| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 241.1 | The pendulum swings | EXCELL::SHARP | Don Sharp, Digital Telecommunications | Fri Mar 20 1987 13:37 | 49 |
| My opinion: this trend is the opposite pole of the problem discussed in note
139. Go read my response 139.17 and then come back here.
.....
So what's happening here is that some people, having figured out what the
culture and style of this conference is, have decided that they can't fit in,
so they stop participating. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing,
any more than I thought it was a bad thing around note #108 when we started
hearing a lot of new voices, some of them saying what I thought were pretty
bozo things.
In response to Bonnie's correspondents:
>I don't want to contribute to WOMANNOTES
>because the vocal majority of writers have made it clear to me (at least
>as I see it) that my opinion doesn't count (because I'm male) and
>isn't wanted. These women want WOMANNOTES to be a support group of
>like-minded women, and cannot tolerate opinions other than their own.
^^^^^
Like minded PEOPLE maybe.
>.... Any change will have to come from the women who believe in the
>conference - the men have been disenfranchised.
Well, I'm a man and I don't feel any disenfranchisement. So if this NOTEr's
opinion doesn't count or isn't wanted I submit that his gender is not the
reason.
>...let me just tell you some of what I think. I think the narowness of vision
>that is being displayed in womannotes is so typical of the feminist movement
>and in some ways it is my responsibility to let my voice be heard. I feel
>very strongly that anger will not rid the world of sexism...look what Martin
>Luther King did without anger, look what Gandhi did without anger.
This idea tends to make ME angry. I agree that anger will not rid the world
of sexism, but I don't see sexism going away any faster if women, or
feminists, suppress our anger at injustice.
>With the women's movement ...we have to be sure that we as feminists are
>representative of all our gender. We have to recognize the home engineer
>as well as the techinical engineer.
Well, I as a feminist certainly don't represent all MY gender. But I agree
with the sentiment, which I think is that we as feminists have to recognize
and respect the voices and choices of all women.
Don
|
| 241.2 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Fri Mar 20 1987 14:31 | 26 |
| The problem is a real one, but I suspect that as Don pointed out
it is an inevitable one as well.
I've been told
"Oh I never write in =womannotes=, it's too confrontational"
"Oh I never write in =womannotes=, it's too mindlessly supportive"
"Oh I never write in =womannotes=, there are too many vocal men"
"Oh I never write in =womannotes=, men aren't welcome there"
"Oh I never write in =womannotes=, traditional women aren't wanted"
"Oh I never write in =womannotes=, it's not feminist enough"
"Oh I never write in =womannotes=, the topics are so insipid"
"Oh I never write in =womannotes=, the topics are too far out"
...and so forth.
As we cannot please everyone, I can only hope that those who are
dissatisfied will think about whether the level of their discontent
is lower in other files, and if so why and what might be done about
that in the context of *this* community.
Together we can indeed change the world...if only we can figure
out what to change it *to* :^}
in Sisterhood,
=maggie
|
| 241.3 | Another dissatisfied contributor | MAY20::MINOW | I need a vacation | Fri Mar 20 1987 15:12 | 30 |
| I've been dissatisfied with Womannotes for a while, and have certainly
cut down on the effort I put into my contributions. The specific
incidents that triggered my aversion were two replies to notes I
posted.
In one case, I had mentioned the Swedish parental leave law and a
respondant said more or less that "the men who run Sweden just want
more taxpayers and soldiers." This shows a considerable lack of
knowledge about Sweden, economics, and society. I decided, however,
that it just plain wasn't worth my time to explain (as best I could)
the essential differences between the two cultures as I was quite
certain the writer wouldn't be listening.
In the other case, a respondant had *completely* misunderstood what I
had written (concerning injuries during rape). I send the respondant
a personal message pointing out her misunderstanding, but she didn't
have the courtesy to post a correction.
As with the person/people quoted in .0, I've gotten the feeling that
there is a party line in this notesfile and contrary opinions, aren't
welcome by *all* participants, and -- what is more important -- some
of the more assertive participants aren't always reading what others
are writing.
I read this notesfile for education and enjoyment. When it becomes
boring, I'll stop reading. When I feel my efforts are unwelcome, I'll
stop contributing.
Martin.
|
| 241.4 | It takes all kinds of feminists... | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | the best is yet to be | Fri Mar 20 1987 20:57 | 19 |
| Expressions of anger can take many forms...I am sure Gandhi and
Martin Luther King were angry at the way they and their people were
being treated. But anger is a useless emotion if it is not followed
through with some action that will generate change.
I want to be the best person I can...I am not angry now and I have
sufferred much as a woman. I believe my sin is that I have given
lip service to ideas and philosophies and I need to take action.
Isn't anger via the written word also lip service?
I would like to see issues raised in Womannotes, resolutions suggested
and action taken to resolve the issues.
I would like to feel that it is okay for me to talk about enjoying
my children and grandchildren, enjoying cooking, enjoying women's
magazines without feeling that these activities do not qualify
me as a truly liberated woman!
Joyce
|
| 241.5 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Sat Mar 21 1987 11:20 | 26 |
|
I am not sure whether I will continue to either read or contribute to
this conference.
I believe it is a good idea, and that I have learned considerably more
from my contacts with it than I might have otherwise.
However I remember painfully an instance when I (and other men) responded
to a note, and a woman responded effectively saying "I don't want to
see men post views differing from mine after I have replied". This has
led me to conclude that at least some of the contributors of this file
would like to reduce it to a membership of people all of the same
viewpoint, and exclude others.
Should this ever happen I believe any value it has would be destroyed.
We need all viewpoints, and we need the patience to discuss (not argue,
nor dictate) differences of viewpoint, in order to understand and educate.
So yes I agree we need all voices, but I am not sure whether *I* need
the aggrevation.
/. Ian .\
|
| 241.6 | Ramblings | NRLABS::TATISTCHEFF | | Sun Mar 22 1987 10:38 | 74 |
| You know, every time someone says they don't like/read/participate
in =womannotes=, I get sad. When y'all say the participants are
single-minded, radical, etc, the first thought that runs through
my mind is, "what did I/we do? what is wrong?". Yes the feelings
here can get very strong, but women's forums (fora?) can be so caring
and intimate --towards both male and female participants-- that
I have a hard time understanding why anyone would want to interact
any other way. Here you see so little of the nasty sniping that
ges on in other NOTES files... Anger _is_ displayed, people _do_
get flamed, but the emotions are so genuine and I have only seen
one example of someone being asked (yelled at, actually) to please
go away if he couldn't change his attitude (and that was in the
Date Rape note, a subject which is so incredibly painful, sore,
and touchy that I am still shocked that anyone was able to be even
slightly reasonable about it).
And even in that case, I am sad he "went away" from the whole file
and not just the note.
During the brou-ha-ha of that note, I asked that the "devil's
advocates" not play their word games on that topic because many of us
felt so strongly about what happened to us and our sisters. One man
wrote to say he would delete all his notes and stop participating as he
felt unwelcome. I wrote back to him saying, in essence, "please
don't go, you're a reasonable and sensitive person, I would miss
your contributions." He seems to have gone read-only (maybe he
has left after all), and I miss his presence.
I agree that conversing with someone who seems to have a chip on their
shoulder can feel pointless and unpleasant, but I'm not sure that can
be changed; would you prefer the "noble sufferer" to the "perpetually
angry radical feminist"? For those who feel they get discriminated
against by a male-dominated society, those are really the only choices.
[As an aside, one of the reasons I get so touchy about sexist behavior
is because I get so little of it aimed at me in the professional
world. Perhaps because I seldom even consider that I will be treated
poorly due to my gender, it doesn't happen too much to me. Now
being treated poorly due to my age --or the lack thereof-- is something
that happens a lot, but perhaps that is merited...]
The female voices here range a spectrum which is not all that wide
(consider the separatists...), and lately we have a tendency to flame
the male voices. Personally, I don't mean to and would prefer that
anyone who feels they have been undeservedly flamed say so, in mail
or in the note itself (as happened in the women in bars note).
The protest was heard and supported.
Leaving the community because you feel attacked smacks of walking
out on a fight with an SO: sometimes it is the only recourse, but
it is wholly unproductive in that while it expresses anger and
frustration, it does not address that anger, or the reason for the
fight. If I care to continue a relationship with an SO or a community,
it is worthwhile for me to address the problems therein.
I guess my point is that I feel this is an extremely caring community,
and I don't understand why the anger expressed would cause members
to leave. Just because someone gets mad at you doesn't mean they
don't like you (often it is the opposite...)
All in all, I feel a profound liking for nearly all of the members of
this community, and every time I see a new contributer I want very much
to welcome them and tell them how nice it is to see a new person find
this _fantastic_ file.
If _I_ make anyone uncomfortable, I hope they will "work the issue"
with me, as I hate to exclude anyone. Regarding =womannotes= I
am worse than a born-again Christian who wants to keep their friends
from rotting in hell (no offense intended); I wish every woman and
man could/would be part of such a caring community.
Maybe that's just because I haven't been severely flamed yet.
Lee
|
| 241.7 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Sun Mar 22 1987 11:41 | 29 |
|
I read and occasionally participate in Human Relations, Mennotes, and
of course here.
I find this the most useful conference. *But* I feel nervous about being
here. I have been flamed for tactless remarks, for ill considered remarks,
for miss-stated opinions (English is not my native tongue, and I still
occasionally fall over myself in written communication if I don't go
through a full review cycle, a process that is not easy with notes).
Sometimes I have deserved it. Sometimes it has happened purely because
I stated a differing opinion. Lee may be right - leaving may be like
running out on a fight with my SO. Personally though I don't quite see
this: I know my SO, I discuss/argue face to face. When I am flamed here
I feel that I have no chance to face my accusers, and the experience
is a little like a kangaroo court, with the decision made before the
hearing starts.
If I have said something way off base, then send mail. It may just be
that I have miss-stated my view. That way I can delete and repost my
comment. Of course if I am still off base the gloves are off and I deserve
what I get.
So: I will stay a little longer. I may repost my introduction note.
Meanwhile I will continue to post my remarks when I feel I have something
to contribute. And I will continue to wonder every time I do so whether
I will be flamed for my insensitivity.
/. Ian .\
|
| 241.8 | Displaced anger? | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Sun Mar 22 1987 14:27 | 58 |
| Like Ian, I have often found myself wondering if participation in
WOMANNOTES was worth the aggravation. When I responded to a recent
survey on what conferences I spend the most time with, I was somewhat
surprised to realize that I spend more time with this conference
than any other. And it's not just the sheer number of contributions.
However, I have decided to stay and fight, at least for a while.
This is in no small measure due to the support and concern I have
started to see from some of the members. Lee is right, walking
away is not the answer, especially when one believes in a conference
as much as I do in this one. So I'll stay, and flame back when
I think I've been unjustly attacked.
I've been thinking about this whole issue - wondering WHY some of
the noters seem so eager to attack apparently innocuous contributions
by men, while ignoring provocative statements by women. My theory
is that this is "displaced anger". These women are angry, often
for just causes, at the inequities in our society, particular
members of that society, or both. But they are unable to attack
their tormentors directly. Instead, they displace their anger and
attack the men in this conference, convenient symbols of their
oppressors, but who themselves are likely mostly innocent (I doubt
the real MCPs would even bother reading this conference). We who
are attacked take it personally, having no reason to do otherwise,
and it is extremely frustrating.
I have sad experience with this effect - a woman I once cared for very
much was upset at events in her life - events that had nothing to do
with me. But instead of concentrating on attacking her problems
directly, she attacked me instead. I was convenient and "safe". At the
time I did not at all understand what was happening, and it had tragic
consequences for our relationship. She was looking to me for support,
but I found it impossible to give, as the more support I gave, the
worse the attacks got. Eventually I withdrew, which only convinced
her that I didn't care.
I see a parallel in this conference. The more we try to participate,
the more we try to understand and support, the stronger the attacks
get. But unlike the relationship I described earlier, I am not
so strongly motivated to "hang in there" - and I can certainly find
better things to do with my time than be constantly defending myself
in this conference.
Sharing is important - it was very common in HUMAN_RELATIONS for
a long time - go back and read the note on divorce and see what
I mean. Those who think that WOMANNOTES has a monopoly on sharing
and caring haven't been paying attention. I'd like to share too,
but it's hard to do when it appears there is no support for me doing
so. But I do believe that this conference is necessary and valuable,
and I'll fight along with others to keep it going.
The conference title, "Together we can change the world", is quite
true. But only if ALL of us are included - not only "sisters"
but the "brothers" too (but why is the connotation of "brothers"
so different from "sisters"? Sigh...) We are family, and together
we can make things happen. Divided we shall surely fail.
Steve
|
| 241.9 | smiles | STUBBI::B_REINKE | the fire and the rose are one | Sun Mar 22 1987 17:26 | 6 |
| re .6
Thankyou Lee that was a beautiful note. You said what I had been
trying to say only better.
Bonnie
|
| 241.10 | There are a lot of good things happening here... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Mon Mar 23 1987 04:30 | 106 |
| RE: .6
Your note was beautifully written, Lee.
I did want to add that there *is* another category
to go along with the two you mentioned ("the noble
sufferers" and "the perpetually angry radical
feminists.")
It *is* possible to live in a sexist society
such as ours without continuously suffering *OR*
being angry.
The subject of anger seems to come up so often
in this conference. Once in awhile, I see various
people say that "generalized anger" is not necessary
or even desirable (then I see a backlash of other people
say that noone should tell women not to be angry.)
If others feel as you do (that to stop being
angry means to suppress it and be a "noble sufferer,"
then I can now see why people have objected to the idea
of telling women not to be angry.)
That's what I love about this file -- I learn
something new almost every day.
I've almost left the file myself on several
occasions (for two reasons.) First off, I often find
it difficult to read about the "perpetual anger" that
some women feel towards men (because I don't share it.)
My anger is directed toward very specific incidents
and/or statements made by individuals.
What I have found upsetting in this file (more
than the anger) has been the notes written by a small
number of men who *seem* to have come in to the file
to have the opportunity to safely argue with women
(for whatever personal reasons they might have to want
to do that.) The vast majority of men who come in here
are reasonable (whether or not they agree with what
is being said.) But there have always been a few that
write the most insulting, patronizing notes I've ever
seen addressed to (or about) any group of people I've
ever seen assembled in a notesfile. These men (and
their notes) have gotten their share of flames in
return -- and I have noticed a tremendous reduction
in derogatory statements against women by most of these
men since then. Some of them have even changed their
opinions (and have stopped generalizing about women
in a negative way.) It's been great to see that!
If there is a "party line" in WOMANNOTES, I'm
probably on the outside of it myself. It's not that
I haven't seen sexism in my life (or that my life has
been 100% smooth in my 13-year career in non-traditional
jobs.) I guess I am just too stubborn to allow sexism
(or its perpetrators) to ruin the fun I've had in math
and electronics (in my educational endeavors and in
my career.)
In addition to the "noble sufferers" and "the
perpetually angry radical feminists," there is the
group of women who thumb their noses at SEXISM and say,
"You can't stop me from succeeding. You can't bother
me unless I allow you to bother me, and I refuse to
do that. I may get mad for a minute at what you say
or do, but you are not important enough to me to make
anger a way of life for me. *I will succeed* whether
you like it or not."
When you pull in the antennae and stop being
sensitive to small incidents of sexism, it ceases to
be much fun for those that like to antagonize women.
Before you know it, you realize that it's not necessary
to worry about the small incidents (even if they *do*
happen) and you begin to give the benefit of the doubt
(that possibly the incidents were un-intentional.)
Things may not be perfect for us yet, but we
are far enough along the road to equality to see
the changes (and to appreciate them!) There are scores
and scores of enlightened men around us -- we need to
acknowledge and appreciate them, too.
Talking about the pain and the anger is probably
a good catharsis for many, but I think that we need
to remember that we *ALSO* have MUCH to celebrate
(because things have improved so much for us in the
last 10 years alone!)
Having generalized anger (or not having it)
is a choice each of us makes as an individual. It is
not mandatory to have it (no matter how badly we feel
we have been treated.) As for myself, I have
no room for it in my life. It's that simple.
I like this file a lot (even if I *do* feel
a bit on the outside much of the time.) It has
raised my consciousness about women's issues and I
appreciate the openness I've seen in this file more
than I can possibly say (even if I don't always agree
with what's being said.) This is my favorite conference
(along with one other that is members only.)
Thanks to you all!
Suzanne...
|
| 241.12 | Is this a place for empathy? | ULTRA::ZURKO | Security is not pretty | Mon Mar 23 1987 09:41 | 18 |
| A thought, sparked by .11:
Perhaps I am willing to assume a member of a minority is coming from
approximately the same direction I am in this notesfile, while I assume
that a het, white male has no gut/innate feel for what it is like to
be the "other".
Yes, I know all about ass*u*me :-). And of course it's not always easy
to tell if the respondant is female, ethnic, handicapped, non-het, etc.
But the *vibes* of some notes, the ring of being the subject, the norm,
the one most like the majority of influencial people in this country,
often comes through.
I am trying to explain and work through (not justify) my reactions in
this notesfile. Also, I hope readers will look at the whole note, not
each word. Some words (taken as "a word") are not exactly right, but
I hope the entire thought is.
Mez
|
| 241.13 | sorry | CADSYS::SULLIVAN | Karen - 225-4096 | Mon Mar 23 1987 09:44 | 17 |
| I feel kind of bad about people leaving, because maybe they do
because they feel lack of support. I have sometimes felt that
people have gotten flamed when perhaps it was an unfortunate
choice of words they used. I have sat back and listened to
what happened, but didn't speak out in defense. I assumed that
when the person defended themselves that they didn't need more
support. In the future, I will try to point out areas where I think
there is unjust flaming.
I like the 24hr rule, it has kept me from flaming at people. I think
that it's hard when writing an emotional topic to keep the anger and
frustration from making it a flame. It is probably not directed
at the person being replied to but at some point that triggered a
lot more on a subject. It is then hard for the flamee to not take
it personal. We're all human, and thus emotional.
...Karen
|
| 241.14 | | HARDY::HENDRICKS | | Mon Mar 23 1987 09:50 | 34 |
| I wonder if we are in agreement on the purpose of this conference.
My understanding was that it was a place where a woman could discuss
and bring up any issue which was on her mind, where men could
participate as well, where all of us could honestly challenge one another's
beliefs and preconceptions. I also understood that it was a place
where our our descriptions of our experiences would be honored as
truth because they *are* each of our own truths.
If there truly is a conflict of needs (and I don't think there is),
in this case I would want the needs of the women to be put first.
Here at least.
There are a whole range of women here. Some are angry and vocal
and wish this was a women only space. OK. Others welcome and
value the men. OK, too. Others tolerate them, others are probably
indifferent towards them.
Please don't assume that all of the women here are represented
by any of the above groups, because we are not. At the same time,
in this conference, I don't feel that the women are responsible
for making this conference comfortable for the men.
If this conference is no longer meeting your needs, my feeling is
this: state your needs, do what you can to change it so it will
meet your needs, and if it no longer can do so, then I respect your
desire to use the time better. Womannotes is what we make it, and
will never be more than what the people who write in it make it.
The moderators have an extremely non-interventionist policy!
Holly
|
| 241.15 | I can say what I feel, then I learn why | WATNEY::SPARROW | You want me to do what?? | Mon Mar 23 1987 10:51 | 23 |
| Since I started reading this conferance, I have learned so much.
I learned of others pain and anger. I, like Suzanne, have always
had a "just watch me fly" attitude so alot of what was being said
in this file, made me think there's alot I wasn't aware of!
I didn't really notice alot of sexist things happening around me!
I feel more aware than I have ever been and want to continue to
grow. I did feel uncomfortable reading about what was appropriate
for this file, after all this is one of the first notes I read daily,
and have felt that *anything* could be discussed. Even the flames
are not as prevelant as in other files, and seem somehow more
informative because there is a *reason*, not just an opposing view.
There is real emotion here, real caring, and above all learning
experience which is shared. In other notes, opposing views sometimes
result in sarcastic flaming which results in read-only attitudes.
Here, dispite the sometime flame, debate continues. If contributers
continue to learn and feel others views, this file has earned its
space. This is the *one* file that I feel comfortable in contributing
even if I should get flamed, at least I don't feel like some one
is calling me names to serve some entertainment value for the note.
vivian
btw I value this note, I learn from this note, I grow in awareness.
|
| 241.16 | ANOTHER VOICE | OURVAX::JEFFRIES | | Mon Mar 23 1987 11:03 | 13 |
| I enjoy this notes file more than any other. I have had some trouble
replying to some topics because of the emotion involved. DATE RAPE
is one topic I just couldn't respond to without get very upset.
I read every response and shared a lot of the pain.
I have not read any topic that I didn't feel belongs in this file.
I think that some responses are all emotion and no thought. That
is one reason why I have not responded to the topic "racisim". Some
of the things that have happened to me and my family were and are
still very painfull. I don't think that I could handle some of the
insensitive thoughtless remarks that would be written. This will
not keep me from being an avid participant in WOMANSNOTES. I will
just refrain from commenting on those kinds of issues.
|
| 241.18 | | STUBBI::B_REINKE | the fire and the rose are one | Mon Mar 23 1987 12:12 | 2 |
| ;-) has always meant a smile at a slightly humorous situation
to me. I find it hard to imagine that it would be offensive.
|
| 241.19 | Thoughts on a few topics | DINER::SHUBIN | Go ahead - make my lunch! | Mon Mar 23 1987 14:11 | 60 |
|
One of the problems that we've always had in this conference is just
that -- it's a notesfile, not a real conversation. Some of the flaming,
the arguments, the misunderstandings, the discussions about what are
appropriate discussions and the tangents would simply not exist in a
real conversation, because they'd be cleared up in a minute (instead of
dragging on for a couple of days), or they'd be ignored if they're
really irrelevant.
As Mez pointed out, many people pick on poorly-chosen words (me
included) instead of addressing the substance of an issue. That
wouldn't happen talking face-to-face. Talking to a person is different
from talking to a terminal, and I think that gets forgotten sometimes.
It's different when we can *see* the other person's words and study
them.
This problem doesn't occur in other, technical, conferences, because
it's obvious what appropriate topics are, and there aren't any
emotional issues to discuss. I don't read any other conferences like
this one, but I suspect that this one is even more subject to emotional
discussions than many.
A solution to this problem is to have more face-to-face discussions.
That's difficult because of the distributed nature of the E-net, but I
think it would help. (I couldn't attend the party at Leslie's house; do
people who were there think that meeting people and talking directly to
them made any difference?).
Joint, focused activities could also serve to both broaden and narrow
the focus of the group. We could have narrow focus on a variety of
topics. I'm co-chair of the Human Factors Steering Group this calendar
year, and we've started a group project to take advantage of the
diverse talents in the group, and provide a common focus. (Of course,
it's a different kind of organization, because we meet in person, but
the idea may carry over). I think that Maggie's new message, "Together
we can change the world!", is a great one, and a good goal for this
group, but it's going to take some action on our part, more than
talking amongst ourselves.
There hasn't been quite the diversity of opinions that there might
be -- I remember one woman writing that she felt that her
more-traditional beliefs weren't accepted here. There hasn't been much
discussion along that line, and she may have left feeling unwelcome.
That's too bad, and maybe it could have been helped, but I think that
simply isn't what most of the members of this conference are interested
in. As has been said, this conference will become what we make of it.
As a man, I generally feel welcome here, but there's always the
lingering feeling that some women don't want men involved. That
hasn't stopped me from writing notes when I feel I have something to
say, but, many other men have decided to be, or become, read-only here.
Even if all the women were to welcome men, I think that there's a
little lingering feeling of, "What am I, as a man, doing here
discussing women's issues?"
-- hal
|
| 241.20 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Mon Mar 23 1987 14:16 | 28 |
|
� Is there a list of accepted 'faces' and a description of the intent?
The Notes documentation, section 3.1.3 "Representing Body Language", on
page 3-7 lists the following icons
:-) Joking or sarcastic face
:-} Fiendish grin
;-) A wink
:-( Sad or angry face
|-( Late night
~/~ Stirring up trouble.
The trouble with the ";^)" is that it isn't defined in the documentation
:-)
Seriously: I have heard it refered to as "tongue in cheek", and as "the
nosey face".
/. Ian .\
|
| 241.21 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Mon Mar 23 1987 15:30 | 14 |
|
I had no sooner entered the previous list than a colleague gave me an
extract from a USENET "newsletter" (soc.singles) listing many of these
body language icons (this one originated in HP Instrumentation Lab)
It lists
:^) Messages teasing people about their noses.
One I like from that list is
(-_-) Secret smile.
/. Ian .\
|
| 241.24 | ...EXCEPT THOSE VOICES WHICH SPEAK ONLY ENGLISH | JETSAM::HANAUER | Mike...Bicycle~to~Ice~Cream | Tue Mar 24 1987 12:45 | 0 |
| 241.25 | Don't understand your meaning | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | | Tue Mar 24 1987 13:12 | 5 |
| Re .24, what do you mean by saying "except those voices which speak
only English"?
Lorna
|
| 241.26 | Clarification: | JETSAM::HANAUER | Mike...Bicycle~to~Ice~Cream | Tue Mar 24 1987 15:37 | 10 |
| Referring to conversations in French which exclude all of us who do
not speak that language.
To me, this seems prejudicial!
Are we here to share our views on issues or are we here practice our
French and "impress" our notemates.
~Mike
|
| 241.27 | O Freunde, nicht diese T�ne! | LATEXS::MINOW | I need a vacation | Tue Mar 24 1987 16:06 | 14 |
|
-< ...EXCEPT THOSE VOICES WHICH don't speak ENGLISH >-
Seem's like we're changing that. At least one person has volunteered
to translate Zouzou's French. If that fails, I could take a swing at
it (or Swedish, Spanish or German if it comes to that).
It is extremely difficult to convey *feelings* in a foreign language;
even if you use the language fluently in business/technical situations.
It would be a shame if a third of this company felt excluded from this
-- or any -- notesfile.
Martin.
|
| 241.28 | | SWSNOD::RPGDOC | Dennis (the Menace) Ahern 223-5882 | Tue Mar 24 1987 16:33 | 14 |
|
Jag forsta icke fransk.
|
| 241.29 | Afterall this *is* America | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | | Tue Mar 24 1987 16:39 | 10 |
| Re .27, I don't think anyone wants to exclude non-English speaking
DEC people from this conference, but the fact is that this file
does originate in the United States and English is the language
most frequently spoken here. I've heard it said that the majority
of Americans are NOT bilingual which is no doubt unfortunate, but
more people will be excluded from the notes written in a language
other than English than from the notes written in English.
Lorna
|
| 241.30 | | 2B::ZAHAREE | I *HATE* Notes! | Tue Mar 24 1987 17:38 | 5 |
| I don't know about Europe, but last time I taught for GIA (admittedly
this was 5 years ago), knowledge of English was a prerequisite for
employment in foreign subsidiaries.
- M
|
| 241.31 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Tue Mar 24 1987 20:29 | 14 |
| C'mon gang, cut Zoziau some slack...she said that she feels her
command of english is inadequate to express the subtle shadings
of meaning that she needs. There are several members of our community
who *do* speak french and I'm quite sure will be glad to translate
as they have time and energy.
If you're still feeling frustrated and uncharitable, try to see
yourself in Zoziau's position just now.
in Sisterhood,
=maggie
(who can supply at least
Russian and German xlations
should the need arise)
|
| 241.32 | Translation | LATEXS::MINOW | I need a vacation | Tue Mar 24 1987 22:21 | 15 |
|
Re: .28: Although Dennis doesn't understand French, surely he
recognized the title of my note as the opening verse to Schiller's
Ode to Joy (adapted by Beethoven for the choral movement of the
Ninth Symhony). As translated by Louis Untermeyer:
O friends, friends, not these sounds!
Let us sing something more pleasant, more
full of gladness.
|
| 241.33 | Ok, I'll stick my neck out. | GENRAL::FRASHER | An opinion for any occasion | Wed Mar 25 1987 00:18 | 27 |
| I don't understand French any better than I understand half of the
notes in WOMANNOTES.
I don't participate much because I feel like I'm on foreign ground
and I don't speak the language. If I say something, it will be
taken the wrong way and I'll get flamed. I worry about getting
flamed. I don't reply to topics that I disagree with because I
don't want to get flamed for my opinion. I'll duke it out in MENNOTES
because I have a feel for the subject, but here, I feel out of place.
I recently entered a note somewhere, it may have been MENNOTES, about
what I like to see a woman wear, tight or skimpy. I'm almost afraid
to see what kind of replies that brought. I doubt that its in this
conference, it must be in MENNOTES or I probably wouldn't have entered
it. Its like being on my own turf. Here, I'm on someone else's
turf and I would rather sit back and watch for a while. I feel
like a cat in a pack of dogs, if I make myself known, I will be
attacked.
However, after reading these replies, I may just jump in and stir
something up just to see what happens. I will be honest in my reply
and not just trying to cause trouble, but there are a few things
that I don't understand. My wife considers me to be a pretty alright
guy as far as sexism goes, but I have my faults. It'll be interesting
to see how many women in this conference share her feelings.
(Insert devilish cackle here)
Spence 8->
|
| 241.34 | its YOUR conference, not OURS | HERBIE::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Mar 25 1987 00:52 | 22 |
| I feel like going through the conference to get statistics to support
what I'm about to say, but that is another symptom. I know that
lately I have been feeling alot more defensive about entering an
opinion. The only men that seem to be welcome here are the ones who
shout "halleluja" at the women.
The most obvious example (of why I feel defensive) being the TAXES and
"WHAT'S A WOMAN'S ISSUE?" notes. I really did not think that I was
being sexist in my statements, yet I was stomped for them. Then
when I ask to find out what I said wrong, I get no answer. When
I ask if a term I used has a meaning (woman's issue) I get a discussion
of what is appropriate for the conference (which was not what I
asked).
Yes, I feel alienated, but I do not believe that I have a right
to not be. It is "for and about women and whatever they want to
talk about (oh and by the way, men can contribute too)".
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 241.35 | Sounds like a personal problem to me... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Wed Mar 25 1987 10:04 | 63 |
| It seems to me that *SOME* of our male
contributors are *needlessly* defensive (and
thus alienated) when they write in this file.
I wrote a small note yesterday, in
which I expressed my opinion (which happened to
differ from the opinion stated by the man who
wrote the note entered before mine.) I did not
address the man directly. I did not quote from
his note or make even the *mildest* flame about
anything he said.
The next thing I know, I get a mail message
saying that he would remove his note (and was sorry
if he had offended me in some way.) He then went
on to snap at me a little (along the lines of "I
thought you didn't write in this conference anymore,
but obviously you felt that disagreeing with me was
important enough to break your silence" -- or some
such comment.)
All this because I have my own opinions about
things?
I've had other men write to me and complain
that women ignore their notes in this conference.
One man wrote to me that he felt he was *always* on
the correct side (against sexism) but that women
ignored him anyway. Another man once wrote to me
and said that he entered his note in an offensive
way *purposely* so that women would respond to him.
In order to make those *few* men feel more
comfortable, should we all jump in and agree with
whatever they say (so they won't stop contributing?)
Any time a man speaks up, should we all jump in and
center our notes around his words (and drop all the
thoughts that we would have brought up otherwise?)
If 10 women contribute replies (most of which are
original opinions and not rebuttals of some other
person's position), should we bring the free exchange
to a grinding halt when a man pops in (so that he has
the feeling that we all want to stop and simply discuss
*his* unique perspective?)
It makes me wonder if one of these same *few*
men would walk into an in-person discussion among
several women and expect them all to stop dead in their
tracks to listen when the one man opened his mouth.
Would this same man walk away in a huff if any of the
women disagreed with what he said?
To balance -- I realize that there have also
been some *severe* flames at men in this conference
(many of which may or may not have been justified.)
BUT -- I also think that there are a few men who see
all opposing views (however nicely put) as "attacks."
My question to those (*very*) few men is --
Do you want to discuss things in this conference or
are you looking for something else here?
Suzanne...
|
| 241.36 | {Another voice} | USWAV3::TREMBLAY | | Wed Mar 25 1987 11:15 | 11 |
| It seems to me, instead of putting so much emphasis on who is replying
whether is a man or a woman, the contents of the reply is what should
be of importance. I think any notesfile should be for the benefit
of all.
As far as people being "flamed", I don't think this is called for.
After all any reply is just an opinion you don't have to agree with
the opinion but at the same time you don't have to be sarcastic.
Sandy
|
| 241.37 | | HARDY::HENDRICKS | | Wed Mar 25 1987 11:36 | 2 |
|
Ideas put forth gently tend to get flamed less.
|
| 241.38 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | UI:Where the rubber meets the road | Wed Mar 25 1987 11:36 | 15 |
| re: .33
Spence, I've found some of your more intimate, truthful, and
thought-provoking notes in mennotes to be *well worth* reading and
thinking about. I'm sure notes in that same vein here would enhance
our community.
One thing you might consider though, the general tone of this
conference seems to me to be that of sharing, of give and take.
"Stirring something up" in a confrontational or agressive way, or just
to get an argument going, hasn't gone over big here (yes, I know, that
isn't the only way to stir something up). Provoking thought, however,
is welcome. It's all in the listening, and the caring, and getting
that part of the discussion across.
Mez
|
| 241.39 | | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | | Wed Mar 25 1987 11:45 | 10 |
| It seems to me that men are not the only ones who have gotten flamed
in Womannotes. *Women* have gotten flamed in Womannotes, too, by
both other women and men. I think flames in this conference are
pretty mild for either sex compared to the frightening Soapbox.
At least when a topic is brought up for discussion here it's treated
with serious thought and feeling, and not just a contest for who
can come up with wittiest & meanest one-liner.
Lorna
|
| 241.40 | | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Wed Mar 25 1987 12:15 | 33 |
| I digress to earlier notes concerned with writing to WOMANNOTES
in a language other than English.
Attempting meaningful dialogue in other than my native tongue
is quite difficult. I believe this is true for many people. Being
somewhat left out of conversations as a result of my inability with
the language being spoken is frustrating. I believe this is true
for many people. However, if my goal was to converse with people
in France I would do so in French. If my goal was to converse with
people in Germany I would speak German. Conversation is only
conversation when a party speaks - a party hears and understands
what was said and then speaks in response - the first party hears
and understands what was said in response, etc. Writing to WOMANNOTES
in other than English limits the conversation.
My comments concerning people being flamed for not carrying
a certain banner in WOMANNOTES is simply, if this is true so what.
Immaturity can be expressed in many ways, talking to rather than
with people is one way, not being tolerant of the opinions of others
is another and not making an effort to understand the why's and
how's of the opinions of others is a major expression of immaturity.
Reading WOMANNOTES, for me, is quite similiar to roaming around
a large gathering of people divided into multiple groups, each
discussing a different topic. Some I stop and listen to (read)
other I stop, listen and try to contribute to. Most I find are
of little interest so I don't listen or contribute to them. If
my opinions cause flames they cause flames. Most of us have lived
rather different lives and, as a result of our life experiences,
have differing opinions on many subjects. I find this makes us
interesting.
Douglas
|
| 241.41 | Slight clarification, thanks. | GENRAL::FRASHER | An opinion for any occasion | Wed Mar 25 1987 15:02 | 31 |
| Thanks Mez, re .38. Its supportive comments like yours that keep
me from running away screaming in fear of being hit. I admit that
I'm a bit paranoid, especially around women. My wife is so unlike
other women that I can't always use her to learn.
I suppose that my use of 'stirring up trouble' was ambiguous. What
I really meant was that I may bring up an opposing view on something
and see if I can take the heat. I've been afraid to do this because
I'm not on my turf here. When I first started in [people]NOTES,
I told a friend that I would put in a comment, but if I got flamed,
I would probably run for the hills. As it turned out, I stayed
and fought. I've got more backbone than I thought I had. If I
enter a note, its my honest opinion, not being a 'Devils advocate'
just to stir up trouble and I now understand that this may be good
and nothing to fear.
I will bring up my opposing opinions to try and enlighten others
to the way a man thinks (although, I generally tend to be unlike
most men) or to find a good reason why I'm wrong. I like to think
that I represent the minority of men who have feelings. But, as
someone mentioned earlier, most men contributing to this conference
probably have these feelings or they wouldn't be here.
I may 'stir up trouble', but it will be for a constructive purpose.
I'm already contributing more than I did yesterday, but not too
much has come up that I disagree with. I suspect my first attempt
will be in the note about pinups (DIR/TIT=CHERYL).
Spence
BTW, I feel the same way about racial issues.
|
| 241.42 | | SHIRE::MAURER | Parlons francais | Thu Mar 26 1987 01:51 | 18 |
| re: .40
Do you realise many Americans don't bother to speak the language
spoken in whatever country they happen to be in? On the whole,
we Americans stick to English (or our brand of it) and hang the
rest :-).
You are not alone in finding meaningful dialogue difficult in other
than your native tongue. No one said you had to write in French.
You don't even have to read the French notes. There are plenty
of notes here in English, so there is no need to feel left out.
Can't you see the other side --
Perhaps many Europeans find meaningful dialogue difficult in English?
Helen (if I were in the mood I'd translate this, but it isn't even
eight am yet. *yawn*)
|
| 241.43 | This conference belongs to *all* of us... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Thu Mar 26 1987 05:44 | 44 |
| RE: .41
Whenever I see men write in this file that
they are "not on their turf" in this conference, I
am a bit surprised. I have never understood why
anyone should feel defensive or uncomfortable about
being a male contributor in WOMANNOTES. This file
is much like any other file -- not everyone agrees
on everything (and some flames appear from time to
time.) Why should disagreements or flames bother
anyone simply because the file happens to be geared
towards "Topics of Interest to Women?"
If it helps at all, I can empathize with
what some of you are feeling. If you think it is
"tricky" being in a notesfile that is mostly occupied
by women, you should see what it's like to spend 40
hours a week (year after year) in a profession that
is ~75-85% occupied by men (and you're the only or one
of the relatively few women.)
Does it bother me? Do I feel uncomfortable
or paranoid?
Who can *afford* to feel that way (when it
involves considerations like: What sort of opportu-
nities does this career path offer? What sort of
challenges can I look forward to in the future? What
sort of compensation can I expect, and how will that
affect my family's lifestyle?)
When you are a single parent (as I am) --
these considerations are even *more* critical.
I think we create our own sense of "turf"
(or "belonging") whenever we care about where we are
and what we are doing.
If this conference matters to you, then this
*is* your "turf" (whether you are male or female) and
you are far more than just "allowed to contribute" --
you are an integral part of what is happening here.
Suzanne...
|
| 241.46 | | HARDY::HENDRICKS | | Thu Mar 26 1987 11:00 | 4 |
| :-)
...but I'm just beginning to understand Steven's own style and
syntax! (eagles_should_be_made_2_feel_welcome_2)
|
| 241.47 | | YAZOO::B_REINKE | the fire and the rose are one | Thu Mar 26 1987 11:07 | 3 |
| I think the way that Steve writes is charming and I
mis him when he isn't noting
eagles_are_nice_to_have_around
|
| 241.48 | | AKOV04::WILLIAMS | | Thu Mar 26 1987 11:16 | 10 |
| Re: 42
Yes, I am aware how few people in the U.S. speak in any language
save American English.
Did you not understand my note concerning writing to WOMANNOTES
in other than English? I don't mind what language is chosen but
simply pointed out how limiting it is to use any language save English.
Douglas
|
| 241.49 | two nations divided by a common language | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Thu Mar 26 1987 11:42 | 10 |
| � Yes, I am aware how few people in the U.S. speak in any language
� save American English.
This has, I think, been responsible for virtually every flame I
have received.
It is amazing how American an English can place totally different
interpretations on the same word.
/. Ian .\
|
| 241.50 | Vivre et Laisser Vivre | SHIRE::MAURER | Tigger, too | Fri Mar 27 1987 06:40 | 16 |
|
-< Live and Let Live >-
rep: .48
I'm afraid I just don't understand. If we say Blandine can't write
in French, are we not *limiting* her ?
There are topics in this file that just don't interest me. I skip
over them. If I came across a topic in a language I didn't know,
unless it was translated, I would simply skip it. I wouldn't feel
limited.
Helen
|
| 241.51 | | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | | Fri Mar 27 1987 10:24 | 8 |
| Re .50, the problem is if you could read the language the subject
might interest you.
I would expect this problem if I were living in Europe, but I'm
not. I'm living in Massachusetts.
Lorna
|
| 241.53 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Fri Mar 27 1987 10:59 | 19 |
|
I have no opinion yea/nay on foreign language entries in this file,
but I moderate a file (expatriates) where I have stated that certain
types of entries (specifically ethnic jokes) are inadmissable. Now if
somebody enters something in a language I [the moderator] cannot read,
I cannot tell if it is inappropriate or violates company Policies &
Procedures.
As moderator I am *required* to be in a position to moderate.
Therefore I wonder if some compromise might be needed - such as only
allowing languages that [a] moderator can read, or allowing foreign
language entries only if they are set hidden until a translation can
be obtained.
In the specific case of French (as here) I personally don't mind, but
what about some more obscure language?
/. Ian .\
|
| 241.54 | | SHIRE::MAURER | Tigger, too | Fri Mar 27 1987 11:13 | 7 |
| re: .51
I dunno, but it seems to me that if we're reading/writing on the net,
we're living in the world and not just Geneva or Massachusetts.
Helen
|
| 241.55 | Not the world, just DEC | LYMPH::DICKSON | Network Design tools | Fri Mar 27 1987 11:20 | 3 |
| This is not a "world" network, but a "DEC" network. And everyone who has
easy access to this network can read and write English to some extent.
English is the only language for which this is true.
|
| 241.56 | | HARDY::HENDRICKS | | Fri Mar 27 1987 11:37 | 7 |
| re .53
I can see how this would pose many moderators a problem.
We are in luck here, though. I believe Maggie can read about 26
lanugages, being a bit of a linguist and philologist, even though her
innate modesty keeps her from admitting it!
|
| 241.57 | I agree, but consider this please. | JETSAM::HANAUER | Mike...Bicycle~to~Ice~Cream | Fri Mar 27 1987 12:02 | 4 |
| Galof hachen inda slonak brak pak schackon!
~Mike
|
| 241.58 | Getting ready for April 1st | MAY20::MINOW | I need a vacation | Fri Mar 27 1987 12:09 | 8 |
| While we're bitching about language; I don't understand "wimmin's language"
and would appreciate all notes written in wimmin's language to be translated
into ordinary English withing 24 hours.
(:-) -- in case you're wondering.
Martin.
|
| 241.59 | like to live dangerously, eh Martin? | NRLABS::TATISTCHEFF | | Fri Mar 27 1987 12:29 | 1 |
|
|
| 241.60 | things are looking up | MANTIS::PARE | | Fri Mar 27 1987 12:57 | 2 |
| Gee,....this forum is getting to be as much fun as soapbox :-)
I'll have to log in more often.
|
| 241.61 | | APEHUB::STHILAIRE | | Fri Mar 27 1987 13:28 | 17 |
| Re .50, etc., I have no problem with translations. I was replying
to .50's comment that if she see's a topic that doesn't interest
her she just skipped it. She suggested that people treat other
than English entries the same way. If you can't read it, skip it.
I merely suggested that I would like to have the chance to read
all entries and then decide for myself if I want to keep reading
or skip it. If the entry is in a language other than English I
don't have that choice.
The net may be the worldwide, but this notesfile is based in America
as is Digital.
I merely think that, as Ian suggested, if other than English entries
are going to be okay then they should be translated into English.
Lorna
|
| 241.62 | A hiv nae proablem wi it. | GENRAL::FRASHER | An opinion for any occasion | Fri Mar 27 1987 14:08 | 14 |
| A hink thet as lang as they noat gits translated thet it disnae
matter tae much. It jist taks a bit maire time tae reed.
or, in American
I thing that as long as the note gets translated that it doesn't
matter too much. It just takes a bit more time to read.
BTW, I believe that this is colloquial Scottish, is this considered
a form of English?
Maistely curious, aye,
Spence
|
| 241.63 | don't we want to understand? | ULTRA::LARU | full russian inn | Tue Mar 31 1987 17:06 | 10 |
| it seems to me that a lot of flames and uppercasing results from
failing to sense the spirit of these notes and replies.
it feels as if some of us are just maintaining the illusion of dialog,
while secretly waiting for the word or phrase that will trigger the
torrent of hostility of one's own hidden agenda. when we read a
note and feel angry, can't we please stop and check whether it was
not in fact we who pushed our own buttons?
in sadness/bruce
|
| 241.64 | notes from a ghost | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Thu Apr 09 1987 10:13 | 111 |
| I deleted this conference from my notebook months ago, and
haven't read it since. Today, for some unknowable reason,
I decided to take a look to see what was going on. Perhaps
it's because my wife and a friend made some comments about
it the other day.
In any case, my intent was to read one or two replies from
some of the topics. My attention was caught by this topic,
however, and I actually read through all 60-odd replies.
Perhaps needless to say, I feel compelled to comment on the
subject.
As I said, I quit this conference quite a while ago. While
the ultimate cause could be traced to many of the comments
quoted in .0, the primary reason was perhaps less obvious:
boredom.
The boredom came because I was not comfortable with entering
interesting discussions, and was not interested in uninteresting
discussions. The discomfort came from frustration with the
loud, insensitive, and unreasonable attacks received by anything
outside of the "WOMANNOTES party line".
I didn't leave because I was attacked. I didn't leave because
I was frustrated. But I noticed over a period of several
weeks that I became less interested in discussing things.
"Well, I've got something to say about this... but it's just
not important enough to deal with the stupid flames I'll
get". The threshold of "important enough" steadily increased,
and I realized that eventually *nothing* would be "important
enough". I became bored. I quit. There's an old saying,
"Don't let the bastards wear you down". I admit, I failed...
I let them wear me down. Nobody's perfect.
There *is* a "WOMANNOTES party line". It's not official,
it's not universally accepted or even followed, but it does
exist. It's maintained by a few very loud and unreasonable
people, mostly (but not exclusively) women, who rush to attack
anything which doesn't fit their rather narrow definitions
of "pro-woman".
I'm going to characterize the party line. It's going to
be inaccurate, it's going to be exaggerated, it's not going
to apply to most of the people in this conference, and it's
not going to *completely* apply to *anyone*. That's
because I'm saying it in a single sentence instead of several
pages. Very simply, it is "all women are the victims of
all men".
A corollary to this party line, more common and a bit less
exaggerated (and even relatively easy to demonstrate by a casual
stroll through any of a number of topics in the conference) is
that any comment by a woman in response to a man, however cruel,
insensitive, unthinking, and unfair she may be about it, is
"good and reasonable", whereas anything said by a man in
response to a woman, short of "yes, I agree we're slime, you
poor people", tends to gather severe flames (which are then
treated as being in the former category, and accepted).
Furthermore, claims that this is intended as an open discussion
group have, all along, been actively disputed by a number
of these same loud participants. They have claimed, often
and specifically, ever since the conference was first opened
to men, and completely disregarding the conference introductory
note, that this conference is *intended* as a private enclave
for women, and that men (particularly men with dissenting
opinions) are most definitely *not* welcome.
The majority of participants, of both sexes, may disagree:
but it's always the loud-mouthed minority which spreads its
word the fastest and furthest. It is no surprize to me that
WOMANNOTES has gathered the reputation described by the quotes
in .0 and several replies. Several people have spent a great
deal of effort in building that reputation... and nobody
has spent enough effort in countering it.
The situation is much like the issue of abortion rights.
The fundamentalist sects spend a great deal of money,
continuously, to carry their battle against human rights.
The followers of these sects, though a small minority, regularly
donate significant money and time to aid their battle. Those
on the other side tend to satisfy themselves with the knowledge
that they are right. They sit at home and occasionally,
maybe, write out a check for a few dollars to Planned
Parenthood, or NOW... maybe once a year, maybe twice. Being
"right" will only take you so far. Being loud is usually
a lot more effective, unfortunately. As I said, this is
well demonstrated by the WOMANNOTES reputation.
Those who approve of the WOMANNOTES reputation (and there
certainly are several reading this) can sit back smugly with
the knowledge that they have squeezed me and other contributors
out of the discussion. I no longer care.
Those who *don't* approve, and I hope (and believe) that
this is an overwhelming majority, have the choice of either
giving in to the minority... or starting to do something
about it. To begin with, encourage diversity by supporting
people who take "different" stands on subjects... don't be
narrow minded and shout "sexist" every time someone disagrees
with you, or someone else. People have a right to their
own opinions... and if those rights aren't respected, they
will take their opinions, and themselves, elsewhere.
As for me... I'll continue my scan of the conference today,
though I doubt I shall make any further comments. I also
think it highly unlikely that I will ever be tempted to return
this conference to my notebook. Even if the predominant
attitude turned around, my memories are not pleasant.
/dave
|
| 241.65 | There is much to be learned from all this... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Thu Apr 09 1987 11:47 | 84 |
| It is a sad fact of life that women who are good at arguing and
confronting men are considered bitches (and are denigrated by some
members of both sexes.)
Nothing in this file is black_and_white. The women in this conference
represent a wide variety of backgrounds and philosophies. There
has yet to be a controversial topic that all women agree on in this
file.
As for flaming men -- some of the flames are unjustified (I agree.)
But if you look back very closely, it is *NOT TRUE* to generalize
that the men in this file are *ALL* poor innocent victims of female
oppression (any more than it is true to generalize that all women
are poor innocent victims of the oppression of all men.)
In a way, this file has been a good lesson on how sexism works.
We see men (flamed by a *very* few women) suddenly jump up and
complain that the whole file is against men and has a common
"party line" that is against men. That's the same thing that
women have done in the past (we have claimed that *ALL* of society
has oppressed us when in reality we are only soured by the actions
of *some* members of our society.) Granted, the numbers are
probably quite a bit higher on the side of those who oppress women
(but it's never been 100% or anywhere close.)
I've seen men walk into notes (writing their first replies to that
note) with GIANT CHIPS on their shoulders. They say things like,
"Well, I realize that I'll be flamed mercilessly for having the
audacity to enter any reply at all here as a man, but..." It makes
me wonder if maybe we as women often walk into situations with our
own chips on the shoulder (and end up introducing our own self-
fulfilling prophecies the way some of the men in this conference
have.)
When I see men and women "go at it" in this file, I often wonder
if men and women (both) feel that *in this particular file* it is
dishonorable to lose an argument with a member of the opposite sex.
It seems to me that men have been primarily led to believe (in this
culture) that losing an argument with a woman is a sign of weakness.
I think that women now believe the same thing (i.e., that after
all the years we've had to put up with oppression, *WHY* should
we give in to an argument just because our opponent happens to be
a man?) So we fight to the death in this one forum (if nowhere
else) and some men leave the conference because of it. Some women,
too.
All of these things offer *MUCH* that we can learn from (about our
roles as men and women in a society that has changed before our eyes
in the last 20 years.) The primary thing we need to guard against
is the attitude that it is fair to generalize that *all* men have
been treated unfairly in this conference. That one thing is primary
only because it will tend to inhibit the interaction between men
and women. (I don't honestly think that men are looking for all
the women to be "yes persons" and blindly agree with everything
men write. That would be extremely patronizing to men.)
The other important thing to remember is that when people talk about
their feelings as people, it is *NOT* necessarily an attack on others
who may have inadvertently *helped to cause* some of the bad feelings
expressed here.
Women who say that certain things bother them are *NOT* calling
all men who do those things "slimeballs." Women are merely saying
that the actions *bother* them (for whatever reasons) and I think
they have a right to *SAY* such things without being told that they
are wrong to feel that way. This conference *is* supposed to be
about "Topics of Interest to Women." It should be a place where
women can express feelings without being judged badly for having
those feelings.
Men should be able to express feelings, too (and should receive
the same sort of respect for theirs.)
Noone needs to feel defensive because of the fact that the file
is generally geared towards women. If the opinions come across
as pretty strong at times, we should all remember not to take the
sex of the person who disagrees with us as an issue *unto itself*.
It shouldn't matter what sex any of us are when we debate. The
fact that it *DOES* matter to so many of us is a symptom of the
problem that we are, hopefully, trying to solve by being here
together.
Suzanne...
|
| 241.66 | but just in case... | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Thu Apr 09 1987 12:36 | 21 |
| > But if you look back very closely, it is *NOT TRUE* to generalize
> that the men in this file are *ALL* poor innocent victims of female
> oppression (any more than it is true to generalize that all women
and
> We see men (flamed by a *very* few women) suddenly jump up and
> complain that the whole file is against men and has a common
> "party line" that is against men. That's the same thing that
I wonder if Suzanne was intending this as a reply to my note?
She was obviously implying that someone had actually made those
claims. Whereas I most specifically stated that I was talking
about only a small (though loud) *minority*; and that not all of
*them* are even women.
I suppose, now that I've subtly defended myself, that I shall
be charitable and assume the timing was coincidental, and
that Suzanne didn't think she was talking to me.
/dave
|
| 241.67 | | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Thu Apr 09 1987 12:49 | 21 |
| RE: Dave
You are correct in assuming that the reply was not directed towards
you. It was meant as a general comment on the recent trend of *some*
men in saying that the file is generally unfair to men.
Your partial quotes of my note left off the *MOST IMPORTANT* phrases
in the thoughts I had (i.e., that there are similarities in how
men and women react to being in a situation/culture/notesfile that
appears to be dominated by the other sex.)
The note was not meant as an attack or even a strong criticism of
men in this file. I just think it is interesting that some men
are having the same sort of reaction to *THIS FILE* as women have
had towards *SOCIETY AT LARGE*. What it boils down to is that it
*isn't easy* to perceive oneself as a "minority."
It seems to me that we can all learn from the commonality of our
reactions to *being* in that sort of situation.
Suzanne...
|
| 241.68 | | VIKING::TARBET | Margaret Mairhi | Thu Apr 09 1987 13:00 | 6 |
| Welcome back, David. I think I speak for the majority of our community
when I say that I hope you will, after all, remember the words of
Edmund Burke and stay to take up the struggle again.
in earnest Sisterhood,
=maggie
|
| 241.69 | Trying to remember to *ALWAYS* say the word "SOME" about people... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Thu Apr 09 1987 13:03 | 9 |
| RE: .67
Correction: "....the way *SOME* women have reacted to *SOCIETY
AT LARGE*...."
Trying hard not to generalize in either direction.....
Suzanne....
|
| 241.70 | Agree whole-heartedly with you, Maggie.... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Thu Apr 09 1987 13:05 | 4 |
| Yes, Dave. It's very, very good to see you here again!!!!!!!
Suzanne...
|
| 241.71 | well, thanks | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Thu Apr 09 1987 13:51 | 66 |
| Gee, I dunno... it's so nice to see a string of *positive*
replies about me for a change... I'm kinda almost tempted
to stick around :-) :-)
I opened the conference for a *third* time today (geesh,
this is getting to be a habit) to deposit something I just
sent to Suzanne in a private mail discussion. Maybe we're
facing some symmetry here... Suzanne and I struck up a
continuing mail correspondance and friendship some time before
I quit the conference. We sorta came to blows over a couple
of issues, and things faded away into unpleasant bitterness.
My reply this morning to this topic sparked a renewed somewhat
bitter discussion between us, which has spent the day gradually
fading back into pleasantness.
Anyway, I've never liked personal confrontations. They make
my stomach ill, and I get very nervous and uncomfortable.
I love non-personal discussions, or even arguments, but I've
noticed a distinct tendency in notes conferences (probably
not this one any more than others) to ignore abstract issues
and go for the throat of whoever *stated* the issue.
When I dared to step into this subject today, I got that
old feeling in my stomach again. After the mail conversation
with Suzanne calmed down, and one nicely pleasant short "thank
you" mail, and the several latest replies here... well, my
stomach feels much better, thank you.
Anyway, back to the reason for this. There's a lot of context
missing between the beginning of the conversation and the
message which follows, but I like the sound of it. It has
a lot to do with this topic.
Unfortunately, one of the oldest pitfalls of human communication is
that nobody can ever know what anyone else really means. When you
say something, all I know is how I interpret what I heard of what you
actually said. It goes from your mind, to your mouth (or fingers :-)),
to my ears (or eyes), and then to my mind... that's a lot of places
for things to go wrong.
Maybe if we had perfect telepathy there would never be wars... or
heated battles in notes conferences.
Human understanding is such a fragile thing... it needs lots of care
and compassion. Flames kill it instantly.
The simple fact is that nobody is completely evil, and nobody
is completely good. Most people just muddle along the best
that they can. We all phrase things poorly sometimes, we
all sometimes do the right things for the wrong reasons...
or the wrong things for the right reasons.
Please, be compassionate. Don't leap to attack someone, however
bad it may seem to you. You may well be misinterpreting what
they said... or they may not quite have said what they intended,
or said it as diplomatically as possible (and "diplomats", of
course, are prople who can tell you to "f-ck off" in such a way
that you thank them for the compliment).
I could go on, but I shan't. At this point, I really don't
know whether I'll give the conference another try. I suppose
I'll at least have to keep up with this topic once in a while,
for a time. My curiousity is nearly uncontrollable, after
all. Wouldn't be the first time it's gotten me in trouble...
/dave
|
| 241.72 | a chorus needs an audience, too | MYCRFT::PARODI | John H. Parodi | Thu Apr 09 1987 14:18 | 21 |
|
I just like to read radical opinions -- because they stretch my mind. I
don't have to agree with them. And I certainly feel no compulsion to
"correct" an opinion because it happens not to agree with my own. (Note
that anyone who does feel this sort of compulsion has a hell of a long
row to hoe in this life...) That's why I don't go to the local VFW hall
to expound the correct view (that is, my view) on foreign policy, nor
do I go to the CHRISTIAN conference to explain the right way (that is, my
way) to approach religion. But *listening* to the opinions expressed in
those places has certainly given me a much wider view of the issues involved.
And if I see a chance to participate an interesting conversation, that's
gravy -- but it is *not* why I'm here.
Why would anyone want to spend time in a middle-of-the road,
namby-pamby, conventional-wisdom, aren't-we-a-swell-bunch kind of
conference? The environment in this notesfile has generated lots of
radical opinions and therefore I'm in favor of the status quo. As an
added benefit, it has generated lots of non-radical but equally
interesting opinions and points-of-view. What more could anyone want?
JP
|
| 241.73 | | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Thu Apr 09 1987 14:56 | 43 |
| RE: .72
John -- I think you have some good points about the content of the
file as it has existed so far. It has had some controversial moments
(with verbal "duels to the death" in several notes.) That sort
of interaction can be interesting and provocative (especially when
you have men and women engaged in these sorts of confrontations
on an almost daily basis.)
But -- I think that a lot of people have expressed the idea that
some of the battles have gotten *way* out of hand (and people are
leaving or threatening to leave the conference on a daily basis.)
This conference is not set up for people who want to get their
jollies by flaming people (OK, except for our "gorilla noters" [sic])
-- so when the flaming happens, you can bet that people are truly
emotionally upset by what is being said.
In spite of the advice from certain quarters to take this whole
thing as a big joke, I think that many of us care about what is
happening here and for that reason are vulnerable when the topics
launch into overdrive (especially if the content of the topic or
the replies has to do with our perceptions of ourselves and our
self-worth.)
So, no, none of us wants "yes persons" in WOMANNOTES, but I for one
have to admit that when I "perceive" that I am backed up against
a wall in this file, I have the stamina to fight "to the death" for
what I consider a principle. That sort of determination has its
good points and its bad points. It is this very quality (of being
persistent) that has given my son and me the sort of life that
we would never have had otherwise. (I'm not implying that I have
'fought' my way up or anything -- I just refused to give up on my
goals.) The BAD side of determination is that I can be just as
persistent when arguing (and can refuse to back down no matter what.)
I'd like to publicly apologize for having contributed to some of
the harsh arguments in this file. I think we can still have
interesting discussions without beating each other to death in the
process. There is much to be gained for all (most) of us if we
work a little harder at understanding each other rather than fighting.
Suzanne...
|
| 241.74 | discussion | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Fri Apr 10 1987 09:06 | 37 |
| One vitally important (at least to me) comment: I'm sure
I've already said this in one form or another, but let's
give it its own reply...
I love arguments. I love the intellectual stimulation of
discussion. But there's a difference between discussion
of an issue, and personal attacks. Personal attacks are
no fun to watch/listen to, and certainly no fun to be involved
in.
"I believe you are wrong because..." is an argument, a
discussion. "You're a sexist jerk and you've got no right
to talk about that" is a personal attack, and in 99% of all
cases has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.
When you write a reply, if you are feeling thoughtful, thinking
"gee, I don't see what you're getting at", or "I see what
you mean, but it just doesn't seem right", then you're probably
discussing. If you feel emotional, angry, if you feel like
shouting... you're probably about to write a personal attack.
You won't add anything to the topic, and you'll be contributing
to the whole cause of *this* topic: driving people away.
Y'know, "be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in
gear"? Everyone tears out leaving piles of metal filings
at the bottom of their gearbox once in a while... but we
all need to work on minimizing the damages.
You'll never, ever, win an argument unless you *understand*
what the other person's talking about. So be compassionate,
give people the benefit of any doubt... ask questions. And
when you *understand*, and if you still disagree, *then*
is the time to start arguing your side. Without anger, without
attacks. You're trying to help *them* to understand... not
to tear them into shreds. I hope...
/dave
|
| 241.75 | | SUPER::HENDRICKS | | Fri Apr 10 1987 09:22 | 39 |
| Dave, I appreciate your note, and your willingness to put your thoughts
down again in hopes of being heard and understood.
I think most topics in this file will stand up to lively argument.
Everyone should be heard, and have a right to express an opinion.
At the same time, there are a few areas where I, as a woman, am
unable to welcome input from men unless it is given very carefully
and respectfully. You can guess what these areas are, I bet: sexual
abuse, sexual harrassment, rape, and related subjects; the inherent
rightness of women starting in low-paying positions (ie, secretarial)
and having to "prove themselves" and work their way out and up.
I was on the other side (the outside looking in) in a similar
discussion with some very good friends who are black. I wanted
to be accepted, and I wanted them to know that I "really understood",
and I wanted them to acknowledge that I am not an oppressive white
person. After much painful discussion over a long period of time,
I finally had to accept that there are some areas which they
will *never* consider that I understand because I have not had personal
experience of the oppression. With that particular group of people,
I am welcome to discuss those issues, but I am not welcome to make
definitive statements, because I have not experienced it myself.
I found that in the most sensitive areas, the bottom line was that
I had to respect their experience and their assessment of the
situation. There are some things I can bend my mind around pretty
well, but I have not had to live with those things day after day,
and so I don't have the same experience.
I find that when the men in this file write about those super-senstive
subjects respectfully, and don't try to rewrite what we have
experienced, and don't try to tell us what we should have done,
and ultimately *understand that they cannot ever understand those
abuse and harrassment issues*, I can welcome them fully here. And
I respect them for caring enough to try to see those subjects through
my eyes.
...one woman's perspective...Holly
|
| 241.76 | think before you flame, please... | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Fri Apr 10 1987 11:10 | 51 |
| .75: This is intended as a mild and nonjudgemental comment. It
is to be taken as food for thought, not as a flame or even as an
argument. Additionally, "you" and "yours" are intended to be
generic, not specifically targeting any individual. I should not
need to say any of this... but in notes conferences (not just
this one) it's usually not safe to take anything for granted.
When a program has a serious bug, which you simply can't
track down, the best solution is often to show the code to
another engineer who has never seen the code and has only
a general idea of what it does. This person will often find
that the bug is immediately obvious, though you have stared
at that line of code for hours without noticing anything
wrong.
There is such a thing as being too close to a problem. An
observer who is not personally involved in the problem may
often have valuable insights which the problem's victim cannot
distance herself well enough to see.
<end of food-for-thought, beginning of discussion thereof>
Don't assume that because someone has not been in a situation,
that they have no understanding of it, or no capability to
contribute to a discussion. And don't assume that they're
*wrong* simply because you disagree.
Discussion is perfectly reasonable: eventually an agreement
will be reached. No matter how offended you may feel, flaming
will never accomplish anything.
I don't believe that women---or blacks---are so fragile that
they can't survive being exposed to differing opinions, wrong
or right, and however directly stated. I will not be more
"careful and respectful" than normal when discussing any
of these issues, because this should not be necessary with
rational intelligent adults, which I believe most of you
to be. I am rarely deliberately rude or abusive... and never
unless I have been abused first (the validity of such
retribution is certainly debatable, but not relevant now).
If my opinion conflicts with yours, lets calmly figure out
who is right... or if we both are (or maybe neither of us).
Trying to crush me under your feet for daring to disagree
isn't going to help anyone. It'll simply deprive you of my
enlightening opinions and cheery personality (:-)). This
topic makes it clear that WOMANNOTES has thus been deprived
of a *number* of opinions and personalities... mine among
them (albeit, so far, temporarily).
/dave
|
| 241.77 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | | Fri Apr 10 1987 11:43 | 34 |
| re .76
Grain for thought: once I had not been raped. I thought I could
understand what was happening to my sisters, just as many men hope
they can understand what is happening to their sisters.
Now I have been there, and I know what I thought before, and I know
what I think now, and I know how wrong I was. I keep thinking that
if I just explain how I feel, what happened, maybe I can help someone
else understand, without suffering the way I and my sisters have.
But you see, even explaining this much gets me so unhappy that I
have to stop and "clean up."
I _like_ to talk to people about this sort of thing as it helps me
understand better what happened then and what happens to me every day,
but you ("you"=="people who have never been there") MUST understand how
difficult it is for us to discuss this, because we are trying to 1) get
out our feelings, and 2) give you the opportunity to see what we do not
tell everybody.
I don't tell the people I work with how sexist they are (or aren't).
I pick the battles I can and fight them at work, but if you only
talk to SOs about this sort of thing, the word doesn't get around.
Forgive me if I think you cannot understand my experiences if you
have never been there, but it is hard to explain that I once was
uninitiated to these awful things, and felt (and argued) much as
many of _you_ do.
Regards,
Lee
|
| 241.78 | but | CLT::BUTENHOF | Approachable Systems | Fri Apr 10 1987 14:04 | 8 |
| .77: but I never said that *everyone* who's never experienced
something will understand it and have useful insights. What I
said was that it can happen, and you might miss a lot by
arbitrarily dismissing these viewpoints... especially if you do
so in a sufficiently insulting manner that they never again
*offer* their ideas.
/dave
|
| 241.79 | Food for thought | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | Back to Reality | Fri Apr 10 1987 14:40 | 21 |
| re .77
more food for thought: I have been raped as you have Lee. But
I do not feel the same feelings as you do. Gender does not assume
understanding. I did not have the same experience as you did so
the only real understanding comes from people having very same
experiences. In many issues around sexism, rape and other areas
where we are the victim of crimes perpetuated by men it is not only
important to understand how we *feel* but why it happened. Input
from men has value and there is hidden value in input that is sexist
or negative. We then have the opportunity to address those attitudes
and perhaps influence the individual with our viewpoints.
The serious danger that I feel has occurred in this file occasionally
is the attitude that we as women have no control until men *change*.
We do not do ourselves any favors if all our failures are contributed
to sexist attitudes by the men in power.
|
| 241.80 | The truth may be just a bit too brutal to talk about here... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Fri Apr 10 1987 20:17 | 28 |
| RE: .79
We need to remember also that many, many women have *NOT* failed
to succeed (and that many of those women overcame substantial
obstacles to get where they are today.)
If successful women come into this file to say why they are bothered
by the various realities of what it means to be a woman in our culture,
it does *NOT* mean that they hate all men, or think that all men are
sexist, or think that all men do unpleasant things to us on purpose,
or think that all women are poor little victims (and are 100% right
about every single thing that any of us says at any given time.)
When women who are *NOT* as successful (as they wish they were)
come into this file to say why they are bothered by the realities
of being a woman in our culure -- it does not mean that they hate
all men, or think that all men are sexist, etc.....
Some of the things that are mentioned in this file are very rough
to hear about. As personally offended as some men have been by
the FEELINGS that have been expressed here -- I almost think that
maybe we should have opened this file by saying, "It's OK. Nothing
is wrong. We're happy with our place in this culture. We don't
need to make more money or be treated differently. Don't worry."
I think that maybe we should have kept the truth to ourselves.
Suzanne...
|
| 241.81 | | ULTRA::GUGEL | Spring is for rock-climbing | Fri Apr 10 1987 20:27 | 15 |
| re -1:
Suzanne, I understand why you're saying this again, but I am getting
*really* tired of hearing a lot of women in this file have to justify our
experiences, feelings, etc. over and over again! Furthermore, I
am sick of us having to say (over and over and over and over again)
that we don't hate men. *No one* has ever said that she hates men!
I am sorry to say that I think this whole conference might be going
down a rathole in that respect. :-(
I used to recommend this conference to people. I don't do that
any more.
-Ellen
|
| 241.82 | | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Fri Apr 10 1987 20:54 | 19 |
| RE: Ellen
Name a single emotion we've talked about in this file that hasn't
been totally misunderstood by some men (to the point where they
think we are going to go stomping into their cubicles like
Nazi's to *FORCE* them to stop what they are doing.)
Name one emotion that hasn't been greeted by defensive rhetoric
about how we are making assumptions about their MOTIVATION for doing
what it is they do that annoys us.
Why, why, why can't people talk about feelings in this file without
other people taking it personally (that we must hate their guts
if we have these feelings)?
I'm tired of saying we don't hate men, too. I'm tired that it keeps
being so blatently obvious that we *HAVE* to say it again and again.
Suzanne...
|
| 241.83 | ...so as I was saying... | SNEAKY::SULLIVAN | Oliver Wendel Jones | Fri Apr 10 1987 21:15 | 14 |
|
The ability to ignore childish responses is a part of maturity.
Often in the various notesfiles, rude overreactions are entered
after what seemed to be innocuous statements. Usually, those people
who make the comments are courteously ignored, and the conversation
flows right over them. Intelligent readers (the ones we usually
aim our contributions at) will read many of your topics before they
form any opinion of you. Even then, they should keep that opinion
to themselves. I must admit that we are all probably guilty of
dignifying idiotic comments with responses, but I do try to avoid
doing so.
Bubba
|
| 241.84 | well said | STUBBI::B_REINKE | the fire and the rose are one | Fri Apr 10 1987 21:26 | 3 |
| Greg (aka Bubba) that is is a very good point. I really think
that most readers discount the idiots and listen to the serious
writers.
|
| 241.85 | No one said it would be easy | MARCIE::JLAMOTTE | Back to Reality | Fri Apr 10 1987 21:32 | 22 |
|
There have been men reply to notes in this conference that have
sought justification for feelings we have expressed as women. There
have been women in this conference that have asked men to justify
their feelings.
There have been women that have generalized attitudes to the whole
male population and their have been men that have blamed all women
for the actions of a few.
We need to hear "all the voices" to "change the world". But we
need to also allow the expression of opinion in a way that allows
change to occur.
I believe the world is ripe for change now...especially here in
America...being selfish is not popular and change is occuring through
good example.
I have been sharing my experiences with people all my life before
'sharing' became a word, I will not stop trying to understand and
be understood.
|
| 241.86 | If *ONLY* it were that simple.... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Fri Apr 10 1987 21:37 | 17 |
| RE: .83 & .84
There are some people who get upset by what we say in this file
-- if they only *were* idiots, then *I* wouldn't be so upset that
they constantly misunderstand us so badly.
Some of these guys are so intelligent and reasonable that it just
kills me to see that the communication just isn't happening the
way it could.
A gorilla noter is frustrating -- but the anger goes away after
awhile because I don't really care about people like that.
The intelligent ones that don't understand -- I do care about
many of them (so the frustration doesn't go away as easily.)
Suzanne...
|
| 241.87 | Massage my mind | SNEAKY::SULLIVAN | Oliver Wendel Jones | Fri Apr 10 1987 21:44 | 9 |
|
Well, if you normally respect a person, and that person seems
to be misunderstanding you, you should send that person a personal
mail message, and work it out. If that person grows to understand,
perhaps that person would enter a reply on that new understanding.
Or, that person may choose to delete the former reply.
Bubba
|
| 241.88 | Thanks, Bubba! But it's water under the bridge, I think... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Fri Apr 10 1987 22:18 | 7 |
| RE: .87
Thanks for the advice. I think it's too late for me to try
that now.
Suzanne...
|
| 241.89 | re .88 piffle - do what you feel you can do :-) | STUBBI::B_REINKE | the fire and the rose are one | Fri Apr 10 1987 22:27 | 1 |
|
|
| 241.90 | Late night thoughts | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Fri Apr 10 1987 22:57 | 29 |
| I am starting to see a familiar pattern in the arguments here.
Two people have different opinions on certain subjects, though they
may agree on others. Each is trying and trying and trying to sway
the other, without success. This effort has been going on for
months, and appears that it will never end.
Is it possible to simply accept that the other disagrees with you
and leave it at that? Each person has expressed their view clearly
and eloquently, with no room for misinterpretation. Simply saying
the same things over and over again only leads to frustration.
(I've been guilty of this too - I try to convince people I'm right
by wearing them down - it never works.)
I believe we can accept it as given that all of the active participants
are caring, feeling people who genuinely want to live in harmony
with the other sex. Since we are NOT all identical, it is also
given that we won't agree on everything. As I don't see the
disagreements being on the "super-sensitive" issues (for example,
I have yet to see any participant suggest that rape is ok), can
we just sit back, agree to disagree on certain issues, and go on
to others? If the people who are arguing aren't getting worn
down, I certainly am, and I imagine so are many other readers.
To make this work, you have to accept that sometimes you won't get
the last word. Live with it.
In peace...
Steve
|
| 241.91 | well said | STUBBI::B_REINKE | the fire and the rose are one | Fri Apr 10 1987 23:02 | 3 |
| Thankyou Steve, beautifully spoken...
Bonnie
|
| 241.92 | Later night thoughts :) | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | | Fri Apr 10 1987 23:20 | 22 |
| re: .90
Oooh, Steve, good point.
re: Suzanne's tiredness
Yeah, I get tired, too. While I still think it's good "they" are
here, I have a hard time expressing some feelings (who me? hard
time expressing feelings? naahhh) when I know that somewhere, someone
will pop in saying, "AHA! You like to be complimented, and like
to be able to tell and hear dirty jokes in mixed company, but then
feel harassed when...well, I/we knew it all along, your feelings
are invalid and what happens to women is fine, they like it."
I would like to understand all (much of, anyway) the feelings,
recognize the inconsistencies, figure out why, and work from there,
spending _no_ time deciding whether or not those feelings are right
and/or valid, spending _no_ time accusing someone for the
inconsistencies in their feelings, just spending conversation trying
to express and understand.
Lee
|
| 241.94 | Yeh, no one did say it would be easy | HUMAN::BURROWS | Jim Burrows | Sat Apr 11 1987 00:00 | 35 |
| Try to remember that there are a lot of different kinds of men
in this file and a lot of different kinds of women in this file.
Remember, also, that often the people that we remember out of
the crowd are the ones that stand out, that are most unusual.
There are men in this file who seem bitter and who can be harsh,
almost cruel to women whom they feel are out of line, especially
to women that do things similar to the things that have hurt
them (the men) in the past. There are only a small number of
these, but oft times these few contribute more strongly to
the image of "men in the file" than all of the ones who struggle
to understand.
There are women in this file who seem bitter, and who often
speak ill of "men" when they mean "some men", or who make
absolute statements about "all men" when they are trying to make
a point. There are a couple of women in the file who seem to
resent the men in the file. Both of these groups of women are
very small, but all too often their actions contribute much more
to the image of "women in this file" than all the other women
who are just struggling to understand.
All too often we allow the few vocal bitter or strident voices to
be heard above the calm ones asking the searching questions or
trying to put into words things they've felt for years but never
said. All too often we let anger, fear, distrust, and bitterness
(either in ourselves or in others) distract us from the love,
the trust, the support, and the honesty in this file.
By "all too often", I don't mean all the time either. I mean a
noticable amount of the time. Most of the people in this file
keep a pretty good perspective most of the time. Occasionally we
have our little crises, but we have and we can weather them.
JimB.
|
| 241.95 | :-) | STUBBI::B_REINKE | the fire and the rose are one | Sat Apr 11 1987 00:33 | 6 |
| thankyou jim....well said
you have a wonderful gift for expressing complex and personal
concepts clearly .....
Bonnie
|
| 241.96 | Maybe there is a better word to use than the word SEXISM. | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Sat Apr 11 1987 15:25 | 52 |
| One of the major sources of misunderstanding in this file seems
to come from the idea that the *intentions* behind behavior
are more important than the behavior itself.
Some folks seem to say, after hearing that some women dislike
a certain behavior and think of it as sexist, "When *I* perform
this behavior, my intentions are *NOT SEXIST*! Therefore, it
is NOT WRONG for me to do this thing and it is, furthur, WRONG
OF YOU to ask me to stop." (Then the big battle ensues as these
folks assume they they *ARE* being called sexist because they
intend to continue the behavior in question.)
Maybe we have a bad habit of calling too many things "sexist"
(because of the fact that the behaviors are typcically done
to women and not men.) That may be the cause of a lot of the
bad feelings that develop in this file. Most of us seem to
be *highly critical and resentful* of what we consider sexist
-- then we name behaviors as sexist that *could* end up labeling
a vast majority of the male population as "sexists" (when the
offending behaviors are quite common among most men.)
That could be why some men seem to think that we hate all men
or are criticizing all men (and calling all men sexists.) We
have hit on too many behaviors that some NON-sexist men are
fond of doing (and they resent being made to feel that they
are being called SEXIST in this file.)
The point is -- REGARDLESS of the intentions one has in performing
certain behaviors, the behaviors *do bother* some women. Even
if a man is a dead solid NON-SEXIST in every single sense of
the word, certain behaviors that he has always enjoyed *can*
very well end up on the list of things that annoy some women.
It's no insult to the man (and it doesn't mean that he is a
sexist.)
Many women in this file are merely trying to say, "This is why
the behavior bothers me. This is how I feel. How would *YOU*
feel if something comparable happened to you?"
I think we need another word we can use to describe these
behaviors (*other* than the word "sexist"). Whatever we say
after we describe the behavior as sexist -- it is all lost in
the shuffle as some men get angry and try to defend themselves
against what is considered the ultimate insult in this file
(i.e., to be called a sexist.)
The word "sexist" has the emotional impact of a nuclear explosion
in this file when some people perceive that the S word is being
used to label themselves. Maybe "sexist" and "sexism" are words
that we should use with a lot more caution.
Suzanne...
|
| 241.97 | An end to generalities | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Sat Apr 11 1987 15:41 | 29 |
| Re: .96
I think you have some good points, Suzanne. Maybe it is time we
stopped generalizing, period. Instead of saying "men do this"
or "if you do this you're sexist", try saying "this specific behavior
bothers me in certain situations". Then we can concentrate on the
specific things that are irritating without causing everyone to
always be defensive.
This reminds me of an important technique I picked up from the
book "Parent Effectiveness Training". Basically, when you want
to complain about a behavior, use "I" instead of "you". For example,
replace "You are sexist for leering at me" with "I feel uncomfortable
when you leer at me". (And don't fall into the trap of saying things
like "I don't like it that you're sexist". (The corollary when
dealing with children is that you say "It hurts me when you hit
me" instead of "You're bad because you hit me".)
A related item which really gets my dander up is the all-too-common
pattern of "Men do this and women do that", or "Why do all men do
this?". (An example is the fallacy in MENNOTES that men like dogs
but women like cats.) Too many times the writer is taking his or
her own views and assigning them to others. This just doesn't
work, and only serves to upset those who DON'T fit the pattern.
Don't generalize - if you have a specific view, claim it as your
own but don't stick me with it - I'm perfectly capable of speaking
for myself, thank you.
Steve
|
| 241.98 | Sometimes it is the SUBTLE messages that come across... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Sat Apr 11 1987 15:56 | 27 |
| RE: .97
Good things to remember, Steve.
*ALSO*, we need to realize that sometimes the "you are a sexist"
messages are EXTREMEMLY SUBTLE (and we may actually be saying
it inadvertently without meaning it.)
When we say, "This behavior is sexist" -- all people who do
that behavior will *perceive* that we are saying, "If you *do*
this behavior, then *YOU* are a sexist."
One of our major enemies in the struggle for equality has been
generalizations. It is not only wrong to generalize about people,
but it can be wrong to generalize about behaviors (i.e., that all
behaviors uncomfortable for women are sexist).
Behaviors are done by *PEOPLE* (sometimes by people who are
not in the least trying to be sexist when they do it.)
This file is a good place to talk about the sorts of behaviors
that bother some of us. I think we just need to be careful
how we *EXPRESS* ourselves in these areas (because of the fact
that we are quite often talking about behaviors that are done
by so many of our intelligent, reasonable NON-SEXIST male friends.)
Suzanne... :-)
|
| 241.99 | Here's to PEACE... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Sat Apr 11 1987 16:22 | 9 |
| P.S. Hand-in-hand with this effort to express ourselves
more clearly should be the effort by *some* men to read
what we are really saying (i.e., that it is the BEHAVIORS
we are saying we don't like, and not necessarily the
individual noters among us who may be doing these behaviors.)
As Maggie says, it will be better "if we ALL work at it!"
Suzanne... :-)
|
| 241.100 | Semi-summation. | SNEAKY::SULLIVAN | Beware the Night Writer! | Sat Apr 11 1987 18:53 | 8 |
|
Careful wording when broaching sensitive topics, lowered
sensitivity when reading those topics, personal communication in
the case of possible flames - these are all promising factors which
should lead to enhanced harmony.
Bubba
|
| 241.101 | Nicely put! | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Sat Apr 11 1987 21:25 | 6 |
| RE: .100
Great words to note by, Bubba! Thanks!!!
Suzanne... :-)
|
| 241.102 | | SUPER::HENDRICKS | | Sun Apr 12 1987 16:31 | 37 |
| Ellen made a good point, I think. It is unfortunate that some of
us occasionally get caught up in explaining and/or apologizing for and/or
otherwise interpreting our experiences to the men in this file who
don't like some of the things we say and believe. Sometimes it
is important just to agree to disagree.
I don't hate men, or want to see them eliminated from this file.
At the same time, I don't feel that their (your) comfort is one
of the highest priorities here. I am willing to listen to male
viewpoints thoughtfully.
<flame on>
BUT I CANNOT BEAR IT WHEN ANY MAN LISTENS TO WOMEN DISCUSS THEIR
EXPERIENCES--THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED TO US!--AND THEN TRIES TO
REINTERPRET THOSE EXPERIENCES.
<flame off>
It's very important to me that we all be able to have lively arguments
and discussions. A notesfile free of controversy would probably
be dull. But please, please respect our descriptions of our lives
and experiences here.
A number of us have said (in various ways) that we are wary of men
because our experiences with *some* men, expecially unknown men,
have given us good reason to be wary. So many times, one or another
male noter has responded, "But don't include me...I'm not like that...".
That feels like a negation. It also makes me feel like I wasn't
heard or my experience respected. I think it is very important
for women to be able to make statements like the above without having
them evaluated and re-interpreted. Here in Womannotes, especially...
<sigh>And here I am explaining, in spite of my assertion above that
we shouldn't have to. Contradiction acknowledged.
Holly
|
| 241.103 | | STUBBI::B_REINKE | the fire and the rose are one | Sun Apr 12 1987 20:24 | 7 |
| Thankyou also to Bubba, very well spoken..
And I would also agree with other noters that when ever possible
useing the PET methods of "I" messages is ultimately more
productive.
|
| 241.104 | Feelings and intentions | SOFTY::HEFFELFINGER | The valient Spaceman Spiff! | Mon Apr 13 1987 11:03 | 116 |
| Well, I think in this note, there has finally been an increase
in the ratio of light to heat.
Some very valid and important things have been said about
expressing things in terms of "*I* am bothered by..." rather than
"*You* are scum because..." and so on.
However... (You all *knew* there had to be a "however" didn't
you? ;-))
Two things have been said, repeated and not refuted that bother
me, because I don't think they are absolute truths and I perceive
that they are being portrayed as such. (Is that sufficiently worded
so that you perceive that the way that I want you to? ;-))
1) The validity of feelings should not be questioned. Perhaps
I come from a very different background but I was raised excatly
the opposite. Feeling are such tricky little bastards. They carry
a lot of emotional baggage with them. I have often found that when
I am feeling extremely angry about something, if I examine why I
feel this way (question the validity of my feelings, if you will)
that I discover that my feelings were not warranted. I am allowing
totally unrelated incidents to color my perceptions/reactions.
An example: We had our yearly general meeting at the UU fellowship
yesterday. I was very irritated with a certain ammendment to a
proposal. I started to vote against it. I realized in time that
my reaction was not to the ammendment per se but to the lawyer that
proposed it. (He's legalistic prig and I find it hard to stand
in the same room with him without doing him bodily harm much less
find myself voting in FAVOR of something he proposed.) Other examples
would be cases in which I took at offense at a remark that no one
else in their right mind would have taken offense at and when I
examined the situation, I realized that *I* was hurting *myself*
by being so Damned sensitive that you literally couldn't have said anything
in that situation, no matter how well intentioned, without offending
me. (I'll come back to intentions in a moment.) It's this ability
to examine ourselves and change our behaviour and outlook on life
as a result that makes a mature person. When I question the validity
of someone else's feelings that does NOT mean that I deny the feelings
exist or that I am can do something to help the situation. What
it means is *I* don't understand. *I* wouldn't feel that way in
this situation, why are you different than me? Is it possible
that you are bringing something else to the encounter that you are
not aware of? If so, do you feel differently now that you know
that? That does NOT mean that I EXPECT you to feel differently.
It means that *I* often feel differently when I understand the source
of my feelings and I can't help but think that you might also.
It also means that in the process of examining your feelings you
might show me what you're bringing to the encounter, and *I* might
have *my* feelings changed. It also means that I will respect you
more, for having the courage to question yourself on often painful
subjects *and* I will give more creedance and consideration to people
who will examine than those who say "These are MY feelings. No
one and nothing can change them or explain them or understand them
so DON'T bother to try!" (This last, of course, is an exaggeration for
illustrative purposes.) Whether this is right or wrong, this is
the way I feel after MUCH examination of that feeling and the reasons
for it. I realize that others don't feel that way. Others are
not used to living in this manner of questioning EVERYTHING.
What I am trying to get across here is that I perceive that you could
interpret my questioning your feelings as attack on you, that you
could perceive them as a denial of your right to have feelings,
a denial of your personhood. This is NOT what I intend, in fact it
is quite the opposite. This is my way comfirming our SAMENESS.
I have confused feelings and beliefs and I benefit from having them
questioned. I'm in no doubt of my personhood. As a fellow person
I am granting to you the same opportunity to work through your
confusion. If I help you change your mind, great. If I help you
strengthen in a belief that I don't share, great, maybe I'll learn
something along the way.
2) Intentions. I feel that intentions *ARE* important. When
you explain how an action makes you feel, you are giving exactly
� of the story. The other half is what the person who "perpetrated"
the action intended. Just as you want people to validate and
understand how *you* feel, others want the same courtesy in
relation to their actions. And amazingly enough, they might *change*
your reaction. (God forbid! :-)) I know that as far as I'm concerned
the intentions that people have make an enormous difference. To
pull an example from the UU meeting yesterday (again): There was
a vote that required 80% approval by those who voted to pass. the
votes were tallied and the issue hinged on whether or not a vote
of "abstain" counted as a vote. If they did, the measure failed,
if not, it passed. (This was a long afternoon and we were all a bit
sick of one another and each other's arguing at this point.) All
I wanted was to go home. Two people got up to argue the situation.
I was extremely irritated with John (see paragraph about Legalistic
Prig above) because he wanted to throw out those votes and kept
bringing up Webster's dictionary, Robert's rules of order and would
NOT shut up and except the ruling of the majority, because, by God,
he was a lawyer and he'd be damned if let a bunch of *laymen* best
him in legalese! Robert argued in favor of revote with a clarification
that "abstain" means "I don't vote" whereas "present" means "I want
my vote counted even though I don't choose either option". The
point is that although I just wanted to go home, I was not angry
with Robert for prolonging things by arguing or demanding a revote
because his intentions were to insure that everyone had a chance
to have their vote counted in the manner they intended. Whereas
John irritated the hell out me because all he wanted to to win an
argument.
Part of the reason I going into this in such detail, is because
I'm going to enter a note questioning the evalidity of some feelings.
It's a very touchy subject and some one is undoubtedly going to perceive
my note in a way I don't intend.
I hope this background to that note will help fend off some of
the heat and make you *THINK* about why you feel that way before
you come blasting in telling me that I am denying you this and
that...
sorry to be so longwinded...
tlh
|
| 241.105 | | GOJIRA::PHILPOTT | Ian F. ('The Colonel') Philpott | Mon Apr 13 1987 15:17 | 39 |
|
re the validity of feelings.
Anything a human being feels has a validity and a reality that must
be respected. If however another human feels differently, or doesn't
understand the feeling they may say so.
The problem I suspect is that some feelings we have *are* irrational:
people may be irrationally afraid of enclosed spaces, open spaces, heights,
spiders, the dark,... Such irrational fears are called phobias, and phobic
behaviour is treatable.
Occasionally someone expresses a feeling or an emotional reaction that
somebody else sees as phobic. The reaction may itself be phobic. Thus
if someone expresses the feeling that all [wo]men are [x] and someone else
feels this is grossly irrational and says so they may be displaying phobic
reactions also.
Another situation is the scenario where one person expresses a feeling
which is queried, and after a number of replies somebody says, in effect,
"we have expressed our feelings and explained why, and we don't want
to read dissenting views". This I believe is invalid on two counts:
firstly after seeing this reaction I have sometimes reread the notes
and failed to see a persuasive argument or cogent explanation for the
feelings, and secondly it implies that feelings can be more than valid,
but assume the status of axiomatic truth.
So, whatever any of us feels is valid *to us*, but may not be valid
*to somebody else*. I used to have a phobia about ivy, I couldn't bear
to be near the stuff, but some people like it and actually deliberately
plant it against their houses. Both my point of view and theirs is valid,
but both are subject to challenge (mine is irrational, theirs is crazy
because ivy damages the fabric of the house and leads to problems with
damp and insect invasion).
Finally though I would say that challenging a view point is divided
by a very fine line from persecuting the person who propounded it.
/. Ian .\
|
| 241.106 | Maybe we are asking way too much from a public notesfile... | NEXUS::CONLON | Persistent dreamer... | Mon Apr 13 1987 23:27 | 52 |
| When I got my first technical job 13 years ago (while still
in college), I saw right away that it was a bit of a "jungle"
in non-traditional jobs and knew quite well that many men
(in 1974) believed in their hearts that women couldn't cut
it in a technical environment.
In *MY* heart, I didn't know whether they were right or not.
I wasn't born knowing that sexism was wrong. For all I knew,
maybe the men at the time were RIGHT. I just didn't know one
way or the other (because I had never worked in a technical
job myself nor had I ever known a woman who had either.)
Whatever might be true or untrue about women, I decided, would
not limit *MY* chances. I felt that my destiny resided in my
own hands and that *I* could do well if I tried.
Well, I've had my ups and downs -- but overall, things have
gone very well for me. I've worked hard and it's paid off for
me (and for my son.) Ryan and I have been dependent on *MY*
earning power alone for his entire life of 16 years. We have
never for a single minute been supported by a man. (I was
married for 4 years in the middle of all that, but my husband
earned half as much as I did.)
It's only been recently that I have realized that I'm not all
that special (in terms of being able to make it in a technical
area.) LOTS and LOTS of women have been successful. There
are so many, many bright and talented women out in the world
who have done FAR more than I have in life (*FAR, FAR* more.)
I'm very, very proud of what women have been able to achieve
in the past 20 years. When you consider that our culture didn't
equip women (in the past) with much in the way of encouragement
about our abilities -- I think we have a lot to be proud of
in terms of how well we have done overall (as a group.)
Feelings about sexism? In reality, I don't have many. I have
opinions and have been searching for the feelings. Some of
notes I have written (especially the analogy I wrote about the
imaginary "Mirror World" where women dominate men) -- I've been
trying to show men how it would feel to be oppressed (and at
the same time have been trying to understand how *I* should
feel about it.)
If this isn't a good place for us to explore how we all feel
about sexism, then let's decide that and drop it.
There's no point in arguing whether or not our reactions and
possible feelings are valid. Either we can talk about these
things openly or we can't. If we can't, then fine.
Suzanne...
|