Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Gale,
    
    Even though nobody should be shut off, don't you find it a bit strange
    that a man should start a "men only" note in a "womannotes" conference?
    
    We seem to be going round and round repeating the same things, and
    I know you dislike it enormously, but we should again consider the
    parallel with "black" or "jewish" notes (I apologize if I am giving
    the names of those notesfiles wrong, but I can't remember their
    name straight off). What would be the reactions of the participants
    of these files if somebody, a white or gentile person respectively
    started a note "for white people only" or "for gentile only".
    Obviously, they have the legal right to do that, but is it such
    a good idea? Doesn't it strike you as a pretty insensitive behaviour?
    
    As for going off and complaining to Corporate, well, again, everybody
    should do what he/she thinks is right. But what goal would it serve?
    
    Our life is not governed, sometimes unfortunately, by what we have
    the right to do, but generally by what we "could","should","must",
    "ought to","are allowed to" do. I have a right to throw myself in
    the lake and anybody seeing me do so has a right to try to stop
    me, and also a right to let me do it.
    
    Up to now, everybody, men and women both, have had a chance to
    complain, and this chance, or right, has been very much used. The
    use of this right may have been detrimental to the goal of this
    notesfile, and it's proper that, once in while, the "right" should
    be re-visited.
                  
    Joana

    Re: .0
    
    I agree completely.
    
    
    Re: .1
    
    Do the other notesfiles you mention (for blacks, Jews) have notes
    saying "Blacks only"?
    
    Just curious...
    
    Dave
    

    There's something to be said for creating an oppression-free
    environment. (And "oppression" does not only mean being hit over
    the head by an oppressor...it can be subtle).
    I joined WN because I thought that it was an environment in which
    WOMEN can share their opinions, concerns, joys and differences without
    a lot of hassles.  It's apparent that we ain't on the leading edge
    of such a trend.
    
    As far as GDE and Blacknotes are concerned "guests" in those
    conferences act as "guests"...they seem to understand what is
    appropriate behavior and what is not.  
    
    Perhaps we need to develop a code of decorum for the non-female
    members of this conference and/or restrict access to WN.
    
    Ann Marie                                                  
    
    
    
    

    Bonnie and I have decided that a mere title change will suffice,
    since Russ expressed no firm requirement that only men be permitted
    to reply.
    
    I take the view at present (Bonnie can speak for herself) that notes
    "for men only" will be more appropriately served by another file, e.g.,
    =mennotes= or perhaps =human_relations=.
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

    AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    "Topics of Interest to Women" ?!?!?!?!
    
    Lee

    Corporate Rules are Corporate Rules. (philosophical, that) We can't
    do anything but abide by them.
    
    If people noting in particular files do not understnad what tacky
    behaviour is, only 2 things will happen. Either they will be educated
    and *understand* what tacky behaviour is, and not repeat it. OR
    they won't.
    
    This file is in a "gray area" so far a "valuing differences" and
    related stuff goes. If someone were to stereotype an individual
    in Blacknotes, say...."I make one comment and you come a'shufflin'
    over and say.....etc." a good case could probably be made for the
    elimination of that person from noting there.
    
    If, on the other hand, comments are made here about "claws", and
    other stereotypes, well......
    
    And, indeed, is this under the valuing differences umbrella? I have
    my doubts.
    
    So what do you do with guests who wear out their welcome and won't
    leave when it's time for you to go to bed?? I know people who simply
    ignore them and go off to bed anyway. There *are* people in the
    world who don't not know how *NOT* to be tacky. I wouldn't let them
    raise my blood pressure, nor would I listen to their suggestions
    on what I should do to re-decorate my house. I'd give 'em a cup
    of coffee, be polite, and not take their meddling to heart.
    
    Dawn
     

    I don't know how things work back East, but here it can take as long as
    a minute or two to retrieve the "next unseen".  That means that the effect
    of the many non-constructive notes that the 3 or 4 people flood this
    conference with essentially make the conference unreadable except on a
    sporadic basis by anyone who wants to get work done.  So, why do they
    do this?  Are they deliberately trying to make this conference
    effectively inaccessible?  How does that jibe with discrimination?
    

    
    Re: .3
       
         There are no "guests" in BLACKNOTES.  There does seem to be
    an understood code of decorum.
    
    Re: .1
    
         There are no 'Blacks Only' topics in BLACKNOTES.  There is
    one that discusses the matter, though.
    
    Re: Women Only Conference
    
         I think that some of the women in WN need a 'women only' notefile.
    As long as WN remains as a female<-->male communications port, I
    see no reason to object.  As long as I, as a male example, can't
    read what is said in the restricted file, I guess I can't get upset
    about it.  As far as males are concerned, the other file would not
    exist.  As for the ladies who need that kind of conference, they
    would have that protected 'inner sanctum'.  They couldn't legally
    keep all males out if one wanted membership, but if one got out
    of hand, he could have his membership yanked.  Funny thing is, a
    women-only conference could exist even as we chat.  Secrecy would
    insure that the restricted membership would have no challenges.
    
                                    Greg
    

     After entering .11, some odd possibilities occurred to me.  The foremost 
being the possible use of the restricted conference (let's call it FEMINOTES)
as a 'whisper conference'.  For example:

    
    
Reply from:
SMART::LADY
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     I don't like that last reply from MOON.  Let's talk about it in 
FEMINOTES.

                                 Lady



Reply from:
BLUE::MOON
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Come back here, and fight like a man!

                                Moon Man




     Don't attack me, this was written as an example of two jerks, not one.
What do you think?

                                     Greg

       

    re:.3, .11
    I consider non-Black members of BLACKNOTES, "guests".  The primary
    focus of that conference is for Black Digital employees.  The target
    audience in GDE is Gay and Lesbian employees.
    In the former I am a "guest"; in the latter I am a bona fide,
    card-carrying, and "dues-paying" (so to speak) member.
    am
    
    

    
    I think the cries for a women-only space have pretty much disappeared.
    So we're not talking about excluding anyone.  What we are talking
    about is simply a request for greater sensitivity from the males
    in this file.  If the conductor of a chorus says, "Less tenor please!",
    do the tenors feel excluded?  Do they storm off and accuse the
    conductor of only liking pieces arranged for female voices?  NO.  They 
    simply sing more softly.
    
    I agree with the suggestion that we need all the voices in the chorus.
    But this aint no barbershop quartet!
    
    Justine

    Although I understand the need to share feelings and ideas with
    a specific group of people I think that the subject matter should
    be considered very seriously before we decide that we cannot benefit
    from the experience of men (for instance).
    
    The Mennotes discussion on Nightmares was very interesting when
    compared to the Womannotes subject on the same matter.  It seems
    like there are two types of nightmares....one being what might happen
    to you and one reliving some horror that has happened to you.
    
    The contribution by both men and women was very valuable to me around
    this subject.  
    
    

Re: .13
    
    
     The reason I object to the term "guests" is the undeniable alienation
it implies.  While some members of several conferences would like to 
confer that alienation on some specific group, it does not truly exist. 
Any DEC employee has a right to participate on a equal level in any DEC 
note conference.  Even member-only conferences cannot refuse membership on
the basis of race, gender, religion, etc.  There are simply different levels
of interest in the different types of noter-participants.

                                   Greg

    
    (Addendum to .17)
    
         Discriminating against a gender, race, etc. on a piecmeal basis
    (i.e. topic by topic) is in effect, making the whole conference
    gender-specific.  Women-only topics ARE policy violations.
    
                                    Greg
    

    
    Re: .19
    
         Really?  Are there 'No-women' topics proliferating in some
    corner of the E- net?  "Intrude" is your word, not mine.  I was
    simply stating a fact about the policy.  Take up that fight with
    K.O.
    
                               Greg
    

    for reference purposes...Greg is one of the moderators of 
    Blacknotes..
    
    and Blacknotes to my knowledge has been free of some of the
    harassment that womannotes has recieved..but I agree in 
    theory with Greg's point of view..but I also support
    the need of members for privacy...
    
    tis a double bind

    
         Thanks Bonnie, and I do feel for you.  I hate being put in
    the position of fighting this kind of thing, because it makes me
    look like I am anti-female.  Those of you who know me, also know
    (I hope) that the contrary is true.  I think I can say that I support
    85% of the views in this conference, but that remaining 15% is truly
    painful.  I find that, when in a quandry, corporate policy is the
    only solution.  Those of you with whom I occasionally duel, I hope
    you can see the good will behind my actions.
    
                                    Greg
    

    Well, I ran this past personnel last week, because all the abusive
    messages being posted (thank goodness this has died down -- are
    the senders on vacation?) were making the conference unreadable.
    What our personnel maven told me was that "back East" had told
    her it was okay to shut people out in this situation.  When people
    seem to have the intention of doing in a conference oriented towards
    a group that's suffering from discrimination, you don't have to permit
    that.
    

    p.s.  I understand Greg's concern, but I ask him how he'd feel if
    a bunch of rednecks were swamping blacknotes with messages.

       re .25 et al.:
       
       Karen, I'm having a tough time trying to understand you.  At the
       same time that you complain about notes in this conference that
       you consider abusive, you are writing notes in the Jewish
       conference (BAGELS.NOTE) supporting the PLO, comparing Israeli
       policies to those of South Africa, and saying that Israeli
       government leaders all have closed minds.  
       
       As best I can tell, you consider the notes to be abusive when they
       express an opinion that is either contrary to the interests of
       women, or an opinion that most women would find objectionable. 
       
       Do you really think that it's perfectly OK for someone to write
       notes in BAGELS that many (probably most) Jews would find
       objectionable, but not OK for other people to write notes in
       WOMANNOTES that many women would find objectionable?  
       
       --Mr Topaz
       
       p.s.: To make sure that there's no misunderstanding, I don't in
       any way contend that Karen's notes should not have been written in
       BAGELS.  I agree with Greg -- opinions should be expressed and not
       repressed. 

Hmm, I was about to point to Bagels as an example of how wildly differing
opinions are tolerated without anyone posting notes saying "religious only"
or similar.

Currently in Bagels, there are discussions about the rioting in Gaza
(including contributions by -- I think -- Palestinians), discussions
instigated by a Christian comparing her observance of the Law with
Jewish beliefs, and just about anything else you could think of.

Martin.

    
    Re: .25
    
         If rednecks were swamping Blacknotes with derogatory messages,
    it would be taken care of.  That is not a parallel situation.  Denying
    men the right to reply is punishing a large number of people for
    the acts of a few.  There are no 'Blacks Only' topics in BLACKNOTES.
    
                                    Greg
    

    Re: .24
    
         Yes, I think it is OK to shut people out in that kind of
    situation.  Only as long as it is the individual offender who is
    shut out.  It is NOT OK, when an entire gender, race, etc. is being
    shut out.
    
                                  Greg
    

    
    1.  I dare say that conflicts about another conference might best
    be addressed there.
    
    2.  It's frustrating that some folks still don't seem to understand
    that in most cases it is the manner in which an opinion is expressed
    that causes offense... not the opinion.
          
    Justine

    re .27
    mr. topaz:
    
    i've only heard your side of the story, and i don't know you very well.
    i understand why you wanted to question karen's actions. you seem to
    have phrased your message politely. but i don't understand why you've
    used a public forum this way (instead of working it out via mail). the
    _impression_ i get is that you're trying to publicly discredit karen.
    comments? 
    
    respectfully
    liz augustine

    Waittttttt a  minute, Mr. Topaz.  (Am I glad I stumbled across this
    message before I deleted the WOMANNOTES entry, which I was just
    about to do.)  The notes in this (or any) conference that I consider
    abusive are notes of the form "you are stupid" and so forth.  These
    notes have nothing to do with "expressing an opinion."  Additionally,
    before I leave, let me clear my name of this charge of abuse in
    the Jewish conference.  (Let me also add that a number of the Jewish
    participants in that file have entered notes expressing positions
    similar to mine.)
    
    I am participating in a discussion in BAGELS about the current
    situation in the West Bank and Gaza and the larger issue of an
    independent state for the Palestinians, coexistant with Israel.
    This is an issue that I care deeply about, as I have both Arab
    and Jewish friends and I wish with my whole heart that the bloodshed
    and suffering over there would stop.  I have been _extremely_ careful
    to write my notes there in an unemotional and reasoned a way as
    possible, trying to offend no one.  Below is a sample of one of
    my notes.  Anyone who is interested, may of course hop over
    HUMAN::BAGELS and read the two notes (406 and 419) in detail.
    
                <<< HUMAN::WRKD$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]BAGELS.NOTE;1 >>>
             -< Jewish Singles:#128 Directory:#280 Register: #32 >-
================================================================================
Note 406.48                  The Riots and Unrest!!!                    48 of 58
CIRCUS::KOLLING "Karen, Sweetie, Holly; in Calif."   22 lines  28-DEC-1987 23:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here are a couple of quotes (reproduced without permission) from
    Said's "The Question of Palestine".  You may recall that Said is
    a member of the PLO's PNC:
    
    "On occasion after occasion the PLO stated its willingness to accept
    a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.  Two meetings of
    the National Council, in 1974 and again in 1977, committed the whole
    national community to this idea, and with the idea, an implicit
    recognition of Israel as a neighbor."
    .
    .
    "I do sympathize with, I understand as profoundly as I can, the
    fear felt by most Jews that Israel's security is a genuine protection
    against future genocidal attempts on the Jewish people.  But it
    is necessary to remark that there can be no way of satisfactorily
    conducting a life whose main concern is to prevent the past from
    recurring.  For Zionism, the Palestinians have now become the
    equivalent of a past experience reincarnated in the form of a present
    threat.  The result is that the Palestinians' future as a people
    is mortgaged to that fear, which is a disster for them and for Jews."
    
    
    

I can't recall any discussion in Bagels suggesting that pro-PLO contributions
were inappropriate or unwelcome.  It goes without saying, however, that
they are vigorously contested and discussed.

Furthermore, no one has suggested in Bagels that, say, non-Jews or
non-religious, or non-Israeli's (or non-men) are unwelcome or should
avoid discussing certain topics.  Hmm, actually, I do recall some
comments by Israeli's that went along the lines of "if you don't
live here, don't expect us to pay much heed to your criticisms."
These comments, too, were vigorously contested and discussed.

Karen's contributions -- and yours -- are welcome there.

Martin.

       In reply to Liz' note (.32):
       
       Why didn't I use mail?  Probably because I thought that the
       question and its answer might be of interest to one or more other
       people.  I was hoping to find out whether Karen may have
       considered that people can unwittingly write notes that are
       perceived to be provocative or abusive by a large segment of a
       conference's readership. 

       As to trying to discredit Karen, I hope that you're not chiding
       the messenger for the message.  If Karen is applying different
       criteria to the posting of provocative notes in the Bagels
       conference and the Womannotes conference, the extent to which that
       reflects upon her is up to each individual. 
       
       In reply to Karen's note (.33):
       
       Karen, I hope that you can recognize that, in the context of the
       Jewish conference, some of your notes would be considered
       provocative or even abusive, even if they might not be considered
       as such outside BAGELS.NOTE.  I'm trying to draw a parallel with
       the Womannotes conference -- that some notes may be perceived as
       provocative by the Womannotes community, even though the writer did
       not intend provocation. 
       
       Now, you gave a few excerpts of your notes in .33, and those
       excerpts seem to be extremely balanced, favoring neither one side
       nor the other.  But other excerpts that you omitted, such as from
       the following note you wrote (cf. BAGELS.NOTE 406.47), could indeed
       be perceived as provocative to participants in BAGELS.NOTE: 
           
           So, says the world, no wonder there hasn't been any progress
           towards peace -- all the Israeli government people have
           completely closed minds;  it doesn't look like they even
           think the Palestinians are human...    Start to think about
           how incredibly similar all this seems to South Africa...
       
       I agree completely with Martin that your notes and views are
       welcome in Bagels.  Your statements are legitimate opinions, and
       you should be free to express them.  But I think it's questionable,
       at best, to object to notes that are considered provocative by some
       in the Womannotes community while simultaneously writing notes that
       may be considered provocative in another noting community. 
       
       --Mr Topaz
                                                                   

    Re: .35
    
    The extract of my note which Mr. Topaz included in .35 was taken
    out of context.  In the original note, for example, I made clear that
    because moderate Israeli leaders such as Peres were not being interviewed
    on tv (at that time), that the extract was the impression that I
    thought tv viewers were getting from the news.  As long as this
    has come up (for the last time, moderators, honest) let me take
    the opportunity to urge anyone interested in the Israeli/Palestinian
    situation and the U.S.' responsibility for it to read BAGELS 406.
    
    Now, since I _really_ am leaving (I just hopped in to be sure the
    moderators hadn't deleted my note, since we are wandering away from
    the topic of womannotes), I would like to do two things:
    
    1.  repeat that an abusive note is one of the form "you/your ideas
    are stupid", as opposed to "I disagree with you for the following
    reasons."  (Although people in BAGELS are spread across the entire
    spectrum of views in 406, for example, _no_ _one_ there has resorted
    to personal abuse;  civilized behaviour, what a joy.)
    
    2. ask that if anyone feels inclined to copy further portions of
    my notes in bagels into womannotes, they include the entire note,
    and send me a mail message saying that they are doing so, so I can
    hop back in and reply.
    
    

    
    Karen (if you haven't already left yet),
    
    I hope you'll reconsider your decision to leave.  I hate to see
    women being bullied out, and I've really valued your contributions
    to the file.  I walked away (somewhat disgusted) a while back and
    then returned and have been glad I did.
    
    Hope to hear from you again,
    
    Justine

    	RE:  .39
    
    	Given the incredibly high cost of living in New England, it
    	doesn't surprise me too much to hear that young High School
    	girls are concerned about marriage finances.
    
    	It doesn't necessarily mean that a whole generation of women
    	are doomed (i.e., have a total lack of values about love and
    	relationships.)
    
    	They may have felt that the teacher was looking for some
    	practical considerations and didn't want to hear about the
    	romantic longings of very young teenage girls.
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    	RE:  .41
    
    	Ok, but how about the area that Russ' teacher was in when he
    	posed the question to the teenage girls?
    
    	The point I was trying to make is that one question posed by
    	one teacher to one group of teenage girls is not a reliable
    	indicator of the level of values that women in general have
    	(or even just young women in High School.)
    
    	It is an interesting anecdote, but...
    
    							Suzanne...

    
    	RE:  .44
    
    	Touche' ...
    
    

RE: .40 RE: .39

I thought .39's point was that people, IE women AND men, need to know what
goes on in women's skulls...

Jim.

    	Getting back to corporate policy around closed notesfiles,
    	the AA notesfiles is open only to people who are members
    	of AA or who have an alchohol problem themselves.  Now 
    	maybe if an individual pushed they could get access or have
    	the file closed down.  Or maybe the corporation would recognize
    	that the members need a supportive environment where they can
    	talk about issues of concern to them without fear of reprisals
    	in the workplace.  Their is also a notesfile to discuss epillepsy,
    	which has a similar closed membership policy I believe.
    	  Linda

    Speaking only as an individual...
    
    The corporate policy was constructed to insure that resources like
    notes are available to all Digital employees.  The intention of
    that policy is understandable and commendable.
    
    If one of those resources is unable to carry out its intended purpose
    and the people for whom the resource was primarily designed begin
    to turn away from it and say, "All they do is fight.  It's not worth
    it", perhaps it is time to challenge the 'sacred cow' of corporate
    policy.
    
    In my experience, rules are guidelines, and it's important to look at
    the reasoning behind them.  When the rules begin to exclude some of the
    people whose interests they were designed to protect, I think it's time
    to discuss the problem with the rule-makers and rule-keepers. 
    
    If we cannot find a way to co-exist in this file on a win/win basis,
    I think we should enlist some expert outside help in creating an
    environment in which women feel welcome, heard, and included.
    Once we've created that, we can look at needs of the wider community.
    
    Men's issues aside for the moment, if women do not feel welcome,
    heard and included here, we are doing something wrong on a very
    basic level.  I for one have no interest in participating in a forum
    *about* women which does not ensure that their stated needs will be met
    as best as possible here.
    
    If the decision were ever made that Womannotes was merely *about* women
    and not a Valuing Differences forum where the process of women
    speaking, listening, and growing was just as important as the content,
    I would no longer wish to participate.  It would become an intellectual
    exercise where the agenda was set by those with the loudest voices. 
    
    If we had a conference about "Ageing", for example, I would expect some
    general theorizing on ageing.  If it were a Valuing Differences
    conference, though, I would expect the agenda to be primarily set by
    people who were "ageing".  Some might be celebrating it, and others
    might be hating it, but they are experiencing it. They have first hand
    experience, and can speak as experts on the subject. 
    
    Those of us who are not yet ageing (or at least don't think so!)
    might have a lot of issues about ageing in the future, our parents
    ageing, society's protection of the aged, and what resources ageing
    people take away from us.  I think there's some room for that, but
    not at the expense of the people who are working on the issue as
    a first-hand experience.                            
    
    Why should non-Christians clamor for equal recognition and equal
    support in Bible-believing Christian notes?  Why should whites go
    into Blacknotes and insist that their pain be given equal time there?
    Why should anti-Semites look to Bagels to get their needs met?
    And why would homophobes demand to set the agenda in GDE?  Part
    of using corporate resources wisely, I think, is giving people with
    something in common a place to discuss it in depth and share support,
    resources, frustrations, and common beliefs.
    
    It may well turn out that my philosophy of Valuing Differences
    notesfiles is diametrically opposed to that of the corporation. 
    Those with the power to decide might say, "No, you can only talk *about*
    topics.  No-one is protected, there are no special interests, and
    no-one has the special power to set the agenda in any conference".
    
    Some people obviously will not agree with me.  But I think it's time to
    clarify the question, "Are Valuing Differences notesfiles there to talk
    about a subject, or are they there to give people with something in
    common as place to share support, resources and frustrations?" 
    
    I think it may be time to work on the issue at the corporate level
    since we appear to be experiencing a basic conflict of needs. 
    
    Holly                                  
    ...with moderator hat set off...
                                                                  

re: .48

I agree strongly with the idea that if Womannotes is not a Valuing 
Differences forum where a traditionally excluded and de-valued group can 
talk together, speak, hear and support one another, then it has no value 
whatsoever to women.  The disregard for the "difference" of women that 
has been so characteristic of this file lately would not be permitted in 
any other valuing differences forum, and the fact that it exists so 
strongly here is a powerful statement about the intensity and 
pervasiveness of sexism in our society.  

I hate to count the number of personal mail messages I've had from women 
who confess to being read-only noters in this file, because they didn't 
think they could express themselves well and were afraid of being flamed 
and roasted.  Isn't it shocking that any woman should be AFRAID to note 
in WOMANnotes?  Doesn't anyone see the outrage that some men can't allow
even the few bits of data this notes file represents (out of all the
zillions of blocks of disk on 25,000 nodes) to rest unpenetrated by male
domination?  A courteous request for privacy, respect, and self-
determination is always taken as a challenge to tender male egos.

Almost every man who has introduced himself to this file has stated 
something along the lines of "wanting to understand women", yet almost 
none of the very active contributors ever listen to women.  Men who 
have this goal listen more than they speak, accept that there are 
differences, and try to embrace them by expanding their own viewpoint to
consider the possibilities of finding something unique and valuable in 
women's voices.  

If corporate policy is used as an excuse to deny women the right to draw 
together in support of each other and to explore and understand their 
uniqueness as women, the Valuing Differences in this company is a lie.
I'm tired of hearing that it is sexist descrimination for women to want 
to talk to each other!  Women struggle daily with a system that is 
designed to exploit and oppress them, and if they seek a little support
and encouragement and maybe a bit of privacy, how does this cause men to
suffer?   What man's career will be damaged because a woman doesn't want
to hear what he thinks about nightmares?  Men have more than their share 
of forums in which to express their opinions and set the agendas.  I 
don't consider it at all unfair that women should be allowed this one 
notesfile as their own.

    
    re:.48
    
    Thank you Ms. Hendricks! These are great ideas to be applied to
    Womannotes!
    

    
    re: .49
    
    hear, hear!!
    

    Can someone please explain what the term "Valuing Differences" means?
    Where did the phrase come from?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Les 

    AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
    OPPORTUNITY AND VALUING DIFFERENCES
    
    POLICY STATEMENT
    
    It is the policy of Digital Equipment Corporation to ensure that
    all employees and potential employees are considered for all positions
    on the basis of their qualifications and abilities without regard
    to race, color, sex, religion, age, national origin, sexual
    orientation, or handicap.  We shall recruit, hire, upgrade, train
    and promote all employees in all job classifications and ensure
    that all personnel actions such as compensation, benefits,
    company-sponsored training, educational tuition assistance, and
    social and recreational programs are administered without regard
    to these differences.  We will provide a work environment free from
    discrimination and harassment of any kind.
    
    Moreover, we are committed to valuing people's differences because
    it is our firm conviction that an environment which values differences
    is critical to each employee's ability to succeed and to the success
    of the Corporation.
    
    In addition, we shall take affimative action to ensure that all
    minorities, women, Vietnam Era Veterans, handicapped persons, and
    disabled veterans are introduced into the workforce and are considered
    for promotional opportunities as they arise.
    
    Barbara Walker, Corporate Director of Affirmative Action/Equal
    Employment Opportunity and Valuing Differences, and I will ensure
    that the intent and practice of this policy is carried out; however,
    we will expect every manager, supervisor and employee to take an
    active part in putting these principles into practice -- with each
    other and in our relationships with customers and others with whom
    we do business.
    
    Kenneth H. Olsen, President
    July 1, 1985

From .53:

   "We shall ... ensure that ... company-sponsored ... social and
   recreational programs are administered without regard to these
   differences.  We will provide a work environment free from
   discrimination and harassment of any kind."

where "these differences" refers to "race, color, sex, religion, age,
national origin, sexual orientation, or handicap."

Some people seem to feel that men are harrassing women in this notesfile.

Some people, myself included, feel that this notesfile is being administered
*with* regard to sexual differences.

Now what?

Martin.

    <--(.54)
    
    Martin, where legitimate needs conflict, how would you suggest we
    resolve the conflict?  Cut the baby in half so that the baby is
    dead and nobody benefits?
    
    						=maggie

re: .55    
    Martin, where legitimate needs conflict, how would you suggest we
    resolve the conflict? 

I really don't know.  What bothers me about the new policy statement is
the lack of "one man, one vote."  I.e., that the wishes of women outweigh
the wishes of men.  My reading of the Valuing Differences policy is that
this is explicitly prohibitied in contexts such as notesfiles.

Perhaps someone should ask the woman responsible for the policy what
her thoughts are.

Martin.

    <--(.56)
    
    Okay, try working it out.  Presume that the decision is yours. 
    We have a vote on some subject, and the tally is women 100-10 and
    the men 0-90.  Who wins?  Why?
    
    At present the problem is hypothetical.  The closest we've come to that
    situation was over the question of whether to take the file private;
    the trashnotes proposal had clear bipartisan support. In the
    take-the-file-private vote, men were strongly against the move and
    women were undecided, if you'll recall.  I can't speak for Bonnie,
    Holly or Liz, but under similar circumstances today, I feel quite sure
    that I personally would urge --reluctantly-- that we declare failure of
    the proposal. 
    
    New policy or old, the bottom line for every member of the community
    is simply whether or not they trust us to be ethical and do our best
    according to our understanding and skill.
    
    						=maggie 
    

re: .57:

    Okay, try working it out.  Presume that the decision is yours. 
    We have a vote on some subject, and the tally is women 100-10 and
    the men 0-90.  Who wins?  Why?

The position I'm taking (a missionary position, of course) is that there
should be *no* sexual divisions in Womannotes.  The introduction should
state that this notesfile is for "topics of interest to women" and that
"all are welcome but are expected to respect their collegues."

Just as it is illegal to ask the sex of a person who'se resume you're
examining, we should not be asked our sex when participating in this
(or any) notesfile.

What would happen if I were making a business decision and the vote
came out the same.  If I even *referred* to a sexual division in the
vote, I'd probably be fired on the spot.  How is Womannotes substantially
different?

What would happen if the vote were "straights" 100-10 and "gays" 0-90.
Or "WC3" 100-10 and "WC4" 0-90, or "parents" vs. "non-parents."
How can you say that a sexual distinction is relevant to decisions
about womannotes while a sexual-orientation, economic, or racial
distinction is not?

Incidently, in a conference I moderate that has its share of flames
(HUMAN::NO_SMOKING), I wouldn't think of taking a vote.  When someone
criticises a decision I make, we work it out off-line.

While I think managment by consensus is a good idea, I think your approach
fails when it attempts to force a consensus where none exists.  I do trust
you to act ethically, but intend to continue to demand that you act within
the ethical guidelines of the company and society as a whole.

Martin.

Ps: Could you (moderators) please start a note for comments on the new
policy so that the discussion could be concentrated in one place.  If
you do so, perhaps this dialog could be moved there.

>    What would happen if the vote were "straights" 100-10 and "gays" 0-90.
 
    In here?  I think it would not be particularly relevant.  
    
    In the conference for gay DEC employees?  I think it would be very
    relevant because I believe that the gay employees should be able to set
    the agenda in that conference.
    
    At a staff meeting?  You're right -- it would be inappropriate to
    vote along such lines in a setting like that. 

re: .49

>  I agree strongly with the idea that if Womannotes is not a Valuing 
>  Differences forum where a traditionally excluded and de-valued group can 
>  talk together, speak, hear and support one another, then it has no value 
>  whatsoever to women.  The disregard for the "difference" of women that 
>  has been so characteristic of this file lately would not be permitted in 
>  any other valuing differences forum, and the fact that it exists so 
>  strongly here is a powerful statement about the intensity and 
>  pervasiveness of sexism in our society.  

  If the case of this file was, and is not, what it was intended to
  be, then why do so many women still continue to note in it ? If this
  file has not the ability to fofill women's needs then why haven't
  they all abandoned it and gone over to the for women only file ?
  All I'am hearing out of this is, I WANT, I WANT with total disregard
  for the rights and opinions of others.There has been notes in this 
  file, asking the audience about mens participation in it. The majority
  of replys stated, yes , that they, the women participants, did want to
  allow and include men in the file. 

  I made a statement, some weeks ago, about that if certain women wanted,
  their own file that they should have it. Jim B provided that space for 
  you and YOU STILL AREN'T HAPPY OR SATISFIED. That being the case, what 
  WILL make you happy ??? The eradication of all men from all files, I 
  mean REALLY, HUH ! WHAT do you want ??  Since you now have a women only, 
  private format and you STILL aren't satisfied, I begin to get the sense 
  that there is a hidden agenda of wants that exist but aren't being stated. 
  Lets stop with the games, get rid of the smoke screen and be honest about 
  what it is you REALLY want, what your true goals are.
  
>  I hate to count the number of personal mail messages I've had from women 
>  who confess to being read-only noters in this file, because they didn't 
>  think they could express themselves well and were afraid of being flamed 
>  and roasted.  Isn't it shocking that any woman should be AFRAID to note 
>  in WOMANnotes?  Doesn't anyone see the outrage that some men can't allow
>  even the few bits of data this notes file represents (out of all the
>  zillions of blocks of disk on 25,000 nodes) to rest unpenetrated by male
>  domination?  A courteous request for privacy, respect, and self-
>  determination is always taken as a challenge to tender male egos.

   Ahhhh HORSEPUCKEY !!!!! I am SOOOOO sick and tired of seeing this
   same stupid untruth of "men dominating the file, setting the agenda."
   This is another one of those smoke screen squawks, that hides the under
   lying fact that you don't want to hear or listen to any man's opinion.
   All during this files existence you have had two (now four) very capable 
   moderators, that I know for a fact, would NEVER allow any man or group of 
   men, to dominate one note, let alone the whole file. By making the 
   accusations that men dominate the file, you are in fact saying that you 
   have no faith or confidence in those that are the moderators. To continue 
   with the "men dominating" accusation is to, also say that the moderators 
   are incompetent and there is no control in the file, which we all know,
   in truth, is NOT the case. In consideration of that, why not just give it
   a break, would you.

>  Almost every man who has introduced himself to this file has stated 
>  something along the lines of "wanting to understand women", yet almost 
>  none of the very active contributors ever listen to women.  Men who 
>  have this goal listen more than they speak, accept that there are 
>  differences, and try to embrace them by expanding their own viewpoint to
>  consider the possibilities of finding something unique and valuable in 
>  women's voices.  

   I get a very strong indication and sense, that you consider, that the 
   only good man, is one with no opinion. Or if he has one, he keeps it to
   himself. We as men are an "unnecessary entity" and therefor should have 
   no rights in a women oriented format. Since this IS an open, public 
   file, I suggest you re-read that equal opportunity, valuing differences
   policy and keep it in mind for this file. If you want to play the one way,
   double standard game, please do it in the private file. 

>  If corporate policy is used as an excuse to deny women the right to draw 
>  together in support of each other and to explore and understand their 
>  uniqueness as women, the Valuing Differences in this company is a lie.

   False hood # 1, this file and the for women only file do in fact exist.
   No one has stopped women from drawing together. No one has stopped you 
   from doing anything except yourself because you don't like the current
   rules structure and therefore don't wish to work within them. And OBTW
   the rules for this file were set up by women ,NOT men. 

>  I'm tired of hearing that it is sexist discrimination for women to want 
>  to talk to each other!
 
   False hood # 2, no one has stopped women from talking together. Again
   there exists two women oriented formats, one of which is exclusively for
   women. It is discrimination not to allow equal access and voice to any 
   public file, whether you like it or not.

>  Women struggle daily with a system that is 
>  designed to exploit and oppress them,

   This is 1988 and the twentieth century, and it would be nice if you 
   would dump the mid evil century attitude and speech. Women, today
   are like every other special interest and minority groups, alot better
   off today because they have banded together and the voices have been
   herd. There is no "system" in place soley to opress women. The paranoid 
   attitude of we're (men) are out to get you, is all in your head.

>  and if they seek a little support and encouragement and maybe a bit of 
>  privacy, how does this cause men to suffer? 

   The women in this file have been getting support from both women and men.
   Privacy is not in question here, and it (privacy) causes no one to suffer.
   Exclusivtitvy is another matter entirely, and I'am getting a very strong
   indication thats want you really want.

>  What man's career will be damaged because a woman doesn't want
>  to hear what he thinks about nightmares?  Men have more than their share 
>  of forums in which to express their opinions and set the agendas.  I 
>  don't consider it at all unfair that women should be allowed this one 
>  notesfile as their own.

  You have a private file for women, what is your problem ???? Again 
  what does it take to make you happy ?? It just strikes me as strange
  that some of the women, that protest so strongly about discrimination,
  seem to be all to willing to practice it against men, when it suits them.
  We, as men are told that we and our opinions are are welcome here, and 
  then because we don't always agree, get called out on account of it.
  What also strikes me as strange is that, to my observance, the women 
  who protest the most are the ones that get called on not practicing the
  equality and non discrimination that they preach.

                                       Bob B
    

    
    
    This is from on of the women who has looked at the "other" file.
    
    I am still here and will probably remain a noter in =womannotes=
    because it is important.  I have not gotten rid of my telephone
    even though I get harrassing phone calls.  I have not stopped walking
    at night, even though I have been threatened.  I will not leave
    womannotes until "all" the men who note respect women's voices,
    have learned to listen to what we say our life expriences have been,
    and stop acting like 3 years olds when they don't get our attention.
    
    I will continue to monitor the "other" file, but it is not what
    I asked for - a conference created by women, for women, about being
    a woman in a male society.  I am very cautious about accepting "gifts"
    from strangers.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-|-)
    		  |
    		  |	And if you (anyone) does not like my references
    			to a Goddess I am not forcing you to  read them,
    			BUT I get forced to acknowledge a male god all
    			the time.  (In God We Trust)  My image of the
    			Goddess is MINE.
    

    
    Oh, good, Peggy.  I would really miss your references to the goddess.
    In fact, it's really been because of your notes that I have started
    reading some wonderful books about goddess-worshipping peoples in
    days gone by...  
                                                     
    Thanks, Peggy!
    
    Justine

    Me too, Peggy. I *like* your references to the goddess. Not
    only are many of them very empowering, but I think you're
    wonderful for creating them all!
    
    Dawn-who-is-waiting-for-the-time-to-pursue-the-"Cakes"-reading-list
    

    	RE:  .62, .63, .64
    
    	Hi Peggy, Justine, and Dawn!   Yes, I am also a big fan of
    	the little Goddess sayings!!  Please keep them coming!
    
    	You are all so beautiful -- a breath of fresh air (and I
    	really needed it badly!)
    
    						Love you all!

    re: .60 by Bob Barber
    
    Bob,  I'm not sure where you get your information, but you may want
    to reevaluate your arguments since they are based on the falsehood
    that the other file is for women only.
    
                    Carol

    Bob,
    
    The other conference is a members-only file about women.  It does
    not necessarily meet the needs of women who participate in =Womannotes=.
    
    We only proposed the experiment yesterday, and I don't think Catherine
    is saying that she is not willing to try it.  (Please correct me
    if I assumed wrongly, Catherine).  At the same time, we have not
    yet seen the results of the experiment, so I don't think that we
    can say that it has or has not been proved effective.
                                                                           
    I think it is safe to say that at this point in time, a great deal
    of time and space has been consumed by discussing the needs of men
    versus the needs of women, and a great deal less has been written
    on issues that are primarily "content" as opposed to "process" than
    a year ago at this time.
         
    Bob, I have a request for you.  When a woman, or any other member
    of a minority group makes a statement about her own experience 
    as a woman or minority, would you please say that *you* disagree
    instead of contradicting her (or him in some cases)?  It may seem
    like a small difference, but I think it's a very big difference.
    
    Thank you.
         
    Holly

RE: .47

Are people in AA asked if they have alchol problems?  What if they decline to
say?  How do you prove it? 

RE: .48

I believe that it maybe necessary to ask management for a clarification of
how the Valuing Differences policy affects VAXNOTES Conferences.

"Why should non-Christians clamor for equal recognition and equal support in
Bible-believing Christian notes?  Why should whites go into Blacknotes and
insist that their pain be given equal time there? Why should anti-Semites look
to Bagels to get their needs met? And why would homophobes demand to set the
agenda in GDE?" 

Because there is not the amount of abusive statements about the non*.  Because
there exist other places where those needs are met. 

"I for one have no interest in participating in a forum *about* women which does
not ensure that their stated needs will be met as best as possible here."

RE: .48

"I agree strongly with the idea that if Womannotes is not a Valuing Differences
forum where a traditionally excluded and de-valued group can talk together,
speak, hear and support one another, then it has no value whatsoever to women." 

That seems a bit extreme to me...

"Doesn't anyone see the outrage that some men can't allow even the few bits of
data this notes file represents (out of all the zillions of blocks of disk on
25,000 nodes) to rest unpenetrated by male domination?"

I think, more to the point men cannot let this rest in *female* domination.
But I do not believe men wish for male dominantion.

"A courteous request for privacy, respect, and selfdetermination is always taken
as a challenge to tender male egos."

See above.  I feel that discrimination is catering to fragile female egos. 

"Almost every man who has introduced himself to this file has stated something
along the lines of "wanting to understand women", yet almost none of the very
active contributors ever listen to women."

That seems pretty presumptive.  Can you hear people listening in NOTES?

"I'm tired of hearing that it is sexist descrimination for women to want to talk
to each other!"

That is not the sexist discrimination.  No one has said that that is the sexist
discrimination.  The sexist discrimination is in not allowing male
participation.

"What man's career will be damaged because a woman doesn't want to hear what he
thinks about nightmares?"

"Men have more than their share of forums in which to express their opinions and
set the agendas. It is not the result of the discrimination that matters."

As far as I know, they have at best one conference with that purpose. 

RE: .53

Please note that it makes no mention of encouraging or tolerating reverse
discrimination for any purpose, or making exceptions for special conferences. 

RE: .55

What to do about it?  Treat each note on it's own merits.  Put out both
male and female flames.

RE: .60

Cool It Bob!

RE: .63

"In God We Trust"

If the God referred to is the same as I worship, God is not specifically
male, but rather a superset of both man and woman.  Both man and woman were
made in God's image.

"I am not forcing you to read them, BUT I get forced to acknowledge a male god
all the time."

How is it that your mention of 'Goddess' is not 'forcing' on me, but another
mention of "God" is forcing on you?  I do not find you mere mention of 'Goddess'
to be 'forcing' on me, only those which exclude me and mine. 

RE: .*

The problem is that there exists no conference that provides the place for WOMEN
and MEN.  True, HUMAN_RELATIONS is supposed to be such a place, but it has not
been such.   And if there cannot be at DEC a conference where MEN and WOMEN can
talk about MEN and WOMEN, then I have grave fears that the rest of the world is
not going to do any better. 
             
Jim.

    <--(.60?  (Bob Barber's, anyhow) and .68)
    
    Bob, Jim, if this file isn't meeting your needs for some reason,
    might I suggest that you both shift your attention to the members-
    only forum that Jim supports?  As pointed out by several people,
    Bob, you're laboring under a misapprehension about the membership
    requirements.  It is positively not a FWO file, you would certainly
    qualify for membership without having to employ any subterfuge.
    If I'm correct in believing that Gale Kleinberger is the principal
    moderator there, I daresay you would both be very welcome (as would
    any other man who feels oppressed here):  Gale has expressed herself
    rather forcefully that she doesn't consider FWO space to be needed,
    and that she completely supports the right of any man to participate
    in any discussion ad libitum.
    
    Do please go there if you aren't happy here.  This space is unlikely
    ever to feel more comfortable to you than it does right now.
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie 
                                           
    

You are right Holly; I have no problem with the experiment being
proposed -- I think it a good idea.  I'm very pleased with the new, more
explicitly woman- oriented statement of purpose in this file. 

I am annoyed that there are men in this file who presume to know what it 
is that I want (e.g. -- all men to shut up and go away), when that is 
not what I have said at any time.  What I want is a space that is 
devoted to meeting the particular needs of women in our corporation.
That women have a requirement for such a thing should not be 
controversial.  They are a traditionally disenfranchised group, and 
for all the improvements in this century in women's legal status, still
do not have as much economic, social, or political power in the overall 
society as their numbers would indicate (the majority minority).  As a 
social group, they are still disadvantaged with regard to the privileges 
enjoyed by white men.  That they have a need to network and empower each 
other, given the existing social context, should not be consider an
affront to men, anymore than the NAACP should be considered an affront 
to whites or the National Gay Task Force an affront to heterosexuals.

I have never objected to the rules governing this file, or to the
consensus method of making decisions here.  I do not intrinsically
object to the presence of men in the file, as long as their presence
does not detract from the primary purpose of the file. That women's
needs should have a priority in the file supposedly dedicated to their
concerns should not be seen as a violation of men's civil rights, or
proof that some of us just want men to evaporate.  I deeply resent being
badgered to confess that that is really my agenda, when it is not.  My
agenda is not male-centered, it is woman-centered: I desire a place to
nurture, support, and empower women of all kinds who work for this
corporation.  

    	RE:  .70
    
    	Catherine, I've stated publicly that you are one of the people
    	I admire most in this conference (allow me to state it again
    	now.)

    	You have made your position here quite clear (with one of the most
    	intelligent and articulate voices that this conference has ever
    	seen) and I want you to know that I strongly support the things
    	you've said in this note (as well as elsewhere in Womannotes.)
    
    	Thank you for the significant contributions that you've made
    	to this file.  You (among others) are the reason that I stay
    	here -- you make this file worthwhile for me (and _almost_ worth 
    	enduring some of the abuse that women have been subjected to here.)  
    
    	Thank you very much.

>    "Why should non-Christians clamor for equal recognition and equal support in
>Bible-believing Christian notes?  Why should whites go into Blacknotes and
>insist that their pain be given equal time there? Why should anti-Semites look
>to Bagels to get their needs met? And why would homophobes demand to set the
>agenda in GDE?" 

>>Because there is not the amount of abusive statements about the non*.  Because
>>there exist other places where those needs are met. 
  
    What...I am having trouble parsing your response.
    
    If I do understand you correctly, are you saying that <majority
    group> should go into <minority group> file and demand equal time
    and recognition there *because* <minority group> members are making
    abusive statements about <majority group>?  And <majority group>
    members should speak up about that and defend themselves.
    
    Perhaps <minority group> members are not discussing <majority group> at
    all, but are speaking about themselves and their lives.  In discussing
    incidents which have been painful for them, it comes up that many
    such incidents were caused by <majority group> members (who are
    no longer present).  The <minority group> members are still speaking
    about themselves, their pain and their lives.  What is there to
    refute? 
           
    Maybe, if I've got this right, this explains the vicious circle
    I've been seeing and feeling.  The process completes when <majority
    group> members get defensive and demand equal time for their pain,
    the <minority group> members say "no, we would like to set the agenda
    here", the <majority group> members get angry and then (in some
    cases) begin acting very much like <majority group> members from
    the past who were abusive, and around and around we go.
                                
    Insight:  Jim, please try hard not to personalize things which are not
    directed at you.  A lot of the pain you see being described here is not
    about you personally.  You do not have to refute, deny or defend
    statements women make about their own experiences.
                                                             
    Many of the women here are working hard at not generalizing.  Instead
    of saying "Men are jerks, I hate them", I hear most women trying
    to say things like "Men have hurt me when they...", "I don't like
    it when men...", "Men who do ___ make me angry".
                                                    
         
    Holly

    re: .70 - sounds right to me.
    
    Steve
    

RE: .73

"If I do understand you correctly, are you saying that <majority group> should
go into <minority group> file and demand equal time and recognition there
*because* <minority group> members are making abusive statements about <majority
group>?"

I don't know where you are getting that, so I will just say that it is more like
I feel that the minority group should not be making abusive statements about the
majority group even in their file; neither group should.  Further, the file
should be used by each group to find out more about the other group, and promote
communications between the groups. 

"What is there to refute?"

If the minority group is not making abusive statements about the majority group,
nothing.  However, the other reasons for the participation of the majority group
still stand.

'pain'

Is it "Pain", or "abuse"?  Can we have one without the other?

'round and round'

Yes, the round and round has got to be stopped on *both* sides of the circle. 

"You do not have to refute, deny or defend statements women make about their own
experiences."

I feel I have a duty to correct falsehoods.  *If* each woman talked solely about
their own experiences without generalization, there would not be a problem (on
that half, or at least less).  When I see an incorrect generalization I feel
that it should be corrected.

"Many of the women here are working hard at not generalizing.  Instead of saying
"Men are jerks, I hate them", I hear most women trying to say things like "Men
have hurt me when they...", "I don't like it when men...", "Men who do ___ make
me angry"."

That is still generalizing.  That is still saying that Men, including me, have
hurt them.  This is why I start feeling defensive, and why I feel that I have to
correct that statement.  I have to defend myself.  I do not feel that this is
good enough to prevent those feelings of defensiveness.  Can we do any better?

Jim.
 

Jim, I am going to address some of the points that you made in your
    last reply. Please remember that I am speaking to you as a friend
    and take my remarks as coming from one who is speaking to you out
    of a sense of caring.
    
>    I feel that the minority group should not be making abusive statements about the
>majority group even in their file; neither group should.  Further, the file
>should be used by each group to find out more about the other group, and promote
>communications between the groups.

    How do we define what is or is not an abusive statement? It seems
    that no matter how women express their feelings and frustrations
    *someone* is going to come along and say that wasn't pain that
    was abuse...I feel that this file should first off be a place
    where women can express their problems and frustrations and pain
    and not have to 'pull their punches' or watch their language as
    much as we do in the 'real' world. And believe me, as other women
    have said before, the kinds of things expressed here are mild compaired
    to more private situations. 
    
    Jim what you are saying sounds like "it is okay for women to express 
    their problems as long as they are very very careful how they express 
    themselves, are careful that they never say anything that might
    be interpreted as being offensive to a man, and - essentially -
    never get really honest."
    
    For heavens sake...my friend, we have given you far more courtesy
    than that in this file...many of us have both in the file and in
    mail and in meetings been supportive of your pain in re your children
    even if we might have thought you weren't always being entirely
    logical or rational about it. Can you not grant the same courtesy
    here?
    
>    I feel I have a duty to correct falsehoods.
    
    For heavens sake why??? and who defines 'falsehoods'-  you? Please
    explain why you feel that you must, that you have a duty, to come
    into womannotes and 'correct falsehoods' about women's experiences.
    This is one of the major reasons that people, and women in particular
    get upset with you. I would never in my life feel that it was my
    *responsibility* to correct other people on their life experiences
    - unless they had specifically invited me to do so. Jim where have
    the members of womennotes invited you to be the arbiter of what
    is or is not falsehood in their personal experiences?
    
    > *If* each woman talked solely about their own experiences without 
    > generalization, there would not be a problem (on that half, or at 
    > least less).  When I see an incorrect generalization I feel
    > that it should be corrected.

    Again, who defines an incorrect generalization? You seem to be finding
    many many such in this file...from the number of replies you have
    been entering at any rate....don't you see that to set yourself
    up as judge of the experiences of many other people most of whom
    you have never even met is not reasonable? It smack of hubris, of
    arrogance, of 'cheek' and the English would say.
    
>That is still saying that Men, including me, have
>hurt them.  This is why I start feeling defensive, and why I feel that I have to
>correct that statement.  I have to defend myself.  I do not feel that this is
>good enough to prevent those feelings of defensiveness.  Can we do any better?

    
    Please tell me why in heaven you feel so defensive on this issue.
    
    Why do you have to correct women's statements about their experiences
    with other men. *Why* in heavens name do you have to defend *yourself*
    Why do you personalize all these remarks and feel *you* are being
    attacked?
    
   Can you allow other people to talk about their life experiences
    without feeling that they are speaking to you? Can you look into
    yourself and find why you are so abnormally sensitive on this issue?
    
    Jim, there is no need for you to be censor of this file. As I have
    asked you in mail, please stop doing that. Talk about your own
    feelings, share your own experiences, empathise with other people's
    pain. But *PLEASE* stop acting like you have been given the 'divine'
    right to comment on the rightness of other people's way of expressing
    themselves.
    
    your friend
    
    Bonnie

         I think Womannotes is like a Museum. Or Art Gallery. It is
      owned by Digital and entrusted to be maintained by 4 caretakers,
      in this case women. The Gallery, as such, is owned by Women and
      hangs..on its walls..paintings by both women and men. 
        The caretakers of the Museum, as time went on, developed and
      decided upon the decorating style that they and the 'Community'
      desired for the museum to have.
        The artists who hang their pictures--both women and men, are
      able to help shape the style of interior (& exterior) *design*
      that makes the Museum--The Museum. Various Museum designs (rules)
      are frequently being examined, with agreed upon rule changes,
      modifications, or (sought/supposed) *improvements* being made.
      This is called Progress.
        While the Museum is run by women, both male and female artists
      feel free to hang their individual works of art anywhere within
      the confines of the Museum. Within reason. 
        The first problem that arose was NOT One of Museum 'Space.'
      Their are too few artists hanging their pictures in the 'MOMA'
      for physical space to be *the problem*
        The first problem that arose involved a change of paintings
      by *someone* in the Museum's sign up register. Unlike a phone-
      book, the individual male and female artists were asked to sign
      2 separate registers, one for the men and another for the women.
        The second problem that arose was for all visitors to the Museum
      to sign the registers according to their physical sex. IE skin
      & anatomical differences. Everyone did as they were told and there
      were no complaints.
       The third problem that arose was when the 4 caretakers and female
      artists noticed that the Museum was dedicated to them. (1st prob!?).
      Besides the separate registers according to sex, they decided
      to hang several pictures by women in the first few rooms of the
      Museum. This was done under the impression that the Museum, besides
      being run by them, was also *dedicated* to them. This done, the
      females involved also hung a huge painting over the entrance way
      that goes into the Museum. They stood back and looked.
        They were pleased of their work. It had a distinct femine touch
      to it. They began to wonder how *else* they might be better able
      to make the *Museum* look.
        They drew up a charter. And hung it on a sign at the entrance
      way. They stood back and saw that it was good.
        They 'touched up' most of the Museum rooms that night while
      about half of the artists had gone home. With few exceptions
      the women went to work,
        All the rooms got rugs or carpets that night. Some rooms had
      black & white rugs, others red & black. Red and blue. Pastel colors
      such as yellow, lite blue and pink were layed down in other rooms.
      The women looked back & saw that it was good.
        The next step involved the curtains for the many windows. Same
      people making the decisions, with similar flavors for colors.
        The group continued by switching around a number of lights in
      the various rooms. Particularly the lights in the rooms that
      contained paintings by the men. They liked the change and saw
      that it was good.
        The next change involved separating some of the rooms according
      to the sex of the artist. This was done due to the request by
      several female artists that they needed their 'own space.'
      Although the rooms shared by both sexes did not involve physical
      space, a F/M arguement had turned ugly and that, along with a
      myriad of other things 'brought out of the woodwork' (the past),
      resulted in the decision to separate some rooms according to sex.
      A suggestion for one or two 'male rooms' got a dirty look. The
      nerve.  Those involved looked back and saw that it was good.
        The group did some final touchup work and the Museum opened
      up the next day for both artists and visitors alike.
    
         What do you think happened ?
    
    
    re .58   I agree with all your comments.
    
    re .68  "..Men cannot let this rest in *female* domination. But
            I do not believe men wish for male domination."
    
            Men wish women their desired 'space needs.' I think there's
            too much fuss about the whole matter, but....
    
            "The sexist discrimination is in not allowing male part-
             icipation."
    
            Oh we're 'allowed', unfortunately that's an attitude of
            a lot of people around here. I got a mail mssg recently
            from a feminist recently that said that all women here
            are automatically seeded into the Community whereas men
            are 'allowed' to participate and, eventually by being
            seen by the Community as OK, they become Community members
            in a similar way. Like their Sisters.
    
     re .69   "This space is unlikely ever to feel more comfortable
            ...than it does right now."
    
             If such is the case then the change will have to come from
            within--not from without.
    
            Martin is right. Let's knock it off. NOW.
    
                                                       Russ P.

    Re: .75
    
    Let me check my understanding here:
    
    	Womannotes should be for women to learn more about men, and
    	men to learn more about women.
    
    	Mennotes should be for men to learn more about women, and women
    	to learn more about men.
    
    	Humannotes should be for men and women to learn more about each
    	other.
    
    	Blacknotes should be for blacks to learn more about whites,
    	and whites to learn more about blacks.
    
    	Unix.notes should be for unix users to learn more about vms
    	and vms users to learn more about unix.
    
    	Christian should be for christians to learn more about other
    	beliefs, and other believers to learn more about christianity.
    	[Right... go ahead and try it, I want to watch.]
    
    	Soapbox should be for flamers to learn more about courtesy,
    	and courteous people to learn more about flaming.
    
    There is a germ of truth to what you say, but in each case, the major
    emphasis should be on the subject of the notesfile, and the minor
    purpose is for the subject of the notesfile to learn about others, else
    where to Emacs users go to talk about the latest emacs hacks without
    having to deal with all those vi and edt weenies? If I've just posted a
    clever "C" macro to the "C" notesfile, I don't want to hear how I could
    save 10 microseconds by coding it in Macro.
    
    	-- Charles
    
    P.S. Re: .76 Thank you Bonnie.
    
    P.P.S Re: .77
    	"There are many standards of manners, use any... of them"
    
    By your own standard then, you are being abusive. Many people have
    told you you are being rude, and why. Please stop.
    
    	"I'm I am saying *everybody* should be carefull how they express
    	themselves in order not to offend *anyone*."
    
    But Jim, *you* don't do this. You don't even seem to *try*. People
    (both men and women) have told you repeatedly that you are being
    rude at least, and offensive at worst. Please, listen to your own
    words, and think about what you are doing, and what you are accusing
    others of doing. Perhaps you have indeed found a mote in Womannotes
    eye, but...

    RE: .78
    
         I think your in-depth analogy fell a bit short in that it
    only considered the museum dedicated to women.  Rather than having
    the museum dedicated to women, perhaps it might have been more
    accurately portrayed as having only portraits of women (by artists
    of both sexes).  "Topics of interest to Women" must still be the
    root of your analogy.

         WN must retain it's foundation in the realm of women, or it
    ceases to be WOMANNOTES.  This seems to be the opposite extreme
    of the position I oppose.  I prefer a happy medium.
    
                                   Greg
    

    re .79  No danger of this becoming a H_R type Conf. The danger is
          this becomming a rathole Conf. 
    
    re .80  The root of my analogy is one of justifiable bitterness.
            Pulling no punches, the very problem of this Conference
            involves those very "Topics of Interest to Women."
    
            WN is not rooting its foundation in the realm of women --
            for if it was the realm of women displayed here would be
            a shining example to all women; and yes, men too.
            This Conference would be a fine and fun place for everybody
            that cared to be involved. But that is not the case.
            Why?  There are too many hurting people in here. Hurting.
            And hurt people hurt people. 
    
            And we all know what pictures hang on the walls...
    
    
                                                          Russ

"By your own standard then, you are being abusive. Many people have told you you
are being rude, and why. Please stop." 

I would love to stop...  But is pointing out abuse abusive?  I would gladly do
it another way if someone cares to point out a better way.  But while the abuse
exists, it needs to be pointed out. 

You say 'what abuse?', 'what makes you the one to point it out?'.  That only
goes further to prove that it needs to be pointed out, 'cause you just don't see
it.  I point it out, because no one else is pointing it out.

Now...  I would like to stop.

Jim. 

    re .78 -- russ
    "what do you think happened?" => i think you left out a large part
    of the history so that you could make men sound like the victims
    in this story.
    
    re .82 -- jim
    "i would gladly do it another way if someone cares to point out
    a better way" => jim, this is absolute bullsh*t. we, the moderators,
    have sent you numerous letters explaining how you can be less abusive.
    you've chosen, for the most part, to ignore them. and you seem to
    be operating by a double standard -- from your most recent notes,
    it appears that you want everyone except you to behave politely
    and with respect.

    As this string is fundamentally a discussion of FWO issues, it will
    remain locked until 1st May.
    
    						=maggie