GenderGappers 1997: 41 - Extras

Gendergappers 41 - "A KINDER AND GENTLER" POLITICS

(N.B. We had planned this issue to celebrate the 50th
birthday of our First Woman, however, your response to
Gendergappers #32 caused us to decide to address some
of your questions and suggestions since they have a
bearing on our Hillary Rodham article. Many thanks for
your great feedback about *your* local hate radio.)

Anyone who was attentive to politics during the late
1980's will remember the chairperson of the Republican
National Committee, Lee Atwater, who served during
Bush's term. In his book, he tells how he started a
plan that is still in effect, although Gendergappers
quickly caught on to his trickery and more voters are
getting it every day.

Atwater's plan was simple but very effective. He based
it on a survey showing that a large majority of media
reporters were Democrats. This is true since report-
ers, for the most part, are products of liberal college
curriculums. What he did not reveal (nor has our
"free" press) is that a large majority of the owners
and editors of our media are Republican. It is at this
level that editorial spins and slants are made, not by
reporters.

So Atwater sent the word out to all the faithful by
telephone, fax, mail and word of mouth: Whenever you
write an article or call a talk show, talk up anything
positive toward Republicans in the media and if there
is any story detrimental toward Republicans, call it
unfair and the result of "THE LIBERAL MEDIA."

We've written before concerning hate radio, both the
national and local. You'll hear "liberal media" men-
tioned whenever news reports show Republicans
have just as many warts as Democrats. However, when the
news contains anti-Democrat reports, suddenly all the
callers, and especially the hate radio host, quote the
various media reports with great glee (ignoring entire-
ly their comments of the previous day when they dissed
all media reports as liberal).

Lee's plan worked better than he could ever have imag-
ined and planted in the public mind a liberal bias that
just does not exist. The key to his plan's success was
repetition, the idea being that if people heard a lie
often enough, they would come to believe it.

It also worked because Republicans own the hate/talk
radio airways. Democrats have made attempts to chal-
lenge that supremacy but have failed in most media
markets. There are many reasons for this such as
sponsor preference for the business-favoring Republi-
cans; the general political preference of the kind of
person who calls in to a media market (local hate
radio) to complain and a Republican penchant for being
mean spirited. This talent put the "hate" in hate
radio and made for "interesting" radio.

Democrats did try to compete for the black hearts and
angry minds of radio audiences but ended up completely
outclassed since they failed to compete with the viru-
lent and highly partisan Republican radio hosts and
callers. They also failed to erase the Lee Atwater
disinformation concerning the existence of a "liberal
press".

Few who have listened can fathom how these callers,
many who call themselves Christians, can, day after
day, call in to trash any person who is not a Republi-
can. They get their "facts" from such sources as
Limbaugh (the voice of the RNC), Leddy and Falwell, for
example. Falwell has made millions with his tapes
"proving" that the Clintons killed their good friend,
Vince Foster, and "proving" that Hillary is a lesbian,
as well as countless other accusations of impropriety
on the part of anyone associated with the White House.
Despite the millions that Starr spent as special
council, there has been no indication that those
"falwell-facts" have a modicum of validity. Even
Starr's announcement did not stop hate radio fanatics
from insisting with certainty, the vilest reports from
Falwell just had to be true. They are still busily
supporting Paula Jones, as are the other "religious/political"
groups.

If caller venom cools down, the hate radio host will
provide interviews with authors, such as Martin Gross,
that exhort listeners to hate and distrust women,
racial minorities and emigrants. Gross gives new mean-
ing to the words "mean spirited" as he goads callers to
stamp out political correctness wherever they think it
exists and use force to do it.

Why should we listen to these fanatics who deal in
disinformation? Hey, ya gotta be impressed with their
single minded rage and persistence in the face of
truth. In our locality, listening to hate radio is a
favorite pastime among uncommitted (nonpartisan) vot-
ers. There is just nothing else in the media that is
funnier than the daily venting of the acephalics.


Gendergappers 42 - WE DROPPED THE BALL BIG TIME

(N.B. Louise Woodward, our hopes and thoughts are
with you. May the Judge set aside that terrible verdict
or failing that, grant an appeal. A life sentence for
a teen age *woman* when recently a teen age *man* got
a suspended sentence for driving drunk and killing
2 people! Justice by gender -- INDEFENSIBLE!)

Those of you who subscribed early on in this series
will remember Gendergappers #10 - _Bury Them Deep And
They Didn't Exist_. This article told how men have
systematically, through the centuries, devalued and
destroyed women and their abilities by wiping out their
accomplishments and excluding them from men's history.
We say men here because women were not generally edu-
cated or allowed to contribute to written history until
this Century. They did keep private records for this
Century's women scholars and archaeologists to find and
publish.

During the 1990's, we have been witnessing a despicable
attempt to kill and bury a women who is not even dead.
More than anyone else in our present day, this woman
has exemplified the _SELF DEFINED WOMAN_. She forti-
fied and extended our belief that women are intelli-
gent, courageous, trustworthy, strong, capable and
*human*. She also threatened the establishment,
scared the hell out of Congress and changed the image
of the Executive Branch of our government.

As our First Woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton, celebrates
her 50th birthday with the media critical as usual
accusing her of having "hidden herself away" implying
guilt, we hold up her image with pride and ask, "Who
are the attempted murders?" There are many.

Interestingly enough, there is a book just out by a `DC
society hostess', Sally Quin, who readily admits that,
(she) "...helped kill Hillary Rodham Clinton because
(Hillary) mapped her own course as First Lady instead
of asking DC society mavens like herself for advice."
She claimed that this was reprehensible and went on to
say that Hillary was also responsible for many of the
blows she received because she "acted as a lighting rod
for the President."

Then there was, and still is, the immense contribution
of the hate radio hosts and their groupies. They were
aided and abetted in heaping vitriolic accusations
against Hillary by radical right ministers such as
Falwell and Roberts as well as pond scum like Leddy and
Limbaugh. These groups supplied books and tapes which
accused her of such things as killing Vince Foster and
holding lesbian orgies in the White House. Hate radio
groupies avidly listen to the tapes and books, then
call in to tell the radio audience that all of this is
absolutely true. Lee Atwater's advice was never so
well taken and performed. Repetitive accusations took
their toll on the ongoing popularity polls so loved by
the media so she, in effect, was forced to retire
(excluded) from the Clinton reelection campaign.

Helping all this hate along was Al D'Amato and his
Congressional Committee along with special prosecutor,
Kennie Starr, aided and abetted by the Washington Press
Corps. The electorate, us, were constantly told that
"proof would be found in the form of a smoking gun that
would show the First Woman to be a crook." Sure,
ostensibly they were going after the president, but
when they couldn't get him, they hoped to sling enough
mud at Hillary so it would come off on Bill.

And finally, the real culprits that contributed most to
this attempted murder -- ***US!!!***. Nearly all of us
women who should have been right up front to support
and defend this innovative leader just either turned
our back on her, criticized her or ignored her. We
reverted to the ancient programming instilled in us
over thousands of years by men who demanded our com-
plete attention and loyalty. Women were and still are
brainwashed and cut off from each other. We are taught
to hate, be jealous of and distrust other women. We
should be ashamed of ourselves for abandoning her
BECAUSE SHE NEVER ABANDONED US.

Because of a media that viciously hounded her every
step, she worked quietly, and mostly behind the scenes,
to assure human rights for women all over the world.
Oh yes, now we remember the fantastic speech she gave
in China, right? - and more recently in South America?
She worked with women in other countries and in this
country to raise the standard of living for them and
their children. She wrote a best seller, _It Takes A
Village_ and put ALL (that's 100%) of the profit from
that book into children's charities and help groups.
We know she influenced and supported our President so
he would continue to veto the anti-choice bills that
congress passed. We have seen her hand in the appoint-
ment of many women to high offices in the president's
cabinet and in the appointment of judges, commission
heads and many other positions.

Since her popularity polls are now indicating the high-
est levels since 1993, we believe that more and more
women have removed the traditional blinders from their
eyes and are taking another look at who she is and what
she has done.

Too bad we had to waste all those years when we could
have had a highly visible, erudite champion dedicate to
our struggle for equal human rights leading us from the
side of the highest office in our land.

Happy Birthday, Hillary. We hope that your next 50
years will return to you the long withheld thanks from
a grateful country and its womankind.


Gendergappers 43 - IN-JUSTICE BY GENDER

If you have been paying attention to the sentences
that are handed down in our courts, you will have
noticed how many judges rule according to the gender of
the person. Now with anything of this kind, there are
exceptions, that is, one will find examples where a
judge will sentence a woman who commits the same crime
as a man in the same way or even give her a lesser
sentence. However, generally we see a pattern where
women with first time convictions are given jail time
where men with multiple convictions are still getting
off with time served and community service.

Some of you have sent us the following examples of
injustice by gender that you have observed:

1. A woman who was convicted of sexually molesting her
children was sentenced to life imprisonment while her
husband, convicted of the same crime was given no jail
time at all. The State assumed guardianship of the
children who were allowed to regularly visit the father
without supervision.

2. Linda Smith in S.C. got life and almost got the
death penalty for drowning her two boys. Yet men
usually get puny sentences like the man in Waterbury,
Vermont who killed his kid and got 6 years. And yet
men kill almost 2,000 children in the US every year and
they never make the cover of TIME magazine.

3. A woman got 23 years for lying to a bank to obtain a
loan. She told the bank that she had a settlement
coming for a train accident. A man killed another
man and the killer never did go to jail.

4. Time after time, we read of men in the dock for 5,
6, 7, or more DUI charges and driving without a valid
license (because it had been taken from them on previ-
ous DUI charges) who are released with nothing more
than a mild, "go and sin no more."

5. Of course, one that affects all women is the mild
slap on the hand usually given a stalker or a batterer
who is the victim's S.O. or husband.

6. And just last week a judge released, on his own
recognizance, a man in his 20's who was caught in the
act of raping an ***18 MONTH OLD GIRL***.

We keep hearing how things have changed so much here in
this country. We are told of the new laws and public
awareness of stalking/batterers. This may lead one to
think that things are better, that women are safer in
their homes because we are an enlightened country. We
need to think again. This abomination is endemic!

It's not hard to believe the abuse heaped on Kenyan
women because as a recent report states, "Kenya is a
country where wife-beating is not only prevalent by
largely condoned." What is more surprising is the
courage of a 30-year-old Maasi woman, Agnes Siyiankoi
who has defied the tradition that she silently submit
to the abuse of her husband -- she has taken him to
court, a rare occurrence in this country where "If a
man does not beat his wife, he is looked down upon as a
weakling." Siyiankoi goes on, "When I run to my fa-
ther's house after every severe beating, my mother
comforts me and tells me to return to him saying, `look
at the scars I've gotten from your father's beatings'."

Despite our avowal as a culture that we frown on wife
beating, our legal and judicial system has changed very
little, and there is still a large amount of
public opinion that supports a man's right to beat his
wife. Sadly, there are still women that think they
deserve to be beaten.

The role of Gendergappers-for-change has never been
more vital to our human rights. Changes in public
opinion and judicial process must come from intelli-
gent, aware judges but the majority in Congress has
prevented hundreds of Clinton's judicial appointments
from being confirmed. We all must note the conditions
in our own state and make sure we vote in our local and
state elections. Most localities have battered women
support groups/homes that can always use our support.
As long as our culture holds to the belief that men are
superior to, and therefore own women, we can expect
very little to change. Possessions do not fight back
against injustice, human beings do.

Time to stop saying that it can't happen here. It does
happen here. If you need a nudge, read the book _Black and
Blue_ by Anna Quinlan.
#


Gendergappers 44 -
A DOLEful WAY OF BRIDGING THE GENDERGAP

Did you miss the unusually muted reporting of the media
that former Senator, Bob Dole, had a face lift? Some
people who knew him well were interviewed to confirm
how much younger he looks now. Well, that's surely his
right, but we are much more interested in the story of
why. Think GENDERGAP!

Increasingly, Dole has been putting himself into situa-
tions so he will be interviewed and at each interview
he touts the candidacy of his wife, Elizabeth, to be
the first woman president of the United States.

In strategy meetings, the RNC has been anxiously
searching for ways to overcome what they have found to
be a serious problem -- the gender gap. Women's votes
are increasingly becoming a determining factor in the
outcome of elections. We women who form that gender
gap are voting for the preservation of our hard won
human rights -- rights that some candidates for office
wish to take away.

Since these strategist believe that women are essen-
tially devoid of the intelligence to understand and
vote on the issues, they think that a woman presiden-
tial candidate will get the 'Gappers vote, simply
because of gender. The only problem they see is that
many men would feel uncomfortable voting for a woman so
that's where the face lift and new Dole image comes in.
The male electorate may be assured that Elizabeth Dole
will be directed and controlled by her "prince consort"
-- Bob, a "nearly-young" man who is certainly qualified
and who could be assumed would *really* be in charge of
the office.

So what does this woman stand for? For one thing, she
is absolutely anti-choice. She does not and will not
support women's human rights. Is the loss of your
human rights worth having a woman for president?

On another front, this time Florida, one of the
"Shrubs" (as Molly Ivins calls them), Jeb Bush, is
running for governor again. We understand that he,
too, sees that the gendergap (women) defeated him when
he ran last time. He is actively courting all minori-
ties and especially women, promising all sorts of
goodies. Look him over, Floridians, and especially
look over his supporters. Do you want to retain your
constitutional right of church/state separation?

In any event, understand and pass on the information to
your friends: the conservatives owe the religious
extremists big time for political contributions. They
think that Gendergappers are airheads -- women. They
think that all they have to do is put up either a
female candidate or a "pretty" "sexy" male to get our
vote or downplay the "reproductive choice" issue.

PCJ is once again in the news, along with her handlers,
as her suit against the president comes closer to the
courtroom. The media has finally taken a close look at
where the money is coming from that supports her.
Surprise! It comes entirely from groups financed and
supported by conservative religious extremist groups.
One of these well financed entities has put out radio
and TV ads asking women who have been propositioned by
former Governor Bill Clinton to contact them. Accord-
ing to their ads, they want to help you and although
money is not specifically mentioned, it is definitely
implied that it will be "worth your while". Just imag-
ine what could come out of the woodwork with an ad like
that. We've heard from some women who are calling the
number often to tell them about the immoral proposi-
tions they've gotten from conservative candidates.

Finally, what are we going to do about the president's
nomination for head of Affirmative Action, Bill Lan
Lee? The Senate Republicans have killed this nomina-
tion in committee by refusing to allow it out for
action by the full senate. They were led in their
HATCHet job by Sen. Orin Hatch, author of a recently
released album of religious songs. (Remember the words
spoken recently, at an RNC gathering, by the christian
coalition's, Pat Roberts? "It's payback time.")

If you are a woman and you are reading this, you'd
better believe that Affirmative Action is still impor-
tant to you. If you don't know why, ask any woman who
worked outside her home or attended college before Title IX.
#


Gendergappers 45 - I'VE GOT THIS BRIDGE IN BROOKLYN...

One of the `issues' said to be hot politically is
affirmative action. The rhetoric is really something
special as speaker after speaker tells us how we are no
longer a racist society. They tell us how wrong it is
to give populations in our society (that have been, and are
still discriminated against) some legal protection.
"It's not fair to them," they howl piously
with real tears in their eyes to show their sincerity.
"We should treat all people equally."

But notice how the oratory speaks only to race. They
think that women are too stupid to realize that affirm-
ative action laws were what got us into universities,
graduate studies, sports, industry and business, etc.
By only mentioning race when they speak of scrapping
these programs, they hope to lull us into a very false
sense of security.

Meanwhile, back in the real world where we still have
affirmative action laws on the books, a female state
trooper, Maureen Wesinger, in Boston "was told to use
the public bathrooms and a shower in a dog kennel so
her male colleagues will have a comfortable area to
work out." This was after the women's locker room
disappeared from the building plan and a men's gym took
its place. It came only a month after four troopers
filed a discrimination complain because they were
automatically assigned to desk duty while pregnant.

California has already rung the death knell for affirm-
ative action, with the result that selection, by some
colleges, of racial minority students decreased markedly.
We have not yet heard much about how women have been
affected, but why should we -- they now have no re-
course. We only learned about the black students
because Jesse Jackson went there and held a rally. Who
is going to ring the clarion call for women?

True, women have increasingly been elevated to higher
positions in universities but this does not mean that
we can expect it to continue when they take away the
penalties that affirmative action formerly levied when
a university was out of compliance. Add to all this
the big media push that is again insisting that all of
our problems are caused by women who work outside of
the home. Nearly every columnist, newscast or sitcom
brings up this subject and trots forth woman after
woman who confesses that she would really rather stay
home with her children and how she is quitting her job
to do this. We are under a media blitz intending to
incite guilt right now, but where are the voices of
women answering, "baloney!"

This kind of propaganda from the media is similar to
what was (and still is) trotted out regarding choice.
The millions of women who responsibly choose abortion
and then went on with their lives are ignored and the
few women who thirst for attention are featured, pious-
ly holding forth their guilt and tears to lay on the
"pay off" alter of the religious extremist. Just ask
PCJ how generous these payoffs are.

Speaking of Paula, her handlers now have her demanding
that President Clinton be required to demonstrate his
penis erect. The reason, she claims, is that it will
show the proof that she has correctly identified it.
This is not producing the effect the conservative
extremist hoped for, as more and more people are begin-
ning to see that the whole PCJ situations is just a
ploy to embarrass the president. Instead of creating
outrage, they are hearing our laughter.

The claim that she can make a positive I.D. is spe-
cious. Following is a portion of an article by
Will Durst, writing in _The Progressive_:

"Just when you thought it couldn't get weirder,
Paula Jones has petitioned the court to have
President Clinton's genitals examined *while
aroused*. She says the unique characteristic she
can identify is that his penis was bent while
erect...

"A condition affecting men ages forty-five to
sixty, whose symptoms include a bent erect penis,
is called Peyronie's disease, and is caused by
scarring or the build-up of plaque in a cavity in
the shaft of the penis. So I guess the moral here
is: Men, don't forget to floss."


Gendergappers 46 -
"I'VE LOOKED AT LOVE FROM BOTH SIDES NOW"

You can feel it in the air as our political suitors and
their hired guns rev up their verbal motors. The hunt
is on and 'Gappers are the hunted. As we have noted
before, the gender gap has been increasing over the
years and it has not escaped the notice of the politi-
cal parties. They are out to woo and win us because we
represent a political force. Sadly, some women just do
not recognize this and refuse to inform themselves and
vote or we would be even stronger.

There is not much new, though, in the advances from the
Demogs. With only a few bumps here and there, their
love has been constant. Most of them actually loved us
before there was a gender gap. The really fun thing to
watch and experience are the mechanized, untrained
groping of the Repugnats. However, we must not let the
rhetorical musk, created by their lust for our votes,
cloud our vision.

We know from experience that we cannot trust the media
for factual information on candidates so we must get
our facts from prior performances. In either party,
there are those who have consistently supported women,
but just as the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree and
leopards don't change their spots, political conversions
are always suspect.

[Time out. We should again clarify our position on
religion or spirituality for our new subscribers. We
support every person's right to her own concept be it
Goddess, God, Nature, The Force or Whatever. We
*oppose* those who try to force their religious beliefs
on others politically. To make clear what we are
writing about, we always use the term "political/reli-
gious" to delineate exactly what we are opposed to.]

The word has been given to Repugnant candidates that
they must soft pedal the abortion issue. Policy advi-
sors see their opposition to women's reproductive
choice as a major reason why many women withdrew from
their party. In addition, the irreligious right and
the unchristian coalition have secretly indicated to
candidates that they will be allowed to deviate from
the god (political/religious) position so they will not
alienate women. These candidates are further assured
that they will still receive campaign funds but if they
are successfully elected, in the words of Pat Robinson,
"It's payback time."

Specifically, that means unwavering support of the
agenda set by the political/religious right groups. On
this agenda for congresspersons are _mandated prayer in
schools_ and, _overturning the president's veto on
choice_. This is the veto that assures women's human
right to consult with her doctor and have any medical
procedure necessary for her health and well being. Men
have that human right, it is only women who are target-
ed. It is only women that are threatened by a congress
pledged to overturn the president's veto.

There are those who profess to stand in the gap while
mounting a stealth attack against women's human rights.
We, however, ARE THE GAP. We occupy this space and we
will not be stepped on or crowded out. We must indepen-
dently and fearlessly check out and assess the records
of those people who offer themselves as candidates.
We cannot allow ourselves to abandon our good judgment
and vote for every woman candidate simply because of
her gender. Likewise, we cannot vote for every person
according to her/his political party. Just as there are
women who identify only with the male political/religious
power structure there are men who refuse to follow their
political party's anti-woman platform.

Above all, we must be adult enough to know that no
office holder can *always* perform exactly as we deem
correct. Just as there are political conversions there
is political expediency. What we've got going for us
is the knowledge of our political power and their
knowledge that we know we've got it. Some candidates
still think of women as air heads, empty minds that will
fixate on a cute guy candidate, or vote because the candi-
date is a woman, or believe that our human right of choice
is unimportant.

We will increasingly be looking at, and evaluating,
love from both sides of the political arena as the
'98 congressional elections and those in 2000 approach.
We've "been faking it" long enough, let's be aware that
many politicians still are.

"It's love's illusions I have found, I really don't
know love at all."
#


Gendergappers 47
"A WOMAN NEEDS A MAN THE WAY A FISH NEEDS A BICYCLE"

Remember that bumper sticker? It's the Preamble to the
Woman's Constitution. After thousands of years, exist-
ing as property, we finally freed ourselves only to
believe the lies told by church and enforced by state.
So for some time, we stayed enslaved believing that we
had no ability to live a life on our own. We were
incompetent beings, incomplete unless mated to a male.
True, the shackles were gone not too long ago, but some
women were held fast, none-the-less, by economics, religious
teachings and lack of education. As more of us broke
free, all of us could believe the impossible --
that each woman, like each man was a competent and com-
plete human being.

No, this is not a down-with-marriage opus. It is simply
the recognition that WOMEN ALSO ARE HUMAN AND CAPABLE
WHETHER ALONE OR MARRIED. Where a few years ago,
not having a husband doomed us to a life of poverty,
despair and derogatory labels, today there are choices;
today there are WOMEN'S lives to celebrate -- starting
with a person named Janet Reno, Attorney General of the
United States of America. A woman who chose her life's
work and chose not to marry.

We all learned in school that there were three branches
of our federal government: judicial, executive and
legislative (most will allow that the media has become
a fourth branch). Last week, Attorney General Reno
once again courageously announced a decision without
fear or favor toward the executive, legislative (or
media) branches, despite a veritable morass of testos-
terone-loaded threats. She blew off the top-cop, FBI
Chief, Louis Freeh. He reacted by leaking a missive he
had sent to Reno in a frantic and futile search for his
cajones. As expected, the Bevis and Buttheads of the
Repugnat majority in Congress, nearly drowning in their
own smegma, hurled bolts of accusations at Reno along
with dire threats to depose her. A.G. Reno just
smiled, complimented her detractors, thanked Louis for
his input and continued doing her job -- with not a
feather ruffled!

She was given the name "El Reno" by the media which
continued to print and feature every critical remark
they could in hopes of creating "a typical woman's"
response to threats -- a tearful, mea culpa so they
could CNN it to the entire world.

However you evaluate Reno's decision, her actions were
heroic. She reminds us of another woman who chose to
remain unmarried, Susan B. Anthony. By sheer force of
will, Anthony drove herself, and a small group of
women, to force the creation and ratification of the
19th Amendment to the Constitution.

A reporter named Nellie Bly interview Anthony in 1896
giving us a sense of this remarkable person in her own
words. Anthony seemed always to maintain a great sense
of humor even though women and men alike attacked her
constantly for not following the `biblical rules for women'.

When asked what her greatest ambition was, she an-
swered, ""Oh, my!" with a laugh. "The right to vote.
Not that I care for myself, but I want to see discrimi-
nation against women killed."

Asked what was the greatest forte in life for a woman,
Anthony replied. "That she must first be a woman --
free, trained, and above old ideas and prejudices, and
afterwards the wife and mother." And, of course, by
her own life, she insisted that wife and/or mother be
choices -- free choices.

Today, with the 21st Century fast approaching, the
media is making lists of famous people and important
happenings of the 20th Century. So far, we have not
seen one list where Susan B. Anthony (or any of the
women she worked with) appeared. In fact, we have not
seen any woman listed in the top ten names. In addi-
tion, nowhere on the lists we have seen thus far is
there any mention of the 19th Amendment.

Susan B. Anthony lived just 6 years into the 20th Cen-
tury. The right to vote, that she worked so hard to
get for us, was never given her. How can any of us
justify sitting out any election? Surely each of us
can inform ourselves on the issues; talk to friends
and relatives; offer rides to the polls or child sit so
a mother can vote. Maybe Anthony's name won't appear
on any of the man's lists, but we can give her memory
something better and more lasting -- the justification
of her faith in us.
#


Gendergappers 48-
WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND SOME OF THEM ARE US

Recently, we saw a review of a book, by a woman, advo-
cating that we return to the use of the word "girl" for
"woman". For anyone who remembers how women were
constantly referred to in such a derogatory way, this
was as reprehensible as hearing that a black man was
advocating returning the use of the word "boy" for a
black man. Who can forget our employer saying to anoth-
er man on the phone, "I'll have my girl call your
girl," when he was speaking of competent, intelligent
adult women?

Or what about how we hear our gender referred to on
radio and TV as -- chick, babe, broad, bitch etc? Is
it really so hard to say, "WOMAN"? We believe not. We
believe that this degradation of our gender is inten-
tional and is part of a massive backlash. A backlash
against women (empowered by Affirmative Action Pro-
grams) demonstrating that they are smart, competent and
skilled in all manner of activities. A backlash that
was caused by the reaction of insecure males to women
supervisors, superior officers, judges, doctors, law-
yers, police officers or attorneys general.

However, it is the political/religious power structure
that has provided most of venom, cash and impetus in a
drive to force women, AND THEIR VOTE, out of the work-
force and back under the control of men. These activi-
ties, of course, being greatly aided and abetted by the
media which almost exclusively broadcasts the rhetoric
of backlash.

So much for the efforts of mankind. Women have met
this threat and are holding their own. Harder to
overcome, unfortunately, are the slings and arrows that
are directed at women by women. Some of us just do not
perceive the threat that is coming from them. All of
us must become aware and combat this "5th column in our
midst" in every way that we can. Listen, really listen
to what is coming at us from the media whether it be
books, newspapers, TV, movies and especially HATE RADIO
-- this abhorrent, malignant and dangerously invasive
growth against our movement. One thing for sure, you
will not hear the media advertising books written by
women who truly serve our movement with constructive
criticism, authentic facts and sisterly support.

But, they sure promote books and deeds by anti-woman
women. You know who they are but we'll list a few that
we have noticed or been told about. Many of your
comments to this list suggested that #1 should be:

Mona Charen, who has never met a self-defined woman she
didn't hate. She insists that our country and its men
are now weak and this has been brought about by, "the
feminization of America."

Camille Paglia, who claims to be in the woman's move-
ment, creates her own definition of it and then blames
everything wrong in the world on women and our move-
ment. Molly Ivins in _Nothing But Good Times Ahead_
does an excellent review of the pag. She sums up with
this line: "What an asshole."

Katie Roiphe, used her connections with the press to
write a vicious attack on feminist students that chal-
lenged and did not accept Roiphe's thinking in college.
Of course she was supported by the male dominated press
in claiming that date rape doesn't exist.

Arianna Huffington, a total antitheses of what the
women's movement is all about. Her thesis: Any woman
can marry a million or two and be liberated. Women
don't need brains.

Laura Ingram, a columnist who continually puts women
down and unceasingly sucks up to media males like Imus.

Susanne Sommers, makes us retch -- yeetch. Identical
twin of Mona Charen, separated at birth.

Naomi Wolf, who characterizes our entire women's move-
ment as sexual. She claims that all women are cunts,
sluts etc and the way to liberation is by sleeping with
and being used by men. It's our nature, she sez.

Why do these women attack our movement so viciously?
Well, it isn't a new activity. Women have been trained
for thousands of years to act this way. Early on in
our movement, we encountered women who were used by the
establishment as a buffer between the males in charge
and the women who were looking to advance. We called
them "queen bees" as they jealously guarded their lord
and master's turf. They were made to feel important
and powerful by virtue of their loyalty to men, against
the enemy -- us. This left the male upper management
free to claim that "We don't discriminate against
women," whenever a woman was effectively `knocked-off'
by the queen bee.

Like the women listed above, they believed that power
and worth comes from men and that to succeed they must
act, dress and project the image that men have defined
as female. Simply put, they lack the courage and
convictions to define themselves.

Happily, there are more and more visible, self-defined
women for us to use as role models. Sadly, if the
media notices them at all it will be largely in a
derogatory sense. We, however, have a choice of what
we can believe in and how we act to express our person-
hood. In doing so we learn that there is NOT just one
type of women (feminine, empty headed, cloths and boy
crazy) but many, many types -- as many different types
as there are women. We learn that our gender has a
continuum of human characteristics the same as other
human beings do -- and, with courage, we may choose
our own place.
#



SUSAN MC D. DAY

We are reminded again by the media that Susan Mc D. is
serving time in jail. We are shown over and over, the
image of a woman in chains with nothing to shield her
from the photo-op scheduled by special prosecutor,
Starr.

Should she be in jail? Yes. She was found guilty by a
jury of her peers and sentenced to many years in jail.

Is that what she's in jail for? No. She is in jail
because ***she refused to lie.*** After her convic-
tion, Starr offered her a deal. Implicate the Clintons
and you will not have to go to jail.

_We do not condone Susan's criminal actions, but we do
salute her as a modern day Joan of Ark. A strong woman
who would not compromise her principles and lie to save
herself._

Our culture has commemorated the selfless deeds of men
by celebrating on their birthday. Many of these men
had as flawed a past as Susan Mc D., but they are still
celebrated for something extraordinary that they have
done. We know that there have been women worthy of
acclaim throughout the ages that were largely ignored
at the time and only now appear in anthologies or lists
but let us change this and acknowledge at least one
woman hero in REAL TIME - right now.

We suggest that women celebrate the courage and
strength of Susan MC D.; that we commemorate the day
she was taken in chains to jail for *NOT* lying; for
*NOT* putting her own comfort above the truth and for
showing the world the *true mettle* of womankind.

#



Gendergapper EXTRA - Holy MOTHER Joan

We received several posts reminding us about the
story of Pope Joan. Although we have found no other
confirmation of Walker's theory, it rings true to many
people. You decide for yourselves.

(We thank Lea for sending the following post which tells
the story of Pope Joan)

+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+

Lea writes:

Here's one who got stoned in the street and buried in
an unmarked grave:

POPE JOAN

reference source: The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and
Secrets, Barbara G. Walker, p475ff.

"Catholic scholars now deny that there was ever a
female pope...[but] the church accepted Joan's pontifi-
cate as historical fact, up to the beginning of the
17th century."

Joan was an Englishwoman who knew more of the scrip-
tures than any man, and she was elected pope [A.D. 854]
after disguising herself as a monk who became noted for
scholarship.

Pope Joan became pregnant, and during labor her dis-
guise was uncovered, whereupon she was driven out into
the street, stoned to death and buried in an unmarked
grave. Joan was the only pope ever stricken from papal
records... When Emmanuel Royidis wrote her biography in
1886, the book was banned by the church and he was
excommunicated.

A Vatican custom arose in the wake of the "myth" of
Pope Joan: "Candidates for the papacy had to seat
themselves naked on an open stool, to be viewed through
a hole in the floor by cardinals in the room below. The
committee had to make its official announcement: Tes-
ticulos habet et bene pendentes, 'he has testicles and
they hang all right'."

Walker comments: "It seemed important that 'Holy Mother
Church' must never be governed by a Holy Mother!"
_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+


_I AM WOMAN, HEAR ME ROAR!_

All of us who were around when a fresh wind from Aus-
tralia, named Helen Reddy, raised our soggy conscious-
ness and blasted our minds, hearts and spirits wide
open are now thrilled anew by another Aussie, Dale
Spender.

Lisa writes:

"Saw a great speaker recently: Researcher, broadcast-
er, teacher and author of over thirty books, including
the internationally acclaimed _Man Made Language_ and
_Women of Ideas_, Australian DALE SPENDER makes a rare
appearance in Los Angeles to present her newest book,
_Nattering on the Net: Women, Power & Cyberspace_ in
which she conveys her sheer delight cruising the
Net and poses many provocative arguments about women's
participation on the Internet.

"I have read many of her books over the years, and it
is so exciting to see she how see has moved into the
technology area. She talks a lot about women getting
in *now* and designing the future of technology for
ourselves before it is designed by men; and realizing
that the power base has shifted from print to electron-
ic media -- which women need to embrace and master! She
draws an analogy between the publishing industry and
how books by women have boomed over the last 25 years
as the industry realized they were profitable. But, in
the beginning there was always the argument of scarcity
and how publishing a women's book would deny a man's.

Now, of course, with the Internet, there is no scarci-
ty, it's unlimited. Also, she talks about her fasci-
nating research on how boys and girls use computers,
different ways of encouraging girls and women to em-
brace technology, academia's resistance to the Inter-
net, the way the new multimedia generation is changing
society, etc."

... and from Jennie, in Australia:

"Dale Spender is great. She lives just around the
corner from me in fact, and writes a biweekly column in
the local newspaper (for which she is regularly branded
a *F*nazi man-hater lesbian, because you can't write
"bitch" in our newspapers ;).

"She has written several books, she is a histo-
rian and general critic of male egos. Some of her
books are: _Man Made Language_. Which talks about how
English has developed to denigrate and belittle women
etc., _Learning to Lose_, and _Invisible Women_, about
women's education. And _Women of Ideas, and what men
have done to them_, which is fairly self-explanatory."

GenderGappers 1997: 31 - 40

Gendergappers 31 - LIFT AND SEPARATE

Just like the ad for a certain bra, we have noted that
the media appears hell-bent to define gender differ-
ences and exploit them to the detriment of women.
Differences, real or contrived, support separation
while lifting one gender above the other. No, we are
not saying that females and males are identical. We
are saying that they are more similar than different
and that the differences are mainly culturally induced
with the exception of primary and secondary sexual
characteristics.

We have all seen a young boy cuddle, rock and play
gently with a doll just as we have seen a young girl
throw the same doll on the floor and jump up and down
on it. But have we all noted what the adult reaction
is? What our own, involuntary, unthoughtful response
is? Do we note that the boy is made to feel bad
(unmanly?) for his joy in nurturing and that the girl
is made to feel bad (unladylike) for her anger?

Women columnists and media mavens appear to be doubling
their efforts to define women as not only opposite men
but inferior to men by asserting that cultural condi-
tioning is truth absolute. Recently, one of them
claimed that (except for a few [obviously deviate]
individuals) women melted at the sight of a baby and
rush to pick it up, while men mostly ignore them.
However, she went on to say, the men were protective
toward the baby. Duh! Like, the women weren't?

Actually, both men and women react to babies with
smiles and interest whether the babies are human or
animal, but most men have been trained not to show it.
In addition, most men have NOT been trained to hold or
care for an infant as they have probably been disci-
plined for their interest in dolls when they were chil-
dren. Also, while it is true that many women are
extremely maternal, there are just as many who are not,
but seldom will they react that way. Our culture
punishes a woman who acts "culturally abnormal" just as
it punishes a man who acts "culturally abnormal".

By stressing this cultural training as a `difference'
between the genders, we deprive males of the joys and
safeguards of warmth and emotions. By training males
to be emotionless; to equate strength with violence and
tender it society's approval, we put ourselves and our
children at risk. Perhaps, in the past, it was neces-
sary to prepare the physically stronger gender to fight
wars and to kill and maim the enemy (including old
people, women and children) dispassionately. Now, as
our military is made up of both women and men, this
sort of training is indefensible.

It would make much better sense for the survival of our
species to allow an individual to develop strengths and
abilities without tying them to gender. To paraphrase
Martin Luther King, we dream of the day when each
individual is judged, not on their gender, but on their
abilites and the content of their character.

We all know that the planet we live on is getting
overcrowded and we should be praising those who do not
add to the population. We don't. We harass and ha-
rangue couples who are childless by choice. This is
especially noted in the rhetoric of the
religious/political groups. They insist that if a
woman works in a job outside of the home she should not
have children but loudly condemn any woman who chooses
to remain childless. This is the same kind of Catch 22
they use regarding a woman's reproductive freedom.
They claim they want to end abortion, while at the same
time they do everything possible to prevent women from
obtaining birth control materials.

Some ladies will tell you, smiling a truly vacant,
Stepfordwife smile, that they do not want equality or
human rights because women who act "correctly" are put
on a pedestal by men, and they like being treated as
*special*. Since this type of *uplifting* of "worthy"
females is touted by our media, it is an effective
manner of separating us from each other. Divide and
conquer, lift and separate, it's all the same game and
it's one that Gendergappers are aware of.

Being aware is a first step but there is much more to
be done. Pedestals are great underneath statues of
horses and their riders. It lifts them high enough off
the ground so the pigeons can't miss. We Gendergapper
women, on the other hand, have been shat on long enough
to know it from Shinola.
#

Gendergappers 32 - HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO _US_

August 26th really is our birthday, that is, for women
who are citizens of one of the lesser, gender-equal
nations of the world. It was on this day, 77 years ago
that women were reborn as members of the human race, IF
we believe we were originally created as such. Reborn
because, even though man's science, history and most
religions hardly even mention that we exist, biology
has confirmed that we did. Whatever niche was assigned
to us, they had to trot us out whenever men needed
something to begat against -- or into!

Of course, you will also find us leading man astray
with apples, turning into pillars of salt and, more
recently, stealing welfare money from the RIGHT
stuffed-shirts. Our rebirth came when we finally got a
voice in our government. We were allowed to vote
(August 26, 1920). Get that! *ALLOWED!!!" Pity there
are no survivors to bear witness to our Mother's and
Grandmother's struggles and sacrifice. More pity that
we still must struggle and sacrifice to maintain our
human rights.

We must continue to struggle, not only against man's
culture, but against women who either want to turn back
the clock or who refuse to take responsibility for
themselves.

In July of 1848, 5 very brave women drafted a Declara-
tion of Sentiments a.k.a. The Woman's Declaration of
Independence. Shortly thereafter, over 300 women met
in Seneca Falls, NY. They adopted the Declaration and
it's 12 resolutions. You all learned in school about
the Bill of Rights? Well this was the *Bill of Human
Rights*! Betcha most of us didn't hear about this
until we took a woman's studies course in college.

Those radical resolutions stated that to improve wom-
en's ***LIVES***, Women should share the human rights
afforded to men: Women should own property; control
their wages; obtain a divorce; exercise free speech;
have equal access to education; equal opportunities in
business and the professions; and A VOICE IN THE LAWS
WHICH GOVERN THEIR LIVES.

Strip those rights you were born with, that are listed
in the paragraph above, from yourself. Pretend for a
moment that you lived back in those days. Do you feel
like a slave? Do you know what a slave is? Do you
know what a woman is?

Since the mid-1800's, there have been great changes in
women's lives -- a highpoint being 1920 when women were
enfranchised. But change comes slowly. We know that
only _very important_ changes can occur overnight.
Take this, quite recent example of a rapid change in
family values that happened in another country:

A journalist had done a story on gender roles in
Kuwait several years before the Gulf War, and she
noted then that women customarily walked about 10
feet behind their husbands. She returned to
Kuwait recently and observed that the men now
walked several yards behind their wives. She
approached one of the women for an explanation.

"This is marvelous," said the journalist. "What
enabled women here to achieve this reversal of
roles?"

Replied the Kuwaiti woman: "Land mines."


We know from our own lives that women's lives are
better than they were. We should know that the United
States Congress is 89% male; women do sit on about 60%
of Fortune 1000 boards, but membership is mostly male
still; 95% of corporate offices are held by men and we
should actively be doing something about it. Why?
Because we have to constantly fight the efforts of both
male and female religious/political groups who are out
to restrict our hard won rights.

Rights not just limited to the ones the Women of Seneca
fought so valiantly for but for the progress we have
made since then by increasing our numbers in the pro-
fessions, in universities, in woman-owned businesses,
and especially in reproductive freedom. We have to
fight a culture that allows the batterer/rapist/child-
molester off with little or no punishment; a society
that blames poor women for its problems; a country that
devalues its womenfolk by sexual intimidation and
discrimination, and forces them into either low paying
dead-end jobs or to work for 70% or less than a com-
parable male wage.

Our forces are sorely divided in this struggle. For so
long, so many women have turned to men in power to get
power for themselves and to solve their problems.
These women actively oppose human rights for self de-
fined women. We must learn to claim power as our right
and raise our collective voices independent of the
control of men.

Yes, after countless centuries, women have won back human
rights by law. Now we must regain the integrity we
were created with.
#

Gendergappers 33 -

THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR IS - OUR OWN IGNORANCE.

If you want to get a real idea of what concerns some of
your fellow creatures, listen to your "local" talk-
radio, aka, hate-radio. They have two opposing views
that they believe implicitly: one is that nothing in
the media is the truth and the other is that everything
in the media, that puts their political opponents in
the wrong, is true no matter what the source is -- or
how unsubstantial the claim.

These constant-callers with their constant-complaints
hate all who do not share their narrow minded `values'
-- they live in a world of fear, believing that the
rest of the world is out to destroy their way of life,
the way of life that god has decreed. Between gnash-
ing your teeth in frustration and exhausting bouts of
hilarity, you'll glean that the major theme of the
HateHeads is: "The way our government is spending
taxpayer's money."

Actually, you'll soon learn that their definition of
taxpayers money is their money. The implication is
that everyone who does not believe as they do are
liberals (that's a dirty word to them). Liberals do
not pay taxes, they loaf and collect welfare etc.
Hateheads don't like the way our government spends *their*
"hard-earned dollars" on a variety of things.

Although they may approve of education, they do not
approve of the educators who, in their words, "spend
their hard earned dollars teaching kids how to have sex",
and encouraging them to deviate by introducing information
on alternate life styles and sexual preferences." It
isn't long until you realize that their so-called
`values' are grounded in intolerance -- and much of
this is directed against women and especially against
*self-defining* women such as our Secretary of State, our
First Lady or our Attorney General. Smart women in positions
of power are an anathema to them, and to the male hosts
of hate-radio who respond to and encourage the hate-filled
callers.

They want the government to step in and prevent women
from choosing to have an abortion, yet they get in-
censed at the money given by government to Planned
Parenthood to provide birth control information and
material that can prevent the need for abortion.

They really get pissed off about welfaremothers -- this
is just one nasty word (welfarefathers do not exist for
them). They foam at the mouth that these women, and
other women who have chosen to live without a husband,
have the nerve to refer to themselves and their
children as FAMILY! I kid you not, they actually get
shrill if anyone suggests that anything other than
daddy, mommy and kids is a family.

It is interesting that with all their complaints, they
do not even mention all the taxpayer's money that is
spent attempting to rehabilitate male drunks or dopes-
ters or the money spent on the overwhelmingly male,
overcrowded prisons. Not a murmur about the money spent
on sports equipment (as long as it isn't taken away
from males and given to females as per Title IX).
Listen to them. These are the people who vote. These
are the people who want to maintain a large majority in
Congress These are the people who want to elect a
president who will follow the direction of the
religious/political extreamists who are not just anti
choice but also anti-women.

If they even notice the sexual harassment of women by
police, that is common in most jails, they do not pro-
test. Their indignation does not even extend to the
horror going on in those warehouses for the elderly,
the nursing homes which deliver bed-space and neglect
for profit. No surprise here -- the majority of the
inmates are women.

It is difficult to get accurate figures on the number
of sexual assaults that are made on women in hospitals
or nursing homes but it is known that complaints are
frequently made -- and usually ignored. Imagine your-
self as very old and infirm. You cannot fend
for yourself any longer. You are unable to walk unaid-
ed. An attendant or another patient comes into your
room and rapes you, threatening you so you dare not
scream. You complain and it does no good. It is all
put down to women making things up to get attention; or
to the muddled thinking of old women.

You know, from growing up in our culture, that women's
complaints are not taken seriously by the medical
profession, so it will not be hard to imagine the
scenario above. What may be difficult to believe is
how very common this situation is. If an employee of
the health facility or nursing home happens to come in
on a rape and reports it to the management, the usual
method is to JUST HUSH IT UP. In no way do they want
us to know what they allow to happen. These are good,
family-values-businesses-for-profit -- don't want any
bad press now, do we?

Now that the watchword is downsizing, this sort of
horror is bound to become more commonplace and we are
the ones mostly at risk and we are the ones that are
not considered worth of societies' protection. Just
consider how frequently women are sexually molested in
jails and the only response, when it is discovered, is
a rumor that some officer has left the force. Compare
this to the public fanfare (still going on) that at-
tended the report of one man who was sexually assaulted
in N.Y.

While most of us will never be incarcerated in one of
these repulsive jails, the chances are good that we
will find ourselves placed in a nursing home where boys
are allowed to be boys and women, whatever their age or
condition, are considered by our culture to be objects
that may be used and abused.
#


Gendergappers 34 - DIANA! A WOMAN'S WOMAN

Our language has words and phrases that hold different
meanings depending on whether they apply to a female or
a male. One of these is the word, `common'. When ap-
plied to a male, as in, a common man, it means "ordi-
nary". We speak of how things may affect the common,
the ordinary, man.

However, when a woman is called common, it means "vul-
gar". One hears the degrading tone in the spoken word:
"Oh, she's so common", referring to her dress, her
language or her activities.

A "man's man" is the ultimate male fantasy. He is
strong, tall, rugged, in charge, invincible and larger
than life etc. etc. While we have all heard and under-
stand what a man's man is, there *has been* no such
term as a woman's woman, but we think that there should
be.

Perhaps the main reason it took so long for us to iden-
tify with our own gender is that we have not built any
tradition. Women have so long been defined by men that
the major accolade for a woman would be that she is a
`man's woman'. We are allowed, even encouraged, to be
sexy and decorative but our accomplishments, even as
homemaker, are devalued. We are given a choice of only
two roles in life: that of perfect wife/mother - or whore!

Well wake up, Mr. Charlie! We women and "the times, they
are a changing".

We believe that Diana Frances Spencer was a Woman's
Woman. She resonated across the generations, the
genders and our social strata. She especially resonat-
ed and reflected, at least a part of, all women's
lives. We all were promised the storybook "happy ever
after" when "someday our prince would come". We all
were shown how little our culture values us, while
claiming family values. We all got the message early
on that our youth and beauty were accepted -- and ephemeral.
So, along with Diana, many of us woke up to the deception
of the princely kiss and, like her, we swam against the
tide in our search for our own woman-identity.

Far from following one of our culture's prescribed roles
assigned to womankind, Diana, Princess of Wales, used the
few short years she was given to DEFINE HERSELF. Her
efforts on behalf of the young and the sick, as well as
her fight against land mines is legend. The small minded,
talking-heads of the media, angry at all the heartfelt
attention given to a *mere woman*, are punishing her and us
by claiming that "she lived a life of contradictions".

*Don't * we * all?*

Diana was a destroyer of the myths that have long ensnared
and restricted women, such as: gender-role-assignment for life;
the dumb blonde; the useless parasite; poor little rich girl;
the decorative possession, among many others.

She embodied the line from Kipling's poem, _IF_:
"...Or walk with Kings -- nor lose the common touch, ..."

She was a WOMAN, who set a whole monarchy on its ear
with love; and raised the social conscience of a world.
#


Gendergappers 35 - REINVENTING THE DAMN WHEEL - AGAIN!

Every time our women's movement makes a few gains, all
the hegemony sycophants come out of the woodwork to
insist that now we are there; that now, we have at-
tained equality. Now we can stop acting like males and
be sweet and feminine as is our true nature. Many of
the authors of this excrement are women who get fi-
nanced by vested interests. They are widely published,
make appearances on television and are featured in the
print media. These women represent and protect the
male establishment, the ones with the vested interest
in keeping women's wages low and their influence in
politics even lower.

The result is that too many women who hear this crap,
coming from women, think it is true. It is only those
of us that know better who continue to be vocal. For
our pains, we are called shrill bitches who are just
trying to make trouble.

It hurts because we know that it isn't true. We know
that we must stand fast and the reason we do is that we
know full well, as George Santayana wrote: "Those that
do not remember the past are destined to repeat it."
We know that this has all happened before. We under-
stand that our *recent* movement did not stand alone
but was constructed on the backs of women who came
before us.

Read the following quotation and note how current it
sounds. Then take a guess at who it's about and when
it was made:

"She dealt not only with the vote, but with most
of the same issues confronting modern
women--domestic violence, the frustration of being
single, the value of female friendship, the vic-
timization of prostitutes, the battle for equal
pay. She also published a newspaper edited by and
for women, cautioned workers to beware of sexual
harassment, and railed against the use of tobacco.

"(Unmarried), She was one of the first in the
nation to call for the legal rights of married
women.

"Childless, she approved of a young colleague who
adopted a baby without benefit of marriage.

"Politically a nonperson, she was arrested ... for
daring to vote.

"Accused of anarchy for upsetting the relations
between women and men, she thought of herself as a
homebody ..."

Such a life of contradictions! The woman the above was
written about is, of course, Susan B. Anthony, doing her
thing in the 1800's -- over a hundred years ago.
(Excerpted from _Failure Is Impossible_ by Lynn Sherr)

Sounds pretty much like today but we do have the
vote and the right to hold office and own property. We
Gendergappers are exceptions, but many, many women do
not take advantage of what these women of the last
Century did for us and sadly -- they do not care. This
is most egregious, but what is just as harmful are
those women, featured by the media, who are impeding
the efforts of those of us still struggling for our
human rights, because we know from the past that there
is much more to do. We know how easily our few gains
may be overturned if we do not remain vigilant and
committed.

A hundred years ago, after the Woman's Bill of Rights
(listed in a previous issue) and after the
19th amendment was ratified, came the same sort of ob-
structionist action by some women that we have today.
"It's all over and women have won. We have gained
equality etc." they claimed, and every day women's
efforts were undermined by derogatory statements made
by women against women. Statements that roundly de-
nounced those who still clung to the fight knowing that
they had only just made a start in a long battle.

History tells us that because of this, the movement stumbled
and faltered just when it was gaining some momentum, so
we in this century had much to overcome before
we could add to the progress that was formerly made ... and lost.

We see the same thing happening again as many women are
forgetting the sacrifices of the past, the warnings of
the present and the future threats to our daughter's
life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. We must meet
these threats head on and defeat them, for, in the words
of Susan B., "failure is impossible."


Gendergappers 36 - SCRAP THAT _NON-TRADITIONAL LABEL_

Women were severely limited, at the beginning of this
Century, as to the jobs they could apply for. These
were mostly service positions such as nursing, teach-
ing, secretarial or servant. Few women were college
educated both because it was thought that women were
not capable of higher learning and because it would be
a waste of money to prepare a woman for a job that she
would not be allowed to hold.

Toward the middle of this Century, there was a gradual
change, and with the advent of Title IX, women started
to attend college en masse, and to enter into job posi-
tions that were called, "non-traditional." Just to
name a few: medicine, law, business, engineering and
agriculture (other than Home Ec).

Women have filled these positions and they have ex-
celled in them, proving over and over that not only are
women educatable, but that they are capable of doing
the work of this world that was formerly believed could
only be done by men. Despite this, there has not been
a concomitant equality in pay for service. Women still
are paid less for doing the same job as a man except
*mechanic*!

You may have seen the statistics. A recent report from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that women's
wages had dropped another 2% lower that men's (27% less
now). A recent national survey showed that while
women are concerned with child care, the strongest
issue for them is *equal pay*. Wage discrimination has
been ILLEGAL since 1963 but is still rampant. This de-
spite the fact that 41% of working women provide sole
support for their families.

Recently, many women's organizations have banded to-
gether for change, forming _Working Women Working To-
gether Network_, with equal pay a priority. More info
on what they are about may be found by calling toll
free: 888 971-9797.

One other report just released where women are NOT
discriminated against shows that women are getting
AID's at a rate higher than men. In fact, while the
incident of new AID infections for other populations
are going down, it is increasing in women -- that's
heterosexual women, by the way.

While this and similar efforts are going on, we note
that most women's groups are still referring to certain
jobs as NON-TRADITIONAL. Indeed, a recent web site has
been established by some women's groups to sign up
mentors for women interested in *non-traditional* jobs.

Just when are we going to wake up and call professional
jobs "traditional"? Why do we form groups and WWW
pages asking women to sign up as "role models" for
"non-traditional" jobs? Don't we just buy into the
fallacy that certain careers, i.e., any that pay more
than minimum wage, are always going to be either out of
the reach of women or that women still are not quali-
fied?

What does that say about what women's roles are
supposed to be? If we continue calling for female role
models in "non-traditional" jobs, the message is
being sent that we, also, BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ENTITLED
TO ONLY CERTAIN TYPES OF JOBS AND CAREERS. We should
be offering role models for all types of jobs & ca-
reers, period! We should NOT reinforce the impression
of low self value in ourselves and our culture, by
perpetuating this cultural myth.
#


Gendergappers 37 - PREVIOUS BAD ACTS

We find the current trial result of a well-known
sportscaster to be a lesson in our culture's duplicity
relating to the criminal sexual activities of men. We
are told that our laws have become fairer because now a
woman's past history is not admissible evidence in a
trial, when for years previous, a woman who brought
charges against a man was penalized and vilified. Her
complete sexual and personal history was open to public
gaze.

Now our laws are said to protect her privacy by prohib-
iting any "previous bad acts" to be admissible as
evidence in a trial, and her identity may not revealed.
In actual fact, the media may, and often does, dig into
a woman's past and really the only thing that results
from the law is that the victim's name is not published
in the paper. This may be a moot point since so much
may be written and published about a person that her
identity becomes apparent. Following the plea bargin,
Vanessa Perhach, the victim, pleaded for her privacy.
Asking the press to leave her alone, she gave a short
interview saying that justice had been done but she
hoped Marv would not have to serve time.

We all know how differently the media treats any
celebrity and how protective it may be of sports figures:
the murderer, O.J. Simpson or the rapist, ear biting Mike
Tyson for example. Now, we have a sportscaster
accused of rape and sexual battering and the initial
reaction of the press was to publish massive amounts of
news stories telling what a great guy Marv is and how
he just would not do such a thing and the woman must be
just making it up to get money out of him. As one
media maven so delicately put it: "The bitch set him
up."

Although Marv's accuser's name was not mentioned in the
media, this did not stop the condemnation of her and we
submit that among the readers and watchers of the media
are always the jury.

In Marv's case, the prior pollution of the jury does
not matter. The trial suddenly stopped and Marv copped
a plea after a woman stepped forward as a witness and
testified concerning her experiences with Marv's sexual
brutality. Really quite a shocker for the defense who
had things going their way the day before. It had
concentrated on maligning the woman who was the victim
and who had brought the charges.

During the short trial, the media showed all the enjoy-
ment of a pig in mud as they revealed all the juicy
tidbits coming out of the courtroom. Now, in the
aftermath, there is a return of sympathy toward Marv.
We hear great sorrow expressed that he has lost his
"career" over these "charges" that were never proven,
and his attorney, Roy Black, hit every spot in the media
that he could, to push that point home. This in spite
of the fact that when the judge was ruling on the plea,
he directly asked Marv if he were pleading guilty
just to stop the trial or because he really was guilty.

Now as the media bemoans the end of Marv's career and
suggests a come-back for him in the future, we ask,
where's the lesson in all of this? We see two signifi-
cant areas. As more and more women have come forth to
accuse their tormenters of sexual battering, there is
often a consistent pattern showing that many women
take a lot of abuse before they take steps to stop it.
Many times the final straw is an escalation of the
abuse by the man. Love bites are a tad different from
deep, flesh tearing bites.

There is also an interesting footnote to all of this.
Despite all that was revealed, despite Marv's confes-
sion of guilt, many in the media now declare that the
woman who made the charges is the guilty party and call
the other woman who confirmed her testimony, a liar.
It proclaims what our culture teaches -- it's always
the woman's fault.

We insist that whether it be in the Garden of Eden or in
a hotel room today, a man's sexual behavior comes from
within himself and he should start taking responsibility
for it and stop always blaming women. Marv had a long
history of deviate sexual behavior and the women were victims
not instigators of cruel and punitive sex.

Patricia Masden, who had nothing to gain but notoriety
and disparagement by the media, stood up in open court
and SUPPORTED ANOTHER WOMAN. This is the most signifi-
cant image for women to take from this incident. It
just does not happen that often because we have been so
well trained to support only men and tear down our own
gender. We salute her.
#


Gendergappers 38 - "...'CAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO."

Now we all know that genders are characterized as
either feminine or masculine but have you ever heard of
a *masculist*? Is there any such thing as *masculism*.
What about *pre, or post- masculism*? Once again we have
an example that our culture has one `significant' gender.
It is the standard, so it neither requires nor needs modifiers.

Over the weekend, this gender again met in large num-
bers in our capitol, embraced and cosseted by our
media. Women were not invited nor were they allowed to
participate. Exclusion of women is what this men's
group is all about. Hardly ever a discouraging word is
said against them, even though there are those of au-
thority and experience, who are highly critical of the
Promise Keepers - and for good reason.

Oh, the media does show us a small bunch of scruffy
women protesting with signs, but this is only to deni-
grate and dismiss the opposition to the PK's. My-Oh-
My, why should any woman, any person, object to men
getting together to take responsibility, to become
better husbands, better fathers and better citizens?
Why should anyone object when the wives of these men
are quite pleased to submit to men since "...the bible
tells them so ..."

If that were the PK's agenda, the answer would be that
no one should object, but that is not the _"Political-
Kop's" agenda. This movement declares that men are
the superior gender and that the inferior gender,
women, should be ruled by them. They further insist
that this is not just their idea, it is Gods! God has
written all this and they are just obeying the will of
God and that women should do likewise.

Let's look at a couple of other *will of Gods*. One
going on right now in Afghanistan is a doozy. A cadre
of the `superior gender' are beating up and killing any
person in the country that does not or will not obey
God's (Allah's) will as `they' define it. Men must
wear long beards and attend prayers at set times, they
cannot play sports in shorts, but must be fully
clothed. Women, on the other hand, may not appear in
public at all unless necessary and even then, must be
completely covered from head to toe. Their fathers or
husbands have complete control over them. They are not
allowed to hold jobs or attend university. Young
female children are not allowed to attend school.
Females are not allowed in hospitals and any infraction
of the rules set up by these Muslim, _"Political Kops"_,
may result in sever beatings, even unto death.

Not too many years ago, right here in the good old U.S.
of America, a similar will of God was enforced. This
particular defining of God's word, the bible, declared
that the black race was inferior to the white race and
that the blacks should be kept as slaves. There were
penalties if anyone even attempted to even teach a
person of the black race to read and write! Even after
the Civil war, many still called forth the _Will of
God_ to defend how they cruelly mistreated a whole
race. Did you see the films recently shown on TV news
depicting the black children who were the first to be
integrated into the white, Little Rock, Arkansas
schools? Did you cringe along with us as you saw that
woman following a young black girl -- a woman whose
face was contorted with hatred -- a woman who was "just
doing God's will!"

Even now, this race hatred, believed to be supported by
the bible, is alive and well in such organizations as
the Klu Klux Klan, the American Nazis and many of the
militia groups.

History has taught us what happens when one race exerts
superiority over another, so why can't we see the danger
when one gender is once again encouraged to demand sub-
mission of the other and to enforce this submission
with violence? What effect will that have on a culture
which is already permissive toward rape and other forms
of violence against women? The self-defined woman knows
because she is free. The ancient memories of the cruel
subjugation of our Fore-Mothers runs deep and strong in
our genes.

If you think, "it can't happen here," remember that IT
ALREADY HAS. What makes the PK's so dangerous is its
hidden agenda, especially its affiliation with a polit-
ical party, to change our Constitution, which now defends
us with a mandated separation between church and state.
What makes it a stealth-terrorist movement is that
many women are not yet aware of the danger and are
supporting this political\religious cult.

We hold that a person's religion should be protected as
should her right to practice it. When a mob attempts
to inflict its religious beliefs on everyone, it is
morally wrong. When it excludes women because it
considers them inferiors, it is mortally dangerous.
#


Gendergappers 39 - LAWS OF GRAVITY REPEALED?

While we know how the cartoons on TV have for years
shown characters like the Crazy Coyote and Roadrunner
defying the laws of gravity, this phenomenon is appear-
ing in more and more programs involving real people as
actors.

If you have watched _Deep Space 9_ lately, you may have
been *struck* by the Borg construckion, 7. Now, most
of her mechanical additions, that the Borg attached to
her, have been eliminated, but her biological boobs
just defy description, to say nothing of gravity.
Whether she is standing up or laying down, these two
projectiles from 7's chest must certainly be seen
to rival the existing "Seven" Wonders of the World!

Equally awe-striking was the remarkable change in
Scully's superstructure. You may know her as an F.B.I.
agent looking after the _X-Files_, with her loyal
sidekick, Mulder. She exhibited a fairly average
female form until she was presented to us on a hospital
bed in a deep coma. For several installments, as she
hovered between life and death in a coma, her person-
hood was overwhelmed by the towering twin pinnacles
extruding from her chest as she lay supine on the bed.
To our utter surprise, when she finally was shown,
again supine, but out of the coma and on the way to
full recovery, the bullet-breasts had vanished, re-
placed by two normal looking mounds. Remarkable!

Now one might excuse the far-in-our-future representa-
tion of 7, as some sort of super bra construct or
breastwork enhancement that might exist in the future,
but how does one change Scully's modern-day pliable
tissue? How do we explain an organ (composed of soft
gland cells, soft capillaries and soft fat cells, long
shown to us in former installments of the show, to be
easily contained in a B or certainly a C-cup) dramatic-
ally turned into towering parallel masses that defy gravity?

Until these chest events, we noted above, we do not
recall paying particular attention to this part of
women's anatomy seen on television or in movies.
Now, we are seeing these monstrosities everywhere
in media presentations.

Understand that we are not writing derogatory words
here about those of us who are naturally "well
endowed" and obeying the law of gravity. Our reference
is only directed to the magical TV force that seems
to invade the soft tissue of the breast so that it
becomes the focus of the character - especially when
the character is laying down.

Both Scully and 7, disappear as human beings, and each
become instead a pair of breasts with a body attached.
Maybe this is the point, er, points.

Along the same line, we were directed by a couple of
sources to eyeball the skirt length of just about every
"working woman" shown all over the tube. Now if we
weren't already convinced that women in our culture are
seen as objects, it would be hard to disagree when one
compares the clothing of your average real-time woman
with her television counterpart. We gotta admit that
few women have told us that they get any real pleasure
or kick out of these representations of women on tele-
vision and in the movies, so we assume that this is
not done for women's benefit.

Nature has provided the organ system we called breasts
for the nourishment of mammalian young. But we have
found no proof that science has enhanced this function
by making them solid structures.

So we have to conclude that the purpose here is to make
women's breasts more noticeable. This is perplexing
since it is illegal for a woman to appear in public without
having her breasts covered. She would be arrested for
"indecent exposure". This means that our society has
decreed by law that women's breasts are indecent. Not
men's breasts, only women's breasts, since we have
often seen men appear in public bare breasted and the
law finds nothing wrong with this.

We know that, in some societies, women's breasts are not
considered obscene and we know that in our own society
there exist nudist colonies where men and women manage
to see each other buck nekkid without exploding in
unrestrainable sexual frenzy.

As the song goes, "A paradox, a paradox, a most amusing
paradox..." Augment them, lift and separate them,
inflate them or solidify them, but for gosh sakes
don't let these indecent organs be seen.
#
Twanda@vbi.champlain.edu

We'd like to note with great happiness and pride, that
a Vermont ***woman***, Jody Williams, won the Nobel Peace
Prize. We'd also like to note our great pleasure in her
`fashion statement' as she responded to the media and the
world from her home following the announcement by the
Nobel Committee -- casual top, jeans and barefoot.
**********************

Maybe the reason that so many people love the cat is
that she is the only example that you can breathe in
the presence of man without becoming his slave - and
maybe that is why, so many people hate her.
- Heinrich Saas
**********************

Gendergappers articles may be forwarded if you wish,
and translated into other languages.

Gendergappers 40 - "EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW ..." unless --

If you haven't been paying attention to the Senate, you
may have missed the news reporting that august body
once again passed a bill that would limit women's
access to their doctor's recommended treatment. De-
spite the fact that President Clinton had warned Sena-
tors that he would veto any bill that did not include
inclusion of women's health in it, the Senate passed
the same anti-woman's human rights bill.

This bill, relating to a seldom used late term abortion
procedure, was vetoed by the President and now the
Majority Leader, Republican Trent Lot, is actively
seeking the votes to override the President's veto. He
is helped in this endeavor by a vigorous letter, fax
and telegram campaign by the irreligious right and the
unchristian coalition membership, augmented by the
promise keeper's political cadre. Meanwhile, the lead-
ers of these groups are demanding _quid pro quo_ from
Senators that received campaign financing from them.

Well who cares? It's just one procedure, so how does
that concern me? It matters very little to most people
that some women will suffer. We hear the media tell us
over and over, "Hey, those women can always get a
Caesarean. They don't have to resort to THAT particu-
lar abortion technique!" So, many of us will just sit
on our hands and sigh, "Que', sara, sara", (whatever
will be will be) instead of writing to shore up our
Senators by ***reminding them of the importance of the
Gendergapper's vote.***

Couple of things to consider or sing along with. One
is very important as it has to do with the eroding of
hard-won women's human rights. If this bill is over-
ridden, it means that you as a female would be prohib-
ited from the same access to medical treatment that
males have. At present, there are no laws that prevent
either a female or a male from deciding on any treat-
ment or procedure that they and their doctor may decide
is appropriate. Anti-choice political mavens are
adamant that this would be only the first step and that
their final goal is the outlawing of ALL kinds of birth
control -- except ones that they refer to as "natural"!
Anyone out there still believe that the word, "NO" is
an effective birth control method or even a word that
is heard, understood and respected?

Another thing to consider are the many errors that have
been, and are aired by the media for the anti-choice
groups. One thing we hear is how terrible this proce-
dure is because the brains of the fetus are sucked out
before the fetus may be delivered through the birth
canal. So, we are told, it is better to deliver the
intact fetus by Caesarean section (that's when a woman's
abdomen and uterus is cut open).

Sounds great but it ignores the fact that in such
cases, the brains of the fetus are sucked out EVEN WHEN
A CAESAREAN SECTION PROCEDURE IS EMPLOYED. Otherwise,
the uterus would have to be cut through most of its
length to deliver this accident of nature.

Well, we want choice, right? So it is our choice to
either ignore this situation or do something about it.
If we lose the right to chose, with our health profes-
sional, a treatment that is best for us, we can look
back to today and consider how easily we could have
written a letter, sent a fax or made a phone call.

Or, we could just let it go and depend on some women's
groups to bring a suit (after a few women have died)
which might get to the Supremes in a few years. At
that time, the constitutionality of this flagrant
discriminatory practice could be argued.

But who will be appointing members to the Supremes in a
few years? A president pledged to support the edicts
of the unchristian coalition? Already, both political
parties are gearing up for elections in '98 and '00.
You can be sure that from now on all the hate radio
denizens and their callers will be hard at work urging
the abolition of a woman's choice. A constitutionally
protected human right can be wiped out in a flash if we
allow a political/religious cult to dictate medical
treatment ONLY FOR WOMEN, while allowing men and their
doctors to make medical decisions WITHOUT GOVERNMENT
RESTRICTIONS.
#

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.