Greetings friends,

Let's say I'm verging on a real conception of what's fundamentally
broken with American culture in terms of gender polarization* and
wherever it influences the world via the western wave.

*(the condition where the culture, steeped in itself, begets the rather
undesirable outcome of ist beliefs, moreover the beliefs people
catch and adhere to which twist the natural and social attraction
between men and women to the point where a healthy social environment
is not possible.)

I'm a guy, a brain with a man's body, and I've been long fascinated
with the most perplexing problem - to see human social potental from a
healthy perspective through the fog of an ostensibly not-well world.

What ''well world'' do I propose? One in which men and women can be
friends in a familial sense. In which we could enjoy the sense of
community by actually being present with each other and let ual
propensities be with due tact and hesitance, not the knee jerk quagmire
in which we soak so deeply.

For ye who reside outside Massachusetts, I know it is a shade better
in other states (with lower population densiities), and to you who live
in other countries, of course it's not so bad there.

I am one person, somewhat outgoing, whose statistical sample is
limited to all the women I've ever met, the vast majority of which grew
up and got their ideas about reality in Massachusetts. I take as
immutable fact that a man who wishes to know and to love will never
have an opportunity unless he puts his balls first, or only makes
friends with Russians, Brazillians, and the women of the rest of the
world. In my observation there is no woman found in Massachusetts who
would mingle over coffee except at the breakfast table. Likewise there
is scarecly a man found who has not entirely sold his potential to the
western myth, where he unerringly pursues each and every female he
comes in contact with with ultimately the bedroom in mind.

How do we know who we like unless we're friends first? How can you
be friends when the game is laid out as a straight trip to the bedroom
where you control only the speed of descent? I know I cannot get a gal
to as much talk with me, or do anything else under the sun, unless I
flirt and likewise show ual interest.

I assert that this -only environment, at it's fever pitch, makes
socializing prohibitive, as no woman can 'hang out' with a man unless
she is interested in him ually. It takes more than a beer's worth
of time to get to know someone personally, and I can't imagine wanting
make love with someone I didn't like personally. Players get to have
contact (as in - any - contact) with women, this is why so many men
are players. Women get objectified (but no less than the men get
objectified in this sense) and realize at an early age that her power
lies in her ability to be playee.

It's prohibitive, it keeps us from being friends, and it keeps us
from getting a chance to know people we might quite enjoy have we had
the chance. Love, in the beautiful sense, has been opted out.

It srikes me as odd, what with human nature not being abjectly
stupid, that this hasn't been discussed in any depth. Maybe that's
what needs to happen?

I believe when one looks deeply, all of feminist's causes and the
bizzare notions nearly all americans hold dearly that maintains these
self perpetuating socio-ual myths, are rooted in industrialization
of humankind. It's not that the printing press, the church, and my car
are inherently bad things, but that human culture has been ripped out
of its humanity through a tidal wave of industrialization. What we
haven't been able to do is evolve and adapt - to keep pace, everything
relates to interplay of power at any level, and the balance of power
between people and particularly between es has tumultuously churned
through time leaving women short-changed and me without someone to talk
with.

I'm rather sure this will fall on deaf ears, as I know well that the
majority of americans can't easily see how mired we all are in the
myths that perpetuate these problems. Equal pay for equal work, of
course - but how ready is any women brought up this way to see herself
as equal? How about you? Equal enough to expect that a guy enjoys his
respectability more than an orgasm ? To know you can talk with a guy
without having to sleep with him ?

Every bit of lipstick betrays a better world, in short, and the same
goes for the men.

I find some of femisist thought is on the symptoms, not the deeper
issues.. the means by which social equity is perpetually
suppressed by abnormal norms, the slippery slope of which defies
escape. I think we need individually to envision the right kind of
world and each individually not betray that vision by engaging in the
mindset which occupies us today. For women and men, breaking the mold
comes at a cost. Do you believe we can serve a better world, in which
women enjoy perception and self perception on an equal basis with men,
and at once serve the bland hungry ghost, the shadow of a materialistic
U.S. culture - the message in the magazines, the news, everywhere, that
your value as 'typical' woman is accepted, thus you conintue to express
it, that you are merely a playee for players' sake, and the player for
your sake, neither ever knowing anything socially deeper than belly
skin.

Whaddya think ? Is it time to get the word out or continue to play
along ?

Sincerely,

Geoff

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	themagpie at webtv.net
Subject:	Re: Let's ask ourselves some questions
Date:	26 Dec 2004 20:49:49 -0500

--WebTV-Mail-32526-27168
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

Wow. I like the way you write.

I wanted to throw a couple of things out there to (hopefully) at least
indicate where I'm coming from.

Feminism, to me, went radically awry when we put all our energies into
_competing_ with men to see who could be the better man!!! I don't have
a clue as to why the movement so lost its focus.What was, and still is,
needed is to give equal importance to traditional "womans' work"; said
importance to be reflected by the (equal) extent to which it is
remunerated/subsidized/under-written by society as a whole. Let it be
"Father Knows Best - (Because He Listens To His Mother and Wife). Let
'Head of Household' be a JOB title! And if you want to argue about where
the money would come from ... we merely (okay, that's an
under-statement, I admit it ) have to re-route Mom's salary _and_ all
monies currently being paid to others who are doing the child-rearing.
Re-routing said monies to MOM, thank you very much. Because - rock
bottom - we ALL know how IMPORTANT child-rearing is. And let us not
groan if the nanny is a guy and the surgeon is a woman. Just let's make
sure that each occupation makes for a comfortable living. I think the
player/playee dichotomy has far more to do with bucks than ...er... .
And where size really, really DOES matter is the bankroll.

So now. Here we are in our 'Better World'. Her bankroll is equal to His.
Cultural bias for one over the other has been vanquished.
"Responsibility" testing is the norm, ergo if anybody has any clout at
all it is the certified ADULT. Who, by definition, will not abuse their
clout quotient.

Or will they/we/I?

After all, knowing the right answers for the test does not guarantee
we'll _live_ that way. As enlightened and empowered as we each may be,
we haven't done away with Id or Ego or that pesky Libido!!!

So --- daydream over. And here I am: I don't want children. I don't want
my 'courting' -which may or may not lead to - to be a power struggle
devoid of MIND!!! (Nor do I want it to be a MIND-ful power struggle!
Pretty thoroughly sick of power struggles here!) If it turns out, one of
these decades, to be Love ... . Well, whoop-dee-doo! But for starters
I'd just like to be liked. Admired. Esteemed. Valued. Yeah, that's it!
VALUED. Not for what I have, or what I will do for 'him'. For me, for
who I am-and-am-becoming. Let's be friends-with-hormones. :D

Holy-moley, this is about like coming out of the closet! But I have
NEVER bought into the player/playee thing. Not saying it doesn't exist.
Heck, it runs the world-as-we-know-it! I didn't want any man who could
be played that way. Thought/think it beneath me,and 'him' as well. This
has NOT made me the life of the party, so thank God my ace in the hole
is a goodly portion of self-motivation and autonomy. But the solitary
life is not my first, best choice; it's just the best of my experiential
(so far) options. My Utopia, at least some of the time, would be
You-and-me-topia. Well, that is to say, 'he' and I and the cook and the
house-keeper.

Really not kidding,
the magpie

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	SmartyPants
Subject:	Re: Let's ask ourselves some questions
Date:	5 Jan 2005 10:39:16 -0500

tee hee.

Ms Magpie.. I wish we could talk. This way I could show you how you
are in fact a playee. There are almost no women in america who are not
playees, excepting of course the lesbians, bless them all ( at least
they act decently if I say hello !!!! )

You are an american woman ? Then you are almost certainly a playee. I
afind NO american woman can or would talk for more than one and a half
seconds unless I would be flirting with them. None. This is a
pervasive, deeply soaked culture .. it is everywhere, and I'm sure you
could fiind on the back of a cereal box for example. Everyone,
except the gifted and the 'alternative' (yeah, right) play the pick up
game -- __or stay home, there is no inbetween .. it is that bad here.
I live in a progressive intellectual community. We have more PhDs and
homouals per capita than anywhere in the world ( and incidentally
more therapists per square mile than anywhere in the world).
Obviously, being 'informed' does not make the women here any less a
*perfect* playee .. a woman that will only deal with men who approach
them with in mind. Protest as you may, but that is in fact the way
it is. Ms Magpie.. every american women want's to believe she is ok.
Well I know that being american is almost proof enough, because I never
met a woman here who is at once not a lesbian (bless them all) and
capable of making friends with a reasonable and ually reserved man.

Making friends with women from other countries is relatively easy, mind
you, but american women will not be friends with men until we start
getting it all portrayed on TV that way.

A little matches, a little gasoline, and an hour's time. If we work
together, we can turn it around hard and fast. I have faith in your
potential.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Dan Holzman
Subject:	Re: Let's ask ourselves some questions
Date:	6 Jan 2005 09:26:24 -0500

In article <1104420807.217234.133060@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
SmartyPants wrote:
>
>You are an american woman ? Then you are almost certainly a playee. I
>afind NO american woman can or would talk for more than one and a half
>seconds unless I would be flirting with them. None.

I suspect she spent more than one and a half seconds composing that
e-mail and reading your response.

Other men have reported that they have no problem finding women who
talk to them -- even have ongoing non-romantic relationships with us
-- without flirting or on our minds. I've had no problem finding
such interactions. I have them every day.

Whatever phenomenon you're observing, I suspect it's either got to do
with you or with the women you approach rather than something in the
society as a whole.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Orlando Fiol
Subject:	Re: Let's ask ourselves some questions
Date:	23 Dec 2004 14:14:40 -0500

geoffreygallo@yahoo.com wrote:
>Let's say I'm verging on a real conception of what's fundamentally
>broken with American culture in terms of gender polarization* and
>wherever it influences the world via the western wave.

Part of what's wrong is a forced deualization of the genders, as you
so aptly point out from the opposite viewpoint below.

>*(the condition where the culture, steeped in itself, begets the rather
>undesirable outcome of ist beliefs, moreover the beliefs people
>catch and adhere to which twist the natural and social attraction
>between men and women to the point where a healthy social environment
>is not possible.)

The unhealthiness in the social environment between men and women is
this enforced belief that there shouldn't be ual attraction between
genders, that we should all relate to one another as aually as
possible. You confirm this by insinuating that what would hitherto have
been considered natural ual tension is the product of ist
patriarchal structures. And your alternative is what, exactly?

>I'm a guy, a brain with a man's body, and I've been long fascinated
>with the most perplexing problem - to see human social potental from a
>healthy perspective through the fog of an ostensibly not-well world.

I'm also a heteroual man with an inquisitive brain and somewhat of a
socially radical perspective regarding intergenderal relations.

>What ''well world'' do I propose? One in which men and women can be
>friends in a familial sense. In which we could enjoy the sense of
>community by actually being present with each other and let ual
>propensities be with due tact and hesitance, not the knee jerk quagmire
>in which we soak so deeply.

Out of curiosity, why is it so important to you, personally or
politically, that you have thriving friendships with women? Over the
years, I too felt the hunger for nonual female friendship, believing
I related to women better than men and that they were capable of greater
emotional vulnerability and intimacy than men. I now see that I can
only have such friendships with women when there is no ual attraction
on either side, a rare occurrence.

>I am one person, somewhat outgoing, whose statistical sample is
>limited to all the women I've ever met, the vast majority of which grew
>up and got their ideas about reality in Massachusetts. I take as
>immutable fact that a man who wishes to know and to love will never
>have an opportunity unless he puts his balls first, or only makes
>friends with Russians, Brazillians, and the women of the rest of the
>world. In my observation there is no woman found in Massachusetts who
>would mingle over coffee except at the breakfast table. Likewise there
>is scarecly a man found who has not entirely sold his potential to the
>western myth, where he unerringly pursues each and every female he
>comes in contact with with ultimately the bedroom in mind.

Sexual attraction isn't always demeaning toward women; it can be quite
liberating and flattering to be desired so intensely. However, if most
men simply want to utilize women as ual objects without any semblance
of romance, that can indeed feel quite demeaning to intelligent
ambitious women with hearts and souls. On the other hand, there is a
noticeable trend towards female noncommitment. I often run across women
who want little more than friendship with ual benefits or casual
ual encounters. These women see the trappings of romance as
hindrances to their careers, travel plans and overall sovereignty.
Despite this unwillingness to commit, many women still expect to be
taken out, entertained and treated like a pursued prey rather than an
equal friend.

>How do we know who we like unless we're friends first?

That depends on your definition of "like" in this case. I've instantly
liked some women without knowing any ual data that would arouse
lustful impulses. For me, being totally blind, I often get to know
women in this regard, as human beings, without the sensory data that
would make me desire them ually. By that, I mean that in order for
me to decide to have ual relations with a woman, I have to have some
physical contact with her through touch. Looking her obviously won't
give me any information, and depending on perfume and vocal inflections
can often lead me to false conclusions. Nonetheless, even I am capable
of classifying initial attractions to women into ual and nonual
categories. I can, for instance, assert with complete confidence that,
after meeting a woman for the first time, I will never be ually
attracted to her. it could be something in her vocal inflections or
mannerisms, her age, stature, etc.

>How can you be friends when the game is laid out as a straight trip to the bedroom
>where you control only the speed of descent?

Many women lay the game out quite differently, letting you know that
they control the speed of descent and that you're not even on the plane
yet. In other words, what you see as a straight shot to the bedroom is
actually a long screening process of elaborate dates and an even more
intricate mating game of emotional confessions and tests, presumably
designed to secure for the woman a clear winner as a romantic partner
and/or ual conquest. If the women is only interested in casual ,
her screening process may be conversely straight forward. She may
resent it if you try too hard to get into her pants, employing too many
romantic excesses when a simple declaration of unbridled lust is exactly
what she wants. With character definitions and personal self identities
so fluid today, a woman might want you for a one night stand, while she
might want someone else for a romantic relationship, in which case she
might not have with this other man too soon in order to keep him
guessing and trying. The days of slutty or pure women have long since
passed; women can be slutty one night and almost virginal the next,
depending on their end goal. Since feminism has removed from them the
requirement of putting out ually, women can be much more selective
about criteria and people to whom ual attention is given.

>I know I cannot get a gal to as much talk with me, or do anything else under the sun, unless I
>flirt and likewise show ual interest.

My experience is that women tend to be less interested in being around
me if they pick up any ual interest. Even if I can fake a solely
amicable desire to be around them, I do much better in terms of how much
time I actually get to spend with them.

>I assert that this -only environment, at it's fever pitch, makes
>socializing prohibitive, as no woman can 'hang out' with a man unless
>she is interested in him ually.

At this point, I am completely disinterested in friendship with women to
whom I am ually attracted. If my attraction is unrequited, the woman
is completely useless to me as a friend. I say this because our
relationship would be predicated on loss rather than gain. In order for
us to be friends, I'd have to accept her rejection of me, while she'd
get the benefits of my friendship without undesired ual involvement.
In that scenario, she would win by getting a confidante and friend,
while I'd lose by not getting a lover.

>It takes more than a beer's worth of time to get to know someone personally, and I can't imagine wanting
>make love with someone I didn't like personally.

You seem to be describing a courtship ritual in which you become friends
with a woman over at least a moderate period, during which you decide if
you want to make love with her. How would you deal with issues of
monogamy during that period? What if she were further along in that
process with other men, more certain about wanting to make love with
them, or actually doing it? Would you be able to be friends with a
woman who was giving to someone else the ual attention you wished you
could have with her?

>Players get to have contact (as in - any - contact) with women, this is why so many men
>are players.

Some men are players out of habit or social conditioning, while others
are players out of self defense. I can understand that if my pool of
datable women is basically a bunch of noncommittal babes with whom I may
share a myriad tastes or ideas in common, it does me little good to
invest too much time, emotion or resources in any individual because she
may be being courted by multiple men. One "one date wonder" just
emailed me to say that she was rather put off by my request for
exclusivity before the first date. She thought nothing of the expenses
I incurred during our date and equally thought nothing of me incurring
future expenses as I wined and dined her. Obviously, she wanted to play
the field and explore her options without committing to me. Perhaps,
she felt she didn't know me well enough. Whatever her reasons, it would
have done me little good to devote scarce emotional and financial
resources to her wooing without some kind of at least ual
exclusivity. Thank God, we never even kissed.

>Women get objectified (but no less than the men get
>objectified in this sense) and realize at an early age that her power
>lies in her ability to be playee.

Her power lies in her ability to string men along without committing to
any individual man, enjoying material gifts, romantic and ual
attention without commitment.

>It's prohibitive, it keeps us from being friends, and it keeps us
>from getting a chance to know people we might quite enjoy have we had
>the chance. Love, in the beautiful sense, has been opted out.

Men and women relate on many other levels besides love. Before I can
even entertain a woman's claim of love for me, I have to see that she
doesn't expect me to break my bank taking her out, and that if she does,
she understands that I won't be played by her or anyone else. In that
sense, a power dynamic is at work. If a woman knows I am ually
interested in her, she will decide at what price her will be bought.
If she's feeling frisky and slutty, her uality might be bought with
little more than some introductory pleasantries and perhaps a drink or
two. If she feels it's worth more, she'll exchange it for low pressure,
casual companionship. If she is more traditionally socialized, she'll
wait until she feels more emotional determination to love her before
putting out. Either way, she is exercising her power of granting or
withholding , entirely at her discretion and varying among individual
suitors. She might feel that slutty behavior was appropriate for her
college years, but is no longer beneficial during adulthood. either
way, our only chance at friendship is the shot in the dark that we are
not mutually attracted or that one isn't attracted to the other without
the sentiment being requited.

>It srikes me as odd, what with human nature not being abjectly
>stupid, that this hasn't been discussed in any depth. Maybe that's
>what needs to happen?

I'm discussing it in great depth with you right now. I know that
American women of middle and upper class socioeconomic status have
ingrained in me the idea that I should be willing to be friends first
without expecting any in return for time spent together or efforts
to impress on elaborate dates. My Latino culture tells me otherwise,
that courtship usually occurs with a clear ual or cohabitational
objective in mind, even if that objective isn't realized early on in the
relationship. A Latina would not likely have a slew of male friends who
take her out, preferring to stick to relationships in which there is at
least a modicum of mutual interest.

>I believe when one looks deeply, all of feminist's causes and the
>bizzare notions nearly all americans hold dearly that maintains these
>self perpetuating socio-ual myths, are rooted in industrialization
>of humankind. It's not that the printing press, the church, and my car
>are inherently bad things, but that human culture has been ripped out
>of its humanity through a tidal wave of industrialization.

You seem to be implying here that the truly human way for genders to
relate is as friends rather than ual objects. This is fine for
people with low libidos or homouals, people in committed
relationships or generally shy people who take a long time to develop
ual interest. I know that now, being in a committed relationship, I
prefer to steer clear of any potential friendships with women in which
some requited or unrequited ual interest lurks.

>What we haven't been able to do is evolve and adapt - to keep pace, everything
>relates to interplay of power at any level, and the balance of power
>between people and particularly between es has tumultuously churned
>through time leaving women short-changed and me without someone to talk
>with.

Dude, are you so "pussy whipped" that you'd actually like to be the
person women talk to while they fuck other men? I'm intentionally being
crude here because I don't see how that benefits you as a man in any
way. why can't you have male friends confide in you? Why can't you be
as tenacious about being a listening ear for men as you are for women?
Because you secretly hope that with this rhetoric, some idealist chicky
will think you the ultimate safe male, the kind of guy she can be
friends with and not give up the poontang.

>I'm rather sure this will fall on deaf ears, as I know well that the
>majority of americans can't easily see how mired we all are in the
>myths that perpetuate these problems. Equal pay for equal work, of
>course - but how ready is any women brought up this way to see herself
>as equal? How about you? Equal enough to expect that a guy enjoys his
>respectability more than an orgasm ? To know you can talk with a guy
>without having to sleep with him ?

Are you feeling that women are more interested in your little head than
what's in your brain? if so, I could see how you'd write the above. I
have the opposite problem. I'm a professional musician and poet; women
often tell me I'm talented and amazing, even calling me a genius and the
like, all of which doesn't seem to compel them to want to screw me.
After a while, I've wanted to be ually objectified a bit, to be
lusted after not because of my mind or musicality, but just because of a
raw physical dynamism.

>Every bit of lipstick betrays a better world, in short, and the same
>goes for the men.

I love kissing lipsticked lips.

>I find some of femisist thought is on the symptoms, not the deeper
>issues.. the means by which social equity is perpetually
>suppressed by abnormal norms, the slippery slope of which defies
>escape. I think we need individually to envision the right kind of
>world and each individually not betray that vision by engaging in the
>mindset which occupies us today. For women and men, breaking the mold
>comes at a cost.

Part of breaking the mold entails a true, profound understanding of what
causes the mold to be perpetuated. Certain aspects of genderal
relations remain in place because they benefit one or both genders. It
is in the best interest of women to have an ever expanding pool of male
friends who either don't expect or are too shy to demand it. this
way, women get shoulders to cry on, trust, confidence and nonthreatening
environments in which they can presumably be themselves. For men
looking for ual/romantic partners, such arrangements are rarely
fruitful. If someone like you is tired of being ually objectified, I
can understand your enthusiasm for more Platonic relationships.

>Do you believe we can serve a better world, in which
>women enjoy perception and self perception on an equal basis with men,
>and at once serve the bland hungry ghost, the shadow of a materialistic
>U.S. culture - the message in the magazines, the news, everywhere, that
>your value as 'typical' woman is accepted, thus you conintue to express
>it, that you are merely a playee for players' sake, and the player for
>your sake, neither ever knowing anything socially deeper than belly
>skin.

I think such a better world comes at a price that not all women seem to
be willing to pay. Feminism has both embraced and criticized ual
liberation. On one hand, it empowers; on the other, it objectifies.
It's hard to take a woman's desires for equality seriously when she
still wants to participate in a system that objectifies her, a system in
which she has no choice but to become as mean and conniving as
chauvinist men. It's even more disheartening when women feel they can
play the feminist warhorse one night and the patriarchally trained slut
the next.

>Whaddya think ? Is it time to get the word out or continue to play
>along ?

I don't think that playing along with current social norms is the
answer. But, I also doubt men and women will realistically move away
from ual interaction and more towards Platonic relationships without
more of a sense of mutual benefit and equal footing.

Orlando

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Dan Holzman
Subject:	Re: Let's ask ourselves some questions
Date:	Sat, 25 Dec 2004 22:15:55 GMT

powder
chopped parsley
Flour
eggwash (eggs and milk)
Peanut oil for frying.

Pound the cutlets.
Dredge in flour, eggs, then the bread crumb mixture.
Fry till golden brown in 350° peanut oil.
In a baking pan, place a layer of gravy,
then one of meat, gravy, and cheese.
Another layer each of meat, gravy, and cheese.
Then bake at 350° for 45 minutes.
Serve on hot pasta with romano cheese.

Southern Fried Small-fry

Tastes like fried chicken, which works just as well.
In fact you may want to practice cutting up whole chickens
for frying before you go for the real thing.
Whole chicken is much more efficient and inexpensive than buying pieces.

1 tiny human, cut into pieces
2 cups flour
Onion, garlic
Salt
pepper
garlic powder
cayenne pepper
hot sauce, etc.
Oil for frying

Mix milk, eggs, hot sauce in a bowl, add chopped onion and garlic.
Season the meat liberally, and marinate for several hours.
Place seasoned flour in a paper or plastic shopping bag,
drop pieces in a few a time, shake to coat thoroughly,
then deep fry in hot oil (350°) for about 15 minutes.
Drain and place on paper towels.

Miscarriage with Mustard Greens

Why waste it? Otherwise, and in general, use ham or salt pork to season greens.
The technique of smothering greens can be used with many vegetables;
green beans work especially well. Meat is not necessary every day, don?t
be afraid to alter any dish to vegetarian tastes.

1 premature baby, born dead
Large bunch of mustard greens
2 white onions, 1 cup chopped celery
Vegetable oil (or

From:	themagpie at webtv.net
Subject:	Re: Let's ask ourselves some questions
Date:	26 Dec 2004 20:49:48 -0500

Ofiol!

I am appalled! And must ask you to remove ME from the list of the women
you speak for with such an authoritative voice! Have you any credentials
with which to back up your presumed expertise? No sight, no sound, no
inflection or touch...yet I still perceive a patriarchal tone in your
writing. Blame it on projection or transference if you wish; just be
advised that you are NOT speaking of THIS woman when you dare to speak,
unsolicited, FOR women!

Mercy!
the magpie

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Dan Holzman
Subject:	Re: Let's ask ourselves some questions
Date:	24 Dec 2004 08:55:06 -0500

In article ,
Orlando Fiol wrote:
>
>The unhealthiness in the social environment between men and women is
>this enforced belief that there shouldn't be ual attraction between
>genders, that we should all relate to one another as aually as
>possible.

Who's putting forth and enforcing this notion that there shouldn't be
ual attraction between genders? I suspect you may be confusing
notions about the existence of ual attraction and what actions it
is acceptable to take as a result of that attraction.

>>How can you be friends when the game is laid out as a straight
>>trip to the bedroom where you control only the speed of descent?

Just as an aside to the initial poster, I've always been under the
impression that I had one of two unilateral vetos over whether there
would be any trip to the bedroom and what would happen should we
arrive there.

>>I know I cannot get a gal to as much talk with me, or do anything
>>else under the sun, unless I flirt and likewise show ual interest.

Once again, as an aside to the initial poster, my experience is rather
different.

>At this point, I am completely disinterested in friendship with women to
>whom I am ually attracted. If my attraction is unrequited, the woman
>is completely useless to me as a friend. I say this because our
>relationship would be predicated on loss rather than gain. In order for
>us to be friends, I'd have to accept her rejection of me, while she'd
>get the benefits of my friendship without undesired ual involvement.
>In that scenario, she would win by getting a confidante and friend,
>while I'd lose by not getting a lover.

I can't imagine living like that, where "not getting a lover"
completely invalidated everything you would be gaining by getting a
confidante and friend.

>noncommittal babes

I've also got to comment that between this and your conversational use
of the word "slutty" earlier, I'm amazed at the language the
moderators are letting onto the group these days.

>share a myriad tastes or ideas in common, it does me little good to
>invest too much time, emotion or resources in any individual because she
>may be being courted by multiple men. One "one date wonder" just
>emailed me to say that she was rather put off by my request for
>exclusivity before the first date.

Frankly, I can't blame her. It kinda screams "far too controlling for
a healthy relationship to be possible."

>She thought nothing of the expenses
>I incurred during our date and equally thought nothing of me incurring
>future expenses as I wined and dined her.

I hope you had a *really* nice resturaunt lined up if you think
seriously thought those expenses entitled you to anything more than
the pleasure of her company. I'm curious: has any woman *ever*
agreed to be exclusive with you before the first date?

>Obviously, she wanted to play
>the field and explore her options without committing to me.

Perhaps she felt that before the first date was rather early to be
asking for or making any sort of commitment?

>Perhaps,
>she felt she didn't know me well enough. Whatever her reasons, it would
>have done me little good to devote scarce emotional and financial
>resources to her wooing without some kind of at least ual
>exclusivity. Thank God, we never even kissed.

Your eotional resources are scarce? I don't get it.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Dan Holzman
Subject:	Re: Let's ask ourselves some questions
Date:	Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:25:42 GMT

as one can use the best part of a prime, rare, yearling, or the
morticians occasional horror: a small miracle stopped short by a
drunk driver, or the innocent victim of a drive-by shooting...

2 cups finely chopped very young human flesh
1 cup shredded cabbage
1 cup bean sprouts
5 sprigs green onion, finely chopped
5 cloves minced garlic
4-6 ounces bamboo shoots
Sherry
chicken broth
oil for deep frying (1 gallon)
Salt
pepper
soy & teriyaki
minced ginger, etc.
1 tablespoon cornstarch dissolved in a little cold water
1 egg beaten

Make the stuffing:
Marinate the flesh in a mixture of soy and teriyaki sauces
then stir fry in hot oil for till brown - about 1 minute, remove.
Stir-fry the vegetables.
Put the meat back into the wok and adjust the seasoning.
De-glaze with sherry, cooking off the alcohol.
Add broth (optional) cook a few more minutes.
Add the cornstarch, cook a few minutes till thick,
then place the stuffing into a colander and cool;
2 hours
Wrap the rolls:
Place 3 tablespoons of stuffing in the wrap, roll tightly -
corner nearest you first, fold 2 side corners in,
wrap till remaining corner is left.
Brush with egg, seal, and allow to sit on the seal for
a few minutes.
Fry the rolls:
325° if using egg roll wraps, 350° for spring roll wraps.
Deep fry in peanut oil till crispy golden brown, drain on paper towels.

Lemon Neonate

Turkey serves just as well, and in fact even looks a bit like a
well-dressed baby. By the time you turn the child?s breast into
cutlets, it will be indistinguishable. The taste of young human,
although similar to turkey (and chicken) often can be wildly
different depending upon what he or sh