| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 401.1 | Starting thoughts | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the side walk ends | Mon Jul 20 1987 20:21 | 4 |
| Just a partial answer....there is at least some sense of community
that grows out of this notes file....especially as we also get
to meet and interact with each other in person.
|
| 401.2 | | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | | Tue Jul 21 1987 00:49 | 12 |
| Well, the incredible need, alienation, etc part hits home here,
I think, as well as in many of the communities you mentioned. I
don't see the problem with it tho: in a sense, my community is in
my head, and whether or not it lasts (sad when/if it breaks up,
but life goes on...) it always exists in my head. The people I
meet, in _my_ communities, undeniably become a part of me, and will
not be forgotten, ever. Nor will I forget the love, affection,
and care I feel for this community at this time in my life.
What more do you need??
Lee
|
| 401.3 | community thrives on variety | WEBSTR::RANDALL | I'm no lady | Tue Jul 21 1987 02:03 | 47 |
| This is probably going to ramble off into nowhere, but what the
heck, it's late . . .
It seems to me that a great deal of our society's problems with
community stem from a widespread belief that one can have community
only with someone who is pretty much the same as oneself. We've
lost the richness of variety.
I have in recent days read that only another child of an alcoholic can
truly understand what it means to be a child of an alcoholic, that only
someone who has been through losing a child through a miscarriage can
understand how it feels to lose a child that way, that only a woman who
has grown up with a woman's experiences can understand how it feels to
be a woman. In a way, of course, all that is true.
But the assumption underlying much of this belief is that because you
and I have not shared a particular experience, we have nothing to offer
each other. I may not be the adult child of an alcoholic, but that
does not mean that I don't care for your pain, or that I can't use my
sympathy and my intelligence to try to comprehend what it was like for
you. Because you were not pregnant and unmarried, wrestling with all
the issues of caring for yourself and fighting for your education, your
livelihood, your right to LIVE, not just exist, doesn't mean you don't
know how you would have felt in that situation.
Above all, differences of age, of upbringing, of interests, of
experiences don't mean we can't care for each other.
But everywhere I turn, I see people bunching themselves off with
only those who are like them, who they feel comfortable with, who
don't challenge their comfortable ideas. Married couples with children
group with other family units, singles look for other singles and
resent sharing the beach with the families, older people retire
to communities where children aren't allowed. It's no wonder our
children are growing up with such limited vision -- they see so
few adults.
It's easy to think that the main virtue of the extended family was
the blood ties, but I think it was in fact the wide variety of role
models available. If you didn't like your mother, you could be
like your grandmother, or your aunt Mary, or even Cousin Sara who
was a doctor and never married, but always lived with Cousin Louise
who gave up her chance at marriage to keep house for Sara.
I don't know if this makes sense or not . . .
--bonnie
|
| 401.4 | some musings | NISYSE::LUPACCHINO | | Tue Jul 21 1987 13:12 | 15 |
| I'm glad you raised the question, Andrea. I had a reaction to
the use of the word "community" in 378.0 & .1 because of my impression
of Womannotes as a forum...not a community. I must admit that I
have had pretty intense familial and religious community experiences
which does color my perception of community. I am also aware that
some folks have made wonderful connections via this notesfile. I
am not minimizing that. I see the potential for coalition-building,
mentoring and continued supportive networking for instance. I'm
not sure how to define all of us coming together to do the above.
I just don't see us as a "community" - a group of people who come
together around some shared goals and values.
Those are just some quick comments for now
Ann Marie
|
| 401.5 | community.... | BUFFER::LEEDBERG | Truth is Beauty, Beauty is Truth | Tue Jul 21 1987 14:24 | 39 |
|
re: .3
It is the richness of variety that is sometimes lacking in groups
that is needed most in groups to continue growth - expand the gene
pool. I try to keep an open mind and allow others to express ideas
that I may not like just to keep the variety element there.
A community needs to have individuals at all ends of the spectrum
to keep from stagnation (I think this is why I still write and read
WOMANNOTES). A community also has to give the individual room to
grow and change as is needed, determined by the individual.
Membership in a community should not mean isolation from the rest
of society. I stay within the system to help guide it in the direction
I would like it to go.
Membership in a community is also responcibility for the good of
the community, maybe at the risk of loss of individual rights.
The whole concept of community is very complicated and difficult
to comprehend - since if it is not constantly changing and adjusting
then it is not working (my opinion).
I think I agree with Bonnie and with Bonnie_J.
_peggy
(-)
| Is the EARTH a community?
I am afraid that it might be.
with that thought
I am in need of a peer group
and a very strong drink....
|
| 401.6 | some communities are different | IMAGIN::KOLBE | Mudluscious and puddle-wonderfull | Tue Jul 21 1987 16:49 | 7 |
|
Well, since you asked...I think the Enet is a community. I shudder
whenever the thought of possibly leaving DEC enters my mind. I'm
not sure I could handle the loss of the Enet "community". I feel
a link with people from all over the world in both personal and
business notes. I talk to you folks more than to my neighbors. I
have more in common with most of you. liesl
|
| 401.7 | | XANADU::RAVAN | | Tue Jul 21 1987 18:20 | 36 |
| RE: the Enet as a community...
Absolutely. I think for many of us it replaces the back-fence or
front-porch model, when most of a person's friends were their close
neighbors simply because those were the people at hand. (Even now,
people who live in isolated areas where transportation is difficult
tend to be more ready to get along with neighbors they don't like than
those of us who can just hop in the car and escape. When you're the
only two families within fifty miles you don't have a lot of choice...)
The network is the equivalent of dropping by for coffee or wandering
over for a chat. We are electronic "next-door neighbors". And, while we
aren't identical, we do have a lot in common with each other - most of
the time. (I think that's why it's such a shock when somebody breaks in
to a conference and ignores or blatantly violates the customs; imagine
some cozy small-town folks sitting on the porch as a band of Hell's
Angels roars by!)
I have other communities, too - family and friends scattered across
the country, but with whom I can feel perfectly comfortable even
if we haven't seen each other in years. It's a different type of
relationship, but a good one.
And special interests can make communities. Science fiction fandom,
fantasy-role-players, people who discover they've read and enjoyed
the same obscure books - these can all foster that sense of communion
that makes it worth interacting with all those strangers. The more
limited the number of shared interests, though, the more limited
the "community" will be, and the less supportive.
Perhaps the hardest thing for me to keep in mind is that I mustn't
let the ease of electronic neighborliness make me forget about the
"mundane" kind. Maybe I don't have to be pals with the folks across
the street, but I shouldn't forget they exist, either.
-b
|
| 401.8 | who is the community | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Tue Jan 26 1988 13:06 | 43 |
| <<< COLORS::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 671.0 Who is the Community? No replies
XCELR8::POLLITZ 36 lines 25-JAN-1988 09:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is the Womannotes Community? On occasion I see
writings that suggest that the 'Community' is the female
members of this Conference.
As of this writing there are a total of 338 F/M intro-
ductions. In topics 2 & 7, there are 197 women (58.3%) and
and 141 men (41.7%). As a ratio these pct's resemble a 4-3
one (.571) or a 3-2 one (.600). As the numbers actually are
it would take 15 new female members and no additional male
'members' for the women to have a 60% majority in the Conf.
In contrast if the Conf. gained 9 male members along with 3
new female members, the ratio would be 4 to 3 F/M 'members.'
Everything from the opening statements to Moderator comments
to noter entries to screen headlines indicate that this Conf.
is intended for women and 'topics of interest to women.'
I understand such intentions as far as they go.
My question is : Just *WHO* IS the 'Community'?
Is it a) Women
or b) Women and Men
As a tangent, if the 'Community' is (b), what possible object-
ion could anyone have to 'For Men Only' topics? If male members
are fully equal in this Conference, then it makes sense to me
that men should be able to enter a 'FMO' topic in THIS CONF.
I doubt that such 'FMO' topics would be common - much less be
2 for every 3 that women write, but WHO is to DENY Men the NEED?
What if other Conf's don't allow for such possibilities - where
then do we really go? Where do the Male members stand with regard
to rights in this Conf.?
But *that* is not the main issue right now. Question is:
Just *WHO* IS the Community?
Thank you,
Russ
|
| 401.9 | | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Tue Jan 26 1988 13:10 | 16 |
| <<< COLORS::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 671.1 Who is the Community? 1 of 1
CVG::THOMPSON "Famous Ex-Noter" 9 lines 25-JAN-1988 10:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on some informal looks at acttivity I've done on other
conferences there are probibly 6-10 people who read this conference
for every one that writes here. We really have no idea of who is
actually reading this conference. You absolutely can not judge
the distribution of this community by just those who write here.
I would guess that more of the read only women feel part of this
community then read only men do.
Alfred
|
| 401.10 | | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Tue Jan 26 1988 13:12 | 22 |
| <<< COLORS::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 671.2 Who is the Community? 2 of 2
CASV02::AUSTIN 14 lines 25-JAN-1988 10:31
-< Whats the point of it? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know this alittle off base, but why would a man want to start
a FMO topic in a notesfile that is for discussing topics of interest
to women? It just doesn't seem to make any sense to start a note
that a woman cannot reply to in a conference of this nature...
I am not saying it shouldn't be allowed but I just don't see why
a man would want to do it...
Just like I couldn't see a woman entering a FWO note in Mennotes,
or a Heterosexual entering a FHETERO notes in GED, etc,.
Its the same difference...
T
|
| 401.11 | | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Tue Jan 26 1988 13:25 | 80 |
| <<< COLORS::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 671.3 Who is the Community? 3 of 3
JUNIOR::TASSONE "Can we buy a 30ft. Larson?" 12 lines 25-JAN-1988 12:52
-< ARRRRRGGH! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel HUMAN_RELATIONS conference is the place where both Men and
Women can note together.
Quite honestly, it doesn't matter one way or another who writes
what in this conference to whom, at whom or about whom. I respond
less frequently now because I have found better opportunities for
expression without attacks in several other conferences.
And if this conference went away, I wouldn't miss it.
Cathy (who is getting tired of these endless notes about women vs
men. I repeat: hasn't this gone on long enough?)
Note 671.4 Who is the Community? 4 of 4
ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI 7 lines 25-JAN-1988 12:57
-< We talk to each other >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .2: To address the opinions of the community. We all know
that conference participation is not homogeniously distributed across
the topic set given in EASYNOTES_CONFERENCES.
Joe Jas
Note 671.5 Who is the Community? 5 of 5
ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI 7 lines 25-JAN-1988 13:01
-< What is popular >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re .3:
But that's the thing....most people here....are interested in!
Joe Jas
Note 671.6 Who is the Community? 6 of 6
CASV02::AUSTIN 14 lines 25-JAN-1988 13:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE .4
>re .2: To address the opinions of the community. We all know
>that conference participation is not homogeniously distributed across
>the topic set given in EASYNOTES_CONFERENCES.
And...?
T
Note 671.8 Who is the Community? 8 of 8
FLOWER::JASNIEWSKI 13 lines 26-JAN-1988 07:47
-< We're special >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .6
And the community, or set of people who choose to note here,
in WOMANNOTES, is not the same as those who note in say,
Human_Relations or MENnotes. Therefore the "audience", if you will,
is special to this conference. I can think of an example, but won't
be explicit by name, of someone who notes here but not in MENnotes.
That's the only reason why someone would be apparently illogical in
placing a FMO note in the WOMANNOTES conference, that I can think of.
Joe Jas
|
| 401.12 | Candles in the Wind | MCIS2::POLLITZ | | Thu May 26 1988 06:00 | 54 |
| def 1: Is a partnership of women and men.
def 2: Is a single sex partnership.
Conference intellects currently view women as gylanic and men as
androcratic. With the best of all possible worlds def #2.
I believe that the sexes are as gylanic/base as the other and that
def #1 is the best kind of partnership to seek (in most any Conference
or Community).
I do think that scholars such as Eisler (topic 478) have at least
part of the picture right.
Theories regarding sexual gylanic origins/changes involve questionable
premises as do ideas on matters such as the wisdom of separatism
within an Egalitarian Society.
What is important is the idea of women and men caring for each other
and working toward realizable goals.
I think that Conference intellects are neglecting the idea of a
'Partnership Society.' They are working on the building of def
#2. This comes at the expense of def #1.
Men here are seeking a partnership with women. Conference intellects
are not seeking a partnership with men at this time.
Reasons for these disparate views involve ideological beliefs and
unsatisfactory dealings with some men in personal life.
Since men are interested in a better Partnership Community, revealed
is the creation of a sexual inequality. An inequality caused by
Conference intellects who are pursuing ideas and policies that are
slanted more towards def #2 than def #1.
That these intellects do not participate in a Conference like Mennotes
further suggests that priorities are focused on def #2.
With respect to the 'Big Picture', a F/M Partnership is what this
and other Gender notes Conferences should be seeking.
With this 'longer horizon' in mind, the kinds of Policy questions
that could be better asked/sought, would be more along the lines
of FCO ( For Community Only ). Not FWO/FGD.
The latter is but yet another substitute for the 'Real Thing.'
Until priorities are put in better order, we aren't 'Family'.
We're islands.
Russ P.
|
| 401.13 | Eh?.. | RANCHO::HOLT | Eyes in disguise... | Thu May 26 1988 12:28 | 7 |
| re .12
>Conference intellects currently view women as gylanic and men as
>androcratic.
You lost me, Russ. Please unscramble and try again...
|
| 401.14 | | JENEVR::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu May 26 1988 13:46 | 4 |
| Re: .13
"Gylanic" is beyond me, but I suspect that "androcratic" means
"adherents of male rule."
|
| 401.15 | Gylanic Cooperation vs. Androcratic Competition | MCIS2::POLLITZ | | Mon Jun 06 1988 23:48 | 37 |
| Re .13 Gylanic means a Community of Partnership in which Women
and Men live in peaceful co-existence with one another.
To achieve this peaceful co-existence between Women and
Women, Men and Men, and Women and Men, people need to
change.
The change involves the elimination of destructive hierarchies
in private and public life. More specifically, the changes
involve gearing traditional male behavior ( dominant, oppress-
ive, destructive impulses ) toward the life-affirming,
caring, nuturing types of behavior. Women are traditionally
identified with these positive characteristics - hence
the 'gylanic' term.
re .14 Quite right Miss Chelsea.
Androcracy is rule by Men, rule that involves hierarchies
destructive by their very nature. The Male 'systems' that
pervade the cultures of the Earth are hierarchies that
oppress and dominate Women (and Men). The Male himself
has built these structures, structures that reflect the
character of Man.
Feminist scholars such as Eisler view 'the System' as
completely undesirable.
Power is votes and money, and Women have both.
Add ideological focus and political clout, and it becomes
clear that various 'Cultural transformations' have occurred
and will occur for some time to come.
For better or worse.
Russ P.
|
| 401.16 | Reply to .12, Russ, (Community, not Family) | NEXUS::MORGAN | Human Reality Engineering, Inc. | Sat Jun 11 1988 15:50 | 25 |
| Russ, I haven't read any of your material in months. You seem to
have changed quite a bit. Congrats!
=wn= is not really a family, it is more a psuedo-family. In fact any
reference to 'family' without qualifications of what is being meant is
misleading. It's misleading because of the problems of electronic
media. I think the family (artificial analogy) needs to be dropped and
community (reality) needs to be emphasised.
Community it is. In fact there can be many different facets of
community without those facets agreeing on major issues.
And as a community, various interests need their semi-private space.
This is emulated with FWO topics. FWO topics serve this electronic
community well.
The electronic reality is that we are electronic islands. Islands that
communicate via an electronic medium. Many rules for face to face
communications don't really apply here. Some things we can emulate
well, others we only kludge.
It's been almost a year now. Why do you hold on to this issue? Let
it go. It matters much less than the effort you put into fighting
or changing it. Besides, your efforts will change nothing. Let's get
on with building the community, not the facade of 'family'.
|
| 401.17 | Cart before the Horse? | MCIS2::POLLITZ | | Tue Jun 14 1988 02:29 | 3 |
| OK Mike, I'll let it go.
Russ P.
|