Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    omigosh what a vast topic.  But okay, I'll bite...
    
    Somewhere ensconced and developed by a combination of nature and
    nurture, differences appear or are generated between men and women.
     Often this is a result of the perceptions conveyed to us as children.
     We absorb the input from around us and learn "Women should be this..."
    and "Men should be this..." and such like.
    
    A very difficult task is to separate the wheat from the chaff. 
    Which tenets are simply old-wives-tales, or have become outdated?
     Which are commonly held beliefs which hold truth in some cases,
    but not all?  Which are true differences no matter how much we try
    to deny/avoid them?
    
    I would like to have people see me as a person first, and then
    understand I happen to be of the female gender.  People have a lot
    in common, whatever their background, sex, ancestry, etc.  Then,
    should someone perchance notice I sew needlepoint in my spare time,
    let them also notice I lift weights and fix radios.  If someone
    should notice I am for women's opportunities/rights, let them also
    notice I am for men's as well.
    
    I am for progress, for sharing experience, and the main trouble
    I have with valuing differences is that all we perceive is filtered
    through what we have experienced.  It is not written on a plain
    black slate within the mind, rather it goes through a complex process
    of being likened or opposed to previous experiences and concepts.
     Once a mind is made up, it is difficult to change, but the greatest
    task in understanding how we perceive/take in/understand others'
    views is accepting the old philosopher's mainstay:
    
    "I am human, and nothing human is foreign to me."  

    To remove the veils of our previous mind-sets and try first to accept,
    then to comprehend, is a tough but valuable route to realizing the
    differences, without letting them interfere with what the message
    really is.
    
    -Jody

    Each person should respect the other no matter how differant they are 
    from what they themselves believe to be, and they in turn will 
    respect you for non-judgement of them.
    
    But if you choose to prejudge and disrespect another before knowing,
    you too will be prejudged and disrespected by others. 
     
                                                         
    

    Maggie, I'm glad you raised this point. It lets me ask the question,
    "What does Digital mean by 'valuing differences', anyway?" Before
    anyone discusses what it means to them, I'd like to know what the
    corporation means by it, and why it's necessary.
    
    Is "valuing differences" just personnel-speak for "don't be stupid" or
    "don't discriminate" or something? If the company's motto is "Do the
    right thing", then this is just one specific instance of that, and it's
    redundant. Is it like the Constitution guaranteeing "... to [every]
    person ... the equal protection of the laws" (14th Ammendment), but
    finding that we still need specific legislation to protect the rights
    of women, racial minorities, the handicapped, etc? (That is, an
    indication of a weakness in the system, or in people.)
    

    					-- hs

    
    When I think of "valuing differences" I think of it more in a business
    sense.  Each of the jobs in a business like ours has a set role.
    We are most comfortable when every person doing a particular kind
    of job exactly fits the role that we are used to.  We may try to
    change a person or avoid hiring a person who does not fit the role
    that we are used to.
    
    "Valuing Differences" allows people who do not fit the role to take
    on the new role or even to redefine the role to fit them.  Digital
    is calling us to not only "put up with" a person that does not fit
    our picture of the role but to also attempt to find value in the
    differences that they bring.
    
    					MJC O->

    "Valuing Differences"
    
    This topic has been on my mind lately.  A friend of mine gave me
    a book that addresses this subject from a unique perspective.
    
    The book is, "With the Power of Each Breath", A Disabled Women's
    Anthology.
    
    It is written by Susan E. Browne, Debra Connors, and Nanci Stern.
    Published by Cleis Press..Pittsburg...San Francisco.
    
    For the past 18 months I have had and will have a chronic illness,
    my self-esteem, self-worth and life have been challenged by this
    illness.  
    
    I have learned about my handicapp, illness, and how people perceive
    me, and how they act toward me....Through out that course of learning
    I had to hold on to my mind, heath, and opjectivity...I've learned
    to call myself different, to trust that I know best...to fight the
    system.
    
    This book tells me that I am not alone...others of my sisters are
    handicapped...that no one "values us...not even ourselves".  That
    we must fight our self perceptions...as well as others...
    
    Valuing Differences is a Forum to explore differences in new ways...
    
    I have extracted this without permission....
    
    Shut In, Shut Out, Shut Up
    -Surviving the System_
    
    The needs and capabilities of disabled women are not taken seriously
    because of ourt gender as well as our physical or emotional
    differences. Inequitable education and emplyment opportunities
    reinforce our dependence on social service benefits, which are
    designed to be inadequate.  Dependence and childishness are presumed
    to be the totality of our existence.  This is most evident to us
    in out interactions with parternalistic social institutions.
    
    Paternalism is the policy or practice of governing by providing
    for the needs of those deemed incapable of self-care.  Social erice
    becomes social contrl when out survival is threatened if we are
    perceived as being noncompliant toward our adminstrators.  Disabled
    women have found that wefre agencies, the medical establishement,
    residential institutions, rehabilitators, employers and well
    intentioned strangers have plaued this fatherly role in out lives.
     The services and facilities we have demanded and may need in order
    to live more self-managed lives work directly againist that
    possibility.
    
    Accessibility is the common denominator of disabled women's demands.
     We are diabled more by barriers of access than from the specific
    conditions of our bodies.  We expect the removal of communication,
    transportation, and architectural barriers.  To consider it a special
    privilege to use a telephone, ride a bus or use a public bathroom
    is absurd.  While curb-cuts and telephone amplification devices
    are esential, interpretations of accessability remains narrow. 
    By accessibility we mean access to the same choices accorded
    able-bodied people.  Attitudinal and functional barriers work in
    concert.  Both must be eliminated.  Our requirements should be built
    into the fabric of society and considered routine.
    
    A radical change in perspective is needed.  We are encouraged to
    see our needs as specific to us, rather than system-wide issues.
    Curb-cuts, for example, make traveling easier for women in wheelchairs
    and those pushing baby carriages and pulling shopping carts.  Flexible
    work shedules benefit everyone including chronically ill women and
    women with small children.  Moreover, when the stregnths of diabled
    women go unacknowleged or remain underdeveloped because we do not
    have access to basic resources, society suffers the loss of out
    participation, resourcefulness and creativity"

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following is in my voice.
    
    
    We are more than our "differences", we are a synergy.. more than the
    sum of out parts... We are only disabled, or chronically ill, or
    different if we are treated that way.  Mine, yours, our perceptions
    are what stand in the way of our differences.  If we honor those
    differences, we honor ourselves and others...we get to know them,
    and they are us. We are a community of people... only separate or
    different is we choice to see it that way.
    
    MaggieT
    
    

    Valuing Differences at Digital has a more specific meaning to me
    than valuing differences in general.  To me, the corporate version
    means that each of us is asked to accept other people whom we meet
    in the workplace as they are *whether or not* we personally agree
    with or would want to practice their lifestyle and beliefs.   We
    are being asked to acknowledge their right to live and think and
    practice what *they* value.
    
    I don't believe it means that we are supposed to go along with
    harrassment or proselytizing of any kind.  I think the old adage
    of "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" is
    applicable here.  
    
    And there are lots of gray areas, many of which we have identified in
    this file.  One example is person A's right to put up posters in
    his/her cube that offend person B.  Another gray area is the legal one.
    For example, the corporate policy is that gays will not be harrassed.
    But in many states, certain sexual practices of some gay men are still
    technically against the law.   (I doubt we would be expected to "value"
    someone who is currently abusing minors, though, straight or gay.) I
    don't have answers to these contradictions, but I don't think they render
    the program useless, either. 
    
    And I think we are being asked via the Valuing Differences program
    to conduct ourselves in a supportive way *even if* our feelings
    about a person or his or her lifestyle aren't supportive.  
    If a person is fairly remote from us, it's not too hard to value
    their difference.  When people are in very close contact with us,
    it gets harder and harder if the difference in question is large.
           
    The difference between the corporate program and valuing differences
    on a personal level is that on a personal level it is a choice,
    a value system, and an approach to life.  On the corporate level
    it can be a choice, and it can be a value system, but we are still
    being asked to behave a certain way whether or not we have internalized
    the attitude of valuing difference.                
    
    
    Holly 
    (who would like to think she values difference consistently,
    but has a heck of a hard time living up to her ideals...)               
    

    The following is meant as a metaphor: it can be applied to many differences,
    for instance, the way different genders interact in NOTES, etc.
    
    When we talk about valuing the differences between men and women,
    two responses pop immediately to mind:
    	1)  "Gee, wouldn't that be nice.  Then my way of 'working issues'
    and resolving conflict would be seen as a viable alternative that
    works for me and the people who work with me; the _relationships_
    which are of utmost importance to business function and survival
    are manipulated openly -- nothing under the table, if my boss has
    done something to lessen my confidence in him or her, I sit down
    and explain the problem.  There is no battle over whether what s/he
    did was right or wrong; the issue to be resolved is only how to
    keep that relationship in a state that we both can handle.  If I
    have messed over someone working for me, I need them to sit down
    and tell me their confidence in me has been shaken for such and
    such a reason, and then we work on either making them feel less
    betrayed or helping me to understand what aspect of my actions made
    them uncomfortable working for me or even convincing me that I really
    messed up and should apologize or somehow rectify the situation."
    
    I think of this as a very female way of handling interactions. 
    When I see it in a male, I think of him as an "honorary female"
    even though he would not necessarily think of that as the compliment
    I mean it to be.  It would be nice to have that be valued, not looked
    at as a namby-pamby, touchy-feely mode of business interaction.
    
    2) Second reaction: "Oh good grief, does that mean I should not
    object to what I see as the "male" way of handling business?
    Everything to them is power, personal and political power.  And
    they (wild generalizations follow, not meant to offend men. rather
    meant to offend people - of either gender - who use this) like
    backwards manipulation, all in secret.  If someone messes them over,
    they hold a grudge and "get 'em back."  They become combative, and
    all interaction becomes a matter of whose "will" is stronger, who
    can "win" the fight.  They disagree for the sake of disagreeing,
    raise objections for the sake of sheer obstructionism alone.  They
    never give the person who "screwed" them a chance to 1) make up
    for it, 2)know what they did to offend in the first place!  It's
    all backwards and incredibly destructive; NO ONE profits from such
    a situation.
    
    Now, this is a difference where I think I can clearly see a
    "superiority" on one side and a "deficiency" on the other.  And
    it seems to follow gender lines in my experience (admittedly limited):
    XX managers/bosses/employees even though they may use style 2) are
    amenable to someone (me) who approaches them using style 1).  More
    XY managers are not so amenable.  Simple example (may _seem_ to
    apply to individuals only, but has actually happened several times
    with a variety of individuals, so don't get mad at me now): I tend to get
    very wrapped up in my work and not notice if I am stepping on toes.
     That means I do so without meaning to.  I stepped on a XX supervisor's
    toes and she got mad.  I realized because she got huffy.  I went
    and apologized, although I felt that what I did was right, I just
    did it the wrong way.  She did not accept the apology, felt I was
    wrong and thought I should correct my behavior.  I disagreed and
    still do.  Point is that although she still felt wronged, she did
    not continue to carry a grudge against me, her ego was not maimed,
    she is still willing to work with me, and we are happy to work
    together, like each other, etc, etc.  Great resolution.
    
    I stepped on manager XY's toes and figured it out when he didn't
    smile and say goodnight that evening.  I said, oh golly, I hope
    I didn't offend you, everything was going wrong in front of this
    customer, taking 10 times longer than anticipated, and I didn't
    think.  I am very sorry.  Well XY still won't talk to me.

    Now, clearly one way worked better, with less anguish on both sides,
    leaving the possibility for two people to work together in the future.
    The other way did not.  Am I supposed to "value" that way???  Forrrrget
    it!


    Should we "value" someone whose "different viewpoint" leads them
    to vituperate us?  Should we "value" someone who tells us we're
    "all bull dykes"?
    
    I don't see why we should.  It's like valuing the difference between
    myself and a member of the KKK: yes we have difference, and that
    person is certainly (one hopes) in the minority, but does "valuing
    differences" mean accepting and "valuing" abuse?
    
    I can accept and value an old man from the sticks.  He may have
    a lot of wisdom.  If he's old enough, I won't even get mad at him
    for calling me "girl" (or using language which excludes me); I make
    concessions in order to be able to value the time we have together,
    his experience, wisdom (or lack thereof), and stories.  But there
    is a host of things which are totally unacceptable coming from that
    man, even though they are simply the products of his
    age/environment/race/religion/etc: bigotry, asking me to "take a
    memo" ["take this memo, bud."  "Why not ask XY who has a pen?"],
    telling me AIDS is God's answer to homosexuality and hedonism, ad
    nauseum.
    
    Lee

        "Valuing differences" to me means a lot of things. It means
        supporting people I disagree with. It means realizing that when
        someone does something I don't approve of it does necessarily
        mean that it is because they are malicious. It means being aware
        that each of us is falible and that just because a person has a
        certain fault doesn't mean that they are necessarily worse
        than any of the rest of us.
        
        It means to me that when we build a team it is often better to
        choose highly dissimilar people who are willing to work together
        rather than a bunch of clones of myself. It means that often we
        succeed because others can see what we're blind to. It means
        recognizing that we have different strengths and that the right
        person for a particular task is the one who does it well. 
        
        It means trying to judge each person for who they are not for
        how they compare to someone else or to some standard. 
        
        It means "never attribute to malice, ignorance or stupidity that
        which can be explained by a different point of view." 
        
        JimB.

    re .0  The one unasked question is "Should we, in fact, value
    differences ?"  Omitting this question reduces the scope of this
    discussion. Do we take for granted that we "must" value differences,
    and discuss methods, or can we question that premise ?

    Yah, I agree that that remained unasked...but how can we ask whether
    we should do something before we know what the something is? 

Valuing Differences...

I think in the most general of terms, that phrase attempts to respond to 
one of our natural instincts.  That is, that when confronted with someone 
who's different from us, we tend to be afraid, and that fear tends to 
keep us from recognizing the contributions that person has to make.  When
we talk about valuing difference, I think we're trying to interrupt that 
process, as if to say, "when you start to feel that fear, instead of
closing your mind, try to look beyond your fear and see what this person 
has to offer."  If I meet a man who's sexist or homophobic, for example, I
feel no obligation to value that "difference" between us, because I am 
already clear about where I stand on those *ideas*.  But if this same man is 
an expert in some area where I need information, I would hope that I could
value his skills while rejecting some of his ideas.  

In a company such as this one, with employees from a wide variety of 
cultural backgrounds, it's certainly essential that we at least *tolerate* 
difference.  Otherwise, we'd never get anything done.  (I think some
similar points were raised in GDE.)  By challenging ourselves to not only 
tolerate but to *value* differences, we may find that our personal growth 
is enhanced.  I don't think that means, however, that I have to value 
traits such as racism, sexism, or classism.  I strongly believe that 
language influences behavior which often influences attitudes.  If we make 
it a goal for ourselves to *tolerate* difference, what do we have when we 
fail?  Intolerance?  If we make it a goal for ourselves to *value*
difference, what do we have when we fail?  Maybe tolerance?  

Justine

    [I recently posted the following to another notesfile. Sorry if
    you've already seen it. -- Charles]
    
    Valuing Differences is a real thing to me, different from Equal
    Opportunity and Affirmative Action. EO and AA are attempting to
    correct past iniquities, Valuing Differences (I just can't bring
    myself to say VD :-) is a *positive* program designed to "raise
    people's conciousness" as it were.
    
    To take a concrete example, in my engineering group (software) we
    have people from all sorts of backgrounds, college grads with rosy
    eyed views of abstract software developement, ex-hardware types
    who want access to the bits and no overhead due to formalisms, "old
    guard" software types who don't believe in debuggers and are suspicious
    of timesharing, hackers, you name it. THEY ARE ALL VALUABLE,
    *precisely* because of the different viewpoints they bring to a
    problem. We where having a particularly knotty problem in a distributed
    design, when the hardware guy spoke up and said "It's a problem
    in cache coherency..." you could hear the lightbulbs going off all
    over the room! None of the software types would ever have looked
    at it that way, but once pointed out it was obvious. Similar examples
    abound.
    
    I value differences. Just like different technical backgrounds, I value
    different cultural, sexual, racial, geographical, or whatever
    viewpoints for the different perspective they bring. Whenever I meet
    someone who holds different views than me, I try to find out *why*. I
    either learn something, a new way of looking at things, or I can teach
    something, my way of seeing things, or at worst I can learn that there
    *really* *are* people out there with deranged irrational views, with
    closed minds, who are unwilling or afraid to try new things.
    
    Differences are vital. I can't imagine a world where everyone believed
    the same, acted the same, felt the same. How boring! It would be
    hell. Differences are what make life worth living.
    
    	-- Charles

    
    it's so damned hard.
    
    i think differently than most people.
    (and probably more often and with greater awareness of other
    points of view)
    
    yet, when i take something i've thought about...a lot!!
    and turn it into a "current point of view" (my views change as
    new data comes into focus)
    
    and then tell someone (notes: human relations, soap box, music...)
    i invariably get misinterpreted, misquoted, insulted, abused..
    
    (yeah yeah...poor me....)
    
    by people who (my current opinion) are only repeating what they've
    been taught and refuse to open their minds/eyes to other ways
    of thinking.
    
    this causes me to NOT value either them or their opinions and/or
    differences.
    
    they, so obviously, hold me in contempt (commy pinky naive jerk
    is usually what i get) and have no respect what so ever for my ideas,
    beliefs, opinions...differences.
    
    and i'm so damned outnumbered!!!!!!
    
    and most of the time, perhaps almost always, i state my point
    without abusing anyone only to be abused (not respected) by
    those in contempt of my opinion...
    
    how can i value that?
    

    
    
    i recognize that .0 was in conjunction with woman's issues...
    
    but ALL PEOPLE should be valued fo rtheir differences and if
    womannotes isn't the place for a relatively liberal guy to come
    into and recieve "value for differences" where does he go?
    
    

        Excuse me, but we can value that with which we disagree. Mere
        disagreement does not constitute attack, and by the same token
        disagreement needn't be expressed as attack.
        
        It seems to me that an awful lot of people seem to be feeling
        that they are being attacked or put down when they are merely
        being disagreed with. Differences of opinion don't have to
        result in disapproval, lack of support or attack. To take a few
        examples, it doesn't seem to me that it is necessary that one
        approve of homosexuality or abortion to support our friends who
        are homosexual or who have abortions. It doesn't seem to me that
        the only way that men can support abused women is to shut up. It
        doesn't seem to me that the only way to value liberals or
        radicals is to be one. 
        
        At the same time, I've seen far too much condemnation of points
        of view that differ from our own. Far too often when faced with
        someone with whom we disagree we feel we have to hold them in
        contempt or despise them. Not only do we have to tell them that
        they are wrong, we have to get others to condemn them, to "see
        them for what they are" (or what we think they are). Just
        because a person believes in something that we do not does not
        make them inherently bad or stupid. They may just see it
        differently. 
        
        These two things are two sides of intolerance, and both are
        unnecessary. In cobination they lead to treemendous discord.
        People give offense when all they need to do is express
        disagreement. others, who see mere disagreement as attack
        perceive actual attack as an even deeeper threat. Suddenly camps
        form up.
        
        "I think you are wrong" doesn't have to equal "You are bad",
        either when we say it or when we hear it. 

        JimB.

    	RE:  .16
    
    	Do you consider *YOURSELF* fair in notes?
    
    	You write a note that is incredibly insulting/patronizing to
    	women and then imply that if we disagree with you, we'll be
    	using the so-called "party line" against you (and will be
    	proving your theory that we argue against you because we
    	think we are weaker, etc.)
    
    	Nice little trap you have there.
    
    	Ever think that maybe we disagree with you because you happen
    	to write a lot of things that are WORTH disagreeing with?
    
    							Suzanne...

           
    >Men here are expected to act as 
    >scapegoats for all the beasts responsible for all the
    >hell that is vistited upon women. 
    
    Mr. Holt, it is hell listening to stuff like that.  It's
    really not that I see myself (or other women here) incapable
    of engaging in "more evenhanded debate" with you.  It's just 
    that I choose not to do it in Womannotes.  You may enjoy waging
    a 'battle between the sexes' in order to claim that you are a
    casualty of it, but I find no value in that kind of exercise.
    I suspect that women who feel as I do will either ignore you and 
    talk to each other, or they will go away.  Perhaps if enough of 
    them go away, you will be able to create your own "party line" 
    here in Womannotes.  

   Justine

    
    Here we go again....
    
    DFW

        Excuse me again, but I don't buy the idea that this file, per
        se, is unfir to men, or even to men who won't toe the party
        line. It is my experience that if you make it clear that you
        value the women of WomanNotes, you can disagree with them fairly
        fundentally and still be treated with respect. If you come here
        with a chip on your shoulder they'll galdly knock it off.
        
        I say this based on the way that I have been treated. For all
        that some of the angrier men of the fil have painted me as the
        "Mr. Sensitive man of the 80's" upon occassion, my views do not
        match the feminist party line very well. 
        
        For instance, I have defended the use of terms like "girl" and
        "lady" in addition to the "proper" "woman", and see nothing
        wrong with the genderless "he" and "mankind". I have made no
        bones about the fact that I don't yet buy the "homosexuality is
        just as natural as heterosexuality" line. I stand up firmly
        against notes that I see posted by women that paint all men as
        having the faults of some men. I will not buy the notion that
        men can support women only but not talking about certain topics.
        I have suggested that the use of "feminism" to mean
        "egalitarianism" is a red flag that will cause trouble. In short
        I don't mind contending with the women here when we disagree. 
        
        Yet, for all that I am not all that a "liberated" feminist man,
        the women of this file have not only contended with me most
        politely, but have been so gracious as to hold me up as an
        example of someone who does not offend them, and as a potential
        role model. (Actually, they are occasionally so understanding as
        to fail to believe that I disagree with them when I do, but
        that's another matter.) 
        
        For the very vast majority of the women in this file it seems to
        be quite sufficient to respect them, listen to them, and to
        state your disagreement in polite terms. In short, if you make
        it clear that you value their differences, they seem quite
        capable of valuing yours. It is always possible to pick a fight
        with people who feel strongly about things. It is not necessary,
        however.
        
        I'm not saying that I don't get mail that indicates anger or
        disappointment in me when I state views that disagree with those
        of the women here. I'm not saying that it is always easy to say
        what I mean and be understood. It takes hard work, and there are
        misunderstandings. But there are very few here. This is one of
        the most supportive conferences around, both for women and for
        men who are willing to try to understand and to speak with
        respect and affection.
        
        JimB.

    
    re. 15
    :a lot of people feel attacked when they are just being disagreed
    :with.
    
    jim, i agree that this is often true.
    it may even be true in many of my cases.
    but far more often, and if you'd like i'll spend a year or 2 
    going through just the last 2 weeks of noting and gather all the
    *attacks*, i truly believe i've been *attacked* as opposed to
    *disagreed with*
    
    things like (naive)
    	(go live in russia)
    	(phhhhht (wet raspberries)
    	(immature head banger)
    	constitute attacks as far as i'm concerned.
    
    	when one introduces a note asking...
    	"why do many people either do nothing to help or they
    do a lot to hinder...?"
    	and the replies are....
    
    	"what makes your way right?"
    	"judging by your other notes you're a jerk"
    	"i'll kill you if you make changes"
    	
    	i'd say that there were no answers and lots of attacks.
    

    
    
    re 16
    holt.
    
    see what i mean...?
    
    he can't just disagree with me....
    logically and intellectually debating the point...
    nope...
    
    he's just gotta say;
    "you are naive"
    
    he doesn't agree with my opinion so i'm naive.
	
    this time, i shall refrain from reciprocating, immaturely,
    and stating a battle.
    
    it's obvious to me that with opinions like that coupled with his
    abusive and insulting nature that he's just not
    a very well developed individual.
    
    
    
    	

    Meanwhile, back at the topic...
    
    Please?
    
    						=maggie

        Maggie,
        
        I'm sorry if I appeared to get distracted from the question of
        valuing differences to the treatment of men (or of Mr. Sawyer)
        in this file. I had meant the notes to be more germaine. My
        major point was that valuing differences means two things at the
        very least. It means not attacking those who disagree with you,
        and it means understanding that mere disagreement doesn't
        constitute attack.
        
        My discussion of how I've been treated here in contrast with the
        alleged treatment of men in the file was intended to show that
        much of the perception of how you are treated is interpretation,
        and also that valuing differences is a two way street. It seems
        to me that a lot of the problems in this file have to do
        precisely with valuing differences, and so I used it as an
        example. 
        
        If we each calm down and approach the others we find in this
        conference with respect and the assumption that they, too, are
        people of good will--that is if we value them despite their
        differences and try to remember that their differences do not
        constitute a dislike for us--it has been my experience that we
        will generally receive like treatment. 
        
        I guess my error was in making the plea too personal. It seemed
        to me that Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Holt needed very badly to hear
        this message and so I aimed it at them. It seemed so clear to me
        that they each expected unfairness and injustice and thus were
        predisposed to interpret disagreement and difference as attack,
        that I couldn't help but address them and the much debated issue
        of the treatment of one sex by the other in this file.
        
        To me, valuing differences implies being slow to judge, and slow
        to anger. As I said in my first note on this topic, it means "do
        not ascribe to malice or stupidity that which can be adeqautely
        explained by a difference in viewpoint". It means not making
        negative assumptions about the motives of others. 
        
        JimB.

    One meaning of the word "valuing" is "to rate according to relative
    worth or desirability".  Taken in this light, "valuing differnces"
    is not, in and of itself, a positive thing.  Strictly speaking it
    means that we place a relative worth on people based on various
    attributes.
    
    I think DEC's "Valuing Differences" programs are well intentioned,
    but, except for the benefit of raising everyone's consciousness
    in regards to removing barriers to the physically impaired, it only
    emphasizes that some of us are "different".
    

    rep: .25
    
        If you look at the context that the phrase is used in you can
    show that yours is the wrong definition for the word "valuing" in
    this phrase.  The context in which the phrase is used clearly shows
    that the proper definition for "valuing" is "To regard highly; to
    esteem".
    
        If you make an arguement based upon a false premise then the
    argument is not valid. Therefore your argument is not valid.
    
    ASP

    
    re. 25
    basically, i agree!
    (now don't change your opinion on my account..:-)
    i think that the best way to value differences, other than
    their being no differences (impossible), is to not be aware
    of differences!
    	and valuing differences could do more harm than good
    	the person who thinks of himself as a (black, spanish,white,jewish
    russia,american........)
    	and is PROUD of that heritage (pride can kill!)
    	is more likely to join some group, mindless or otherwise,
    and do wierd things...like....throw insults, stones, bullets,
    grenades....
    	whereas, if all people stopped being proud of being...
    	black,white,jewish,catholic,iranian
    	and concentrated on just being proud to be a person and
    trying to make life better for other persons (i HAD to throw that
    in)
    	they would be less likely to don a uniforn, carry a gun, and
    kill someone who is *different* from them...
    	couple that with the fact that there would be no (less)
    discrimination towards others if (we were all blind?) differences
    in culture and color were ignored.
    	then we would just have the (not so valued) differences in
    a. mental capacity
    b. concise order following
    c. mindless obediance
    
    
    

    Valuing differences doesn't mean evaluating differences and placing
    one set higher than another.
    
    It's sharing.  Both directions, both giving and taking.
    
    "This is what made my home special" AND "What made your home special".
    
    People always carry part of their heritage and upbringing with them.
    Pride in that heritage is required for sharing--if you're not proud
    of your traditions, you're certainly not going to share them.
    
    We really are better than lilliputians.