Conference turris::womannotes-v1

	    Good advice.
	    I'd like to augment Neil's suggestion that "I want responses
	from women only" be changed to "I want responses from women."
	It may be that a male participant of this conference knows some
	women with views on the issue at hand, and can share what they
	had to say.  (I realize that women can speak for themselves, but
	I'm thinking about additional voices that don't have access to
	this conference.)
			<_Jym_>

     This conference is much less useful to me when a significant
     proportion of its writers are men.  I can't learn much about what
     women think when a man writes -- at best, I can learn what a man
     thinks about women. It would also not surprise me much if I discovered
     that many more women would contribute to this conference if a lot
     fewer men did. 
     
     Take a look at conferences such as BAGELS.NOTE or CHRISTIAN.NOTE.
     These conferences, where the overwhelming majority of notes are
     written by Jews and orthodox Christian, respectively, are useful both
     to contributors (as a discussion forum) and to readers (as a learning
     forum), primarily because they are conferences _among_ Jews and
     orthodox Christians, not just _about_ Jews and orthodox Christians. 
     
     I hope that all men could somehow rein in that wild streak of
     egalitarianism/feminism (that each of us surely feels) and just listen
     attentively, speaking up only in those rarest of instances when it is
     absolutely necessary to do so. 
     
     --M Topaz 

    I have moved Q's response here for 2 reasons:
    
    1) Leslie requested "women only" input and it is the part of courtesy
    to honor that, absent a contrary policy.
    
    2) Neil framed the issue very nicely, and Q's response in part
    addresses the issue.
    
    Reason 1 was more figural for me at present than reason 2.
    
    
    
    
                            -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 20.1                 Women threatening to Women?                     1 of 1
POTARU::QUODLING "It works for me...."               11 lines  11-MAY-1986 21:03
                                 -< who me?? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Well, firstly I object to "input from women *only*" as horribly
        sexist.
        
        Secondly, elaborate please. Are the administrative types women
        (as one could infer from the title). How do they let you know
        that they find you threatening?
        
        Thirdly, re your job title, Refer to note 161. in
        SUMMIT::JOYOFLEX. (Maggie may wish to flame on this one.)
        
        q

    Let me turn Neil's very well-framed note into a policy question,
    if I may:
    
    Should the author of a note in this file be able to place restrictions
    on who may respond to the note, with the restrictions being enforced
    if necessary by summary deletion of responses? 
    
    If so, then who may place restrictions, and of what nature?
        
    A) all members may place them
    B) only women members may place them
    C) only men members may place them
    D) no one (except the Moderator(s) ex officio) may place them
    
    1) restriction by sex membership
    2) arbitrary restriction (e.g., "only women over 5-11 of scots
    extraction")    
    
    I will be glad to have the views of all interested parties, women
    and men, but will be guided by the women members.
    
    Please indicate the substance of your vote (e.g., A1, B2) in the
    title line (or whatever it's called) of your response.  I would
    like to close the balloting friday noon, and ask that until there
    is a firm policy in place members honor requests for restriction
    as a matter of courtesy if not conviction.
    
    Thank you all for your patience with me and each other.  Together
    we truly are more than the simple sum of our individual selves.
    
    					=maggie

I'm, with Marge. 

I do not favor deleting or restricting responses simply because they
were written by men (or women under 5'11" not of scots extraction). It
is easy enough to ignore responses _you_ do not consider pertinent,
emphasis on _you_, but which might benefit others. 

Similarly, I think that when a request is politely made, i.e., "I would 
like to hear from women on this", that such a request should be honored, 
with a few exceptions. A man replying to the question with perhaps his 
side of the same experience, or for someone who doesn't have access to 
NOTES, or with the experiences of a person close to him, i.e., "I'll see 
what she has to say about this."

Good manners are the lubricant of society, things run much better with 
them and much more creakily without them.

Tamzen

        Marge (who I consider a mentor) and Tamzen (who I consider a
        namesake) have said it very well.  I cast my vote with them. 
        
        Tom

    I, too, agree with Marge and Tamzen.
    
    Liz

It could be argued that a moth emerging from a cocoon needs time
for its wings to stretch before taking on the rigors of the wind.

But had some kind hand invariably shielded the first moths from the
wind, they would never have developed the robustness to survive the
first flight.

Weakened and beaten down though some of us may be, I cannot imagine
that it is necessary to "spare" anybody from remarks originating in
the peanut gallery, if these remarks are non-abusive.  It is only
decent to respect requests, and failure to do so reflects on those
who do not comply.

Let it always be remembered, by every contributor, that what is said
here effectively becomes part of your corporate identity.


   

    Got to agree with .2 . I too believe that more women might participate
    if more men did more listening.
    
    But I won't vote to restrict other peoples freedoms, so I vote for
    an open conference.  Just seems too bad that the requests and feeling
    of the participants couldn't have been respected a bit more.
    					-Leslie

	    I'm not into exclusion of any kind, and I applaude the
	moderator's current approach:  moving inappropriate messages
	somewhere else, rather than censoring them.
			<_Jym_>

My (Lisa isn't here right now) threatened vote in a previous note for a
Women_only conference was based on the idea that men haven't demonstrated a
lot of restraint in the past.  None the less, common courtesy is a lot more
conducive to good discussion then formal rules.  I'd second (Third or
fourth?) Marge and Tazmen.

And I AM going to start using mail more when talking to the other men in this
conference!


Jes' Byron

  This is a hard question.  I would understand if the decision were to
  exclude men (altogether or from certain discussions), but I hope that
  that's not what happens. 

  My vote is for courtesy, both in respecting the stated wishes of a
  writer, and in not getting carried away arguing technicalities that
  detract from the subject at hand.
					-- hal

    	I don't wish to exclude anyone.  However, I'd really like
    it if people indicated their first name to (usually) clarify
    if the respondent is male or female.  Sometimes neither the
    response nor name is conclusive, however, and the answer is
    confusing as a result.

    This is not an original opinion, but I do want to second the requests
    that base note writers' wishes be observed if they desire responses
    from a certain group only.  I don't think anyone should be restricted
    from posting.  
    
    On the national usenet, I have seen a file followed by a second
    file which is related but primarily devoted to comments on the
    first file.  Would it be a useful compromise to follow a "responses 
    from women only" topic with a "general responses to the previous
    posting" topic?  (Maggie, is there any way to link files like this?)
        
                                                     -Holly

        Gee, I missed all the discussion (I was in Hawaii---truely
        terrible place: no note files :-) :-) :-)).
        
        Personally, while I'm (obviously) interested in the topic
        of this conference, I can't just sit by and passively read
        things with which I disagree, or discussions to which I think
        I can contribute meaningfully.  If responses by men were
        banned (gee, I hope I haven't missed a later note declaring
        that they are!), I would drop this conference from my notebook.
        
        Requests that replies be restricted are reasonable, and should
        be observed... if the requests themselves are reasonable.
        But if you're looking for views on childbirth, or raising
        children in a two working-parent family, then views from
        men with children are far more relevant than replies from
        women who've never had children.  Specifying an exclusion
	for such a topic based only on sex is unreasonable.
        
        If the consensus is really that men aren't wanted here, I'll
        leave.  But I won't sit back and read-only.  When something
        dumb, ignorant, or narrow-minded is said, I need to reply.
        When someone asks for advice, if I have any to offer, I need
        to try to help... nobody says you have to pay attention.
        
        	/dave

I plan to remain read-only except for this word of explanation
and opinion:

I feel that, even though men were welcomed, it makes a
perceptable change in the style and flavor of the discussion
to have men jumping in.  I consider it a privilege just to
be a fly on the wall and listen.

    I realize that I am jumping in to this note after much time has
    elapsed but I wanted to post my opinion on the matter.  
    
    I don't feel men should be excluded from this note file but I do
    feel that they should respect anyones wishes if a particular note
    requests imputs from women only.  I believe (and hope) that We are
    all mature adults and that the intent of this notesfile is not to
    offend or exclude (if it did I wouldn't be here) so why should anyone,
    male or female be offended if they have been requested not to reply
    to a note for what ever reason (Yes, it would be possible to restrict 
    certain  women depending on the subject matter).
    
    Women- would you be offended if a request was made of you not to
    reply to a particular note in this notesfile????  If the shoe is on
    the other foot then how would you feel?
                   
    I am for don't if your specifically requested not to.
    
    PAX                        
    Addie
       

Another male from "out of the woodwork"..

Please be extremely careful about how you restrict access (if any) to this
conference.  You are currently using DEC machine resources (and time, in some
cases).  If you restrict this to WOMEN ONLY, then you may very well be opening
up a very large discrimination problem from a legal point of view. 

And now, back to the woodwork.....

-Joe

Me from the woodwork as well...

Don't restrict the men.  It's unfair and unkind and unethical.  I wouldn't
want to be restricted (tho' could probably use it some time)... What about
the man who has a wife and/or girlfriend (smile) in the same situation
and can offer the perspective of an outsider looking in?

I find opinions in general far too valuable to say "No Men Allowed!".

I will admit that things can get decidedly "dry" and a tad hohum when
we go from personal stories to cold analysis, but I'd sure hate to
miss a well-directed flame or an insight from "the other side".

Bugsy

    I'm just getting around to reading this file, so maybe by now this
    note won't be read.  However...
    
    It is unbelievable to me that such an uproar is created simply because
    women would like to discuss and share their feelings and experiences
    with other woman. The mere fact that men are making this so difficult
    for us, really substantiates the need!
    
    If men were to open a conference for themselves, and asked women
    to please respect that their input was not wanted, I guarantee we
    could accept that as reasonable and respect the request.
    
    I personally would not feel offended, picked on, insulted, or
    insecure with that request.  No more than if professional football
    players opened a conference about *their* specifics and asked that
    only fellow pro-players contribute. What on earh is wrong with that??
    
    Sure, this is company equipment, and often company time.
    But of hundreds of conferences, if there is one or two
    that have requested particular input only, why some of you feel
    compelled to contribute where you're not wanted, is ridiculous
    to me.
    
    Most of the male input in this file has been intelligent, and
    supportive.  But that is not the point. It would be so much more
    comfortable and meaningful for me (and obviously most women) if
    this conference's request to remain for women only would simply
    be respected.
    
    Jacki
    
    
    
    actually differ the most. 
    difference. We are certainly used to 
    a file for 

    This male reader agrees with .22. It is more valuable to ME as a
    (male) reader if males restrict their input. [Although, I confess 
    I have myself contributed a couple times, once addressing this very
    issue (this reply makes three)...]
    
    To reiterate, not that men should never contribute, but to exercise
    extreme caution and circumspection before shooting off our mouths.

    
    I'm replying to note 21, specifically 21.22 from Jackie. Couldn't
    have said it better.   Why so people feel so insecure if they are
    not included in a note for "Women Only" is beyond me!  I too agree 
    if the note said for "men only", I would respect their wishes. I 
    am secure in my role as a female and am not concerned about who 
    gets to read a note and who doesn't.   Mature, secure people can 
    handle the requests.  Right on Jackie!!
               
    Barbara :-)