Conference turris::womannotes-v1

   ...presuming that you want to discuss the question before monday.
   (As with the Trashnotes vote, commentary and argument in the body
   of the response carrying your vote is perfectly appropriate)

    Evidently 560.0 didn't express what the issue is very well.  We're
    not talking about it being a "women-only" file, but rather closing
    off casual access in the same way =gde= and =acoa= are closed: 
    any DEC employee can get in, but it requires a note to some moderator
    to enable the "get-in".
    						=maggie

    I admit to some anarchist tendency with regards to Notes. I've
    always believed that if someone felt that a conference was
    needed that they should open one. If they can't host it themselves
    and they can't get someone else to host it then it's probably not 
    needed. If one person thinks that a members only file is a good
    idea it should be opened. 
    
    Conferences can be opened in ones personal directory. If it gets
    more activity then the host can support there will probably be
    someone involved with more resources to take it over. If the file
    isn't really needed, little room will be used up, and the conference
    will wither away. Frankly I think a vote here is a waste of valuable
    time on the part of the moderators. Open the file and let it prove
    itself in the open market. 
    
    Keep this one open the way it is and let the other one sink or swim
    on it's own merits.
    
    			Alfred
    

    No,
    whats the difference? the moderators cannot deny accses to this
    file to anyone so what would be the point? the same people that
    are here now would still be here after the change to members only.
    it would not enable us to open up anymore than we do now.
    
    i think that if you could do the same thing as singles does or set
    up an account to set host to or something like that.
    
    kelly

    RE: .5 There would be a big difference. People would have to
    *ask* to be a member. That may seem like a little thing but it's
    not. The people who just bop in and out would probably not bother.
    The people who give others a hard time or refuse to respect the
    nature of the conference could be excluded. Sure you have some
    exposure by giving people the benefit of the doubt but at least
    you can minimize the 'damage'.
    
    When someone requests membership in a conference it is a (usually)
    unspoken acceptance of the rules and a promise to respect the
    confidences of the members. It is (or should be) something to take
    very seriously.
    
    I doubt that everyone from WOMANNOTES would request membership in
    the new conference anyway. I doubt I would as I have too many
    conferences in my notebook as it is.

    			Alfred    

    vote from 2.127 here.
    
    I have entered some really personal stuff here, and I am still of
    the belief that my trust in these peopl is not misplaced.  I don't
    think another notesfile is the answer, but if you were to start
    one I'd like to be a part of it.  I think it would cause less traffic
    in womannotes if it were used (we'd have to split our time to be
    devoted to each).  
    
    However, I think your "anonymous noting capability" is a dynamite
    idea.  I am sure other notesfiles would clamor to be able to use
    it also.  However, guidelines must be set up at the outset to prevent
    it from being misused (hence, I suppose, the need for the ability
    to track who actually wrote the note).  
    
    I would assume that the purpose of having a new noter get added
    via a moderator is to perform a sort of "interview" - i.e. who is
    this kind of person, why do they want to be here.  Not too indepth,
    but a start.  Also, perhaps to give them the guidelines of the
    conference prior to their joining, so if they don't agree they can
    decide not to join.  Some people will not want to "play by the rules",
    and it is those people who should be discouraged. 
    
    Could anyone tell me the benefits of a separate "sign=up" notesfile
    that would allow everyone who is already here to be there, and anyone
    else who asks politely to join?  Is there a reason to be more
    comfortable there with particular topics?
    
    Curious...
    
    -Jody
    

    I guess I'm somewhat confused as to what "real" effect a 
    pseudo-closed Conference will have.
    
    If, per DEC policy, all someone has to do to gain access to 
    the proposed Conference is to request "membership" via a moderator -
    and the moderator CANNOT deny such a request - then, theoretically,
    all the people who read/participate in Womenotes now, could do the
    same in the "new" Womenotes.
    
    Perhaps, a "private" Conference, whose existence is NOT made
    readily known through listing in EASYNET_CONFERENCES would help
    to serve as a filter for maintaining a more "intimate" membership.
    
    The existence of this private conference, and the means of accessing
    it, would only be disseminated by word of mouth (or screen to screen via
    Mail) by initial invitees to others who, in their considered opinion,
    would derive benefit from -  or sensitively contribute to - it.
    
    In turn, these newly-invited members would follow these same criteria
    in deciding who *they* would like to invite to participate.
     
      Alan                   
                             

    I don't see the need for this file to become members only.  It would
    still include both women and men, and would still have the same
    problems with (some) men not understanding what someone is saying,
    and the perception that that might/would happen, which currently
    inhibits some people from sharing openly.
    
    The idea of an anonomous posting mechanism sounds better to me.
    It seems like you could trace it via the NETSERVER.LOG files.
    
    The possibility of a private notesfile doesn't sound bad either.
    
    Elizabeth

    >    problems with (some) men not understanding what someone is saying,

    Nice to know that only men don't always understand what someone
    is saying. ( Heavy sarcasm)
    
    		Alfred

    Even if it isn't true, the perception that it will/might happen
    is as bad, or possibly worse, than it actually happening.
    
    And failure to understand various things women feel has occured
    on several occasions in this file.
    
    Elizabeth
    

    I'm not yet sure how I'll vote on this issue, but I can describe
    my experience with one closed notesfile.
    
    I currently belong to a members-only notesfile. Anyone can join, and
    yet I find that the people who have taken time to request membership
    seem committed to participate in a genuine community. People work on
    problems together and receive support. That notesfile is an extremely
    safe place for me to work on issues that have been bubbling inside for
    years. A few times, a member has made an inappropriate or judgemental
    remark, and other members have felt safe enough to gently explain why
    the remark is not helpful.
    
    [I'm making this notesfile sound dreamily wonderful -- although I'm
    trying not to misrepresent it, I never thought I could find a place
    safe enough to discuss such personal issues. I know that others have
    not yet felt so safe there.] 
    
    When womannotes first opened, I tried hard to express what was on my
    mind and to work out thoughts I was considering. I soon learned that
    certain participants are eager to attack, and can often be quite petty.
    (Just today, a writer was criticized for misuse of English). I learned
    to enumerate disclaimers the few times I dared to enter a note (e.g.,
    "this is my opinion, not a fact"). I examined my notes carefully for
    holes that attackers could poke through. And I stopped having the
    energy to fight for the right to express my opinion. 

    That saddens me. What kind of community are we building here? How does
    womannotes serve to support growing women and men? Is womannotes
    helping us bind together in order to create a better company?
    
     
    Liz Augustine

	Well, my useless .02....

	I agree in part with Jody.  I am under the assumption that
	anything said in this notesfile is too REMAIN in this
	notesfile.  I had recently gone through a *Confused* state
	that I thought someone had said something to one of the 
	subjects I had written about in one of my notes.  It wasn't
	the case. Fortunately.  I find that alot of the people
	contribute fairly good comments.  A couple of people continue
	to humiliate someone even after they have apologized. That
	to me, would show need of a closed forum.  Sometimes people
	that don't participate once a day, but once a week, do have
	something important to say.

	I for one sixth months ago, was not the easiest person to
	get along with. I left the conference on my own free will,
	so as too not cause any problems.  I feel that I can now
	come back, maturer (is that a word ???) and wiser, and 
	not so."finger pointed, double crossing mouth" that I
	portrayed at times.

		I feel that people who take the time to enter a 
	closed conference of "serious" nature, will be beneficial
	to the conference.  I feel people now are beneficial, but 
	you will eventually run into the problem people.  When it's
	open you can't get rid of them...When it's closed...Ya can...

				Michael

    On the positive side of Members-Only:
    
    It would probably reduce the "noter-iety" some of us have gained
    for the more traumatic notes we have written.  Before opening up
    in this file, I thought about how many people would know these things
    about me when I knew NOTHING about them.  I guess I figured that
    the possible good [to those suffering similar problems, for those
    wh believe the repors oof such problems are greatly exaggerated]
    would outweigh the probable bad.
    
    Note: DO NOT ASSUME THE THINGS YOU WRITE STAY HERE!  They do not.
          Maybe you have to have a big mouth (like me), but they DO
          get out.  I dare not write anything of which I am ashamed,
          even though I am sure people here would be supportive.  The 
          really hard things I submit anonymously.                    
    
    But there are some things we should be able to discuss that we CAN'T
    right now.  There was a great note written recently, full of growth,
    self-discovery, personal courage.  It was deleted a few hours after
    it was written.  I think it might have stayed in the more closed
    forum of members-only.  At least in members-only, there is a list,
    so you can know if your manager is an avid read-only!
    
    On the minus side:
    
    We are certain to miss a lot of women who haven't been "turned-on"
    to feminism yet.  How many of our more vocal members came to us
    swearing up and down that they were not feminists, that equality
    is here today, that the problems have been solved, that there is
    nothing to be mad about?  How about those who do not want to be
    feminist, but do want to share their stories or hear ours?
    
    And how about the men?  For every one we have "chased away" there
    are many we have helped educate, those we have won to our side [no,
    I won't call you honorary women, how about "good guys"?].  Would
    they be as likely to drop-in and get-hooked?
    
    So it seems to me that we are choosing between our privacy (as a
    group and as individuals) and our accessibility.  I don't like the
    choice -- we need both.
    
    Lee

    
    As a very active reader and occasional writer I have to agree with
    Lee. I would really hate to see a quality note such as this shut
    down.
    I've learned a lot and have shared a lot of useful information passed
    along here. In addition this note file is recommended to management
    as part of our Valueing Differences.
    
    Thanks,
    Cal.
    

Greetings from one person who has not yet signed up, but has been considering
doing so.

I have a few questions about this idea:

1.  Would closing the conference to non members really solve the problem?
    If DEC policy is that anyone must be let in, at least an occasional
    hostile noter would be likely to get through.  If protecting someone's
    privacy is at issue, one hostile noter could ruin the comfortable
    feeling for those too sensitive to talk in public.

2.  Failing to announce the file in EASYNOTES might keep it more private
    (at least for a while), but it would also reduce the diversity of
    responses.  It seems to me that if I were going to share something
    extremely personal at all, I would want a relatively wide audience
    to see what I had to say--after all, perhaps the most helpful response
    might be from someone who is too busy to bother with a members-only
    conference.

3.  Is a good anonymous noting facility inadequate for those who are
    sensitive?  I gather that the moderator has some experience with
    some of these people.  Have you asked them whether anonymous noting
    would solve the problem?

It seems to me that files such as this one, MENNOTES, HUMAN_RELATIONS, and
the like are most valuable when they reach as wide an audience as possible.
I, too, find the personal attacks that sometimes are written to be deplorable,
but perhaps they are worth enduring in order to spread the sharing.

I guess I would be inclined to vote against a new conference (were I able to
vote), but I would be very much in favor of the anonymous noting system.  I'd
like to hear some (perhaps indirect) feedback from some more sensitive noters.

				--Q (Dick Wagman)

    	For 3 years I ran a completely anonymous notes file. I will
    not go into technical details, since I would not do it the same
    way again anyway.
    
    	I was finally ordered to close it down when some idiot began
    entering obscenities at a faster rate than I and the other moderator
    could find spare time to delete them.
    
    	Moral :- If you do provide for anonymous entries you need a
    mechanism for moderator review *before* they become visible. I do
    not think the moderator can or should neccessarily expect to know
    who has submitted such an entry.

    I think it's a great idea whose time has come..
    
    I think a two level system would be appropriate with an open generic
    wommanotes and an inner file that would be closed/controlled.
    
    You could have the prospective member agree to the rules and emphasize
    the privacy issue. Those that don't work with the rest of the
    participants can have their membership terminated. The terminated
    member could still participate in Wommanotes and real work could
    be done in the inner file.
    
    As for membership you could have a core group elect a membership
    committee among themselves. These committee members could decide
    upon any member who was recommended to the comittee. Of course the
    issue of "consensus" or "not to consensus" will be a hurdle.
    
    Membership should also be based upon contribution. Otherwise you
    might have no activity.
    
    I think it will be very rewarding.

    Liz said almost exactly what I was going to say.  I also am a member
    of a couple of closed Valuing Differences notesfiles, and I am willing
    to be much more open in those files than I am here.
    
    For one thing, you can look at the membership list and see who is
    reading the file.  In one of the conferences, someone from my node
    decided to become a member.  Since I regularly check the list of
    members, I knew which co-worker had certain personal information
    about me.  If someone I had trust issues with became a member of
    the conference, I would know it and be able to adjust my participation
    or talk with them about responsibility and confidentiality if that
    were appropriate.                                     
    
    I don't know what position I will take, but if safety and intimacy
    are goals, I think there should be a closed notesfile with clear
    agreements about responsibility and confidentiality.
    
    Holly
               

    I must disagree with .19.  Having two conferences will render one
    meaningless.  I find that WN, MN and HR overlap to a large extent,
    while allowing us to focus on different perspectives. But it's still
    difficult to follow a conversation that seems to bounce back-and-forth
    between them. I *DO* like the ability to post anonymously, and have
    availed myself of it. I think that guarantees of protection for
    such postings should be made, and means devised to safeguard them.
    As for fostering more openness, if anonymity doesn't do it, I don't
    believe a members-only conference will. Even friends will sometimes
    be apalled, even shocked, when true feelings are expressed. Such
    is the risk in any self-disclosure. And as was said elsewhere, all
    the voices are needed. I expect I will vote No. 
    
    Dana

    Re: .19
    
    You CANNOT have a "membership committee" to determine who is allowed
    into ANY notesfile.  You CANNOT deny access to ANYONE who asks for
    it.  The idea of a closed file does not address any problem.  For
    those who seek more "privacy", an anonomous noting facility,
    such as the one used by "SINGLES" would be the ideal solution.
    We would only make more work for the moderators by initiating a
    closed file.
    
    By not posting the existance of the file in EASYNET_CONFERENCES,
    we are preventing people who might benefit from this file from
    learning about it.  Word of mouth doesn't reach everyone.
    
    A members-only file will not prevent people from disagreeing
    as much as they do konw, nor will it form the elitist group
    of like-minded people that some might hope for.  If the
    goal of the members-only file is to remove some of the more
    active voices of dissent, then the file wouldn't be worth
    the disk space.
    
    Dave
    

    I am a member of a members-only file.  I have been amazed by and
    pleased with the courage and willingness to discuss very personal
    issues displayed by the members.  I will vote for a members only
    file.  The addition of an anonymous noteing cabability would also
    be a welcome addition.
    
    Marty
                                                                      

    I moderate a members only conference. I'm a member in several
    others. Moderating a members only conference is not noticeably
    more work then moderating an 'open' conference (I moderate
    several of those too). The extra work of adding members (easily
    automated BTW) is made up for by the lighter load of keeping
    things under control.
    
    I have to ask how many of the people who claim that a members only
    conference will not make a difference are members of a members
    only conference? Most people that I've talked with who are involved
    in members only conferences find that it does make a big difference.
    
    The goal of a members only conference is not to form an elite group
    of like minded people. Nor is it to quash dissent and disagreement.
    The purpose is to have a self selecting membership that agrees to
    accept restrictions on the distribution of what they read and write.
    The purpose it to provide a little more safety and increase the
    comfort level of the members. If the conferences I'm involved in
    it seems to be working just fine.
    
    			Alfred

I am a member of a members only conference as well.  It does not restrict
    access to those who desire it.  Those who will talk about things
    they have read may do so just as easily in a members-only conference.
    
    The "honor system" is the same for both open and closed conferences.
    You are expected to abide by the rules of the conference.  Those
    who do not abide by the rules in an open conference can disobey
    them in a closed conference as well.
    
    Dave
    

    re .22
     >  A members-only file will not prevent people from disagreeing
     >  as much as they do konw, nor will it form the elitist group
     >  of like-minded people that some might hope for.  If the
     >  goal of the members-only file is to remove some of the more
     >  active voices of dissent, then the file wouldn't be worth
     >  the disk space.
    
    Dave,
    I expect people to disagree -- we'd be an unhealthy group if we
    all sat around lovingly agreeing with each other. My objection is
    to the attacks. It's hard to be open and honest when I know that
    someone's probably waiting to jump down my throat (and is willing
    to criticize me for ANYTHING i say or do).
    
    liz

    
    	RE:  .22
    
    	The women in this conference are light years away from being
    	"like minded" (adhering to some sort of party line.)
    
    	One of the major benefits of a closed conference would be
    	the amazing diversity that would finally be evident among the
    	women here (as well as the men.)
    
    	I do agree with you that any person in DEC who applies for
    	membership would have to be admitted.  However, there would
    	be more control over the kind of harrassment/abuse that tends
    	to happen in *any/all* of the non-work conferences during
    	discussions of sensitive issues.

    	I also belong to a members' only conference, and it has been
    	my experience that the members tend to take greater care in
    	communicating on reasonable levels (even when addressing people
    	with whom the members violently disagree on ultra-sensitive
    	issues.)
    
    	I'd be interested to see how such an environment would work
    	for womannoters.
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    I am a member of a "members only" notes conference.  I find it a
    much safer environment than this notes file.  I vote yes.

    I guess my real question is:  Who determines if some one is "attacking"
    someone else.  If someone comes across in a manner that one noter
    finds offensive, and one does not, then the moderators must make
    some sort of "decision" about the note(r).  If the moderators
    decide that the note constitutes an "attack" then they must decide
    if the noter should be banned, or the note deleted.  It seems to
    me that removing a member from a closed conference should not be
    something taken lightly, and would be warranted only under
    extreme circumstances.  This would require contacting the offending
    noter, and consulting them about the offense.  
    
    All of this work by the moderators seems to take place as it is.
    Many notes have been deleted due to widespread displeasure with
    their contents.  In the current situation, each note is taken 
    on its own merits, and not necessarily the "history" of its
    author.  People who can be offensive at time (attacking), 
    can also have positive things to say.  I don't feel that it would
    be fair to ban such a person from a closed conference, just
    because they let their emotions run away with them sometimes.
    (How many of us are guilty of that?)  The idea of a closed
    conference would be to exclude such people.  Currently, anyone
    who is causing damage to this file or who is harassing people
    can be dealt with normal channels (ie managers).
    
    Dave
    

    I like the idea of anoy. entries. Evidently some people
    are not even feeling comfortable with the moderator reading
    their posting.
    
    I can't see how a members only would benefit since it is only
    a tacit agreement on the part of the person requesting membership
    to abide by the rules.
    
    I do know that there are somethings I will not discuss here because
    men are in the file. Its my hangup. I would like to see a woman
    only file but know under the DEC rules that is not possible.
    
    I have noticed some abuse (to my way of thinking) in this file.
    
    If one of the values is that one can see a list of read-only people
    than I somehow think this is violation of privacy.(I know-it
    probably doesn't sound logical but it is to me.)
    
    Perhaps there is a need for a battered woman only file. I somehow
    get the gut feel that that may be some of the issues presented
    by the open nature of this file.
    
    

    I cannot help but wonder if having the file members only would
    tend to scare off some of the very people that going to such
    a file was intended to help. Would people who are too shy to
    write also be too shy to request membership? I know, because
    I have gotten mail from some of them that there are people out
    there who read this file and get a lot out of it but do not
    feel comfortable even entering their name in the registration
    note. 

>        I have gotten mail from some of them that there are people out
>    there who read this file and get a lot out of it but do not
>    feel comfortable even entering their name in the registration
>    note. 

    Serious question: What are they afraid off? 
    
    				Alfred

    Calling for a vote is insulting to anyone who wants the have a
    members only conference. First it says that they have no right
    to such a file unless the majority of voters here give them
    permission (ie, says that their opinion only counts if they're
    the majority.)
    
    Second, it implies that no one but the moderators of this conference
    have the power/ability/authorization to create a file for women.
    Frankly, I'd be insulted if anyone called for a vote on a conference
    I wanted to open with this kind of file with it's implication that
    I lacked (ability/authorization/etc) to do so on my own.
    
    			Alfred
    
    PS: If the members only file is voted down and people still want
    one but for *business* reasons can't host it let me know. We'll
    work something out. This is called putting my disk space where
    my mouth is.

    Alfred, In most cases I suspect that people are just shy. Others
    may not like the idea of people knowing that they note...other
    than that I really would not know.
    
    and in re Hank, that would be another concern of mine, that people
    who could learn from this file and who could be helped by it would
    never even log on if they had to become members.
    
    I think that the annonymous entry procedure which I am working on
    setting up would go a long way towards eliminating the present
    problems without losing the benefits of the current set up.
    
    Bonnie

    Alfred, you snuck another answer in while I was writing! :-)
    
    The whole intent of womannotes since Maggie began it has been
    that the moderators *do not own* the file, that the file belongs
    to all of those who read/write in it.
    
    Consistant with this philosophy if a major change in the way
    the file is run is considered the moderators have put the question
    before the members. 
    
    If anyone else wants to have a members only conference we would
    encourage them. But if *this* conference is going to change we
    want the people who access it to have a say in what that change
    is to be.

    What you have read into the meaning of the original question is
    about 180 degrees away from the intent of the vote.
    
    in friendship
    
    Bonnie
    

    While I am not so sure I think it is insulting Alfred, I DO like
    the idea of a members-only set up for the discussion of the hard
    issues... frank discussions of our own self-images, of our self-doubt,
    of feelings we do not want to tell the world but to share within
    a more limited and supportive environment.
    
    Lee

    Another word of advice from someone who was in a members only file.
    
    It was closed due to the fact that some of the members were extracting
    very personal notes and sending them off to non-members.
    
    

    Some of these answers are making me rethink my position. Would it
    be possible to have a trial period of members-only ?
    
    I note in one unannounced-yet (not members only but close) conference
    and, while it is nice not to have to constantly restate ones'
    basic premises, I get more from discussing the issues in open,
    sometimes unfriendly conferences. It makes me work harder and
    think more clearly. But the 'friendly' environment has its' points-
    as a place to be supported while working towards a solution.
    
    I expect i will vote 'maybe'   :-)/2
    
    Dana

    Reply to .31, Bonnie,
    
    Perhaps the two tier system will work for you. The second closed
    file sometimes acts more as a clearing house of concerns than a
    place of debate.

    Many of the points I would like to make have been touched upon
    by other noters, but please bear with me.  I think there are MANY
    important items of discussion that the community ought to be aware of
    before any votes are taken.  I will try to address each item
    separately.
    
    
    The Illusion of Safety
    
    The major reason stated for proposing a restricted conference is that
    it would somehow be "safer" than the current unrestricted conference
    for discussion of personal issues.  I maintain that this safety is
    an illusion akin to that of the young girls who think that you can't 
    get pregnant if you "do it" standing up. 
    
    A restricted conference only limits your exposure, it does not
    eliminate it.  The more members there are, the more the chance that
    someone will read what you write and take some action on the
    information that is detrimental to you.  Even if you make the effort
    to scan the membership list before you write something, you would
    have to be CONTINUOUSLY vigilant to see if any new additions pose
    a threat to you.  And of course you really don't know WHO might be
    a threat now or in the future.  Situations change.
    
    Some restricted conferences can operate with the risk at a low enough
    level to be tolerable to the members because of the relatively small
    membership, perhaps less than 500 noters for most of them.  Also,
    the topics of the current restricted conferences are such that most
    people would not go out of their way to request access unless they
    had an interest in the specific topic (GDE, ACOA, etc.).
    
    WOMANNOTES has a readership I would estimate to be in the thousands.
    Even if only half of the current readers requested access to the new
    conference, that would make the membership significantly larger and
    broader in scope than in conferences such as GDE.
    
    I know this is hard to swallow, but my opinion, based on my seven year
    experience in noting, is that there are just some things we cannot
    talk about in NOTES on Digital's network - the protections just aren't
    there.  Like it or not, noting is not a series of private
    conversations.  What you say is potentially available now and in the
    future to tens of thousands of people.  If you can't take the risk of
    exposure, then you'd better not write it.  Belief in the magic
    shield of a restricted conference will only hurt you in the end.
    
    
    Who Gets Left Out?
    
    Perhaps what makes WOMANNOTES as powerful as it is is the vast audience
    and diversity of opinions.  Furthermore, as an unrestricted conference
    it is available to many noters who don't have personal accounts.
    These people, secretaries, TAGs and temps, are largely women, and are
    just the people who NEED this conference, even if they are read-only.
    If a restricted conference is started, most of these noters will not
    want to declare themselves in order to gain access, and will thus lose
    the best and the brightest of the conversations.  They will lose.  And
    so will we.
    
    
    Can We Support Two Conferences?
    
    I don't think so.  If there are two conferences on the topic of women,
    members of the restricted conference will naturally use only that
    conference and leave the unrestricted conference to stagnate. 
    Furthermore, there will be likely duplicate discussions between the
    conferences (it's bad enough now with the three conferences we have),
    leading to frustration.  Also, many noters will decide that they
    don't have the time or inclination to follow two conferences on
    the same topic and will either choose just one or forget them
    both. 
    
    
    Guarding the List
    
    There have been several suggestions that members can be "thrown out"
    of the conference if they show antisocial behavior.  I maintain that
    this is not so - any attempt to "blackball" a Digital employee will
    result in swift and decisive action by Corporate Personnel to shut
    down the conference.  Furthermore, maintenance of a large (2000 or
    more member) conference will quickly overwhelm the moderators.
    Even with automated registration methods, moderators will be spending
    large amounts of time straightening out problems such as node name
    changes, cluster aliases, user errors, etc.  I maintain the membership
    of a smallish restricted (work-related) conference, and the load
    is not negligible.  Note also that deletions from the list are
    difficult to automate.
    
    
    What is the problem, anyhow?
    
    It is stated by Maggie and others that some noters are reluctant to
    discuss sensitive subjects because they don't want to be associated
    with their writings on the subject by others.  I believe that an
    enhanced anonymous contribution capability would actually address
    the problem, unlike creating a restricted conference which only
    hides the problem for a while.  I have discussed this notion with
    one of the moderators and have volunteered my time and resources
    to implement it.
    
    As I envision it, a noter would send mail to a dedicated account
    that contains the text of the message, the title (optional if a reply)
    and an indication if it is to be a new topic or a reply to some
    specified note.  The moderators would be notified of the proposed
    contribution, any one of the moderators would accept it or return
    it to the author for modifications if necessary.  The "acceptance"
    mechanism would post the note in the proper place and record in
    a protected location the author's address.  If it is felt to be
    necessary, the identity of the author could be hidden even from
    the moderators unless they decide they need to know.
    
    The mechanics of how this would actually be accomplished are
    immaterial here.  Suffice it to say it could be done.  But, as
    I warn potential anonymous contributors to conferences I moderate,
    there is no "shield law" for moderators - Tarbet and Reinke are not
    Woodward and Bernstein - if their management orders them to reveal
    an author's name, they have no legal basis for resistance.  (A
    restricted conference would be far worse - management could get
    a copy of the conference without the knowledge of the moderators,
    from backup tapes, for example.)
    
    
    I urge everyone to step back for a moment and think about what is
    being proposed.  Ask yourself if it really solves any problems or
    instead just creates new ones.  I am convinced, and have said so
    in the past, that a restricted WOMANNOTES conference is a very bad
    idea.  I will vote no when the time comes.
    
    					Steve

    re. -1
    
    It's a pleasure to see you in mode /articulate and /insightful.
    You brought up some good points.
                                                        
    Holly
          
    

    RE: .43
    
    Geezz Kerry, you can write and can be articulate (as Holly just said)..
    if you were more like that all the time, it would be nice to looking
    forward to your notes, instead of dreading them... Please keep up the
    good work.. one atta-boy for you tonight!

    
    	After reading some of the replies that suggest that a members'
    	only file would not offer us the kind of "safety" that would
    	allow us to talk about extremely private matters, I'm thinking
    	that it *isn't* so much a matter of wanting to reveal private
    	things about ourselves as much as it is a matter of wanting to
    	be able to discuss women's issues *openly* (without being subject
    	to the kind of badgering that we get almost *every time* we delve 
    	into issues that are the least bit controversial and/or sensitive.)
    
    	My suggestion is that the conference become "world READ"
    	(but "members' only WRITE").  I believe that kind of thing
    	has been done before successfully in notes.
    
    	That would prevent us from losing the read-only members who
    	would not wish to have their names listed (but would give us
    	more control over the actions of persons who merely come here
    	to be verbally abusive towards women.)
    
    							Suzanne...

    560 is now open for the formal vote.
    
    						=maggie

    < Note 561.46 by NEXUS::CONLON >

        >                                                 I'm thinking
    	>that it *isn't* so much a matter of wanting to reveal private
    	>things about ourselves as much as it is a matter of wanting to
    	>be able to discuss women's issues *openly* (without being subject
    	>to the kind of badgering that we get almost *every time* we delve 
    	>into issues that are the least bit controversial and/or sensitive.)
         
    	Suzanne,
    
    		A "members only" conference *cannot* restrict its
    membership based on opinions.  If someone violates the rules of
    a conference, they may be asked to leave.   However, *anyone*
    can request *full* access to a conference, and disagree with you
    in a manner that you might feel is "badgering".  A members only
    conference *cannot* stop that.  It is the right of every DEC
    employee with Easynet access to enter such a file and enter 
    viewpoints that you (or others) may find to be "verbally abusive
    toward women".  For example, Mr. X could request membership to 
    the members only conference, and enter a note stating "Women have
    no right working, they are all stupid", etc. (Note: A rediculous
    example to be sure).  Now, Mr. X has not violated the rules
    of this conference, although he would certainly piss off the
    entire membership.  He cannot be removed from the membership list,
    and therefore a closed file does not stop this kind of noter.
    
    Pressure from other members of the conference would work better
    than a closed file.
    
    Dave
    

    
    	RE:  .48
    
    	There is nothing undesirable about having differences of
    	opinion on issues (if we all agreed on everything, notes
    	would be very dull and would quickly die out.)
    
    	What I'm talking about is the fact that women are rarely
    	able to discuss the issues that affect us openly (without
    	being subject to disturbing misunderstandings/etc.)
    
    	As I mentioned, I'd like to see a "world READ, members' only
    	WRITE" set up (which might help to limit the amount of
    	interference we've seen in discussions among women.)
    
    						       Suzanne...

    For what it's worth, I'll *not* be voting on this matter. I
    refuse to stand in the way of people who want a conference
    and I will not push for one in which I can not promise to
    participate in.
    
    I think the idea of a separate members only conference is a
    good one. I also like the idea on an open one. I think the net
    can support both. I participate is several conferences (open/closed)
    that have similar charters to each other. But then I don't mind
    holding similar conversations with different (and/or overlapping)
    participants.

    RE: .36 I think I understand the what, it's the why I'm still
    shaky on. Maybe not. (on the what) I was assuming that since there 
    appears to be a strong consensus on keeping WOMANNOTES open the way it is
    that the vote was over creating a parallel members only conference.
    I don't see that as a change to WOMANNOTES but maybe you and I see
    things differently. (Wouldn't be the first time :-))
        
    			Alfred

>      	As I mentioned, I'd like to see a "world READ, members' only
>    	WRITE" set up (which might help to limit the amount of
   
    Short of giving all members moderator privilege and write-locking
    the conference (which is possible and does what you want [more or
    less]) I don't believe what you suggest is possible at this time.
    
    			Alfred

    
    
    
    
    
    
      "I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member."
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    	RE:  .51
    
    	Maybe I misunderstood what I was told about a conference
    	here in DEC that anyone in notes could read, but only
    	members could write into.
    
    	(I'm thinking of one of the religious conferences, although
    	I was never a reader or writer in it myself.)
    
    	Does anyone know if such a thing was done (or if it is still
    	possible to do?)
    
    							Suzanne...

    Re: .51
    
    The only means possible at this time to allow a subset of people
    to write to a conference that is otherwise read-only is to
    give moderator privilege to all "writers".  I consider this
    unworkable.  I am not aware of any other way this could have been
    possible in the past.
    
    Let me also point out that a "restricted write, world read" conference
    totally destroys any "protection" you think a closed conference might
    have.
    					Steve

    Am I mistaken or are there some fairly one-sided demographics
    developing in 560.*?
    
    						=maggie

    re .55 Maggie....you have also noticed the predominance of
    7's voting over 2's....
    I was wondering why myself.
    Bonnie

    Could it be that the "7s" value this conference more than the
    "2s"?  I would be disappointed if this were so, but sometimes I
    wonder...
    				Steve

    I AM SO BUMMED OUT!!              
                                      
    I can't believe I have never registered...well, I can't vote, then,
    but I can put my $.02 worth in here...
                                      
    I don't think I would like this conference to be closed, despite
    the fact that this isn't always as warm and safe a place as we would
    like it to be.  I'd hate to miss out on some of the people who have
    just "come across" this file...or to shut them out.  And I don't
    think it will get us anything.  Even if you want to, for example,
    enter something very personal and have ensured that no one you're
    uncomfortable with has registered, what is to stop them for registering
    two minutes, two days or two months after your note has been entered?
    
    After thinking about it, I'm not even sure that an anonymous noting
    capability is a good idea.  The moderators have to be able to identify
    who the noter is and, as suggested before, they should proabably
    read the note before it is even noted to protect themselves and
    the existence of this fild.  Perhaps the current method of entering
    anonymous notes "through" the moderators is best...
    
    Tracy
        
                                      
    
    

    Some people may think that men were trying to set the women's
    agenda again. :-)  Personally I agree with the Eagle, I think that
    there are some shy people who'd prefer the members only attempt
    but are a bit nervous about saying so. 
    
    I also think that there may be a lot of undecided people out there.
    There has been a lot of good serious argument for both sides.
    
    			Alfred

    	One problem I see is that there are really two distinct questions
    being asked:
    
    	1) Should we make Wommannotes members only?
    	2) Should we open a second members only conference?
    
    	I voted No based on the my feelings that this should continue
    as an open conference (Question 1).
    
    	I agree with Alfred that no one should be prevented from opening
    a members-only women's conference (subject to DEC policies) and
    I will also offer system resources to host one should someone wish
    to start one. (Question 2)
    
    				--Doug
    				  � of the MEIS cluster system management team
				  MEIS hosts ASKENET
    					     THEATRE
    					     ACOA (members only)
    					     and 10 work-related conferences

    RE: .60  "shy persons"
    
    
    
    
    
                Maybe we need an anonymous Voting capability.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

RE: knowing who is reading from the membership list.

This is not true.  Your do not know who will read your notes by the membership
list.  All you know, is who is on the membership list at the time your wrote
your note.  That is *if* you bother to check the membership list each time you
write something of sensitive nature, which I can't believe people do.

Your note stays in the file, however, and people will continually be added to
the membership.  Your note will still come back to haunt you.  This is a large
hole which cannot be closed by making a conference closed.

Jim.

    i belong to a members only notesfile
    there is nothing that can stop me from extracting notes and forwarding
    to anybody that i please.
    this file also has an anonoymous noting system which i feel works
    very well.i dont know who the heck they are and where they are writing
    from.
    i think this is the best method.
    for all intents and purposes this notes file is not really closed
    except for the anonymous writers.
    
    for such a big company it is really very small if you see what i
    mean.
    how many times have you people seen or heard of how gossip gets around?
    a lot of us are "DEC" couples or our best friends work here.
    we go home say to SO "dont tell anyone this,but you know what so
    and so said in notes today?"this is done in complete faith and trust
    no harm intended,but your SO/friend may go tell just one other person,
    no harm intended.
    maybe i am painting an extreme here,but i hear more dirt about other
    noters,that i dont even know(except in notes of course).
                                                  
    kelly

    By my count it's 6 YES - 6 No among the women voters.  (Those
    registered in note 2).  That still carries a 'No' decision, even
    if the 4 Yes - 17 No male vote is not counted.  Of course if the
    male vote actually makes any difference we'll get the usual
    comaplaints about the males setting the direction of this file.
    Sigh.  
    
    Dave
    

    Re: .68
    
    It all depends on your point of view.  At present, the situation looks
    like a win for all noters to me.
    
    					Steve

    this is in response to 561.41, Liz
    
    Since the vote was only to determine the direction of *this* file
    there is absolutely no reason why anyone with the disk space can't
    start a members only file for women's topics....in fact we have
    been saying that all along...
    
    in fact a couple of the people who have voted have offered disk
    space....I would encourage anyone who wants to start such a file
    to go for it.
    
    Bonnie

    re .70:
    
    so then "yes b" = "no"?
    
    why then have two states of "yes"?
    
    		Sm

    My understanding is that we have three choices:
    1) Leave things as they are
    2) Make THIS file members only
       (corresponds to OPTION A)
    3) Retain this file AND have a members only file
    	(were the moderators planning to support the members-only
    	file in some way?)
       (corresponds to OPTION B)
    
    Are there many people who voted NO because they didn't understand
    all the choices?
    
    
    p.s. Moderators: Feel free to delete this if I didn't get it straight.
    
    
    
    Liz

    Liz,
    
    Your summary is correct. :-) I believe that maggie had planned
    to support a separate members-only file if one was desired..(I have
    no access to disk space presently). I would not want to see this
    file members only but would do what I could to support a private
    file if I were needed.
    
    
    Please remember we will have an annonymous notes posting facility
    in place before too much longer.
    
    Bonnie

    Liz, your summary is absolutely correct.  In fact, I'd already
    created file B (yes I clearly jumped the gun ;'}
    
    I'm not sure why we're having such a low "voter turnout" compared
    to that for the Trashnotes proposal; I can only hope it doesn't
    indicate that all the women in our community have been intimidated
    into silence!!  I do know that the level of apparent apathy is
    distressing in its implications.
                                                                  
    						=maggie

    
    	Maggie!  If you have already created a file, LET'S USE IT!!
    	We don't need a winning vote to make a new file, do we?
    
    	I'd support two files (this one and a second one)!!
    
    	I can understand why a vote should affect the fate of *this*
    	file (since we have such a large community.)  But why can't
    	we go ahead with the second one anyway?
    
    							Suzanne...

	RE: low voter turnout

	maybe some of us are undecided.  We see valid points for
	each side.  At least this non-voter is undecided.

	...Karen

    um, I prolly shouldn't've said anything about "file B" before the close
    of voting on monday;  I truly expected the vote to be in favor of
    option B (even though I myself was in favor of A last week... I've
    altered my mind since then). 
    
    And considering the way the vote is going, I probably shouldn't have
    said anything on tuesday, either.  If the community are on record
    favoring the status quo, how ethical would it be for Bonnie and me to
    open a new file regardless?  If we're committed to being guided by our
    community ...our sisters particularly... then it seems that we should
    abide by the decisions they take even when they "vote with silence";
    any other course makes nonsense of our hopes. 
    
    I just wish we were getting a clear message one way or the other! 
    
    Maybe the problem is the tendency to suppose that nothing can ever be
    stopped or undone again once set in motion.  Unwillingness to risk.
    
    						=maggie

    re .77,.76,.75,.74,.73,.72:
    
    Why, thank you all for simply restating what was posted very clearly
    in 560.0, that still does not answer my question.
    
    I do not understand why a vote should be taken as to whether or
    not to create a new file. Seems to me, the only important thing
    is to decide whether THIS file remains public or goes private.
    
    That did seem to be what .70 was implying.
    
    			Sm

        
================================================================================
Note XXX.XX                      POLICY QUESTION                        46 of 46
TIGLET::BROUILLETTE "If all else fails go skiing"    30 lines   5-DEC-1987 13:45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
     I can understand the need for a member's only notesfile, but, does
    registering in note 2.* or 7.* make it acceptable to join?  I'm
    not sure that in itself that is truly enough or the proper way to
    go about it!
    
     By going behind closed doors, little by little, all issues will
    end up behind those doors and the public file will dwindle to nothing!
    
      This is the first time you have heard from me in this notesfile
    cause I wasn't sure I could add anything intelligent to this forum.
    
     After reading some of these topics, I have realized that I could
    add to some, learn from others, and had no business in others! 
    
    It would be a shame to have this notefile end up behind closed doors
    for all the wrong reasons, but, I can understand when it comes to
    some of these personal areas that have been touched on, I can
    understand the reason to.

    
    Mike B.
    
    
    P.S.  
    	I'd register in 7.* but there seems to be a nowrite switch on
    that note!
    
    MB
    

    A more appropriate metaphor would be "drawn curtains", I think:
    the only people such a closed file would "lock out" are those who
    would choose to violate the rules of the community.
    
    The issue may be moot, anyhow.  We are very close to having a useful
    (semi-)anon option.    
           
    						=maggie

           
CYRUS::DRISKELL                                       5 lines   6-DEC-1987 14:10
                       -< Singles file is annonomous... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    in the singles file,  it is possible to send notes annomously...I'm
    not sure how,  but surely the moderator could tell.  I know that to enter
    a note,  you simply send it to a specific account, and it is
    automatically  entreed.  Maybe this would help?
    

    re .77
    Maggie,
    It sounds like some people were only voting on whether they wanted
    Option A. So i'm not convinced that the community sent you a strong
    message that they didn't want option b. (though some people apparently
    felt they were saving us from disappointment by voting against option
    b.
    
    personally, i don't have a problem with starting up file b, even
    with the vote. people can always choose not to participate, just
    as they can with this file.
    
    opinions?
    liz
    

    I CANNOT believe it!  Why are we voting, when the decision already
    appears to have been made?!?!?  This is a joke.  It totally degrades
    this file and it's purpose.  Asking people's opinions when you have
    no plans to use them is an outrage.  I cannot begin to express the
    feelings of betrayal that this action provokes.  Apparently, some
    people in here cannot take losing!  If they lose by popular opinion,
    they'll just go off and do it anyway!  Why in HELL did you sanction
    this vote anyway?  There are better ways to use disk space!
    
    
    Aaaaaaaa!
    
    Dave
    

>    < Note 561.80 by COLORS::TARBET "Clorty Auld Besom" >
>               -< I can't believe there's this much confusion! >-

    I'm surprised there is so *little* confusion. The confusion in
    the voting is no surprise since it was never made clear *how* to
    vote for which option. If you were going to have a vote (which I
    think is silly for option B) you should have had two topics. One
    to vote yea/nea on taking this conference private and a second to
    vote yea/nea on a second private conference. Three way voting in
    notes appears to be doomed from the start to confusion.

.77>        If the community are on record
.77>    favoring the status quo, how ethical would it be for Bonnie and me to
.77>    open a new file regardless?  If we're committed to being guided by our
.77>    community ...our sisters particularly... then it seems that we should
.77>    abide by the decisions they take even when they "vote with silence";

    Well, I've made it clear that I feel that anyone who feels the need
    for a conference should open it so obviously I think it would be
    ethical for you two to open the file. Actually if you believe that
    a closed conference is a good and helpful thing then it is almost
    unethical (and probably dishonest) for you *not* to open it. As
    for being guided by your community, that's fine for *this* conference
    but should not limit you to your behavior in an other community
    which is what a second conference would be.
    
    			Alfred

    whoa. i asked because there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and
    confusion about what the vote was for and on what it is that some of us
    want. i'm confused about what's stopping us from having a members-only
    notes file. i'm not sure i understand why the vote went the way
    it did. i'm not sure what the results really mean. i personally
    would like a members-only file in addition to this one. does the
    rest of the community have the right to tell me i can't have or
    participate in one? (<= that's a real question). 
    
    didn't mean to draw blood.
    liz

    
    You (and anybody else) have every right to start a new file.
    I just don't understand WHY we voted on the issue, if the vote
    is meaningless!  The vote was a strong "NO".  That tends
    to imply that people like this open forum.  I think the 
    interpretation is fairly concrete, but that's just my opinion.
    
    Dave
    

    I don't know about others, but I voted because I felt like
    doing so.  Abstention was always a possibility.  Perhaps
    the vote was "meaningless", perhaps not; I suspect it
    will mean different things to different people.  I see that
    some are upset that there was a vote at all.  I reckon that
    others might have been upset if there *wasn't* a vote.
    
    Steve
    

    re .87
    The vote may have been no, but if you examine the split you see
    that the MEN were overwhelmingly against it and the WOMEN were pretty
    much split.
    
    If the voting had turned out so that 75% of the women said yes and
    95% of the men said no, but the MIXED group was 55% no, THEN what?
    
    Lee

    re .77:
    
    >If we're committed to being guided by our community 
    >[>>>>]...our sisters particularly...[<<<<] 
    >then it seems that we should abide by the decisions they take even
    >when they "vote with silence"; any other course makes nonsense of our 
    >hopes.                                   
    
    I missed this the first time but I did notice it in Alfred's note.
    Seems that if you wanted to be guided by your sisters "particularly"
    then ANY votes for "yes b" should result in the creation of a private
    file. (or women should be given two votes)
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    
    

    <--(.89)
    
    Had the vote shown a clear separation such as you describe, Lee,
    we would have followed the women's direction.
    
    						=maggie

    I feel that the possibility that Lee suggested (.89) would be a
    difficult situation.  To take the approach in .91 says that women's
    votes count more than men's votes.  While this has some validity
    because of the topic of the file, it goes against claims of working
    for equality.
    
    I think that this vote really shows that those that vote make the
    decision, and those that don't have no one to blame but themselves
    if they aren't happy with it.
    
    Rich

    Rich,
    
    Since this file was originally founded to give women in Dec a place
    to discuss issues of importance to them, then I feel that they have
    a degree of priority in establishing what best meets their needs.
    
    My vote was to keep this file open, and I have problems with a members
    only file because I do not think that the privacy is that much greater
    and I think that it would exclude women who have been helped by
    this file.
    
    However, if some women would like to start up a members only file
    and I can help them do so, then I will do so.

    It isn't a question of weighting the votes differently...all members
    of this file have an equal say...but if there is a need for another
    sort of file then the vote would and did show that such a need exists.
    
    There are serious and painful issues relating to women today. Some
    of these issues have been brought up in this file and people have
    not been willing to talk about them because they are afraid of
    being jumped on or that the issues are too personal...examples would
    be abortion, menopause, women's feelings about their bodies, abuse,
    etc. etc...
    
    Far too often it seems that women will start talking about these
    issues and then several men will jump in and appear to put women
    down or devalue the feelings (by questioning statistics or
    interpretations of facts etc etc.) that the women have expressed.
    and then the women shut up and the sharing stops and the value
    of the note stops...and immediate example is the way several men
    trivialized the ntoe that Joyce put in at 573.
    
    It is interesting to me that I have never seen whites or gentiles
    act this way in Blacknotes or Bagels...(tho I have not followed
    these conferences closely so I may be mistaken)...yet it happens
    so very often in this file...
    
    I honestly do not know what the answer is. Many of the women and
    men who write here have become my friends. I don't want any of
    them to leave the file....but I still feel that the first order
    of business here is for women of all walks of life, of all political
    persuasion to have a forum where they can discuss issues that matter
    to them.
    
    and I wish that this could happen without alienating some of the
    men who offer their strong support here....

    
    jesture of a woman holding out both hands at her sides in an
    expression of "I don't know"
    
    Bonnie

Re: Note 561.89   By: GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF "Lee T" 

    >If the voting had turned out so that 75% of the women said yes and
    >95% of the men said no, but the MIXED group was 55% no, THEN what?
    
    THEN the vote would have been against starting a new file.  I
    seem to recall that many women in here are looking for EQUALITY,
    so what difference should gender play in a ballot count?  Unless,
    you wish to DISCRIMINATE against a certain gender?
    
    
    
    
Re: Note 561.91   By:MOSAIC::TARBET  

    >Had the vote shown a clear separation such as you describe, Lee,
    >we would have followed the women's direction.
      
    As I had feared.  I'm glad to see that gender does in fact weigh
    the vote (despite claims to the contrary).  I'm also glad you
    are promoting (and flaunting) DISCRIMINATION based on gender.
    Apparently, that's OK with you?  If that's the case, why should
    I care what you have to say?  You're only a woman....
    You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Equality is simple,
    if you strive for it, how about granting it to EVERYONE?
                                                                    
        
Re: Note 561.93 by YAZOO::B_REINKE "where the sidewalk ends"
        
    >    It isn't a question of weighting the votes differently...all members
    >of this file have an equal say...but if there is a need for another
    >sort of file then the vote would and did show that such a need exists.
    
        
    Is this a disagreement between the moderators?  You can't say that
    all votes are weighed equally, but if women want something and
    are outvoted by men, then they get what they want anyway?  What's
    the story here?  
    
    Dave (who is SICK of the hypocracy and androphobia in this file)

    
    	RE:  .94
    
    	How many notes do you intend to write this week to slam/degrade/
   	insult this file?
    
    	You are harrassing this community.  This is a deadly serious
    	request that you stop this action immediately.
    
    							Suzanne....

    in re .94
    
    Dave, please go back and read my entire note and don't just take
    things out of context to prove what you have already decided to
    be true.
    
    and of course Maggie and I disagree on things...we aren't clones.
    
    Bonnie
    who is getting rather tired of not being listened to on this subject

    Dave, if equality were as simple a matter as you suggest, then
    it seems to me that questions like "what does equality *mean* 
    in situation X?" wouldn't arise as often as they do.  Equality
    in mathematics is one thing, but in human interaction, I think
    it's quite another.
    
    In any case, if you are that sick of what you perceive to be
    discrimination, why not start your own conference of "Issues
    of Interest to Women But Debated in a Form More Comfortable
    to Some Men"?
    
    Steve
    

    Bonnie,
    
    My comments to your note (.93) were more directed toward .91
    Sorry for the mixup.  You seem to be in the middle of all
    of this, and it must be a very difficult position.
    
    Suzanne,
    
    I am not trying to bash this file.  I am trying to show you
    how I feel about being a man in this file.  Perhaps I am
    not being clear.
    
    Often, being a male participant in this file is very difficult.
    I feel as though I am a "second class citizen" here.  I'm sure
    that many of you (men and women) know how that feels.  You probably
    don't like it, and I certainly don't.  It is difficult to be supportive
    and helpful if you feel that others do not value your presence here.
    This sometimes causes me to enter replies that some might consider
    offensive.  My apologies to the "toes" I've stepped on in expressing
    my feelings.  
    
    I feel that as long as men are regarded as "second class" citizens
    in this file, that I must try to defend our right to be treated
    equally.  This seems to parallel what many women strive for in
    the "outside" world.  I would guess that women who strive
    for equality of their own would be most sympathetic to what
    I am saying.  Perhaps they don't see it?  I don't know what
    the answer is...
    
    PUBLIC APOLOGY:
    
    I apologize for the manner in which I expressed my feelings in
    some of my more recent notes.  I felt that I was being treated
    as a second-class citizen here, but I should have counted to
    10 before writing.
    
    Dave
    (Cooling down...)
    

    	RE:  .98
    
    	Dave, thanks for your apology.
    
    	It might surprise you to know that *women* feel like second
    	class citizens in this conference, too (possibly more than
    	men do.)
    
    	There is not another file in all of DEC that systematically
    	engages in such a high level of women-bashing from some men
    	(and beleive me, women-bashing runs rampant in nearly *all*
    	the non-work/personal files.)
    
    	Women-bashing is still in style, almost as much as it ever has
    	been.
    
    	DEC has policies about not publicly bashing racial, religious,
    	and other minorities -- but it is always "open season" on women
    	(most especially in our own file.)
    
    	That is an outrage in a supposedly liberal company like DEC.
    
    	So don't tell us what it is like to be a second-class citizen
    	here, because we already know.  We came here to have some moments
    	to get *away* from the shit we have to take in the "outside"
    	world, and it all followed us here (and it has done that since
    	day one.)
    
    	I do sympathize with your feelings because they are the same
    	as mine.  I am tired of seeing women get bashed/abused/harrassed
    	in this conference and I wonder why the hell something like
    	this is allowed to happen in our OWN file in a company like
   	DEC.
    
    							Suzanne...

    re .99
    
    Suzanne
    
    Do you feel that the moderators should be more activist in
    stopping "bashing"?
    
    

    
    	RE:  .100
    
    	
    	Absolutely!!!

    	I know that the moderator stance has always been a lenient
    	one towards the numerous women-bashers we've had here, but I 
    	think it is *way past* time to put a stop to it, one way or
    	another.  (We have been fighting this thing too long.)
    
    	There isn't another minority in DEC that has to take this sort
    	of abuse in their OWN FILE.
    
    							Suzanne...

>      	(and beleive me, women-bashing runs rampant in nearly *all*
>    	the non-work/personal files.)

    Please name conferences and Notes (by mail if more appropriate).
    This woman bashing is either too subtle for me or it's taking
    place in conferences I'm not familiar with. Thank you.
    
    		Alfred

    Actually Hank, so would I :-}....and maybe also men bashing
    as well...it appears to me that a lot of people are looking at
    this situation and seeing very different things.

RE: .93

"Since this file was originally founded to give women in Dec a place to discuss
issues of importance to them, then I feel that they have a degree of priority in
establishing what best meets their needs."

I fail to see how this, in and of itself is discriminatory.  At worst, it is
"seperate but equal", which *may* be discriminatory, based on other
circumstances.

I feel that women deserve a place to be comfortable dealing with the issues they
have.  I believe that such a place must not have 'any' men for women to be
comfortable.  Yet, how can men *and* women learn if there is no interchange
between the sexes?  

If WOMENNOTES and MENNOTES 'only' had their respective sexes in them, then I
feel that they would degenerate to bitching and moaning. It would be helpfull in
knowing that there are other people out there with the same problems, but it
would preclude the sexes learning about the other, which is where a large part
of the solutions to the problems lie. 

I didn't think I was being trivial in 573.*... Was I?

RE: .94

There is nothing that should prevent *any* person from going off and doing
whatever they wish on their own, including starting a new Conference, regardless
of any vote.  Such is the manner that our country was founded.  When did the
people in WOMANNOTES give up that freedom?  Is WOMANNOTES to be a prison for
women?

Sure, it may be discrimination, and it may be unequal, but it has certainly
happened plenty of other times in the past.  I feel that the majority of the
injustices women complain about were arrived at by this very same process!!! All
that people outside the 'elite' group can do at the present, I believe, is to
point out that this may be discriminatory.  But, the people of WOMANNOTES,
certainly have the freedom to note in whatever manner they wish to.

We tend to treate conferences in general, and WOMANNOTES in particular as a
public publication that we all have a right to write in, and read.  I don't
believe that that is the correct analogy.  I feel that WOMANNOTES may be a
private magazine edited, and distributed to a select few, if the editor so
wishes.   There is nothing to stop anyone else from 'publishing' several
completely seperate publications titled 'WOMANNOTES'.  There is likewise nothing
to stop several 'WOMANNOTES' conferences from existing. 

RE: .98

I know how you feel about being a "second class citizen" in WOMANNOTES. Yet, it
seems that it is necessary to women that men be second class citizens in
WOMANNOTES.

I wonder if there is a parallel, or moral to the story in this that we can learn
from? 

RE: .99

"There is not another file in all of DEC that systematically engages in such a
high level of women-bashing from some men (and beleive me, women-bashing runs
rampant in nearly *all* the non-work/personal files.)"

Perhaps you would like to back that statement up in some way?  I read a number
of conferences, and I do not recall seeing any "women-bashing" in *most* of
them.

"DEC has policies about not publicly bashing racial, religious, and other
minorities -- but it is always "open season" on women"

DEC has policies against that too; it's no different then any other *bashing.

"I am tired of seeing women get bashed/abused/harrassed in this conference and I
wonder why the hell something like this is allowed to happen in our OWN file in
a company like DEC."

I beg to differ with you.  WOMANNOTES does *not* belong to the members of
WOMANNOTES!  WOMANNOTES belongs to DEC.

RE: Bonnie

I think a description of bashing would be nice to have.  I think a definition of
equality would be nice to have.  It might be a good idea to have the moderators/
editors take a more active role against *both* women *and* men bashing in
WOMANNOTES.

Jim. 

    <--(.several)
    
    Bonnie and I will enforce whatever rules the community agrees we
    should enforce. If you want certain rules enforced, then propose
    them. Very simple process.
    
    						=maggie

    re .107
    
    gee Bob, :-) :-) :-)...twans't the disagreements that brought
    you back into the file again was it??
    
    

    I'm still trying to figure out what the definition of
    "the community" is....I keep seeing references to "the
    community" and "we" in the midst of statements that
    certainly don't reflect *my* point of view.  Frankly
    I've agreed with some of the statements made by men
    in this file, that they (men) feel discriminated a-
    gainst, and often feel the treatment of second class
    citizens.  I have also seen several very strongly
    worded statements that sounded like a threat (by
    women) to charge someone with harrassment, simply
    because the comments objected to were written by a
    member of the male gender.  
    
    This is NOT a file for select group from one parti-
    cular sex to discuss the topics the select few feel
    are appropriate.  At least, it was not my understanding
    that this was the purpose of this conference.  However,
    that is what it's turning into.  People have commented
    to me that they have deleted this file, because they
    feel some woman are so overbearing and "hateful" towards
    men. 
    
    This conference is turning into an adult version of "If
    you don't play by my rules I'll take my ball and go home."
    
    Based on the statements made by some women in this file, I
    can see why some men don't like some women very much.  I am
    beginning not to like some women very much myself....
    
    

    re.109
    THANK YOU
    i wish i had enough guts to say what you did!
    i guess i am too scared of being pounced on by members of the
    "community" to say what i really feel.
    

    	RE:  .109
    
    	"Community" is what you make it.  Every time I have ever heard
    	Maggie use that term, my understanding was that she meant the 
    	*male* members of this file as well as the female members.
    
    	If you don't consider yourself to be part of the community
    	of women and men here, then that is your choice.
    
    	I spoke to a male member of this file just last night that would
    	totally disagree with what you said.  He defended =womannotes=
    	from the criticisms of a male non-member who said he had heard
    	that the women in this conference treat men badly.  This man
    	(a member of the community here) told the non-member that some
    	men come into this file with giant chips on their shoulders
    	(and that if anything, women take more abuse here than men do.)
    
    	There are other men here who have expressed the same sentiments
    	to me through mail.
    
    	It seems that there is no such thing here as a "female point
    	of view" vs. a "male point of view."  That sounds very healthy
    	to me.
    
    	The fact remains that Maggie started this file as a place where
    	women could talk about the issues that affect us.  The turmoil
    	that goes on because of the misunderstandings here serve as
    	an obstacle to that end.  I would like to see Maggie's original
    	goal for opening this conference realized (even if it means
    	that we have hundreds of different female viewpoints here.)
    
    							   Suzanne...

    I fluctuate on this community.  There are times when I feel that
    women do bash men and there are times when I feel men come into
    this conference with the idea that they (men) are going to straighten
    out our ideas, the conference and us because we cannot do it ourselves.
    
    I don't like men bashing and I don't like male superiority.  Some
    of the women who have not contributed as often as they use to put together
    some very well expressed thoughts and ideas.  To compose and document
    these concepts must have taken much more time than the hastily written
    one line attacks that sometimes follow.  I can understand their
    frustration.
    
    I have an issue which to me is near and dear and when I hear illogical
    responses to that issue I become unreasonable.  I think it is
    insensitive and I know that the same people would not express the
    same thoughts if we were face to face.
    
    I have noticed a willingness to share even the most personal thoughts
    by the female community.  We have many Lesbian members of the community
    and one Gay man.  Several women have told their stories of rape
    and incest.  Women have asked advice about extra marital affairs.
    We have made ourselves vulnerable and I am proud to be able to do
    that.  The pain comes when any individual is insensitive of that
    vulnerability and uses it as a tool to bolster their superiority.
    
    I would like to suggest that many males tend to hold back in exposing
    experiences or thoughts which may make them vulnerable....they then
    can address our issues with some sort of superiority.
    
    Surely there should be limits as to what you would say in a public
    file.  And yet it would seem if we set our limits open up a little
    and share our feelings we will all benefit.  I don't think we have
    a male/female conflict.  I think we have a conflict between those
    that dare to discuss uncomfortable issues on a personal level and
    those that discuss these very same issues from a pedestal.
    
    

    Re: Note 561.112   By NEXUS::CONLON
    
    > fact remains that Maggie started this file as a place where
    > women could talk about the issues that affect us. 
    
    Suzanne - I am not trying to nitpick, but this is a file for
    women and men to talk about the issues that affect women.
    
    This is from note 1.0 -
    
    "Welcome to =WOMANNOTES=, the notefile dedicated to topics of interest
     to women."
    
    I think that this sort of "ommission" can lead to some of the conflicts
    that have surfaced as of late.  It certainly make me feel as though
    you really don't want men here.  I just wanted to point that out
    to you (and others) as an example of what makes me (and some others)
    uncomfortable in this conference.
    
    
    Re: .109
    
    	Thank you.
    
    Dave
    
    

    	RE:  .114
    
    	Dave, it is wonderful and fortunate that this conference may
    	be able to fill whatever needs you might have to discuss women's
    	issues.
    
    	However, it is not an insult to state that the conference *does*
    	exist (and *was* started) primarily as a service to women.
    
    	If you have a problem with the fact that one entire conference
    	(out of hundreds in DEC) was started with women in mind -- even	
    	though the conference has *WELCOMED* men with open arms since
    	note 1.1 -- then I don't know what any of us can say to you.
    
    	If you are that determined to feel unwelcome (merely because
    	your needs were not center to the purpose of this conference
    	from the moment of its birth), then there is no way any of us
    	can console you.
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    interesting. many men have said that they feel badly treated here.
    many women say that THEY feel badly treated here.
    it sounds to me like nearly everyone in this file feels like a second
    class citizen. is there anything that would make all second class
    citizens feel more like first-class citizens?
    
    liz
    

    re .113
    
�    I don't think we have
�    a male/female conflict.  I think we have a conflict between those
�    that dare to discuss uncomfortable issues on a personal level and
�    those that discuss these very same issues from a pedestal.
    

    
        Joyce, I think that's the best statement of the problem that I've seen.

     > People have commented to me that they have deleted this file, 
     > because they feel some woman are so overbearing and "hateful" towards
     > men. 
               
    Continuity section:
    
    This is intriguing--has anyone ever commented that they've deleted
    the file because they feel some *men* are so overbearing?  or hateful 
    of women? Your comments sound a bit like general women-bashing to me.
    I imagine people have deleted it for that reason.
    What intrigues me is--is it worse for women to be overbearing than
    men????  :-)  :-)  :-)
    
    
    Real stuff:
    
    I just got done reading most of 5000 messages (? well, that's what
    notes told me at one point early on--that I had 5000 to go).
    I noticed some merciless teasing, a few bitter comments, some strong
    personal statements, some sharing of events, some bickering, some
    misunderstandings, some help, happy stories and unhappy stories,
    but very little bashing.  Maybe this is because in a large scale
    read like that, you skip over the unimportant stuff and get to the
    main course.  Maybe I'm just in a mood for looking for roses.  I
    found so many!
    
    Heck, folks, don't let yourself get bogged down. 
    
    If nothing else, remember the tricks of the trade for reviving your
    enthusiasm:
    
    	. Try skipping articles by people who always seem to aggravate
    	  you.  Sure, maybe it's not the most responsible thing--
    	  they may have posted something really BAD this time.
    	  You could read it, and scream, or you could go on to
    	  the responses after it.  You might decide later, when
    	  3 folks have said "Wonderful article, Ztprglldty!",
    	  that you could stand it.  Maybe not.  You don't have to
	  permanently skip them, for ever and ever.
    
    	  I'm sorry to admit it, but this technique is very handy if
    	  you just know you're not going to be open-minded about 
    	  something.  :-)  Hey, we *all* have bad days!  :-)
    
        . Pause in reading it for a week.  This can be really a feature--you
    	  get to read a batch of replies, instead of reading it in
    	  dribbles.  Keeps the context alive.                 
    
    	.  Decide something you want to have in the notesfile, and then
    	   write up a new article about it.  Or put it as a reply to
    	   another article.
    
    	   If you want to have a lot of complaining about how the notesfile
    	   isn't providing you with enough stimulation, by all means, 
    	   GO SOAK YOUR HEAD!                    :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)
    	   No, NO, wait, I didn't say that seriously, I'm pulling your
	   leg! I mean, go ahead and post it.  I mean, it's your
	   discussion, conduct it as you will.  (I may not respect you
    	   tomorrow morning :-) , but we made no promises about the
    	   future :-) , a woman must be free to post what a woman's
    	   gotta post :-) .)
    
    This list covers some of the issues--the ones of "I'm unhappy with
    what I read".  I can't trivialize "I can't post here", folks; that
    one cuts too deep...my solution is to put rough things into the
    third person (indistinct) and try to write about it objectively
    and coldly (but not like I think I'm god) (too much ;-) ).

RE: .114

Perhaps ""Welcome to =WOMANNOTES=, the notefile dedicated to topics of interest
to women." should be ammended to explictly include men who would like to talk
about topics of interest to women. 

If I were to take this line to heart, I would take it to mean that men were
not allowed to start topics, that only women were.

RE: .115

"If you have a problem with the fact that one entire conference (out of hundreds
in DEC) was started with women in mind."

I don't have a problem with that, just as I don't "have a problem with the fact
that one entire conference (out of hundreds in DEC) was started with" MEN in
mind.  I don't see how womannotes is, can be, or should be any different then
MENNOTES, unless women *are* different, and have different needs. 

What I do have a problem with is what goes on in here...

I am beginning to think that there should be closed conferences WOMANNOTES, and
MENNOTES, for the bashing that goes on for people that want to be negative, and
that all the interesting conversations on how we are different, and how we can
make things better should go in HUMAN_RELATIONS. 

I think that a lot of people are stuck on being negative (as I have at times
:-)), and I think that is a mixed bag.  At it's worst, it's bashing pure and
simple.  Yet, in moderation it can show people that they are not the only ones
with a problem, make us aware of a problem, etc.  

But eventually that anger/fear/* has to be worked through and past to something
better, some positive thoughts/steps/actions to better the situation. If you
hold onto your fear and anger, it will corrupt and consume you, leaving you
incapable of living a productive life.

Now just because you have been able to overcome your fear and anger doesn't mean
that those feelings are any less real, any less yours, or that the cause of
those feelings is any less horrible.  But if you concentrate on anger and fear,
and feed your thoughts and mind solely with that, you will poison yourself
slowly. 

After a while you have to allow yourself to have more balanced thoughts, a more
balanced life, and when a positive opportunity or thought comes along, make the
most of it, even if is only one candle in the night.

Jim.

    	RE:  .120
    
    	Jim, I'm curious about what you plan to do about your own
    	hate and anger towards women (after what happened during
    	your marriage/divorce/custody situation.)  
    
    	All of the protesting you have done about the way men are
    	treated in divorces is *surely* a sign of deep-seated hatred
    	of women.  If you keep letting those feelings build up,
    	they will surely poison you and prevent you from ever living
    	any sort of balanced life.
    
    	I pity you terribly.  I wish that you could stop thinking
    	of yourself as a victim of the family court system.  How
    	silly to think that men are treated badly.  It is just your
    	anger showing through that makes you *think* fathers are
    	treated unfairly in our courts.
    
    	Might I suggest that you change the name of Mennotes to
    	"Women Discuss Topics of Interest to Men."  Also, I think
    	it would be good for you to open several basenotes about
    	all the positive, wonderful aspects of womanhood (it might
    	help you to work through some of your hatred toward us.)
    
    	Not that women care what you say about us.  We are above
    	such concerns.  I just think you should spend all your time
    	writing notes about how wonderful women are for *your own
    	good.*
    
    						     Suzanne....

    
    	RE:  .120
    
    	That last note was not meant as a flame.  I've tried exceedingly
    	hard not to flame you for the patronizing things you said in
    	.120 and in 580.6 (and the assumptions you made about women's
    	feelings.)
    
    	I just wanted you to see what those words sound like ... the
    	assumptions about your feelings, the pity... all of it.
    
    	No flames about any of this from me.  It's not something I
    	want to do anymore.  I just wanted you to know.
    
    

    re.121
    suzanne,
    has jim stated anywhere that he has hate and anger towards*women*?
    maybe he does,but i would have to assume that he does not towards
    *women*,just towards a*woman*.
    i would have to *assume* that jim like most people know that one
    bad relationship does not make a whole *gender* *bad*.
    
    kelly
    

    	RE:  .123
    
    	That is exactly my point!!!!
    
    	He has as little evidence of my/our hatred of men as *I* have
    	of his hatred of women.
    
    	Yet, he frequently *and FREELY* mentions *our* hatred of men
    	as if it is fact.
    
    	If he assumes we hate men because we protest about the unfair
    	treatment we get from the *SYSTEM*, then surely it must be
    	because *HIS* protests about the unfair treatment of men in
    	divorces is a way of saying that he hates women.

    
    	RE:  .123
    
    	I'm just being facetious (and trying to offer some food
    	for thought.)
    
    	Not totally serious here.
    

    SUZANNE, WOULD YOU PLEASE START SPEAKING FOR YOURSELF
    AND STOP PUTTING WORDS IN *MY* MOUTH!!!
    
    I am a woman, and I resent your sweeping statemenst,
    such as "women don't care what Jim has to say."  I
    might happen to care what he has to say!  I may not
    agree with Jim, or with any particular man, or for
    that matter with any particular woman, but I still
    may be interested in their point of view!!
    
    I happen to agree with him that men ARE (generally)
    treated badly by the court system.  I doubt that that
    means he hates women.  Perhaps he only dislikes one
    particular woman, or perhaps his negative feelings
    are focused on a particular incident or situation.
    
    I for one feel that you are very hostile and aggressive
    towards men.  
    
    Jim makes a valid point, however.  I intend to delete
    WOMANNOTES from my notebook.  Reading this file does
    not contribute to the quality of MY life.  I happen to
    LIKE men!  I like women too.  I don't like all men and
    I don't like all women.   
    
    In the end, this conference will be a closed arena for
    women to gripe about men and to whine about how abused
    women are.  You will all have the same opinions and 
    the same thoughts and will be reinforcing each others
    values, rather than experiencing, and perhaps learning
    from, a different point of view.
    
    This is a flame, but I offer no apologies.  It is a 
    justified venting of anger.
    
                     Deborah
    
    

    	RE:  .126
    
    	When I vent my anger, it is justified as well.
    
    	Do you hate men?  Jim says that we do.  What makes you think
    	that he does not include YOU when he says such things?
    
    	God, Deborah, didn't you see the long explanation I gave that
    	I was offering an "imitation" of what he was saying to us?
    	
    	I *also* think men are treated unfairly in the courts.  I made
    	it perfectly clear that I was being facetious in my remarks.
    	
    							Suzanne...

    	RE:  .126
    
    	Deb, by the way, you misunderstood my statement that said
    	"women don't care what you say." 
    
    	If you go back and look at it, it meant, "Please compliment
    	us in notes for YOUR sake, not for our sake.  Compliment
    	women because it is good for YOU, not because we need to
    	hear it."
    
    	It was direct parody on his remarks in 580.6 -- it was
    	satire.
    

    What are the chances of everyone taking a breather on this one?
    
    Please?
    						=maggie

    	I deleted WOMANNOTES a week ago for the same reasons given
    	in .126.  I re-entered it today because I heard a *kindred 
    	soul* had expressed similar feelings to my own.
    
    	Animosity and a persecution complex will yield you nothing
    	but negative results.  If you put out negative energy it's
    	going to come right back to you.
        
        This conference is beyond feminism, it's a militant belief
    	in female supremacy.  This is unfortunate for those of us
    	who would like to have a forum to discuss topics pertaining
    	to women but who also possess a healthy enjoyment of men.
    	The ramifications of men-bashing and crying about the perils
    	of being a woman do not only affect men.  You're running some 
    	women out of here too because of such prevailing negativity.

    	RE:  .130
    
    	This file doesn't even come close to true feminism.  
    	We are *severely* limited as to what we can say here.
    
    	Having suspected that, I made a joke (a parody) out of
    	telling a man that he hates women.  The "you hate/are_angry_
    	at all men" scam is the most common stereotypical
    	insult (against women) that can be found in this file.  
    
    	When said in even a *joking* way, we have people leaving
    	the conference shouting/whining about man-bashing.
 
    	We have at least 100 instances here of *people* telling women
    	that we hate men.  Our culture tolerates that sort of insult
    	against women, but does *not* tolerate even a *joke* about
    	it against men.  Obviously, women-bashers have more freedom
    	in this conference than those who don't bash women.
    
    	If a woman-basher complains, it is a justifiable protest.  If
    	a *person* (of either sex) complains about the way women are
    	treated by our system, they are whiners.
    
    	Another interesting thing is that women-bashers consist of
    	both men *and* women.  Those who *protest* about the treatment
    	of women in our society *also* include both men and women.
    
    	So, you see, it isn't a conflict between women and men AT ALL
    	(not in this conference and not in the world.)  It may have
    	been once, but it certainly isn't now.  

    	There are plenty of incredibly wonderful men (including my own
    	SO) who do *not* bash women and who *protest* the unfair treatment
    	of women in our culture.
    
    	There are plenty of men *and* women who protest *against* "those
    	who protest the unfair treatment of women in our culture" (for
    	whatever reason.)  

    	God, I'm so relieved to know that it isn't a battle between
    	women and men after all!!  Thanks for helping me show that.
    
    	If any folks think for a *minute* that they are the only ones
    	who know how to like/love/enjoy men, they are kidding themselves.
	    	
    							Suzanne...

    re .130
    
    I  do  not  believe this...I know I have said this over and over
    and over and over....
    
    if you have been unhappy about the direction of the file or
    the opinions expressed by the women and or men who are writing
    here...*why haven't you been writing*
    
  if *you* don't like something then don't blame the file because
    *your* point of view is not expressed...express it your self!
    
    this file is the result of the writings of the people who care
    to write in it
    
    THERE IS NO MODERATOR SANCTIONED PARTY LINE!
    
    this is a recording
    
    and *please* people let us stop fighting, I am awfully tired
    of it
    
    thanks
    
    Bonnie speaking both as a noter and as a moderator
    

    	RE:  .134
    
    	Shove what down your throat?  
    
    	Does it bother you to hear that I *do* like men quite a bit
    	and that this whole thing is *not* about conflicts between
    	women and men?
    
    	Did you expect me to tell you how awful men are?  Why would
    	I *ever* say such a thing when I haven't yet done so (out of
    	thousands of notes I've written in the past year.)
    
    	Just to show you what an equal opportunity noter I am, I respond
    	as sharply to women as I do to men when I feel it is justified.
    
    	That should make you extremely happy.  :-)

    
    
    
    
    
    
                                 GOOD GRIEF!
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    I had deleted WOMANNOTES from my Notebook sometime ago,
    and have come back since the beginning of the week. I have made
    no attempt to catch up on all notes, but have read through all the
    ones whose subject matter I though would interest me, as well as
    those who had above 100 responses, showing that the question had
    raised much interest. I have thus read all 137 responses to this
    note. 
    
    Some of the notes mentioned that both men and women have deleted
    this entry from their Notebook, because they thought there was too
    much hate/bashing towards men.
    
    Let me thus tell you why I deleted this entry some time ago:
    
    - I had thought to find a forum where women could share their thoughts.
      What I found was men were trying to dominate this file, and claiming
      as their right to be as aggressive and as obnoxious as they wanted.
    
    - I found men were extremely invasive, answering frequently before
      women said something, initiating new topics in an extremely condes-
      cending tone: "c'mon, gals, what'd you think of that for an interes-
      ting subject". 
    
    - I found many attempts by men to trivialize and make fun of subjects
      brought in by women.
    
    - I found a lot of complaints from men about their being victims
      of discrimination, harassment, unequal treatment, and so on and
      so forth.
    
    So, I just got so disgusted with all this "manliness" in "Womannotes"
    that I just chucked the whole thing.
    
    However, I have come back because I feel there is a need for
    Womannotes, a real usefulness for it, real friendliness and compassion
    in some of the women and men noting in here, real help to be found,
    real issues to be discussed. 
    
    I will post some stuff in the brainstorming note in a few days,
    as I first need to think thru some of the things I'd really like
    to see in this notesfile.
    
    Joana

    Suzanne,

    I appreciated (and maybe even share some of) the anger you have
    expressed in this note.  I also thought the "parody" you posted did 
    capture some of the frustration that I, too, have felt around notes
    that seem so quick to pass judgement on our feelings...   But I also 
    think it kind of backfired; I suspect there are some folks here who 
    read your note without having read some of the others and didn't
    recognize it as a parody...

    Jim,

    Without using sarcasm, I would like to look at 2 sections of your reply
    561.120, and try to tell you as clearly as I can..  just how it made me
    feel.


	>> .. if you concentrate on anger and fear, and feed your thoughts 
	>> and mind solely with that, you will poison yourself slowly. 

    Here you are saying that anger and fear will "poison" us.  Now I'm sure
    that you really believe that, and that you meant no harm in sharing
    those feelings with us.  But I would suggest that the *tone* of your
    words is what put some of us (at least 2 of us) off.  If you had said,
    "It's been my experience that.. " or "When *I* concentrate on fear and
    anger, *I* find that *I* am unable to ..."  Can you see the difference,
    Jim?  If you present your feelings in a way that describes your experience
    to us, then we are free to decide whether or not that experience is also
    valid for us.  But if you put your ideas in the form of.. "if *You* 
    do/don't this, then *You* will... "  then it's hard for some us to avoid
    feeling defensive.  It makes me feel like, "Gee, he doesn't even know me.
    How can he tell me that I ...." and there I am angry, all because you
    didn't preface your remarks with, "I think that.."


	>> After a while you have to allow yourself to have more balanced 
	>> thoughts, a more balanced life, and when a positive opportunity 
	>> or thought comes along, make the most of it, even if is only one 
	>> candle in the night.

    Here again, I feel uncomfortable because your feelings are written in the
    form of advice instead of as a description of your experience.  I was
    especially troubled, though, by the use of the word, "balanced."  When I
    read this, I thought, "So, if I don't agree with your ideas, I am 
    unbalanced?!!! .... Hmph!"  

    I hope that by describing my response to some of your words as
    precisely as I could... and without the flames, I have given you some 
    things to think about.  I value your feelings, Jim, but I have been
    angry at times with the way you express them.  I feel bad to have
    singled you out, but I thought I could make my point better, if I used 
    specific examples.  

    When a note that one of us writes generates a lot of flames, I often
    think it's more because of the *tone* of the words than the feelings
    expressed.  I suspect that as long as we describe our feelings and
    opinions in terms of ourselves, the level of defensive flaming back
    and forth will be greatly diminished.
    
    Peace to all,

    Justine

    re .130
    
    Carla, is there some reason you haven't identified yourself to us
    yet?

    re. 126,.130
    thank you
     everyone seems to be emotionally invovled with thier terminal.
    as a friend said to me "you cant read emotions over a terminal".
    
    how can you tell that someone using a condensending (sorry about
    the spelling alfred) tone????
    if you dont like being called gals,politely say we would apreciate
    not being referred to like that.in all likely hood the person who
    put that note in did not realize that he was offending.there is
    no need to jump all over someone.
    
    we all make mistakes.
    dont scream at people cuz they do.
    
    kelly

    	Please forgive this question if it sounds dense, but 
    	what do you mean by "identify?"  Do you mean in the 
    	Introduction entry?  Actually I thought I had, but if 
    	I haven't then I will.  Does anybody know off-hand what 
    	number it is???
    

re: .139

	Thanks, Justine!

I've noticed that it is hard to get angry and defensive when anyone 
is speaking in "first person mode" about her/his own feelings and 
experiences.  This "confessional" approach to discussion and learning 
used to be a staple of the "consciousness raising" of the early women's 
movement.  I think it is very valuable in promoting a groundwork for 
real "valuing differences", where each person's personal truth is 
acknowledged.

The "second person mode", full of "you this and that" almost 
automatically makes me defensive and irritated, no matter what the 
subject.  Whenever there is a very heated and upsetting personal
exchange, I've noticed that this "accusatory" voice is usually present. 
We would do well to become more conscious of this behavior pattern, and 
avoid it.

.141>     everyone seems to be emotionally invovled with thier terminal
    
    It's true: I'm in love with my GPX.  It was a long 9 months from
    the conception ("It would be a lot faster debugging color applications
    if I had a color workstation.") to the delivery, but it was worth
    it.  I wouldn't note anywhere without my dearest Caylith.
    
    
    :-)

RE: .121

"Jim, I'm curious about what you plan to do about your own hate and anger
towards women"

I don't know that I have hatred and anger toward "women".  I have had anger and
hatred toward the actions of a particular woman, and I have had hatred and anger
toward thos *people* who pertetuate the divorce system, but none towards women
in general.

'Some of my best friends are women' :-)  Heck, *most* of my friends are women.
Must be an extreme case of hetrosexuality... :-)

"All of the protesting you have done about the way men are treated in divorces
is *surely* a sign of deep-seated hatred of women."

You cannot read my mind or my heart, please do not make assumptions about me.

To a large extent, I have been able to 'let go' of a large part of my anger and
hatred.  I no longer concentrate on the problems of divorce and child custody
for the greater part of my day.  This does not mean that my problems are in any
way lessened, but I do not wish to live a poisoned life by concentrating solely
on them.  I am working to build up the things in my life which are positive for
me. 

Are you being sarcastic?

"I pity you terribly."

I don't need, and cannot use your pity of me for any usefull purpose, so I will
thank you to keep your pity. 

"I wish that you could stop thinking of yourself as a victim of the family court
system."

Think of how that would look if I said that about a victim in a rape court case.
Who is discounting whom now?

"How silly to think that men are treated badly."

To you obviously I have absolutely no reason for feeling the way I do.  You
discount my feelings as a person entirely.

"It is just your anger showing through that makes you *think* fathers are
treated unfairly in our courts." 

And what of the people who have agreed with me that father's are treated
unfairly in divorce?  Even the women, even the ones who have, or have not gone
through divorce?  What is making them think fathers are treated unfairly in
divorce courts?

"Might I suggest that you change the name of Mennotes to "Women Discuss Topics
of Interest to Men.""

Unfortunately I cannot do that as I am not the moderator of MENNOTES.  However,
if there is interest, I would be more then happy to put such a conference on my
machine, and moderate it.

"Also, I think it would be good for you to open several basenotes about all the
positive, wonderful aspects of womanhood."

Such topics definitely belong in MENNOTES, or such a conference as you describe.

RE: .122

"I've tried exceedingly hard not to flame you for the patronizing things you
said in .120"

Why don't you just tell me what you feel I said that you felt was patronizing?

RE: .124

I don't think I have ever said that I thought you hated men...  When I have
spoken of women hating men, I believe that I have been carefull to qualify
myself in saying that it 'appears that some women hate men'.

"If he assumes we hate men because we protest about the unfair treatment we get
from the *SYSTEM*,"

I have seen very few women protesting the 'system', usually it is written women
protesting "men", without sifficient qualifiers.  I have said several times that
the majority of my hatred is for the 'system'. 

RE: .131

You gave no indication that you were joking in your note.  But, I accept that it
was a sarcastic joke, and accept that as an apoligy for any insult I might have
felt.

"Obviously, women-bashers have more freedom in this conference than those who
don't bash women."

It is in your eyes that I am a womanbasher.  I have pointed out several
differences between what I feel is menbashing, and my notes.  Please tell me
why, in spite of those differences you feel that I am a womenbasher.

"If a *person* (of either sex) complains about the way women are treated by our
system, they are whiners."

And when I complained excessively about the way I have been treated by the
system, *I* have been called a whiner as well, perhaps justifiably.  How are
women treated differently then this?

Is this note a continuation of your sarcasm? :-|

Jim.

    	RE:  .145
    
    	Jim, the note was a joke in the sense that I was doing an
    	imitation of the way you (and others) speak to women here
    	on a regular basis.
    
    	You have given me lots of good answers to give to you (and
    	others) the next time you tell *us* not to see ourselves as
    	victims (go back and read 580.6 to see where you said that
    	exact thing to us), or not to hate men, and not to allow
    	ourselves to poison our lives.
    
    	You tell me now that I do not know you well enough to make
    	assumptions about you.  Yet, *you* had no problem making
    	horrendous assumptions about *ME* yesterday (telling me that
    	hate will poison my life, etc.)  How in the name of God
    	can you possibly assume that about *me* and then resent my
    	making assumptions about you????

    	Maybe you *do* hate women.  We have more evidence in this
    	file to suggest that you *do* hate women than there is
    	evidence to suggest that anyone else here hates men.  (The
    	difference is that you talk about man-hate as if it is FACT
    	although I have never said such a thing nor has anyone else
    	in this conference.)
    
    	Whether you hate women or not -- it's none of my business
    	and is presumptuous of me to make assumptions about it.
    
    	It is ***PRECISELY*** just as presumptuous for *YOU* to
    	suggest that any member of this file hates men (and it is
    	also, quite frankly, none of your damn business if any one
    	here *does* hate men, which I strongly doubt.)  It is downright 
    	*rude* to make recommendations on how to correct emotional 
    	problems that you *assume* we have.  (That was the part of
    	both .120 and 580.6 that I objected to most.)
    
    	So, I'd like to ask you politely -- please stop doing the
    	things that you have requested that *I* not do in your
    	most recent note.
    						      Suzanne...

RE: .139
    
I appreciate the effort that your note must have taken. :-|

Perhaps I should have spoken first person, but I felt that the idea was
applicable to readers as well, and I wanted to include them.

If you feel that this does not apply to you, then I can easily accept that. I
would like to know why, though, so that I might understand your point of view
better.

RE: .143

I understand what you are saying...

Did you feel that my note was being "accusatory"?

Jim.

RE: .146

It may have been a joke to you, but what I wrote in ~.120 was nothing more then
what I had already done, and I was hoping that it could be applied equally to
the antagonism in WOMANNOTES.  You reserving my words and pointing them back at
me has no effect, because I have already started doing what you sarcarticall
joked that I should do.

"You have given me lots of good answers to give to you (and others) the next
time you tell *us* not to see ourselves as victims (go back and read 580.6 to
see where you said that exact thing to us), or not to hate men, and not to allow
ourselves to poison our lives."

I don't understand your point?  What is the question that you have lots of good
answers for from me?

"Yet, *you* had no problem making horrendous assumptions about *ME* yesterday
(telling me that hate will poison my life, etc.)"

That does not require any assumptions except that you are a human, which I
assume you are.  If your life is full of hate, it will poison you.

"How in the name of God can you possibly assume that about *me* and then resent
my making assumptions about you????"

I resent you saying that I hate women.  I have pointed out some differences
between what I would call bashing, and what I believe I write.  Why don't you
address these?

"It is ***PRECISELY*** just as presumptuous for *YOU* to suggest that any member
of this file hates men"

I have repeatedly said that I did not truely believe that many women in
WOMENNOTES hated men.  I do believe that quite a bit of what is written in
WOMANNOTES is hatefull of men.

Jim. 

    Re: .142
    
    The introduction note is note 2 for women, note 7 for men.
    
    Re: last dozen or so...
    
    ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG!!!!
    
    I'll be we lose 10-20% or our readers in the next week.
    
    Dave
    

    Jim?  Suzanne?  Please? 
    
    Thank you.
    							=maggie

    	RE:  .148
    
    	Jim, all I have been trying to do in this note is to help you
    	to understand that it is offensive when you casually drop concepts
    	like "man hating" into a conversation as if it is a given fact.
    
    	Words like "man haters" and "whiners" are unfair/insulting
    	stereotypical labels that are frequently used against women
    	who "speak out" against the system.
    
    	You say that you think there is a lot of hostility towards
    	men in this file.  In my opinion, there is *much more* aggression
    	and hostility directed towards *women* here.
    
    	So we disagree.  I would still like to request that you do not
    	use unfair stereotypes against this file and the people in it.

    It's time for me to come clean.
    
    I never deleted this entry, but I stopped reading it
    because I wasn't happy with what
    I was writing.  I'm not happy about my writing when I feel I'm always
    giving someone a piece of my mind.
    
    There isn't much of it left!  :-)
    
    And, I didn't vote, since I didn't start reading until the 7th.

    
    
    I had a long talk on the telephone with Bonnie the noter over the
    weekend and I feel that I have something to add to the last few
    notes - I totally agree with Suzanne about the condensending style
    a number of the men in this conference use when writing.  I will
    not accept it as a way of including all of us in the discussion.
    I also hope that Suzanne can find a way to let the other women in
    the conference agree with her and support her stance.  Sometimes
    it takes me a week to get caught up on replies and the issue is
    so heated by then that I can not respond in a cool-headed way. 
    We need women like Suzanne to keep us on our toes but, for me, I
    would like a day or two to get caught up and respond to issues.
    
    I am really tired of having to state and re-state the following:
    
    I do not hate men - I feel oppressed by the society we live in that
    is controlled by men, that favors men and this feeling many times
    spills over into the words I use.  For this I am sorry but yes there
    is a very deep and strong uncomfortableness with men who talk down
    to me and I growl back.
    
    _peggy
    			(-)
    			 |	Suzanne - May the Goddess continue to
    					  give you the strength you
    					  need to inspire the rest of
    					  us.
    
    

   
RE: Note 561.153  BUFFER::LEEDBERG 

    
   " I also hope that Suzanne can find a way to let the other women in
    the conference agree with her and support her stance. "


YES. It was so obvious to me I never bothered saying so. I appreciate 
Suzanne's answers very much. She says exactly what I would say if I had 
quicker reactions, kept more up-to-date with reading notesfiles, and wasn't 
afraid the dogs would start tearing at me if I answered with my first 
impressions.

I believe Suzanne expresses the thoughts of many of us and we should be 
- and are - thankful to her for taking the heat and the burden of being 
always at the top of the barricade. 

Not only do I agree with Suzanne's ideas, but I also enjoy her style,
her wit and her sarcasm. If I keep on in this vein, I am sure Suzanne will
begin to feel embarrassed by all these compliments .... so I'll let it at
that! 
       
Thanks, Suzanne.

Joana
    

    10..9..8..7..6..5..4..3..2..1......
    
    (I promised myself to count to 10 first...)
    
    Yes, let's all build a great statue of Suzanne, and dream of a time
    when all men are subjugated unto her.  For men cannot have opinions
    as important.  After all, they aren't women, so how can they understand
    women?  Men's feelings can't be the same as women's!  
    
    While I tend to disagree with Suzanne often in this conference,
    her insights are still valuable.  I'm not about to nominate
    her for noter of the year, however.
    
    *Note* - this is not intended to be a "woman bashing" note.
    
    I just find the stance that some members of this conference take
    to be a tad too close to militant feminism.  Equality is one thing,
    androgyny (sp?) is another.
    
    Dave
    
    
    

    	RE:  .155
    
    	Dave, I'm certainly aware that there are folks in this conference
    	who find my notes disturbing -- my terminal gets so hot that
    	I cook my lunch over it.  :^)
    
    	Just this morning, I was mentioning to a friend that it seemed
    	to me that *some* men find it difficult/impossible to deal with
    	a conference or a group that does not center itself around men.
    	
    	In that light, I find it interesting that you feel that a note
    	mentioning a specific woman is *really* saying more things about
    	men than it says about the woman (i.e., the comments you made
    	about how men "cannot feel things", etc.)
    
    	If that is a common tendency among *some* men, then no wonder
    	so many men translate "I dislike the system" to "I dislike men."
    
    	Our culture has definitely tried to teach women that men should
    	be at the center of our thoughts/deeds/hopes/dreams/WORLD.
    	I suppose that, by the same token, our culture has tried to
    	teach men to *EXPECT* that kind of attention in every situation
    	in life (including when they voluntarily enter Women's Space.)

    	Is it possible for you to understand that there are occasionally
    	times when women want to talk_about/interact_with/concern_themselves
	with other women instead of men (just for that brief moment.)
    
    							Suzanne...

	RE: .155

	Dave, 

	I don't understand why you are upset.  Suzanne made
	a statement and a number of women agreed with her and
	liked how she said it.  I don't always agree with everything
	Suzanne says (although I sometimes do).  I don't think that
	having people agree with her makes whatever she says law.
	All it says is that a number of people have the same
	opinion.  I don't understand how this has anything to
	do with "militant feminism" (whatever that is).  Maybe
	I'm missing something that you saw.

	...Karen

    Ref Note 561.155 by ASD::LOW
    
    I will not bother counting to 10 before answering your note. I did
    something which I believe to be more constructive and re-read both
    Peggy's note (561.153) and my own (561.154).
    
    I have not found anything in there that can justify your affirmation
    that we are trying to build a statue to Suzanne, or that men cannot
    have opinions as important, to quote you verbatim. 
    
    I am not going to re-state what I said. Anybody interested is welcome
    to re-read it. Your interpretation of it is your problem. 
    
    I have said in another note that one of the things that had turned
    me off from womannotes was the fact that a woman could barely say
    something before a man jumped at it, twisted it, interpreted it,
    trivialized it. Though I remembered many instances where this had
    been true, I had no specific example at hand. Now I have one. Thanks
    for providing it and for proving me right. 
    
    Joana 

Note 561.156  
NEXUS::CONLON 

    	>Dave, I'm certainly aware that there are folks in this conference
    	>who find my notes disturbing -- my terminal gets so hot that
    	>I cook my lunch over it.  :^)

	Which is why we are often at odds.
    
    	>Just this morning, I was mentioning to a friend that it seemed
    	>to me that *some* men find it difficult/impossible to deal with
    	>a conference or a group that does not center itself around men.
    	>Our culture has definitely tried to teach women that men should
    	>be at the center of our thoughts/deeds/hopes/dreams/WORLD.
    	>I suppose that, by the same token, our culture has tried to
    	>teach men to *EXPECT* that kind of attention in every situation
    	>in life (including when they voluntarily enter Women's Space.)

	Here we go again!  What is your fixation with the world revolving
	around men - especially in this conference!!!  A conference that
	contains notes such as "For women only please", that talks about
	dreams.  As if men cannot have dreams.  I do not want this conference
	to center around men.  Please give me an example of where I have
	said that I do.

    	>Is it possible for you to understand that there are occasionally
    	>times when women want to talk_about/interact_with/concern_themselves
	>with other women instead of men (just for that brief moment.)

	Yes.  Can you understand that men might want to contribute?  I have
	stayed out of the "nightmare note" because the author made it plain
	that men's opinions are not wanted there.  That note was written by
	one of your "fans and loyal followers".  Obviously there are times 
	when you don't want men "around", for whatever reason.  This is a
	NOTES conference Suzanne, not a woman's club.  Join reality - men
	are in this conference, men would like to be part of it, and have just
	as much right to reply to any topic as a woman does.  Your
	consistant refusal to accept this has caused much turmoil here.  We
	are not trying to control, just to contribute.  Your disposition
	toward interpreting contribution as control is nothing short of
	paranoia, in my opinion.


Note 561.157 
CADSYS::SULLIVAN 

	>I don't understand why you are upset.  Suzanne made
	>a statement and a number of women agreed with her and
	>liked how she said it.  I don't always agree with everything
	>Suzanne says (although I sometimes do).  I don't think that
	>having people agree with her makes whatever she says law.
	>All it says is that a number of people have the same
	>opinion.  I don't understand how this has anything to
	>do with "militant feminism" (whatever that is).  Maybe
	>I'm missing something that you saw.

	...Karen

If people had said "I like the way you said X", I wouldn't have the 
slightest objection (even if I disagreed with X).  It's the wholesale
agreement of "I believe everything you say" that gets me.  For example:

Note 561.154
SHIRE::BIZE 

>YES. It was so obvious to me I never bothered saying so. I appreciate 
>Suzanne's answers very much. She says exactly what I would say if I had 
>quicker reactions, kept more up-to-date with reading notesfiles, and wasn't 
>afraid the dogs would start tearing at me if I answered with my first 
>impressions.
>I believe Suzanne expresses the thoughts of many of us and we should be 
>- and are - thankful to her for taking the heat and the burden of being 
>always at the top of the barricade. 

Sort of makes you think that it's a war zone, with Suzanne the appointed 
leader of one side.

And the other one that set me off:

Note 561.153  
BUFFER::LEEDBERG 
    
    >I totally agree with Suzanne about the condensending style
    >a number of the men in this conference use when writing.  I will
    >not accept it as a way of including all of us in the discussion.
    >I also hope that Suzanne can find a way to let the other women in
    >the conference agree with her and support her stance.
    >We need women like Suzanne to keep us on our toes

 	Jeezus,is this a presidential primary?


	That was written by the woman who started the "woman-only"
	topic.  Talk about not being included in a discussion!
  	Hypocracy in action!


	As for the "militant feminism" comment.  My definition of
	"militant feminism" is people who go "too far" in the
	search for equality.  Those who point at every rustling
	noise in the bushes and scream "opressor"!!! (sp?)
	
	Often when a man makes a suggestion about the file, we
	hear the complaints of "men are trying to control this
	file".  "Men are trying to dominate everything", etc.
	(See previous quote by Suzanne)  I'm sick of hearing
	that.  I don't see any notes in here saying "Men only,
	please".  ('cept the registration note 7.*)  But
	it's the men who are dominating...  Yeah, sure....





    
    
Note 561.158
SHIRE::BIZE 
    
    >I have not found anything in there that can justify your affirmation
    >that we are trying to build a statue to Suzanne, or that men cannot
    >have opinions as important, to quote you verbatim. 

	My point with the statue comment was that you entered a note
	saying that you agree with Suzanne, not on one note, but in
	General.  "She says what you would say".  Sounds a bit like
	a wholesale endorsement to me, which is fine if you mean it.
	
	The comment about men's opinions not being important was directed
	at BUFFER::LEEDBERG - the author of the now famous "Only women
	have dreams" note, another statue builder.
    
    >I have said in another note that one of the things that had turned
    >me off from womannotes was the fact that a woman could barely say
    >something before a man jumped at it, twisted it, interpreted it,
    >trivialized it. Though I remembered many instances where this had
    >been true, I had no specific example at hand. Now I have one. Thanks
    >for providing it and for proving me right. 

	From your endorsement of Suzanne's every word, I don't think
	I twisted a thing.

	I can see why you'd want to blindly follow someone who uses
	personal attacks "as an example" on a fellow noter.  Those
	remarks were well-barbed and meant to hurt, but done "in jest".
	Right...
			|
			|
			V
    
Note 561.121  
NEXUS::CONLON 

    	>All of the protesting you have done about the way men are
    	>treated in divorces is *surely* a sign of deep-seated hatred
    	>of women.  If you keep letting those feelings build up,
    	>they will surely poison you and prevent you from ever living
    	>any sort of balanced life.



	Nice.  Let me help you with that statue...

Dave
    
    

    re .155  Your unspoken assumption is that "militant feminism" is
    bad. That is NOT a given. And if some contributors lean towards
    that viewpoint, what better forum to present it ? With the
    right to be speak freely ? And be listened to with an open mind?
    And if that is impossible to you, why are you here ? 

    Dave,
    
    What you do not seem to realize is that Peggy had a nightmare about
    being helpless because she was a woman living without a man.
    
    Have *you* ever been a woman living alone?  No?  Then perhaps you've
    dreamt about being a woman living alone?  No?  Then you have nothing
    to say to that note.  Really.  This is one of the times when only
    experience matters.
    
    							Ann B.

    re: .159
    
         Bravo !!!!!!!
    
    
    
    
    
    kath

    	RE:  .159
    
    	Dave, I think your sour words at the end should have been
    	directed at someone else in this conference besides me.
    	That quote you made of "my" words was taken almost word
    	for word from a note written by a man to women here.
    
    	If you do not recall the note, let me point it out to
    	you.  It was .120 of this topic (especially note the words
    	telling us we will poison our lives.)  
    
    	If it was horrendous for me to say it as a parody, then
    	it was **dead wrong** (from your own perspective) for someone
    	to say it in seriousness (which a man in this conference did.)
    
    	You can wish all you want that this conference was created
    	for men and women, but wishing doesn't make it so.  This file
    	was created for **WOMEN** (with men permitted here as invited
    	guests.)  The moderators have made that quite clear.
    
    	Until *you* become a moderator of this conference, then you
    	have no right to change the objectives of this file and force
    	them onto us.
    
    	The words "dominate" and "control" were not written anywhere
    	in my note .156 -- those were *your* words (*you* were the
    	one who, once again, twisted and interpreted my words, along
    	with Peggy's and Joana's.)
    
    	What I said was that our culture tries to teach men that they
    	should always be the center of attention -- and I think you
    	have done a good job of proving that lately.  Everything that
    	happens in this file that does not include you is offensive
    	to you.  You even take offense when one woman says "I agree
    	with you" to another.
    
    	Good God, Dave.  The "I agree with what you said" kind of note
    	has been with us since notes were invented.  Where have you
    	been?  Why do you take it as such an insult when someone agrees
    	with someone that you don't agree with as well?
    
    	You keep saying, "What if men want to contribute?"  Well, what
    	if women SIMPLY want to hear what other WOMEN have to say, for
    	once, instead of hearing from men?  If there is any file in
    	all of DEC where that should be allowed, it should be this
    	one.
    
    	Perhaps if some men behaved differently in this file, some women
    	wouldn't feel the need to announce that they only want women
    	to reply to certain notes.
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    If the topic was about being a woman living alone, then fine.
    
    The topic was about nightmares.  Almost all the responses talked
    about nightmare, and how people deal with them.  Of course
    with the title of the topic being "Women only, please" (or close
    enough), that doesn't give a very good idea what the topic is about,
    does it?
    
    	I've had nightmares.  I've had recurring nightmares.  I have
    found a way to deal with the really terrbile ones.  Since I'm male,
    I will not put the ideas in the notes, since only WOMEN can understand
    what a bad nightmare is.  Just because the author is a woman
    living alone does not mean that terrifying nightmares are unique
    to women in that situation.  If the topic were "Women living alone",
    I would feel no need/desire to contribute expreiences, since,
    as you so cleverly pointed out, I am not a woman living alone.
    However, if (for example) my sister lives alone, and has a problem
    with horrible nightmares (such as those described in the note),
    and had found a way to deal with them, I might want to suggest
    what she found to be helpful.  My gender does not prevent me from
    helping people.  
    
    Dave
    

    in re .165
    
    Dave,
    
    if you desired is only to be helpful then you ca
    1. start a note of yourown on the topic
    2. send peggy mail outlining what you and your sister have
    done and let her decide if she is comfortable with your adding
    the information
    3. and you are reading things into the original note by your
    persistantly stating that it meant that only women had bad dreams
    or night mares.
    
    Bonnie

    You know, I get a real kick out of the idea that some people (men
    and women) think that there are "militant feminists" in this file.
    It is a perfectly ludicrous charge [and that would be immediately
    obvious if ever we got a "militant" to start writing in here].
    
    Suzanne, isn't **FUN** [very sarcastic voice] to have people fighting
    over the validity of your words as woman_statement?
    
    FWIW:  while Suzanne and I have very different styles, she is very
    good at saying what I think needs to be said.  And she is tenacious
    enough to keep trying to explain after it becomes obvious that a
    majority of [X] group refuses to hear and consider her words [and
    our support of them].
    
    Lee

    The whole idea of a "closed-door" file or notes that are meant to
    be responded to only by women is obviously an extremely threatening
    one, bordering as it does on separatism (in appearance).
    
    Might I request that some of the women who feel that Suzanne speaks for
    them please begin contributing more in person...Suzanne is a strong,
    articulate woman but she is going to collapse if she has to keep
    carrying the whole weight herself!  Let her take a break!  So far we've
    heard from Ann, Karen and Joana in direct or indirect support; we need
    to hear more women like them. 
    
    Similarly, might I ask that some of the women who feel supportive of
    Dave's position, as Kath Mitchell seems to, to also speak up.  Dave
    is very firm in his position; does he speak mostly for men?  If
    he doesn't, then give him your open support. 
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie
    

    
Re:    < Note 561.164 by NEXUS::CONLON >

    	RE:  .159
    
    	>Dave, I think your sour words at the end should have been
    	>directed at someone else in this conference besides me.

    	They were directed toward BUFFER::LEEDBERG
    
        
    	>If it was horrendous for me to say it as a parody, then
    	>it was **dead wrong** (from your own perspective) for someone
    	>to say it in seriousness (which a man in this conference did.)
         
    	I don't recall saying it was OK for ANYBODY to do, male or female.
    
    
    	>You can wish all you want that this conference was created
    	>for men and women, but wishing doesn't make it so.  This file
    	>was created for **WOMEN** (with men permitted here as invited
    	>guests.)  The moderators have made that quite clear.
    	>Until *you* become a moderator of this conference, then you
    	>have no right to change the objectives of this file and force
    	>them onto us.
    	    
               I don't need to wish, Suzanne - you do.  I've already
    	said many times, that no notes file can restrict access or
    	deny the right of anyone in the company to read/write in
    	it.  It is not a WOMEN only file, and your condescending
    	attitude ("men are guests" - women rule here) seems to indicate
    	that you don't believe this.  Well, (as I've said before), it's
    	CORPORATE POLICY, and if you don't think it applies here, you
    	are wrong.  I'm not trying to set the agenda, I'm trying to
    	point out the attitude of several members of this conference
    	who feel that this is some sort of woman's club, where men
    	are allowed to clean the toilets after hours.  As I recall the
    	objective of this file was to discuss issues relating to women.
    	I don't recall the objective of this file being for women to
    	discuss issues relating to women.  If I put a note in here
    	entitled, "How men deal with the football strike", that would
    	be thwarting the objective of the file.  if I put a note in
    	here entitled "How do women feel about living alone" because
    	I wanted to understand how women view that subject (to help
    	me understand how my sister feels, for example) then I should
    	have every right to do so.  I should also have the right to
    	reply to a note about nightmares, since I have them, too.
    
    
    	>You even take offense when one woman says "I agree
    	>with you" to another.
     
    	 I already addresed this.  The "I agree with note xxx" is
    	very common and more than fine with me.  The "I always agree
    	with noter XXXX - (s)he is great" is a bit overboard,for my
    	taste.  I'm not saying that those people don't feel that way,
    	I pointed out that it was a general endorsement by making the
    	statue comment.
     
    	>You keep saying, "What if men want to contribute?"  Well, what
    	>if women SIMPLY want to hear what other WOMEN have to say, for
    	>once, instead of hearing from men?  If there is any file in
    	>all of DEC where that should be allowed, it should be this
    	>one.
    
    		Sorry, there is no file in DEC where that is allowed.
    		See above.  Another example of your elitist attitude.
    
    >Perhaps if some men behaved differently in this file, some women
    >	wouldn't feel the need to announce that they only want women
    >	to reply to certain notes.
     
    	Perhaps if some women behaved differently, some men wouldn't
    	feel the need to complain about it.
    
    Dave
    
    
    
    							Suzanne...

    	RE:  .168
    
    	Maggie, I appreciate what you're saying, but I want to make
    	it perfectly clear that I don't consider myself any sort of
    	leader in this conference.  I am merely willing to openly
    	express my feelings about what is happening here.
    
    	I wouldn't be here at all if not for the outstanding
    	contributions made by people like Ann Broomhead, Catherine
    	Ianuzzo, Lee T., yourself, Bonnie and a list of contributors
    	almost as long as the list of Intros at the beginning of the
    	file.
    
    	I would like very much to hear those voices (becaues they
    	can be found in such a group nowhere else in notes) and their
    	views matter to me a lot.
    
    	As an example -- I was fascinated when I started reading about
    	the Goddesses of earlier civilizations.  It was something that
    	I had never heard before and it was all so well-written and
    	interesting that I looked forward to each new reply.
    
    	Before long, we had a man in the middle of it, screaming at
    	the top of his lungs, "THIS IS NOT EQUALITY!!!!"
    
    	Why is it that the files for black employees, Gay employees
    	and Jewish employees can have wonderful moments like the ones
    	I try to enjoy here without having other groups *screaming*
    	in the middle of their discussions?  I just don't understand
    	why women are not being allowed to have any measure of peace 
    	at all in a file named for us.

    	Not all the women in this file agree on everything.  Not by
    	a LONG shot.  That much has always been obvious.  
    
    	I'd still like to see this file be the Women's Space that it
    	was intended to be (with men as guests.)  That is the way the
    	files for black, Jewish and gay employees are run and I see
    	no reason on Earth why it should be different (i.e., less
    	safe) for women in the file that was created for *us*.
    
    						       Suzanne...

    	RE:  .169
    
    	Dave, please explain to me, then, why you have not harrassed
    	BLACKNOTES or other minority conferences to prove your point
    	about it being against corporate policy to dedicate conf's
    	to certain groups?
    
    	It is against corporate policy to harrass minorities (and
    	we see that sort of thing almost **DAILY** here.)
    
    						     Suzanne...

    I almost entered this in the "Hot Button" note, but the discussion
    seems to be here.

    I think that some men do have problems when they're not the center
    of  attention. In my teens, I was like that (luckily I grew out of
    it  the day I turned 30 ;-). I think that we men must realize that
    many  of  the women in this file sometimes want a place where they
    can  discuss  issues without input from men. It is simple courtesy
    to  honor  that  request, even if you think that it is improper to
    formalize it in notes.

    I considered commenting on a reply to the "Nightmare" note, either
    by  mail  or by creating a new topic, and decided that my thoughts
    on  the  matter weren't worth creating a topic for. 

    If I  want  to restrict my friends to people with purple skin with
    green  polka  dots  and  pink hair, that is my right (as long as I
    don't  discriminate  in  my  commercial dealings). If women want a
    place  to  discuss  things  with other women, that is their right.
    Disk  space  and  network  time  are  available  enough to make it
    reasonable to allow that on the network.

    There is no reason to be a dog in the manger. If a little courtesy
    and  restraint makes people happier, noblesse oblige requires that
    courtesy.

--David

    I had oodles of trouble writing this - as I was writing the topic
    title changed, so I figured I'd entered it in a wrong topic, so
    I saved it and deleted it.  Then I re-entered it and it was suddenly
    note 600.0 - ack - so here it is again...providing it doesn't explode
    on impact with the disk...
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    It seems to me, that if the "nightmares" topic occurred, and was
    welcoming responses from both men and women, that one of the things
    I would NOT like to see in it is people saying things like "it's
    stupid and childish to have nightmares....what, you're afraid of
    the boogeyman...aw, cmon, grow up and face the music, you're XY
    years old and you should be able to take care of yourself...only
    kids cry about things they imagine".  I cannot picture this coming
    from a woman in this notesfile, although I am not saying women are
    incapable of being insensitive.  
    
    Perhaps the poster wished to avoid any joking around or insensitive
    "big girls don't cry" remarks, and by removing all men (which may
    be akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this case),
    they hope to be taken very seriously and wish to make clear the
    topic is to be handled warmly, sincerely, honestly, and with some
    emotional kid gloves.
    
   I think  it can also be construed as a field test of the option that
    women can ask questions to women only within the domain of this
    file, sort of testing the water to see what the reaction was.  It
    may be no coincidence that the topic was as inoffensive as
    "nightmares" (rather than being about a "hotter" (male/female wise)
    topic) , because if this trial works more difficult and intense
    issues might be discussed using this format.    

    Just trying to understand - please correct me if I am offbase
    
    -Jody
    

    	I don't have the time to read all 170 + responses to this note,
    having just returned form a business trip I am too busy with work
    and too far behind with WOMANNOTES.  So I'll simple state my opinion.
    
    	There have been a number of times when I wished to make some
    very personal contributions to this file but held back because NOTES
    is, in general, too public a forum.  I praise the strength of those
    who have opened up in this file.                                 
    
    	I would like the file to be open to people by invitation only
    - like AA, etc.
    
    Douglas

in re .164, Suzanne,
    
    This is a question of emphasis...but to say that men are "permitted
    here as guests" isn't the way I think I have been putting it. I
    would be more apt to say that I would like men to consider that
    they are guests here and act as same. In the initial introduction
    to the file by the way, Maggie expressly welcomed men as noters
    in the file.
    
    Bonnie
    
    
                <<< VIKING::$2$DJA7:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 1.1                            Welcome!                             1 of 37
MOSAIC::TARBET "Margaret Mairhi"                      6 lines  23-APR-1986 09:15
                           -< Welcome to Men, Too! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Tom suggested that I make explicit the fact that participation
    by men is welcomed and encouraged.
    
    As always, Tom's argument was cogent <smile>. 
    
    					=maggie 

    re .173:
    
    It is one thing to ask that a note not be confrontational, that
    one is asking for CONSTRUCTIVE advice and NOT criticism nor abuse,
    that any violation will result in immediate write-locking, etc, but
    quite another to ask that only women respond, even in a conference
    dedicated to "topics of interest to women".
    
    "...they hope to be taken very seriously and wish to make clear the
    topic is to be handled warmly, sincerely, honestly, and with some
    emotional kid gloves."
    
    This wish would be better conveyed through a direct request that
    the topic be handled warmly, sincerely,..., rather than by condemning
    all the men before the fact. 
    
    "...because if this trial works more difficult and intense issues
    might be discussed using this format."
    
    Great! I look forward to being asked not to participate in ANY of
    the discussions here. Perhaps that will keep me from shooting my
    foot so often. Perhaps it will also prevent me from learning anything
    as well.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    > Great! I look forward to being asked not to participate in ANY of
    > the discussions here. Perhaps that will keep me from shooting my
    > foot so often. Perhaps it will also prevent me from learning anything
    > as well.
    
    Are you implying you can only learn something if you're allowed
    to speak?
    
    How odd.

    re .177:
    
    > Are you implying you can only learn something if you're allowed
    > to speak?
    > How odd.

    No. I am implying that I cannot learn by being actively excluded.
    As Dennis Ahern already expressed, a note titled "For Women ONLY-
    Please" could well stop males from reading it at all. Also, I learn
    by participation and making mistakes as well as through pure study.
    Only by stating my opinions can I hope to have misconceptions and
    outright errors pointed out to me. 
    
    Someone else wrote that the "truly understanding men" find out about
    women by turning to the woman next to them. Thus implying that those 
    _men_ who claim to be here to "learn about" or "understand" women,
    actually have some hidden motivation. (actually I think it was stated
    explicitly that they have a motivation to "keep women in their place")
    This is quite a charge that damns a great many for the actions of
    a few. Also, it is rather strange to my mind to expect to get an
    understanding of _women_ by talking to _one_ woman. I am not a woman,
    I have not experienced most of what women have. I do not think that
    I am lying when I say that I would like to understand those
    experiences. I don't think I am trying to "keep women in their place"
    when I bitch about not being allowed to reply to a note that
    I may have some experience to contribute.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
     

    
    re: .168
    
    Mr. Low certainly does not speak for me (male).
    

RE: .159, Daves reply to my note.

	Well, I agree that it is a little overbearing for a anyone to
	ask others to be thankful for or to agree with something for
	which they are thankful and agree with.  I don't agree that
	you should assume that everyone feels that way, or even
	be upset if someone says that they agree with *everything*
	that someone else says.  We might feel that is short-sighted
	of them to say that, but they have that right.


>	As for the "militant feminism" comment.  My definition of
>	"militant feminism" is people who go "too far" in the
>	search for equality.  Those who point at every rustling
>	noise in the bushes and scream "opressor"!!! (sp?)
	
	What is "too far"?  Your stance is very subjective.  Some
	might feel that nothing goes "too far" if equality is
	gained from it.  I think that you might be using the
	phrase to negate the opinions of some women.

    Reply to the last -.20 or so,
    
    Ok, I'll say it then, perhaps for a second time...
    
    Women, who happen to be the focus of this conference, have a *NEED* and
    a *RIGHT* to discuss, among women only, privately and or publicly with
    their peers, their problems and concerns. The World will not end
    tomarrow or even next year were that to happen. 
    
    I think that there are unstated problems when a man, any man, feels
    that a woman, any woman, should not be able to discuss issues with
    her peers, privately or semi-privately. I would expect the same
    of any woman who participated in Mennotes.
    
    What's the problem then? Surely it isn't an issue of treating the
    file as corporate property and admitting everyone equally. There
    are conferences that do just the opposite apparently with coporate
    permission.
    
    Perhaps some feel they have a constitutional guarrentee to be heard.
    Sorry, not in a private corporate conference.
    
    Perhaps some feel that the nuclear family unit will disapate should
    women talk privately among themselves.  That has already happened and
    women talking among themselves has nothing to do with that disapation.
                                      
    No, I hear the small child screaming "Mommy, Mommy listen!". Sorry,
    mommy has other things to do too.
    
    I urge women to can this cr$p and get on with their communications
    with each other. Ignore the rhetoric, it will go on forever as long
    as there are two or more parties willing to debate the issues.
    
    I think it's time to say NO! to those who, with apparently good
    intentions, perpetuate the lie that women shouldn't be allowed to
    discuss things privately among themselves.
                                                          
    B*B Mikie?

	RE: learning

	It is not always the goal for the women who contribute in this
	conference to to teach the men.  Many women are not here to help
	men but to help themselves and other women.  Thus it is only
	hurting some mens goals if they are left out of a particular
	discussion.  Yes they might be able to contribute some wonderful
	insight into a problem that could help with that problem.  But
	maybe that's not what's wanted.  It's like when I grumble about
	my work to my husband.  I don't want a solution from him, I
	want an ear.  Somethings I prefer to discuss with women, not
	my husband.  I'm not hurting him by getting my help from other
	women and not him, even if he does feel left out.

	...Karen

    The only way you can be prevented from reading a note is if it is
    not posted.  Don't ask that every topic be made palatable.

    re .182:
    
    Karen,
    
    I did not mean to imply that the purpose of this conference is to
    teach men in general or me in particular, I realize it may have
    come out that way, and I aplogize for my poor writing style. 
    
    But I think that teaching is not inconsistent with the stated goals 
    of the conference. I was not trying to imply that women should be trying 
    to actively teach "us men", but what purpose is served by discouraging 
    that learning? (this is a rhetorical question)
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
                   

    RE: "militant feminist"
    
    One who goes "too far", eh? So who defines "too far"? "Too far" for
    the speaker's taste, presumably. *Strident*  women. I hear that
    old song *Man Hater* lurking in the background. Besides which, I
    am totally unaware of any convention of this file which eliminates
    militant feminists from participating, whether or not they are
    unpalatable to anyone else's taste in noters.
    
    
    RE: nightmares being experienced by both sexes
    
    While that is certainly true, I maintain that the point here is
    that a woman has asked for input from women. That oughta be enough.
    If anyone (men, in this particular case, in this particular tempest)
    had a burning desire to discuss nightmares, why hasn't a basenote
    been entered long before now? But a woman is asking for advice/help
    with something personal, and suddenly it becomes *VITAL* that men
    offer their wisdom??  
    
    I agree with those who've said "OK. send mail, or start another
    note."
    
    RE: not letting other people carry the flag into the fray 
    
    I try very hard to refrain from "Me too-ing" cuz it clutters up
    the file with (you guessed it) "me-too's" - there are so many
    articulate women in this file that I more often than not find what
    I would've said, said much better by someone else.
    
    Necessary caveat - Now, just because I said there were so many 
    articulate women here, doesn't mean I said the men are not articulate.
    
    --DE
    

>>Note 571.38                        
>>    Alas Eagle ... the most understanding men don't learn about women
>>    through notesfiles.  They turn to the lady beside them and talk
>>    to her.  I fear that "understanding women" is used by some as an
>>    excuse for their presence.  They obviously are not here because
>>    they enjoy our company, or because they appreciate our point of
>>    view, or because they admire our logic and integrity.  Some seem
>>    to be here to keep us in our place, to show us the error of our
>>    ways, to straighten us out.  Why do they stay?  

Re: Note 561.178            

>>    Someone else wrote that the "truly understanding men" find out about
>>    women by turning to the woman next to them. Thus implying that those 
>>    _men_ who claim to be here to "learn about" or "understand" women,
>>    actually have some hidden motivation. (actually I think it was stated
>>    explicitly that they have a motivation to "keep women in their place")
>>    This is quite a charge that damns a great many for the actions of
>>    a few. 

And this Steve is why SOME of us women are having such a hard time 
communicating with SOME men.  If you read the note you misquoted, clearly
I did state that I had *SOME* men in mind when making that comment...
NOT ALL... hence this is not a charge that damns a great many for the actions
of a few.  However, I apparently hit home with a great many for those words
to be interpreted as they were.

>>Also, it is rather strange to my mind to expect to get an
>>understanding of _women_ by talking to _one_ woman. I am not a woman,

To truly understand one's wife, mother, daughter and sister... one must
COMMUNICATE with one's wife, mother, daughter and sister.  Men (like the
rest of humanity) are responsible for the condition of their own relationships.

>>    I have not experienced most of what women have. I do not think that
>>    I am lying when I say that I would like to understand those
>>    experiences. I don't think I am trying to "keep women in their place"
>>    when I bitch about not being allowed to reply to a note that
>>    I may have some experience to contribute.

Bitch away my dear.... we are used to it.

    re .173
    
    You are real close on that call.
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	The Goddess guides those who look and see.
    

    MENTAL EXCERISE
    
    Go back and subsitute as follows:
    
    everytime man is used use WHITE
    
    evertime woman is used use BLACK.
    
    Would most of the conversations occured than? I doubt it.
    
    It is also very much against DEC policy to harass another.
    
    There is a great deal of harassment in this file against woman
    when it is supposed to be a womans file.
    
    I don't see this degree of polarization in Blacknotes but there
    the whites are guests!
    
    Is the purpose of this file to educate men? I think not.If it
    happpens as a by-product fine but I for one am tired of women
    being harassed!
    

I've read through both this and the "hot button" note. Aside from that,
I've been involved with this file for some time now. Irregardless of
the original headset and words that are in note one, men, for the most
part, ARE NOT welcome in this file. That should be very obvious to 
anyone that has the most minute amount of intuitive intuition. Oh ya,
the occasional relating experience is OK, but men's opinions in relation 
to the subject being discussed ? You gotta be joking, no way Jose.

For once, up front lets clear the air. Irregardless of any thoughts
to the contrary. I know for the most part (and have a strong sense 
for the balance) that there hasn't been a single man, who has 
participated in this file that condones any of the hurt, pain, troubles,
problems, evil, discrimination, or oppression of any individual or 
women as a group. But it is painfully obvious that a good number of 
women who are in this file think so. It is there in what you write,
and the way you answer us. And yes a percentage is mis communication,
but beyond that one definitely gets the feeling that you believe, we're
out to "get ya" or put you down.

Why ? Well thats fairly obvious also. For before and during talking
with us, a number of you have literally been dumped on by a man or 
men in your life. This makes any human leery of the next person. 
And being human, you want a safe place to express yourself, your 
experiences, and receive some understanding, advice and comfort from
your fellow humanbeings. And at this stage the only ones you trust,
are only other females. Women have, for the most part, a very good
support system with other women that links back to when they were 
children. 

Anyone that understands our current culture and society, knows that
women for the most part, have a much superior, established network 
of sharing human and personal feelings. Men, due to our upbringing 
as children, were discouraged for the most part from the coffee/tea
cliche of getting together. Beyond that, how were we taught or learned
to share experiences ? By bragging of the most "manly" experiences
we could come up with. Go to your buddies and relate feelings of 
pain and uncertainty ? Hell you stood a good chance of getting beat up
by just thinking it, let alone trying to discuss it.  Tough it out,
don't you dare cry, only sissies and girls cry, be a man, is what 
we herd and were told from our fathers and our fellow man.
 
Oh sure now Ive got the lady masses thinking and crying "man hater"
horseshit again. Bullshit . I'am NOT crying man latter, I am saying
that, for the most part, that Irregardless of what any and all the polls
say, you women want this to be an exclusive, female only file. The same
subject has come up too many times to deny this. And OH yes you have
your zillion and one reasons for it.  

Lets face it, the only men that have not been beat up on at one time 
or another, have been the rah rah women, I agree and commend and condone
anything and every thing any of you say. The ones that continue to say
that they are one with you. The rest of us...HA !!! There hasn't been 
one time that one of we males has offered an opinion that there hasn't
been one or more of the women come back at us with claws extended. Just
look at the majority of the notes. Ill guarantee you can't go through
ten notes anywhere in this file and NOT find an argument going on.

But guess what, for the intelligent lot that we are, we as men are 
painfully ignorant of a lot of your problem. Why ? because for the 
most part they were only shared between women. And contrary to whats
been stated here about getting it all from the "person on your left".
Your only going to get the whole story from being with a cross section
of people. Aside from that, we now we have the all too famous series
of reports and books and articles and trends that tell the world 
about things that women have shared for years. And guess what, now 
we as men get beat up because we aren't totally aware of all the 
problems and the extent of them. So what do we do ? We come into
WOMENNOTES, to find out about these things. And guess what ??
Now too many of you don't want to share with us about these things.

The real killer is when we do have the at length discussions about 
these things In so many ways our advice is taken as telling you 
what to do. Our agreeing with you is viewed as condensending and 
condoning. You ask for our opinions and get upset if they differ
from yours. We're consistently told to shut up and listen and then 
chastised because we don't communicate. But enough of all this. By 
now I've got half to all of you in an uproar, ready to come back and 
blast the hell outa me. GO AHEAD ...do it, for as Rhett said, "frankly 
Scarlet, mydear I don't give a damn". Some of you think Iam alright,
some hate my style of doing things, and the others, well they just 
flat ass don't like me. I don't intend to loose sleep over it.

The bottom line to all this is that I strongly beleave you should have
your own women only file. As of now, there is currently three files
dealing in the hows whys and ways of people relating to each other. My 
recommendations to all the moderators concerned would be to make 
WOMENNOTES for women only, MENNOTES for men only and HUMAN_RELATIONS
for those who wish to share. This way those of you who wish to keep
your own little closed, closet society of secerts can do so. But Oh
yes, buy the way, don't evin come back at the rest of us with your
horsefeathers of telling and accusing we men of not wanting to commicate.
Weither you wish to accecpt it or not, we've tried, and the experement
so far, has failed miserably. GOD knows that a reasonable level of
understanding between men and women will NEVER occur in this file. Not with
the current headset that predominates in it. 

                                         Bob B
    

    
    	Is there anybody else out there ready to discuss anything
    	else...
    
    					Carla
    

    RE.192  Carla, how do you feel about the gold standard, for 
    instance ?

    Bob, it's clear you are furious from the tone of your note.  You sound
    extremely frustrated that your attempts at participation and
    understanding have been rebuffed.  I've been in that position in other
    circumstances, and it does get exasperating after a while, especially
    when you and the group you are trying to communicate with cannot seem
    to find common ground. 
            
    It's frustrating to be on the other end and to feel like I don't always
    have enough energy to respond to and learn from the women AND also
    have the energy, skill and wisdom to process with the male members
    in this file in a way that's comfortable for them. 
    
    There just aren't that many places in my life where I can hear many
    women together discussing non-trivial things, so that's what I usually
    choose to focus on in here.
    
    You were one of the people I was hoping to have respond to my tennis
    club analogy (originally borrowed from Dave) over in Hot Buttons.61,
    I think.                                                     
    
    I'd still be interested in hearing what you think about that as
    a model.
    
    Holly

    RE .190
                 
    Just wanted to make a quick comment on a part of your reply that
    stuck with me:
    
    
    >There hasn't been one time that one of we males has offered and
    >opinion that there hasn't been one or more of the women come back
    >with claws extended.
    
    No matter where you are or what you talk about,
    someone is always going to have an opinion different from yours
    and will voice it (believe or not, this was brought to my attention
    this week).  If you look through this notes file again, you
    will see that a large majority of notes in which women are discussing
    something, or sharing an opinion on something, one or
    more men will also come in and disagree or turn the topic around
    and so on.  EX. 456 - Well men get abused too.  (Not a quote but
    close enough).  
    
    >women come back with claws extended
    
    What kind of remark is that?  I don't have claws.  My cat does!
    Why is it when a wman/women disagree with a man/men, she is a b@tch
    or labled with rude little phrases just becauses she sees things 
    differently or has a difference of opinion. 
    
    Don't we have the right to disagree with you, just as you disagree
    with us?  It goes both ways.   
    
    T

    	RE:  .191 Bob Barber's note 
    
    	Well, it didn't surprise me to see a few of the boys rally
    	round old Bob when he put out his "Quarterly Bash Report"
    	(subtitled "This Conference is F*cked.")
    
    	Yeah, we've seen his quarterly bash reports before.  Nothing
    	new here at all.  If anyone missed it (or missed his *earlier*
    	bash reports), this is a synopsis:
    
    	First he tells us that he has been in the conference awhile
    	     [as if we could have missed him.]
    
    	Then he tells us what women are feeling.  [He is dead wrong
    	     on all counts, of course, but what he lacks in comprehension
    	     he makes up for in hostility.]
    
    	Then he tells us *WHY* women feel the way they do.  [Ah yes,
    	     Dr. Sigmund Barber attempts to psychoanalyze women.  This
    	     is where he really starts to get cooking.  You can almost
    	     *hear* the cheers from the rest of the woman-bashers when
    	     he gets going on this track.  It sounds like an "Anti_Woman
    	     Pep Rally" -- quite effective, but not his best work.
     	     I've seen him sound off worse than this against women many
    	     times.  But a good effort, nonetheless.)

    	Then he closes with his final cutting blows.  This is where
    	     the rest of the women-bashers really get their thrills.
    	     Bob Barber tells women off *BUT GOOD* in their own conference.
	     (There will be some heavy toasting and congratulating tonight.)

    Well, on the whole, I'd give this one a 2.5* rating.  Not his best,
    but certainly a decent showing.  Nice mixture of hostility with
    pseudo-analysis of women.  After a few beers, it probably sounds
    almost believable.
    
    If anyone wants to check out his earlier "Quarterly Bash Reports,"
    here are the references:
    
    	369.5		6-Jul-1987		"personal opinion"
    	479.24	       18-Sep-1987   "Yes, here I go again.." [yes,again]
	561.190	       17-Dec-1987   "You should have your own file"
    					   [this must have been meant
    					     as our Christmas present]
    
    What's even funnier is that, yes, he *does* go to the Womannote's
    parties.  Of course, his name tends not to appear on the pre-party
    posted lists in the conference (it's too embarrassing to advertise
    that one of our most famous woman-bashers is going to be at the
    party.)  Faulkner's name was left off the list for the same reason.
    
    Well, none of this is that surprising or new to us.  For centuries,
    women have **often** suffered *most* at the hands of those who claim
    to love women the best.
    
    Ho hum.  Now, about the gold standard.....
    
    						       Suzanne...

    Eagle,
    
    If you actually look at the notes, you'll see...
    
    Maggie wrote 1.0 at 9 o'clock.
    
    Maggie (got nervous? and) introduced herself at 2 o'clock, using
    the next note.
    
    She gave it a title indicating what *she* was interested in.
    
    Jym Dyer wrote 3.0 a few days later.
    
    You may blame Jym Dyer, if you like, or chide Maggie for putting
    her interests before the Standard Noting Practice she may have
    been ignorant of, or was too audience-shy to remember, or heap
    guilt on yourself for not treating 2.* as a general registry.
    
    							Ann B.

    	RE:  .201
    
    	Hi Iggles,
    
    	Just realized that "RE: .191" was a typo in my .199  (It should
    	have been "RE: .190," which is the correct number of Bob's note
    	and was listed again when I posted the complete collection
    	of his "Quarterly Bash Notes.")
    
    	In my .199, I was referring to the *other* boys who rallied
    	round old Bob.  :-)

    							   Suzanne...

    	RE:  .202
    
    	Thank *you* for validating .199!
    

    Well I don't understand why you applaud Bob even though he uses
    the phrase "women come back at us with claws extended" 
    
    And now all at once (after a woman replies) you concerned with name
    calling!
    
    Gee thats strange.....
    
    T

    WOW! .205 not even going to try to justify your reply, instead 
    just deleted it, see the error of your ways maybe?  Or is it that 
    you just don't want to be scratched?
    
    
    
    

    As Ann (.200) very correctly supposed, when I created this file I was
    rather new to DECnoting (for reasons I won't go into here) and followed
    the model with which I *was* familiar: PLATO gnotes ('g' for general,
    as opposed to p<ersonal>notes alias email).  Is there anyone else in
    the community who had experience of PLATO in the mid-70's and knows
    what I'm talking about?  If so, then you can testify to the truth of
    this:  there was no "standard" for introductions in gnotes; everyone
    did as they pleased.  And mostly they didn't do get-acquainted topics. 
                                                       
    Ann was right, too, that at the time I created string 2.* I was
    interested only in the two factors I specified in the title: (a) who we
    --women-- are as individuals and (b) what do we do at DEC.   I wasn't
    particularly interested in men as individuals in *this* file, and
    already knew that men are represented in every job category at DEC with
    the possible exceptions of office clerical and secretarial work. 
                     
    The only place Ann missed is in the idea of men putting their intros
    in 2.*; they've no reason to feel guilty for not doing so because
    the few who tried got them summarily moved.
    
    						=maggie

    	RE:  .209
    
    	Hank, I would have responded to Santa Bob's "diatribe" with
    	discussion, but his note was written rhetorically.  He was
    	not making statements to open a discussion, he was making
    	pronouncements (i.e., pontificating) about this conference,
    	how women feel, and why women feel they way we do.
    
    	Besides, I was expecting this note.  He does this every quarter
    	(in fact, this note was within ONE DAY of being one exact quarter
    	after the last "This conference is f*cked" note.)  He probably
    	puts it on his calendar.  :-)
    
    	At any rate, what's to discuss?  We know Santa Bob thinks this
    	conference is f*cked.  We know that you (and some others) feel
    	this way, too.  So what?
    
    	So why do you stay if you hate it here so much?
    
    							Suzanne...

    re. 209
    
    >Again, I still fail to see how name calling promotes rational
    discussion.
    
    I agree, thats why I don't do it.
    
    >But of all that person wrote, is that all that anyone saw?
    
    No, but it that is what sticked out when I read it.  Maybe because
    I just don't appreciate being thought of as someone who has my claws
    extended.  What the author of 190 was implying (in my opinion) was
    that women are sitting at their terminals waiting for a man to say
    something so they can jump on him.  Which (again in my opinion)
    is dog-doo.  I am sure the women in this file have better things
    to do.  In my next reply I will go over 190's entire note and tell
    you how I see it.  Just didn't have the time before...
    
    T

    	RE:  .209
    
    	By the way, here is the quote that showed me precisely how
    	interested Santa Bob was in promoting discussion:
    
      .190>  by now I've got half to all of you in an uproar, ready
      .190>  to come back and blast the hell outa me.  GO AHEAD...
      .190>  do it, for as Rhett said, "Frankly Scarlet, mydear I
      .190>  don't give a damn".
    
    	So why respond rationally?  It's not even worth getting mad 
    	about it (so I chose to see the humor instead.)  And there
    	was plenty of *that* available in his note.
    
    	Just another in a continuing series of "A Blowhard Shoots
    	His Mouth Off in Womannotes" (and having others in the
    	Womannotes-bashing club come in saying, "Yeah!  You tell those
    	women!!!")  <add sounds of serious chest beating and belching>
    
    	So what do you want to talk about now?  (We never did settle
    	the issue of how people feel about the gold standard.)
    
    							Suzanne...

    	RE:  .214
    
    	Hank, there are women all across the spectrum (including the most
    	feminist of us) who do not feel welcome here either.
   
    							Suzanne

    	RE:  .214
    
    	Now, let me tell you what Santa Bob's next move will be.
    
    	He is waiting to see how many women get mad at him so that
    	he can launch his series of "Rebuttals to the 'This Conference
    	is F*cked' Quarterly Bash Reports."
    
    	What he does at this point is to start the series on a more
    	individual level (it becomes "*You* are f*cked" instead of
    	"This Conference is F*cked.")
    
    	So.  Women exist in this conference being subject to *series*
    	of insulting rhetoric, and with Santa Bob (baseball bat
    	poised) waiting to see who has the guts to answer him *this*
    	time around.

    	Women (in general) are *definitely* not safe nor welcome here.
    	(I wonder how black, Jewish and gay employees would feel if
    	*their* conferences were as frequently bashed as ours is.)
    	I wonder what the corp would do if it kept happening to one
    	of *those* conferences instead of ours.
    
    							Suzanne...

    Re .190
    
    >Irregardless of any thoughts to the contrary.  I know for the most
    >part (and have a strong sense for the balance) that there hasn't
    >hasn't been a single man, who has participated in this file that
    >that condones any of the hurt, pain, troubles, problems, eveil,
    >discrimination, or oppression of any individual or women as a
    >group.  But it is painfully obvious that a good number of women
    >who are in this file think so.  It is there in what you write,
    >and the way you answer us
    
    I am assuming that when you say YOU you are referring to each and
    every women in this file.  You act like we are one big clan out to
    get men?  I don't think that is the case.  And I don't think I write
    like that either.  Maybe there are women in here that don't
    particualarly care for men being in the file, or men period.  So?
    You will find that in any valuing difference file.  Blacknotes, Mennotes,
    ACOA, GDE, and the rest.  Why the big deal, I think for the most
    part that alot has been accomplished in this file with the
    contributions from the women and the men.
    
    >Why ?  Well thats fairly obvious also.  For before and during talking
    >with us, a number of you have literally been dumped on by a man
    >men in your life.  
    
    I think there are approximately 212 women in this file.  Probably
    more but I think thats how many introduced themselves.  Who gave
    you this POWER to know everything about us.  
    
    >Irregardless of what any and all the polls say, you women want
    >this to be an exclusive, femal only file.
     
    Gee Bob, you are really amazing, the way you can tell me what I
    want and that irregardless of what I say I want, you know what I
    really want! (what? :0)  Who are you speaking to?  You say YOU WOMEN
    and so on, like we are all the same person.  yes, we are all women,
    yes we share the same opinions on a number of things, it does not
    make us all the same.  We are still individuals with our different
    thoughts, likes, dislikes, etc.  So how can you come in and tell
    all of us what our problem is and we see things, etc., like your 
    some type of God or something.
    
    Personally I don't mind the file being women and men.  We could
    do without the constant challenging though. 
    
    
    >frankly Scarlet, mydear I don't give a damn.
    
    Well then why the fuss, just leave...
    
    re 209
    
    What I got out of Bob's message was that he seems to THINK he KNOWS
    everything about us.  As if in other LIVES he was each and every
    one of us.  Lived our lives and therefore knows all he proclaims
    to know.
    
    T

    The problem with the Gold Standard is that gold is being dug
    out of the ground at a constant or linearly increasing rate,
    whereas wealth is increasing at an exponential rate, due to the
    technology explosion -- or whatever you want to call this result
    of centuries of hacking away at the frontiers of everything.
    
    Therefore a Gold Standard cannot possibly reflect the monetary
    reality at all well, and it can only get worse with the passage
    of time.
    
    							Ann B.

< Note 561.216 by NEXUS::CONLON >

    Santa Bob "comes out swinging" to see who he can get to "come out with
    claws extended"   8^{).

>    	Women (in general) are *definitely* not safe nor welcome here.
>    	(I wonder how black, Jewish and gay employees would feel if
>    	*their* conferences were as frequently bashed as ours is.)
>    	I wonder what the corp would do if it kept happening to one
>    	of *those* conferences instead of ours.

    I don't know about the black or gay notes files but BAGELS has been,
    fortunately, relatively free of such.  On the other hand if you
    want to see some REAL bashing read soc.culture.jewish on the usenet
    sometime. Actually, I think they moved the fight to talk.politics.mideast
    8^{).

    Dick _visitor_from_BAGEL_land_

    RE: *
    
    Since I've been frequently told that I have absolutely no standards
    at all, the gold standard sounds like something that could fill
    this void in my personality.
    
    I do have good taste, however, and so does my SO. :-) 
    
      Alan  
              

    re: .193
    
    	It would be wonderful if the gold standard *meant*
    	anything, but unfortunately the U.S. only believes
    	in credit.  Switzerland is a good example of a country
    	which *does* base its currency on the gold standard.
    
    	In any case, a little gold around my neck is always
    	nice...  *8-)
    
    					Carla
    

    re: .199
    
    
    	I love it.  
    
    		_peggy
    

    
    
    As far the the Gold Standard I believe the old saying is:
    
    
    	Who has the gold makes the rules
    
    
    (he he he he)
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |    
    	 	And she has all the gold....

    Eagles...
    
    this question has been raised before when you were in the file
    
    I think by Mike Mahler...
    
    but for those of you who are innatentive or newcomers.. :-)
    
    originally the note # 2 read what to women do at dec? it was
    not intended as a registration note...there weren't a lot of
    registration notes in non work related files back in April 1986.
    
    Then Jym Dyer (may his memory be green :-) started the separate
    note # 7 for men) so what now is established custom started out
    as a simple coincidence of notes very early in the file's history
    
    ...back when all was innocent...and 1.1 was unquestioned...and
    only Maggie was a moderator
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator/and historian/and noter :-)

    Keep in mind that a good dictionary is compiled by sending researchers
    out to find out how the words are being used in practice.  If most
    utterances of the word sexism were in a certain context, it is the
    responsibility of the researcher to note that for readers.  

    RE:  .*  "standard"
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
              Silence may be golden, but it is undervalued here.
                      
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Since I have been personally straightend out by the highest
    authorities(male noters) I thought all of you ladies should 
    know also.
    
    There is "no support for womannotes being a woman's file. It is
    only topics of interest to women..."(if the men agree that it is
    of interest to women)
    
    All are welcome(as long as you know your place baby!)
    
    As with the majority of things men set the agenda(after all
    they are Right!)
    
    We can discuss anything we want as long as it is ok with the men.
    
    
    So please please discuss some really juicy womens's stuff. After
    all voyeurism is great!
    
    
    P.S.
    Right on Suzanne and Lee
    

	Maybe we should all try to ignore provokative notes.  I have mixed 
        feelings about this file.  I'm glad that it's here, and some of the
	notes that have been written have touched me and taught me a great
	deal.  Other notes in this file have really shocked me.  I'm often
	surprised by the level of anger expressed toward women and by
	the shameless manner in which hateful things are said.  I think 
        the analogy to racism is a good one.  If we inserted the word
        "black" wherever we saw the word woman in some of the notes in
        this file... we'd probably see charges being filed.

	Here is my dilemma:  on the one hand I think if it's so bad, why
	don't I just leave?  There are lots of women in my life with whom 
	I can share things.  And I have to tolerate a lot of tough stuff
	in my work encounters with men, so I really should avoid "social" 
        settings in which there are so many men making me angry...   
        But then I start to think about what it means when women keep
        backing down every time men make them uncomfortable.  Working to 
        keep this file as a place where women can share experiences
        (regardless of what the men do) has become very important to me.
        But I have limits.  And I will not fight these battles as Men have 
        framed them.  

	So (after talking with a friend who's made a similar resolve) I have 
	decided to avoid responding to provokative things that men say here.  
	I don't think I'm capable of changing anyone's mind, and I don't
	think it's my responsibility to try.  Yes, I think the world would
	be a better place if men and women understood each other better, but
	I believe that one of my human rights is to decide when and where I
	will engage in the quest for improved communication with men and
	when I will talk things over with other women.  I would like to 
	encourage the other women in this file to consider exercising that
	same right.  We don't have to take the bait.  We *CAN* choose how
	we wish to spend our time and energy.
                   
	Happy Holidays and Peace to all,

	Justine

    Ditto, Justine.
    ann marie

    Exactly. Putting one's energy into something always gives it
    validation. It's perfectly acceptable to choose where one's energy
    goes. 
    
    Well said, Justine.
    
    Dawn
    

    I think women should put energy into finding disk space for a women
    only file.
    
    Whatching all the bantering is fun though. "PLAY BALL!"

ignore the obnoxious...

Nancy

    re:  .190 
    
    ". . .men, for the most part ARE NOT welcome in this file.  That
    should be very obvious to anyone that has the most minute amount
    of intuitive intuition."
    
    Why "should" it be so obvious?  If it isn't (to me), does that mean I
    don't have ". . .the most minute. . .etc?  Says who(m)?  You?
    
    Shall I begin making comments about the intelligence/intuition
    level of those who don't believe that men are, for the most
    part, welcome in this conference?
    
    Steve
    
    

      
        RE  IN ANSWER TO NEXUS::CONLON ET ALL

        Ah yes folk's and all through the replys from the illustrious
        Suzzane we have, The truth according to Suzzane. Justice according
        to Conlon and THE Womennotes way according to MS voice of the file.
        Should we all get down and humble ourselves? I mean THE voice of the 
        file has spoken. For in her severe down playing of my words, she 
        implies that theres nothing wrong within this file. Everyone is 
        welcome here. This is the place where people can come together and 
        share personal and introspective things. And last but not least, that
        anyone that disagrees with her is totally wrong. Excuse me wile I use 
        my trash can to get sick in.

        I must admit that I did almost laugh myself right out of my chair 
        at the first reply. I mean I didn't realize she could be so funny.
        You can tell when the truth is getting to someone, when they begin 
        to reply by calling you names
 
     >      -< A Christmas Present from Santa (Bob) Barbera... >

        When they make light that your supported, and others share your 
        views. Also neglects to recognize that some women (aside from just
        the "good old boys") also tend to agree with me.
 
     >   Well, it didn't surprise me to see a few of the boys rally
     > 	 round old Bob when he put out his "Quarterly Bash Report"

        And use low, crude language to describe what you have written

     >	(subtitled "This Conference is F*cked.")
        
        Because I don't play blindly lead sheep, and have the audacity 
        to say that theres problems in her all too precious and perfect 
        file. Yes hers, not yours, Oh, you didn't know that now did you.
        I mean who else defends it so vermintly and consistently acts as
        the voice of authority for the conference. Who else reacts every 
        time if anything interpreted (by her) as a negative is put in the 
        file, its taken as direct attack on her. And on account of this I
        and others have no comprehension, only hostility. 
  
    >	Then he tells us what women are feeling.  [He is dead wrong
    >	on all counts, of course, but what he lacks in comprehension
    >   he makes up for in hostility.]
    
       Yup here we go again, she always construes how people are feeling
       with how they are acting. And goes on to make further attempts to 
       discredit and deny any validity to what I say. What I do find so 
       unique is that she takes such a personal interest in what I do. I
       have it on good sources she calls people to see if I was there.
 
   >  What's even funnier is that, yes, he *does* go to the Womannote's
   >  parties. 

      Then of course she needs to take a swipe at me to cover it up.

   >   Of course, his name tends not to appear on the pre-party
   >  posted lists in the conference (it's too embarrassing to advertise
   >  that one of our most famous woman-bashers is going to be at the
   >  party.)  Faulkner's name was left off the list for the same reason.
     
      Not only does she assume why my name wasn't on the list, but goes 
      even further to again call me names (woman-basher). It would seem
      that anyone that disagrees with "ms always right" is a bonafied 
      woman-basher. No, the reason why my name wasn't on the list couldn't
      have have a valid reason such as, I don't make commitments to someone
      when, because of circumstances (reserves) I may NOT be able to go.
      Of course its OK for anyone else but myself or Mr Faulkner to do this.   
      Does anyone else detect a trend here ?

      Better yet I didn't see one note in here about my causing problems,
      nor being a disruptive woman-basher at either the last or the previous
      WOMANNOTES party. Isn't it strange that a number of women actually
      told me that it was nice I could attend and was there. I mean I must 
      be a real horror show at these partys. Thats why I've been approached 
      to have one at my house by a number of women in the file. It would lead
      one to believe that theres only *ONE* person in the file that is convinced
      that I'am so bad. And for her finally, I am elevated from woman-basher to
      the equivalent of the Marquis De Sade.
    
   >  Well, none of this is that surprising or new to us.  For centuries,
   >  women have **often** suffered *most* at the hands of those who claim
   >  to love women the best.
    
     Now I ask any of you ladies that attended the party and met me, am
     I anything such as the ogie that ms Conlon makes me out to be ?

   From .203    
   >  	In my .199, I was referring to the *other* boys who rallied
   >  	round old Bob.  :-)
 
     Whats amatter Suzzane ? Is it too much for you to handle that
     there are other people out in this world that agree with me ?
     I guess it must be for you just keep justifying your actions.
     IE from .211
    
    >	Hank, I would have responded to Santa Bob's "diatribe" with
    >	discussion, but his note was written rhetorically.  He was
    >	not making statements to open a discussion, he was making
    >	pronouncements (i.e., pontificating) about this conference,
    >	how women feel, and why women feel they way we do.

     Again we have her twisting observations and opinions into my
     making statements on peoples feelings. Again, because I'am 
     a man, I'am not entitled to have an opinion, I'am suppose to
     keep my opinions and thoughts to myself, just because *YOU* 
     don't agree with or like them. Its what I said in the original
     text, contrary to the statements asking for opinions, men and 
     their opinions ARE NOT welcome, for I am not the only person 
     this attitude apply to.

     I realize that this headset does not apply to every woman in
     this file. And to those who wish things were different, I 
     apologize to you, I am sorry if you've felt this has included you.
     But it does apply to that all too select hard core group that has a 
     definite tendency to judge what is accecptable vs not in here.

     And for another thing now here you go telling everyone in this 
     file how I think and feel. Hummmm doesn't this sound familiar
     to some degree. Ms always screaming "don't tell me what I'am 
     thinking" doing it herself. For your information I don't think 
     this file Is " f*cked" as you put it. I just get a little tired 
     of you and the other hard cores dictating policy when none of you
     are a moderator, and feel like telling you so. I also find it really
     in poor taste to go around telling people that I made such a statement,
     using such language, when its a lie. 
 
   > 	At any rate, what's to discuss?  We know Santa Bob thinks this
   > 	conference is f*cked.  We know that you (and some others) feel
   > 	this way, too.  So what?
   
    The problem here is not the conference, its in the people that insist
    upon domineering and selfishly controlling it for their own purpose. 
    These people are all hard core types with a very narrow point of view.
    One of the biggest perpetrators of this is *YOU* You have got to be 
    one of the most narrow minded persons it has been my sorry experience
    to have had contact with. You have a tunnelvision problem thats about
    as comparable as a laser beam. You are actually deaf and blind to what
    goes on around you. Worse, you contribute to the problems most of the
    time. While there are some women who would like this to be a sharing 
    ground, you and others like you only want it to serve your selfish
    selfcentered selves. Your attitudes come across real strong. If you
    ain't one of us, and don't agree with us, you ain't dog meat.

    This file had tremendous possibilities. Those possibilities grow less 
    and less each day, when this file is dominated by people that want
    it to serve only their needs. Lets face it, you've tipped and shown
    your hand too many times. You want your own private closed door secret
    society, where as the childish signs would read "no men allowed".

    You don't want men here, we only serve to "hamper" you and your
    private discussions.
  
    You don't want varied opinions here, only support for your own
    causes, be what they may.
 
    Any woman (or man for that matter) who comes here and is not a 
    declared feminist, is scorned, put down, made fun of and shunned.

    Your guise of wanting equality is a smoke screen. What you really 
    want is superiority. To be able to dominate and dictate not only 
    to men but to those women who would not support you. 

    You have zero tolerance to any author, thought, book, artical,
    that lays clame that both men and women, or women themselves,
    may if fact be responsible in any way shape or form, for any
    of the problems that exsist today.

    All we ever hear is what you want,  you don't want to hear our 
    problems, questions, or on the other side experiences or advice.
    No its always what you want. Just like the streets, one way.  
  
>    	So why do you stay if you hate it here so much?

   Its not a matter of "hating" it, we don't. The reason the rest of
   us keep hanging in there is that, I suppose we're under this delusion 
   that it may someday change. That someday the women of this file that 
   really do want to communicate, share experiences between women and men,
   and seek solutions to the problems between them, may in fact, become a
   force in this file.

>    	Hank, there are women all across the spectrum (including the most
>    	feminist of us) who do not feel welcome here either.

  I wonder why ? When is it going to occur to you that your one of the
  reasons why. When you constantly put people down for not being one of
  you, it doesn't take long for the message to get out. I'll say it again,
  why don't you and the others go off and start your own private file,
  I can't help but know you'll be a lot happier. Those of us who would
  like to discuss the real concerns about the future of men and women 
  together, with out the hard line stand, won't be there to disturb you, 
  and visa versa.

                                     Bob B    
    							
    

    In line with the policy someone suggested of "let's not waste
    everyone's time  on this stuff", I hope no one replies to .244.
    
    Speaking for myself, of course.  I'm not a moderator.
    
    

    	RE:  .245
    
    	Agree with you 100% (thanks for the reminder of our new
    	suggested policy.)  :-)
    
    						Suzanne... ;-)
    

    re .245 and .246
    
    Thankyou both

oops!  made it through about 20 before I stopped

Nancy

    RE: .249
    
    > ~--e--~  Eagles_Grow_Tired_Of_Ducking_Stones_+_Shotgun_Blasts...
    >          ..._And_If_Mr.Faulkner_Has_Shown_Wisdom_And_Left_...
    >          ..._What's_Keeping_the_REST_Of_Us_Here_???  (boredom?)
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^
    
    Since you posed the question so nicely, perhaps you'd care to be
    the first on your block to answer.
    
      Alan

    RE: .249
    
    > ~--e--~  Eagles_Grow_Tired_Of_Ducking_Stones_+_Shotgun_Blasts...
    >          ..._And_If_Mr.Faulkner_Has_Shown_Wisdom_And_Left_...
    >          ..._What's_Keeping_the_REST_Of_Us_Here_???  (boredom?)
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^
    
      Kerry left ????? Now I know its time to get outa here .... :-)
      No, on second thought I think it may be more interesting to stay.
      Besides, somebodys gotta do it.
    
                                         Bob B

RE: .161

"What you do not seem to realize is that Peggy had a nightmare about being
helpless because she was a woman living without a man. 
    
Have *you* ever been a woman living alone?  No?  Then perhaps you've dreamt
about being a woman living alone?  No?"

Perhaps not, but I *have* dreamed about what it is like having a nightmare about
being a man living without a woman.  I believe that I have something to
contribute to such a note... 

RE: Conlon:  .164

"That quote you made of "my" words was taken almost word for word from a note
written by a man to women here."

Excuse me, those are my words you are butchering here.  That note was written
from *me* to *everyone*, man and woman alike, including myself.  It was not
directed from one sex to another.  Quit putting words in my mouth. 

I had never said 'what you are doing is surely a sign of deep-seated hatred of
X'.  These are not my words, they are yours, and you deserve to be called to
account for them.

"You even take offense when one woman says "I agree with you" to another."

Dave's note does not read that way to me...  He specifically says that that
is not what offended him.

"Well, what if women SIMPLY want to hear what other WOMEN have to say, for once,
instead of hearing from men?"

Why does it have to be INSTEAD OF?  The act of men replying does not/should not
prevent women from replying.  *if* it does, then I would tend to think the might
possibly be with the women, as much as with the men. 

"If there is any file in all of DEC where that should be allowed, it should be
this one."

It isn't allowed, so the point is moot.

RE: .169

Carefull, I think you are approaching your boiling point...

RE: .170

"Before long, we had a man in the middle of it, screaming at the top of his
lungs, "THIS IS NOT EQUALITY!!!!""

Because it was being sold as equality, the good old days...  and it wasn't.

"Why is it that the files for black employees, Gay employees and Jewish
employees can have wonderful moments like the ones I try to enjoy here without
having other groups *screaming* in the middle of their discussions?"

Possibly because half the reason is that the black conference doesn't have some
people saying, 'ok, we want the blacks in charge from here out...'  Et Al... 

RE: .177

It certainly does help to learn if you are permitted to ask questions...

RE: .180

"Some might feel that nothing goes "too far" if equality is gained from it." 

That's "too far"! :-)

"I think that there are unstated problems when a man, any man, feels that a
woman, any woman, should not be able to discuss issues with her peers, privately
or semi-privately."

Perhaps NOTES is not the place?

"There are conferences that do just the opposite apparently with corporate
permission."

Such as?  The key qualifier in your statement is "apparently".

"Perhaps some feel they have a constitutional guarantee to be heard. Sorry, not
in a private corporate conference."

To what do you apply your qualifier "private"?  This is not a private
conference. This *is* a private corporation.

RE: .182

"It is not always the goal for the women who contribute in this conference to to
teach the men.  Many women are not here to help men but to help themselves and
other women."

WARNING: SEXIST SYNTAX ERROR!

Part of the problem is men, just as part of the problem is women.  If you do not
address the part of the problem that is men, as well as the part of the problem
that is women, part of the problem will remain.

"Thus it is only hurting some men's goals if they are left out of a particular
discussion."

Untrue...

RE: .187

"Some seem to be here to keep us in our place, to show us the error of our ways,
to straighten us out.  Why do they stay?"

I think that the same can be said for virtually everyone in this conference.
All that differs is where people think that place is...

RE: .190

Note .189 is a good case in point...

"My recommendations to all the moderators concerned would be to make WOMENNOTES
for women only, MENNOTES for men only and HUMAN_RELATIONS for those who wish to
share."

That has come to me as the best idea, as well...

RE: .199

Yeah, that's right, belittle other people's notes, that's the ticket!

RE: .213

My goodness, four replies to a reply, and not a 'sensible' response in the lot! 

RE: .217

"Hank, there are women all across the spectrum (including the most feminist of
us) who do not feel welcome here either."

Well, seeing as men "all across the spectrum" don't feel welcome here, I
suppose that's equality... :-(

RE: .217

"You act like we are one big clan out to get men?"

I don't follow that from the note you quoted...

"Maybe there are women in here that don't particularly care for men being in
the file, or men period.  So? You will find that in any valuing difference
file."

Pardon me, I don't believe that is true...

"Who gave you this POWER to know everything about us."

I think that statement to which you are replying is qualified well enough. It
does not claim to know everything... "For before and during talking with us, a
number of you have literally been dumped on by a man men in your life."

"You say YOU WOMEN and so on, like we are all the same person."

You quote Bob out of context, a better quote would be: "I'm NOT crying man
latter, I am saying that, for the most part, that Irregardless of what any and
all the polls say, you women want this to be an exclusive, female only file."

You leave out the "for the most part".  But I think that I wouldn't quite
agree with Bob on the "most" part.  I'd guess 1/3...

"Well then why the fuss, just leave..."

What Bob doesn't give a damn about is the response he's expecting, not the
conference in general...

"What I got out of Bob's message was that he seems to THINK he KNOWS everything
about us."

You quoted maybe ~25 lines of a ~100 line note.  You have problems with the 25
lines, but ignore (so it seems; it is a common appearance) the other 75 lines,
and respond with the about, rather then address the rest of the note. 

RE: .218

That's very interesting... :-|  So what does make a good Standard?

RE: .234

"Silence may be golden, but it is undervalued here."

A silence in NOTES is not readily discernible.  A silence is only discernible by
comparing the dates of consquitive replies, and 'noting':-) a large differential
in the times.  How can you value something that you don't see?

RE: .235

"There is "no support for womannotes being a woman's file. It is only topics of
interest to women..."(if the men agree that it is of interest to women)"

Just *whom* are you quoting??? Not anyone/man in this note...

RE: .237

"If we inserted the word "black" wherever we saw the word woman in some of the
notes in this file... we'd probably see charges being filed."

If you inserted the word "black" .... probably see charages being filed...

You, as anyone, have your choices...

RE: .244 BARBER RE: CONLON

If I didn't see so many of BARBER *AND* CONLON on each other's case, this
would be funny... as it is, it's too true...

"One of the biggest perpetrators of this is *YOU* You have got to be one of the
most narrow minded persons it has been my sorry experience to have had contact
with."

Now wait a minute, Bob, I believe that you owe Suzanne an apology for these
remarks... She is not (in my experience, mostly outside of WOMANNOTES) any of
these things!  She's got some problem, but I don't know what it is aso I don't
presume to bitch, except about the symptoms. 

RE: .249

"But look at that and see how angry men are getting when treated like women have
typically been treated for untold ages ..."

Perhaps true that women have been treated like that, but (case in point) men
have also been treated like that.  From such tactics it seems like women aren't
any more interested in Equality then men are...

"Who knows what sort of new values might evolve if this file is allowed to
evolve under the control/domination of these "hard care types" with their own
unique point of view!  Would that be so bad?"

Yes, I can't think of such as generating any better values...

"Let's say that men really "ARE NOT welcome" ...  Shouldn't we then do the
"logical" thing"

There has been some specific encouragement to stay.... 

Anyone who reads this far gets a 5$ chocolate cigar for Christmas!

Jim.

    
    	Here's hoping that all of us have a safe and joyous
    	Holiday Season!
    
    	Thanks to Justine's suggestion, we have a new workable
    	policy in this conference that gives me much hope for
    	the future of communication in Womannotes.
    
    	Looking forward to the New Year with the wonderful people
    	I've met here.
    
    						    Much love,
    						      Suzanne...

    in re the title...no I don't think so Jim...this one is enough
    for me now....
    
    and I think you owe me the cigar :-)
    
    Bonnie
    who is taking a break from preparing dinner and wrapping packages
    to catch up on =wm=

    RE: Note 561.253 by YODA::BARANSKI  / 242 lines
    
    Jim,
    
    I apologize in advance for what I am going to say, but as I have
    had the same problem with several of your notes, I thought it was
    worth mentioning:
    
    I find it extremely confusing that you reply to lots of notes at
    the same time, sometimes giving just the note number, sometimes
    note number + author, sometimes note number + author + quotation
    of the note. In your note 561.253, your referred to notes as far
    back as 561.161 and I went through your note in some bewilderment
    as I didn't want to go back and forth between the note I was reading
    and the notes you were quoting (the connection is already very slow
    as it is).
    
    I believe that both the multiple references and the length of your
    note may very well detract from the message you are trying to get
    through. 
                           
    I have great trouble empathizing with what you are writing, because
    I find the contents difficult to get at. When I had finished reading
    the above mentioned note, I thought: "All well and fine, but what
    specific point(s) was he trying to get at?"
                       
    Joana                        

RE: .256 Joana

I understand that long notes are hard to read...  but is 10 10 line notes
really easier to read then one 100 line note?  Plus the over head for each
note?

I refer to individual note numbers then I am replying to an individual note,
author's names when I am more replying to a persons's stand in general and not
to any specific note.  I give a quotation or other such remark when there is one
that will summarize what I am replying to.  Often I will reply to more then one
quotation in the same note.

""All well and fine, but what specific point(s) was he trying to get at?""

Lots of specific points...  Would it really help to break each reply into a
seperate note?  Is it worth the overhead?  Also, I EXTRACT all the unseen
replies of a topic at once, and reply to them all so that I have one long wait,
instead of a lot of short waits, so that I may do something usefull in the
meantime.

Jim. 

    Reply to .256; Joana,
    
    I disagree. Jim should put it all in one reply. That way those that
    don't want to read his reply have to hit next unseen only once. 
    
    Please keep it that way Jim.

    Yes Jim, please keep it that way_:-)

    It might help if you put in the noter's name on each re:.  It sometimes
    gets confusing about who you are replying to.
    

    <--(.264)
    
    Bob, there are times when I positively do not know what to make
    of you!
    
    						=maggie
    
    My best idea so far is 2 pair of shoes, a briefcase, and a doorstop.
    
    ;')

    re .265 re .264   Have pity on him, Maggie. Anybody working at
    2 AM west coast time is bound to be a bit skeewoggy :-)
    
    But my shoe size is 9 1/2 E if you get serious.
    
    Dana_who_needs_a_pair_of_loafers_8-)

    I am getting a bit exasperated at the recent rash of segregated
    notes and the subsequent generation of notes that are male replies
    to female notes and female replies to the male replies to the female
    notes etc, etc.
    
    Isn't the real problem not men responding but someone being obnoxious?
    I would prefer that the moderators concentrate on limiting the obnoxious
    notes rather than on maintaining segregation.
    
    I really think that this new policy of moderator enforced segregation
    is a very bad idea, and the moderators should really consider the
    implications.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    I've also found this latest separation stuff confusing.  I think
    the purpose behind creating _some_ women only notes was to provide
    a less volatile space for women to discuss sensitive issues.  I
    think it's silly to have men and women calling back and forth to 
    each other from one note to the other.  I think if a woman wants to 
    start a note for women only, she should do so without creating a 
    parallel male string.  If a noter wants input from men AND women, let 
    the note stand as one for men and women.
                                                                    
    my opinion,
    
    Justine
    

No, what we really need for every topic are separate reply strings for

-- comments from women

-- comments from men

-- comments from women about the comments from men

-- comments from men about the comments from women

-- comments from women on how men don't listen to what they say

-- comments from men on how women don't listne to what they say

-- exhortations from female moderators to keep to the topic.

-- exhortations from male moderators to keep to the topic.

-- and, last but not least, the usual yelling from the people who are
   yelling at each other in every other note in this file.

Martin.

    re .271  Thank you Martin, you've just given me the funniest headache
    I ever had :-)
    
    Dana

re: .274:

>    	Hmm, is this the right note for this?

I dunno, what sex are you?

M.

    I have the eerie feeling that this isn't the right note,but I;m
    not sure I can sort this out to *find* the right note. Argh.
    
    (In my humble opinion) this is getting out of hand. And all because
    *some* men cannot respect the wishes of *some* women to be able
    to discuss *some* stuff amongst ourselves. FLAME ON (I have never
    done this before - in any file) AND DON'T, PLEASE, QUOTE ME
    LEGALITIES!! A REQUEST WAS MADE. THAT REQUEST, FOR WHATEVER REASONS,
    WILL NOT BE HONORED BY *SOME* MEN. WE *KNOW* WHAT THE (&#$% 
    LEGALITIES ARE!! FLAME OFF
    
    So now we have what is rapidly becoming silliness simply because
    some men are constitutionally unable to abide the existence of a
    note in which women confer with *only* other women. 
    
    Maybe I'm crazy, but I have the sneaky feeling that if we agreed
    that sometimes it would be OK for women to have a women-only-reply
    note, and men have a men-only-reply note, and the rest of the time
    we do business as usual....everything would've been fine. You know,
    like when you're on the phone and you request that someone else
    give you privacy. A courtesy. Hell, it may not even be *legal*
    today to ask that someone give you privacy. You may not be valuing
    their differences, for all I know. But it's a *courtesy*, ya know???
    
    So courtesy is out and we have to have a huge harangue about LEGALITY
    and what-not. Couldn't we just be courteous and respect a wish for
    a Xn-only-reply-please ...?
    
    Couldn't we just be courteous? In general?
    
    --DE
    

RE: .276

"So now we have what is rapidly becoming silliness simply because some men are
constitutionally unable to abide the existence of a note in which women confer
with *only* other women."

Try exchanging the words "country club" for "note", "black" for "men", and
"white" for "women".

"some men are constitutionally unable to abide the existence of a"

'constitutionally'?  How well chosen are your words! :-)

You want privacy?  NOTES is a rotten method for privacy... If you want privacy,
use MAIL.

Courtesy?  Protest is seldom courteous.  It is not courteous to talk in a party,
and ignore / turn off / bleep out other people who might be interested in the
topic, or the people involved.

"Couldn't we just be courteous? In general?"

Yes, we could, if it was in fact, 'in general'.  And take care of those notes
which are not courteous, instead of discriminating against a class of people not
all of whom are courteous or uncourteous.  But it is not, 'in general', it is
'in sexist'. 

Some women make a big deal out of saying that they have to pamper precious
fragile male egos, and won't.  (BS, *if* you ask me)  Why should men make
a big deal out of pampering precious female egos?  Why should men treate
women different from men?

Last, but certainly not least, it is by no means unanamous that either sex
is for or against the sex restricted topics.

Jim.
    

    I hope these separate notes are not going to be the form of things
    to come--I think it makes reading a little odd.  And I think it
    gives the appearance of advocating separatism, when all a more pressing
    concern is the abuse of this notesfile by 2 or 3 irresponsible 
    individuals.
    
    Can I change my vote on the old Trashnotes topic?  Please?

    I had a revealing exchange of mail with a female who is a frequent
    contributor to this conference.  She was trying to argue her case for
    "no men" topics.  Eventually she came to the truth - what she REALLY
    wanted was "no jerks", but had concluded that saying "no men" would
    exclude enough of the jerks to suffice, and to hell with the non-jerk
    men who would have liked to participate.
    
    My personal opinion, after having participated in this conference
    since just after it opened, is that one of the "most jerky" noters
    currently participating is female, and thus a "no men" restriction
    would not make an appreciable difference.
    
    Perhaps if the advocates of separatism would cease trying to stuff
    men at the "back of the bus", this conference might start being
    more productive again.  An open mind plus a bit of guidance from
    the moderators will likely make a world of difference.
    
    I agree with Lisa in .278 that the problems we have with irresponsible
    individuals can be handled specifically by the moderators.  Parallel
    topics for men and women is simply apartheid in notes.
    
    				Steve

    Re: .281
    
    The term "jerk" was used repeatedly by my correspondent.  I merely
    picked up on it given the context.  It is not a term I would have
    used on my own.  And since I did not name her, give enough clues
    to identify her nor quote her words directly, I don't see why I
    need to ask permission.  If she recognizes herself and wishes to
    discuss the matter in a calm fashion, I am perfectly willing to
    do so offline.
    
    I do suppose it was not appropriate of me to indicate that I considered
    a particular female noter "jerky". 
    
    Really, my point is that the problem is not even individual noters,
    it's individual NOTES.  We all need to recognize what notes are
    not appropriate, and help the authors understand what parts of the
    text are inappropriate and why.  The name calling and bashing that
    has become the most common contribution here has really gotten
    out of hand.
    
    My fondest wish is that everyone could call a halt to this civil war
    and get back to discussing the issues.
    
    Re: .280
    
    I fail to understand the frequent derogatory references to MENNOTES
    in this conference.  By and large the members of that conference have
    been able to discuss all manner of sensitive issues without the
    abusive behavior that has been seen here.  Clearly, as a co-moderator
    of MENNOTES, I don't have an unbiased view, but we (the co-moderators)
    HAVE applied the philosophy I've been espousing here in dealing with
    individual problem contributions and it has worked well.  It has
    also worked well in HUMAN_RELATIONS (of which I am also a
    co-moderator).  Would it work here too?  I think so.
    
    If anything, I think that the greater participation in WOMANNOTES by
    men as compared to the participation in MENNOTES by women to be a
    compliment to the interest and open-mindedness of the men.  
    
    				Steve

    Gee, I liked the term "jerk". "Instigator" also came to mind.
    
    I have often found it effective to simply and totally ignore such
    people. This sometimes takes _enormous_ self-discipline, but the
    "instigators" quickly see that their main objective is not being
    met, and fade back into the darkness. It takes a little longer for
    the "jerks" to catch on, and one most fight a twinge of pity, but they 
    also will eventually disappear.
    
    Fragmented conversations in segrated notes are very hard to follow,
    and thus lose much of their potential. I would much rather skip
    over replies from known "instigators" and "jerks".
    
    (Now I will go back to quietly listening and learning, with an
    occasional blush of embarrassment for my gender...)

    I did not feel that Steve was twisting a private conversation to
    meet his personal needs and then exposing it unconstitutionally
    in this file.  I do feel, however, that the point he brought up about
    "a few Jerky Noters" was correct.  
    
    Just because he is a moderator in another Note implies that he should
    not under any circumstance have an opinion???  Much less an opinion
    that you don't like???   
    
    Get real!  
    
                                  - Sue

    um, is this really the best we can do, folks?
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

    	RE:  .289
    
    	Sue, you missed the point.  I don't object to his having
    	an opinion that doesn't agree with mine.  I never made
    	his opinion an issue at all.  He is entitled to it and
    	I did not make any attempts to change his mind about not
    	wanting woman only notes here.  (I did remind him that
    	the woman only notes are peaceful -- but that is *fact*
    	and not opinion.)  There is a big difference.
    
    	I disliked his tactics, pure and simple.  And *I* am entitled
    	to *my* opinion about that.  
    
    	I don't have to ask anyone's permission to object to what
    	I consider a counter-productive way to make peace in this
    	conference.
    
    	He writes an inflammatory note to convince us not to write
    	inflammatory notes anymore.
    
    	He calls someone a jerk to get us not to call each other
    	jerks anymore.
    
    	Sounds to me like the start of the "war to end all wars"
    	(i.e., it's a contradiction in terms.)
    
    	He has his opinion, you have your opinion, and I have my
    	opinion.  Now we've all had our say.
    
    	That *is* real.
    
    							Suzanne...
    
    	

    	RE:  .287  Hank Modica
    
    	You asked why I felt the need to argue against Steve's *mere*
    	opinion.  Hope I answered your question in my note to Sue
    	(when I stated that I have no objection whatsoever to his "mere"
    	opinion at all.)  I wish he had stated it a little more "merely"
    	than he did, but that's another issue...  :-)

    	I have not written many notes in the "women only" topics (although
    	I dearly love to read the notes there.)
    
    	Why have I not written?  It's because I would rather *listen*
    	to the voices of other women in the quiet notes.
    
    	I care very much to hear what other women think and feel when
    	things are quiet (and women are able to open up a bit more.)
    
    	I came into this conference to learn about women (and more about
    	myself, perhaps.)  In the space of one year, my opinions have
    	changed dramatically by what I've seen here.  I'm significantly
    	more conscious of other women (and how much we have to share.)
    
    	It makes me sad to see how many men are upset by the fact that
    	women sometimes want space to hear the voices of other women
    	*only*.  I understand how they must feel (and I am sorry that
    	the "women only" notes have hurt them.)

    	However, I can't deny that I love to read the "women only"
    	notes and I do support the decision to allow them in this
    	conference.
    
    							  Suzanne...

    Suzanne, you mention that Steve should adhere to a certain level
    of behavior since he's a moderator.
    
    He does moderate other conferences, but he is not a Womannotes
    moderator.  He may know more about Notes Etiquette than the average
    DECcie-off-the-street, but I feel strongly that he is not obligated
    to carry his moderator hat to every other conference he notes in.
                                                       
    I am much more restrained in the conferences I moderate, and enjoy
    noting in others where I can be a little freer (and even a bit
    controversial at times!).   I know I wouldn't like it if someone in one
    of those conferences said, "Oh, Holly, as a moderator you should know
    better than that!".   That's not my role there.
    
    
    

    	RE:  .294
    
    	Ok, you do have a point.
    
    	I only mentioned it because he almost always speaks of it
    	himself when he talks about the issues surrounding this
    	conference.  He often speaks to us as someone who is both a noter
    	*and* a moderator (and has spoken about the kinds of standards
    	he has set in the conferences that he moderates.)
    
    	That is why I was surprised to see the things he did in
    	his note last night (so I wanted to key in on some of the
    	things I've often heard him say about similar behavior.)
    
    							Suzanne...

    re .297:
    
    > If I were to write that note it would be censored instantly
    > for its sexist over tones and demeaning remarks. If I were female
    > I wouldn't stand for that type of behavior from a male in here.
      
    And if a woman had written it, it would be a policy statement.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Russ, that's nothing more than long-discredited freudian B.S.
    
    And I think you know that.  I would be personally grateful if you
    would tone down the pot-stirring a little.
    
    						=maggie

    RE: .301
    
    Steven, for many (some, a few) of us, whose contact with others
    is virtually 100% exclusively through the Conferences,
    it's not unreasonable to form an impression of someone - male or
    female - through what, and how, he or she writes.
    
    Some of the ways I end up categorizing people go like this:
    
      A. Great content and great presentation
      B. Shitty content but great presentation
      C. Great content but shitty presentation
      D. Shitty content and shitty presentation     
    
    If *I* form the impression that someone is consistently falling into
    Category D., it's apparent how I'm going to react in my mind to that 
    person.
    
      Alan 

    
    	As imperfect as people tend to be, I think it is often true
    	that the result of our actions is not the same as what we had
    	intended when we set out to act.
    
    	It is also true that people form *imperfect* impressions of
    	other people (i.e., only see what they want to see when a certain
    	individual's name appears.)
    
    	What that means is that there can be a lot of miscommunication
    	in notes (and that none of us is really in a position to judge
    	*anyone* that he or she happens to meet in notes.)
    
    							   Suzanne...

    Thank you, Kerry. 
    
    Interesting point.

    
    	RE:  .296
    
    	Hank, sorry for having misunderstood your question (but that
    	is OK, I guess, since you also misunderstood my answer.)  :-)
    
    	What you call "merely" expressing an opinion is a misnomer,
    	in my opinion, in quite a few instances in this file.
    
    	It is one thing to say, "I like Apple Juice instead of Orange
    	Juice because I think it tastes better."  Or even, "Orange Juice
    	makes me sick to my stomach."
    
    	What often happens, though, is that it comes out, "People who
    	like Orange Juice are being stubborn and total jerks.  Anyone
    	with an ounce of brains knows that Apple Juice is healthier
    	for you."
    
    	The person who says the above is being a jerk (to stay with the
    	term mentioned in this topic), and so is the person who says,
    	"Hey, you have no right to call me names for liking Orange
    	Juice!!!!!"

    	If only the topics were that harmless, though.  I'd let people
    	yell at me for liking Orange Juice all day long and just
    	smile back (if the topics had that little emotional content
    	to them for most people.)  Hell, I'm even bi-juical (I like
    	both juices), so I'd get to take the heat on BOTH sides of the
    	fence.  :-)  That would be ok with me.
    
    	But the notes here are not on such unimportant topics as
    	which juice to like.  When the *emotional* juices start to
    	flow here, the stakes are quite a bit higher.
    
    	As a result, the flames get quite a bit higher when things
    	start to go wrong.  
    
    	So now, when one person raises their voice, several people
    	come in to say "You are a jerk."  And each one of them is
    	being a jerk for saying such a thing.  (Or, rather, each
    	one is being a jerk at that moment.)
    
    	Of course, to each of us, our own flames are "righteous anger"
    	while the other person's flames are an "attack."

    	I know people who back up their claim to being the "righteous"
    	one by listing all the supportive mail messages they've gotten
    	for their position (and usually, without fail, the person they
    	are talking to has JUST AS MANY supportive mail messages that
    	say that the OTHER person is all wet.)
    
    	So who is "righteous" and who is the "jerk" (when any two people
    	get going in a heated debate.)  There are two sides to everything,
	but I'm sure that each side is convinced that there is only
    	*ONE* side that is right.  In the majority of cases, it seems,
    	the biggest differences we face with each other come out of
    	a lack of communication (and from gross misunderstandings.)
    
    	Hey, we're human.  That is normal.  We'd be a lot more boring
    	as a species if one person said something and got back 4 billion
    	"Me, too"'s.

    	What I'm trying to say is that the differences of opinion that
    	we have would not be any sort of problem *AT ALL* if things
    	could be expressed with respect and consideration more often.
    	Without those two things, opinions become much, much, much
    	more than just "merely" expressing what one thinks (and that is 
    	where the trouble often starts.)
    
    							   Suzanne...

    I agree that respect and consideration are something to keep very
    much in mind, here. The electronic medium mimics very well what
    I've heard called the "Armor" theory, especially for those who don't
    know each other "in the flesh".
    
    The Armor theory states that people will act more...uhm...outrageously
    ...less considerately,,, when "armored", or relatively anonymous.
    Case in point: You're <yeah, me too> more likely to flip someone
    the bird if they cut you off while driving your car ["armored"]
    than if they shove you while walking on the street [not "armored"].
    
    We're pretty well "armored" here. We need to be careful.
    
    Dawn
    

    After reading many of the replies here, and several offline
    conversations, I now realize that I should not have written what I did
    in .279.  At this point, rather than delete the note, I'd like to try
    to restate my views in a non-inflammatory manner, especially as so many
    other replies are in reference to my note.  You all have my permission
    to consider .279 a "jerk" note.
    
    There are two very different issues I addressed in .279 and the
    follow-up reply (whose number I forgot).  I should have separated them
    better, as some seem to have gotten confused.
    
    
    On pseudo-separatism, which is the topic of the base note...
    
    There is a real problem in this conference.  There are many notes that
    appear to simply tell others what they ought to think.  This is
    considered offensive by many, including myself.  An observation has
    been made that most of these notes (but not all) are written by men.
    Therefore there has been a proposal to somehow prevent men from
    participating in certain topics, the theory being that the women will
    now be free from unwanted interference.
    
    I see two problems with this.  First, let's imagine that we observed
    that most of the problem notes were written by blacks.  Would it then
    be justifiable to have "no blacks" topics?  What about "no people from
    Massachusetts"?  Or maybe "no people whose last names have an odd
    number of letters"?  Ridiculous?  Why?  And if so, why is it any more
    ridiculous than "no men"?
    
    Second, this form of discrimination, which is really quite similar
    to the apartheid practiced in South Africa, actually does more harm
    than good by insulting the "good" men who want to participate freely.
    What will happen, and indeed I claim has ALREADY happened, is that many
    men who do write reasonable notes have decided that they are just not
    wanted here, and either stop writing or stop reading entirely.  Some of
    you may say "so what?", but I would hope that most recognize this
    as a tragedy and a setback for the cause of women.
    
    An alternate proposal, "parallel" discussions for women and men has
    already been shown to be unworkable and confusing.  What's worse is
    that so much energy is expended on making sure that each reply is in
    it's proper place that we lose track of the issues being discussed.
    
    What I suggest as an alternative is to identify the individual
    contributions that are a problem, and work with the authors of those
    notes to help them understand why they are inappropriate.  I predict
    you will soon find the tone of the conference improving and the
    distractions fading away.
    
    There is also something all of us can do to help right now.  It is
    to not automatically flame back at something we don't like.  If you
    are offended by something someone writes, contact them directly,
    by MAIL or telephone, and let them know.  Perhaps they wrote it in
    haste and will welcome the opportunity to revise the content, or
    elaborate on their views if what they wrote wasn't clear.  If enough
    of us do this, then the problems may correct themselves.
    
    
    In my second reply, I was remarking on comments that Russ Pollitz
    made on the difference in partcipation by men in WOMANNOTES as
    compared to women in MENNOTES.  I made what was intended as a tease,
    but was taken as an insult, in suggesting that the men's greater
    participation was a compliment to their open-mindedness.
    
    I was sort of hoping that someone would pick up on this and try to
    help me understand WHY more women don't participate in MENNOTES.
    Without data, I can only assume that women aren't as interested in
    men's issues as men are interested in women's issues.  Admittedly,
    some men who write here are trying to set agendas for the women,
    but most participants (not necessarily most in volume) are not.
    
    I have seen comments from many women here who say explicitly that they
    don't care about men's issues and don't want to read what they have to
    say.  I haven't seen similar comments from men.  What's going on?
    
    
    In closing, I want to remark on several comments directed personally
    at me.  Yes, I am a moderator of many conferences, but not this one.
    (Nor do I have any desire to be a moderator of this conference, though
    I do talk frequently with one or more moderators of this conference on
    moderation issues.)  I do like to think that I have a pretty reasonable
    view of what is appropriate and what is not.  But I also think that I
    do have a right to express an opinion, and I also have the same right
    as anyone else to get angry and make mistakes.  Of all the mail I got
    regarding what I wrote earlier, it was one calm and collected message,
    the only message from this person, that helped me understand the mistake
    I made.
    
    I care very much for this conference and want to see it succeed in
    all its goals.  Because I care I speak out.  It would be easy to
    "leave", but I stay with it because I believe in it.
    
    				Steve

    First off, Steve, as a truly mischievous person, it grieves me,
    but it really is true that
    
    		teases usually misfire
    
    I tease all the time--I never learn.  Part of the problem is that
    we can't see the tongue-in-the-cheek or the grin.  Part of the problem
    is that you can inadvertantly, even in person, tease about a sensitive
    subject.
    
    Hmm.  I don't know about a a note saying that notes telling people
    what to do are mostly written by men.  I remember I wrote a hot-button
    note about how I wasn't going to read any more notes written by
    men telling Women What To Do, but I neither meant to say that only
    men do this or that men do only this, or anything like that.  Maybe
    somebody else did.  If so, I'd look at it more in the light of,
    "Hmm, why did she or he say that?"  Look at your own postings.
    Ask the poster, or, better yet, ask someone else you know, because
    the poster might be upset, so give them a chance to recover.
    (I know sometimes I can't handle mail if I've just said something
    emotional.)  Can you find any examples?  Can you find any
    counter-examples?  Can you offer any support to the poster, mailing
    something like, "I'm not sure why, but I think you have strong feelings
    about this, and well, I don't mean to come across as _____" or "Foo
    means well and doesn't mean to be as _____ as you might think".
    Or heck, even "Were you talking about Bar--I always get griped about
    Bar's stuff".
    
    I have to credit Phil Karlton with urging me to use mail to find
    answers rather than posting flames.  (I know, flaming is fun. Only
    short term fun, though.)  It's spectacular how much information
    is out there if you talk to the individuals.  But, well, it's tempting,
    but we also have to preserve each other's privacy and our own.
    If someone misquotes you anonymously, I think it's better to send
    mail, rather than accuse in public.  After all, they may be talking
    about someone else's letter.  But, well, it's probably even better
    not to refer to private mail too much.  At least consider  if you're
    banging your own drum--which isn't something I see too
    much of here, than heavens!
    
    If people with an odd number of letters  had
    a significantly different life than people with an even number of
    letters in their last name, I'd be in favor of politely excluding
    one or another.  Sometimes people want to look for similarities
    in their lives and ways of coping.
    
    I don't know what it's like to grow up black.  I know what it's
    like to grow up kind-of-genteel poor, I know what it's like to live
    in cities. I might think I know what it's like to be a poor, black,
    city kid.  True, I might have some similar experiences, but a couple
    of similarities may not be enough.  I'd shut up.  Black people get
    told every hour what white people think life is like, they don't
    need it from me too.  Sometimes they do have to remind me to shut
    up--I'm unconsciously a blabbermouth.  I don't mind nice reminders.
    I'm so used to my own voice and the voices of other white people,
    sometimes I forget to listen to other lives too.  I need those reminders.
    
    So much of the heat in this discussion has been over one tiny little
    note by a woman who felt frightened about something.  To add onto
    it a huge weight of offending some people mightily--is this going
    to help her?  Can't we think of the noter first, and ourselves second?

    long b.*. 'sbetter'n unread'ble 'brev.s

RE: .286

"Now I will go back to quietly listening and learning, with an occasional blush
of embarrassment for my gender..."

What are you embarrassed about? 

Jim.

RE: .293

"It makes me sad to see how many men are upset by the fact that women sometimes
want space to hear the voices of other women *only*.  I understand how they must
feel (and I am sorry that the "women only" notes have hurt them.)"

And do you feel that this discrimination is justified?

Jim.

RE: .307

"So now, when one person raises their voice, several people come in to say "You
are a jerk."  And each one of them is being a jerk for saying such a thing.
(Or, rather, each one is being a jerk at that moment.)"

I disagree... on occasion people has to be told that what they are doing
is a nono.

"I know people who back up their claim to being the "righteous" one by listing
all the supportive mail messages they've gotten for their position (and usually,
without fail, the person they are talking to has JUST AS MANY supportive mail
messages that say that the OTHER person is all wet.)"

Usually (in my experience) that method is used to 'prove' that their standpoint
is just as good as the other's; as a defence, not as an attack. 

*sigh*  I wish you would note like you believed what you wrote in this note.

Jim.

RE: .310

Hear Here!

Jim.

RE: .319

>And do you feel that this discrimination is justified?

Jim, what if it isn't discrimination?  You might think it is, but
perhaps others don't.  Maybe there's a fine line between discrimination
and meeting the needs of people.  I myself have not made up my mind.
It bothers me when people state an opinion (discrimination) as a fact
to justify their position (that FWO notes should not exist).

...Karen

RE: .311

"I'd be in favor of politely excluding one or another."

There is no way of "politely excluding" someone who ernestly wants to
contribute.  The most polite thing you can do is humor them. 

"Can't we think of the noter first, and ourselves second?"

My sentiment exactly, but obviously not from the female replies to the last note
written asking for help.

Jim.

    I second eagles' reply.  Only let's make it gender free, and say
    that anyone who finds themself being the 'majority' replyer should
    sit back quietly for 24 hours between comments on a given note.
    you can still comment, just don't be the loudest voice overriding
    everyone else.
    mary

I agree (third?) with both .324 and .325. Watching someone debate the 
issue with themselves is only marginally less exciting than watching a
sheep dip.

 Also, this would tend to curb those whose strategy seems to be "if you
can't win with logic, then win with volume!" You know who you are!

				Nigel

    re .323
    
�    "Can't we think of the noter first, and ourselves second?"
�    
�    My sentiment exactly, but obviously not from the female replies to the
�    last notewritten asking for help.
�
�    Jim.
    
    
    Gee, Jim... can't you think of the other noters first, and yourself
    second?
    
    	bruce

    Why do you say that, Mike?
    
    Frankly, if anyone posts 3 or more replies in a row, I nod off.
    If I wake up and it's still going on, I complain.
    
    Since this topic's title is about separatism, are you implying that
    Jim wouldn't irritate anyone if he was female?  (If so, "ha.")

    . . .looks like no matter what way you go, you can please some
    of the people some of the time. . .
    
    'Twas ever thus,
    
    Steve
    

I've been struck by recent responses to this topic that a *large number*
of replys do not address the initial topic... but seem to be more of
an attack on another's noting style.  I realize that my reply (this one)
doesn't address the original topic, but I bring it up because I wonder
where the moderation has gone?  Isn't it the job of moderators to move
replys that are not particularly relevant to the original topic, or delete
or hide them?  

Seems to me that an awful lot of replys lately in WN could be moved to a
topic called "Dump on Other's Noting Style".

I'd be pleased to see the moderators move my note and a *NUMBER* of others!

Penny

RE: .328

"Gee, Jim... can't you think of the other noters first, and yourself second?" 

I did.  I thought about the noter first, and then myself. :-)  If you don't
understand, go look at 'help, I'm losing it'.

RE: consequitive replies...

Well, I used to combine my replies into one note, but I was asked to seperate
them into individual notes, but it wasn't untill I saw how obnoxious it was,
employed by an ex-woman-noter, and I was again asked that I tried it.  Now I've
been asked to change back, so I have.

And, no, I was not trying to be obnoxious intentionally, I was trying to catch
up on 2 weeks of womannotes in a weekend. 

Jim.

Jim.

    Russ, please?  Take it to =soapbox= if you want to be contentious.
    
    						=maggie

         I'd rather wash a woman's feet and love her mind in all the
      ways that are possible.  Strength is the tenderness and care that
      Mary and Jesus showed one another. They touched. And they knew.