Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Mary-Lynn
    Rather than drop out, please stay and use your perspective to point
    out when this sort of thing is happening. There can't be a wide
    variety of points of view unless there are a wide variety of people
    speaking out. I started a note a while ago (All the voices....)
    on this same general topic.
    Bonnie J.

    re .0
    
    It's funny you should mention that you've thought about leaving
    this conference because some of us are too hard on the male
    contributors; I have hesitated to really get involved in this
    conference for nearly opposite reasons.  When I first learned of
    this conference, I was delighted to hear about this "Safe Space
    for Women."  Working in a group where women are in the minority,
    I looked forward to the opportunity to express myself freely, without
    fear of being judged by men.  When men began to participate in the
    conference, I was initially disappointed, but I decided to try to
    keep an open mind.  I thought that men's contributions would add
    value as long as they respected this conference as a woman's "safe" 
    space and as long as their primary purpose in contributing was to *learn*
    about "Issues of interest to women" and *NOT* to try to define what
    those issues ought to be.  What I have found to be true for me is
    that many (not all) of the male contributors have felt perfectly
    free to say things like, "That's not a relevant issue."  If I were
    reading Mennotes, and I read something that I (a woman) believed
    to be irrelevant to men, I would:
    	1. Keep reading to try to understand why the men defined it
    	   as relevant to them.
    	2. Stop reading.
    I would not impose my definitions on them.  I wonder if some of the
    woman in this conference that you might accuse of "bashing" men,
    have felt some of the same anger that I have felt.  If more of
    the men in this conference began their entries with "Gee, I always
    thought that..." instead of "This is....," or "It surprises me to
    hear you feel that way" instead of "How can you feel that way?!"
    I would definitely contribute more to this conference and feel 
    better about it.
    
          Justine
    

    I've been pleased to note a dramatic reduction in bashing of all
    forms in both conferences, especially over the past couple of months.
    One of the reasons for this, I am sure, is the gentle encouragement
    given to those who might otherwise think they are unwelcome.
    
    Yes, I'll agree that the reduction has taken place at the same time
    as certain people being less active, but I don't think that the
    problem was just a few specific noters.   In all cases, I feel that
    the bashing comes from pain, and if we recognize and understand
    that, we can cope with it better.
    
    Personally, I've tried to write less and think more, and I hope
    I've contributed to the improved atmosphere.

    						Steve

    MENNOTES is RSTS32::MENNOTES.  You can press KP7 or SELECT while
    reading this note to add it to your notebook.  (If you tried and
    failed before, you may need to say DELETE ENTRY MENNOTES first.)
    
    				Steve (MENNOTES co-moderator)

    RE .0 Consider the source.  (Mr. personality +)

    
    	Perhaps a lot of the earlier agression was due to the *novelty*
    of using notes; you cant get slapped or kicked and the worst that
    can happen is to get your "offending note" sent back via personal
    mail along with a reprimand from the moderator!
    
    	People have become more responsible after getting used to the
    seriousness of having these conversations out of real time. I point
    out that most, not all, noters would not behave as they do if they
    were in a, say, performance situation (in front of a crowd). Sitting
    here within your little_black_box is quite safe - imagine what has
    been written and then ^Z'd (for various reasons). Do most noters
    take some time to at least read what they've written - or do they
    just spew it off into the text and go?
    
    	This topic has been discussed before here
                                          
    	Joe Jas
    

    
    	I just want to add a couple of lines here, and I've said it
    	before, and this happens in both MEN and WOMEN notes.
    
    	I have seen a few notes that have been written by a man in this
    	file that some women have accused him of not supporting women.
    	But when a women has made the same point elsewhere, it has been
    	"Gee, I never thought of that".  I have also seen this in Men
    	notes where the roles are reversed. All too often we tend to
    	take the feministic attitude to far, and instead of trying
    	to look, and see things through, we (myself included) immediately
    	rip the person apart.  We read want we want to read, not what
    	the person is saying.  
    
    	I know of one person that is READ only, because noters beat
    	up on each other.  Case in point, the "LOVE AFFAIR" note.
    	I said I wanted to delete it. Not really.  It just proved to
    	me 1 of 2 things...1) People cared or 2) People were curious
    	as to what happened.  As far as I am concerned, I was curious.
    
    	I don't enter things much anymore.  When I entered my intro
    	note, I stated, I wanted to figure out women.  What I was 
    	referring to, is how they react to mens answers to questions,
    	how they respect mens ideas and thoughts.  Well, I was very
    	shocked to learn the things I did.  You might want to sit
    	back and think of why MEN bash back.  We really don't want to
    	hear that our opinions are worthless, and irrelevant.
    
    			Mike
    
    	

    I've resisted adding much to this discussion.  In some ways,
    I have so much to say I can't even begin to say it, and
    I've been grateful that the controversy has been dying down.

    However, I couldn't let .9's comment about why he joined the
    conference pass by:  
    
   > 	...I wanted to figure out women.  What I was 
   > 	referring to, is how they react to mens answers to questions,
   > 	how they respect mens ideas and thoughts.  

    The concept leaves me practically speechless.  The
    thought that understanding women is fundamentally a
  atter of seeing how they respond to men produces many more
    thoughts and feelings than I can currently communicate.

    One strong reaction is a wish to point out to men and
    women both, the degree to which in our culture and our
    conditioned selves maleness == normalcy and femaleness = other.  
    When women give their perspectives on an issue, 
    men try to subsume it into what they think of as a larger, 
    generically human issue, not a "women's" issue.
    Defining "ordinary", "normal", "human", is a tricky business
    because of the vast extent to which male values/attitudes/
    behavior/history is identified as normative.  These values
    not seen as being gender-specific, so when a women is urged
    to be rational or objective, she is usually being urged
    to adopt male-ness.  What is especially sad to me, is
    when the women actually do it.

    Far from being a bashing of poor, persecuted males, the usual
    controversial scenario goes like this:
    
    Woman complains of some issue common to female experience
    in our male-dominated society (e.g. sexual harrassment, etc).
    
    Men object that it is not a real issue.  Gender has nothing
    to do with it, the women are over-sensitive, unfairly generalizing
    from a few examples, and since they themselves are certainly
    not oppressing women, the complaint is unjustifed as a blanket
    comment on their gender.
    
    Women object that their feelings are valid, and men don't
    understand what it's like to move through the world and
    experience it as a woman.
    
    Men accuse women of being "radical feminists", threaten to
    quit the conference and then, by God, it will certainly go
    completely downhill.
    
    Women start stroking the men, assuring them they are
    valued members, obviously superior and more discerning than
    the average male, and please, please, please don't leave us.
    
    I start to get nauseous.
    

    RE .10
    
    

  >  However, I couldn't let .9's comment about why he joined the
  >  conference pass by:  
    
   >> 	...I wanted to figure out women.  What I was 
   >> 	referring to, is how they react to mens answers to questions,
   >>	how they respect mens ideas and thoughts.  

    	I should have used the word VALUE instead of RESPECT.

    
>        The concept leaves me practically speechless.  The
>    thought that understanding women is fundamentally a
>    atter of seeing how they respond to men produces many more
>    thoughts and feelings than I can currently communicate.

    I think you mis-interpreted a little bit here.  I didn't say it
    was fundamentally a matter of seeing how they respond.  First, you
    can learn alot of about WOMEN, and MEN about the ways they answer
    questions.  How they feel about certain things, what pisses them
    off, what makes their day...etc...I didn't join to use this as an
    experiment.
    

>    Women object that their feelings are valid, and men don't
>    understand what it's like to move through the world and
>    experience it as a woman.
    
	This goes the other way too!!!
    
>        Men accuse women of being "radical feminists", threaten to
>    quit the conference and then, by God, it will certainly go
>    completely downhill.
    
    Who said it would go downhill....?????  I've heard from other woman
    that some of the women in here are "radical feminists", so don't
    just accuse men.
    
    
    
 >   Women start stroking the men, assuring them they are
 >   valued members, obviously superior and more discerning than
 >   the average male, and please, please, please don't leave us.
  
    Maybe some women feel that way.  If you don't, that's your 
    perogative.
      
 >   I start to get nauseous.
    
    Don't get sick on the keyboard....their expensive to fix!!!
    
    		Mike
    
  

	is when noters pay more attention to someone's sex than what
	they wrote. Judge what people write on its own merits!
	
	Mike

    
    re .13
    
  	Only when they are handy.
    
    	You may join the conversation if you like, then we could
    	make it a threesome....
    
    			Mike
    

    It is NOT ok for women to bash men, and even if you detect some
    bashing, it is NOT ok to bash back.  This conference has improved
    its atmosphere a LOT lately, allowing real discussions from noters
    of both sexes without a lot of screaming, and I am glad.  I'm
    doing what I can to raise MENNOTES to the level that WOMANNOTES
    has attained.
    
    If you have something to say, say it, but don't just yell for
    yelling's sake.
    				Steve

    re .16   Agreed

re Note 306.15  RANCHO::HOLT    -< Equal, or are F more equal than others? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    >Do I detect a subtle shading here that suggests men ought not to 
     be quite so blunt so as not to intimidate the women,...

    Yes, I think men should make every attempt not to intimidate women
    especially not in a notesfile designated as Women's space.

   
   >I'll note where I want when I want and say what I want, and no
    amount of radical feminist rhetoric will drive me away, 

    What "radical feminism?"  I haven't read anything here that I           
    would call radical feminism.  

   >If my comments ever strike someone as 'unsupportive' of feminism, 
    I refer them to a) my other entries and b) the First Amendment. 

    That's right; both men and women are free to participate in this conference.
    That also means that the women in this conference can evaluate what is  
    said.  Men can also evaluate what is said, but this is WOMANNOTES -
    covering topics "of Interest to women."  That makes women the 
    subject-matter experts *here*.  Only women can know what is of interest
    to women.  Men can offer opinions, but they cannot *know* what is of 
    interest to women - except by inference and by listening.  Are there 
    men in this conference who find that unfair, that women should have 
    this one area in which they can define the agenda?  If so, why?  

    I see this conference as a support network for women.  When men
    judge what is said here, I feel intruded upon, and that makes me hurt
    and angry.  Some of you - male and female- might see that as separatist.  
    But I see it as a way of coping with my decision *not* to be a separatist, 
    with my decision to live and work in a world that is dominated by males and 
    male networks.  Sharing the thoughts and feelings of other women who
    live and work in this same environment can be a source of real  
    strength.  It's empowering to know that you're not alone, that there
    are others who truly know how you feel.  And I think it's empowering
    to express anger and pain without being judged or labeled as one of
    those "radical feminists."  I wish that there were a way for more men 
    to recognize the value that such a network has for women and not be 
    threatened by it or critical of it.
          
    Technically, men and women have equal rights to this conference.   That 
    means that men have every *right* to be critical, judgemental, and even
    "unsupportive."  I would simply like to ask that the men in this 
    conference NOT exercise that right, that they instead put the need that
    women in this conference have to express their (sometimes 
    controversial, sometimes angry) feelings, ahead of their own *rights* 
    to judge what is said here.
    
    Justine  

    

    Le plus drole dans tout ca, c'est que la plupart de ceux qui ont
    commente la note 306.* sont des gens qui commentent rarement les
    autres notes (je veux parler des notes qui parlent de choses
    primordiales, interessantes d'un point de vue general, ou simplement
    fraiches et gaies), des gens dont je vois le nom pour la toute premiere
    fois...
    
    
    La vie est trop courte pour la passer a se taper dessus...
    
    
    

    Zoziau

    
    So what your sayin then, is AGREE with everything, whether or not
    I agree or disagree.  Come on, we're talking about reality here,
    not a  fairy tale, where we will support and not criticize, something
    that women feel is right or wrong. So in *LOVE AFFAIR*, I should
    have been compassionate, and agreed that she did the right thing,
    and fulfilled her life, while her husband was being used as a
    piece of furniture, and helped pay the bills.   Maybe this note
    should become closed to women only.  In the MENNOTES, some women
    are highly critical of some men in their.  You can't have your cake
    and eat it too  !!!!
    
    		Mike
    

    
    .20 isn't a translation to .19...I wa relpyig to .18
    
    
    			Mike
    

    Well, Mike, you could always not say anything.  That is almost
    never a lie.
    
    And could you explain to me how being supportive of feminism
    ought to be construed as being the same as being approving of
    the base noter in "Love Affair"?
    
    Thank you.
    
    							Ann B.

    re.18  womannotes as a support network
    
    I agree, and that's why I use it: when surrounded by men in this
    "man's world" in a "man's profession", it is important to be able
    to share with women in a "woman's world."  No one here seems to
    advocate a separatist viewpoint, and it is good to know you can
    be feminist without being separatist.
    
    Lee

        
    Anyone (male or female) who complains about bashing from any quarter
    is only listening to the shouters.  Those with quiet moderate voices
    and quiet moderate opinions tend to get drowned out.

      

    
    re Ann .22
    
    Where did I say that....I just looked over my notes, and nowhere
    did I say that....please extract it out of my note if I did...
    
    		Mike
    

Re:  .19
    
    Quote :
    
		-< Stop squabbling children ! >-

The funniest thing about all of this is that most of those who are commenting
in 306.* are people who rarely reply to other notes (I mean the topics about
primordial things, interesting from a general point of view, or simply fresh
and lighthearted), people whose names I see for the very first time...

Life is too short to spend time beating on one another....

    Zoziau
                                     
    Unquote.
    

    In reply .18, Justine makes a request:
    
    "  ...  That 
    means that men have every *right* to be critical, judgemental, and even
    "unsupportive."  I would simply like to ask that the men in this 
    conference NOT exercise that right, that they instead put the need that
    women in this conference have to express their (sometimes 
    controversial, sometimes angry) feelings, ahead of their own *rights* 
    to judge what is said here.  "

    This request was made in response to the previous writer's (not
    you) comments about feminism and radical feminism.
    
    In reply .21 you make it clear that the following is a response
    to that request:    
    
    "  So what your sayin then, is AGREE with everything, whether or not
    I agree or disagree.  ...  So in *LOVE AFFAIR*, I should
    have been compassionate, and agreed that she did the right thing,
    and fulfilled her life, while her husband was being used as a
    piece of furniture, and helped pay the bills.  "
    
    I trust that you now understand that your reply is only part of
    an interactive process, so that only looking at your own words is
    not always sufficient for understanding the meaning of a multi-person
    exchange.
    
    							Ann B.

    
    
 .18>>>That's right; both men and women are free to participate in this conference.
    That also means that the women in this conference can evaluate what is  
    said.  Men can also evaluate what is said, but this is WOMANNOTES -
    covering topics "of Interest to women."  That makes women the 
    subject-matter experts *here*.  Only women can know what is of interest
    to women.  Men can offer opinions, but they cannot *know* what is of 
    interest to women - except by inference and by listening.  Are there 
    men in this conference who find that unfair, that women should have 
    this one area in which they can define the agenda?  If so, why?  
     
                             
    I have been reading this conference primarily to understand the
    how the other sex feels, things they like, things they dislike
    etc.etc.  I find this conference very helpful and I have been 
    able to apply a lot, what I learn here, to my relationships with 
    my women friends.
    
    We have a lot to learn from each other. The gap between what we
    think the other sex feels and what they actually feel is very
    wide. This can be bridged by mutual sharing (and it may involve
    a lot of volleying - even aggresive volleying- what the note calls
    bashing.) I think that we men need to be sensitive to the fact that
    this is woman notes and this a forum and a support network for them.
    However the fact that this is an area where the agenda can only
    be defined by women, I don't entirely agree with that....Unless
    this conference is meant to share 'woman' things. If that is case
    I would recommend having two conferences, one for 'woman' things           
    and other where we men could learn a little bit more and make a
    success out of our relationships...........
 
    P.S. All those noters who helped me understand women better, thanx
    a lot!... And I will not be read only as I have been in the past....   

    I can never resist jumping into a controversy so here goes. 
    
    Devil's advocate speaking:
    
    In some ways the men in this conference are forcing us to fight
    for our rights. This may actually be GOOD for some us. I might not
    have the nerve to argue face to face with a man on some issues we
    have discussed and these arguments are teaching me how to do that.
    In that respect this is still a "safe" place to learn how to argue
    as equals. I agree that we should attack the issues and not the
    persons involved and that goes for both men and women. 
    
    Someone a ways back said that the women end up trying to smooth
    things over when men threaten to leave. I can relate to that as
    I do the same thing. I've been raised as a woman which in effect
    means "nurturer" and I work in customer service which means I've
    been trained (by DEC) to smooth things over. It would seem alien
    to me to let someone leave mad. I don't think I should learn NOT
    to be this way. I think men should learn to BE like this. (a dreamy
    look appears in her eyes as she hears John Lennon sing IMAGINE in
    her memory). BOOM!!!!!
    
    
    
    Back to reality - I suppose the best we can hope for is an agreement
    that we disagree and will never see eye to eye on some issues. Maybe
    we need to step a bit in each other shoes and allow ourselves to
    disagree without warring over it. liesl

    
         How true.  Logical diagreement is often the only corridor to
    understanding.  Artificially induced 'kid gloves treatment' is merely
    an insult to intelligence.
    
                                Bubba
    

    
      Well, I see a lot of repetiveness in the NOTES files.  Mainly,
    MENNOTES, WOMANNOTES, and HUMAN_RELATIONS.  Why not remove the
    first two NOTE topic and have everyone use HUMAN_RELATIONS or
    perhaps combine the two into PEOPLE_NOTES.  After all, I keep 
    hearing that men and women should work together to make things
    better.  What better way to start....
    
                                              Mark
    
    (pls. excuse the typo)

    Re: .31
    
    This has been suggested before, but I don't agree with the notion.
    Though there is often considerable overlap between the conferences,
    there is a real need for WOMANNOTES and MENNOTES, especially in
    regards to discussion of subjects that are specific to women or
    men.
    
    HUMAN_RELATIONS' "charter", as it were, is to discuss personal
    interactions between individuals, though, like the scope of
    MENNOTES and WOMANNOTES, this gets stretched often enough.  While
    I'd certainly encourage the use of HUMAN_RELATIONS for notes that
    are not specific to men or women, I can see why some noters might
    prefer one of the other two conferences.
    
    This is a big world, and the three conferences seem to be getting
    along well enough.  I see no reason for mergers.
    
    					Steve

        1) RE: Combining MenNotes, WomanNotes and Human-Relations
        
        I think this is a bad idea as even when the discussions are of
        similar topics, the viewpoints often are not. This is due to the
        different constituencies and the different expectations set by
        the different charters. Part of "Valuing Differences" is
        permitting and even encouraging this kind of diversity.
        
        (For what it's worth I don't read MenNotes as I can think of few
        interests I share predominantly with men rather than with women.
        I moderate Human_Relations. I participate in WomanNotes both
        because I am often more comfortable around women than men and
        on the other hand because I never seem to understand women as
        women as well as I'd like.)
        
        2) The only time I've threatened to pick up my marbles and go
        home was in mail sent to the moderator saying that a certain
        male "notes sociopath" was dominating this file, and as I
        doubted that he was "a topic of interest to women" and he
        certainly wasn't a topic of interest to me, I would be leaving
        the file if he couldn't be first bought under control, and
        second stop being a major topic of discussion.
        
        3) I'm personally sick of reading bitter, vindictive, bigoted
        and hate filled notes written by either men or women. Off the
        top of my head I can think of about 3 times as many male noters
        in this category than female, but both have been highly vocal.
        
        There are a couple of men who have been hurt by women, and who
        seem to blame all of womankind for it. They are bound to make
        highly condemnatory notes about specific women who do not
        fulfill their expectations, often hand waving a dismissal of all
        women. It does not surprise me when they are bashed for this.
        
        On the other hand, there are one or two women in this and other
        files who seem to have a real chip on their shoulder against
        men. They will often say things like "all men only want X", or
        "the only difference among men is the degree to which they...",
        or just paint men, especially white men as oppressors. They will
        occasionally single out a specific man as illustrative of their
        generalities.
        
        Personally, I don't see any need either for a general bashing of
        men occasionally focused on individuals, nor for regularly
        bashing women frequently generalizing to women in general. I am
        encouraged to see that both seem to be diminishing although as a
        moderator (of H-R, not Wnotes), I do regularly return messages
        that seem too bitter or bigoted. We're getting a bit more
        tolerant, but slowly. Let's keep working on it. 
        
        JimB.

        At the risk of running off at the keyboard in a predictable
        manner, allow me to suggest that even though we're not living in
        a fairy tale, this needn't preclude us from being supportive and
        non-critical, especially of thse who come looking for help or
        advice. 
        
        As you may have gathered from the occasional note that I've
        written, I am a great believer in love trust and commitment both
        as a basis for marriage and for relationships in general. The
        power of unconditional love is really most amazing. I've found
        that often times we can best help others to do the right thing
        by simply making it clear that they are valuable and that we
        will support them in whatever decision they make, and then IF
        THEY ASK forit, explaining what we would do in the situation as
        we understand it--including an explanation of how we see it in
        case that differes from their view of it.
        
        It can be hard to support those who do things of which we
        disapprove, but in the end it is more productive than bashing on
        them or even than expressing our disapproval. People learn much
        better by example and from experience than from lecture. If we
        support them and help them to make their own decisions, we do
        them more good than if we merely add to the pain and pressure
        trying to make them do the right thing.
        
        JimB. 

re: .34

Thanx Jim. The one thing I don't understand is how "support" turns into
"agree" in some people's heads. (OK, there are _some_ other things I
don't understand :-).

I suppose the only time one couldn't support without agreeing is when
one believes they have "the" answer; the answer that applies to all
people.
	Mez

RE .28:

I don't understand your suggestion about another conference for women to discuss
"women things".  I wouldn't have put it exactly that way, but I thought
that was more or less what this conference was.  
                                          
RE everything else:

Because this conference is about women, maybe there are other things to 
consider. 

I believe that one of the things that has slowed down the Women's movement
over the years is that women have been taught that their reason for existence
was to care for others - husbands and children - before taking care
of themselves.  We may have tried to improve our lot in life after everyone
else was taken care of, but there just wasn't always any time or energy left.

Another Catch 22 for women was that being aggressive, strong minded, outspoken
etc were "unfeminine" things to do.  If we did these things, we obviously
were dissatisfied with being women.    


My point is this:  I dont think women can afford to always worry about the
feelings of others before their own needs. I will respond to human beings with
the dignity I believe they deserve, but I will not hesitate to say what I want
to for fear of offending men, when I know that women will pay the price for my
not speaking up.  If I am a bit more outspoken or aggressive than you care for,
chalk it up to rebelling against being told I wasn't allowed to be these things. 
I am not asking for an excuse in this, merely offering an explanation.

I do not think that stereo-typing any sex is correct.  It is for JUST this
reason however, that I think that anyone who reads this conference to
"understand" women will be disappointed.  I dont think this is an attainable
goal.  I dont even necessarily believe that you would find an unbiased sample
of women ( with regard to views on feminism, men, relationships etc )
responding in this conference, and I am sure not going to end all my replies
with "maybe all women dont feel that way".
      
But then, maybe all women dont feel that way.

Wendy                              

    I just wanted to mention that I've been disturbed at the use of
    the term "radical feminist" in the course of this note. The tone
    has generally been "Ugh! None of us are *that* awful thing!"
    
    Time was, *any* feminist was "radical". That's not so, now, in some
    places (like this notesfile).
    
    Time still is, "radical" means anyone who wants more, or to move
    toward it faster, or in a different way, maybe - than you do.
    
    Seems as tho' if we uppity types get a little hot under the collar,
    we turn into "radical feminists", when we've just been perfectly
    nice, garden-variety feminists all along. God forbid we should get
    a little strident.
    
    "We'd just *love* to give the Negroes their rights - if they weren't
    so *(&& NOISY about it." (Anybody wanna buy a bridge?)
    
    Nope, nobody should be bashed, but sometimes yuh gotta make some
    NOISE (even electronically) - and that ain't necessarily bashing.
    
    Dawn
    

    
         I think the women of the file SHOULD voice their feelings freely.
    By the same token, so should the men.  No limitations on anyone.
    If I should ask for a explaination which you do not wish to give,
    ignore me or insult me (I can't punch you from here).
    
                                Bubba
    

    
    Did anyone attend the Jean Baker Miller lecture at ZKO this week?
    One of the things that she talked about was the legitimate need
    for women to have *some* women-only support networks.  She said
    that this was important because women sometimes need to talk about
    their experience of being minority members in a male-dominated
    environment.  She suggested that men and women also need to work
    together, to learn to recognize, value, and perhaps learn from their
    differences, but women, according to Dr. Miller, are often willing
    to let men determine the agenda.  She has observed this behavior
    even in groups where men were in the minority.  I wish that some
    of the men who have suggested that in order to become skilled at
    fighting for our rights we women *need* men's rigorous feedback
    about our views and feelings, had attended this lecture.
                                       
    Perhaps we should move discussion about Miller's work, in general,
    to another note, but I thought her feelings about support groups
    for women were relevant to this discussion.
    
    Justine                                      

    ARRRGGGHHH! No one seems to get it, do they?  Women let men
    set the agendas because they've been trained to do it.  Women
    are trained to make themselves invisible, to constantly work
    to comfort and support MEN at their own expense.  Many of them
    believe that this is what it means to be a woman.  Women give
    relatively little of the "good stuff" to each other -- most of
    the nurturing goes to the men in their lives, and the children.
    Women are generally separated from each other -- set up as
    imaginary competitors either for men or the token privileges
    in the society (how women have said that other women at work
    are their worst enemies?)  Men can easily say that a mature
    adult doesn't need support groups -- a few friends and you
    ought to be able to wing it on your own.  That comes from
    the arrogance of swimming in an invisible sea of support
    provided by women.  Mothers, girlfriends, wives, secretaries...  
    If women didn't do almost all the work of maintaining  
    emotional relationships and the everyday fabric of life, 
    most men would be living in psychological cell blocks.

    The essence of maleness in our culture is aloneness --
    a real man needs NO ONE.  Anyone who does is weak and
    insufficient.  The essence of femaleness is
    connectedness -- women feel incomplete without a human
    context.  Both of these statements are extreme, and I expect
    a lot of flame, but I still think they represent some
    basic truths about the difference between male/female
    experience and perception.  Because no man can really be as 
    self-sufficient as he thinks he should be, but needs to
    maintain the myth, he lets women carry the emotional responsibility
    of humanity.  No woman can be really happy as nothing but 
    the nexus of her relationships, but because this has been
    so deeply defined for her as womanliness, it can be very
    hard for women to learn to care for themselves.  Men have
    a hard time understanding that, and consider it a proof
    of feminine weakness, even though they live off it all the time.

    Women together are an incredible threat to men -- 
    since our entire patriarchal civilization is built on exploiting 
    women's labor, sexuality, and nurturing behavior, denying men 
    what they have come to think of as their fundamental entitlement 
    and nurturing other women with it so is going to produce the 
    same kind of wailing you get from a spoiled child when mom 
    leaves the house.  The real threat is that it's possible 
    that "woman" doesn't necessarily need to be defined in terms 
    of "man".  
    
    Men have been setting the agenda for about 4000 years now, and
    it's been getting steadily worse and worse for the women.
    If women need to be alone for a while to straighten out the
    effects of all that propaganda, men who are committed to a more
    human future are just going to have try to understand that for
    once, they aren't going to be the center of the universe.

    So much for being nice.....
    
    Sigh.

    
    re: .43
    
    I have a question.
                                                 
    How did men manage to get away with all this?
    
    I'm not trying to wise off to you, here.  I'm trying to understand
    how this came to be.  It relates to my question in the note on women
    in poverty.
    
    I refuse to believe that the idiocy of sexism was perpetuated for this
    long simply on the strength of male cleverness.  It doesn't wash.
    
    The Genesis myths, perhaps?
    
    DFW

    Partly that.  And partly, "If you don't do it my way, I'll
    beat you up."  A few dozen generations of that, and all the
    intellectual justifications for the situation are in place.
    See?
    
    						Ann B.

    The Genesis myths are part of the justification for patriarchy.
    The power of myth and religion should never be underestimated.
    It creates even in the most earnest non-believer a sense of what
    the "background" is, and in general represents the story that
    any given culture wants to tell about itself.

    And now for a course in radical feminism 101:
    
    In the beginning...
    
    there were women, having children, providing food for them,
    and living communally.  People weren't too clear on the concept
    of paternity, but it was real obvious where babies came from.
    Humans traced their ancestry through the mothers, and by extension
    to some divine ancestress that was the mother of the species.
    This "mother" becomes embodied in the earth generally, which
    provides for its "children".  Family and the staples of food
    gathering were mostly women's business.  Men engaged in more
    solitary activities, like hunting, which provides some useful
    protein and natural resources, but is generally not subsistence
    food.  Men were not "heads of families" in the sense that they
    are now, and their connections to life were primarily through
    women.  
    
    It seems to be generally conceded nowadays that women's food
    gathering activities resulted in the discovery of agriculture,
    which made it much easier for women to do their jobs.  As
    settled communities evolved, agriculture was often organized
    around a temple, dedicated to the earth goddess, and administered
    by women.  Writing and accounting are believed to have evolved
    (at least in the middle east) to keep track of these activities.
    Most primitive myths describe agriculture, writing, weaving,
    and other civilized amenities as being the "gifts" of the
    goddess.  Women controlled land, and passed in on to their
    children (matrilineality).  Paternity was still a woman's personal 
    business, and not much as a legal concept.

    Given an atmosphere in which the primary deity was female, 
    women administered the powerful religious institutions, and
    controlled the agricultural wealth of a community, you can guess that 
    the position of women in the early days of civilization in the 
    "fertile crescent" was rather different than it is now. 
    Women did most of the ordinary stuff of living, then as now,
    but at least then they got some respect for it.
    
    About 5000 years or so, there were a series of invasions
    by nomadic people from central Asia.  These people worshipped
    a sky god (male), did not practice agriculture, have writing,
    or build settled communities.  They were obsessed with the
    male culture of death (war, heroes, the afterlife).
    These invasions occurred in waves over several millenia.  
    The evolution of myth in the middle east gives a pretty clear 
    picture of the conquest. Female deities suddenly acquired 
    male spouses, and gradually these male deities assumed 
    the female's responsibilities(justification for rising role 
    of male dominance).  Male priesthoods gradually took over from women.
    Kings married queens and priestesses to acquire title to their
    lands (do you think the Trojans and Greeks really wanted Helen
    for her looks?).  More importantly, men started to want to own
    property, inherit it and pass it on in the male line.  E.g.,
    they wanted offspring of their own.
    The only way to do this is to invent sexual morality:
    obsession with virginity, the notion of adultery, etc, and
    to acquire women as owned breeders of a single man's offspring.
    Women had to have it hammered into their heads that they didn't
    have an existence that wasn't defined by their connection to a man.
    They were intrinsically evil and sinful (largely because of their
    sexuality) and had to be kept in subjugation by men in order
    to keep moral order in the universe. (Adam & Eve)
    
    The rest proceeds from there.  There's a great deal more, but
    I expect I've already dished out more than most folks in this
    file care to hear about anyway. 
    
    Why did/do men get away with it?  I expect it has partly to do
    with the fact that it is easy to destroy and dominate by
    violence, and men were traditionally well trained to do this.
    Living apart from the business of bearing and nurturing life
    makes it much easier to take it, and in fact to worship the
    rituals of life-taking.  Women have never been too good at this.
    Their constant will to nurture has ended up making them nurture
    the conquerors, and being co-opted by them.  The fact that women
    have lived all these millenia under these conditions is a tribute 
    to their silent strength and the underground sub-culture they 
    have created to nurture themselves.  But men have never been free
    of the terror that if the women were just given an equal chance
    something awful would happen...
    
    

    I have a question.  What is the difference between a women only
    support group and a men only club?  Both support one sex and exclude
    the other.  But one is looked on with disfavor these days and the
    other is the coming thing.  Can one be justified and the other not
    justified on any particular basis?
    
    Mike Baker
    (not currently a member of any clubs or support groups)

    RE .43 and .47: Beautiful! Well said. Thanks.
    

    In .43 you said something I've been trying to articulate for a long,
    long time.  Thank you, Catherine.
    
    And I'm going to send .47 to a friend who is trying to be a radical
    feminist in a fairly conservative religious denomination!

    
    
    re: .43 and .47  Keep the words coming....  I wish that I could
    say it all that well.
    
    BTW - I am starting another Feminist Thealogy workshop at the
    UU church in Hudson  on Tuesday 20 May if anyone is interested
    send me mail.
    
    _peggy		(-)
    			 |  "Persephone returns"