Conference quark::mennotes

         That word "listen" makes me cringe. It sounds like a good idea,
    but in reality is an experience unpleasantly similar to the Chinese
    water torture. 

    
    No, listen should not make you cringe. I know what you mean, as far as
    what you have to listen to, though. Men think logically, women think
    emotionally.
    
    I take it you are still in a stable relationship? (married, or
    whatever?)
    

         I haven't had any sort of relationship for the past 25 years, and
    it's probably because I can't stand to listen to someone ramble on. I
    have enough problems of my own:: no need to get involved with someone
    else's troubles. 

    
    Frying a ferret on a no-stick skillet should keep you busy enough..
    

    Re .0
    
    This is another one of those topics I'd probably have better
    luck arguing the existence of God with a Southern Baptist Preacher,
    but what the heck....
    
    >We can make life so much better if we listen more carefully.
    
    I did. That's just the trouble. When I got by the doublespeak/
    doublethink that women are "sugar and spice and everything nice"
    and started looking what is _really_ going on, not just what
    the propagandists would like us to believe, it got rahter 
    uncomfortable.
    
>    Women are not always right. Neither are men. Women have the short end
>    of the stick right now. Let's listen, and give them full chance. Maybe
>    the world would be better off with a female-dominating influence.
    
    If you want to go around beating yourself up because you were born
    a man, be my guest,  but this "women have the short end of the 
    stick" is just the type of propaganda the liberals would like us
    to believe.  Other than, maybe (debatable), comparable income,
    and maybe (debatable) power in the corporate office women pretty
    much have the power in most everything else.

>    Our generation sucks as far as men-women communication goes. There are
>    many reasons for this.
>    But men have to listen to women more. We have the power, they want it,
    > let's work something out.
    
    If this worked both directions, I might be more interested, but this
    "what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable" doublethink
    you can keep.

    fred();

    >Frying a ferrret on a no-stick skillet should keep you busy enough..
    
    Booo!! Bad!!:) 

    Hmmm,
    
    I am not sure how you can possibly understand women, or men for that
    matter. Listening to one woman/man or a number of women/men is not going 
    to tell you much about the next one of that sex that you meet. Everyone 
    is different in their own way and this stero typing of groups is, in 
    itself, a problem.
    
    I try to accept people for what they are and I expect people to accept me 
    for what I am - an individual.
    
    Martin  
    
    
    
    
    

    I find the base note rather interesting and quite appalling.  It makes
    some rather sweeping generalizations and presents them as "facts". 
    Then asks that things change.
    
    I can only speak for myself but I can unequivocally state that I have
    no more power in my family, job or society than anyone else.  I have no
    power to share.
    
    My wife and I have been married for almost 30 years and during that
    time she has made just about every decision from where we live, what
    furniture we have, where we vacation and whether or would accept a
    promotion if it entailed relocation.
    
    As a Manger withinDigital I have always hired and promoted people based
    on merit and ability.  Gender never entered into a decision.
    
    I can, however, state that the reverse is not always true.  My
    sister-in-law is probably one of the biggest liberals I have ever
    encountered.  she has consistently touted the feminist/liberal line in
    all issues.  She has voted for Jesse Jackson and every Democrat since
    McGovern.
    
    She was the Director of Public Relations for a major hospital in
    Indiana for about 10 years.  I asked her once how she dealt with the
    men in her Department.  She indicated that no men worked in her
    department.  I asked her in the 10 years she was there just how many
    men did she hire.  Zero.  I said I found that interesting in that in
    all that time she never had one man apply for a job in her department. 
    She said men had applied, but she never hired them.  I asked if they
    were qualified, and she said they certainly were, but she would not be
    comfortable working with men as she had nothing in common with them. 
    She said that she would not want to have men around if women were
    discussing "women" things.
    
    A while later she was all upset that she was in ameeting with other
    department heads, men, who happen to be discussing a bachelor party
    that some of them were at over the weekend.  She said that she talked
    to personnel about sexual harrassment because she was uncomfortable
    with the topic, even though almost nothing graphic was said.  Now,
    would it be appropriate for these men to take the same position she did
    - only men as women make them uncomfortable and they can't talk about
    "men" issues.
    
    Also, when I was in grad school in Chicago back in the 70s about 10% of
    the classes were women.  I don't know what the % is today, but this
    would certainly indicate that there is a larger pool of educated men
    with more experience to fill top manangement slots.  this obviously
    will change over time, but the argument put forward today is that
    experience, etc doesn't matter.  Just because there aren't enough women
    in these positions indicates that they are discriminated against.  this
    is obviously untrue.
    
    Until some of these issues get addressed by the women in our society,
    you will continue to hear about men having the power, etc.
    

    At one of my doctor's offices, I saw a photograph of my doctor's
    grandfather's graduating class for medical school (the photograph
    was taken in the very early 1900s, prior to 1910 I believe.)

    This medical school graduating class was almost HALF women. I found
    it stunning because I thought that it was a modern thing for women
    to be so prominent in higher education.

    If you look at the stats, women are being educated at a rate that is
    roughly 50/50 in most curriculums today (with a few exceptions.)

    Getting the education isn't enough, though.  When it comes to 'contacts'
    for the upper management positions, it's still a Boys' Club, primarily.

    This is the biggest reason why women have pushed to allow women
    into the Citadel (the military college which is finally agreeing to
    allow women into their regular day programs.)  In the South, most of
    the CEOs are Citadel graduates.  If women can't get into the places
    where men make their contacts to get high up in management, then women
    aren't allowed to make it to those levels (and yes, it is a matter
    of discrimination.)

    .9
    
    Two apparent discrepancies with your note.  the reason contacts are
    primarily a "Boy's Club" is because today most CEOs are men.  that is
    changing as is evident right here at Digital.  An increasing number of
    executives are women.  As more women get the education and experience,
    more COEs will be women.  It will obviously take time as experience is
    time related.  It's difficult to have 25 years of experience in less
    than 25 years.  Also, women may tend to create a self-excluding
    environment as my sister-in-law did.  Claiming to want to be part of
    the club and then complaining that you don't like what goes on in the
    club makes you less likely to be a member.
    
    Also, you claim that "most" CEOs in the South are graduates of the
    Citadel would indicate that 80-90% of the CEOs are gradutes.  If this
    were true then the Citadel would have a waiting list into the next
    generation.  such is not the case.  Shannon Faulkner did not enroll in
    the Citadel because of her perceived need to get into the "Boy's Club". 
    According to the interviews I saw she claimed she did to see if she
    would be accepted since the application did not request the gender of
    the applicant.  Also, most of the men interviewed indicated they
    attended the Citadel in order to enter the military, not the business
    world.
    
    Also, if there is no intrinsic benefit to a single-sex institution, why
    have many women-only colleges fought to keep men out.  If true equality
    is the goal, then I would think that women-only colleges would be the
    first to be eliminated.  If there is a basis for supporting and
    approving women-only colleges then the same applies to men-only.  The
    tax supported issue is nonsense since every college receives tax
    support, even the private colleges.  this support takes the form of
    scholarships, grants and tax-exempt contributions.  there is no
    institution that does not receive tax support in one fashion or
    another.
    

    
    
    
                  RATHOLE ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    fred();

    RE: .10  Rocush
    
    > It's difficult to have 25 years of experience in less than 25 years. 
    
    The women who *DO* have the educations and 25 years' experience won't
    make it to CEO if the "Boys' Club" grooms *men only* to the positions 
    that lead to the very highest positions in companies.
    
    No one is asking that women be promoted to CEO right out of college.
    Some are asking that women who DO have the education and experience
    and the talent to be upper managers be given the opportunity to do so.

    re .12
    
    And I suppose you know all of these people and will give us upteen
    thousand examples because you are so worldly...
    
    RATHOLE ALERT BIG TIME... ;)

    No need to flip out, Dom.
    
    If you disagree with my statements, just explain why.
    

         Uh, for one thing they're long winded and confusing. Make your
    point, don't ramble on!!! 

    Ed, you didn't address the content of my note at all.
    
    Apparently, you agree with what I wrote.
    
    Thanks.
    

    .12
    
    The major problem with your point is that the available pool of women
    with 25 years experience, with the education and with the skill and
    talent is a very small pool today.  The available pool of men with the
    appropriate background is HUGE in comparison.
    
    As time goes on the available pool of women will increase geometrically
    and there will be HUGE pools in both sexes to select from and then a
    selection can truly be based on merit and skill, not to arbitrarily
    fill some quota.
    
    Right now that seems to be the argument around there not being very
    many women in upper management, CEO positions.  Putting a woman in a
    slot just because she is a woman is wholely without merit.  It would be
    just as bad to put anyone in a slot just because they happen to be the
    right whatever.
    
    I t appears as if there is too much screaming about the numbers as
    opposed to the fact that the available pool of the most talented,
    today,favors men.  I expect this to change over the next several years
    and then we can debate how do you determine the best, as that should be
    the only selection for a position - is this person the best.
    
    Until then, any arguments to the contrary have nothing to do with merit
    and everything to do with a separate agenda based on a perceived
    getevenwithemism.
    

    re .16
    
    Why bother challenging something with no real content.  These are only
    your opinion and nothing more.  They are not facts but your
    interpretation of what you think things are like.  You may be able to
    find one place or another that might fit the bill but you can't expect
    us to swallow this stuff when you try to apply it across the board.
    All you have done so far in this conference is gotten alot of notes
    rateholed and shut down, now do you think that this is a real
    contribution to this conference or what?  As far as I am concerned if
    you can't intelligently contribute, then don't bother period.  A person
    with all of your education should be able to understand what almost
    everybody in this conference has been telling you about your input.
    However, education and intelligence are not necessarily synonymous.
    Remember, most of us in hear can intelligently hold a conversation
    without skewing the facts, without changing the subject at hand and
    without calling names or getting the dam notes file write locked.
    Did this response challenge your .12 enough???
    
    Dom 
                                                                       

    RE: .17  Rocush

    The newest round of the women's movement happened 32 years ago.
    We have plenty of women in the past 32 years who have been trying
    to make it up the ladder.

    The main problem is that (despite the education and the decades of
    experience) women aren't being promoted to the positions close to
    CEO - so, obviously, the pool of women at this level of most 
    companies is small (because the women have already been denied the
    opportunities to get this high up in their companies.)

    How many more decades or centuries will we hear people say, "Well, 
    gee, women just haven't been in the work force in massive numbers
    long enough to get the needed experience."

    The women are already in place.  Companies need to stop grooming
    mostly-men for their top positions.

    RE: .18  Dom
    
    > Did this response challenge your .12 enough???
    
    It didn't even begin to challenge it.
    
    Where are your facts?  You didn't offer a single statistic or a
    single reference to prove anything you said (nor did you trash
    Rocush for not providing facts with statistics and references
    in his notes, either.)
    
    Move beyond your aggression.

    .19
    
    The latest round of the women's movement may have started 32 years ago,
    but they certainly weren't in the workforce or grad schools at that
    time.  As I stated in an earlier note, my grad school class, in
    business, was only about 10% women - and this was 20 years ago.
    
    I still contend, based on personal experience, the pool is no where
    near as large as you would like to make it sound.  YOu may not like
    this, but they are the facts as I personally saw it.
    

    The women's movement is 148 years old.  Women have been getting
    higher educations for a long, long time.

    The latest surge of the women's movement is 32 years old on its
    own (and it did mean a huge increase in opportunities for women,
    especially by the early 1970s, i.e., 25 years ago.)

    Your personal experience may be different, but the fact remains
    that many talented women with education and experience are available
    for the ladder to higher management positions.  They simply aren't
    being promoted to the positions close enough to CEO to make it all
    the way to the top.  (This is called, incidentally, "The Glass Ceiling.")

    My Mother's father was in his late 40s when she was born - he graduated
    from college with a Journalism degree in 1901.

    Not only did he go to school with plenty of women in his day, he was
    very, VERY adamant about his daughters finishing college.  (He died
    when they were in their teens, unfortunately.)

    He claimed vehemently (all the way into the 1930s, where he died)
    that women needed educations every bit as much as men needed them.

    In other words, he died 30 years *before* the latest upsurge of the
    women's movement (yet, HE came from a time when plenty of women were 
    getting educations at his school along with men in 1901.)

    
    One of the problems I have with this "glass ceiling" business is
    that there seems to be an over abundance of those who think that
    since _they_ aren't a CEO, then it must be because there is a 
    "glass ceiling".
    
    fred();

    re .23
    
    As you said in .22, your experience may vary.  
    
    fred();

         Okay, to address the content of your note, it just sounds like
    more hateful feminist propaganda. But by now, this doesn't surprise me. 
                             

    RE: .24  Fred
    
    > One of the problems I have with this "glass ceiling" business is
    > that there seems to be an over abundance of those who think that
    > since _they_ aren't a CEO, then it must be because there is a 
    > "glass ceiling".
    
    Well, I've never met *anyone* who believes in the 'glass ceiling'
    because she (personally) is not a CEO. 
    
    I have met an overabundance of those who translate:
    
    	"We're talking about talented, educated, experienced women..."
    
     into:
    
    	"We're talking about women right out of college..."
    
     or:
    
    	"We're talking about why I (specifically) am not a CEO yet..."
    
    
    The solution is a matter of accepting straight-forward English.

    RE: .26  Ed
    
    > Okay, to address the content of your note, it just sounds like
    > more hateful feminist propaganda. But by now, this doesn't surprise me. 
    
    This doesn't address the content of my note in any way.
    
    It's just a personal remark coming from your own emotional state.
    
    Try again.  Think about the actual issues being discussed.  Think
    about something beyond yourself.

    
    
    
    I would personally recommend to all in MN to not respond to Suzzanne 
    untill she tones down her arrogence. I find her offensive the way she 
    demeans men. I have complained to the moderator about this but
    he thinks Suzzanne is not offensive enough to justify any kind of action  
    to be taken. 
    This is unfortunate because Suzzanne does make some valid points and
    I (and I think most others) welcome alternative points of view in MN.
    
                                          Thankyou,  Bill
                                               

Suzanne:

  Don't take it badly. Some men are just *SO* emotional, ya' know? :-)

                                   Atlant

Unfortunately, I see Suzanne's attempts to further her cause, through her
unique style of noting, as possibly driving people away from said cause,
other than attracting them to it. Very much the same results as the Radical
Christian Right has in driving many people away from religion in general. 

I try to keep in mind when reading Suzanne's replies, that her feelings on the
subject are hers and hers alone, and that she does not speak for every woman
out there. However, because we're not hearing from a larger sample of women,
it becomes harder to maintain an open mind on the subject. That's when I begin
to question the whole validity of the woman's movement and what it stands for.
But then I realize, wait...this is one woman's view... 

But Suzanne is also not alone. A lot of the male responses in here I find are
equally as damaging, but of course with results the other way around. And it
becomes apparent then, why Suzanne feels the need to continue her wrath in
order to get her point across. That, and the fact she is one of only a very
few women participating here and she is surely outnumbered. 

I hope Suzanne keeps in mind however, that the bulk of her audience are men,
and that many of them, but not all, have had experiences that have led them to
doubt the agenda of the woman's movement. It would be similar to an Atheist
going into the Christian Notes file, and not understanding why no one there
can agree with their point of view. 

If the pit bull style attacks continue on both sides, it will only help to
drive us all further apart. And I don't think that is what most of us are 
looking for.

Bob

> However, because we're not hearing from a larger sample of women,

  There's actually a lesson here. There's no shortage of men
  noting in =WOMANNOTES= and many of them are accepted as friends
  of that community, but there's a much more noticeable gender
  imbalance of the noters here in MENNOTES. Perhaps Suzanne isn't
  the problem?
                                   Atlant

        re .32

    Actually I've found other notes files to much less tolerant of
    dissenting opinion than MN.  Notably people who have been banned
    from said conferences in order to provide "safe" space for 
    "discussion".

    fred();

    .31
    
    I believe that there is a lot to be learned and gained through
    discussion with people with divergent views and opinions.  I would look
    forward to a discussion that actually dealt with the topic and could
    put forward ideas that were worthy of consideration.
    
    Unfortunately the subject of your note is unwilling to ever deal with
    the actual content ofa note or a discussion string.  I have all too
    often seen replies that were untrue, factually inaccurate, personally
    demeaning, intellectually dishonest and consistently taking statements
    or words out of context.  this type of action does nothing to further
    an opinion and generally ends up ratholing a topic since most
    respondents are re-hashing a statement to try and get an honest
    response to the information entered.  Instead, it ends up with more
    distortion and out-of-context responses.
    
    I am unwilling to buy into a contention that men do ...... whatever,
    just because it is claimed.  If information can be provided that
    actually supports the position without the sexist distortions and
    propaganda, a lot of movement could be obtained right here in this
    file, let alone in society in general.  As long as the distortions and
    misstatements keep being made the animosity obviously will continue.
    
    Aslso, as far the note about womenotes being more tolerant, etc.  I
    entered one note, which was actually a question.  The note was returned
    by the moderator as being inappropriate as the conference was for women
    primarily and my question was not in keeping with the conference.  so
    the understanding I have of that conference is that unless you accept
    the positions of the members, don't participate.  I find that
    conference very intolerant and basically avoid it.
    

> I find [WOMANNOTES] very intolerant and basically avoid it.

  But the statistics don't lie: Far more men find WOMANNOTES
  a pleasant experience than women finding mennotes a pleasant
  experience, at least based on who writes where.

  And your most recent note, BTW, didn't argue the issues either,
  even though that was what you said you wanted to do. Instead,
  you went after the noter(s) again.

  Instead of writing a note that discusses noters, why not simply
  write a note that discusses the topic?

                                       Atlant

    Statics show? Where? The reason why no one has much of a good
    experience here is that this file seems to be a place where wymin wanna
    call us on the carpet and whack our pee-pee's when some are trying to
    get some help, consolus, or a shelter where there is a view from the
    guys side. Instead there is this constant meeeely mouthing of what a
    bad experince people get here. Its the ol attitude determins altitude.
    Sides, At least Steve doesn't lopp off entire strings cause someone is
    staying stuff against the status. I have seen entire strings where its
    not in accourd get shut down.

    .35
    
    Apparently you missed the noe to which I was responding.  The writer
    entered a note stating some things and asking some things.  I answered
    with why notes here tend to get entered in a particular fashion,
    especially in response to one particular entrant.  That seems to be
    directly related to the topic the noter wished to present.
    
    I did not take anything out of context, put in information that was
    unrelated nor raise issues 100s of years old to support my response.
    
    

    Ok, here's another woman's opinion: I basically agree with everything
    Suzanne says, and if some of her notes have a strong tone, it's almost
    always in response to some particularly galling, inflammatory note.
    Some of the men in here don't even seem to realize what patriarchal
    attitudes they have. As far as why more women don't note in here,
    who likes to get attacked and torn apart when they're obviously out-
    numbered? I've gotten involved in a few strings here, only to be
    insulted, taken out of context, and otherwise dumped on. So why bother?
    To be sure, there are men in this conference whose points of view agree
    with mine, but many of the more vocal members seem to be part of the
    good-old-boy network. 
    
    I do appreciate the open-mindedness of the basenoter, by the way. It
    seems like even the men whose viewpoints are more empathetic toward
    women are discouraged from speaking their minds. Even they get dumped
    on. It seems like the good ol' boy contingency just wants to shut the
    rest of us up. I, for one, really appreciate the courage of the men
    (and women) who speak up.

    I think that noting in MENNOTES has been basically helpful. I live on
    this earth with other people and other people classify as men and
    woman. I find tolerance with those who try to understand the other
    side, I find pity and disgust for those that are insulting or intolerant of
    the others existance. Face it, if we didn't have one or the other
    neither would exist. So for some twisted natural reason, we both exist.
    Having not lived Betty Beautiful's life and had everything done for me
    I can say, I've been hurt plenty of times and I've hurt someone plenty
    of times. But I don't judge men by one mans behavior, nor should any of
    those men judge woman by my behavior. Things happen in life and as part
    of our maturity into adulthood(whatever age that might be), we learn to
    accept others as they are, we change things that are changable about
    ourselves and we grow wiser fror the developement. I have learned many
    things from mennotes, I savor each great suggestion, I ignore what
    doesn't apply to me. I will answer with my opinion if asked. I 
    don't find that some peoples out of ball park answers are the sum of
    all men. I love men. There are some I would much rather do with out.
    But even women can sound as bad as some of these notes from the guys. I
    think that this is a comfortable place for men, as womennotes is
    comfortable for women, and when the comfort zone is invaded....well, I
    know what I react like if my comfort zone is invaded.
    
    I think most of these notes are pretty intelligent and fact finding.
    But some are a bit harsh, maybe intolerant and I don't read those, I
    next unseen past them.
    

    
 >> Unfortunately the subject of your note is unwilling to ever deal with    
 >> the actual content ofa note or a discussion string. 
    

That is correct...my note did not touch on how to deal with the actual content
of a note or discussion. However, it was not unwillingness on my part to do
so. I just can't possibly touch on every point in one reply. 

In dealing with a note or discussion where one may find repeated use of
erroneous data, outright lies, excessive vitriol, anger, etc., each person has
to deal with it in their own personal way. 

As a read-mostly noter, I make frequent use of the NEXT UNSEEN key under those
conditions, as I would guess many others do also. I may go so far as to
automatically NEXT UNSEE(n) any reply from that person for some period of
time, or until I think they've calmed down. I never give up on them entirely
though, because they may have something useful to offer in another discussion.
You may feel this is whimping out...so be it. 

Others, however, may feel the need to stand up and fight it out. Maybe because
they feel it's a travesty to let this person continue with what they think are
outright lies and untruths, and that this just cannot be let go undebated.
Maybe it's because they feel they need to get the last word in on the
subject...that if they don't, everyone else will follow behind the last word
said by the other guy. Yeh, right. In any case, I can see then how some people
feel there is no way they can back down. 

However, I feel that if one or both sides are not able to keep level heads, it
only helps to drive them further apart and dig their heels deeper. This then,
may begin to divide the community as a whole, the result being not what either
side had intended. *THAT* was the gist of my previous note. 


Bob

    
    re .38

>    Ok, here's another woman's opinion: I basically agree with everything
>    Suzanne says, and if some of her notes have a strong tone, it's almost
>    always in response to some particularly galling, inflammatory note.

    As I've said before, Suzanne certainly isn't alone in her attitudes
    and opinions, and it hasn't been just blowing steam when I'v stated
    that she makes a better example than anything else.

>    Some of the men in here don't even seem to realize what patriarchal
>    attitudes they have. 

    There have also been _women_ who have entered notes basically in
    support of these issues.  Is it because they have a "patriarchal"
    attitude.  Or is a "patriarchal", like so many other doublethink
    catch-phrases, just anyone who disagrees with your opinion?

>As far as why more women don't note in here,
>    who likes to get attacked and torn apart when they're obviously out-
>    numbered? 

    I think "attacked and torn to pieces" is another one of those catch-
    phrases.  Outnumbered?  Well, this _is_ Mennotes.  I've yet to see a 
    note or topic deleted or a person banned because they dared disagree 
    with the status-quo.

>It seems like the good ol' boy contingency just wants to shut the
>    rest of us up. I, for one, really appreciate the courage of the men
>    (and women) who speak up.

    Again another one of those doublethink hyperbole like "starving
    children" and "homeless grandparents".  Silenced?  I've yet to see
    any noted deleted or people banned simply for disagreeing with
    other noters.  One thing I agree with Steve about is that this
    conference remain open to all who can maintain some modicum of
    civility.  However, I have found it necessary at times to fight
    fire with fire.  I've also found, like Frank Capra, that the best 
    "propaganda" of all is the truth.

    fred();

    .38
    
    Apparently there is a significant difference in viewpoint.  Part of
    your response was:
    
    I do appreciate the open-mindedness of the basenoter, by the way. It
    seems like even the men whose viewpoints are more empathetic toward
    women are discouraged from speaking their minds. Even they get
    dumped on. It seems like the good ol' boy contingency just wants to shut
    the rest of us up. I, for one, really appreciate the courage of the men
    (and women) who speak up.
    
    You claim that the basenoter was being discouraged form speaking his
    mind or that the good ol' boy contingency wantws to shut the rest of
    the people up.  You seem to be taking disagreement with the contention,
    or a challenge to the position as being negative.  You then interpret
    that disagreement into an aspertion that some one is being dumped on.
    
    I disagreed with the basenoter.  I entered information supporting my
    position and identifying why I felt the basenoter was incorrect.
    
    If you take this difference of opinion as attempting to shut someone
    up, then at least there is some understanding of your views.  I did not
    see a response to the information I entered nor the content of my note. 
    I read some relatively inaccurate statements, but nothing that
    addressed the opinion I put forward.
    
    If that's being a member of the good ol' boys contingent, then I gues I
    must be, but I definitely don't agree with you.
    

It is the policy of this conference that it is equally open to men and women;
neither gender gets any preferential treatment, nor is there any attempt
to segregate portions of the conference.  The conference is dedicated
to topics pertaining to men, but I interpret this very broadly.

					Steve (co-moderator)

    .40
    
    Ooops, excuse me.  My use of the word subject was the person about whom
    you wrote your note, not the subject of your note.
    
    Sorry for any confusion or misinterpretation this caused.
    

    RE: .31  Bob Boisse
    
    Thanks for calling my noting style "unique" - I appreciate it, even
    if it isn't really true.  :)
    
    Our society doesn't hold up very well when women dare to disagree
    with men on equal terms.  It's something we have to fix (bigtime).
    
    When a man and a woman can each stand up to defend his/her position
    without the woman being called 'arrogant' for daring to do so, we'll
    be equal partners in this world.
    
    I'm looking forward to it.  :}

    Hi Folks,,,
    
       I'm new to the Men notes file and i have a hard time understanding
       all the commotion about "Try to Understand Woman" or men for that
       matter.
    
       I think Women are Awesome and i enjoy there company very much!!!
       Besides life should be a fun thing and with out them,,,it wouldn't
       be so much fun.
    
       So why get so Deep into understanding them,,,just love them for what
       they are!!!
    
                                                          ,,,,,,,Vic
    

    Regarding note 237.9 by SPECXN::CONLON
    
    >>Getting the education isn't enough, though.  When it comes to 'contacts'
    >>for the upper management positions, it's still a Boys' Club, primarily.

    I think that this is self serving. There are a lot of women CEOs, 
    there are a lot of women that are starting or have started their own 
    companies as well, or are you only talking about the Fortune 1000? 
    
    What made people successful yesterday doesn't apply today. We are
    evolving. Society is evolving and business as well. Education,
    information, travel and the internet are going to speed up the
    changes. Tomorrow it might be a 'Techos' Club' that holds most of the
    management positions and networks with each other and grooms other 
    techos for CEO positions. It's just part of the pattern, the way people
    manage things. Not the way that men manage things, or women manage
    things, or techos manage things, just the way that people tend to do.
    
    I don't think that women need to push to allow women into the Citadel 
    to be CEOs.  That's what worked yesterday.  Today other things will
    work and other people will be successful. The Citadel is what it is,
    good, bad or indifferent and trying to make it into something else is
    probably not worth the effort. Making something new that is more
    inclusive might be worthwhile.   
	
    >>This is the biggest reason why women have pushed to allow women
    >>into the Citadel (the military college which is finally agreeing to
    >>allow women into their regular day programs.)  In the South, most of
    >>the CEOs are Citadel graduates.  If women can't get into the places
    
    
    Most of the CEOs in the South are Citadel graduates?  Where did this
    statistic come from?  
    
    Angela
    
    
    

    re: 237.35
    
    >>But the statistics don't lie: Far more men find WOMANNOTES
    >>a pleasant experience than women finding mennotes a pleasant
    >>experience, at least based on who writes where.
    
    ok, maybe statistics will show that more men note in WOMANNOTES
    than women in MENNOTES but what is this 'a pleasant experience'
    is that part of the stats or did you gather this from what men
    wrote in WOMANNOTES?  or what women wrote in MENNOTES or nevermind
    it's all a bit much.  They have different styles. WNs tends to be 
    a bit pedantic. MNs is less structured. 
    
    I note in both but am mostly read only...
    
    angela
    
    
    
  

    Anyone catch the 60 Minutes piece the other night on this organization
    called the Independent Women's Movement (or something close to that; 
    I don't think I have that quite right)?  The group made a lot of valid
    points including the sentiment that the mainstream women's movements
    (NOW, etc.) have treated mothers and non-careerists as second-class 
    citizens within their inner management circles.  Apparently the group 
    has put a scare into the traditional feminist movements because the 
    factions are going at it toe-to-toe (with nary a male in sight ;-).
    
    The IWM claims to be a body that accentuates the positive with an 
    acknowledgement of great progress in equal rights, while labeling NOW 
    as an out-of-touch organization still practicing devisive, male-bashing 
    techniques.  For their part NOW labels the IWM as a house organ of the 
    Republican Party.
    
    Glenn
    

    The traditional women's movement is 148 years old.  There have been
    setbacks from time to time (just as the Civil Rights movement has
    gone through a number of setbacks since the Civil War) - but the
    women's movement continues to move forward.
    
    For 20 years, people helped keep the women's movement in the news
    by claiming that it was dead.  Now, some will probably help keep
    it in the news by claiming that the women's movement is being
    defeated by some different women's movement.  :/
    
    > The IWM claims to be a body that accentuates the positive with an 
    > acknowledgement of great progress in equal rights, while labeling NOW 
    > as an out-of-touch organization still practicing devisive, male-bashing 
    > techniques. 
    
    IWM 'accentuates the positive' while they also bash NOW, eh?  Yeah,
    right.  :/

Angela:

> I think that this is self serving. There are a lot of women CEOs, 
> there are a lot of women that are starting or have started their own 
> companies as well, or are you only talking about the Fortune 1000? 

  Okay, among say, the Fortune 500, how many woman CEOs are there?

  This should be an easy and non-debatable fact that we can establish.
  You've made the claim, so why not back it up.

                                   Atlant

    
    Anybody ever heard of Concerned Women of America.  They only have 
    something on the order of five million members where NOW _claims_
    500 thousand (most outsiders say _maybe_ 250 thousand).  Guess who 
    gets all the press.  Guess who gets your tax dollars.

    fred();

    > Okay, among say, the Fortune 500, how many woman CEOs are there?
    
    Doing a body count? Perhaps we can go cut the ears of the dead. Both
    ears don't count. Need just one.

> > Okay, among say, the Fortune 500, how many woman CEOs are there?
> 
> Doing a body count? Perhaps we can go cut the ears of the dead. Both
> ears don't count. Need just one.

  Why not just answer the question instead of smart-mouthing?

                                   Atlant

I don't think either CWA or NOW gets any tax dollars.

			Steve

    
    >  Why not just answer the question instead of smart-mouthing?
    
    This looks like another one of those "you must prove your point to
    my satisfaction or else you lose" deals.  Since you were the first
    to make the claim, maybe you should be the first to provide backup.
    fred();

> Why not just answer the question instead of smart-mouthing?

  Here's one partial answer, courtesy of an Alta Vista search
  (search criteria attached). This comes from the page:

    http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/novbyte.html


  "...The [federal Glass Ceiling Commission] found that white
  males comprised 97 percent of senior managers of Fortune 1000
  and Fortune 500 companies. Of Fortune 2000 companies, women
  comprised only 5 percent of senior management positions."

                                   Atlant


Selection Criteria:

(women OR woman or female) AND (CEO or COO or presdient) AND (Fortune NEAR 500)


Results Ranking Criteria:

  women glass ceiling feminism old boy network

  Here's another answer, courtesy of the same Alta Vista search
  This comes from the page:

    http://www.cgim.com/awc/awc_conf.html


  "...Here is a statistic that is the grand whammy of it all: the
  status of women as holders of 2% of senior management positions
  has been unchanged since 1990 and there were 2 women heading
  Fortune 500 corporations in 1994. Today there are NONE!"

  This page is from the "Association for Women in Computing,
  NYC Chapter" and the page is from the time of PC Expo '96.

                                   Atlant

> >  Why not just answer the question instead of smart-mouthing?
> 
> This looks like another one of those "you must prove your point to
> my satisfaction or else you lose" deals.  Since you were the first
> to make the claim, maybe you should be the first to provide backup.
> fred();

  By the way, I didn't "make" any claim. I asked the question
  in response to another noter's contention that there were
  many women heading Fortune 1000 companies.

  But since I'm interested in facts rather than heat, and
  since I had already started the search, I'm willing to
  appear to jump through your hoop anyway.

                                   Atlant

> >  Why not just answer the question instead of smart-mouthing?
> 
> This looks like another one of those "you must prove your point to
> my satisfaction or else you lose" deals.  Since you were the first
> to make the claim, maybe you should be the first to provide backup.
> fred();

  So now that you *KNOW* the answer for at least the Fortune 500
  is *ZERO*, what shall we talk about now?

                                   Atlant

fred:

> Anybody ever heard of Concerned Women of America.  They only have 
> something on the order of five million members where NOW _claims_
> 500 thousand (most outsiders say _maybe_ 250 thousand).  Guess who 
> gets all the press.  Guess who gets your tax dollars.

  While you're fact-checking me on Alta Vista, you may also want
  to look at some of the pages dealing with CWA. You can get a
  pretty good cross-section of this Religious Right organization
  by using the following query:


  Selection Criteria:

    CWA OR (Concerned NEAR Women NEAR America)


  Results Ranking Criteria:

    "home page" CWA Concerned Women America Feminist Feminazi


  At least one of the pages I read (dated from 1996) indicates that
  CWA only has 600,000 members. You're missing 4,400,000. If I were
  you, I'd be concerned about that.

                                   Atlant

George:

  Fine. Why don't we set a quota of, say...


  10.

  or even...


  1!

                                   Atlant

>Note 237.62                Understanding women,Part II                  62 of 63
>ATLANT::SCHMIDT "See http://atlant2.zko.dec.com/"    28 lines  13-AUG-1996 12:05
>                             -< Facts and "facts" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  by using the following query:


  Selection Criteria:

    +concerned +women +america
    
    I get a lot of GLB especially religious righ bashing

>  Results Ranking Criteria:

>    "home page" CWA Concerned Women America Feminist Feminazi


>                                   Atlant
    
    I don't understand the above. Please explain, or is this someone elses
    opinion of them and if so who?
    
    Steve

  CWA doesn't seem to *HAVE* their own home page. So what you
  find are other's opinions of them.

  Is it bashing?

  Well, certainly no more so than the things CWA says about L/B/Gs.

                                   Atlant

    http://www.bbai.onramp.net/wlc/ora2841.htm
    

I also saw (heard actually, I was doing dishes) the piece on 60 Minutes.

I cannot remember if it was the IWM or the CWA they were talking with (can
someone verify this?), so I'll just refer to whatever organization it was as
the <org.>: 

Apparently a member of the <org.> had testified in front of some subcommittee
which was reviewing funding for women's shelters, among other things.
The woman testified that no money should be approprited for such a purpose.

When asked by 60 Minutes why the <org.> would want to deny funding of women's
shelters, the woman questioned the validity of women's shelters, and asked if
anything positive has ever come out of them.  She said something to the effect
that women's shelters do not get to the root of the problem...that they are
only a stop gap...and that the problem still resides in the home, thus the 
funding for them is a waste.

I think this is absolutely hateful towards women who may need this service.

Bob

    
    

    re .65
    >CWA doesn't seem to *HAVE* their own home page. So what you
    >  find are other's opinions of them.
      
    Given that "Christian", according to so many of those groups,
    is supposed to be a dirty word, it doesn't surprise me that you'd
    be able to find a few derogatory postings.  But then, anybody can
    post nearly anything on Internet.

    >Well, certainly no more so than the things CWA says about L/B/Gs.

    When you try to defend your actions by saying "well they are doing
    it", all you are doing is admitting your guilt while the accusation
    against the other remains just an accusation.

    fred();

    
>  "...The [federal Glass Ceiling Commission] found that white
>  males comprised 97 percent of senior managers of Fortune 1000
>  and Fortune 500 companies. Of Fortune 2000 companies, women
>  comprised only 5 percent of senior management positions."

    So that's 3-5% of the senior managers.  As weird as this sound there
    probably are problems but no where as bad as that looks.  I'd guess 
    most senior managers are 50+ which means they graduated college in 1966
    or earlier.  I know that in the mid to late 70s engineering, economics,
    and b-schools all still had pretty low percentages of women students
    (10-20%). I'd imagine guessing that 10% of the students prior to 1966
    were women pursuing career paths that traditionally lead to senior
    management positions is pretty generous.  
              
    That means we're seeing 3-5% with an upper bound of probably around
    10%.  Certainly issues there but no where close to 3-5% when you'd
    expect 50%  (which I believe is implied by not noting the qualified
    population).                                                      

    Greg

    
    

    
    
    re .69

    Also need to factor in the number of low and middle managers that
    were promoted to fill some quota or another then turned out to
    really be unqualified for the job.  When you get to upper manager
    positions companies tend to be a lot more careful that the people
    are really qualified (although we could all probably name at least
    one notable exception to that ;^} ).  This is where "Affirmative
    Action" has hurt a lot of minorities.  To fill a position with an
    unqualified candidate only serves to affirm the stereotype.

    fred();

    I am usually a read only but I want to add a couple of comments.
    When I got my BS in Accounting in the mid-late 70's the percentage of
    women in the class was probably around 15%.  When I got my MBA in the
    early 80's the percentage of women was probably about 10 - 15%.  When I
    got my BSEE in the mid 80's there were probably 30% females in my
    graduating class.  The point is, based on my observations those ratios
    were considerably less that 50%.  And I always joined professional
    organizations and found that at any given time, membership in
    professional organizations (Accounting and Electrical Engineering)
    would tend toward no more than 20 - 25% female members.  Therefore, I
    would conclude that in  taking a look at the most likely age group for
    senior managers, that for the professions that I have mentioned, there
    is a good chance that women would indeed represent considerably less 
    than 50% of the available talent.  
      
    In the 1990s I have noticed that some of the well educated women I knew
    chose to be stay at home moms.  Of those that I have observed in
    the workplace many do not seem to have the same motivation and 
    ambition that men have.  These comments are based on observations of
    women being offered opportunites to get ahead and then turning down
    those opportunities.  However there are some women that do appear 
    to be motivated to be very successful and they have a difficult time 
    breaking through to the line above middle manager (here at Digital 
    I'd say above a level 42).
    So the conclusion that I have reached is that the available pool of
    women that MAY be talented enough to attain CEO is considerably less
    than 50% for the professions mentioned, given educational credentials,
    number of years employed, motivation and seniority in a given
    profession.
    So while I wouldn't expect to see 50% of the Fortune 500 CEOs being
    female, I would expect to see something along the lines of 10% at the
    very least.
    
    My two cents.
    Nancy
                                
    
      
    

    
    
    The current Republican convention is made up of about 33% women.
    Maybe not 50-50 but certainly more than one would expect from the
    party supposedly made up of "hate mongering misogynists".

    fred();

    Hi,
    
    Would someone be so kind as to identify the
    location of the WOMANNOTES file.
    
    Thank you.
    
    Kathleen
    

fred();

> >Well, certainly no more so than the things CWA says about L/B/Gs.
> 
> When you try to defend your actions by saying "well they are doing
> it", all you are doing is admitting your guilt while the accusation
> against the other remains just an accusation.

  Actually, it means:

    o I honestly don't feel like arguing against the strawman of
      "bashing".

    o CWA took their positions before these groups posted their
      opinions of CWA's position.

                                   Atlant

    Thank you for the info.
    
    
    
    Kathleen
    

        re .74

>    o I honestly don't feel like arguing against the strawman of
>      "bashing".

    Or not-so-straw man?

>    o CWA took their positions before these groups posted their
>      opinions of CWA's position.

    And the opinions of those groups are just that--opinions.  As
    has been pointed out here already, just because someone can
    type something into a computer file doesn't necessarily make 
    it true.

    fred();

    In the imortal words of Bullwinkle J. Moose, "If is in print, it must
    be true." 8^)
    

    A deleted one some units past. The Nam war brings out the best and
    worse in humanity. One of the worst was the game of taking body counts
    by cutting off the ears of the NVC. Some would cut both ears off vs one
    and thus giving a false count when adding up the kill to hit ration.
    Sometimes I am reminded of such when I read and hear the body counting
    of stats of who is whom and where in the corporate world. As in, hire
    people for what they can do. Not what gender they are. 

  TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5

  If you don't already have this conference in your notebook and
  would like to add it, press <KP7> or <Select> or type "SELECT"
  and the conference will be added to your notebook.

                                   Atlant

    please read the note again. I said, ' *or* are you only talking
    about the fortune 1000?'.  That is an acknowledgement that there
    aren't many women CEOs in the fortune 1000. There are a lot of 
    women CEOs and women who own their own businesses though and some
    of those companies will be on future Fortune 1000, 500, etc., lists.
    
    angela
     

    
    Additional stats
    
    1/2 of businesses are female owned
    
    Women employ 13 million people
    
    
    Source: 
    Lucy Baney, CEO, Access Technologies
    speaking at a conference created by Susan Jeppeson, CEO and Nancy
    Albertini, Chairman, of Taylor Winfield Partners, a consulting
    firm specializing in information technology marketing, business
    planning and implementation, interim management and executive search.
    
    
    The conference: 
    Women Shaping Technology, Phoenix, AZ Feb, 1996
    
    
    

What the heck did all those replies have to do with the original note???
(Or even the SUBJECT: Understanding Women)

   From the original:   

   > I want to know how we men can understand women better. I have a few
   > suggestions.
   
Take away the last sentence & The following suggestions(not repeated here)
& I believe the replies should have taken a different tact. Shall we start
again.

                                      The game's afoot

                                             Bob Gay

    
    I suppose that if you want to understand someone or something 
    it's a good idea to have a look at life from their perspective.  
    Sometimes if you do that you don't need any other explanation.   
    
    angela
    	
    

Re .84

(Phew) Finally a note that replies to the original- Thanks

Although re-reading I found .7(somewhat) & .46 also were addressed to
the original topic.


                         Thanks again- Bob Gay    

    
    The first thing you have to understand about women is that what they
    say they want and what they really want are often three different 
    things.
    
    fred();

     >   I suppose that if you want to understand someone or something
     >   it's a good idea to have a look at life from their perspective.
    
    Can't.  I've never had PMS.  Although I think maybe I came close one
    time when the dentist gave me a bunch of Percodan(sp) ;^).
    
    fred(); 

     >   I suppose that if you want to understand someone or something
     >   it's a good idea to have a look at life from their perspective.
    
    A few years ago I was interviewing for a new position - in the same
    organization I worked in, just more responsibilities.  I interviewed
    with 4 or 5 people - all women.  I also noted that the person making the
    final decision (the one who controlled the budget) who did not interview
    me was a woman.  The competitors I knew were also women.  I felt like
    an outsider a little bit, and also believed that I needed to be very
    clearly 'better' than the other candidates to even be considered.  I think
    it made me better understand the gender issues women sometimes must 
    deal with when trying to advance their careers. 

    So I agree that its a good idea to look at life from other people's
    perspective when we get the opportunity.

Chuck  

    >>   I suppose that if you want to understand someone or something
    >>   it's a good idea to have a look at life from their perspective.
    
     >   Can't.

Sounds like you really mean "won't".

An open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

By the bulk of your replies, I would say you have not much to lose.

Bob

    re .89
    
    You conviently ignored the smiley face.  I guess George is the only
    one with a sense of humor around here.
    
    fred();

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I saw the smiley face.

If the bulk of your replies in this string led me to believe that you genuinely 
want to try and understand, i would think (re your last reply): heh, funny 
guy!

But I just don't see that. So to me, the "joke" you made becomes something 
more...

Maybe I'm wrong?


Bob

    
    re .91
    
    >Maybe I'm wrong?
    
    You are.  
    
    As I indicated back about .2 or .3 or so,  I made a genuine study of
    women once (still ongoing as a matter of fact).  Not about the
    propaganda generally put out, but what was _really_ going on.
    As I said,  once I got past the "sugar and spice and everything nice"
    part, it wasn't real pretty.
    
    As a ferinstance,  if a guy makes a pass at a woman, it isn't his 
    character or his intentions that make him a heal or a hero.  Nope,
    that is determined solely by how _she_ feels about him making the
    pass.  Now I can't say this is exactly from experience, but I did
    have an abundance of 'em look at me like I just threw up on their
    table just because I asked them to dance.  Those were the ones
    who you'd always hear complain, "Why doesn't anyone ever ask _me_
    to dance"?  Could it be that the guys noticed one pore sap getting
    his face bit off and decided that that wasn't what they had in mind
    for a good time?
    
    fred();

    

    >but I did
    >have an abundance of 'em look at me like I just threw up on their
    >table just because I asked them to dance.  

    BTW, I did have a lot of them accept, too.  Even a few ask me.
    But I did make it a point to not go back where I got treated
    like I'd just unzipped my pants and asked for oral sex just because
    I _dared_ ask _her_ to dance.  And out of all the rubble I sifted
    a diamond...and we've been married over 12 years now.

    fred();

    Getting back to the basic note, it is almost impossible to "understand"
    any group.  You can make some basic generalizations, but can not
    address the total group with any specificity.
    
    A lot of the notes entered here have tended to focus on what the most
    vocal differences are and why there is this highly publicized,but I
    believe, minimal difference.
    
    I believe understanding women, or anyone, is really quite simple.  You
    need to treat them as an individual.  Each person has different ideas,
    concepts, etc.  If you do not like what that person believes, stands
    for, etc then you can dislike that person.  You should not, however,
    try and paint the entire group because of one person.
    
    As I said, I have tended to focus on the vocal minority and why there
    is a very real gulf there.  Until some dialogue can take place this
    group will always be in the un-understandable category.