GenderGappers 1997: 21 - 30

BARGAIN! 28% OFF

Ever get the feeling that you go through life with a
sign on your back? A sign that reads - I'm a woman and
am worth (valued) only 72% of the worth of a culture-
defined-human being. You recognize the 28% given in
the title, don't you? This is how much less your
receive in wages than the comparable male. It also
stands for a lot of other things.

It determines how much less a woman may have to invest;
how much less she may save toward her retirement; how
much less she may purchase; it determines her living
standard and most distressful of all, how she may feel
about herself -- if she allows the culture to determine
her self worth.

Think about it! Use your own terms and points of
reference. If you are married and filing a joint tax
return, your income is taxed higher than his. Compare
how much time you spend on your `outside-the-home' job
with how much time you are expected to do `free work'
inside your home.

Which gender does our culture hold responsible for the
behavior and welfare of the children in your home?
What benefits accrue to women who stay at home, keep
house and devote themselves to raising children? Our
culture professes to honor women for doing this. Is it
a hollow honor? Do these women get tax breaks? Extra
insurance benefits? Medals or golden crowns? If women
are worth so much less, how can we trust them to bring
up children? Several recent surveys agree that women
spend about 9 hours a week with their children while
men spend about 2-1/2 hours a week. These child/parent
times for each gender has remained constant for years.

Some women may cite personal satisfaction as a reason
for not working outside of their home and this may be a
valid argument, but you cannot take that to the bank.
Like it or not our culture values our citizens in
$$$$$$$, not deeds.

Many times one hears a male CEO state how important his
staff is. We assume that this includes his women staff
that he values 28% less than his male staff. Is there
some compensation here that we are not seeing? Are
women expected to work only 72% of an eight hour day?
Does a typist, for example, type only 72% of a letter?
A salesperson make only 72% of a sale? If a mistake is
made, do women get only 72% of the blame?

Does a woman doctor or veterinary complete only 72% of
a patient examination or do just 72% of an operation?
Do we see women lawyers stopping a case in court when
they have completed 72% of it?

Fact is that most women put in more time on the job
then most men. Just look in any office and see who is
doing the work and who is standing around the water
cooler or walking the halls. Anytime there is an
office crisis, it is mostly the women who work through
the coffee breaks and the lunch hour. We also note
that even those women with a cooperative partner are
expected to, and do, start their second job of the day
when they return home after the day's paid labor where
many have already put in the required 8 hours and then
some.

Our culture defends this by claiming that if a *woman*
wants both children and career, she must sacrifice.
She must also oblige by taking on 200% of the guilt for
ostensibly neglecting the children. Although women who
work outside the home are given days off to celebrate
male holidays, there is still no such homage given to
any woman even though there have been women who merit
such honors.

There's a reason that most cases of sexual harassment
in the workplace are perpetrated by men. Women are
just to damned busy. We started out having to work
twice as hard to get half as much salary as a man and
"Baby, we haven't come a long way from that."

Volunteer work is still mostly done by women although
more men are entering this activity. Women have made a
great start by exhibiting their political savvy and
muscle at the polls thereby creating the gendergap.
There is more to do. Women not only must change their
own concept of themselves but also change the concept
of the rest of the world. They will do this when they
demand that they be identified as a different `gender'
from men -- not a different (or lesser) `species'!


AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION ...

We have written before about how our society blames
many of its problems on women and has done so for ages.
Rape, for example, where ever it may occur. If it
happens in the military, of course, it is just because
women are there -- where they shouldn't be.

Then there is battering. Wouldn't happen if women
acted right and behaved themselves. Pregnancy? Women
at fault here too. Our culture maintains, against all
biological evidence, that women get themselves pregnant
ignoring the fact that women are impregnated *by men*.
We see the same attitude in the way society criminal-
izes "hookers" (women), while ignoring the fact that
they would not exist were it not for "johns" (men).

An intelligent being knows that since the beginning of
time AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE.
There is presently, a great bill introduced just last
month by Senators Olympia Snowe (R - Maine) and Harry Reid
(D - Nevada) that goes right to the heart of preventing
many or most abortions without criminalizing a woman or
her doctor.

It is so simple, it cries out for passage. COVER CON-
TRACEPTIVE PRESCRIPTIONS BY HEALTH INSURANCES. Only a
very few companies do that now, even though it has been
amply shown that there is a connection between avail-
able birth control and a reduction in the number of
abortions and unwanted pregnancies. Women of reproduc-
tive age spend two thirds more than men for health care
costs when they must purchase contraception material.

Senator Reid, when introducing the bill, stated,
"Insurance companies (typically) cover sterilization
and abortion procedures, but they are not covering the
cost of prescription contraception. This just doesn't
make sense. ... If men were the ones who had to pay
for this it would have been covered a long time ago."

It is much worse for women in less-developed countries
who lack access to contraception. This causes about 75
million unwanted pregnancies and about 45 million of
them results in abortion. Since so many of these
abortions are unsafe, 70,000 women die each yea.

We in the US used to be a leader in worldwide efforts
for reproductive health but now contribute only half as
much as Denmark. This is due to anti-choice House mem-
bers who have once again tied the president's hands by
claiming that if the bill passed, the money would be
used to subsidized abortions -- even though the UN
policy explicitly outlaws this use of the funds.

These House members, who are acting under orders of the
irreligious right and the foreign leader of the catho-
lic church, again demonstrate that their goal is not
just to criminalize a woman and her doctor, but is
focused on prevention of any type of birth control.
These members oppose the Snowe/Reid bill.

Public pressure is the only thing that will move this
bill along in the Senate. Since the media are ignoring
this bill, it is up to everyone to write letters to the
editor of their newspapers; alert their representatives
in Congress and spread the word to all the women you
can reach to do likewise.

Is the opposition to this bill strictly from religions?
Not at all, there are many people of various faiths
that support this bill. Senator Snowe is a pro-choice
Republican of Greek Orthodox faith. Senator Reid is a
pro-life Democrat and a devout Mormon.

We also must never forget that another event that con-
tributes to many late term abortions is the constant
threat by religious terrorists at women's health clin-
ics. Women, who might otherwise go to these clinics
for birth control and information, fear the mobs around
these clinics. Instead of preventing an unwanted
pregnancy by going to a local clinic early on for a day
after pill, some women must now travel to a safe place
to terminate a usually late, unwanted pregnancy.
************************************************

We have received many requests for information on how
to contact Susan McDougal. You can write to her at:
Susan McDougal
c/o Sybil Brand Institute for Women
P.O. Box 86164
Terminal Annex
Los Angeles, CA 90086-0164

A card or note showing your support will surely be
appreciated. She was so pleased with the Gendergap-
per's "Susan Mac D. Day." issue.


25 YEAR ANNIVERSARY NOTED

On June 23rd, we, as a country, celebrate the 25th anni-
versary of Title IX -- an order barring sex discrimina-
tion in schools and mandating that women's sports must
be given the same amount of monetary and other support
as men's.

The reports about this anniversary may be found on inside
pages of most newspapers - typical. 25 years later,
80% of our colleges and universities are OUT OF COMPLI-
ANCE - typical. Well, who really thinks its important,
after all, it's about women and how they have taken
money away from important things such as college foot-
ball, basketball, tennis, golf, baseball and all the
other sports, er, MEN'S sports.

But for those women who were suddenly allowed to do
sports under this Title, it meant a great deal. TV
news shows did much better than most newspapers. Most
showed excerpts of the President, Olympian Jackie
Joyner-Kersee, former astronaut, Sally Ride and some of
the other successful women in occupations from doctor
to firefighter.

"We're here to celebrate the God-given talent of every
woman and girl who has been benefited by it", Clinton
said. He said that Title IX did not cause women to
succeed, "but it did give them the chance to make the
most of their abilities."

And what abilities we have seen when women are free to
live in their bodies according to their own definition
of womanness. In 1940, Babe Didrikson Zaharias was asked
"Is there anything at all you don't play?" "Yeah," she
answered. "Dolls."

Not mentioned in the media, but of the greatest
importantance, is the fact that exercise throughout
a person's life is one of the greatest means of preven-
ting that horrible, crippling disease of our foremoth-
ers, osteoporosis. We hear now of the great benefits
of exercise in preventing all sorts of conditions, such
as cancer, weight control, heart problems, arthritis
and the list goes on and on.

We cannot underestimate the effect of team sports on
bonding. Men have had this privilege for eons, but it
has only been since Title IX that women have been
allowed to participate and show their fantastic abili-
ties. Previously, all women were encouraged to treat
other women as rivals and any bonding activity was
frowned upon since women were supposed to find their
identity and approval only in men.

So all these benefits, and we haven't even mentioned
what team sports and exercise have to do with gaining
one's self esteem.

We are sure to note additional benefits as more and
more women gain prominence, and along with it, a voice
we can all hear. For now we celebrate 2 Women's Bas-
ketball Leagues that result from college/university
programs that this Title mandated.

Perhaps these programs contributed to the noticeable
number of women who are going on so-called, adventure
vacations. Many of these, by popular demand are led by
women, for women. Why not include men? The answer is
usually along these lines. "I can learn to fish, or
hike or canoe without one of them telling me all the
time how to do it -- like I'm a kid that can't figure
the most basic things out."

One of the leaders of these adventure trips said,
"Women have always been adventuresome but it is only
now that they have had the money or opportunity to take
these kind of trips before."

In the middle of June, early in this Century, Susan B.
Anthony was fined $100 for trying to vote. This year,
near the end of the same Century, in the middle of
June, Dr. Jenetta Cole, in her farewell address on
leaving as President of Spelman College, reminds us
that "women do hold up half the sky" and the army
pinned a third star on General Claudia Kennedy, the
first WOMAN 3-Star General!



HARD FACTS WITH A LITTLE FANTASY

A veteran of WW2 was being interviewed on TV the other
night. He was asked what he thought about the army sex
scandals. His answer was quite revealing so we copy it
verbatim: "Whenever women are placed in an environment
that traditionally *belongs to* men, you cannot prevent
sexual intimacy or rape."

According to historical custom and religious dogma, it
appears that everywhere EXCEPT the home may be defined
as environments that traditionally *belong* to men. One
would then assume that the veteran army officer was ex-
cluding the home from any sexual intimacy or rape, but
he wasn't. Within the surety of his male rights
(rites), he was just expressing his beliefs -- ALL
environments belong to men.

Religious groups of today may be completely male or a
varying mixture of male and female, but they are all
led by men (with the possible exception of some of the
newer, reality based women's religions). They proclaim
men's place as head, leader, lord and master and refer
to the bible as proof that they are ordained by God to
rule (`he shall have dominion over...'. Interestingly
enough, these groups mostly extend a very special place
to women and they say they venerate this place and they
say they venerate the women who stay in it. But women
must give over all control of their bodies and
reproduction to men to qualify.

Whether they call themselves the Promise Keepers, the
MMM, KC, Masons, unchristian coalition, irreligious
right or whatever, they all speak in glowing terms of
the place of woman and how important it is. She makes
the home, she has the children and she takes care of
the children. She is the Florence Nightingale of
FAMILY VALUES.

Therefore, all problems in the world are due to women
who did not stay in their place. Homelessness -- women
took men's jobs. Rape -- women were in traditional
men's environment. Inflation -- women in the work-
place. Welfare mothers, teenage mothers, latch key
children, child criminal behavior, alcohol and drug
abuse -- all that is wrong with society is because
women did not stay in their place. That *her* place
often also contained battering, molestation, mental
cruelty and slavery is discounted. It only matters
that they left.

So the most terrible of crimes, the breakup of the
family is laid at the door of woman... and after men and
their religion had put her on such a high pedestal too.
"How could she do this?" They lament. "We venerate
women, we venerate mothers, we venerate the keeper of
our family values. We have done so through the ages.

"Women should be delighted with their place since they
are cosseted and protected. Freed from the temptations
of the world, they may knit, spin, play canasta and be
the useless drones nature and God intended them to be
-- once they attend to husband, children and church.
After all, doesn't our religion venerate chastity and
mothers and all that good stuff?"

***Our point in the `turnabout' below is NOT to belit-
tle religion or the bible but rather to highlight MEN'S
ADMINISTRATION AND PRACTICE OF IT.*** So come with a
smile and an open mind as we go with Alice through the
`Looking Glass'.
;-)

Just for fun, let's consider how things would have
shaken out in this world if the proscribed role for
women *REALLY*WAS*HIGHLY*VALUED* back in the biblical
days of yore from whence commeth our kulture. Does it
not follow then that the male in our society would play
the subservient role? His part in the deeply cherished
procreation process may take only a few minutes, there-
fore, when entering into marriage, he would give up his
`maiden name', lose his identity and become a non-
person. He would joyously take his wife's name (which,
of course, was her mother's name) and become her
property as would all of the children of their union.
He would be expected to nuture and provide for the
children under the direction of his wife who would be
engaged in the world's business.

All property would be in the woman's name since she
would be fulfilling the major part of the much revered
procreation process. Of course, rape would not be
tolerated and crime of all kinds would disappear as all
places would be women's spaces.

Needless to say, all of this would have come about with
the presence of a strong church, led by a popemother
superior. She would officiate over a legion of women
who, like her, are unmarried and childless. They would
be the ones who made the rules and governed the family
values for all the lay women and men.

And, probably, like the present male model, these
female religiosa would manifest a predilection for
young alter girls and boys.

Jesus would have been Jesa; and Pauline, suffering from
PMS and depression, would have cursed men all the way
to Damascus.


GENES ... OR CULTURAL ENGINEERING?

There is so much in the news these days that makes us,
as women, feel rather badly used and certainly objecti-
fied. One thinks of how the media has gone wild over a
boxer who bit another boxer's ear. Yet when Tyson
raped a woman, this same media bemoaned this great
athlete having to go to prison and trashed the woman
who was raped. Then there is the current `panty' craze
going on these days at Wimbledon. All of the athletic
skill and technique of the women tennis players is
ignored while the media focuses like a lazer on their
panties which may be readily seen beneath the short
skirts.

In this century, we have truly come a long way, WOMEN!
We are in the professions, in politics, in universities
and as Gendergappers, we have shown that we vote and we
have served notice that our vote counts. The Project
Director of the Mars Projects is Donna Shirley -- a very
highly trained and erudite engineer, yet how few of us
are aware of this and how many of us really care.

Are we ignoring this disrespect for our gender, are we
fighting it or are we contributing to it? If we con-
tribute to it, is it because of genetic predisposition
or cultural engineering? Along those lines, we were
tossing around a few ideas the other day and got into a
"why do I (we)..." session. Here's a few we came up
with but feel free to add your own.

Somehow, as a gender, we are considered to be weak,
helpless and needing a man to `take care of us' --we
are unable to open doors or put on our own coats, for
example. To maintain and to contribute to this image,
we may dress ourselves in clothing that is totally
uncomfortable, in some respects dangerous to our health
and childish (as opposed to adultish). We cannot let
the line of our dress be disturbed by pockets so we
weigh ourselves down with huge bags that hurt our
spines and render us defenseless if attacked. Do we do
this because it is expected of us? To get noticed ie
male approval (and female envy, too?). Is this all
genetic and we can't help ourselves?

To add to the clothing mandates for success, we are ex-
pected to (or is it innate in our genes) shave our
axillary hair, legs and even pubic so that we become
even more childlike ie non-adult and thereby more
attractive to daddy (males). We submit to, and even in
some cases appear to enjoy, being referred to as var-
ious kinds of food as well as such juvenile terms as
baby, girl, doll and bird.

Why do we continue to load ourselves up with scent
(because we stink or are we trying to be flowers?) have
elaborate hairdos; cultivate long, painted fingernails
(for show only, as we certainly know we cannot work
properly with them); find bobbles, bangles and beads a
necessity; paint our toenails, and wear open toed shoes
to show them off; paint our faces, especially our lips;
glue false smiles onto our faces and end our sentences
with raising intonations and little-girl-question-
words? Right? OK? All right?

Is it genetic that our culture has our male parent
`give us away' in marriage to another adult male and
that we lose our identity and go from daddies' lil'
girl to husband's property by taking his name? Do you
know of any groom that has been `given away in mar-
riage' by his parents? Just how long do you think a
male would go being addressed as Mrs and Mr. Elizabeth
Smith? And, of course, never forget that we still
teach in our sciences about *man* -- just as if woman
never existed -- until the chapter on reproduction
introduces her as a collection of reproductive parts
which men use to produce more men.

In a joint return, who is designated `head of house-
hold' by the Internal Revenue Service? Who is expected
to look pretty and be nice, wear frilly, lacy fabrics
and like pink and pastel colors? Why are women assumed
to all have aesthetic tastes that are different (and
less important or frivolous) than men's? Why is a
women expected to give up her personal space and a man
allowed to keep his in our greeting rituals? Men
generally shake hands with other men but we women are
expected to allow them, unasked, intimate contact with
our face.

Is it genetic that we must coo over stuffed animals and
useless knickknacks and go ga ga over flowers and
candy?

Check out how you talk to children and listen to how
others around you do. Note the programming in: "big
man vs little lady", note how you are referred to as
girl or lady throughout your life. To add insult to
injury, many men will address older women as "young
lady." It makes you barf! How much longer do we
blindly accept this cultural engineering as genetic
destiny? How much longer are we willing to politely
allow our bodies and our minds to be trashed? In a
recent book, scientists have urged women to "live to
their own biological potential." They say that re-
search shows that a woman's body is better designed
than man's and that women have a better and more effec-
tive immune system.

The fact is that more and more women are waking up and
rejecting the whole definition of woman as opposite and
unequal to man. We are taking pride in being *women*
-- human beings, not children or ladies -- and discov-
ering for ourselves what we can do, think and feel once
we throw of the conventional, cultural straight jacket
that has restricted us for so many thousands of years.


PHEE, PHIE, PHOE FEN PHEN

Since the word has come out that the miracle reducing
drug, fen phen, may be flawed and damage your lungs and
heart valves, we thought we'd follow last weeks article
up with how some of the societal edicts for women, that
we wrote about last time, may effect your health as well
as your welfare.

Until quite recently, doctors treated women
differently than real people ie men. Research was
confined to male subjects whether human or animal --
the reason given was that there could be no reliable
results if they used females because of the menstrual
cycle but this has since been proven false.

One of the most egregious example of this difference in
treatment was (and still is by some doctors) the lack of
attention given a woman's heart. It was just as if she
didn't have one. If she spoke of her pain or discomfort,
most doctors would consider it female neurosis and send her
home with valium. Now many doctors warehouse women on
estrogen drugs, downplaying the risk of increased incidence
of breast cancer from estrogen. We all need to educate our
doctors who still refer to men's "symptoms" and women's "complaints."

Some very harmful societal attitudes toward women are
those that limit her from childhood on from practicing
and enjoying full mental and physical health. There
have been *some* changes in the past few years and now
there are team sports and some activities deemed
suitable for girls and women, however, the infant and
preschool patriarchal attitudes have still imprinted
many girls. You can see the results all around you. In
childhood and adulthood the Barbie image contributes to
overweight, underweight, shyness, fears and baby doll
flirting learned to please daddy. Generally girls are
not trained to take care of themselves although some
are now taking advantage of defensive training that is
being offered.

Later on in life, osteoporosis can cripple the bones
already frail from lack of exercise throughout life; and
muscles, long unused, atrophy. Women's bodies should
wear out, not rot out, as so many of ours do now.

Some women bring physical problems on themselves such as
the harm they inflict on their spine from wearing
high-heeled shoes, carrying heavy shoulder bags or
eschewing any kind of exercise by choice. Wearing
skirts that cause a woman to cross her legs much of the
time may impinge on the largest nerve in the body, the
sciatic, causing a very painful condition known as
sciatica. There is also a great deal of evidence
showing the dangers in antiperspirants, face and eye
makeup, tummy tucks, face lifts and other kinds of
liposuction. In meeting the patriarchal commands to be
continually young, small, attractive and helpless, a
woman truly can do herself in, but she can, if she
chooses, decide not to be taken in by this harmful
propaganda. She can define her self and her life.

By far the most pervasive and invasive attacks on women
are made on her mind. They brainwash her at an early
age to have little or no self value at the same time
they teach her that her existence is to reflect to men
the image of woman that they desire. If she does not
the penalties may be severe ranging from loss of promo-
tion in a job to physical violence. It is hard to grow
up without the confirmation of selfhood that is given
to males; it is even harder to help our daughters
understand why we've put up with it.

A subscriber sent us the following feedback on
Gendergappers 25.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[To add to the list in the last essay: Men and women
who reduce women to their hair color by referring to
women as "that redhead", or "the blond", or "that
brunette"...... blond, brunette, etc. are ADJECTIVES
not nouns!!!!"]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you. We agree! And the Rover on Mars
is a small, well programed, cute and obedient *machine*.
Obviously an IT, not a SHE as it is referred to at press
conferences (but we Gendergappers get, and have been getting,
the message, boys).


"LITTLE DROPS OF WATER, LITTLE GRAINS OF SAND..."

Do you know the poem? "Little drops of water, little
grains of sand, make a mighty ocean and a pleasant
land."? Well, we heard a woman complaining about those
awful *F-word-ists* who were making a fuss because the
Mars vehicle, the rover, was referred to as "she".
"After all", the woman continued, full of virtue and
self-right-us-ness that characterize many of the
_Repugnant_ Party, "this was a great, historic event
and calling the rover a she doesn't hurt anyone."

Oh, yeah? Our culture's language has, and continues to
hurt women in many ways, and its habitual referring to
inanimate possessions as female is just one of them.

So, why make an issue of this? Why not? How many
insults against our *personhood* are women supposed to
take until it becomes SERIOUS enough for us to protest?
Every time a ship, a car or a rover is referred to as a
female that is created, possessed and controlled by
man, it serves to further imprint this abominable
attitude on our children and reinforce this erroneous
impression in every adult, male or female. Since it
is so pervasive in our society, and apparently benign,
we have become accustomed to this degradation. Then
we become oblivious of one of the many reasons why we
feel badly about ourselves.

Women have been letting such `little' insults go by the
board for ages and have suffered and been unfairly
criticized for it. Two glaringly prevalent examples
are society's attitude toward women who complain of
battering or sexual harassment. "Well, if it was so bad,
why did she stay with him?" or "Why did she or Anita
Hill wait for years before complaining about being
sexually harassed?"

So, we ask, when IS enough, enough? When he slaps her
across the face? When he breaks a tooth with his fist?
When he throws her down a flight of stairs? When he
carves her up with a knife?

Or, when he makes a lewd remark? When he fondles or
pinches a part of her body? When he demands that she
perform sexually or lose her job? When he traps her in
the office and rapes her?

Where our culture supports and encourages the health
and welfare of both women and men, we must maintain it,
and when it does not, we must notice and call these
actions into account. A recent example of this fol-
lows.

Many alert women *and men* responded to Mars Projects director,
Donna Shirley and the lead project scientist, Peter Smith
concerning their designation of still another inanimate object,
the rover, as a `she'. The reaction was almost immediate.
The Mars Project spin doctors went into orbit.

It had previously been announced that the "lander" was
to be named Carl Sagan ie in his honor, and that the
"rover" was called Sojourner (from the dictionary,
meaning a stranger temporarily staying in a place).

Following public response to the use of the possessive
female pronoun, several interviews with ernest young
scientists were conducted to tell us that the "rover"
was really named for a "f-word-ist" hero -- ya got it,
Sojourner Truth!!! "That is why we called it SHE. To
honor this great black woman." And to make sure that
we understood their good intentions, Donna Shirley was
trotted out before the cameras to smile her really
great smile and tell us all that SHE, A WOMAN, had
insisted that the rover be a GIRL! Well, yes, she did
it, she said, even over the dissent of the mostly male
scientist who wanted it (sic) to be a MAN! (Note the
usual harmful labeling: male as man and female as girl)

"So," we answered to both explanations, "why have you
not referred to the "lander" as `he/him/his'? And, why
did you name the lander with both first and last names
of the man you honor but the rover, only by one
name, the first name?"

Wonder what they'll spin out next. At least for
awhile, the smart little machine on Mars is being
called an IT. Just in time, actually, since the last
time we heard this objectionable usage, was from
Peter Smith telling us that "she" had just backed up
to, and kissed Barnacle Bill. Can you imagine what
they would have had that `hussy-slut' doing with
those Mars rocks next?

Thanks for listening NASA.
#

We ran the following notice in a previous Gendergapper
and have heard since that this company is still cheat-
ing people, especially older women, with false promises
and defective computer elements. So please pass this
along to other lists, chats or BB's you may be on.
Also encourage anyone, that you might hear of, who has
had problems with this company to report it to the Consumer
Protection Agency in their State, the Better Business Bureau
the Mall Director or to us (we'll pass it on to all of
the above). Attorney General Offices need to have several
more complaints before they can act to prosecute this
business that cheats the public.

NOTICE TO ANY SUBSCRIBER IN NY & VT AREA:

It has been brought to our attention that a company
called, "MEMORY etc." is a place to stay away from.
They sell computers and upgrade components. They
advertise satisfaction or your money will be refunded,
then sell a defective computer and refuse to take it
back unless the buyer pays a very large fee and even
then, they examine the returned computer, claim the
problems were caused by the buyer and increase the
return fee. They have recently defrauded an older
woman of $1700.00 and we have also heard of other cases
where they have not lived up to their advertising
promises. *We ask that you pass this information along
to your friends, and also direct it to NY & VT people
on any of your other lists.* Thanks.


LOBO AND THE SPOONS

If the above title doesn't mean anything to you then
you've been missing something really significant in the
quest of women seeking to define themselves.

Picture a group of ten people clad in shorts and tops
on a basket ball court. Now picture them racing back
and forth across the court making impossible shots to
the basket; making exciting patterns to keep or re-
trieve the basketball and doing all this at nearly the
speed of light -- running, falling down, careening off
each other and snatching the ball from their opponent.

With this kind of speed and activity, picture them
sweating. Sweating? Well this certainly can't be
women, can it. Remember how we were told as children
to be ladylike, sit quietly and be nice? There was
even a saying to go with it all: "Horses sweat; men
perspire and ladies bloom." And yes, we were allowed
to "cheer the boys on," but do it in a ladylike, *femi-
nine* way.

Well, there is plenty of good old natural human sweat-
ing going on in the WNBA (that's Women's National Bas-
ketball Association) these days. While we are not
pleased that the NBA did not become MNBA, at least
these fantastic women were not labeled NBLLadies! If
you think we're picky, take a gander at the names given
to women hoopsters in the coed colleges and universi-
ties that were forced to spend money for women's sports
like they did for men because of Title IX. If the
men's team was called the Cats, the women became the
Lady Cats; Knights? Lady Knights. Indians? Lady
Indians. Fah!

Women in the big leagues - pros!, women on TV network
sports, women's sports sponsored, women's sports attracting
the attendance of thousands of fans per game -- unheard
of only a few years ago.

Throughout the ages, both women and men have worked
hard, especially during the years before machines and
electricity. While the culture has, through time, assigned
rigorous roles for each gender, there has always been a
raging paradox relating to responsibility and play;
values and implementation; talk and action. The male
was (and unfortunately still is in some cases) assumed
to be the adult, the responsible, intelligent and
active one and the female, the one who remained always
a child in need of the adult's direction and protec-
tion.

Despite these assumptions, the male has always had his
games, his play, his relaxing beverages and his right
to them unassailable. The female, on the other hand,
had the duty to produce and care for the young, the
male, and the home. On the farm, she was also used as
hired help as needed, up to and including pulling the
plow so the male could plant his crops which she then
had to preserve. Recreation for her was merely an
extension of her housewifely duties such as quilting
bees, preparing and serving at church suppers or visit-
ing shut-ins, seldom without young children in tow.

So a culture that declares its children and family to
be of greatest value gives the responsibility for it to
the female (the child), along with all the blame if
anything goes wrong, while it allows the male (the
adult) to play and acquits him of culpability when
domestic problems arise. Today as more and more women
combine work outside of their home with caring for a
family, they are expected still to carry the guilt as
well as the double work load. (A recent study claims
that women work 21 hours/week on average longer than
men.) Although some men have realized their responsi-
bility to partner with her in home and family activi-
ties, this is still not sanctioned by our society. The
male who shares equally with his working spouse is
labeled, "henpecked" because he no longer drops all
household commitments for the ball park or the local
pub when the guys drop by.

For us, for women, each small advance is a super victo-
ry. Celebrate by dropping in on the SPARKS or MERCURY
or ________. Do you know the name/schedule of your
team??? Or, kick back in YOUR recliner with the beer
and chips and luxuriate in YOUR freedom with the LIBERTY.

Our thanks for feedback from Subscriber L. who gave us the
gentle shove that created this week's piece; and to
Subscriber K. for framing our ending so precisely: She
wrote, "Sometimes I feel like I am the only one who
ever gets enraged at our sexist society....I try to
explain it to my husband but he just doesn't feel it
the way I do."


PRE-ELECTION DROPPINGS

We have written before about how we Gendergappers are
prime targets for seduction by the politicians scram-
bling for our votes. We have also suggested that we
must be careful to really listen to what is said and
then follow through by checking the candidates estab-
lished track record.

Even though congressional elections will not take place
for awhile yet, the political droppings aimed at us are
starting to pile up. One of the funniest to come along
so far is a TV ad showing the late President Kennedy
speaking about taxes and the economy. The announcer
breaks in from time to time to tell us that Jack would
have voted for the Republican ideas for the balanced
budget bill.

Why would they present an assassinated president and expect
to get Gendergapper's support? It is because their
thinking is still back in the 60's. They *know* and
*expect* that women do not care anything about
issues. Women just vote for the pretty face, they run
to the guy who exudes sex appeal. (This is based on
the information that Jack bedded everything in sight,
even Marilyn Monroe, so we mindless creatures must get all
weak in the knees and short of breath when we see his
picture!). In addition, Kennedy was popular among the
less advantaged -- women and/or minority races. Ah,
they think, a double whammy.

But we Gendergappers are enlightened, and we listen
with intelligence, right? So, although it is clearly
Jack Kennedy talking about taxes etc, we actually are
not seeing him through a sexual haze. So, not far into
his discourse, we note that he *is only talking to
men!*

Think back. It has only been a few years now that our
gender has been acknowledged in our spoken and written
language. Maybe some of us have stopped noticing that
quite often we hear both the female and male pronouns
used rather than just the male. We are hearing the
word woman as well as man and someday, we may even hear
the word, girl, applied ONLY to prepubic females.

Political adverts like this one shout loudly and clear-
ly that the mindset of these people have not changed.
They didn't even notice that their sex symbol, Kennedy,
that they selected to woo women's votes, didn't even
acknowledge we exist!

And what of present day thought and attitude. The
following quotes are revealing:

"There are so many women on the floor of Congress that
it looks like a mall."

-- Congressman Henry Hyde (R-Ill).

"Inbreeding is how we get championship horses."

-- Carl Gunter, Louisiana state representative,
explaining why he was fighting a proposed anti-abortion
bill that allowed abortion in cases of incest.


And what do you make of the two CongressWOMEN who dis-
cuss the "hunks" (their word) in the House. Are they
suppose to be example of how women in government should
act or are they acting out what their majority gender
expects of its women?

Were you impressed to learn that Representative Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) gave former Representative Susan
Molinari, (R-NY) a "Congress version of what a Playgirl
calendar would be like", for a going away present?
Does this aid the advancement of women, or confirm the
expectation of many men that we are empty headed, man crazy
nincompoops?

We want to also bring attention to Vermont's Senator,
Jim Jeffords (R-VT) who assured his constituents of his
belief in women's reproductive freedom and promised
that he would always support it. He has! Including
supporting the president's stand on our right to late
term abortions. On the other hand, Senator Patrick
Leahy (D-VT), made the same promise to his constituents
and suddenly found last year "... that his conscience would
not allow him to support women's reproductive rights."

The bean counters tell us that nearly every "change of
mind from pro choice", in congress, was made for
`religion/conscience' reasons. We congratulate Gentleman
Jim Jeffords for his steadfastness and we refer the Pope's
Patrick Leahy to the following quote by Jesse Jackson,
Jr.

Representative Jackson, voted against a House resolu-
tion supporting a judge who displayed the Ten Command-
ments in court. He was dismayed that it passed. He
said: "When I came here, I put my hand on the Bible and
swore to uphold the Constitution. I didn't put my hand
on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

Way to go, Jesse!


*NOT* JUST ANOTHER JOHN

In the wake of the military sex scandals and the re-
sulting media frenzy, most of the military brass re-
sponded with hysteria and ignorance. "See," they
babbled. "We told you this would happen. You just
cannot put men and women together. It's the nature of
the beast."

"Oh, it's OK for women to be in the military," they
purred. "Just let them train separately from the men."
As if no one had ever heard of how well `separate but
equal' facilities have worked with former problems.

Much of this rhetoric, idiotic as it was and is, may be
understandable. What these male military mavens want
is to remove women from the field and thereby prevent
the unthinkable -- that women might come to command men
-- and do a damn good job of it.

However, in the midst of this panic, one clear voice
came through and it is a voice and a message that women
must listen to and learn from and emulate. "Nonsense,"
responded General John Shalikashvilli. Women and men
in the military must train together. The problem, he
went on to explain was not in the proximity of the
genders, but in their societal training ie their atti-
tudes.

Sound familiar? A long time ago, Bill Shakespeare
wrote: "The fault ... lies not in our stars but in our-
selves." General Shalikashvilli is urging us, both
women and men to revise and retrain our thinking re-
garding gender interaction. It does not have to be
"the way it has always been" or "the way god intended
it" or "it can't be helped or changed because that's
just the way women are or men are." It can be better,
supportive and uplifting for both genders.

How is it now? Just how are we, women, and they, men
trained? Most women are still conditioned, even in
utero, to regard the male as the superior gender -- a
gender that she must appease. There is love here, but
only lightly masking fear and she quickly learns that
this love is conditional. She learns this from all the
women around her, especially her mother. Her father,
brothers, sisters and playmates reinforce it and her
schools and the media teach it.

True, many may resent being thus intimidated and put
down because of gender, but the lesson and the penal-
ties are always there even though the `stick' of re-
prisal for rebellion is carefully covered by the
`carrot' of rewards for compliance. So the female
child learns she must be cute, quiet, polite and pro-
tected. She is allowed to be silly, useless and vain.
This is still true even though more and more role
models are emerging to prove that this is not biologi-
cal destiny. So most females grow into adulthood
carefully covering "flaws" of appearance with makeup
and "errors" of femaleness with conformity and apolo-
getic self deprecation. Our culture has carefully
nurtured her to expect that her worthiness comes first
from father's approval and second from S.O's or hus-
band. The stamp of validation comes not from herself
or her work but from her male associates.

The male baby, on the other hand, is continually en-
couraged to push all of the envelopes of his environ-
ment. No admonitions to stay cute and pretty are given
him. It's his world and he knows it. He takes con-
trol--he is taught to take what he wants. He is rein-
forced by father, mother, brothers, sisters friends and
especially by teachers. And don't forget the impor-
tance our society gives to men's sports and how it had
to be forced to give even a modicum of equality to
women's.

Oh, of course, you've all heard that it's genetic, that
it's the testosterone that makes the male child outgo-
ing and adventurous. Thing is that both male and
female children produce testosterone (it is vital for
bone growth and development, and the male doesn't
produce it in great quantities until puberty). In addi-
tion, as study after study shows, environment has just
as much affect on children as genes.

We are beginning to see some changes in attitudes, and
as the gender-defining curtain lifts with each genera-
tion, we are certain to see more. But, we can't afford
to wait for the slow pace of cultural evolution to
liberate women and men from the self imposed con-
straints that have come to us from past generations.
As women, we know what the problems are and we know how
harmful they are; and as women, we must address them and
solve them. We Gendergapers must never forget how
things were for us in the past. We must maintain our
awareness of the ever growing, political/religious
groups in our cities, our towns and our states that are
determined to return us to that very past we are strug-
gling to escape from.