Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    I'm duplicating Dennis's response here for context.
   
   						=maggie
	    
================================================================================
Note 335.18                        Womannotes                           18 of 23
SWSNOD::RPGDOC "Dennis (the Menace) Ahern 223-5882"  14 lines  16-JUN-1987 10:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I pretty much like this file the way it is.  There are a lot of
    others I've deleted from my directory, but this is one I want to
    hold on to.
    
    Nobody's holding anybody's feet to the fire to participate.  A
    conference has a life and personality of its own.  If people don't
    like it, they leave - simple as that.
    
    The one criticism I can sympathize with is the comment that some 
    people appear to be monopolizing the discussion.  This topic is a good
    example.  More than one third of the replies so far (4,5,9,11-13) are
    by one person. 

    

Note 335.19                        Womannotes                           19 of 23
NEXUS::CONLON "Have a nice diurnal anomaly!"         17 lines  16-JUN-1987 11:29
              -< Well, here we go....   unavoidable, I guess... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    	RE:  .18
    
    	If you disagree with anything I've said, why not have the
    	guts to come out and say it so that we can resolve it or
    	agree to disagree.
    
    	The old ploy of attacking someone's frequency of participation
    	is just as unimaginative as the guy who complained that some
    	people's notes were too long (which is precisely the reason
    	why I expanded the size of my margins and tend to write more
    	notes with less lines.)  Generally, I have tended not to write
    	at all for some time.
    
    	My apologies if 8-10 notes in the past two months seems
    	excessive to you.
    
    						      Suzanne... ;-)

Note 337.1                      Responses to 335                          1 of 2
ULTRA::GUGEL "Spring is for rock-climbing"            9 lines  16-JUN-1987 12:09
               -< Let's talk issues, not "frequency of replies" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re 335.18: Dennis, talk about attacks!  You just attacked Suzanne
    for noting "too much"!  This is pretty petty.  You and Suzanne have
    the freedom to enter as much as you like to.  And if you don't like
    reading Suzanne's replies, you have the freedom to use your "next
    unseen" key.
    
    Besides, I like Suzanne's replies. :-)
    
    	-Ellen

    	RE:  Ellen (.1 or .3)
    
    	Thanks!  I guess it *is* possible to be overzealous when
    	you care about an issue (and since this is the time of day
    	when I'm just getting off work and am all keyed up after
    	having been busy, it's sort of a prime time for me to just
    	keep talking.)  But thanks for what you said, though!!

    	I hope the open dialogue *does* get to continue, because I
    	think there is a lot to be gained from it!
    
    						     Suzanne... ;-)
    

 
   Moved here at Ellen's (belated and implicit) request.
   
   
================================================================================
Note 338.0                    Safe space - NO way!                     2 replies
ULTRA::GUGEL "Spring is for rock-climbing"           17 lines  16-JUN-1987 12:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's wrong with womannotes?  I received some mail from one of
the more vocal male noters in this file.  Below are *direct* quotes
from the mail I received.  Do I need to say anything more?

>I take extreme offense to your not tolerating
>my free speech. Your arrogance at thinking you can bully me 
>out of this notesfile is without precedence. I'm no Kerryu
>Faulkner type that you can sick your chums on. I'll go toe
>to toe with anyone. Usually you male haters just amuse me...
 
>I will see how the moderator feels about this...

>there !

    Gee, what a *nice* person, huh? :-(
    
	-Ellen

   
================================================================================
Note 338.1                    Safe space - NO way!                        1 of 2
MAY20::MINOW "It's only rock and roll"               16 lines  16-JUN-1987 12:38
                           -< Confused about safety >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I was a bit confused about the reply (to the "Whither Womannotes"
note) that implied that this notesfile wasn't "Safe Space."

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to what dangers are involved
in contributing here: has anyone been attacked or harrassed at or off work
because of their contributions?

(By the way, I don't think that simply being flamed at for one's opinions
constitutes harrassment or would render this conference "unsafe" in
any way.)

So, what is "unsafe" about Womannotes, and what, if anything, should
be done about it.

Martin.

    re -1:
    
    To clarify why I say womannotes is not a safe space - I would
    not say there is "danger" involved, but I believe that the mail
    that I received and which I posted two notes back *is* harassment.
    I included threats and namecalling.  That's harassment.  I am curious
    if anyone else has experienced this.  So I think that for this to be
    a safe place, there would be no harassment (i.e. namecalling, threats).
    
    	-Ellen

Well, I know of one possible method of dealing with the name-caller's and 
such.  Treat them the way they are acting, like children.

There was once a 'Hall of Shame' with a list [and some pictures] of various 
parking and tax offenders.  These people either challeged their status in 
the courts or paid up [this was done at Boston City Hall].

Maybe it would be appropriate for the moderator to move offensive notes to 
a 'Hall of Shame' note with the names intact.  This might also be a place 
for women [or men] to post offensive MAIL.

Maybe some of the Mail-flamers do it because they know they will be 
anonymous to all but the recipient.  There seems to be an unspoken "Thou 
shalt not post MAIL in NOTES without editing" commandment.

Remember Kerry Faulkner?  He's been getting shouted out of conferences or 
he's been shutting up.  My hope is that he realised people were putting 
their feelings on the line in many conferences and not just fooling around.

It may be inappropriate, but it's an idea.  I get a lot out of the positive 
side of this conference.

    
    I think it was 335.15 that compared WOMANNOTES to WHITEMALENOTES.
    Well, am I alone in thinking that the whole world (well, almost)
    is WHITEMALENOTES?!!  I mean that's the default.  Here's a specific
    example that I imagine some of you can relate to.  When I was a
    junior in high school and studying American History, I grew distressed
    that we almost never talked about the role of women in American
    History.  So I went to see the teacher, raised my concerns, and
    he said, "We only have time to study the basics."  What are the
    basics?  The history and ideas and problems and concerns of white
    males.  I saw WOMANNOTES as a chance to consider other ideas, the
    ideas of women.  Men's ideas and concerns are almost always considered
    in other settings.  I don't think we should be made to feel selfish
    for trying to create this one space for ourselves!!!!
                                                         

    Addressing Martin's comment about "safe space", with the eagle's
    insight about the importance of notes to women:
    
    Few women have been raised to express their opinions freely, as
    if they were entitled to those opinions.  For many such women,
    expressing an unpopular opinion resulted in parental disapproval
    ("ladies don't say things like that"), ridicule by or in front of
    peers, or perhaps even violence in many dysfunctional families.
    
    For such women, saying in public something as simple as that they don't
    like wearing eye shadow is a radical step forward.  They're *scared.*
    They don't know how to express an opinion, they've never had to defend
    their views because they never got that far before. 
    
    And then some person, often male, with years of experience playing
    devil's advocate, comes in and lands on her choice of imagery or a
    logical flaw that's peripheral to her point -- "You can't give up
    makeup! You'll put the cosmetics workers, who are women, out of
    business!" 

    "Safe space" in this context means a place where you can trust the
    people around you not to land on you for innocent mistakes, to give
    you the benefit of the doubt, to be charitable and supportive in
    their interpretations.  With this kind of encouragement, a timid
    person can learn to open up and be more confident in the validity
    of her opinions.
    
    The danger is that any statement of disagreement can be taken as
    threatening or harrassing. 
    
    I can't go into any more detail about how it feels to be in this
    position since I'm a tough bitch who can hold her own in a pretty
    rugged argument and certainly won't be emotionally destroyed by
    having to admit I'm wrong.  But I do know that many women feel that
    way, and that I'm as guilty as anybody of not treating feelings
    with reasonable consideration.
    
    --bonnie

    I'm confused:
    
    A note in 335 says that the noter is surprised to see a note asking
    for recomendations on a beauty parlor, having expected perhaps to see
    one calling for a boycot of such places as representative of sexist
    stereotypes (I paraphrase loosely) and this is replied to along the
    lines of what was being asked for would be a feminist forum.
    
    My question (or comment) is this:
    
    If the appearance of the request for info upset the noter, why didn't
    she start another topic to discuss the sexist aspects of the beauty
    parlor business?
    
    Indeed its not too late, I suspect.
    
    Surely there is room here for [nearly] all points of view?
                                       
    /. Ian .\

    You guys are reading too much into that remark.
    
    I was surprised.  I expected the women at DEC to be more radical
    than they are. 
    
    I was not, and never said I was, upset. Or angry.
    
    I don't care to boycott beauty parlors.  I just skipped the note.
    
    There, is that clearer???
    
    --bonnie
    
    

    RE: .1, .2, .3
    
    I think this is a good example of what some people have been talking
    about.  In my reply 335.18, which having been extracted and transcribed
    without warning, I subsequently deleted, I stated that [emphasis added]: 
                                                                    
    	"I can SYMPATHIZE with the comment that some people APPEAR to
         be monopolizing the discussion."
    
    Immediately I get pounced on and vilified (in .2, & .3) for being
    petty, disagreeable and gutless for attacking another noter.
    
    I just want everybody to know that my imminent disappearance from
    the WOMANNOTES conference has nothing to do with any of this.  In
    fact, my contract runs out with the end of the fizzical year next
    week and I am going to have to look for another job.  Anybody need
    a petty, disageeable, gutless Take-A-Nickel Riter?
    

    re.14
    
    Bonnie R S 
    
    No need to feel you're alone on the fringe of radical feminist thinking
    at DEC; I skipped that note, too :-)
    
    More seriously, reading WOMANNOTES has helped me grow more tolerant
    of the differences in our own community.  I too expected this to
    be more of a feminist forum.  Not exclusively, but I did expect,
    for example, that lesbians would feel free to identify themselves
    and talk about that experience.  I guess what I really expected
    was a much wider range of interests and topics - from nail polish
    to what to wear to the March on Washington in October...
                                                            
    
    						Justine
    
    						who's dreaming of a
    						day when being called
    						a radical feminist is
    						a nifty thing!!

> < Note 337.9 by PNEUMA::SULLIVAN >
>    
>    I think it was 335.15 that compared WOMANNOTES to WHITEMALENOTES.

	PLEASE don't misconstrue my remarks.  All I was postulating was 
what could happen if Womannotes was 'women-only'.

	A perfect example is that I would never had known some of the other 
reasons behind keeping abortion available if it weren't for this file.  I'm 
more <I-don't-know-the-word-but-something-like-'flexible'> than I was before. 
All I had was, basically, the media and a few close friends [who usually 
thought the same way I did].  Think about it.  If you met someone who 
disagreed with you a _lot_, would you stay around a lot?  Probably not.  
Noting allows me to read words and meanings without a lot of overhead or 
pre-conceived notions.

	My wife loves to watch me read these when I'm at home and on the 
modem.  She is sometimes frustrated at not being able to express herself 
clearly on an issue.  She is ecstatic over the idea of a network full of 
people who can bring these subjects up.

    
    
    Many times I have turned to this conference for other (my friends
    call me) Feminists and been afraid that I was the on the outside
    looking in.
    
    _peggy	(-)
    		 |  Are all pushing, loud, aggressive women Feminist?
    			The Goddess is
    

    re .16, Dennis:
    
    Well, I reread my reply to your reply in 337 and it does sound a
    bit harsh.  Now that you've reworded what you meant by it, I
    understand better that you were not attacking Suzanne (though I
    may still disagree).
    
    	-Ellen

    re:.12, .14, 335.whatever
    
    I am surprized that .14 was surprized to find a note requesting
    recommendations for a hair stylist (which somehow got translated
    into 'beauty parlor' which I never would have used since the words
    have heavy traditional connotations.)  I also don't see how asking
    for a recommendation for a person with a particular skill set, i.e.
    hair cutting, has any bearing on how radical ( or not radical) I
    might be.  
    
    I am surprized to see this stereotyping.  How I treat the outside
    of my head has no direct relation to what is going on on the
    inside of my head.  (Though both do get tangled from time to time.
    :-) )  
    
    alison
    

    	RE:  .16
    
    	Dennis, you obviously still don't understand what you did that
    	I found objectionable.
    
    	The note 335.* has been written in the most general terms
    	possible.  I suppose that we could have said things like,
    	"My main objection to the file is that Fred writes in here"
    	(or some other such personal statement) but most of us (aside
    	from you) seemed to feel that there was no real point in saying
    	something like that in a public file.  So we all refrained from
    	pointing any direct fingers at anyone.
    
    	In no way did I dominate 335.* (and I think you knew that all
    	along.)  I wrote a small flurry of notes in a very short time
    	period during a time of day when very few other people were
    	noting.
    
    	When I wrote them, I remember wondering if anyone would be
    	small enough to point out that I had written several (some
    	in a row) under one topic.  But I decided to go ahead and
    	speak my piece anyway (knowing that if anyone out there really
    	*does* keep score and rates noters on some sort of quota system
    	rather than on the content of their notes, then... too bad.)
    
    	I thought your note was rude in the sense that you joined into
    	the criticism on the file as a whole by pointing to one identifiable
    	individual.  If you don't see a problem with that, then there's
    	nothing I can say to explain it to you any furthur.
    
    	Best luck in your life after DEC.
    
    							Suzanne... ;-)

            <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA11:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics Of Interest To Women >-
================================================================================
Note 335.29                        Womannotes                           29 of 38
CSSE::MARGE "Eat dessert first;life is uncertain."    6 lines  16-JUN-1987 15:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bonnie, you're talking about a Feminist Forum.  That's not how this
    notes conference was chartered.  If that's what the majority of
    the participants want/need, then perhaps it's time to re-charter
    and re-name the file.
    
    Marge
================================================================================
Note 335.30                        Womannotes                           30 of 38
WEBSTR::RANDALL "Bonnie Randall Schutzman"            7 lines  16-JUN-1987 15:14
                        -< thanks for clearing that up >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You could not have made it plainer why there are so few feminist
    opinions in this notes file.  We're explicitly not welcome! 
    
    I had been laboring under the delusion that feminism dealt with
    women's issues.  Sorry for the mistake. 

    --bonnie
================================================================================
Note 335.31                        Womannotes                           31 of 38
CSSE::MARGE "Eat dessert first;life is uncertain."   46 lines  16-JUN-1987 15:20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not unwelcome, Bonnie... just not the universe of opinion... I've 
    extracted the welcome introductory notes which pertain to content
    of the file... I suggest that what you're talking about is a
    restriction on that charter.
    
    Marge
    
================================================================================
Note 1.0                            Welcome!                          17 replies
VIKING::TARBET "Margaret Mairhi"                     18 lines  18-APR-1986 09:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Welcome to =WOMANNOTES=, the notefile dedicated to topics of interest
  to women.
  

================================================================================
Note 1.2                            Welcome!                             2 of 17
VIKING::TARBET "Margaret Mairhi"                     82 lines  25-APR-1986 09:05
                              -< "Press Release" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To all DEC-ies, women AND men:

    Please feel free to participate in the new, open VAXnotes notesfile
    =WOMANNOTES=, dedicated to discussion of all topics of interest
    to women.  
    
    Essentially any subject is fair game.  Career, family, children,
    education, health, hopes, poetry, sport, DEC, world events,....  
    
    Whatever.
    
    Real-world (as opposed to intimate) relations between men and women
    are certainly a potentially legitimate subject: men know very little
    of us as people...and perhaps we are nearly as ignorant about them.
    
    Sexism whether overt or covert is unwelcome.  It's expression will 
    be the subject either of gentle correction or scathing criticism 
    according to the will of the community in the actual event.
    
    Enjoy!

                                        =maggie
                                        
================================================================================
Note 335.32                        Womannotes                           32 of 38
WEBSTR::RANDALL "Bonnie Randall Schutzman"           10 lines  16-JUN-1987 15:26
                                -< come again? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I don't think I understand.  

    One of the things I would like to see is MORE participation from
    a wider variety of women.
    
    How is that RESTRICTING the charter? 
    
    --bonnie
    
    
================================================================================
Note 335.33                        Womannotes                           33 of 38
CSSE::MARGE "Eat dessert first;life is uncertain."   10 lines  16-JUN-1987 15:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bonnie, I read in your note (.28?) that you *didn't* expect to see
    the following... that you *did* expect to see the following.
    
    What I'm suggesting is that the charter of the notes conference
    is unrestrictive... that all topics and points of view are fair
    game for the file so long as they were of interest to women.
    
    Marge
    
    Should we take this to 337?
================================================================================
Note 335.34                        Womannotes                           34 of 38
WEBSTR::RANDALL "Bonnie Randall Schutzman"           22 lines  16-JUN-1987 16:01
                       -< I was never a radical before >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You can move it if you want; I'm not particular.  (Nor am I a
    moderator, thank God of whatever sex you worship....)
    
    I, too, thought the conference was unrestrictive.  That's why I
    answered as I did when Bonnie R.'s question asked about my
    expectations.  I *expected* the women at DEC to be more radical than
    they are, that's all.  I expected to find company, not to be somewhat
    alone on the lunatic fringe watching my step to avoid offending my less
    radical co-workers. (I don't mind trying to watch my step, by the way,
    I'm just not very good at it.) 

    I would be shocked, horrified, and appalled to have my expectations
    taken as the standard by which other people's participation is judged.
    If other women want to talk about beauty parlors, I don't have to read
    the note.  But I'm still surprised. 
    
    I certainly never meant to imply that I thought women who don't
    consider themselves feminist should be excluded!  

    --bonnie
        
    
================================================================================
Note 335.35                        Womannotes                           35 of 38
CSSE::MARGE "Valuing Diversity!"                      4 lines  16-JUN-1987 16:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thanks very much for that explanation... now I understand.
    
    grins,
    Marge

    	RE:  335.37  PARE
    
    	Where did we ever indicate that we couldn't "hold our own"
    	and that we needed "protection?"  This conference has a
    	reputation of mashing men up like mince-meat -- I think that
    	we have defended ourselves quite well in this conference.
    
    	The point is -- why should we have to?  For those of us who
    	enjoy arguing ad nauseum with men, there are *MORE* than enough
    	other conferences in which to do so.
    
    	As for whining, it is well-known that male contributors run
    	to other conferences to complain about how difficult we are
    	to deal with here.  That sounds sort of whiny to me.  I think
    	it is very much a two-way street.
    
    	Like Karen (in 335.38), I'm sort of sorry (ONCE AGAIN) that
    	we're talking about it.  It never does any good.  The message
    	never gets across (and we see whole new notes being generated
    	in other conferences about how "difficult" we are.)
    
    	In a conference about controversial subject matter (and nearly
    	everything about women is fairly controversial in our times)
    	-- people are bound to come and go and then come back again
    	as the conference evolves.  It's part of the natural evolution
    	of a conference that deals with people who are in the process
    	of change themselves (as a group.)  Self-analysis sort of falls
    	into this whole thing, too, I think.
    
    	Nothing to get too shaken up about, in other words.  ;-)
    
    						Suzanne... ;-)
    
    	

    	RE:  355.44  Steve Lionel
    
    	Let's try to be fair and remember that bickering, defensiveness,
    	whining (etc.) take place in literally *ALL* the *public* personal
    	notesfiles that deal with human interaction (i.e., Human_Relations,
    	Mennotes, and Soapbox for example.)  *AND* let's remember that
    	those things are done quite well by people of both sexes.
    
    	These sorts of thing were not invented here by any means (nor are
    	women more prone to do it than men.)  You didn't *say* that,
    	I realize, but I just wanted to make that one point clear.
    
    							Thanks,
    						      Suzanne... ;-)

    Re: .28
    
    I didn't say that women were more prone to these behaviors because
    I didn't believe it.  You're quite right that one could read such
    an implication into what I wrote, but it was not meant to be
    read that way.  Men are just as capable at whining as women.
    
    Thanks for giving me an opportunity to clear up this point.
    
    					Steve

    There's a lot of reaction both negative and positive in 335.
    I have been an active reader of Womannotes since it started
    and a small contributor. I have learned a lot from reading
    the entries here. In some cases my response is "gee I never
    thought of it that way". Any way it has helped me.
    
    dave

        An earlier noter or two has expressed the opinion that they wish
        this conference were a safe place, and gave the example that it
        ought to be a place (or they hoped it could be a place) where
        lesbians could freely identify themselves as such and be
        welcomed.
        
        As a noter it has pleased me immensely to see the candor and
        courage exhibitted by so many noters. When people have talked
        about their experiences with rape, divorce and the death of
        loved ones it has brought an honesty and a sense of fellowship
        that does my heart good. Despite that, I don't feel I can
        recommend to any gay man or woman that the "come out" in print
        in a notes file.
        
        Such information SHOULD NOT affect us in our work space
        especially in a company such as DEC that puts so much credence
        into "do the right thing" and valuing differences. However, the
        harsh reality is that such admissions can affect us. This is not
        a simple chat over tea. This is a written forum that will
        probably last for years and be seen by thousands, thousands who
        do not know you and who may not understand.
        
        Even if this conference were peopled only by women, or were
        always saintly in its openness and support it would not be a
        "safe" place in the sense that you could talk about your life in
        intimate detail and not risk having the information come back
        around to you. No open conference CAN be. It may not even be
        possible for a restricted conference. 
        
        JimB. 

    Just to add some insight on what's happening in other similar computer
    conversations around the country, someone forwarded this to me from
    Berkeley, and it discusses some similar subjects to what's been
    brought up here about the conference.
    
    -Jody
    
****************************************************************************
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: soc.women,news.misc
Subject: Moderation
Summary: Alan Curtis, in her postings, has proven that it won't work.
Date: 26 Jun 87 07:30:30 GMT
Reply-To: [email protected] ()
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 57

In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Valerie Maslak) writes:
>How about a quick consensus-posting about moderation for this group?
>Not formal, just how do we feel about the idea? ALL NOTE: I would NOT
>support prohibiting men from posting. I would support limiting postings
>from men to those directly concerning the subject at hand and not
>containing ad hominem (ad feminem?) attacks or female bashing or
>gratuitous rambling.

You know I'm all for it, but in her continuous postings, Alan Curtis
has proven that it won't work.  She can post to moderated groups, and
if her only purpose is to attack a woman, disrupt soc.women, or malign
feminists, nobody can stop her.

The simple fact is that all usenet sites are either privately owned by
or under the de facto control of males, and except for sexualizing,
trivializing, or harassing women, they have no use for women at all.
They either don't notice, or don't care about the hostile, intimidating
atmosphere that keeps most women from participating.  While people are
quick to write to SA's if a woman responds with justifiable anger to a
personal attack, and most SA's are quick in such cases to remove the
offending woman's access, either nobody has complained to Alan's SA, or
her SA felt that since she was only attacking a woman, no problem existed
even though she posted an unauthorized article to a supposedly moderated
group.  Had the moderator of comp.risks, Peter Newman, taken his
responsibilities seriously, he'd have written to Alan's SA, requesting
that Alan's access be removed.  But as a male, Peter is well aware that
the site adminstrator will also be male, and will simply laugh off all
breaches of netiquette by males, while severely punishing women who
"might," but actually haven't committed any breach of netiquette.

There is nothing to be done.  We are in a patriarchy, and if soc.women
were moderated, Alan and her friends, with the permission and consent
of her SA, would continue to post whatever she wished directly to the
moderated group without authorization and without penalty.  I wish it
were otherwise.  I wish women musicians could participate in music groups
without receiving obscene death  threats, and women doctors could post to
sci.med without receiving obscene death threats, and women of all walks
of life could post to soc.women without being subjected to personal attacks,
but in a patriarchy, that's not how things are.  

There MIGHT be some possibility of attacking the problem from the area
of the use of federal funds and common carriers to perpetuate discrimination,
but with the Reagan Administration still in power, and males in control
of the courts and regulatory agencies, there's not really much hope there
either.

I'd like to see Pat Schroeder run for President in '88.  I'm sure that
if Representative Schroeder was elected, we'd have more women appointed
to policy positions, and we could begin to hope for the right to 
participate in "public" forums on an equal basis.  We happen to be
half the "public" and the majority of computer users in industry,
although you sure wouldn't know it from usenet.

The boys are running the show, and as Randy Seuss said in another posting,
"That's the biz, sweetheart."  

    <==Whew! bitter...
    
    Lee

    re 335.50
    
    Thanks, Flora, for having the courage to come right out with something
    that many of us have been struggling to say for months!  Maybe it's
    not yet possible to have WOmannotes without it becoming woMANnotes.
    
    Thanks again for the vicarious vent :-)
           
    Justine

  Re: .32-.34

  My belief that men are guests here and should tread softly is on record.

  But I am rather amazed at the last three responses.  Do you really think
  that you have to be female in order to be a feminist?  By that token,
  mustn't you also believe that Abraham Lincoln was not qualified to
  express an opinion about slavery?  Just wondering...

  JP

>  But I am rather amazed at the last three responses.  Do you really think
>  that you have to be female in order to be a feminist?  

	I think you can safely say that most of the men in this notes
	file are not feminists.  They are not respectful of their
	guest status in the file, and in general behave very much
	like spoiled children who can't stand the thought of
	not being the center of attention all the time.
	Almost every discussion ends up with women explaining/
	justifying themselves and arguing with the men.  Men
	get all upset that women will never be able to understand
	anything if they aren't willing to get "the male opinion",
	but what they don't understand is that women swim in a sea
	of constant male opinion, and none of it is new.  The whole
	society is a reflection of the male opinion -- it IS the
	male opinion.  That in their own notes file women are still
	struggling with "the male opinion" is a pretty sad commentary
	on the lack of real space for women.  It only mirrors the
	larger society, but who needs that?  Sitting around in the
	Greyhound bus station does the same thing, and it's not a
	good time for me.

	Most of the men who introduced themselves in this file
	claimed they want to understand women, but this understanding
	seems to revolve around telling the women what they think.
	In a very sick way, it makes me think of fake lesbian
	pornography made for straight men -- intimacy between women 
	displayed for men's gratification, with the man as the real
	focus.  It's a very distasteful image, but I hope it shocks
	someone out there enough to think a little about how the men
	have made themselves the directors of this little movie.

    While it may be true that the title "WOMANNOTES" is misleading,
    it is stated early on that the file is not restricted to women only.
    If there's a need for such a conference, by all means, create one;
    women only, card-carrying feminists only, "people I like" only -
    whatever you want. 
    
    I'm not trying to be flip or anything; I'm just a little tired of
    the heavy self-analysis here. There is certainly a time and place
    for restricted discussions - if I'm talking about intimate family
    problems, I usually only want the immediate family present. There
    is also a place for open discussions, where it is possible to be
    disagreed with, to hear opposing viewpoints, and - maybe - to learn
    a few things, and teach a few to others. 
    
    It seems to be the difference between swimming in a backyard pool and
    swimming in the ocean. The latter is riskier but can offer a range of
    experience that the former cannot; the former is better for rest and
    recuperation, and exercise - perhaps to strengthen oneself for a plunge
    into that ocean. 
    
    -b

    
    I'm not sure I agree with the notion that spending time exclusively
    with women only has value in so far as it prepares us to "swim" in
    an "ocean" full of men.  But to extend your analogy: a beach is
    a public space.  You can't kick people off a beach.  But if I went
    to the beach and saw a group of men assembled there, enjoying
    themselves, I would not feel compelled to join them and tell them
    my opinion of how they might better amuse themselves.
                
    

    Whoa there! I didn't say - or mean to imply - that the "pool" was
    *supposed* to be used for preparation, only that that was one possible
    use for such a private space. Likewise, I do not consider the ocean
    (sorry about all these seafaring analogies!) to be full of men -
    it's full of people, some of whom happen to be men.
    
    All I'm trying to say is that *this* conference is not (currently)
    restricted, and if someone wants a conference that is, they should
    create one. I do not perceive a problem with the men in this
    conference; some of those whom I consider objectionable noters happen
    to be men, but some are women, and for some I've never bothered to look
    up their introduction note to find out. 
    
    Politeness is, of course, appropriate for swimming pools, beaches,
    *and* oceans - although exceptions may be made when one is facing
    a shark.
    
    -b

I must admit to being one of the more radical voices in this file, but I 
dwould like to contradict the apparently widely held notion that 
feminists like myself just want to talk to themselves.  This file is 
WOMANnotes, not lesbian_notes or even feminist_notes, and as such it 
needs to respect all women's voices.  Those of us who feel like we have 
less of a vested interest in the patriarchy can stand off in our corners 
and comment on what we see from there, but that should not be seen as 
invalidating the views and feelings of women in a more traditional 
position.  We have all suffered some degree of psychological mutilation 
in this male-dominated society, and the journey to wholeness is a long 
one.  We are all on it together, and we need to be gentle with each 
other.

I have mixed feelings about making this a members-only conference.  
There have certainly been times when I've felt all for it.  I am 
concerned, though, that there will be a general perception that only 
those of a certain ideological stripe would be welcome, and there are 
women who would not feel comfortable joining as a result.  This would limit 
the opportunity for women of all kinds to engage in real dialog and 
conciousness-raising.  I consider it an important goal to offer all
kinds of women the opportunity to share and learn from each other.

I also am of two minds about the men in the file.  The current situation 
with men dominating is not acceptable to me, and should not be to any 
other woman either.  However, the authoritarian policing that would be 
necessary to keep them out is distasteful to me as well.  The ideal 
solution would be if the men were to be respectful of their place as
guests in this file, and the women would firmly but gently enforce it.
The men have the effect of driving a wedge between women, enforcing the 
woman-from-woman isolation that is one of the major tools of the 
patriarchy.  Right now, I can't even think of a topic that has ever just 
been a conversation between women about a woman's issue.

A friend of mine recently said that he no longer reads any entries by 
men, or entries by women responding to men.  This cuts down his reading
by about **60%**.  That's a shocking statistic, but points to the way in 
which women could exercise some control over what happens here. When
someone like Mr. F enters an inflammatory and worthless base note, we
can politely refuse to be baited.  If there are no replies, he can enter
and delete all the base notes he likes without disrupting things too
much.  The women need to support each other, and realize that if a man 
talks, we don't all have to drop everything and focus on responding to 
him.  It OUR file, and we have a right and obligation to set the agenda 
for ourselves.  We must REFUSE to let men do this for us.

I'm a little tired of the endless self-analysis that goes on in this 
file, but it is so much a microcosm of the larger world that it is 
inevitable.  The real subject under discussion is what kind of power 
women have/are allowed to have over their own lives and issues.  That 
the debate goes on and on with so much vehemence is real indicator of 
how frightening that subject really is.

From the Usenet article quoted in .32:

  While people are
  quick to write to SA's if a woman responds with justifiable anger to a
  personal attack, and most SA's are quick in such cases to remove the
  offending woman's access, either nobody has complained to Alan's SA, or
  her SA felt that since she was only attacking a woman, no problem existed
  even though she posted an unauthorized article to a supposedly moderated
  group.  Had the moderator of comp.risks, Peter Newman, taken his
  responsibilities seriously, he'd have written to Alan's SA, requesting
  that Alan's access be removed.  But as a male, Peter is well aware that
  the site adminstrator will also be male, and will simply laugh off all
  breaches of netiquette by males, while severely punishing women who
  "might," but actually haven't committed any breach of netiquette.

Some background.  Usenet has "unrestricted" news groups and "moderated"
news groups.  Anyone can post to a moderated news group by forging the
moderator's signature.  As I understand from talking (face to face)
with Peter Neumann last week, "Alan" posted a note to the Usenet
"comp.risks" news group.  This is intended to be a redistribution of
Peter's extremely useful and interesting Risks-Digest (subscribe by
sending mail to DECSRC::RISKS_REQUEST and find out for yourself).
From what I know about Peter, I rather doubt that he would call for
anyone's access to be cut off.  Peter, in fact, has refrained from
reprinting the offending (Usenet-only) posting as the vast majority
of Risks subscribers haven't seen it.  He has posted articles on Usenet
"moderated article" spoofing.

By the way, I'm not quite sure I understand the use of "she" in the
quoted article: is the "Alan" referred to a female, or am I missing
some linguistic subtlety?  Also, it might be noted that the site
administrators of decwrl and decvax have female first names, which
calls other parts of the article into question.

Sorry about the length of this, but Peter doesn't have access to the
Enet.  For the strong of stomach, the original note -- as posted
to comp.risks -- follows the form feed.  It should be noted that
Mark Ethan Smith is a woman.

Martin.

Article 21 of comp.risks:
Path: rochester!udel!princeton!rutgers!clyde!cbosgd!cblpf!cblpe!apc
From: [email protected] (Alan Curtis)
Newsgroups: comp.risks
Subject: Re: }I'm still here.
Keywords: Male power. Female jerk.
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 23 Jun 87 02:45:19 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected] (55212-Alan Curtis)
Followup-To: soc.women
Distribution: world
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Columbus, Ohio
Lines: 242
Approved: Net.gods
 
all readers of comp.risks:
	Society is at risk whenever they think they are secure
	when they are not.  This moderation crap is one
	example.  Ah, forget it.  I cannot justify posting
	this article here please pardon me while I personally attack
	a low life on your group, but only cause I was requested to.
 
	I have attempted to direct all followups back to the group
	from which this came (where it doesn't belong either).
	My apologies if it doesn't work right.
 
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] writes:
(aka --Mark)
>
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Alan Curtis) writes:
>
>> As another footnote, why moderate the group, for the moderation system
>> does not work.  Name the group, and if my site has it active, I can
>> post to it.
>
>Okay, comp.risks.  That's a moderated group, I'll bet your site has it.
>Let's see you post to it directly.  
 
Here it is...
 
>Well, just to make this sporting, don't just post anything to comp.risks,
>post a personal attack on somebody like the ones that have been posted
>about me.
 
You ask for it.
 
>In fact, go ahead and attack me by posting directly to comp.risks.
 
Presumably you mean attack you IN a posting directly to comp.risks,
and are not quite paranoid enough to believe that any posting to
comp.risks is a personal attack on you, and your dumb ideas.
[On re-reading your article; maybe not.]
(rember, she wanted a personal attack)
 
>So long as it is a personal attack, it will serve the purpose of illustrating
>the risks to women on a network dominated by males.  Males get away with
>posting irrelevant personal attacks to soc.women because women have no power
>in this society.  If you can do the same thing in a group moderated by
>a male, I'd like to see it.
 
I just hope you can read it!!
Gee, you should even feel real proud of yourself, for you
"forced" a male (you think, based on my assumed name ...)
to do something he would have rather not done!
Congratulations!
 
>I think you're bluffing, Alan, and that even if
>you could do it, you'd never dare do the sort of things in comp.risks that
>males do in soc.women all the time.
 
I don't bluff.
I guess you know (not to mention about a million net.people)
Is anyone surprised that she is wrong?
 
>> I find it quite interesting that you, of all people, would be
>
>(Begin HEAVY SARCASM.)
 
(at least this time she says it outright...)
 
>
>Oh, right.  After all, several MALES have "warned" people at least 50 times
>that I'm FEMALE.  A female, of all people, couldn't possibly be
>qualified to comment about soc.women the way you are.  
>I'm well aware that being female is disadvantageous in a patriarchy, but
>I didn't know it had been declared a crime or a sign of incompetence.
 
Not "you of all people" since you are (currently) female, but
"you of all people" since you are constantly whining about
real males (that oughta get her) censoring/limiting you.
 
>> so openly hypocritical!  You are trying to force your ideas on all women!
>
>Oh, forgive me, Master.  I didn't realize that expressing my ideas would
>be interpreted as an attempt to force them on everybody else.
 
Then clearly you did not either:
	1) think about just what your ideas were/are
	2) realize just what it is you really want.
 
>When YOU
>express an idea, it isn't invariably interpreted as an attempt to force
>it on everybody else.  I'd forgotten that the double standard rules.
 
Gee, how you could forget them?
Plus, it looks like you forgot to even finish your own stupid sentence.
Gee, maybe you suffer from frequent memory troubles.  Could
this explain the differences in the stories we get from "the WELL"
and you?
 
>> If your only motive for wishing that soc.women become moderated is to stop
>> ad hominem attacks, then why must the moderator be a feminist female?
>> I think any person would be just as capable of screening out personal attacks as
>> anyone else, so why a feminist?.
>> What gives you the right to imply that only feminists are right?
>
>My abject apologies, Master.  The men and women who think women are
>naturally inferior and don't deserve equal rights could be the ones who
>are correct--after all, they NEVER attempt to force their ideas on anyone.
 
Ah, at last, I sign of hope!  She actually said that some other
side might be right!
As an aside, I think you should complain (or whine) to
"Guiness Book of World Records" since they obviously are contributing
to your problems: they just said "We don't document miracles"
when I told them about your paragraph
 
>> You go as far as to imply (I think) that only a feminist female can
>> determine postings that are 'not of concern to women'!
>
>Oh poor wretch that I am!  Please don't beat me, Master.  I simply forgot
>that any male, or any female totally obedient to males, would be more
>qualified to make judgments than a feminist.
 
I didn't say more.  You see, the word "more" would imply a "better"
judgement, whereas the phrase "just as capable" implies an EQUALITY
of judgements.  Please spend some of your free time learning these
differences before you attempt communicating further with a master.
 
> I'm unworthy of your mercy.
 
Now Guiness HIMself is interested, this is a true statment
from MES herself.  Oops, he says they can't prove that a bit
or two hundred didn't get twiggled on the way.  Sorry again.
 
>Feminists would obviously be an illogical choice to moderate soc.women,
>because they are concerned with the rights of women, not with keeping women
>in their proper place.  Of course you are right and I am wrong, Master.
>As you say, Master, a woman concerned primarily with the rights of women,
>would not be as capable of determining which postings don't concern women
>a woman whose primary concern is pleasing men.
 
Geesh, you even go on and on.  Please, I urge you to learn the
words that I (as master since you force that on me) use, so that
you may someday unearth the meaning of my postings.
 
>> Do you mean that soc.women should be changed to soc.feminist?
>
>If that's how you interpret my posting, then that must be what I meant
>rather than what I said.  Surely you are more qualified to interpret my
>words than I, Master.
 
Well, yes, but I would like to know what you meant, since your
words seem to differ (somewhat!) in meaning from most people's.
 
In summary, "more" is "greater"; "just as capable" is "equal."
Please study hard.
 
>> You obviously want to do just what you claim certain people on (in?)
>> the WELL were doing: censoring!
>       
>Yes, Master.  Keeping irrelevant personal attacks out of soc.women would
>be censorship, Master.  It isn't appropriate for a group about women as
>it is for rec.guns and mod.risks.  I apologize for suggesting that
                        ^^^^
			you said comp.risks more,
			so I am trying that one.
 
>netiquette, as observed in male-dominated technical groups, be enforced
>in soc.women.  You are correct, Master.  Limiting denigration of women
>would be censorship.  Driving women out of soc.women by making personal
>attacks on them is just free speech, and punishing women who try to defend
>themselves is not censorship--REAL women know they exist just to be
>subjected to personal attacks and know better than to try to defend
>themselves.  
 
I agreed that moderation (if it worked) could be used to cut
out personal attacks (like most of these last two articles!).
I was attempting to convince you that it was not ness. to be a
feminist to determine "personal attacks" in articles.
 
>> Just rember that not everyone agress with you, nor should everyone agree, 
>> but everyone should be able to speak!
>> 
>Yes, Master.  I will remember, Master.  I promise not to do it again, Master.
>Please forgive me, Master.
>
>(END SARCASM)
>
>> I do agree that the personal attacks gotta go (on BOTH sides!),
>
>Can you give an example of a woman making an unprovoked personal attack
>on a man?  I must have missed it.
 
Now, why, I wonder, would she suddenly slip in the word "unprovoked"
when looking for women attacking men, when it was not there when
she was looking the other way?  It must be those double standard
rules she mentioned before.  Maybe, deep down, Mark is confused
about the whole male/female thing?  Just look at her name!
 
>I do know that when a man makes an unprovoked personal attack on a woman,
>anything but the most abject, conciliatory, submissive response by the
>woman being attacked, is invariably interpreted as an "attack" on the attacker.
 
Can you give an example of a man making an unprovoked personal attack
on a woman?  I must have missed it.
(HINT: Don't waste your time, unless your site as a LONG history
of articles, for the "unprovoked" part will be hard.  In your
case, it would likely have to include WELL articles too)
 
>> but I do not see moderation (as in moderated group) as the solution.
>        
>Well then, Alan, do you think there COULD be a solution?  Would you care
>to suggest one?  I will.  Here's mine:
>
>     REVOLUTION NOW!
>     EQUAL RIGHTS NOW!
>
>--Mark Ethan Smith
 
How about "mutual respect"
How about "benifit of the doubt"
How about "consideration of others"
 
I have seen a lot of articles that got the author many a flame in
which net.people assumed the author meant something they didn't.
(wow, do I wish I had a better pronoun than "they" there!)
 
Assume the worst and you will likely get it.
Assume the best and you will likely get it.
(exept at 3:00 am on an empty (nearly) highway - that is a shame
but it applies to both male and female, but yes, more to female)
 
I guess I eat crow if this doesn't make it to comp.risks
 
I know I am gonna regret this in the morning....
Maybe I should forward my mail to /dev/nullo
 
Ahem, obviously, this posting 
	does not reflect anything close to any employers postition.
	does not reflect the normal postings i do
	will not be repeated (save for posting to soc.women)
-- 
"Are you sure you won't change your mind?"           | Alan P. Curtis
"Is there something wrong with the one I have?"      | AT&T,BTL,CB
-----------------------------------------------------| [email protected]
Copyright (c) 1987.  Use for profit not allowed.     | !cbosgd!cblpe!apc  
 
 
 
 
-------

    I'm pretty sure the "she" referred is Mark Ethan Smith, a well known
    vociferous "noter" (news poster) and original issuer of the
    "challenge". I don't always agree with what she (yes she, Martin is
    correct) says, but she is always provocative, sometimes thought
    provoking, often flame provoking.
    
    At any rate, since I am a decwrl/decsrc "local" I can vouch for the
    fact that the systems administrators of both systems are women, and
    very good at their jobs. In any case, neither "Mark" nor "Alan" is
    local, and if either were, I'm sure the minimum they would have been
    subject to is a stern "talking to" though I do doubt either of their
    accesses would have been removed. Around here that's tantamount to
    cutting someone's hands off, since we all need access to get our jobs
    done. I'm sure it's different at academic sites, and it may well be
    different at ATT where this Alan evidently comes from. Note that
    both DECWRL and DECSRC are primarily news/mail gateways, and DECSRC
    is also a file server, but neither are used primarily for computes,
    this makes the concept of "access" a little fuzzier. I don't know
    if that's at all relevant, it's late and I'm sleepy.
    
    I don't read either RISKS, or soc.women, but I have followed this
    controversy, having been pointed at it by a local reader of both
    groups.
    
    	-- Charles

    RE: .16  "Departure"
    
    I'm back.  Good Grief!  How am I ever going to wade through 2 1/2
    months worth of NOTEs?
    
    				Dennis the Menace
    

    
    Yeah!  Good to hear from you!
    
    DFW

    RE.43  Chest waders ! :-)