zcapl74 ) wrote:
: ) wrote:
:
: >>      Sadly, sport (quality of) in Hungary seems to be a bit on the naff
: >>side at the moment, at least compared with what sport was like before most
of
: >>Hungary`s athletes left during/after 1956. Before `56 no one country could
: >>touch the Hungarians in almost any sport you could care to mention.
: >
: >
: > you mean like swimming, athletics, tennis, golf, hockey, ice hockey,
: > skiing, sailing.....?
: >
: >d.a
:
:         O.K., mainstream sports!

if swimming, athletics tennis are and skiing are *not* mainstream sports, i
what are? the first two and the last form the core of the summer olympics
and the last the winter olympics.

but whatever, i am not aware of "no country's being unable to touch the
hungarians" in any of these sports in the glorious days before 1956.
refresh my memory.

d.a.

: But you are wrong with athletics, ice hockey,
: swimming and sailing; and even golf - O.k. he was an American Hungarian (I
: think Bokros was his name, great player during the seventies)
:
:
:
: Karcsi

Wow...half sounds good?!?  Anyway, my impression of the status of women in
Hungary after living there a year is not great.  Granted, under the
communist regime, women were given the opportunity to work, and this
continues to be an economic necessity.  In Hungary, as in the US, for that
matter, though, women are expected to do the household chores as well as
work outside the home.  The difference I saw between Hungary and the US,
however, is that in Hungary nobody questions whether or not this is
fair...
  Another thing I am a bit concerned about is the level of violence
against women, meaning domestic violence committed by their husbands or
boyfriends.  While this is also all too pervasive in the US, I would have
to say that there is not as much of a social conscience in Hungary about
this issue, nor did I hear of any resources to help these women.  If
anyone can tell me differently, or doesn't agree with me, I'd love to hear
that I'm wrong.
--Shannon Morris

Were you serious about that????  I hope not.
--Shannon Morris

Wow...I'm not sure where you got this stuff from, but I'd be curios to
know.  Anyway, I wholeheartedly DISAGREE with what you've said about
almost everything.  I think it shows some real biases on your part that
you don't view Margaret Thatcher or Kirkpatrick as "real women."  Why
should women be judged on the basis of what other people think of them, or
why should men, on the other hand?  I consider myself an opinionated
woman.  I am also quite feminine in my appearance and hobbies, which often
really throws people when I start expressing my views.  I love children; I
don't want to have any now though (maybe not ever.)  I  simply want to
define myself using MY own parameters, not society's or yours.  I want a
career, I want love, I want a happy life...do I want too much?  I dont'
think so...my parents didn't spend years and years instilling in me the
thought that I could be anything I wanted to be for nothing.
  I am very curious how someone who is not even female can claim to know
so much about that half of the human race...
--Shannon Morris

Wow, who wrote that?  First of all, Eva is right-most women in Hungary DO
work outside the home today.  It is an economic necessity there, as it is
becoming here in the USA.  So I believe that Mr. Gelencser will have to
look elsewhere for the cause of the demise of the US...
  Second, if you are a man (and one doesn't know because you didn't write
your full name) then I wouldn't expect you to understand the need for a
feminist consciousness.  I, as a white person, can't claim to understand
minority claims of discrimination either.  But ever heard about not
judging a person until you've walked a mile in her (or his) shoes?
  Feminism doesn't have to be about playing the victim.  It can be an
empowering force for women and people in general.  I'm just sorry you
can't see that.
--Shannon Morris

Well, how can you say that you are letting "Nature" do the work if you
automatically assume that women are better nurturers, and thus you raise
your little girls that way?  We really don't know the answer to the
nature/nurture argument; what we do know is that the playing field still
isn't level.  You may believe women and men to be intrinsically different,
but my main concern is when that is used as an excuse to deny people
certain opportunities because it's simply not "in their nature."
--Shannon Morris

Thanks for that response...it's nice to know that some men out there don't
think like James Doepp.
--Shannon Morris

Nobody ever denied that women worked as much (mostly more)
than men. The problem is that they are not paid equally
for that work, whether in the US, or Hungary.
I am sure that all sorts of forums are fighting against
this "negative discrimination" in Hungary as well in the US,
such as trade unions and feminist one-issue organisations.
 If you think there is no problem with equal pay
and equal representation in decision-making bodies, and
general treatment of women, than
you must be walking a different planet from me.
Eva (Durant)

>
> Joe Szalai > wrote:
> >Is there such a thing as a feminist consciousness in Hungarian society?
> >
> >If someone asked me that question, I would, without hesitation say, 'No'.
> >Although my contact with Hungarians is limited I have yet to see a couple
> >whose relationship is anything but traditional.  And whenever a discussion
> >would broach the topic, all the couples I've known, would often make
> >comments which seemed to indicate that they thought feminism was some sort
> >of bizarre and unnatural human aberration.  Is this attitude more common in
> >Hungarian society than it is in Western Europe or North America?
> >
> >I know that a lot of writers on this list love to go on and on about the
> >plight of Hungarian minorities in Romania, Slovakia and Serbia.  A lot is
> >also written about the injustices that history has dealt to Hungary.  I
> >wonder if any of the writers would like to comment on the domination of
> >Hungarian women by Hungarian men.
> >
> >Regardless of what laws say, women are subjugated universally.  It is not
> >just an Hungarian problem.  From what I've seen, Hungarians will not be
> >leaders in this matter either.
> >
> >Joe Szalai
>
> Dear Szalai:
>
> Re: Feminism in Hungary... I will not, as you state go on and on re the
> plight of Hung's etc.  But you only need to have been in the country,
> between the years of 55 and 78, pushing it a bit more, towards the early
> eighties, to understand the depth of your plight re: Hungarian
> Femininism.
>
> From my humble experience, the words do not exist to Hungarian
> "people" for there have always been, and am sure will continue to be
> equal #of females vs males, working the fields throughout the
> countryside, (if not more listed towards the female side), running the
> family finaces, etc, as were female doctors, scientists, etc.  The only
> difference I have ever wittnessed between the cultures of Hungary proper
> and that of "north america" is simply the fact, that "people" (by that I
> do mean male and/or female) did, exactly what they had to do either
> survive or make a better life for those close to their hearts.  To my
> knowledge, feminism is about as a foreign state of mind to (at least the
> Hungarians, that I have had the pleasure of knowing) as to an american,
> the true meaning of communism would be.
>
> Too bad Szalai, that you have only met, what you consider to be the
> "traditional of etc"... you might really enjoy meeting the "real" people
> of hungary, to whom, traditional appears to mean just
> that...traditionally progressive with life.
>
> Regards
> an observer

At 00:01 22/01/96 -0500, you wrote:
>  Second, if you are a man (and one doesn't know because you didn't write
>your full name) then I wouldn't expect you to understand the need for a
>feminist consciousness.  I, as a white person, can't claim to understand
>minority claims of discrimination either.  But ever heard about not
>judging a person until you've walked a mile in her (or his) shoes?
>  Feminism doesn't have to be about playing the victim.  It can be an
>empowering force for women and people in general.  I'm just sorry you
>can't see that.

Dear Shannon and others on the list -

First of all, I don't buy the line that men can't understand and therefore
shouldn't comment on things of concern to women. I am a woman, yet I feel
able to understand problems that men suffer, thanks to that emotion which is
available to us all, empathy. Secondly, I suspect that Shannon you have
grown up in the last twenty years or so and so have not experienced the
widespread discrimination which formerly existed in the United States
against certain members of the white race. I am sure many members of this
list can recall when people who came from various Eastern European
backgrounds were often called "Polacks," "Bohunks," and "Hunkies," and I can
remember a college classmate of Italiam extraction telling me that there was
a fair amount of discrimination against Catholics in the area of New Jersey
near Newark.

Concerning feminism in general - I was an officer in the U.S. Navy - the
second female officer ever stationed at the U.S. base in Barbados, back in
the mid-70's - and I have been in sole practice of law in Nova Scotia for
the last ten years. I think perhaps the answer is "two wrongs don't make a
right." It is wrong to force people to adapt to a model - whether housewife
or career woman - which may not fit a particular person no matter what
people in general say. On the other hand, I feel feminism is generally more
destructive than constructive for society in general, because

1) the two-parent family - preferably with grandparents, cousins, aunts, and
uncles close by - is still the best milieu in which to raise children;

2) in general, I think the satisfaction from life comes partly from doing a
job and doing it well, and it doesn't matter if that job be raising children
or doing original research in chemistry. But no satisfaction comes when
there is extreme pressure and stress on people to handle more than they can
realistically handle. This may be the case with women who are forced to
handle jobs, raising families, and house cleaning. (Although, I must say, I
find around here that most young families manage with day care,
grandparents, and good sitters - but then Nova Scotia has many areas which
are more tradtional than most parts of North America, and the extended
family is still a powerful force.)

I think feminism is bankrupt in the sense that it is resulting in the
substitution of one stereotypical ideal for another, with no evidence that
women or people in general will be better off if that ideal is realized, and
in fact that the substitution of an ideal that many people can't live up to
has created more insecurity and unhappiness in our society.

Unfortunately, I cannot really comment on the situation in Hungary, except
that I suspect the pressures there in previous years were somewhat different
due to the Communist regime.

Regards,

Johanne
email - 

> disagree with: equal pay for equal work is wrong. Specifically, if worker
> A puts in some work at a centrally located plant that is easy to supply
> with materials, while worker B puts in the exact same amount of work and
> produces the exact same output, but at a remote plant where shipping in
> raw materials and shipping out the finished product is more expensive, it
> makes good economic sense to pay worker B less. If the law forbids this,
> it is in the best interest interest of the company to fire B and replace
> him with another worker A' at the central location, or better yet, not
> even bother to build the remote plant (and bring jobs to this remote
> location) in the first place.
>

This really highlights the injustice apparent in the system.
The market price of labour lets one person getting more money
for the same amount of work. Just because you were born in a remote area
(or because you were born as a female), you should be paid less
for the same amount of work.
Work as commodity will never lead to a just and acceptable system.
That is why you have infact problem in defining "equal work".
What about just worrying about equal=satisfactory wages?
(I know, that is not market-economy anymore - bingo!)
Eva (Durant)

> I take pay equality to be one the central issues of feminism. On most
> other issues, such as according equal dignity to females and males,
> women's control over their reproductive organs etc. the feminist position
> is obviously right, and no discussion is necessary as far as I can see.
> But to discuss the pay equality question, we need to first establish
> some common ground. Either you take equal pay for equal work as a moral
> imperative, in which case we can discuss the issue quite independent
> of gender considerations, or you agree that it's wrong (or at least
> not right enough to be a principle that overrides everything else), in
> which case we can start discussing how, and whether, the economic issues
> I raised apply in the context of gender.
>
> Andra1s Kornai

In article >, 
(vax2.concordia.ca) wrote:

> Az egyik baratom azt mondja hogy januartol konvertibilis a forint, avagy
> mindenki annyi dollart vehet otthon amennyit csak akar ? Van ennek a hir-
> nek valami alapja? Minden felvilagositast elore is megkoszonok.
>
> Attila

A hir igaz...

Peter Ulbrich

In article >, John Czifra
> wrote:

"...I need a nice lake, a ton of forest, a nice mountain, a good
restuarant, a good borozo, and a place to stay..."

OK if it is a contest then here you are:

1. The small lake at Abaliget, some 30(?) kms from Pecs, in the middle of
Mecsek. I would suggest to rent a house there and don't look for hotels.

2. The small town of Tata with its lake and old castle with many wine
cellars; close enough to the Vertes for romantic walks in the forest
without even seeing anybody.

Good luck and best regards

--
Peter Ulbrich
)

To: HUNGARY @ GWUVM.GWU.EDU (Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY) @ Internet
cc:  (bcc: John Czifra/SHI)
From: airburst @ NEOSOFT.COM ("Andrew M. Gombos Jr.") @ Internet @ WORLDCOM
Date: 01/20/96 09:40:14 AM CST
Subject: Re: Sports in Hungary

>zcapl74 > wrote:
>
>>         O.K., mainstream sports! But you are wrong with athletics, ice
hockey,
>> swimming and sailing; and even golf - O.k. he was an American Hungarian (I
>> think Bokros was his name, great player during the seventies)
>
>        I think you mean Julius Boros.  He died of a heart attack last
>May, ironically just as his son (Guy Boros, if I recall correctly) was
>taking part in the Colonial Invitational (the PGA tour's stop in my lovely
>home town, Fort Worth, Texas). 8-)
>
>        Norb
>
>You may recall a footbal player called Joe Namath, cetainly of Hungarian
blood, from my home town, but he did not play in Hungary, but that does not
matter.  Also Mike Ditka is one of us.

______________________________________________
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-
 Haliho,
 May I add George Halas, Larry Csonka, Bernie Kosar, and Don Shula to the list
as well??

;-)

Udv.,
Czifra Janos
john_czifra @ shi.com

Haliho,

Wow!! I'm impressed with the number of responses I've gotten,already.
Lillafured, seems to be the overwhelming choice amongst all of you. It,
actually, sounds like something I'd like. Details, details. How much for a room
and all of that. I know that it's hard to come up with an exact price, since
the forint is....crap......now, but just to be aware of how much of a hole I'll
burn in my pocket this summer.

Someone wrote that I should go to the Gundel. Who's springing for that for me??
;-) I've heard, that it's a little overrated and that the Kehli is the spot.
Can anyone vouch for that?? Speaking of restuarants: 2 recommendations in
Debrecen I'd like to share. The Csokonai Etterem (right across the Szinhaz
itself. A basement restuarant with a Middle Ages feel. Great food at reasonable
prices. There's also a challenge involved here as well. The pincer comes by
with 2 dice and he'll ask you roll. If you roll snake eyes you only pay for the
drinks. Pretty neat. I lost, but didn't mind paying for the great spread they
had.

The 2nd restuarant is the Halaszcsarda on Piac utca (just a mere 200m from the
trainstation). The former jatekterem and presszo has been transformed into
another great restuarant. This is also in the mid-price range for great food
with generous portions.


By the way, I like the Tata plan, too. Keep the suggestions coming in . I still
got a few months left. I'll probably leave in June.

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com

zcapl74 ) wrote:
: ) wrote:
:
: >>      Sadly, sport (quality of) in Hungary seems to be a bit on the naff
: >>side at the moment, at least compared with what sport was like before most
of
: >>Hungary`s athletes left during/after 1956. Before `56 no one country could
: >>touch the Hungarians in almost any sport you could care to mention.
: >
: >
: > you mean like swimming, athletics, tennis, golf, hockey, ice hockey,
: > skiing, sailing.....?
: >
: >d.a
:
:         O.K., mainstream sports! But you are wrong with athletics, ice
hockey,
: swimming and sailing; and even golf - O.k. he was an American Hungarian (I
: think Bokros was his name, great player during the seventies)

it is quite telling that you can't remember his name if he was supposed to
have been so great that arnold palmer, kel nagle etc. did not come within
a shaddow of him.

by the way, does not the fact that you consider him a great player of the
seventies disqualify him from that great period before 1956?

d.a.
:
:
:
: Karcsi

The three years maternaty leave was "invented" to
encourage the number of births, as there was a rapid
decline in the numbers in the sixties. (Kicsi vagy kocsi)
Also it is much cheaper than the under-three care facilities
(bolcsode). It was taken up mostly by women on low salaries.
The simptoms of isolation, depression etc. followed as
is in the West (not much talked about) as well as the usual
 "unavoidable" career breaks.  I can declare categorically,
that happiness and morals and crime figures did not improve
from more women being locked up at home with their babies.
Eva Durant



>
> Coming from west Europe I really respects the family values in Hungary. =
> Are we (west European and Americans) the right to judge? Could we maybe =
> learn something from Hungarians?
>
> Is 3 years maternity leave only a way to hamper women to have career or =
> is it also a way to ensure a secure childhood?
>
> Has the emancipation of the women been worth the price and who is paying =
> the price?
>
> Is the Hungarian women repressed or is it the western counterparts that =
> is chasing an ideal without ever considering if it is in their own =
> interest?
>
> I am not sure that families in west Europe are more happy than in east =
> Europe.=20
>
> Is the answer blowing in the wind or maybe among the esteemed members of =
> this list?

In article >, zcapl74
> says:

[snip]

> Chess a sport?! Only joking.

"sport I.1. Pleasant pastime; amusement; diversion b. amorous dalliance
or intercourse c. spec. pastime afforded by the endeavour to take or kill
wild animals, game or fish d. participation in games or exercises, esp.
those pursued in the open air; such games collectively. 2. jest, jesting;
mirth or merriment....."

p. 2086 of volume ii of the shorter oxford english dictionary (1982)


d.a.

At 06:07 PM 1/20/96 -0500, Andras Kornai wrote:

>Who said be humble or not to complain? If my logic is accepted, all that
>follows is that one must retain a sense of proportion, not to complain
>about "ethnic cleansing" of Hungarian minorities in Romania or Slovakia,
>or treat Hungarian men worse than they deserve (though if E1va Balogh
>gets her sample of Hungarian gentlemanliness from FORUM it's small wonder
>she comes away feeling the way she does).

How do Hungarian men deserve to be treated?  Are you saying that Hungarian
men don't deserve to be criticized?

Because of language limitations I don't read FORUM, yet I've drawn most of
the same conclusions as Eva Balogh.  How could that be?  Is there a form of
newsgroup osmosis happening?  Should I be concerned?

>Who said better was equal? You must be truly eager to pick a fight on
>this matter.

I'm just itching for a good spanking.

>To lend you a hand, here's a statement you must violently
>disagree with: equal pay for equal work is wrong.

Oh Andras!  Foreplay and dirty talk.  You surprise me!

>Specifically, if worker
>A puts in some work at a centrally located plant that is easy to supply
>with materials, while worker B puts in the exact same amount of work and
>produces the exact same output, but at a remote plant where shipping in
>raw materials and shipping out the finished product is more expensive, it
>makes good economic sense to pay worker B less. If the law forbids this,
>it is in the best interest interest of the company to fire B and replace
>him with another worker A' at the central location, or better yet, not
>even bother to build the remote plant (and bring jobs to this remote
>location) in the first place.

Hmm.  Adam Smith would be proud of you.  Your grasp of economic necessity is
stronger than your grasp of social equality.  However I'm worried that
you'll wreck your knees genuflecting in front of the high alter of economic
reality.

>I take pay equality to be one the central issues of feminism. On most
>other issues, such as according equal dignity to females and males,
>women's control over their reproductive organs etc. the feminist position
>is obviously right, and no discussion is necessary as far as I can see.

You're setting me up for the grand finale, aren't you?

>But to discuss the pay equality question, we need to first establish
>some common ground.

In other words, you, like so many other men, want to control the agenda.  I
have no doubt that you know that whoever controls the agenda, controls the
discussion, controls the result.

>Either you take equal pay for equal work as a moral
>imperative, in which case we can discuss the issue quite independent
>of gender considerations, or you agree that it's wrong (or at least
>not right enough to be a principle that overrides everything else), in
>which case we can start discussing how, and whether, the economic issues
>I raised apply in the context of gender.

If you were a woman you may be more inclined to see equal pay for equal work
as a moral imperative.  But because you're a man, living in North America,
and privilaged by world standards, you see social issues as fodder for a
philosophical debate.  And the debate will allow you to come across as an
intelligent, informed, almost liberal thinker, without your status ever
being seriously threatened.  Sleep well!

Joe Szalai

At 09:50 PM 1/21/96 -0500, Doug Hormann wrote:

>I don't believe that capitalism can be blamed for all of these problems.

Get used to the new world order.  When there is only one dominant economic
force in the world, all social ills will be placed at the foot of that
system.  After all, who or what else can be blamed?

>Capitalism is often called a system of opportunity.

Quite so.  It is a system of opportunity to exploit the planet and all life
forms on it.

>It could likewise be called a system of no guarantees.

I don't know about that Doug.  I think capitalism guarantees that most
people will get screwed by it.

>If these opportunities bring with them a new set of difficult questions,
>does this mean that the system is a failure?

Yup.  That's what it means.

Joe Szalai

>
> Is this there hasn't been any viable alternative?  Heaven knows that
> socialism/communism has its own problems and proved in the end to carry its
> own perils.  Recent posts to this forum complained about the plight of
> women under communism.  (Let's allow women to work outside of the home just
> as hard as men and also do all of the traditional work in the home as
> well!)
>

The first versions of capitalism were less democratic and more
sharply exploytative. Socialism or as you call it communism
were not so far the democratic version, which was envisaged to
work better, than capitalism. However, based on todays much
higher level production and high tech, a democratic socialism
would work much better than any capitalism - in my opinion.
Don't forget, that all countries of immense poverty in Asia
and Africa are also based on private property and the "world
market".


> In the U. S. the argument about wage disparity has been advanced as proof
> that women are treated worse then men.  Recent research has shown that much
> of this disparity is caused when women leave the workforce to raise a
> family and not out of any secret agenda to subjugate women.

However, the result is the same, no women in meaningful number
in decision-making positions.

Does this mean
> that women do not have a harder go of it when engaging in non-maternal
> roles?  Not at all!  This merely points to the dilema faced by women who
> choose non-traditional careers.

So why women should make this choice? If your wife earns more than
you, why don't you consider staying home with your son?

>
> I don't believe that capitalism can be blamed for all of these problems.
> Capitalism is often called a system of opportunity.

Definitely not of equal opportunity...


It could likewise be
> called a system of no guarantees.  If these opportunities bring with them a
> new set of difficult questions, does this mean that the system is a
> failure?
>

However the majority of people have no such choices to be made.
If their family is farming in say India, they also will farm.
If the land is taken from them, or erosion strikes, they end
up in a shanti-town with other millions. What are the opportunities?
Most women have still low qualifications and boring/unfulfilling
jobs. Staying home then seems like a better choice, especially
as if it doesn't make much difference financially.
Eva Durant

> didn't have to worry about where I was going to go, or what I was going to
> eat, or when I would go to bed.  My life was carefree and without worry.
> When I became an adult and made all my decisions for myself, knowing that I
> had only myself to blame for a wrong decision, my life became complicated
> and sometimes full of worry.     Would I go back to being a child? What
> would you do?
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Doug Hormann
> 

You miss the point: men don't have to choose between
family and career - which is the same disadvantege,
they are made to take work seriously, and care responsibilities
less so.  An equal share would be fair. Both sexes are capable
to do both.
Eva Durant


>
> At 00:01 22/01/96 -0500, you wrote:
> >  Second, if you are a man (and one doesn't know because you didn't write
> >your full name) then I wouldn't expect you to understand the need for a
> >feminist consciousness.  I, as a white person, can't claim to understand
> >minority claims of discrimination either.  But ever heard about not
> >judging a person until you've walked a mile in her (or his) shoes?
> >  Feminism doesn't have to be about playing the victim.  It can be an
> >empowering force for women and people in general.  I'm just sorry you
> >can't see that.
>
> Dear Shannon and others on the list -
>
> First of all, I don't buy the line that men can't understand and therefore
> shouldn't comment on things of concern to women. I am a woman, yet I feel
> able to understand problems that men suffer, thanks to that emotion which is
> available to us all, empathy. Secondly, I suspect that Shannon you have
> grown up in the last twenty years or so and so have not experienced the
> widespread discrimination which formerly existed in the United States
> against certain members of the white race. I am sure many members of this
> list can recall when people who came from various Eastern European
> backgrounds were often called "Polacks," "Bohunks," and "Hunkies," and I can
> remember a college classmate of Italiam extraction telling me that there was
> a fair amount of discrimination against Catholics in the area of New Jersey
> near Newark.
>
> Concerning feminism in general - I was an officer in the U.S. Navy - the
> second female officer ever stationed at the U.S. base in Barbados, back in
> the mid-70's - and I have been in sole practice of law in Nova Scotia for
> the last ten years. I think perhaps the answer is "two wrongs don't make a
> right." It is wrong to force people to adapt to a model - whether housewife
> or career woman - which may not fit a particular person no matter what
> people in general say. On the other hand, I feel feminism is generally more
> destructive than constructive for society in general, because
>
> 1) the two-parent family - preferably with grandparents, cousins, aunts, and
> uncles close by - is still the best milieu in which to raise children;
>
> 2) in general, I think the satisfaction from life comes partly from doing a
> job and doing it well, and it doesn't matter if that job be raising children
> or doing original research in chemistry. But no satisfaction comes when
> there is extreme pressure and stress on people to handle more than they can
> realistically handle. This may be the case with women who are forced to
> handle jobs, raising families, and house cleaning. (Although, I must say, I
> find around here that most young families manage with day care,
> grandparents, and good sitters - but then Nova Scotia has many areas which
> are more tradtional than most parts of North America, and the extended
> family is still a powerful force.)
>
> I think feminism is bankrupt in the sense that it is resulting in the
> substitution of one stereotypical ideal for another, with no evidence that
> women or people in general will be better off if that ideal is realized, and
> in fact that the substitution of an ideal that many people can't live up to
> has created more insecurity and unhappiness in our society.
>
> Unfortunately, I cannot really comment on the situation in Hungary, except
> that I suspect the pressures there in previous years were somewhat different
> due to the Communist regime.
>
> Regards,
>
> Johanne
> email - 

At 07:21 AM 1/22/96 -0500, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:

>Concerning feminism in general - I was an officer in the U.S. Navy - the
>second female officer ever stationed at the U.S. base in Barbados, back in
>the mid-70's - and I have been in sole practice of law in Nova Scotia for
>the last ten years. I think perhaps the answer is "two wrongs don't make a
>right." It is wrong to force people to adapt to a model - whether housewife
>or career woman - which may not fit a particular person no matter what
>people in general say. On the other hand, I feel feminism is generally more
>destructive than constructive for society in general, because

I've read your reasons but I must now ask you.  Can you expound on 'the
queen bee syndrome'?

Joe Szalai

Subject: Feminism in Hungary
To:  
I am really wondering what kind of country  is talking a
b
 out. Surely, not about the Hungary I know. What family values? What about divo
r
 ce rates which are very high.

>Is 3 years maternity leave only a way to hamper women to have career or =
>is it also a way to ensure a secure childhood?

The three-year maternity leave is coming to an end very soon because the countr
y
  is close to bankruptcy. The original idea was that such a social legislation 
w
 ould boost birthrates. It didn't.

>Has the emancipation of the women been worth the price and who is paying =
>the price?
>
>Is the Hungarian women repressed or is it the western counterparts that =
>is chasing an ideal without ever considering if it is in their own =
>interest?

Again, I think that you are somewhat disoriented. Women in the former socialist
 countries are supposed to be emancipated. If you compare women's position in H
u
 ngary let's say in the 1950s and 1960 to the situation in the
United States, Hungarian women were far freer to choose a profession, like medi
c
 ine, law, architecture, name it. At the same time in the United States the onl
y
  profession open to women was teaching. But thanks to the wome
n's movement all has changed: women today have equal opportunity as far as choi
c
 e of profession is concerned.

>I am not sure that families in west Europe are more happy than in east =
>Europe.

I am not sure either but please don't try to give the impression that Hungarian
 families are just dripping of happiness. Hungarians are a notoriously pessimis
t
 ic and unhappy lot.

Eva Balogh

Joe Szalai:

>Capitalism is an exploitive economic system.

We know your political views and you can preach to me about your socialism till
 doomsday and I will not change my mind. So, it is really useless. Moreover, le
t
 's not change the subject from feminism to capitalism.

>As for 'a total lack of understanding or appreciation of democratic
>government' all I can say is that the rich and well-to-do usually buy
>election results.

Whether you like or not Hungary at the moment is trying to build a market econo
m
 y (capitalism) and switching over to democracy. Therefore, those who are again
s
 t both are actually reaffirming the former system where there
was neither freedom nor economic growth.

As for the "ve'n trotty," the following can be read in the Magyar Ertelmezo Szo
t
 ar: trotty fn biz 1. pejor Totyakos oreg ember. Ve'n trotty.

In case you are not familiar with the word "totyakos," here it is. Totyakos mn 
b
 iz Oregsegtol v koversegtol nehezkes jarasu szemely.

Put it that way. It is not a compliment and it is exclusively used in describin
g
  an old man.

Eva Balogh

>The first versions of capitalism were less democratic and more
>sharply exploytative. Socialism or as you call it communism
>were not so far the democratic version, which was envisaged to
>work better, than capitalism. However, based on todays much
>higher level production and high tech, a democratic socialism
>would work much better than any capitalism - in my opinion.
>Don't forget, that all countries of immense poverty in Asia
>and Africa are also based on private property and the "world
>market".
>

>Does this mean
>> that women do not have a harder go of it when engaging in non-maternal
>> roles?  Not at all!  This merely points to the dilema faced by women who
>> choose non-traditional careers.
>
>So why women should make this choice? If your wife earns more than
>you, why don't you consider staying home with your son?

>
>However the majority of people have no such choices to be made.
>If their family is farming in say India, they also will farm.
>If the land is taken from them, or erosion strikes, they end
>up in a shanti-town with other millions. What are the opportunities?
>Most women have still low qualifications and boring/unfulfilling
>jobs. Staying home then seems like a better choice, especially
>as if it doesn't make much difference financially.
>Eva Durant
>
>> didn't have to worry about where I was going to go, or what I was going to
>> eat, or when I would go to bed.  My life was carefree and without worry.
>> When I became an adult and made all my decisions for myself, knowing that I
>> had only myself to blame for a wrong decision, my life became complicated
>> and sometimes full of worry.     Would I go back to being a child? What
>> would you do?

Eva,

        Your argument is compelling, yet I still don't see where the
economic system can be blamed for what is essentially a social system that
goes back centuries.  The problem of which you speak seems to transcend the
economic system in place.  This would seem to indicate that the system is
not at the root of the problem, but that it lies somewhere else.

        As for your question about why I don't stay home when my wife makes
more money.  Believe me, we've discussed it on more than one occasion.  The
problem comes back to one of choices.  Do I stay home and raise my son, or
do I work and save for his college.  It is a question that I still struggle
over, but it has brought a better understanding of the difficult decisions
that women face.

Regards,

Doug

Doug Hormann

Joe's reply to my previous post:

>At 09:50 PM 1/21/96 -0500, Doug Hormann wrote:
>
>>I don't believe that capitalism can be blamed for all of these problems.
>
>Get used to the new world order.  When there is only one dominant economic
>force in the world, all social ills will be placed at the foot of that
>system.  After all, who or what else can be blamed?
>
>>Capitalism is often called a system of opportunity.
>
>Quite so.  It is a system of opportunity to exploit the planet and all life
>forms on it.
>
>>It could likewise be called a system of no guarantees.
>
>I don't know about that Doug.  I think capitalism guarantees that most
>people will get screwed by it.
>
>>If these opportunities bring with them a new set of difficult questions,
>>does this mean that the system is a failure?
>
>Yup.  That's what it means.
>
>Joe Szalai


Dear Joe,

        I with that I could find such simple black and white answers to
life's difficult problems.  It's clear that you think capitalism is a
failure as a system.  If by failure you mean that it hasn't brought about
heaven on earth, you are correct.  It's only when you compare it too ALL
other systems that capitalism merits can be seen.

        Face it Joe, communism/socialism is a failure.  To show this lets
compare capitalism on the American model with Communism of the defunct
Soviet model.

        You spoke of capitalism as screwing the most people.  The standard
of living is pretty high in the United States.  Even the poorest people
have television and video cassette recorders.  Nobody is starving in the
streets.  More people have cars than in any other nation.  Unemployment is
low (although an argument can be made that many are underemployed) and
people are banging down the door to get in.  Altogether a pretty harsh
existence, eh.

        Now, let's look at communism.  It failed to fulfill and of the
promises of Marxism/Leninism (Except to the handful of individuals at the
top who ruled as virtual gods.) Only the oppresive terrorist regimes of
places like North Korea, China and Cuba still foist this abysmally stupid
system on their people.  In countries where the population had any choice,
the sentiment was overwhelming for a change to a capitalist system.

        As far as misuse of resources go, it will be years before we can
even approach understanding the devistation caused by the communist
regimes.  Capitalism run amok can have the same effect.  We can look to the
massive pollution of the Great Lakes in the early part of this century to
see that.  Fortunately,  the capitalist system in conjunction with a
democratic political system also was able to clean up that mess and is
actively seeking ways to prevent these types of things form happening in
the future.  Communism ironically proved the truly  Laisses Faire (pardon
my spelling) system when it came to the environment.  Chernobyl stands out
as the premiere example of communist hubris in regard to the environment.

        Joe, I'm a card carrying environmentalist.  I've stood soaking wet
in the rain protesting overharvesting of our forests and the related
pollution of our streams and rivers.  While I believe the system runs too
slowly at times, at least I can do something.  That's the beauty of
democracy and capitalism working together.  They tend to balance each other
and keep each other from reaching any extreme position.  Communism, being
both the political and economic system has no such checks and balances.

        Of course, you don't have to believe me.  Still I find it hard to
understand your position in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the
contrary.

Regards,



Doug Hormann

Joe Szalai wrote:

>Because of language limitations I don't read FORUM,

Joe, I think it's better for you and for the forum. Your ideas
would not be popular there, only your vocabulary of hungarian dirty
words would improve and the forum would become more inconvinient place.

>yet I've drawn most of the same conclusions as Eva Balogh.
>How could that be?

It's easy. You draw conclusion without  much thinking and careful
study of the given problem, using merely your prejudices and
axioms (= something considered to be true, without proofs).

Janos

At 11:40 22/01/96 -0500, you wrote:

>I've read your reasons but I must now ask you.  Can you expound on 'the
>queen bee syndrome'?
>
>Joe Szalai
>
Okay, if you tell me what the "queen bee syndrome" is, I'll give it my best
shot!

Yours,

Johanne
e-mail - 

Dear Shannon,

You wrote:

>Well, how can you say that you are letting "Nature" do the work if you
>automatically assume that women are better nurturers, and thus you raise
>your little girls that way?

Well, first of all you have to raise her somehow. You cannot avoid to force
her something. Second about the assumption: If you look around the Nature
(wildlife,etc), you can see that in most cases the female raise or take care
with the youngs. Why? You can say that is also a social effect (i.e the
females only learn this role), but who or  what forced these animals to give
this role to the females? It is resonable to assume that this is genetically
encoded either in all species or the population.

>We really don't know the answer to the
>nature/nurture argument;

That is the key point. That is why I asked if this 'fifty-fifty' is the
best solution.

>You may believe women and men to be intrinsically different,
>but my main concern is when that is used as an excuse to deny people
>certain opportunities because it's simply not "in their nature."

I don't believe it, just think it is possible. However I agree that
this is often used as an excuse.

Janos

At 01:16 PM 1/22/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>We know your political views and you can preach to me about your socialism
>till doomsday and I will not change my mind. So, it is really useless.

'We'??  You're not using the royal 'we', are you?  Or have you canvased all
the readers of this group before you drew your conclusions about my
political views?

You know, it's very facile to label my views 'socialist' because that way
you don't have to think about my points of view or about your response to
them.  Your reply is rather Orwellian.  I'm reminded of the, "Four legs
good.  Two legs bad", slogans of the farm animals in Animal Farm.  In your
case the slogan seems to be "Joe's views are socialist.  Socialism is bad."

I may be wrong, but you seem to equate socialism with what were oppressive,
dictatorial, secretive, totalitarian regimes in the former 'socialist camp'.
If that's what you think socialism is then I can understand your harsh
reaction to it.

I have been critical, and will continue to be critical, of capitalism
because it has achieved world hegemony.  If I can't be critical of
capitalism I'd have no choice but to be critical of the 'victims' of this
system.

But I'm not one to blame the victim.  Reading your responses to the debate
on feminism, it's clear to me that you don't blame the victim either.  Yet
your faith in our exploitive economic system is steadfast.  Our difference
is that you seem to think that an exploitive economic system is of no
consequence.  Actually, our differences arise from the fact that you don't
think that capitalism is exploitive, whereas I do.

>Moreover, let's not change the subject from feminism to capitalism.

Ok.  Let not.  However, I don't have an acute case of tunnel vision and I
can see that capitalism is often a hindrance to the equality of women.

>Whether you like or not Hungary at the moment is trying to build a market
>economy (capitalism) and switching over to democracy.  Therefore, those who
>are against both are actually reaffirming the former system where there
>was neither freedom nor economic growth.

Being critical is not the same as being 'against'.  However, if you insist
on seeing my posts as nothing more than me 'preaching socialism',  then our
areas of agreement will be few and far between.  And that would be too bad
because I feel comfortable with a lot of your views.  Not your views on our
economic system, mind you, but most of your other views are fine.

Joe Szalai

In article >,  (ibokor)
says:
>
>In article >, zcapl74
> says:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Chess a sport?! Only joking.
>
>"sport I.1. Pleasant pastime; amusement; diversion b. amorous dalliance
>or intercourse c. spec. pastime afforded by the endeavour to take or kill
>wild animals, game or fish d. participation in games or exercises, esp.
>those pursued in the open air; such games collectively. 2. jest, jesting;
>mirth or merriment....."
>
>p. 2086 of volume ii of the shorter oxford english dictionary (1982)

I'm afraid that this archaic definition of sport is as fossilized
and meaningless as the self-righteous boring old farts in their
ivory towers who made it! (It's about time people in the US, Australia,
etc, stopped calling their languages *English* and renamed it American,
Australian, etc!)

How about sport as ENTERTAINMENT and the multi-billion dollar industry,
to say nothing of the socio-pathic tribalistic passions, it inspires?

Regards,

George

George Szaszvari, DCPS Chess Club, 42 Alleyn Park, London SE21 7AA, UK
Planet Earth, Milky Way Galaxy * Cybernautic address: 
*********** Interested in s/h chess books? Ask for my list ***********

Michael Andersen ) wrote:
: Coming from west Europe I really respects the family values in Hungary. =
: Are we (west European and Americans) the right to judge? Could we maybe =
: learn something from Hungarians?
:

that depends on which part of "western europe" you are from.
in countries such as switzerland, spain, greece the lot of women
is indeed poor.

the sad thing about hungary is that even when women were granted
equal rights, and the opportunity to pursue professions, housework,
looking after children still remianed "woman's work". it was
amusing and disheartening to see otherwiise progreesive people
balk when it came to accepting that cooking, washing, washing up, etc.
could be equally well done by men as women. i recoiled with horror as
colleagues mocked a friend of mine for doing his share of the housework.

i was amazed at how many peole presumed that becuase i was living on my
own, i must eat out a lot. now it was true that i did eat out frequently,
more frequently than most friends, but that was equally true whether i
was living alone or with a woman. of course it was not believed that
i could cook, iron, etc. and even though i had told him so, when i had
visitors from hungary, most were surprised that i cooked nearly every night.
"since when have you become such a housewife to do woman's work?" was
the most frequent comment. (maybe it was just a polite way to say that
i'm not a good cook.)

what "the west" could learn from hngary is that it is acceptable for
women to have their own profession, from bus-driver, through lawyer to
doctor etc. it is true that the penetration of women into some male
domains has been extremely slow, but much has been achieved, albeit
the trend seems to be reversing and there is much more to be done,
*especially* in matters of men's --- and many women's --- attitudes.

:
: Is 3 years maternity leave only a way to hamper women to have career or =
: is it also a way to ensure a secure childhood?
:

bothe maternity and paternity leave should be available. for the period just
before and just after the birth, ideally both parents should have leave.
after the intial few weeks, it is probably more important for the mother,
as fathers rarely breast-feed children. when the child no longer needs
or depends upon  the mother's breast as much --- when it can do without
for half a day --- then one parent is enough to look after the child.
ideally the parents should be able to alternate. i think that about
the first two or three years is about the right period. of course in extended
families the situation is alleviated by the availability of grand-parents or
aunties and uncles or cousins.

: Has the emancipation of the women been worth the price and who is paying =
: the price?

women are far from emancipated yet! there are still major formal
obstacles in most countries and most societies in addition to
the cultural values and perosnal attitudes of most of the
populatin --- including, sadly, so many women. the price of the
achievements so far has been most certainly worth it. if we are
willing to wage war to free other countries from the yolk of exploitation,
to guarantee basic human rigts, to ensure personal freedom, then we
are surely bound to do the same for all members members of our society.

:
: Is the Hungarian women repressed or is it the western counterparts that =
: is chasing an ideal without ever considering if it is in their own =
: interest?

the hungarian woman is repressed, albeit less than sixty years ago.
:
: I am not sure that families in west Europe are more happy than in east =
: Europe.=20

the differences between individual countries seem to be greater than
the differences between "east" and "west". sweden and hungary both
had extremely high sucide rates. poland and spain extremely low.
:
: Is the answer blowing in the wind or maybe among the esteemed members of =
: this list?

the answer is in each of us. amongst many of the learned gentlemen who
post to this group, it seems to be more a case of breaking wind.

d.a.