| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 155.2 | one vote | ARCANA::CONNELLY | You think _this_ is the work of a serious artist? | Fri Sep 25 1987 21:35 | 9 |
| re: .0
You bet!
But it seems to be pretty much encouraged in certain situations (e.g., maybe
75+% of the major corporations in this country, 99% of certain professions,
etc.), but actively discouraged in others. And then there are situations
where the reverse is true (divorced men seem to be able to cite a number of
these): perhaps less widespread, but no less keenly felt by the victims.
|
| 155.5 | It's called self-perception | MOSAIC::MODICA | | Mon Sep 28 1987 14:31 | 6 |
|
It seems to me at least that the women know more about the
Old-boy-network than any men I know. They also seem to understand
fully the male_advantage. Perhaps they can explain it someday.
Maybe years ago we had a society with male advantage. But in
1987 I sure can't find one.
|
| 155.6 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Thu Oct 01 1987 18:33 | 77 |
|
I get the strange felling that I may be the person Alfred is
talking to, since I'am the one who seems to be raising the most
ruckus in the files lately. But beside that to the question..
> Do men as a class oppress women?
No, not today. This statement was true 30 years ago and beyond.
But today are a lot different than they were in the 50's.
Somewhere in the late 60's we all woke up to find that the great
American dream and it stereotypes was a bogus bill of goods that
was sold to us. Both men and women that learned this have now come
into the system and have changed things. Between the newer EEO laws
and the more open headsets that came out of the 60's generation, the
opportunities have never been more open and greater for women.
> Do men in the US have an innate
> social/career advantage based on being men?
No, I don't believe so, not today. If anything, its become the opposite,
unless your a male member of a minority. With the advent of women now
being trained and getting experience in the non traditional fields and
professional disciplines, a man now in competition with a larger available
work force. An example of this would be compare the graduating female
engineers (of any discipline IE design , mechanical ect) of any college
during any year of the 50's or 60's to that of the 70's and 80's.
In the cases where skill and experience levels are comparable between a
male and female candidate the employer is hiring the female candidate
in order to satisfy the EEO laws. In some cases a lesser qualified
candidate is taken because of these new EEO laws. One does not have
look very hard to see that he new work force is very much so female
and minorities populated.
> Does the old boy
> network still exist? I've heard a lot of women say so and quite
> frankly I'm posing this question here because I'm interested in
> how it looks to men (that's a subtle hint there as to who I'm
> interested in hearing from).
> Alfred
The answer to this is yes, but its life expectancy is getting shorter
all the time. The reasons for this is that as the "old boy guard"
retires, the "new blood" moves up and in. The professional women that
were the forerunners in the business world are moving up that ladder
at the same time. The places and positions that were not available to
women are getting fewer and fewer each year.
The bottom line to all this is this is another sore spot with me.
I get real tried of the cry that not enough women are in enough high
places. As I've stated in the above text, women have just started
changing from the 50's style traditional roles to those of the business
world in sufficient numbers that they are now eligible to move in those
higher positions. Those that want it are, in fact, getting there,
because they working for it and earning it.
It takes time for anyone to earn their way from the bottom to the top.
Nobody ever gave me or anyone I know any position, or advancement,
that wasent worked long and hard for. Now before you all start flaming
and screeming discrimination, lets get some facts stright. Yes, I am very
aware, women and minorities have been discriminated against in the past.
It was not right and it should be eliminated in any place that it exists.
I also beleave that anyone should have an equil shot at any job and be paid
the same for doing it as the person next to them.
But on the others side, why do people think its right that these higher
positions should be just handed out to them to make up for the past ?????
To quote"" put things in an instant balance of what they think it should
be ??? I'am sorry I don't buy it. The opportunities are now there for those
who are willing to go after it. If thats what you want , then by all means,
go for it. But stop expecting the world to be handed to you for the sins
of the past. The past is the past, nothing will change that. The future
will only different if you work to make it different. The big difference
now, is the doors are open for you to do it.
Bob B
|
| 155.9 | Still some way to go | ECLAIR::GOODWIN | Pete Goodwin, IPG, Reading, England | Fri Oct 02 1987 04:59 | 10 |
| For my first degree out of about 90 students on the Electronics
Engineering course there were six girls. That was 1978. Seems a
terrible shame to me. Yet here today in DEC, I'm in a cube with Sue on
my left, a graduate engineer. The recent hiring seems to be balanced a
little more.
Yet, when I was studying French in primary school, I ended up the
only guy in a class of girls. Phew! Nothing like being in a minority!
Pete.
|
| 155.10 | But why place the blame on men? | VCQUAL::THOMPSON | Noter at large | Fri Oct 02 1987 10:50 | 60 |
| >< Note 155.6 by STING::BARBER "Skyking Tactical Services" >
> I get the strange felling that I may be the person Alfred is
> talking to, since I'am the one who seems to be raising the most
> ruckus in the files lately. But beside that to the question..
No actually I didn't have any single person in mind.
RE: .7 & .8 I think the thing that bothers me most, and bothers
other men too perhaps, is that many people (women mostly) appear
to assume that men are deliberately holding women back. That men
want women held back. I've met very few men who want to hold women
back. Fact of the matter is, the desire to keep women back appears
to be far more common among women. I've known alot more women who've
said that women belong in the home then men.
.8> Erasing thousands of years of cultural conditioning about
.8> societal roles is not possible in a 20 year period. Although
.8> things have improved for women, there is still much to be done.
This is a key thought in my mind and one that I really believe points
to the true long term solution. That solution is to change, through
education and the way we raise our children, the cultural conditioning.
I get the impression that many women blame men either primarily or
even solely for this cultural conditioning that holds some women
back. This blame does not belong solely or even primarily with men.
In fact, as a sociologist by training, I believe that some serious
research is likely to show that women (mothers remember them :-))
have a far greater impact on the learned cultural conditioning of
there children. Especially in the area of what their daughters learn
from example of the 'proper' role of women.
I have a wife who accepts no limitations on her career. She learned
this from her mother who had accepted limitations and taught her
daughter how wrong that was. My sister was also taught at home,
in this case by her father, that she too had the same opportunities
and options as her brothers. She got the same schooling and motivation
as I did. As a result neither of these women feel the need or would
accept special consideration based on their being women.
> Statistics still show that women are
> economically disadvantaged and are not yet receiving equitable
> treatment in our society.
This is quite true. What these statistics do not say is that men
are at fault. Women seem to be saying that and it offends me when
they do because I think that is unfair. I've seen no evidence that
men have near as much influence on cultural conditioning as women
do. You can't look at who benefits by something and then jump to
the conclusion that they created the condition.
Alfred
FWIW, I think that Affirmative Action is a major stumbling block
in the path of correcting the cultural conditions in the US
because if addresses a symptom (that fewer women are in the best
jobs) while reinforcing negative cultural conditioning (the idea
that women need 'help' to get the good jobs).
PS: Nice to PHONE with you last night.
|
| 155.11 | | VIKING::MODICA | | Fri Oct 02 1987 11:44 | 44 |
| RE: .7 .8
>...and if only we could erase discrimination by letting a few guys
>in a notesfile vote on it and if they say it doesn't exist, then
>it doesn't exist.
Am I the only person who finds this offensive? What is this? Some
verbal tactic to dismiss the opinions expressed here as incorrect
and meaningless?
>The insidious thing about the way women are treated in our
>culture is that we are born and trained to question our own worth
>and abilities
This may represent your situation and that of the select group that
dominates the other notes file but this is a blanket generalization
that is not supported by women I have spoken with.
My wife disagrees with this as do
my sisters and every other woman I know personally. (I took the
time to ask) Shall we dismiss the varasity if their opinions also?
>By the way....there is still a small army of women who are educated
>and/or prepared to have great careers with DEC but are still waiting
>for opportunities to advance.....
Two points: 1) You didn't mention qualifications.
2) The key word is "waiting". If that is how one tries
to advance, I imagine they will wait forever.
>Those are the facts (no matter what impressions that any individual
>man might have....
Again, what is this? Another attempt to devalue opinions expressed
here? I do not think it is fair to dismiss my or other opinions
in this manner because you claim to "have" the facts.
I find statements like this inflammatory and a hindrence to
discussion.
On a final note Suzanne, though your entry did "hit a nerve" with
me, I am still glad you took the time to respond here, especially
since I no longer participate in the other conference. Though we
may not agree I do value yours and others opinions on this subject.
|
| 155.14 | You bring up a very good point | VIKING::MODICA | | Fri Oct 02 1987 13:58 | 19 |
| Re: .13 Thanks, I understand much better now. When I was in
high school the same sort of thing also happened to
the boys. Some who may not have done so well in the
earlier years were discouraged from pursuing what were
called the college courses. In fact, in my experience,
there were more girls in the college courses than boys.
A lot of boys were encouraged to go into the so-called
vocational courses.
I suspect that we attended school at different times
and therefore have different views accordingly. Perhaps
the schools I attended were more progressive than others.
Aside from assigning girls amost exclusively to attend
what was called home-ec, (sp?) I remember a very equal
treatment of both sexes.
And on a final note, I can endorse your final paragraph
of .13 with a one change. We need to get into the high
schools and try to reach all young "PEOPLE"!
|
| 155.16 | | VCQUAL::THOMPSON | Noter at large | Fri Oct 02 1987 14:37 | 6 |
| RE: .14 & .15 Most of all, we should stop telling kids that
they can't do something. Especially we have to stop teachers
(and others) from saying things like "we don't expect girls
to handle math" or "we don't expect boys to handle history".
Alfred
|
| 155.17 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Fri Oct 02 1987 19:12 | 83 |
|
RE .8
> By the way, it is also important to note that EVEN WITHIN
> DEC, there is a small army of women who are educated AND/OR
> prepared to have great careers with DEC but are still waiting
> for opportunities to advance from sec/admin positions.
I don't believe it is as wide spread as you imply. Every woman
that I know with an education has risen out of the sec/admin
ranks to something better within two years of being in this CO.
I even know of one that didn't have a high school diploma, that
had worked her way up to a very good middle management job.
The group that I would agree that is having a tough time would
be the displaced homemakers. They have been forced into the job
market after 10, 15 years of being out of it. Many have little
to no current job skills or experience. These are the people that
have to go to night school or obtain special training to advance.
But on that point there is so much available company backed training
available to these people the only ones that wont advance are the ones
who wont go for it.
> I'm sure that I'm not the only person who knows secretaries
> within DEC who have Bachelor's or Masters degrees (and are
> in the search for the right opportunity even as we speak.)
All the ones I know have gone on to improved jobs. The only ones
I've heard of that are stuck, are the ones that want a position
in a different discipline than what their trained in, at the same
level as what they would have been if they had had that experience
level in their own. An example of this would be a person that was
an English major with lets say 10 years of teaching experience behind
them. Yet now wants a job as an engineer at the 10 year level.
That is not my idea of searching for the right opportunity.
> Erasing thousands of years of cultural conditioning about
> societal roles is not possible in a 20 year period. Although
> things have improved for women, there is still much to be done.
Any just who passed down and taught you that cultural conditioning ??
Your mother thats who !!!!! Why ?? because she believed it ...
Because most everyone believed in that " " great American dream of
the house with the white picket fence and women not having to work,
and the kids in the yard and life happy happy everafter. It was a
crock of bull that we all came top find out the hard way.
You know, I'am beginning to get a kick outa you, for you, of all people
are complaining the loudest, yet have been afforded (as far as I can
tell) every opportunity to advance, which you have done. Just how can
you claim its as bad as you claim it is when women such as yourself
have a non sec/admin job and all the opportunity to advance in it ???
Your right in that 20 or 30 years ago you would have had a problem,
but not today, if anything you are a prime example of how things have
changed. I'am sorry, but your really going to have a hard time convin-
cing me or anyone else that you are an oppressed person.
> No matter how mad anyone gets at women for taking strong stands
> in a certain other file, no one man here (or even ten men here)
> can change the facts. Statistics still show that women are
> economically disadvantaged and are not yet receiving equitable
> treatment in our society.
What statistics ??? It is a proven fact that any sharp pollster
can set up their questions to slant any questionnaire to get the
results they wish. The real proof is in that women such as you
or any other female can and is getting better jobs and the advance-
mets such as you have done.
> Those are the facts (no matter what sort of impressions that
> any individual man might have about how women are treated.)
> Suzanne...
The only stand I have taken against women in "the other file"
is when I've been lumped into a class that is looked upon as
responsible for all the bad and evil that has been heaped upon
all women over time. I am an individual that has not perpetrated
one wrong or bad thing to any woman of that file or women as a class,
I therefore object to and will never willingly accept the blame
for others of my gender that have done these things.
Bob B
|
| 155.19 | a lot of men are still NOT THERE | ARCANA::CONNELLY | Sing, for all the singing birds are gone | Sat Oct 03 1987 23:34 | 23 |
| re: .17,.18
Just to (i hope) reinforce some of what was said in .18, i have a
friend (currently out on maternity leave from DEC) who not that long
ago worked for N_____ Company in Worcester (i'm blanking out the
name JUST IN CASE, but you would definitely know it). One reason she
left that situation was that the unofficial "policy" at N_____ seemed
to be to make women feel like dirt as much as possible. Groups of
men would sit together in the cafeteria and whistle and yell obscene
comments whenever a woman walked by--at one point when she was there,
a large group of male employees started pounding the tables and
chanting "E.R.A.--no way!!". So this is your enlightened world of
business, huh? (The woman in question is NOT given to flights of
fancy, i can vouch for that! She's worked her share of "low status"
jobs before with no complaints.)
So, to .17, just because DEC comes down on this kind of crapola, it
doesn't mean the Same Old Shit ain't happening lots of other places.
Before you assume it's all the fault of a woman's mother to be on
edge about this sort of thing, kindly recognize that the negative
influence may have been more recent (like her last boss!).
paul c.
|
| 155.21 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Sun Oct 04 1987 18:54 | 17 |
| re: sexism a thing of the past
may I remind you that I am 24 years old?
I was 7 when women's lib hit (~1970).
I was raised believing that these battles had been fought and won.
Sexism was over.
Most of what I write about here and in womannotes has happened since
1980. The worst stuff was in 1985.
It has been a horrible slap in the face, one I was reluctant to
believe, to discover that sexism, like racism, was still around,
going strong as ever.
Lee
|
| 155.22 | Do you believe US Dept of Labor? | PLDVAX::BUSHEE | George Bushee | Mon Oct 05 1987 12:16 | 7 |
|
Bob, You say you don't have faith in the stats
presendted, well the U.S. Dept. of labor came up
with the same sort of data to support that women
are still far less paid than white males for any
givin level of education or experence.
|
| 155.23 | | VCQUAL::THOMPSON | Noter at large | Mon Oct 05 1987 12:37 | 18 |
| RE: Statistics
First off let me say that I believe the statistics when they say
that women are paid less then white males. What I don't believe
that any of those statistics prove is that white males are to
blame for that imbalance. This is not to say that they are blameless
just that it's not all their fault.
Let's admit here that defining the symptom is not the same as defining
the cause. The imbalance in earnings is the result of societal
conditioning reinforced by both men AND women, white AND non-white.
There are many women who treat boys better then girls. There are
people of colour who favor their lighter skinned children. There
are of course the opposite conditions and they're not any better.
We need to fix the problem not just treat symptoms.
Alfred
|
| 155.25 | | ULTRA::GUGEL | Don't read this. | Mon Oct 05 1987 14:35 | 134 |
| re .6:
>> Do men as a class oppress women?
>No, not today. This statement was true 30 years ago and beyond.
>But today are a lot different than they were in the 50's.
>Somewhere in the late 60's we all woke up to find that the great
>American dream and it stereotypes was a bogus bill of goods that
>was sold to us. Both men and women that learned this have now come
>into the system and have changed things. Between the newer EEO laws
>and the more open headsets that came out of the 60's generation, the
>opportunities have never been more open and greater for women.
You're generalizing here. *All* men and women woke up?
Just because the opportunites have never been more open and greater
for women doesn't mean they're open enough and great enough everywhere.
There are thousands of long-standing forms of discrimination that
*cannot* be legislated against. You don't see them because you
are neither a woman nor a man who has really *heard* what is *actually*
being said, for what reason I will not guess.
>With the advent of women now
>being trained and getting experience in the non traditional fields and
>professional disciplines, a man now in competition with a larger available
>work force. An example of this would be compare the graduating female
>engineers (of any discipline IE design , mechanical ect) of any college
>during any year of the 50's or 60's to that of the 70's and 80's.
>In the cases where skill and experience levels are comparable between a
>male and female candidate the employer is hiring the female candidate
>in order to satisfy the EEO laws. In some cases a lesser qualified
>candidate is taken because of these new EEO laws. One does not have
>look very hard to see that he new work force is very much so female
>and minorities populated.
*No one* that I have *ever* heard has advocated hiring less experienced
and poorly qualified candidates for the sake of making an AA quota.
*HOWEVER*, it is one of the arguments that FOES of EEO/AA use in
an argument. The argument is meaningless because *NO ONE* (at least
that I have heard) has ever suggested hiring poorly qualified people.
This whole paragraph sounds very bigotted to me. You really sound
like you resent working with women and minorities. Does it bother
you to be in "competition" with a greater workforce, a greater
*qualified* workforce? If so, I wonder why.
I don't see myself in competition with fellow workers- I see us
as a team working together. I can get my own positions and raises
based on my *own* performance, not on someone else's poor performance.
>The big difference now, is the doors are open for you to do it.
In *most* places this is true, but try telling that to *one* female
subordinate who has been denied a promotion or harassed by *one* male
boss. No matter what else happens to her (and she may well make it to
the top), her career has been at least temporarily hurt by sexism.
re .17:
>> I'm sure that I'm not the only person who knows secretaries
>> within DEC who have Bachelor's or Masters degrees (and are
>> in the search for the right opportunity even as we speak.)
>All the ones I know have gone on to improved jobs. The only ones
>I've heard of that are stuck, are the ones that want a position
>in a different discipline than what their trained in, at the same
>level as what they would have been if they had had that experience
>level in their own. An example of this would be a person that was
>an English major with lets say 10 years of teaching experience behind
>them. Yet now wants a job as an engineer at the 10 year level.
>That is not my idea of searching for the right opportunity.
This so unrealistic an example that I cannot take this seriously.
I no of no one who comes even close to such fantasy-thinking that
she (or he) could make such a wild leap. The English majors sometimes
*do* want to get into technical writing careers. Do *you* know
of someone who fits this description? Maybe we should try to get
her to lower her sights (for the time being) and get her into a
better position that is more suited to her current strengths and
talents.
>> Erasing thousands of years of cultural conditioning about
>> societal roles is not possible in a 20 year period. Although
>> things have improved for women, there is still much to be done.
>Any just who passed down and taught you that cultural conditioning ??
>Your mother thats who !!!!! Why ?? because she believed it ...
>Because most everyone believed in that " " great American dream of
>the house with the white picket fence and women not having to work,
>and the kids in the yard and life happy happy everafter. It was a
>crock of bull that we all came top find out the hard way.
What does this response have to do with the above point, I'm curious.
>I'am sorry, but your really going to have a hard time convin-
>cing me or anyone else that you are an oppressed person.
Suzanne was not trying to convince you of any such thing. This
is another one of your famous leaps of logic.
>> No matter how mad anyone gets at women for taking strong stands
>> in a certain other file, no one man here (or even ten men here)
>> can change the facts. Statistics still show that women are
>> economically disadvantaged and are not yet receiving equitable
>> treatment in our society.
>What statistics ??? It is a proven fact that any sharp pollster
>can set up their questions to slant any questionnaire to get the
>results they wish. The real proof is in that women such as you
>or any other female can and is getting better jobs and the advance-
>mets such as you have done.
No one's talking about polls, Bob. How about the Mass Labor Dept's
statistics ending for 1986? Men on the average earned somewhere
just under $400/week. Women earned on the average somewhere just
under $300/week. If you care for exact numbers, I'll get them for
you. No problem at all, but I need a day lead time to go home and find
the numbers.
>The only stand I have taken against women in "the other file"
>is when I've been lumped into a class that is looked upon as
>responsible for all the bad and evil that has been heaped upon
>all women over time. I am an individual that has not perpetrated
>one wrong or bad thing to any woman of that file or women as a class,
>I therefore object to and will never willingly accept the blame
>for others of my gender that have done these things.
It's been said, I'll say it again. No one's blaming you. Most
men who are secure enough in themselves don't take statements like
this so personally.
-Ellen
|
| 155.26 | Here's one | GUMDRP::MCCLURE | Why Me??? | Tue Oct 06 1987 13:42 | 48 |
| re .25
> >In the cases where skill and experience levels are comparable between a
> >male and female candidate the employer is hiring the female candidate
> >in order to satisfy the EEO laws. In some cases a lesser qualified
> >candidate is taken because of these new EEO laws. One does not have
> >look very hard to see that he new work force is very much so female
> >and minorities populated.
>
> *No one* that I have *ever* heard has advocated hiring less experienced
> and poorly qualified candidates for the sake of making an AA quota.
> *HOWEVER*, it is one of the arguments that FOES of EEO/AA use in
> an argument. The argument is meaningless because *NO ONE* (at least
> that I have heard) has ever suggested hiring poorly qualified people.
Well, I know personally of a female engineer in another company
that was promoted ahead of male engineers that had been there longer
and were, at least, equally as qualified. This was due to the company's
need to comply with EEO/AA guidelines (IE Minority quotas) or lose
the contract. The *perceived* definition of AA was 'find one and
hire them, then promote them'. Doesn't appear to be the case any
more, but I definitely know that that was the case in the beginning.
Managers were definitely taking lesser qualified minority candidates
so that they could satisfy the % quotas and get personnel off their
backs.
> >The only stand I have taken against women in "the other file"
> >is when I've been lumped into a class that is looked upon as
> >responsible for all the bad and evil that has been heaped upon
> >all women over time. I am an individual that has not perpetrated
> >one wrong or bad thing to any woman of that file or women as a class,
> >I therefore object to and will never willingly accept the blame
> >for others of my gender that have done these things.
>
> It's been said, I'll say it again. No one's blaming you. Most
> men who are secure enough in themselves don't take statements like
> this so personally.
Oh, I see. Any man that objects to being painted with the 'wide
brush', must be an insecure person and should get psychological
help. Sometimes I'm tempted not to suggest to women that they can
break out of stereotype if they just try, because it will make
those of you that are militant look like you were right. Peaceful
change is the way it will happen, militancy and painting with a
wide brush, actually delays and ,maybe even endangers, our arrival
at true equal opportunity.
Bob Mc
|
| 155.27 | | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Tue Oct 06 1987 13:43 | 21 |
| I enjoyed your note Ellen, .25. One minor adjustment might
be in order. During the 60's and 70's I hired and promoted
women and minorities who were less qualified than competing white
males in order to "make the numbers." I did this as an employee of
a major Boston bank and again as an employee of a major insurance
company. The companies told us we had to improve the numbers and
we did. No guilt. A lot of complaining. The companies are better
off as a result of the actions imposed on people such as me. I
can't prove but strongly believe many companies instructed their
managers to hire and promote the less qualified candidates to make
the numbers. So what! A miniscule number of people managed to
get one step up in their careers as a result of reasons other than
'acceptable' qualities. The reality is, women and minorities were
and are discriminated against. Minority communities had (have?)
inferior schools and teachers, to an extent. Women were denied
educational support, to an extent. The fact that white males tended
(tend?) to hire and promote white males is sufficient proof to me
that females and minorities were not (are not?) given an equal chance
to succeed.
Douglas
|
| 155.28 | policy vs. mechanism | ULTRA::GUGEL | Don't read this. | Thu Oct 08 1987 13:15 | 17 |
| re .27:
Interesting perspective!
I guess I wasn't considering that some employers may use AA/EOE
to promote/hire less qualified candidates. If that is the case,
then let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. It
doesn't mean that the POLICY is bad, though the MECHANISM/actual
practice may not be what the policy has intended.
No where does the POLICY (as I have heard, quotas is a different
matter) of EOE/AA call for hiring less qualified candidates. If
*some* employers choose to see it that way, that's a separate topic.
But also, as .27/Douglas points out, even *that* had *some* positive
consequences from his experience.
-Ellen
|
| 155.29 | Policy <> practice | ANGORA::BUSHEE | George Bushee | Thu Oct 08 1987 16:20 | 11 |
|
RE: .28
True the POLICY doesn't require promoting/hiring less
qualified candidates. However, Policy and practice are
two different beasts. The group I was a supervisor for
awhile ago wouldn't want to hear that you passed a
minority candidate for a more qualified white male if
that minority was close to meeting minimum qualifications.
That is the type of practice that gives AA/EOE a bad name
in others eyes.
|
| 155.30 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Fri Oct 09 1987 12:41 | 159 |
|
RE .25
> You're generalizing here. *All* men and women woke up?
No I'am not. The economic and social conditions that happened during
that time frame effected everyone. There was no escaping it. The
world and this country did not turn out as projected by our parents,
teachers and other influences (IE TV shows and such). Now how it effected
each person on a personal level and the results could be the basis
for a socalogial report that would make war and peace look like a
comic book.
> Just because the opportunities have never been more open and greater
> for women doesn't mean they're open enough and great enough everywhere.
True but the same applys to men also. There are thousands of companys
that just aren't of the size that permits a lot of higher positions
in their structure. You , I or anyone else, therefore must move on to
an company and environment that we can move up in. No one is stopping
a person from doing just this. I'am sorry I just cant buy feeling guilty
as a man for a person who is stuck in a dead end job and wont do something
about it. Men as a class are not responsible for this, the individual is.
> There are thousands of long-standing forms of discrimination that
> *cannot* be legislated against. You don't see them because you
> are neither a woman nor a man who has really *heard* what is *actually*
> being said, for what reason I will not guess.
I will grant you that personal prejudice exists in a multitude of
people today. No law is going to control how a person thinks or feels.
But the laws are in place and are not going to work unless someone uses
them. The people that are doing the discriminating may bluff their way
past being caught once or a few times, but sooner or later it will catch
up with them.
> *No one* that I have *ever* heard has advocated hiring less experienced
> and poorly qualified candidates for the sake of making an AA quota.
> *HOWEVER*, it is one of the arguments that FOES of EEO/AA use in
> an argument. The argument is meaningless because *NO ONE* (at least
> that I have heard) has ever suggested hiring poorly qualified people.
No, no said poorly qualified personal, but as in the examples given
before this reply, there are examples of minimum qualified people
getting the job over and above those qualified and with more time
in the company. This not only applys in hiring but to promoting
from within also. Back when I was in manufacturing I can remember
the higharichy bringing in a person from personal to be the
manufacturing manager, with zero manufacturing experience. The other
person was brought in from field service to be a mfg line supervisor.
> This whole paragraph sounds very bigotted to me. You really sound
> like you resent working with women and minorities. Does it bother
> you to be in "competition" with a greater workforce, a greater
> *qualified* workforce? If so, I wonder why.
No, I don't resent working with women and other minorities. What I
resent is when I have to work for someone that does not know what
they are doing, and I wind up having to do both their job and mine
to insure that I am sucessfull at my job. I have no problem working
with and for competent people in a higher position that I report to.
For that matter I took my current job because I believed in the ability
of my boss who oh yes by the way happens to be a woman !!!!!
On the other side , in my last job I was an engineering supervisor.
I hired a female engineer over 4 male candidates, not because I had to,
but because I felt she was the best qualified.
> I don't see myself in competition with fellow workers- I see us
> as a team working together. I can get my own positions and raises
> based on my *own* performance, not on someone else's poor performance.
Wither you wish to admit it or not, every time you or I or anyone
is either seeking a job or is vying for a promotion, you are in
competition with others for that slot.
> In *most* places this is true, but try telling that to *one* female
> subordinate who has been denied a promotion or harassed by *one* male
> boss. No matter what else happens to her (and she may well make it to
> the top), her career has been at least temporarily hurt by sexism.
As in above I will admit that in cases this does happen and the person
responsible gets away with it once or twice. But I still contend that
sooner or latter it catches up with them and in most cases ruins their
career. But just as a point of counter point lets look at the other side
of sexism. Joe and Jane work for company X, both are up for a promotion.
But as of late, Jane has been becoming very friendly with the boss. In
essence Jane has uses sexism to what ever level necessary to insure that
she gets the promotion over Joe. Now if it was the reverse of Joe using
the old boy net or whatever to get the job, Jane could file a grievance
through EEO. But in this case of the opposite, what recourse does Joe
have ???? Hummmm ???? none that I know of.
> This so unrealistic an example that I cannot take this seriously.
> I no of no one who comes even close to such fantasy-thinking that
> she (or he) could make such a wild leap. The English majors sometimes
> *do* want to get into technical writing careers. Do *you* know
> of someone who fits this description? Maybe we should try to get
> her to lower her sights (for the time being) and get her into a
> better position that is more suited to her current strengths and
> talents.
Well lets take the above mentioned examples. Here we had a person come
in from personal and get the job as a manufacturing manager with ZERO
experience in manufacturing. Yet this is the person I have to explain
how and what improvements I am making to the system to pick up 15 %
productitivy gains which was my charter. What it equated to was my
speaking Greek to this person, for they had NO idea what I was talking
about, yet my success and job depended on them understanding and approving
those changes.
So look at this, here is a person that knows that the current system
works. I come along and say the system has got to change. With change
comes a degree of risk, now since this person docent understand how the
original system works, how can they understand the risks and advantages
to changing the system ?? They cant, and so each time I come up with an
improvement to the system I have to provide an education and super sell
job to this person to calm their fears that the change will cause them
to fail. Try it sometime its real fun.
> Suzanne was not trying to convince you of any such thing. This
> is another one of your famous leaps of logic.
The whole point here was that she is a perfect example of if someone
wants it they can achieve it. The statements were in no way meant to
belittle Suzanne or her accomplishments, but were prove a point that
women can do what they set out to do.
> No one's talking about polls, Bob. How about the Mass Labor Dept's
> statistics ending for 1986? Men on the average earned somewhere
> just under $400/week. Women earned on the average somewhere just
> under $300/week. If you care for exact numbers, I'll get them for
> you. No problem at all, but I need a day lead time to go home and find
> the numbers.
Yes, I'de like to see those numbers. More importantly I'de like to
see the back up info that they are based on. Call me your natural
cynic if you wish but if they compare the salary level of a male
engineer to a female waitress, I don't consider that to be comparing
apples to apples, more like apples to pears.
> It's been said, I'll say it again. No one's blaming you. Most
> men who are secure enough in themselves don't take statements like
> this so personally.
> -Ellen
If no one is blaming me, then why are there so many angry, hostel,
notes directed to men as a class ??? It just so happens that I am
a member of that class and object to the implication that I am one of
the nameless and faceless people that oppress anyone and everyone that
is different from me. I can remember which note it is, but Lee has
written that she wrote her note in anger to men. I picked up on that,
and yet I am labeled wrong for expressing that objection to it. Lets
just say I'am tired of being verbally beat up for something I didn't do.
Bob B
|
| 155.31 | yawn | ULTRA::GUGEL | Don't read this. | Fri Oct 09 1987 13:35 | 13 |
| re .30:
Yawn. Don't you get tired of typing in the same old stuff over
and over again? We've *all* heard your rantings and ravings over
and over again over the last few days. You can't win against Suzanne,
so you have to try against me, right? Well, I won't buy in to it.
I haven't the time to argue with someone who won't or can't listen.
BTW, Bob, how come you're the only one I keep hearing from this
on this one? Could it be that the other men in this file and in
mennotes don't take this as THE BIG THING that you seem to?
-Ellen
|
| 155.32 | | MOSAIC::MODICA | | Fri Oct 09 1987 14:26 | 15 |
| re: .30 Fantastic double standard! Why is it he rants and raves
and you of course don't? I thought he was expressing
his opinion, or do men only rant and rave and women
express opinions and facts?
This male also agrees with much of what the author
of .30 says; in that and other entries.
Perhaps those of us who consider this a BIG THING as
you put it are the ones who truly care and want to
discuss things and work together. After all, if we were
like most men, we'd just dismiss the things said
by women with an attitude of ridicule or condescension
as 84% of the women in the Hite report said.
|
| 155.33 | proof of feelings? | ULTRA::GUGEL | Don't read this. | Fri Oct 09 1987 15:13 | 25 |
| re .32:
I guess you meant "re .31" and not "re .30". I should probably
shut up now rather than dig myself deeper, but here goes.
If Bob was just saying something like - "This is how I feel, I am
offended by what I perceive to be an anti-male attitude in womannotes,
even though you may not intend it that way", then I, personally,
would say fine - you are entitled to your opinions and feelings.
But that's not what *I* saw him doing. He wants to debate/argue,
this thing on a point-by-point basis which you can't really effectively
or reasonably or intelligently do when you're talking about "I feel
this way". You can't give a proof that shows that your arrived at
your feelings for reason X. Maybe that's why Bob has offered no
concrete evidence of an anti-male sentiment in womannotes. That's
okay to me that he hasn't. If he feels that when, then he's entitled
to his feelings! I also happen to feel that womannotes doesn't have
any "man-haters". Well, funny thing, but I can't offer Bob any proof
of *that* either! So I won't even try.
I'd encourage the men of mennotes who have not tuned in yet to
womannotes to give it a shot and see what you think.
-Ellen
|
| 155.34 | | COLORS::MODICA | | Fri Oct 09 1987 15:38 | 6 |
|
RE: .33 Don't shut up. There's plenty of room down here
for all of us to dig :-)
As for if he's expressing an opinion or debating
or arguing...I don't know. Why not ask and be sure?
|
| 155.36 | NO more MR nice guy | FRYAR::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Fri Oct 09 1987 17:05 | 88 |
|
No, what has happened is when one of us men has the guts to speak
up against the anger and hostility women are putting out, you are
the ones who don't want to hear it. You are the ones to bury your
heads in the sand and say it docent exist. Well lets take a look
at what the author of the contested note has to say. This is taken
from the text of note 478.7 in Womennotes.
> 2) Most of my unfocussed anger is pretty intense, and it is possible
> that in fact it _is_ aimed at all men, and they can see through
> my words to the underlying hatred. Yes, it is possible that y'all
> are RIGHT (eek!).
Isn't strange that the author, after reflection can see this But, you and
others cant. Oh my did I disturb your perfect little world by not going
Rah Rah your right , all men are creeps. TOUGH....
You have made a number of accusations against what I said, around the
subject in this note about men as a class oppressing women. Not only I,
but others came back with examples to prove the points I made. Now that
we have proved these points you want to fluff the whole thing off,
because the reply's and evidence docent coincide with your opinion.
It only serves as proof that you are the one that has been in the dark
about what has been going on. And before one of you blasts me for it,
I have not made any value judgement about the good, bad or indiference
of these thing happening, Just the point that they have happened.
You have made inferences as to my security as a person and as a man,
based on the fact that I took something to be disturbing. I guess
that it is unacceptable for me to fall outside of your stereotype
of a man, that men aren't suppose to have feelings. Yet I'am expected
to play both sides of the coin depending on how you feel about it.
IE
> It's been said, I'll say it again. No one's blaming you. Most
> men who are secure enough in themselves don't take statements like
> this so personally.
> -Ellen
And then you come back with
> If Bob was just saying something like - "This is how I feel, I am
> offended by what I perceive to be an anti-male attitude in Womennotes,
> even though you may not intend it that way", then I, personally,
> would say fine - you are entitled to your opinions and feelings.
Which is right Ellen ??, Just what is it that Bob is allowed to say
to be right and OK in your mind ? But wile were on this subject lets
look at my orignal text that started this whole thing from Womennotes.
================================================================================
Note 479.24 Responses to 446 24 of 138
STING::BARBER "Skyking Tactical Services" 85 lines 18-SEP-1987 13:30
-< Yes, here I go again.. >-
There are some of you ladies out there that know or have met me.
Many already know that they have my respect although we may disagree.
Others know that I can get a bit long winded with my philosophy.
Yet there from time to time come a point where I can no longer
> remain just a reader of this file and some of what I'am feeling
> and thinking needs to be put into written words.
> Just some thoughts on all this. I follow this file on a somewhat
regular basis. One of the most consistent emotions in here is
anger. Now this is both good and bad. Its good from the standpoint
Note the three lines with the arrows ( > ) Read the words. Gee docent
this read like what you allude that I failed to state ???? I was putting
into words what I was thinking and feeling. If you go on and actually
read the entire text you will also discover that I write this as a
statement against anger and anti men statements. Not, as a all of you
women hate men as I have been accused of. Nowhere in the entire text
there or anywhere else does it state that I think that anyone in the
Womennotes file hate men.
All of this only goes to prove that you, amongst others have only read
what you want to read and disregarded the rest. It has incited you since it
had the ordasity to disagree with you, and you in turn flame it.
Lady as far as I'am concerned you and others owe me an apology,
although I doubt Ill ever see it since either your egos or blindness
to whats really been transpiring prevents you from seeing it. At this
stage Ill be amaized if you make it all the way through what Ive written
before you come back and blast me again.
Bob B
|
| 155.38 | Move tangent to HUMAN::DIGITAL? | VCQUAL::THOMPSON | Noter at large | Fri Oct 09 1987 17:18 | 13 |
| > Obviously, none of you guys (that are worrying so much about
> blame) are involved in CUSTOMER RELATIONS for Digital. If a
> bunch of customers wrote in to say that they found a tremendous
> LACK OF COMMUNICATION with DEC, you few fellows would spend
> your whole budget on a HUGE STUDY OF WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THE
> COMPLAINTS. By the time you had it all figured out, the
> customers would be long gone (and our competitors would be
> celebrating their big influx of new business.)
As an aside, this is exactly how I perceive that DEC *is* handling
all the complaints about DEC being unresponsive. Sad but true.
Alfred
|
| 155.39 | | COLORS::MODICA | | Fri Oct 09 1987 17:23 | 12 |
|
I just don't see where Mr. Barber has missed the point.
If he has, he has company,....me!
But I am willing to listen.
I don't mind the anger either. ANd if you aren't now, you
probably will be po'd when you read what I wrote about
the Hite report, but thats ok.
I do think though that if people didn't really care, they
wouldn't argue.
|
| 155.41 | | VCQUAL::THOMPSON | Noter at large | Fri Oct 09 1987 17:40 | 11 |
| RE: .40 The hardware side has always been more responsive
then the S/W and Sales side. I spent a few years in the field
and left because (in part) of what I described in my note.
If the shoe doesn't fit your organization great! I'm happy that
someone's doing it right. Maybe things have gotten a lot better
but what I described is they way I remember it and how it still
often looks from the trade press. This is tangent here anyway.
Sorry I brought it up.
Alfred
|
| 155.42 | | ULTRA::GUGEL | Don't read this. | Fri Oct 09 1987 18:02 | 110 |
| re .36: Bob,
>You have made a number of accusations against what I said, around the
>subject in this note about men as a class oppressing women. Not only I,
>but others came back with examples to prove the points I made. Now that
>we have proved these points you want to fluff the whole thing off,
>because the reply's and evidence docent coincide with your opinion.
>It only serves as proof that you are the one that has been in the dark
>about what has been going on. And before one of you blasts me for it,
>I have not made any value judgement about the good, bad or indiference
>of these thing happening, Just the point that they have happened.\
Excuse me?! Now that you have proved WHAT? I must have missed
it. You didn't prove a thing to me. Nor can you. Because your
arguments are based on feelings (which you are entitled to) and
emotion. You can't and haven't proven anything, Bob. But if it
makes you feel better to think so, then go ahead.
>You have made inferences as to my security as a person and as a man,
>based on the fact that I took something to be disturbing. I guess
>that it is unacceptable for me to fall outside of your stereotype
>of a man, that men aren't suppose to have feelings. Yet I'am expected
>to play both sides of the coin depending on how you feel about it.
>IE
>> It's been said, I'll say it again. No one's blaming you. Most
>> men who are secure enough in themselves don't take statements like
>> this so personally.
Well, I wrote that before I considered what I wrote in the last
note about having a right to your own feelings. The men that I
relate to best don't take these things SO personally And yes, Bob,
there ARE *some* men who don't take this as such BIG DEAL. They
realize that we are a bunch of women yakking away in womannotes
just like we might on a "women's night out". Would it surprise
you that most of us complain about our male SOs to each other too,
even though we might be perfectly happy with them? You shouldn't
be - men do this too.
>And then you come back with
>> If Bob was just saying something like - "This is how I feel, I am
>> offended by what I perceive to be an anti-male attitude in Womennotes,
>> even though you may not intend it that way", then I, personally,
>> would say fine - you are entitled to your opinions and feelings.
>Which is right Ellen ??, Just what is it that Bob is allowed to say
>to be right and OK in your mind ?
You have a right to your feelings. What I object to is that you
are trying to do a point-by-point debate that proves that your feelings
*are* the way things are. *YOU* see it one way. *I* don't. Okay?
>But wile were on this subject lets look at my orignal text that
>started this whole thing from Womennotes.
>================================================================================
>Note 479.24 Responses to 446 24 of 138
>STING::BARBER "Skyking Tactical Services" 85 lines 18-SEP-1987 13:30
> -< Yes, here I go again.. >-
> There are some of you ladies out there that know or have met me.
> Many already know that they have my respect although we may disagree.
> Others know that I can get a bit long winded with my philosophy.
> Yet there from time to time come a point where I can no longer
>> remain just a reader of this file and some of what I'am feeling
>> and thinking needs to be put into written words.
>> Just some thoughts on all this. I follow this file on a somewhat
> regular basis. One of the most consistent emotions in here is
> anger. Now this is both good and bad. Its good from the standpoint
>Note the three lines with the arrows ( > ) Read the words. Gee docent
>this read like what you allude that I failed to state ???? I was putting
>into words what I was thinking and feeling. If you go on and actually
>read the entire text you will also discover that I write this as a
>statement against anger and anti men statements. Not, as a all of you
>women hate men as I have been accused of. Nowhere in the entire text
>there or anywhere else does it state that I think that anyone in the
>Womennotes file hate men.
Regarding womannotes 479.24, I don't believe I ever responded to
that in womannotes (or here). I DO see it differently, but if you
see it that way, then *I* can't help that.
>All of this only goes to prove that you, amongst others have only read
>what you want to read and disregarded the rest. It has incited you since it
>had the ordasity to disagree with you, and you in turn flame it.
>Lady as far as I'am concerned you and others owe me an apology,
>although I doubt Ill ever see it since either your egos or blindness
>to whats really been transpiring prevents you from seeing it. At this
>stage Ill be amaized if you make it all the way through what Ive written
>before you come back and blast me again.
Just look at this. You seem to be incredibly angry with me. I
could say the same thing to you - you had the 'ordasity' (sic) to
disagree with me and that's why you're arguing now. And then
And then you address me as 'Hey, Lady'. Your tone comes through
loud and clear. It was just as I thought - you are too angry
to carry on a reasonable discussion (note, I said discussion,
not argument, since as I said, you can't argue about feelings).
From the way you're addressing me, I would also consider you a
"non-friend". If that's really the way you want things to be, then
fine. If you don't want it to be that way, then you should try
to talk in more reasonable words. I'm trying to listen, but your
WORDS make it incredibly hard to do that.
-Ellen
|
| 155.43 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Fri Oct 09 1987 18:52 | 55 |
| re .36
Oh Bob, once again you see SOME of my words, but do not seem willing
to put them together and get the point. To wit:
� heads in the sand and say it docent exist. Well lets take a look
� at what the author of the contested note has to say. This is taken
� from the text of note 478.7 in Womennotes.
� > 2) Most of my unfocussed anger is pretty intense, and it is possible
� > that in fact it _is_ aimed at all men, and they can see through
� > my words to the underlying hatred. Yes, it is possible that y'all
� > are RIGHT (eek!).
You then say that the author [me] "after reflection can see this".
You neglect to mention (or quote) the fact that I then go on to
say that I have done enough soul searching to feel quite strongly
that the above is NOT true.
The statement you quoted is by NO MEANS a concession to your
"rightness" or my "error". In it I meant to illustrate that I
considered your accusations (which in fact they are, no matter how
much rhetoric you choose to bury them with [dangling modifier, sorry.])
and I reject them as false.
I considered the accusation because it was coming from many people
who were quite insistent about their interpretation. Without such
introspection, I could not grow as a person. The fact that I have
made such a consideration does not mean that the accusation is a
valid interpretation of the way I feel.
You seem to think that I am full of hatred and resentment, that this is
aimed at all (or most) men. I say that this is patently untrue.
Having that funny chromosome is NOT what makes me dislike or even hate
a person. My hate is not for chromosomes, genitalia, hair, skin color,
or bodies. It is for wrongful behavior. I cannot help the fact that
the people who engage in a certain type of wrongful behavior have a Y
chromosome. I do not extend my hatred of that behavior to the Y
chromosome. I _do_ extend my CAUTION towards all bearers of that
chromosome until I know that they are not going to hit me, rape
me, etc. It is very sad that I do this (as JimB pointed out), but
I feel I must as I have had too much happen to me.
The hatred you see in my words is not aimed at you, nor is it aimed
at a large portion of the American Male population. If you saw
it there, it is my poor wording or your poor interpretation.
Lee
[not to nit, Bob, but is there a reason that you spell the word
"doesn't" differently from the traditional American and English
spelling? It is terribly distracting]
|
| 155.44 | | FRYAR::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Fri Oct 09 1987 19:15 | 21 |
|
RE .42 Ellen, The point that was being discussed was around
the hiring and promoting that occurs today with AA/EEO.
You had made a statement that you had never heard of any
one that was a less fully qualified person (or something
to that effect ) being given a job or promotion.
Both response .26 and .27 gave examples of this (aside
from the ones I gave) to which your response in .28
showed that you were unaware that this was happening.
facts, not opinion as basis for my stand on the subject.
I therefore beleave I had proved a legitimate point.
It is you (and some others) that have turned this into
something that makes it sound that I am expressing only
opinions and emotions. And yes I do get angry when someone
tries to fluff me off in a discussion.
Bob B
|
| 155.45 | | FRYAR::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Fri Oct 09 1987 19:22 | 11 |
|
RE .43 Lee, Well I guess I expected too much of you. I was
of the opinion that after reading 498.7 that you were
big enough that you could see and admit that you could
understand how the original text could be read as an
angry statement. But I see now that I was mistaken.
If this was the case then why did you bother in the
first case. Never mind I no longer care to know.
|
| 155.46 | If at Nth you don't succeed... | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Fri Oct 09 1987 19:44 | 29 |
| re .45
� I was
� of the opinion that after reading 498.7 that you were
� big enough that you could see and admit that you could
� understand how the original text could be read as an
� angry statement.
I _can_ understand how it can "be read as an angry statement".
In many ways, it _is_ a statement of anger. I can also see how
it could be read as a statement of anger towards all/most men.
I can also say that to read it this way is to misinterpret what
I have been TRYing to say. Simply because you (plural) feel the
note(s) are nothing but hate-filled diatribe does _not_ mean that
the hate is there.
To read my words as a statement of anger at most men is to misread
my words. This is either because I said them badly, or because
you read them badly, or because there is no way of saying the words
I feel NEED saying without leaving room for multiple interpretations.
As I have offered in the past, if you have a question about any
of my words and what I mean by them, you are free to ask. I will
answer. If you pull phrases out of context (and insert words,
willy-nilly) and make accusations at me, I will probably not answer.
A bit of consideration seems to me to be a reasonable request.
Lee
|
| 155.47 | | STING::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Mon Oct 12 1987 12:50 | 26 |
|
RE 46.
And it appears thats its just as apparent that you haven't
seen why I did it. The point her was just to show an example
of two things. 1 that there is angry at men statements that
DO exist in the womennotes file. And 2, that you, as author
after reflecting on the note could and did see HOW it could
be intrepid by a man as a angry towards men statement
when so many other women were claiming that it wasn't.
In essence nothing more nothing less, this whole discussion
has been centered around whether their has or has not been
angry or anti men statements been made. It is in no way
shape or for been using You as the center of the discussion.
Would you please understand that and stop taking this
personally and feeling that this has been directed towards
you personally. For the record and the umteeth time this
whole series of discussions is not about you.
One more thing WOULD YOU PLEASSSSSSSSE STOP SAYING THAT
I'VE BEEN SAYING THAT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE HAS BEEN WRITING
OR EXPRESSING "I HATE MEN". I have never written nor expressed
one single statement that you or anyone else hates men and
I'am getting so sick of being accused of that.
Bob B
|
| 155.48 | | ULTRA::GUGEL | Don't read this. | Mon Oct 12 1987 15:28 | 42 |
| re .44
> RE .42 Ellen, The point that was being discussed was around
> the hiring and promoting that occurs today with AA/EEO.
> You had made a statement that you had never heard of any
> one that was a less fully qualified person (or something
> to that effect ) being given a job or promotion.
>
> Both response .26 and .27 gave examples of this (aside
> from the ones I gave) to which your response in .28
> showed that you were unaware that this was happening.
> facts, not opinion as basis for my stand on the subject.
> I therefore beleave I had proved a legitimate point.
> It is you (and some others) that have turned this into
> something that makes it sound that I am expressing only
> opinions and emotions. And yes I do get angry when someone
> tries to fluff me off in a discussion.
Wait a second. 1) What I was most recently arguing/discussing with
you was whether or not there is anti-men sentiment in womannotes,
which I have been trying to tell you we cannot debate because of
different perceptions of the file. The AA/EOE discussion was a
separate topic (I thought). Maybe we rolled them into one somewhere,
but I don't remember where. 2) *you* proved something about AA/EOE?
No, two *other* people showed that their experience with the policy
and its implementation were different from what I thought the intent
of the policy was. Okay, I was at least slightly wrong there, but
one of those men even said that he thought it was a *good* thing
that they hired minorities or women over the men, because of the
long-term good effect it had on his company.
As for your last note, I have never accused you of accusing the
women of womannotes of 'man-hating'. What I heard you say in womanotes
is that you felt bad because many of the statements sounded to *you*
like anti-men sentiments. You *did* make that distinction, and
it is reasonable to say that, if that is what you felt.
I admitted I may have been wrong about one thing here, I suppose
it would be beneath you to try to do some soul-searching yourself
about the *issues* rather than the names attached to the replies.
-Ellen
|
| 155.49 | I guess I have some problems | MORGAN::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Mon Oct 12 1987 17:24 | 75 |
| RE .48 Well Ill then I guess I should apologize shouldn't I.
for it seems I have this series of problems that you and others
have been pointing out.
I have a problem because I didn't realize that its not copestedic
to disagree with the female members of womennotes. That like a fool
I believed that note that stated that the women of the file wanted
to know when something was written that I as a man found disturbing.
That Iam expected to roll over and go, yes, yes, your right we as men
are a bunch of creeps and we dont deserve anything and our opinions
are garbage. I guess I missed something along the way that says
Iam supose to do whatever your wishes are to insure your happyness,
and forget about my own.
I have a problem in that while I was trying to keep the two topics
of being thin skinned (note 153) vs men as a class oppressing women,
(this note 155) separate the two became one with the 479 note from
womennotes. And again I found myself accused of presenting a no
basis opinion based on emotion vs fact.
I have a problem in that the people who read my reply's never seem to
see things or words, or statements that I put in there. They for the
most part see what they want to see and disregard or ignore the rest.
Not Implied or interrupted but in plain direct statements. If you would
be so kind as to go back to note 155.30 and read it, you will find
examples similar to those presented by the other reply's before mine about
the things happening since AA/EEO. This is just an example of one of a
number of the same things that I could point out to both you and other
people who have made statements to the effect " if Bob only said this
" or If Bob only showed this." and in fact the statement or fact HAS
been written in a previous text.
I have a problem when people don't read things that are there, invent
things that aren't there, and feel I'am blaming them because they didn't
read the note well enough to see it was directed to someone else.
Ellen why do you feel this was directed at you when I referenced the
discussion between Lee and myself ???? To clear this up, the reference
about "man hate notes" was directed to Lee and Suzanne since they have been
the ones to accuse me of doing this, not you. So please, understand
this does not include you.
I have a problem when I expressly state that in this circumstance
what I have written is an expression of fact with no value judgment
attached, and I get accused of making that value judgment. IE
the hiring of EEO candidates.
And last but not least I have a problem in that I feel that I have soul
searched my conscience before I write a disagreeing opinion or statement
in this or any other file. If I didn't feel strongly about the subject,
or have facts that disagreed with the other author, I would never have
bothered to have made a reply. It has gotten to a point that certain
people believe I only answer to be a devils advocate or opponite to
certain female authors of this and other files. Nothing could be further
from the truth.
My voice serves as a tell tail to the authors of differing opinions
that not everyone out here agrees with them. That this is not just
an excuse to argue but that I have reason to feel the way I do.
The reason I in certain instances wind up as that voice is because
I am the only one that winds up talking to the issue. In many instances
the reply's and mail that I receive tells me that I am not alone in what I
express.
Ellen I believe that the discussions between you and I have gotten a
little mixed up. But Its been a bit rough out here over the last few
weeks based on whats been happening and I've gotten a bit crass on
account of it. So in finishing this, Yes I have a problem, part of its
me but a whole lot more of it is the way other people are handling what
I say. If they would only read ALL of what was written before they come
back and blast me almost half of this written bantering and accusation
stuff would have never happened. But what can I do, but let my audience
be my judge.
Bob B
|
| 155.50 | Being misunderstood is a normal condition. | ULTRA::BUTCHART | | Tue Oct 13 1987 11:28 | 11 |
| re .49:
> I have a problem in that the people who read my reply's never seem to
> see things or words, or statements that I put in there. They for the
> most part see what they want to see and disregard or ignore the rest.
Sounds like normal human communications to me! Maybe you should consider
a pithier presentation style - at least there would be less to disregard.
/Dave
|
| 155.51 | Morning DewL | CAMLOT::COFFMAN | Unable to Dance, I will crawl | Tue Oct 13 1987 12:11 | 22 |
| It seems like the heated discussions in WOMANNOTES have migrated over
to MENNOTES. Certainly seems appropriate.
Please allow me to make the following suggestion....
On the next foggy morning at dawn Lee and Bob and their seconds
(myself included) meet for a duel.
I would insist that they use close range weapons like a knife or ice pick.
To use this type of weapon you have to get close enough to see the
eyes of the opponent.
The other option might be for them and their seconds to just reach out
with some open arms, hearts and ears. Maybe even have a picnic or
something..
Perhaps when we restore the humanity and personhood into all of
these discussions we can move on to the next item for discussion.
- Howard
|
| 155.52 | an alternative :-) | YAZOO::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Tue Oct 13 1987 13:05 | 4 |
| re .51
How about they all show up at the womannoters party in Dec?
:-)
|
| 155.53 | Pooh | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Tue Oct 13 1987 13:12 | 13 |
| Geez Louweeze, I have been making less fuss about all this than
I usually do, haven't even TRIED to torch BobB.
I have tried to hint that certain people would profit from
attending a womannotes party, but to no avail it seems...
Lee
PS [PartingShot]: Seems to me that if extracts of MY notes are used
to prove a point, it is a personal matter as well. Yes, I take
it personally when my words are misinterpreted. If you want to
use someone else's notes to prove your point, I will look at it
another way altogether.
|
| 155.54 | The Womennotes party ???? Right !!!!! | MORGAN::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Tue Oct 13 1987 14:27 | 9 |
|
RE .52 Bonnie
Now I believe in GOD and have a fairly reasonable
working understanding with him. But to recreate Daniel
walking into the lions den, I think, may be asking a
bit too much of him. :-)
Bob B
|
| 155.55 | lions den? not really... | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Tue Oct 13 1987 14:40 | 7 |
| re .54 Why not Bob? You had a good time last time, even if
you didn't remember meeting me and discussing insurance
fraud! :-)
Most of us don't bite!
Bonnie
|
| 155.56 | Ok ....IF ( Big IF ) | MORGAN::BARBER | Skyking Tactical Services | Tue Oct 13 1987 16:00 | 14 |
|
I'am sorry, You'll have to forgive me, I have a bad tendency to
remember peoples faces and forget their names. I will take the
invite under very serious consitteration IF I can be provided
with body guards to stand between me and those ladies that I have
managed to become less than popular with. You know, the ones that
I've managed to alienate by my views. (How many women are in the
file ??? ) Ya that many. :-)
As referred via my previous note , becoming the human sacrifice
to appease the anger of certain Goddesses is not necessarily, my
idea of a fun filled evening. :-)
Bob B
|
| 155.57 | | RANCHO::HOLT | Don't see any points on those ears.. | Tue Oct 13 1987 18:08 | 9 |
| re: sacrifices to Goddess
Oh,I can just picture walking into the back yard
to see some stakes, labeled with our names......
Would this goddess be Pele, by any chance..? (heh heh this is too
funny!)
I'd go, but its on the wrong coast and at the wrong time.
|
| 155.58 | PELE | ULTRA::BUTCHART | | Tue Oct 13 1987 19:11 | 10 |
| re .57:
Be nice. Coming from the Islands myself, I know that Pele is a very
nice goddess, as long as you are VERY polite. Power carries certain
obligations with it.
/Dave
p.s. And you REALLY don't want the next lava flow to take a detour through
your rec room anyway.
|
| 155.59 | PELE is *not* female! :*) | EUCLID::FRASER | Crocodile sandwich & make it snappy! | Tue Oct 13 1987 20:27 | 2 |
| Any educated person knows that PELE is a gawd - of soccer to be
precise - one of the world's greatest footballers!
|
| 155.60 | | RANCHO::HOLT | Don't see any points on those ears.. | Tue Oct 13 1987 22:46 | 3 |
| re PELE GODDESS
Yeah? She bad, huh?
|
| 155.61 | time for a | ARMORY::CHARBONND | Never tell me the odds. | Wed Oct 14 1987 09:12 | 1 |
| *******RATHOLE ALERT*******
|
| 155.62 | Let's give peace a chance. | MSDOA2::CUNNINGHAM | | Fri Nov 06 1987 12:05 | 70 |
| One thing about a rathole, it can in someways be a form of
"comic relief" when the flames have gotten a bit warm.
When I was young my parents and I would sometimes have
"discussions" about some form of my behavior that they would be
upset about. At that time I first noticed a curious psychological
process that I have since seen repeated in various forms.
One parent would express their concern in a moderate tone and
give examples of my offending behavior. The other parent would
pick up where the first left off, add a little more heat, and give
a few more examples. When the second parent was finished, the first
would continue on, add a little more heat and a few more examples.
(I guess I provided many examples. -:) Anyway, what would start
out as a mild discussion would escalate as the two of them took
turns "discussing" my problems. By the end of the "discussion"
they would be seriously upset and very angry.
My fear is that this type of "crowd effect" (for want of a better
term) can easily occur in a notes file. As each noter adds a little
heat to the previous note, readers who may not have been that upset
at the beginning of their reading eventually become "white hot".
I am pleased that the male noters that agree with Bob that some
of the notes in "that other conference" are hostile to men have
not egged Bob on and sought to add fuel to the fire. We may have
sinned though by not collectivly seeking to through some water on
the flame. For this I personally apologize.
Bob, I agree with many of the things you and other men have
stated about feeling like the men are not being given a fair shake
in Womannotes unless we are willing to be "honorary women". I also
agree that often a double standard is applied when our comments
in that file are picked apart. Still it is important that we not
adopt some of the same methods that we object against in discussing
the notes of others. Communication is difficult under any
circumstances, and especially so when there are no facial expressions
to give us a non-verbal message. Sometimes I feel we need to look
beyond the printed word and into the heart of those speaking. When
people don't care about you, that don't bother to talking to you,
they simply ignore you. Sometimes a note contains a mixed message,
and we have a choice about which message was intended and which
one what simply poorly stated. In the spirit of doing unto others
as I would have them do to me, I try to give someone the benefit
of the doubt. Even if that particular noter is not responding
in kind. There is a difference between accusing while asking for
clarification, and genuinly seeking greater understanding of the
other's point of view. Sometimes the questions of others, if gently
put, have led me into the type of soul searching I needed to truely
understand my own opinions. If I detect hostility in someone's
comments, it is very difficult for me to "really" listen, no matter
how valid their comment might be.
As my wife would be the first to point out, I often fail to
practice what I believe. I don't believe it comes naturally or
easy for one to do so, but it is a goal to strive for, and one that
I believe is worth supporting in each other. Let's show a little
love for one another, as corny as that sounds, and seek to inspire
each other towards noble goals. I know I have many times been touched
by the notes of Jim Burrows in his courage to speak from the heart
and from his convictions without seeking to offend. I have never
met the man, but he has often made me proud that I am of the same
gender as he and others like him.
DRC (David)
P.S. Living in Memphis, I don't have the opportunity to attend the
noter's parties that occur in New England, which saddens me. Know
that I am with you in spirit, and look forward to the day when we
can meet in love and brotherhood. (And for you, Suzanne, sisterhood.)
|
| 155.63 | Groupthink | LEZAH::BOBBITT | sprinkled with syntactic sugar | Fri Nov 06 1987 13:16 | 15 |
| re: -.1
your note mentions something I recalled from my "intro to social
psychology" course. Mob psychology, where people bolster each others'
rationales for doing something they might not otherwise do, or convince
each other that what they are doing is right even though it may
actually be unjustifiable, is called "Groupthink". We all do it.
The government, the people, even the noters...
But if we're aware of it, we can avoid it...we can stick to our
guns and state our opinions simply and succinctly, discuss rationally,
and avoid those vermicious ratholes.
-Jody
|
| 155.64 | and thoughts on this sucker? | NZOV01::MCKENZIE | Set Mind/State=TAG | Thu Jun 23 1988 04:58 | 28 |
| I would be interested in opinions on the following situation...
as a young lad Living in in a smallish city in New Zealand I did
a bit of work with crippled children, problem teenagers and through
my local dramatic society (I used to do the lighting and sound there)
I got asked to help out behind a bar, serving drinks at a local
"gentlemen's club". All the members were retired ex-servicemen or
veterans who used to frequent this club on weekends for a chat,
a game of pool and either a few drinks or a meal. All were either
single or widowers and some had virtually nowhere else to socialise.
A friend of mine (a woman) and I used to regularly prepare meals
and serve drinks there. Then the local womens groups decided that
the organisation was "sexist in the extreme" and put enough pressure
on the council to have the club closed down.
Fair enough - I suppose, but less than a year later a Womens Forum
was held in the same place and men were FORBIDDEN from attending!
isn't this just sexual discrimination in reverse??
PS: a women-only club has opened up there now - They wont even let
a guy work behind the bar!!
what the hell is society coming to that the communication gap between
men and women seemd to be getting larger instead of smaller.
Phil_who_belives_in_EQUAL_rights_for_EVERYONE!
|
| 155.65 | Whoa, deja vu! | COMET::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Thu Jun 23 1988 05:22 | 12 |
| You wouldn't believe how much I argued against a very similar
sort of thing in another situation. I kept reminding the people
that they were doing the very same thing that they so heartily objected
to. Somehow, they rationalized that their discrimination was OK.
What you should realize, though, is that the ones who do this
do not represent most women. In my experience, most will object
to this type of situation as well as the one where the men were
the discriminators. Either have their club shut down, or ignore
them.
Greg
|
| 155.66 | Hmmm it does happen that way .. sometimes .. | 3210::EARLY | Bob_the_hiker | Thu Jun 23 1988 13:45 | 18 |
| re: .64
The same sort of thing is happening in Boston right now (closing
down an all male club). What the city is doing, is gioving them
30 days to change or they'll have their liquor license revoked.
There are/were several womens clubs were routinely declared themselves
"unique" to womens support as an "all female" club, but demanded
that all mens clubs be declared illegal. Fortunately, neither of
these situations is agreable to all women nor all men .. just some
of each.
Currently I am member of an "all male club", but it is "uniquely
of service to men only", and women may be be admitted. But then,
we don't have a liquor license and no decent woman would want to
join anyway.
//rwe
|