Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Martin,
    You have certainly misunderstood my wishes. I'm not sure about everyone
    else. I can be responsible for how much I want to reveal about myself.
    I can decide how much risk I'm willing to take. But when I say that
    =wn= doesn't feel like a safe space, I don't mean that I wish I
    could discuss deeply personal issues here. That's what I have close
    friends and hot-line telephone numbers for. What I mean is that
    this is not a peaceful place. It feels like we're spending lots
    of energy on inconsequential things, and it gets in the way of dealing
    with the real issues. Fighting the tension and resisting the impulse
    to strike back take so much effort that the real issues get lost
    in the process. When I talk about safe space, I mean that there's
    so little support for the other human beings here that it's almost
    not worth participating (see note 574...).
    
    hope this clears things up. i'm curious to hear what others have
    to say.
    
    liz

    	
    Hi Martin and All,                                                      
    
    	At the Party, you seemed to be discussing the "anonymous noting"
    from the perspective of safety. The conversation left me in the
    dust technologically, as I simply couldnt keep up with the operational
    protocols and "3 sigma's", processes of deduction and whathaveyou.
    *I* cannot think of a way to implement this with 101% safety, either...
    
    	But I'm more interested in the psychology of anonymous noting
    than in the implementation. What service could it provide to the
    on-line DEC noting community? What information, besides that of
    sensitive_personal_nature, would be revealed if we did away with
    the Enet address and time stamp? Does it really matter if the content
    makes for "interesting reading"?          
    
    	An interesting common fact about human nature drops out from
    my reading this and other DEC notes files; that people *actively*
    give and take offense with one another. I can draw parallels between
    this conference and (of all) the Motorcycles conference. They are:
    
    	1. "Camp" members divide into a "us and them" segregation.
    	2. Salvos of "flame" are exchanged between the two camps.
    	3. An intolerable level is reached, where it is decided to
    	   create, if necessary, a seperate space where these exchanges
    	   are specifically prohibited.
    
    	So, why not create a *single* space where all those who would
    like to give and take offense with one another can go, anonymously,
    to relieve themselves? As such, the issue of safety would not be
    of such importance because all would be aware of it's specific purpose.
    It'd sure cut out a lot of flack...and perhaps be of "service" as well.
                         
    	Those who would want to have an intelligent, supportive
    conversation about issues of sensitive_personal_nature would still
    be faced with Mr Minow's technically insurmountable problem. But
    that's what *friends* are for...and I dont mean the conference!     
    
       	Joe Jas

I liked what you said, Liz, about the safety issue.  I think some folks are
confusing safety with secrecy.  I think most of us realize that anything
recorded electronically is never secret.  There have been issues that I 
would like to raise in this file.  When I have hesitated to write something
here, it has never been because I was afraid someone would find out but 
because I feared that I would be personally attacked and my feelings 
discounted... leading to some huge electronic battle... long before
the other members of the file could respond to the real issue that I
had hoped to raise.  

I didn't vote in #560, and in fact have hardly read this file for weeks.
I went away not because I am apathetic, but because I have found myself
growing angrier and angrier each time I read.  I try to temper my reactions
and to remember that maybe in this community I am somewhere to the left
of center.  When my words sound angry, often what I'm really feeling
is disbelief:  Disbelief that there are soooo many men in this file,
and that many of them seek to undermine and discount our feelings... even
as they tell us that they love women and wish to understand them better.
I personally feel that the best way to learn is to listen, and yet, in my
view many of the men in this file (whether intentionally or not) end up
drowning out the voices of women (the ones about whom they say they
wish to learn) while they argue with us and with each other over minute
details which only serve to uncover (in my view) their lack of real concern 
for us.

But I try to remember that I am not like everyone else.  For example, I 
still wake up some mornings and can't believe that Reagan won the 
Presidential Election... in 1980!!!  I have thought about giving up on the 
file before but each time was encouraged to "stay and fight" for our space... 
but over the months I've grown weary of fighting.

I would join a member's only file, and I would hope that the act of joining
the file would encourage only those who take these issues seriously to
participate.  I think any seriously considered viewpoint should be welcome,
but bashing (of anyone) should not.  I also think it's seldom difficult to 
tell the difference between the two.

Justine

    It occurs to me that this file appears to be dominated by the male 
    point of view (even the voting was predominately male).  Woman notes
    doesn't seem to be for women anymore.   

    Re: .3
    
    I think you will find that women can also disagree with you,
    Justine.  I doubt very much that the men actively seek to
    undermine and discount the women's feelings in this file.
    They may just be expressing their opinions which carry 
    equal weight with yours.  I regret that you feel so threatened
    by men in this conference, when I doubt they seek to harm you.
    Perhaps you should take some replies with a grain of salt?
    
    Rash generalizations such as "sooo many men..many of them seek to
    undermine and discount our feelings" give this file the "male
    bashing" reputation that may prevent the exchange of ideas this
    file seeks to encourage.
    
    Dave
    

    Re: .4
    
    Womannotes is not for women.  It is for men and women to discuss
    issues affecting women.  That is an all too common mis-conception.
    
    Dave
    

    Thank you Dave for explaining that Womannotes is not for women.
    
    That men have defined the purpose and direction of Womannotes is
    perhaps part of the reason some women are not entirely comfortable here
    anymore.  

    
    Sorry, but there can't be a file for women only.  It's against
    corporate policy.  Not my rules, but I agree with them.
    Equal access to notesfiles insures that a broad range of
    diverse opinions are heard, which can serve to enlighten
    an open mind.
    
    Dave
    

    re: .5 (& .3)
    
    While I agree with Dave in doubting many men *actively* seek
    to undermine and discount womens' feelings here, I agree with
    Justine and others that it happens often.  The version I'm
    most familiar with (in my family) goes this way:
    
    	she:  I'm really feeling ". . ." (usually angry, sad, "down")
    
    	he:   But look at all the good stuff that's happening.
    
    	she:  I know; but, I still feel bad.
    
    	he:   Hey, I don't mean to seem harsh, but that doesn't
    	      make any sense to me.
    
    Ten years ago, I would have denied that in such an exhange I 
    was discounting her feelings.  Lately I'm suspecting that
    I have a great deal to learn about how the world feels to and
    is perceived by people who've historically been second-class
    citizens.
    
    It appears that a conference cannot be made entirely "safe", but
    I believe that a members-only conference might feel a lot quieter
    and more supportive to a number of people.
    
    Steve
    

    thanks steve...

    This file was founded as a place for women to talk about issues
    that are important to them. It wasn't founded as a sociology course
    in womans studies. Men are welcome to partcipate, but in the past
    it has been stressed that they are guests...and they have been asked
    to listen, and to understand, and to emphatize, and not be so quick
    to jump in and tell the women who are writing that they are wrong..
    especially in the area of personal feelings and personal experiences..
    
    but we have been around the focus of the file a number of times
    before....the first one I was actively in being last March. I think
    that there are cycles or waves of topics and poplularity of topics..
    and different groups and different points of view have held center
    stage...
    
    this is one reason why I have often encouraged people who didn't
    like the current (what ever was then current) topics or emphasis
    to start another note on a subject that interested them, or to
    go back to older notes and start them up again...
    

    I do think that men currently are speaking out more in this file,
    and far more than women do in mensnotes...and I know I am not alone
    in my perceptions...
    
    so while I don't want to lose anyone from the file, I would encourage
    our brothers to try and be sensitive on this issue.
    
    thankyou
    
    Bonnie

    I certainly wouldn't want to second-guess the intentions of
    the founder(s) of this conference, but the title on this
    file and Note #1.0 proclaim this as a conference about
    
    		"Topics of Interest to Women"
    
    As such, it says nothing about it being specifically *for* women.
    The fact is that most topics of interest to women are also of
    interest to men.
    
    --- jerry

    While I like these conferences very much, and have learned a lot
    about myself and others, I realize that Notes does have its' 
    limitations. The anonymity afforded through moderators is great,
    but it can only go so far in protecting the author. And while
    hearing 'one persons' story' may indeed help us understand issues,
    that person has a right of privacy. If we can not absolutely
    guarantee that privacy, we lose somewhat. It is unfortunate, but
    these notes are NOT a substitute for private or group therapy
    sessions in a closed room. Sometimes I think we expect too much
    from Notes. 
    I do thank all of you who have taken time to read my notes and
    respond, and those who were just 'there' when I needed to say
    something. But there are things which cannot be expressed in
    a forum such as this, at least not by me. I applaud the courage
    of all who open their hearts and show us truth. And if some
    can not express themselves freely here, may they find a safe
    place to do so. I simply don't believe that notes is the place
    for all of us to open up completely. 
    
    Dana

    
    It seems to me that many of the replies in this note provide a pretty
    good version (although in a milder form than I've seen in some notes) 
    of what I've been trying to describe.  I came in and described my
    FEELINGS; I said I've been feeling angry because in my opinion the
    male presence here is so strong that it muffles the voices of women.  
    And whether you see this as a space for women or as a space to discuss 
    issues of importance to women, I would suggest (again my opinion) that
    if the voice of non-women becomes overwhelming to a large enough
    number of the women here, it becomes difficult to create a space that
    is safe for women OR to discuss issues of importance to them.
                                 
    I find it interesting in a sad way that none of the men (many of
    whom claim to be supportive of and interested in issues important
    to women) have tried to check out what I'm saying.  Do other women
    feel this way?  Should men care about that?  Is this an issue that
    the men and women in this file could look at and even grow from?
    So far that's not what I've seen.  What I have seen is an immediate
    response suggesting that neither women nor men agree with me.
    AND perhaps more frustrating is that once again the debate has
    been turned around to the legalistic issue of, "DEC says I can
    be here, so I'm staying."  Nothing in my words has said that men
    should leave.  I have merely said that: because this is a file for
    issues of importance to women, I for one would really appreciate
    it if the tone of men's replies in this file were more supportive.   
    And I'm not asking anyone to blindly follow  this so-called "party line."
    It is possible to disagree, and still be supportive.  
    
    Justine                                                         
    

    I agree with you Justine and I suspect a lot of other women do too.
    The problem is that pointing out this problem--as you just discovered--
    only seems to feed it.  I think most of us are just too weary to
    put in a response that's we know will result in a string of "you're
    wrong to feel that way" responses...
             
    -Tracy
    

    
    	RE:  .14
    
    	Justine, I agree with you, too.
    
    	Completely.
    

    
    Re: .14
    
    I'm glad to hear you say that.  I (for one) will try to more supportive
    of your *feelings*.  In turn, I ask that others respect my feelings
    by trying to refrain from "man-bashing".  It is difficult to be
    supportive, when your presence seems to be resented.  Some of
    then men I've talked to who (used to) read this conference gave
    it up because they were tired of being "abused" based soley on
    their gender.
    
    Many people (women and men) can "step on other's toes" when stating
    their feelings.  I try not to get offended by the "anti-male"
    notes (as I percieve them), but I sometimes do.  Your reply in
    .14 was a way of expressing your feelings toward this issue
    that was not "offensive". ;-)  It told the community how you *felt*
    clearly.  Perhaps if we all tried to view our notes from both
    sides of the fence before they were entered (myself included),
    we could spend more energy on *important* topics, instead of
    perpetuating some sort of "power struggle".
    
    Dave
    

re: .14

Justine, you express my own opinions exactly.  I have not been an active 
contributor to this file for a couple of months, because I haven't had 
the energy to keep up the struggle.  I've come to feel that entering a
note is like writing a PhD thesis -- it needs careful exposition and the
same level of defense, and I don't have what it takes to keep doing
that.  I feel very discouraged from making spontaneous replies.
I enjoy stimulating exchanges, but there is a distinction
between a sharp difference of opinion and the kind of hostility that
makes me (and many other women) constantly feel defensive and embattled 
here -- like we're noting in a DMZ. 

The prevailing adversarial mode makes me very tired.  The debate about 
the vote gave me a headache, and I postponed making my decision until it 
was too late.  I now feel very sorry for not taking a position.  Part of 
me could feel the value of an open file, for the sake of those women who 
might be put off by a members-only file.  I also felt that I could not 
keep up with two, if another was created.  As I write this, I am still 
divided, but this particular string is so much the quintessence of the
frustrations of this file that it has convinced me of one thing -- I
don't need to increase the pain level in my life, and to hope for an
improvement in this file as it is currently constituted is like hanging
onto a bad marriage, hoping "he'll change".  If I had it to do over
again, I would vote to make this file members only, as my first choice,
and to create a new one as my second. 

    I also agree with you Justine.  There is far less "man-bashing"
    in here than there is woman-bashing.  The file has become a sort
    of microcosm of society, a continual barrage of male domination
    while continually accusing women of being hostile to men, too
    aggressive towards men, not nice enough to men.  

    
    	RE:  .19
    
    
    	Amen!!
    

    
    	Supporting of feelings is a tricky business, because it depends
    on what the feeling is! You certainly wouldnt support an expressed
    hostile feeling, right? I think .17 has some good insight, I'd 
    re-read it again. Think: Power Trip...
    
    	I for one cannot support Anger in the way one replier did. Anger
    is a very negative emotion and by it's very nature cannot be made
    to bring about positive results. As Anger was likely the root cause
    of life events which in turn caused your own generation of Anger, one 
    can easily see how it's expression only brings it about all over
    again. People reflect your consciousness state; if you're angry EXPECT
    to draw other angry responses. Dont expect all of them to be "in line" 
    with your particular gripe, either.                         
    
    	People will not always support the feelings you've immersed
    yourself in. The best they can do is offer loving empathy - and
    not get themselves involved. If you want responses that show 100%
    love, than your entry should be made in the same vein. Simple as
    that.
    
    	Joe
    

    
    I wonder if we're all defining things the same way here.  I agree
    that bashing of any kind has no place here.  An example of bashing
    would be, "All <insert name of any group> are icky... or stupid,
    or don't know what they're talking about."  But I wouldn't call
    every expression of anger toward Men bashing.  I think that a file 
    dedicated to issues important to women ought to be a place where
    a women can express her anger at men.. even if others (men and
    women) disagree with her assessment of the situation, or with
    her response to it.  For example, I feel that I ought to be able
    to say, "It really p*sses me off when I'm at a meeting (the only
    woman there), and some man says, 'Our B*lls are on the table if
    this product doesn't ship on time!' " without some man saying
    that he can't see anything wrong with someone saying that and
    we women ought to take those things with a grain of salt.  Can't
    you see!!!  If I'm angry about it, then it's valid, and I have
    a right to be angry and say that I'm angry... without being
    evaluated or told that I'm too sensitive!!!!   
    
    I also think that Mennotes could be/is (no personal experience there)
    a place for men to express any anger or whatever they might feel
    toward women without fear of being judged or criticized.  There
    are rules of Noting that we all ought to follow, and I think 
    words which debase anyone (racial, sexual slurs) ought to be
    avoided.  But beyond that, I think we'd all (men and women)
    be better off if we felt able to express our feelings and
    respected each other's right to do so.
                         
    Justine

    
    	Your example is a good one, perhaps the man who claims that
    "you should get used to it" may himself learn something by doing
    so. (That a statement like that is simply a class-less thing to
    blurt out in mixed company, i.e. manners)
    	My allegation that it's all in the "mode" things are expressed
    still stands.
    
    	Joe

    .24
    
    I agree...lately it has been that way.
    
    But there is so much good in between these discussions it seems worth
    while.
                                 

    Justine, Catherine, Liz, (who did I forget?) - yes, yes, yes!
    I agree.
    
    This file *is* a microcosm of society - I don't think we can expect
    it to be anything else. And I think that what some of *can * expect
    is to feel, from time to time, that it's best to "punt" =W= for
    a while since it's simply to energy-draining to carry out the
    exact same struggle over and over again. (that's "too energy-draining")
    
    If I had a nickel for every time I considered REPLY-ing lately,
    and said "Nah...the h__l with it" - I could retire. 'Twas ever thus.
    Maybe always *will* be thus. *sigh*
    
    --DE
    

    re:.14
    
    I agree with you. Personally, I feel that this file is primarily
    for women, with men as "guests". My reply .12 was merely to
    point out that this isn't "officially" so.
    
    --- jerry

        Fwiw, I've never felt 'bashed' by anything said in this file
        because if there's been a criticism of 'men', I've either
        recognised a fault in me or realised it doesn't apply, mostly
        the latter.  Who actually feels 'bashed' and why ?

        And I don't think I could be accused of 'bashing' either ....
        but tell me if I'm wrong.


        John

The material following my remarks has been extracted (with the author's 
    permission) from mail I received recently from a man who is a friend 
    of mine and a sometime contributor to this file.
    
    I have been disappointed lately to find that several of the
    more moderate and thoughtful men have chosen to leave the file..
    just as I have been disappointed in the past to hear of women
    leaving the file.
    
    I would hate to have this become a women only file because the
    men felt they had no choice but to leave...just as I am equally
    distressed when strong womens voices on both the liberal and on
    the more conservative side say they feel they must leave...
    
    There is a good note on peace in noting in Quark::Human_relations
    I recommend it to everyone....
    
    and let us all try and examine our filters a little more carefully...

    Bonnie

 
    exerpts from the letter   
 
  A few years ago a psychologist told me about what he called filters.
This refers to a whole set of things (thoughts, emotions, history, etc)
that colour how we see/understand others. I think that part of the
problem with Valuing Differences conferences today is that too many
people have bad filters. This is largely because people don't know
people face to face. All the clues that people normally use to understand
others are missing. One face to face can change that (if people are
open minded). I knew I see many peoples notes in a whole different
light after meeting them.... This doesn't mean (I) agree with (them)
but it does mean that my filter is a little better and less biased.
 
I'm really down about Valuing Differences conferences these days.
There appear to be too many differences and too little valuing.
SOAPBOX is out of my notebook. As is MENNOTES and WOMANNOTES (though
I'm still working my way out). The one conference which I dropped
but might think about asking for membership again is GDE....the
people there are warm and friendly. I think the members only status
helps. Likewise I think that the members only status of (another
conference that we both belong to) helps there.
 
Perhaps Notes is getting too big? If so, maybe what we need are more
conferences with smaller memberships. This way people could get a little
closer. Perhaps with overlap (in membership and topics) the same ideas
would still spread but with more light then heat. I don't know.
 
	

RE: .4

"It occurs to me that this file appears to be dominated by the male point of
view (even the voting was predominately male)."

Now why was that do you think?  It was because women didn't vote.  I think that
more women should have voted. 

Are you sugggesting that men should not have voted? Why? that does not correct
the problem that women did not vote, that makes the minority of voters even
smaller.

RE: .22

does:

"The file has become a sort of microcosm of society, a continual barrage of male
domination while continually accusing women of being hostile to men" .19 PARE 

fit your description of:

"An example of bashing would be, "All <insert name of any group> are icky... or
stupid, or don't know what they're talking about."" .22 SULLIVAN

???

RE: .27

"How would men feel with women questioning what mennotes is about? Why we'd
probably get into high dudgeon over it."

I doubt it...  The point is moot, because women don't.  I think women should, at
least a little. 

Jim.

	RE: more men voting
	could it have something to do with men being a majority in DEC?

	...Karen

    
    
    I have been in and out of this file over the past year and many,
    many times I have been tempted to delete the conference from my
    notebook - WHY - Simple, as Justine and others have stated, every
    day I have to try to educate the men I work with and the men I
    socialize with that making references to male anatomy leaves me
    out of the discussion.  I don't need to have to cross my t's and
    dot all my i's inorder to express what I am feeling.
    
    I have said many, many, many times in the file that a woman is the
    only one who can say whether her feelings, views or ideas are valid
    to her.  If they don't fit you that is yours to own or not but she
    still has her right to express her feelings, views, and ideas as
    hers.  She also has the right to express emotions that you might
    not be comfortable with.
    
    <set_flame>(the following is personal experience only)
    
    I want a separate, members only conference - there to try to get
    to the point where I can express my ideas as my ideas and not have
    to s**kup to some male who's being threatened by me.
    
    <end_set_flame>
    
    If in twenty years anyone is looing for a reason to put me up against
    the wall, believe me =WOMANNOTES= will not be alone on the list.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |	The whole earth is a community that
    				we must all learn to live in and
    					to share with siblings in joy
    						and sorrow.
                                                
    

    re .33:
    
    When you have written a note, it is there, you have expressed your
    feelings. Any later notes in response to yours, whether supportive
    or hostile, do not negate the existence of your expression. 
    
    No matter what the convention of CAPITAL LETTERS, you really cannot
    be shouted down or interrupted in a notes file. Your note remains
    whole regardless. 
    
    No one is denying your right or ability to express your feelings.
    Later replies can only disagree, no matter how they are worded.
    I do not understand why you believe that you are being denied your
    right to express yourself. I understand that someone may read one
    of your notes and violently disagree, say that you are wrong to
    feel that way. But how does that deny you your right to express
    yourself? Your note has not been deleted. Can not the denier be
    wrong? To say that a disagreement denies your right of expression
    is to deny it to yourself. No one else can really do that. 
    
    Now, am I denying what you wrote in .33? Well yes and no. I do not
    understand why you are yielding so much power to those who disagree 
    with you. I believe you when you say that you are annoyed by those you
    deny and disparage your feelings. But I disagree when you say that
    they are denying your right of expression. And if you speak of rights,
    rights apply to everyone, your right of expression applies as well
    to those who violently disagree. 
    
    I do not understand how a members only conference will let you express
    your ideas as your ideas. Actually, I do not understand how *this*
    conference is *not* letting you do that. I do not understand why
    you think you have to "s**kup to some male who's being threatened"
    by you. If you've expressed your feelings, any argument about it
    cannot erase that expression. 
    
    I do not understand. What I hear you saying (and others) is that
    the validity of your expression lies in the uncritical acceptance
    of that expression. The more one argues that:
    
        "...a woman is the only one who can say whether her feelings, 
    	views or ideas are valid to her.  If they don't fit you that 
    	is yours to own or not but she still has her right to express 
    	her feelings, views, and ideas as hers.  She also has the right 
    	to express emotions that you might not be comfortable with."
    
    the more I think that those words are not *really* believed. This
    is a true statement, but when used against someone who disagrees
    with you indicates a fundamental disbelief in its meaning. To demand
    that others not disagree is to believe that the validity of your
    feelings rests in the acceptance of others. It is a denial of your
    own identity to place such power in the opinions of others.
    
    	Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the
    	responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it --
    	that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can
    	live your life -- that the vilest form of self-abasement and
    	self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of
    	another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance
    	of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as
    	middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.

					(- Ayn Rand _Atlas_Shrugged_)
    
    This is what I see when I read notes like .33, that you are accepting
    someone else edict as truth. When someone disagrees with you
    expression, to accept it as a denial of your expression is to deny
    the validity of it yourself. If yours is a true statement of your
    feelings, then no one can change that, no matter how they deny or
    contradict it. To accept those denials and contradictions is to
    deny your self. 
    
    Yes, I've been preaching. That is my expression. I could think of
    no other way to express these ideas than in a sermon. This has been
    a statement of philosophy, one that I think is needed by a few people
    in this conference. I also needed to write this for my own benefit,
    to try to clarify why it is I've always been bothered by notes like
    .33. 
    
    This note is titled "The Illusion of Safety", and while initially
    referring to the aspect of secrecy, I now interpret to refer to
    the illusion of safety created by the avoidance of controversy and
    disagreement. 
                  
    Well, I suppose that is enough for now.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Steve,
    
    I think the nature of the problem is more like:
    
    Person A puts down a needle in plain sight.
    
    Person B dumps a haystack on top of it.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .34
    Steve,
    
    I agree that no one can deny any of us the right to speak here (except
    perhaps the moderators). But we can all work harder on treating
    each other like human beings.

    For the nth time, agreeing and acting respectful are two different
    things entirely. I don't believe that we're (whoops -- some of us)
    asking people to agree every time we express ourselves. on the other
    hand, it would be a lot pleasanter if we could dispense with name
    calling and accusations.
    
    here's an example:
    
    Statement:	When I think of X, I feel Y
    
    Possible	Anyone who feels Y is an idiot.
    Responses:	I can't believe that any sane person would feel Y.
    		All people who feel Y are jerks.
    		I can understand why/that you feel Y. This is how I
		    feel...
    		A Y reaction is one approach. This is my approach...
    		
    In fact, you've taken the latter approach in the note you just wrote.
    When discussing something that you feel strongly about, which reaction
    would you prefer?
    
    respecfully,
    liz

    RE:.35
    
    OK, so I *spent* 5 minutes trying to compose a reply which might
    help explain. And you came along , and in two sentences said it
    all. Humph. 
    
    RE: .36
    
    ....and then Liz comes along and says it better than I would've,
    too.
    
    <whine, whine>
    
    ;-)
    
    Dawn
    

    re .36:
    
    Liz, 
    
    which of the "latter" is the approach I took in .34. I think that
    I _was_ heavy handed and expressed myself poorly, so I could understand
    if you think I was saying "I can't believe that any sane person would
    feel Y." That is not what I intended, however.  
    
    I agree that it is unpleasant and frustrating and painful to get
    a hostile reaction to something that took alot of effort to write.
    What I am saying is that YOU are the final arbritrator of what is
    true FOR YOU. No matter how someone's disagreement is expressed,
    it does NOT alter the truth of what you expressed.
    
    I did not see a call for politeness in .33. I saw an expression
    of yielding to the reaction of others, of subjugating the truth
    of one's statements to the whims of another. It is that attitude
    against which I am speaking. If it does not apply to Ms Leedburg
    or yourself, fine, I was wrong to think it did, but that does not
    alter what I said. 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    	RE:  .34
    
    	Steve --
    
    	If persons of other races went into Blacknotes and dumped
    	their "haystacks" onto black employees [or Jewish employees
    	or gay employees, in their respective files] -- do you honestly
    	think that the corporation would preach to the offended persons
    	of those groups that they were merely failing to "self-validate"??

    							   Suzanne...

    Women and minorities have been told for so long that they aren't
    qualified to speak for themselves, that their opinions aren't
    mainstream and therefore aren't valid to be included in our culture,
    that telling them once more a disparaging remark or a caution to be gentle
    is thoughtless and cruel, whether or not it was meant to be so.

    
    
    Did I really say all that?
    
    _peggy
    

    re .39:
    
    I don't think that is what I am saying. I am not trying to excuse
    rude, obnoxious behavior. I am saying that rude obnoxious behavior
    is just that: rude and obnoxious. It does not invalidate what someone
    has expressed. To claim that it _does_ invalidate your statement is
    to yield to it. 
    
    re .40:
    
    Am I being thoughtless and cruel? I suppose I am. I am telling you
    to stop feeling persecuted because someone disagrees with you. I am 
    telling you that you are feeling persecuted when someone disagrees.
    I was not speaking in the "I" voice. I did not say, "I don't
    feel persecuted when someone disagrees with me. I know the truth
    of what I am saying, if someone tells me I am wrong, I know that it
    is they who are wrong. To define the validity of my statements on the
    acceptance of others is to deny my own identity and subjugate myself
    to their approval." (hmmmm, maybe it's not so awkward to say it
    that way after all)
    
    I am telling you that whatever you say stands whole and unchanging
    regardless of later replies. And it is that that makes it fundamentally
    different from a conversation where one can be cutoff, interrupted,
    shouted down, beaten into silence. Your statements, and "his", are
    there, left to be judged by the reader on their own merits, without
    regard to who has the louder voice, the bigger fist, or the nicest
    smile. 
    
    I am not saying to not be offended when someone says you are full
    of "ka-ka", hell yes, be offended, it is an offensive statement.
    But don't think that because someone says that, that everyone who
    reads it will accept it as truth over and above what you have written.
    
    Peggy said that she feels that she has to "s**kup to some male who
    feels threatened by her" when she writes here. Should I refrain
    from telling her to not feel that way? I think that one should not
    feel like that about writing in a notesfile. I try to explain why,
    am I being cruel and thoughtless? Am I denying the truth or the
    validity of her feelings? It's all in the presentation, I cannot
    judge how well _this_ is coming across, but I can say how _not_ to
    say this. If I were to say "Peggy, you are stupid to want a members
    only file", I would be cruel and thoughtless and not really worth
    paying attention to. Will my saying that, however, suddenly cause
    everyone to think that Peggy is stupid for thinking that? Or will
    it instead merely reflect on me as being rude and obnoxious?
    
    re .33:
    
    And so, Peggy, I still would like to understand why a private conference
    would be so much more desirable than this one. I am not saying you
    are wrong to want one. I just want to understand your reasons.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                

   re .42
   >  Am I being thoughtless and cruel? I suppose I am. I am telling
   >  you to stop feeling persecuted because someone disagrees with you.
      ...
   >  Peggy said that she feels that she has to "s**kup to some male
   >  who feels threatened by her" when she writes here. Should I refrain
   >  from telling her to not feel that way? I think that one should
   >  not feel like that about writing in a notesfile.
    
    Steve,
    
    I understand that you're trying very hard to figure this out. I'd
    like to try to explain again. YES you should refrain from telling
    someone how to feel. That's how they feel. It's non-negotiable.
    That's who they are. Why can't you just acknowledge how that person
    is feeling and say "Here's a different perspective that you may
    not have considered". You'd get the same information across and
    come off sounding less patronizing. you seem to be saying that YOU
    don't feel intimidated about writing in notesfiles, so other people
    shouldn't either. but please remember that other people do feel
    that way.
    
    sometimes when i write a note and others reply "you shouldn't feel
    that way. here's a better way to feel", i feel like i'm drowning
    in a wave and swallowing sand. why is it so hard to just listen?
    
    trying hard.
    not in anger.
    but getting a tad frustrated.
    
    liz

    Thanks, Liz!
    
    As a further note, I often find being told how I should feel to
    be rather disorienting.  Being a friendly reader, I'll even try
    to see what that would feel like, then I'll try to figure out who
    I'd have to be in order to tell people how to feel, then I'll wonder
    where I am, how I got there, and then I'll go read some other note.
     :-)
    
    I'm sure I've been guilty of trying to tell people how to feel; I was
    trying to describe from a subjective point of view why it doesn't
    work so well sometimes.  Hmm!

    I keep wondering why this is so hard to explain.
    
    I mean, if I say "My hypothesis is that the sky is <X> color."
    and someone says "No! The sky is *not* X; it is Y, and here are
    the reasons." Fine. No problem.
    
    But how the ($&* do we get to: "My life experience has been
    such-and-such."  and somebody feels perfectly free to say "No, it
    hasn't - it's been so-and-so."  ??????
    
                                   
    What *IS* this madness??
    
    Dawn
    

    re .43
    
    Liz,
    
    yes, my notes boil down to "I don't feel intimidated in notes and
    you shouldn't either" but I had hoped that I was explaining WHY
    I think that, that I was not just categorically declaring people
    wrong for being intimidated. I admit that I wrote them in a patronizing
    way, I did not intend it that way, but that's the way it came out.
    I will try to be more careful in the future. 
    
    I guess I should stop now. I don't have any more feet to put in my
    mouth.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                      

    Steve, thank you for trying so hard. and you do make one very
    important point here which is the conversations we have on the
    net do stay there for other people to judge...so just because
    someone answers back in a negative fashion it really does not
    negate your original response...and quite often the later reader
    will decide that the original reply makes the most sense.
    
    I think we can trust the common sense of our 'audience'
    
    and thank you to Liz and everyone else who has tried to explain
    the importance of valuing women's feelings.
    
    Bonnie

    Many of us got trained very early to accept having our feelings dictated
    to us.
    
    One example that comes to mind is a child getting an injection from
    the nurse or doctor and then being told brightly, "See, that didn't
    hurt.  She's a big girl.  She doesn't want to cry."
                                     
    Taking away the child's right to feel what she feels for the
    convenience of the adults nearby creates much worse and longlasting
    pain than the immediate source of pain.
    
    Ugh.  So much of that to unlearn.    

RE: .40

"Women and minorities have been told for so long that they aren't qualified to
speak for themselves,"

Perhaps this is the thought and speach pattern that needs to be changed then... 


RE: Sucking up to some male who feels threatened by her

I am afraid that I have to agree along the lines of MARSHALL, and say that
it seems to me that *you* are the one who feels threatened...

Please, no offense intended...

RE: .43

"YES you should refrain from telling someone how to feel." 

That, of course is a more polite way of saying it, but addresses a different
point.  I feel that it would be so much better if people would not feel so
threatened, when there is no actual threat involved.  I still think that the
beginning of my note is the important part. (no, I'm not being egotistical, just
trying to not repeat myself, and not doing a really good job of it) 

I wouldn't say, "You don't feel that way...", I would say, "You shouldn't feel
that way"; do you think that makes a difference?

"Why can't you just acknowledge how that person is feeling and say "Here's a
different perspective that you may not have considered"." 

Oh... I see what you are saying... you are indicating that a change in feeling
would be benificial.  I'll shut up now... 

RE: .45

"No, no, dear - your life experiences are this:"

The problem is that we keep confusing our life experiences with reality. To each
person, their life experience is their reality... 

Jim.

    
    
    Since I have been told by two males that I should not feel Threatened
    by "some male" I should feel free to enter more notes requesting
    responses from women only?
    
    _peggy
    		(-)
    		 |	Though sometimes I feel I should
    				I don't s**kup to anyone.
    			But I do treat idiots and fools
    				with some gentleness.
    

RE: .50

Hey, everybody should feel free to do what they want... why should you be
any different?

Jim.

    Peggy is on vacation this week so I know she cannot answer.
    But one thing that did strike me about the responses to her original
    note..there have been *no* fights in that note...(or at least untl
    today when  I moved two notes...) yet it is frequently the case
    that in notes where men can answer the fights over meaning derail
    the intent of the note,.
    
    BJ