience rather than love.
It's always a happy ending because her heroines just happen to fall in love with men who are not only worthy, but *also* wealthy! That is exactly the story line that appealed back then to her readers because it wasn't a common scenario. It was the equivalent of winning the lottery. Now, if Austen's characters lived in modern day society, the dilemma would be completely different. They wouldn't have to fret about marrying well to advance their families. They'd only have to worry about marrying for love, because they could get a job and make their own fortunes. That was simply not an option for women in those times. If you didn't marry well, you were doomed. That theme is quite loud and clear in all of Austen's novels.

Yep.

Nowadays the requirements for a hero in a romance novel are that he's
faithful, loving, likes children and animals and is terrific in bed.....

Tai
(once did a course in romance writing but had problems completing the
homework reading assignments)

shinypenny wrote:

<snip>
Actually, if I recall correctly, most of Austen's heroines are faced with an ethical dilemma. None of them have very good prospects *if* they don't marry well. And yet, they want to marry for love, not necessarily for money. As for deciding to be independent, it's not that easy a decision, because her heroines usually have family members reliant on them to marry well so that they will also be provided for - mothers in their old age; sisters who will increase their own prospects through introduction into a better society.

Also, her novels aren't only about courting relationships. We see many
examples of well matched couples who are in their middle years as well as
couples of all ages who married "neither wisely nor well".

It's worth noting that Austen eschewed marriage and scraped by on whatever
family money was available to her and the earnings from her novels. She was
engaged for around 24 hours to a good catch but seems to have taken fright
at the idea of marrying for convenience rather than love.
It's always a happy ending because her heroines just happen to fall in love with men who are not only worthy, but *also* wealthy! That is exactly the story line that appealed back then to her readers because it wasn't a common scenario. It was the equivalent of winning the lottery. Now, if Austen's characters lived in modern day society, the dilemma would be completely different. They wouldn't have to fret about marrying well to advance their families. They'd only have to worry about marrying for love, because they could get a job and make their own fortunes. That was simply not an option for women in those times. If you didn't marry well, you were doomed. That theme is quite loud and clear in all of Austen's novels.

Yep.

Nowadays the requirements for a hero in a romance novel are that he's
faithful, loving, likes children and animals and is terrific in bed.....

Tai
(once did a course in romance writing but had problems completing the
homework reading assignments)

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:
What two sides are you talking about? I am on my own side, and no one else's. When I give my opinion about how some women feel, it's based on my experience and observation, WITHOUT denying others like you your views. I certainly don't think I have a right to tell you you should ask forgiveness of someone, or do it on your behalf. Your comment about "the expense of other women" gave me the impression that you think I owe some sort of loyalty to women against men. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Yes, you did. I don't think you owe anything to anyone, but then
neither do I or any other woman (as you believe we do). By "at the
expense of women" I mean that you demonize women to appease men who
hate them. You validate their anger and hostility towards women by
saying that they are justified because women have been "bad" (and even
need to be punished, if I remember correctly from one of your posts).
I do not ask forgiveness for other women. I have stated that I believe women in general ought to be asking forgiveness.

Yes, that and more...
You are reading much more into this than belongs. The more hostile a man is, the more he needs to be appeased. The angrier people are, the more they need to be met with compassion and gentleness.

Really?!! Are women not people in your mind? I see you attacking, very
harshly, women who appear angry and hostile to men. Not an ounce of
compassion and gentleness there! You even attack men who are NOT angry
at women and condemn the extreme hatreds towards women that's
expressed by other men. From what I have seen, your "compassion" in
only reserved for men who hate women.

I have never seen you condemn a man for even the most extreme and
violent expression towards women, but are quick to condemn women for
even saying that they don't need men in their lives. Note that I am
not condoning hatred towards men (or anybody), but your total
blindness to the faults of men and assigning all the faults to women
is incredible.
My belief in meeting anger with love is indeed based on my religious views, but there is nothing in my religion about women being more evil than men.

You sure act as if you see women more evil than men.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:
What two sides are you talking about? I am on my own side, and no one else's. When I give my opinion about how some women feel, it's based on my experience and observation, WITHOUT denying others like you your views. I certainly don't think I have a right to tell you you should ask forgiveness of someone, or do it on your behalf. Your comment about "the expense of other women" gave me the impression that you think I owe some sort of loyalty to women against men. Perhaps I misunderstood.

Yes, you did. I don't think you owe anything to anyone, but then
neither do I or any other woman (as you believe we do). By "at the
expense of women" I mean that you demonize women to appease men who
hate them. You validate their anger and hostility towards women by
saying that they are justified because women have been "bad" (and even
need to be punished, if I remember correctly from one of your posts).
I do not ask forgiveness for other women. I have stated that I believe women in general ought to be asking forgiveness.

Yes, that and more...
You are reading much more into this than belongs. The more hostile a man is, the more he needs to be appeased. The angrier people are, the more they need to be met with compassion and gentleness.

Really?!! Are women not people in your mind? I see you attacking, very
harshly, women who appear angry and hostile to men. Not an ounce of
compassion and gentleness there! You even attack men who are NOT angry
at women and condemn the extreme hatreds towards women that's
expressed by other men. From what I have seen, your "compassion" in
only reserved for men who hate women.

I have never seen you condemn a man for even the most extreme and
violent expression towards women, but are quick to condemn women for
even saying that they don't need men in their lives. Note that I am
not condoning hatred towards men (or anybody), but your total
blindness to the faults of men and assigning all the faults to women
is incredible.
My belief in meeting anger with love is indeed based on my religious views, but there is nothing in my religion about women being more evil than men.

You sure act as if you see women more evil than men.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:51:26 +1100, Tai
<tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote: shinypenny wrote:<snip> Actually, if I recall correctly, most of Austen's heroines are faced with an ethical dilemma. None of them have very good prospects *if* they don't marry well. And yet, they want to marry for love, not necessarily for money. As for deciding to be independent, it's not that easy a decision, because her heroines usually have family members reliant on them to marry well so that they will also be provided for - mothers in their old age; sisters who will increase their own prospects through introduction into a better society. Also, her novels aren't only about courting relationships. We see many examples of well matched couples who are in their middle years as well as couples of all ages who married "neither wisely nor well". It's worth noting that Austen eschewed marriage and scraped by on whatever family money was available to her and the earnings from her novels. She was engaged for around 24 hours to a good catch but seems to have taken fright at the idea of marrying for convenience rather than love. It's always a happy ending because her heroines just happen to fall in love with men who are not only worthy, but *also* wealthy! That is exactly the story line that appealed back then to her readers because it wasn't a common scenario. It was the equivalent of winning the lottery. Now, if Austen's characters lived in modern day society, the dilemma would be completely different. They wouldn't have to fret about marrying well to advance their families. They'd only have to worry about marrying for love, because they could get a job and make their own fortunes. That was simply not an option for women in those times. If you didn't marry well, you were doomed. That theme is quite loud and clear in all of Austen's novels. Yep. Nowadays the requirements for a hero in a romance novel are that he's faithful, loving, likes children and animals and is terrific in bed..... Tai (once did a course in romance writing but had problems completing the homework reading assignments)

That's because you missed the favorite....

Gorgeous-rich-bad-boy-becomes-the-perfect-man-under-the-ministrations-
of-the-right-woman plot. That's a favorite!

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:51:26 +1100, Tai
<tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote: shinypenny wrote:<snip> Actually, if I recall correctly, most of Austen's heroines are faced with an ethical dilemma. None of them have very good prospects *if* they don't marry well. And yet, they want to marry for love, not necessarily for money. As for deciding to be independent, it's not that easy a decision, because her heroines usually have family members reliant on them to marry well so that they will also be provided for - mothers in their old age; sisters who will increase their own prospects through introduction into a better society. Also, her novels aren't only about courting relationships. We see many examples of well matched couples who are in their middle years as well as couples of all ages who married "neither wisely nor well". It's worth noting that Austen eschewed marriage and scraped by on whatever family money was available to her and the earnings from her novels. She was engaged for around 24 hours to a good catch but seems to have taken fright at the idea of marrying for convenience rather than love. It's always a happy ending because her heroines just happen to fall in love with men who are not only worthy, but *also* wealthy! That is exactly the story line that appealed back then to her readers because it wasn't a common scenario. It was the equivalent of winning the lottery. Now, if Austen's characters lived in modern day society, the dilemma would be completely different. They wouldn't have to fret about marrying well to advance their families. They'd only have to worry about marrying for love, because they could get a job and make their own fortunes. That was simply not an option for women in those times. If you didn't marry well, you were doomed. That theme is quite loud and clear in all of Austen's novels. Yep. Nowadays the requirements for a hero in a romance novel are that he's faithful, loving, likes children and animals and is terrific in bed..... Tai (once did a course in romance writing but had problems completing the homework reading assignments)

That's because you missed the favorite....

Gorgeous-rich-bad-boy-becomes-the-perfect-man-under-the-ministrations-
of-the-right-woman plot. That's a favorite!

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

In article <slrnc5h2ib.v34.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller wrote: On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:51:26 +1100, Tai<tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote: shinypenny wrote:<snip> Actually, if I recall correctly, most of Austen's heroines are faced with an ethical dilemma. None of them have very good prospects *if* they don't marry well. And yet, they want to marry for love, not necessarily for money. As for deciding to be independent, it's not that easy a decision, because her heroines usually have family members reliant on them to marry well so that they will also be provided for - mothers in their old age; sisters who will increase their own prospects through introduction into a better society. Also, her novels aren't only about courting relationships. We see many examples of well matched couples who are in their middle years as well as couples of all ages who married "neither wisely nor well". It's worth noting that Austen eschewed marriage and scraped by on whatever family money was available to her and the earnings from her novels. She was engaged for around 24 hours to a good catch but seems to have taken fright at the idea of marrying for convenience rather than love. It's always a happy ending because her heroines just happen to fall in love with men who are not only worthy, but *also* wealthy! That is exactly the story line that appealed back then to her readers because it wasn't a common scenario. It was the equivalent of winning the lottery. Now, if Austen's characters lived in modern day society, the dilemma would be completely different. They wouldn't have to fret about marrying well to advance their families. They'd only have to worry about marrying for love, because they could get a job and make their own fortunes. That was simply not an option for women in those times. If you didn't marry well, you were doomed. That theme is quite loud and clear in all of Austen's novels. Yep. Nowadays the requirements for a hero in a romance novel are that he's faithful, loving, likes children and animals and is terrific in bed..... Tai (once did a course in romance writing but had problems completing the homework reading assignments) That's because you missed the favorite.... Gorgeous-rich-bad-boy-becomes-the-perfect-man-under-the-ministrations- of-the-right-woman plot. That's a favorite!

What you said is very representative of the romance novels that I have
read (count of one).

i

In article <slrnc5h2ib.v34.tony@home.cigardiary.com>, Tony Miller wrote: On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 16:51:26 +1100, Tai<tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote: shinypenny wrote:<snip> Actually, if I recall correctly, most of Austen's heroines are faced with an ethical dilemma. None of them have very good prospects *if* they don't marry well. And yet, they want to marry for love, not necessarily for money. As for deciding to be independent, it's not that easy a decision, because her heroines usually have family members reliant on them to marry well so that they will also be provided for - mothers in their old age; sisters who will increase their own prospects through introduction into a better society. Also, her novels aren't only about courting relationships. We see many examples of well matched couples who are in their middle years as well as couples of all ages who married "neither wisely nor well". It's worth noting that Austen eschewed marriage and scraped by on whatever family money was available to her and the earnings from her novels. She was engaged for around 24 hours to a good catch but seems to have taken fright at the idea of marrying for convenience rather than love. It's always a happy ending because her heroines just happen to fall in love with men who are not only worthy, but *also* wealthy! That is exactly the story line that appealed back then to her readers because it wasn't a common scenario. It was the equivalent of winning the lottery. Now, if Austen's characters lived in modern day society, the dilemma would be completely different. They wouldn't have to fret about marrying well to advance their families. They'd only have to worry about marrying for love, because they could get a job and make their own fortunes. That was simply not an option for women in those times. If you didn't marry well, you were doomed. That theme is quite loud and clear in all of Austen's novels. Yep. Nowadays the requirements for a hero in a romance novel are that he's faithful, loving, likes children and animals and is terrific in bed..... Tai (once did a course in romance writing but had problems completing the homework reading assignments) That's because you missed the favorite.... Gorgeous-rich-bad-boy-becomes-the-perfect-man-under-the-ministrations- of-the-right-woman plot. That's a favorite!

What you said is very representative of the romance novels that I have
read (count of one).

i

In article <c38otp$25obrp$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>, Tai wrote: Nowadays the requirements for a hero in a romance novel are that he's faithful, loving, likes children and animals and is terrific in bed.....

Do they also require that the hero takes out garbage and closes the
toilet lid?

i

In article <c38otp$25obrp$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>, Tai wrote: Nowadays the requirements for a hero in a romance novel are that he's faithful, loving, likes children and animals and is terrific in bed.....

Do they also require that the hero takes out garbage and closes the
toilet lid?

i

"Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c38otp$25obrp$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>...

Yep. Nowadays the requirements for a hero in a romance novel are that he's faithful, loving, likes children and animals and is terrific in bed.....

Yes, and he must have a "throbbing member"... (that phrase always gave
me a bad case of the giggles).

jen

"Tai" <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c38otp$25obrp$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de>...

Yep. Nowadays the requirements for a hero in a romance novel are that he's faithful, loving, likes children and animals and is terrific in bed.....

Yes, and he must have a "throbbing member"... (that phrase always gave
me a bad case of the giggles).

jen

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
Tai (once did a course in romance writing but had problems completing the homework reading assignments) That's because you missed the favorite.... Gorgeous-rich-bad-boy-becomes-the-perfect-man-under-the-ministrations- of-the-right-woman plot. That's a favorite!

Thankfully, Austen didn't pull that one. Even in Pride and Prejudice
(the closest to a "romance novel"), Darcy is a good person. He just
needs to loosen up and quit being so proud. And the women change too.

Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gaqn3f.pikepgzgxkbaN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: You wouldn't be you if you were born a few centuries ago. You would have been socialized differently and would have a different personality. Most likely you would take men's leadership for granted and make the best of it. You might even like having the men be in charge. And yet when you read literature from centuries ago, it's rarely about subservient women and men in charge of everything. Take Jane Austen, for example. Men had many more legal rights and traditional powers, and they used them, but that doesn't mean women weren't running things in a lot of families. Force of personality counts for a lot. In fact, I can't think of many Austen heroines who are as subservient as you are. Fanny maybe. Austen's novels are about young women facing obstacles in the "course of true love" until they end up with husbands.

All of her novels include this as part of the story. However, there are
many examples of both good and bad marriages already existing in the
novels. Do you think of Fanny Dashwood as subservient? Or to take a
more lpeasant example, how about Mrs. Croft?
These husbands will be expected to provide for and protect their wives. I can think of no Austen heroine who decides to be independent and look after herself rather than marry.

They don't really have that choice, except Emma. If they don't get
married, they will be supported by their families. Jane Fairfax does
come pretty close to becoming a governess, but that's obviously a
hateful fate.
As for how these heroines would treat their husbands, we know very little since the story usually ends at the point where they get engaged. As they are admirable women, I find it hard to imagine them with no sense of obligation to their husbands.

Of course they have an obligation to thier husbands! That is not the
same as being entirely subservient. Their husbansds will feel an
obligation to them as well.
And that is basically what my "subservience" is - a sense of obligation to my husband. I appreciate what he does for me and am grateful. He is a wonderful man and I want him to know that I respect, admire and love him.

So is he "subservient" to you to, then?

shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if I recall correctly, most of Austen's heroines are faced with an ethical dilemma. None of them have very good prospects *if* they don't marry well.

I would say only "Pride and Prejudice" and "Sense and Sensibility" have
that dynamic. Emma is independently rich. Fanny and Anne and Catherine
can easily be supported by their families.

Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:
Tai (once did a course in romance writing but had problems completing the homework reading assignments) That's because you missed the favorite.... Gorgeous-rich-bad-boy-becomes-the-perfect-man-under-the-ministrations- of-the-right-woman plot. That's a favorite!

Thankfully, Austen didn't pull that one. Even in Pride and Prejudice
(the closest to a "romance novel"), Darcy is a good person. He just
needs to loosen up and quit being so proud. And the women change too.

Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote:
"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1gaqn3f.pikepgzgxkbaN%mbjq@earthlink.net... Jayne Kulikauskas <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote: You wouldn't be you if you were born a few centuries ago. You would have been socialized differently and would have a different personality. Most likely you would take men's leadership for granted and make the best of it. You might even like having the men be in charge. And yet when you read literature from centuries ago, it's rarely about subservient women and men in charge of everything. Take Jane Austen, for example. Men had many more legal rights and traditional powers, and they used them, but that doesn't mean women weren't running things in a lot of families. Force of personality counts for a lot. In fact, I can't think of many Austen heroines who are as subservient as you are. Fanny maybe. Austen's novels are about young women facing obstacles in the "course of true love" until they end up with husbands.

All of her novels include this as part of the story. However, there are
many examples of both good and bad marriages already existing in the
novels. Do you think of Fanny Dashwood as subservient? Or to take a
more lpeasant example, how about Mrs. Croft?
These husbands will be expected to provide for and protect their wives. I can think of no Austen heroine who decides to be independent and look after herself rather than marry.

They don't really have that choice, except Emma. If they don't get
married, they will be supported by their families. Jane Fairfax does
come pretty close to becoming a governess, but that's obviously a
hateful fate.
As for how these heroines would treat their husbands, we know very little since the story usually ends at the point where they get engaged. As they are admirable women, I find it hard to imagine them with no sense of obligation to their husbands.

Of course they have an obligation to thier husbands! That is not the
same as being entirely subservient. Their husbansds will feel an
obligation to them as well.
And that is basically what my "subservience" is - a sense of obligation to my husband. I appreciate what he does for me and am grateful. He is a wonderful man and I want him to know that I respect, admire and love him.

So is he "subservient" to you to, then?

shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, if I recall correctly, most of Austen's heroines are faced with an ethical dilemma. None of them have very good prospects *if* they don't marry well.

I would say only "Pride and Prejudice" and "Sense and Sensibility" have
that dynamic. Emma is independently rich. Fanny and Anne and Catherine
can easily be supported by their families.

Tai <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote:
Also, her novels aren't only about courting relationships. We see many examples of well matched couples who are in their middle years as well as couples of all ages who married "neither wisely nor well". It's worth noting that Austen eschewed marriage and scraped by on whatever family money was available to her and the earnings from her novels. She was engaged for around 24 hours to a good catch but seems to have taken fright at the idea of marrying for convenience rather than love.

Tai knows her stuff. :-) What do you think about the subservience
issue?

Tai <tainuiti@yahoo.com> wrote:
Also, her novels aren't only about courting relationships. We see many examples of well matched couples who are in their middle years as well as couples of all ages who married "neither wisely nor well". It's worth noting that Austen eschewed marriage and scraped by on whatever family money was available to her and the earnings from her novels. She was engaged for around 24 hours to a good catch but seems to have taken fright at the idea of marrying for convenience rather than love.

Tai knows her stuff. :-) What do you think about the subservience
issue?

Rauni <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote:
Out of all the women I know, almost all of the ones under age 60 or so wouldthink like Ellie, instead of like you. This is based on the actual people Iknow in RL. Would you say this is projecting? I would say that it doesindicate that, at a *minimum*, there are "many women with feelings similarto [Ellie's]". I agree I have *never* met a woman who feels like Jayne states.

I don't think I have either.

Rauni <ladywolf@newsguy.com> wrote:
Out of all the women I know, almost all of the ones under age 60 or so wouldthink like Ellie, instead of like you. This is based on the actual people Iknow in RL. Would you say this is projecting? I would say that it doesindicate that, at a *minimum*, there are "many women with feelings similarto [Ellie's]". I agree I have *never* met a woman who feels like Jayne states.

I don't think I have either.

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mgu5c.82181$JN2.65116@bignews4.bellsouth.net. .. "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:c35luh$24sk8p$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... Not necessarily. Women get a lot of mixed messages and it seems to me that we often feel ambivalent about our place in the world. Women could
have feelings like mine but have them mixed with other feelings that lead
them to other choices than mine. There is some evidence that there are a lot of unhappy women out there. There are also a lot of women who read
romances who are presumably fantasizing about having a husband like mine. (Sometimes I feel so guilty about having him all to myself. <g>) You might be projecting a bit. Women are all individuals, just like men, and we really wouldn't all be happy with the same kind of life. A lot of it is just inborn personality. I've had a real "want to do my own
thinking and don't need anybody else to tell me what to do" personality as long as
I can remember. It runs in my family. I really wouldn't be happy in a marriage like yours, although I'm delighted that you and your husband have each found somebody so compatible with you. It just wouldn't work for me. (FWIW, even though I read a few books a week I don't read romances at all, because I tend to find both the male and female characters extremely unappealing. Definitely not an object of fantasy for me).

Romance novels. YUCK

"Joy" <joydoesntlikespam@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mgu5c.82181$JN2.65116@bignews4.bellsouth.net. .. "Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:c35luh$24sk8p$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de... Not necessarily. Women get a lot of mixed messages and it seems to me that we often feel ambivalent about our place in the world. Women could
have feelings like mine but have them mixed with other feelings that lead
them to other choices than mine. There is some evidence that there are a lot of unhappy women out there. There are also a lot of women who read
romances who are presumably fantasizing about having a husband like mine. (Sometimes I feel so guilty about having him all to myself. <g>) You might be projecting a bit. Women are all individuals, just like men, and we really wouldn't all be happy with the same kind of life. A lot of it is just inborn personality. I've had a real "want to do my own
thinking and don't need anybody else to tell me what to do" personality as long as
I can remember. It runs in my family. I really wouldn't be happy in a marriage like yours, although I'm delighted that you and your husband have each found somebody so compatible with you. It just wouldn't work for me. (FWIW, even though I read a few books a week I don't read romances at all, because I tend to find both the male and female characters extremely unappealing. Definitely not an object of fantasy for me).

Romance novels. YUCK

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40567D3E.F446D6D@hotmail.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: Isn't it great that we live in a time when each of us can use the century we want to live in?!! I mean, you can live the life you want and we can live how we like. If we were born a few centuries ago we would be force to live like you -- I would die :-) You wouldn't be you if you were born a few centuries ago. You would
have been socialized differently and would have a different personality.
Most likely you would take men's leadership for granted and make the best of
it. Yes, I am well aware of how social expectations and enforcement can shape personalities. I am intimately familiar with women in parts of the world where the supremecy of men is taken as a god given law, expected and accepted by everyone. And many women do take it just as the fact of life. They literally resign to the station that they are assigned to, and as you say try to make the best of it. However, the *best of it* is still a sorry situation! You might even like having the men be in charge. I might have accepted it, and since I wouldn't have had the opportunity to be in charge myself, find it the only way to live. But I am sure that if I would be given the taste of self reliance and control, I would take it in a blink! It is interesting to observe some of the women who come to U.S. from the more traditional countries. It doesn't take more than the time that they need to learn about their rights and potentials for them to rebel against the centuries worth of training and brain washing about where they belong! Do you know young immigrant women from, say, middle east, who have had the opportunity to escape (even a little) from the control of their family and tradition? It's amazing how fast they unlearn all the things that you think is hardwired in them! See, you just have to use your intellect (which you have plenty) instead of emotion sometimes. You MUST know that if all women felt like you, they would do as you do -- unless you think every woman but you is a masochist :-) Not necessarily. Women get a lot of mixed messages and it seems to me
that we often feel ambivalent about our place in the world. Not all of us! I don't feel ambivalent at all, nor do most of the women that I know. Some of us aren't so gullible to take every message that is given to us to heart! We do find our own place in the world, regardless of mixed messages. Women could have feelings like mine but have them mixed with other feelings that lead
them to other choices than mine. Sure, I never thought you were the only one! But you seem to think those who say they don't feel like you are in denial or something! I have noticed that you speak on behalf of women quite a bit (especially in your soc.men posts!). It seems like you do a lot of projection and have a lot of trouble seeing beyond your personal experience. There is some evidence that there are a lot of unhappy women out there. There are many unhappy people in the world, and each for their own reasons. Just because women are unhappy doesn't mean they would be happy becoming a submissive follower of men! There are also a lot of women who read romances who are presumably fantasizing about having a husband like mine. Ah... the classic *romance novel* fantasy claim. Yes, there are many women who enjoy romance novels with heroes who are handsome and kind and loving and sweep them off their feet and take them on their white horses. What you don't realize is that these fantasy heroes do what *the woman* wants.

The other thing to note, no one ever thinks I want to be a Dark Lord or a
Dragon Reborn because I like to read sci-fi fantasy novels.
In other words, when a woman loses herself in that image, she is not imagining doing something disturbing and gross because her hero likes it! It is the ultimate fantasy of getting what you want without asking and working for it, and just having someone knowing exactly what you want and provide it for you! (Sometimes I feel so guilty about having him all to myself. <g>) Don't. Just count your blessing to have found a perfect match for yourself. That is what I do. I am