| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 665.2 | | TRCO01::GAYNE | Cappucino anyone? | Fri Jan 22 1988 16:27 | 18 |
|
1) What do YOU think is/should be the intended audience of WOMENNOTES?
Men and women.
2) What are the needs that are/should be met by WN?
a) The need for men and women to understand women.
b) The need for men and women to get answers/ideas/opinions from women
about issues relating to women.
3) Are these needs being met by the current structure/approach of WN?
Yes ( although it takes a bit of work to shrug the stuff off that
doesn't add much value ).
4) If not, how would YOU change WN to meet these needs?
|
| 665.3 | Silence is golden... | EUCLID::FRASER | Crocodile sandwich & make it snappy! | Fri Jan 22 1988 22:31 | 22 |
| Why go into CARBUFFS and try to discuss knitting patterns?
This conference is for women to discuss matters of importance
and/or interest to women, not for any man to take upon himself
to try to disprove or denigrate a woman's opinion, regardless
of how he feels about what is said. Wake up and smell the
coffee, gentlemen - this is =WOMANNOTES=, and I for one
consider myself fortunate to be able to gain insight by
listening, rather than creating so much noise that the smaller
voices go unnoticed and perhaps unheard. We were given two
eyes, two ears and only one mouth - listen and look twice as
much as you speak and then your ambitions may be met - after
all, you want to learn what women think and feel, right?
Please don't limit responses to either gender - rather let
everyone learn to communicate in a supportive way, ignore the
gnat bites people.
Back to read (mostly) only......
Andy.
|
| 665.4 | Thanks to TRCO01::GAYNE, no more to say. | COMET::BRUNO | Beware the Night Writer! | Fri Jan 22 1988 22:43 | 19 |
|
1) What do YOU think is/should be the intended audience of WOMENNOTES?
Men and women.
2) What are the needs that are/should be met by WN?
a) The need for men and women to understand women.
b) The need for men and women to get answers/ideas/opinions from women
about issues relating to women.
3) Are these needs being met by the current structure/approach of WN?
Yes ( although it takes a bit of work to shrug the stuff off that
doesn't add much value ).
4) If not, how would YOU change WN to meet these needs?
|
| 665.5 | Musings | BOLT::MINOW | Je suis marxiste, tendance Groucho | Sat Jan 23 1988 10:21 | 33 |
|
1) What do YOU think is/should be the intended audience of WOMENNOTES?
All Digital employees.
2) What are the needs that are/should be met by WN?
"Topics of interest to women."
3) Are these needs being met by the current structure/approach of WN?
Generally so, but at times it seems as if there appears to be a struggle
for "power" in this file that is often marked by disrepect on both sides.
The "sides" are not clearly distinguished by gender.
4) If not, how would YOU change WN to meet these needs?
The womannotes moderators have attempted to guide the file by reaching
consensus among the participants. This is a good idea, but at times
it appears to fail because the participants are -- how shall I put it
-- enjoying the battle too much to cooperate with any "moderating" influence.
I wish the moderators saw their job as "gardening" and pulled weeds
before they set seed and choked out the flowers (and vegetables).
I've often wondered whether there is a distinction between "masculine"
(authoritarian) and "feminine" (cooperative/consensus) management styles
(there are hints at this in other notes here). If anyone wants to discuss
this, a new note would be appropriate.
It would indeed be unfortunate if a "feminine" moderating style were
to prove unsuccesful in womannotes.
Martin.
|
| 665.7 | For The Record | GCANYN::TATISTCHEFF | Lee T | Sun Jan 24 1988 14:42 | 85 |
|
In your opinion:
> 1) What do YOU think is/should be the intended audience of WOMENNOTES?
Women and men
> 2) What are the needs that are/should be met by WN?
In order of descending priority:
The need to provide a supportive environment where women who are
isolated -- either by sheer numbers of unsupportive men and
women in certain organizations, or by the extreme "taboo"
nature of some topics -- can ask questions or simply vent our
anger.
To provide a place where women can share their experiences -- rape,
discrimination, living alone, motherhood, loving men, loving
women, being a leader, power, the lack of power, etc.
To heighten men's and women's awareness and understanding of women's
issues, concerns, feelings, and of feminism [converting people
to feminism is a very low-priority item for me because I figure
it comes naturally once we become aware of certain things].
To provide a place where women and men can find information on subjects
important and trivial such as abuse, hotlines, gyns, birth
control, clothing, hairdressers.
> 3) Are these needs being met by the current structure/approach of WN?
We do well on providing info. We do better than can be reasonably
expected in providing a place for women to talk about the touchy
stuff, and pretty well on the little stuff. We do pretty well on
heightening awareness, but the fighting [inevitable to a certain
extent] sometimes chases people away before the seed is planted
-- I must admit a certain smugness to the fact that so many who
stomp away in frustration come back less than a year later.
This conference has helped me a lot in venting/coming to grips with
some of my fury and pain. At least as important, it has helped
me to meet some super people, particularly "more senior" professional
women with whom I can periodically do a "sanity check".
We do so-so to bad with our male readership.
Our large readership helps in meeting _some_ of the agenda, but
inhibits a good deal of it.
Overall, I think we do good, certainly better than can reasonably
be expected.
> 4) If not, how would YOU change WN to meet these needs?
Male readership's anger: I might suggest that something be put in
1.* to apologize if we get pretty touchy with men, to apologize
that they are not one of our higher priorities here, suggest that
they should think _very_ carefully before venting their anger here,
and that they need to put on FULL emotional armor before reading
ANY further.
I say "apologize" though a lot of people will not like it.
Nevertheless, I _know_ what it is like to have my concerns [which
are important to me], my experiences, my anger, my hurt, and MYSELF
dismissed solely on account of my gender. I DON'T like it and I
don't expect a man to like it any more when it is aimed at him.
Thus we owe men an apology because we have needs which cannot be
well met in an environment which is not discriminatory, at least
in part.
> This is our conference, and it is OUR responsibility, not the
> moderators, to structure it so that it meets our needs.
> PS, I understand that the moderators are discussing the overall policy of WN,
> probably even as we 'speak', so this is your chance to have an affect.
One thing which often goes unrecognized is the fact that the mods
consider this _our_ file, not _theirs_. They try to moderate according
to consensus, and use simple democracy when a consensus is not clear.
This is unusual, and I like it despite the problems which accompany
this style of moderation.
Lee
|
| 665.8 | Why struggle? | USMRW7::CTHWEATT | | Mon Jan 25 1988 12:32 | 33 |
| I have just recently added this to my note file. So far, I have
been just a "read-only" participant. As of yet, I haven't even
put a note in the introductions.
re: 3 I found it extremely interesting that the reply which I
wholeheartedly agreed with was from (I presume) a male.
re: 5 I agree with the "struggle for power" statement.
I think that the intended audience should be primarily for women
and the interests of women whether it be politics or makeup techniques.
If it is of interest to a woman, then it belongs here. However,
I do like to hear the opinions of the men out there provided they
are not "out to do battle". Some of the replies from men have really
surprised me in their vehemence and compulsion to make women feel
like "second-class citizens." I for one do not participate that
deeply in feminism *but* I DO think I deserve to be treated with
respect and dignity. When they insist in acting in the manner I
have seen some do in this file, it is of no interest for me to
"understand" them at all.
Just out of curiosity: Are the women as "active" in MENNOTES which
I have also just added?
As far as the need being met, being a new reader it seems that they
are to an extent. I do believe that if some of the "male" participants
insist on being argumentative, downgrading, etc. the moderators
should "cut them off" before it gets out of hand. I feel it only
leads to a further "separation" between us.
Of course, this is just my opinion based on the little I've seen
in here so far.
|
| 665.9 | Apple pie | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Jan 25 1988 13:14 | 66 |
| I'm going to answer these questions twice. (I'm sorry -- but
both will be in the same note.) And I'm going to use an analogy.
(I'm sorry -- you want to use KP3.)
First, my feelings as of the time this notefile first opened:
I thought the primary intended audience was women [who worked
for DEC] reading for themselves. The secondary audience would be
women reading for information, ideas, and thoughts to give to other
women. The tertiary audience would be men reading for information,
ideas, and thoughts to give to women. (I give data like some people
give flowers; I assume other people do this too.)
I thought the needs to be met were informational (where do I find
<A>, how do I use <B>, what is <C>, should I care about <D>?), and
sanity checking (does anyone else experience <A>, have reaction
<B> to event <C>?).
Now, my current feelings:
(To be delivered in a sulky tone of voice) I wish my idea of the
conference were the true one. (To be delivered in a more upbeat
manner) I still see the primary audience as women. I now would
like the secondary audience to be men with what I'll call the "sf
mindset", which is a keen interest in having one's brain exercised
by examining an alternate view of reality. (There is an elaboration
I'd like to make here. I can't, because whatever I try to write
comes out sounding insulting to some group. One that doesn't read
sf, that is.)
I see Womannotes as having the potential for fulfilling all the
needs I've mentioned. I also see my use of the word "potential"
as creating a problem. I mean that Womannotes now does meet those
needs -- except for those who do not [perceive they can] reach out
and take what is there.
The problem I see is... Womannotes is like an apple pie. (Yes,
this is the analogy.) The information in it is the apples. The
file structure, the company, and the social culture are the crust
and pan that are necessary to support it, but do not make it *apple*
pie. The women noters are the sugar, salt, nutmeg, and cinnamon.
("Sugar and spice and all ---" "Gag me with a rock," interrupted
her subconscious.) The men noters are the cloves. There is nothing
wrong with the spice cloves. It is fine to have some in apple pie.
However, the traditional spice for apple pie is cinnamon. It isn't
an apple pie without cinnamon. It certainly isn't a *good* apple
pie if you can't taste some cinnamon -- or if you can't taste anything
else. If the pie tastes of cloves more than cinnamon, it is not
a good apple pie. If it tastes more of cloves than apple, it is
not good food.
To fix it requires fewer cooks seasoning the bro-- pie, or (better)
a more careful attention on the cooks' part to the actions of themselves
and other cooks, especially those desireous of adding strong but secondary
spices. Add more apples! More facts! Fewer opinions! And stop
inserting ground cloves [or ground cinnamon] into those apples.
Stud your apples with whole cloves if you like, so we can pick them
out, but no sneaking!
Standard Analogy Warning
The above analogy cannot be pushed one metaphor beyond
the author's intent without risking the author's artistic
wrath.
Ann B.
|
| 665.10 | my answers | STUBBI::B_REINKE | where the sidewalk ends | Mon Jan 25 1988 16:04 | 67 |
|
1) What do YOU think is/should be the intended audience of WOMENNOTES?
Women and men who work at Digital
2) What are the needs that are/shoud be met by WN?
Exchange of fellowship, support, and humor among all participants
Giving women a place to share problems that they have encountered
in their lives. Giving us a chance to realize that we are not
all alone, that others have had the same types of experiences.
A place to exchange friendship, advice, and help, and share
experiences.
Networking to help women learn more about the business world
and to help them achieve success in that environment.
(My personal feeling is that helping *men* understand *women* separate
from the people understanding people can be an important by product
of the file but not a first priority.)
3) Are these needs being met by the current structure/approach of WN?
To a degree but not as much as I would like to see them met.
I feel that too many people who could contribute to the file
and gain from the file have left because of the fighting.
I think that the contentiousness has often obscured the positive
role the file can and has played.
4) If not, how would YOU change WN to meet these needs?
I would like to see all members of the file treat each other with
courtesy and respect.
I would like an atmosphere where reasonable people feel welcomed.
I would like people who find that others do not agree with their
opinion be willing to agree to disagree. People should try to
understand that just because another does not agree with you does
not make you right and them wrong.
I would like to see more responsibility on the parts of individual
members of the file. People should not wait for moderators to
identify and solve problems. All members of the file should take
responsibility for keeping it in order. One way to do that is to
start conversations and work out issues off-line.
I would like to try and get more people of a wide variety of
opinions to read and especially *write* in the file so that there
will be a healthy diversity of people.
I would not like to see the moderators become baby sitters or
have to spend a great deal of time refereeing what goes on in the
file.
Finally, I recently went back to read some of the older notes
in this file, some that were written about a year ago. It made
me sad to realize how many articulate voices from that time
no longer write...and also how the quality of the discussions
has deteriorated.
Bonnie
|
| 665.11 | | MONSTR::PHILPOTT | The Colonel | Mon Jan 25 1988 17:12 | 113 |
|
�In your opinion:
�1) What do YOU think is/should be the intended audience of WOMENNOTES?
I think the audience should be those people who are interested in
subjects of interest to women. Since I have chosen those words
carefully let me explain: various operating scenarios are possible,
but in particular I think this implies that if a man writes a topic
note and the consensus of female respondents find it uninteresting
then it would be reasonable to close the topic. (Of course if the
readers found it offensive it would be reasonable to delete it also -
but that is true regardless of the gender of the topic author).
Further I think it reasonable to exclude topics propsed by any
contributor that are about women, but not of general interest to them.
Thus, without implying any significance to the examples, I would
contend that a debate on banning fur coats made from the skins of
endangered animals might be valid as of interest to a significant part
of the audience, whereas a debate on the teaching of lesbian sexual
lifestyles to preteens may well be allowed to wither on the vine.
�2) What are the needs that are/should be met by WN?
It should provide a forum in which people may exhibit their views on
topics within the purview or the conference (ie "topics of interest to
women") without being subject to moral condemnation because of their
gender and/or sexual preference (subject of course to the usual public
standards of reasonable limits to freedom of speech), and without
being subject to irrational responses and personal attacks (flames)
based on perception of political, intellectual or sexual bias not
supported by direct factual evidence. (I differentiate strongly
between the heat of making a strongly felt point in an emotional
issue, and the type of fierce personal attack that has occurred on
rare occasions).
Such a free and largely un-hampered expression of views, both pro and
con the subjects proposed for discussion would allow for education and
development of reader awareness of the issues.
A possible secondary goal might be to provide a form of "support
group" wherein people may reach out for support. Regrettably I feel
that this goal is impossible to achieve fully within a forum that
meets my previous qualifications of openness, since almost by
definition a person reaching out for support in a time of trouble
needs to reach friendly and supportive minds. On occasion topics of
this type have appeared and led to attacks that must have been deeply
wounding to the authors. In this case, and this case alone, I feel
that there is an argument, and a valid one, for a closed, members-only
forum that people could go to for support and counsel. Perhaps we need
to have the two fora operating in close conjunction and co�peration.
However I see the discussion forum as more important than the self
help group.
�3) Are these needs being met by the current structure/approach of WN?
By and large yes: however I have in the past seen views stated such as
(and I somewhat oversimplify): "I don't want to see men in here", "I
have said what I think, and I don't want to see [men] contradict my
views".
Some writers have clearly allowed their fingers to out-pace their
minds, and in so doing have caused needless hurt.
Some authors appear to be completely out of sympathy with the goals of
fostering understanding, and more concerned with proliferating their
own politico-sexual moral standards at the expense of all other
contributors.
�4) If not, how would YOU change WN to meet these needs?
I'm not sure on balance that I *would* change it. There is some truth
to the adage that if you can't stand the heat you should refrain from
entering the kitchen! In truth there have been times when I would have
liked to see a stronger stand by the moderators against flames, but
equally I don't wish to see reasonable freedom of debate eroded.
There have been times when topics have been discussed that I (a man)
do not care for - I usually hit NEXT UNSEEN at this point. There have
been times when quite strong personal attacks have been made, either
because of a simple disagreement over the validity of a point, or
indeed at times because of strictures related to gender and/or sexual
preference.
I suspect that, perhaps because of such flames, many potential
contributors have felt unable or unwilling to expose themselves to
attack by stating their views and postures on topics under debate.
So perhaps I would care rather to change the contributors than the
conference.
In general I like the conference as it is: I would not be too pleased
to see it reduced to a political forum (in the sense that certain
views espoused by feminists are in essence political in nature), I
would not care to see it become a sheltered members-only forum
(whether the membership criterion is sex or merely agreeing with the
agenda of the moderators), and nor would I care to see rigid
guidelines of viable topics and responses.
I would only wish that contributors would follow the maxim "engage
brain before engaging mouth", in preference to "open mouth and insert
foot". Also we should bear in mind the ancient Chinese sage who said
"the person who always agrees contributes no original thought."
Finally we should remember that an opinion strongly held, though
unsupported by facts has a validity to the author that dignifies it
with strength, but does not preclude a reasoned answer. However to
reply to an emotional statement merely with another contributes little
or nothing to the voyage of discovery that this conference could
provide, and that in the end the thinker who having thought awhile on
a topic says little but says it well may be the most useful
contributor.
/. Ian .\
|
| 665.12 | i hate cloves | DECWET::JWHITE | mr. smarmy | Wed Jan 27 1988 01:54 | 6 |
|
re: .9
I agree with Ms. Broomhead, especially about her 'original' feelings.
|
| 665.13 | "Survey Sez!?!" | YODA::BARANSKI | Im here for an argument, not Abuse! | Wed Jan 27 1988 14:21 | 20 |
| RE: .0
1) Who do YOU think is/should be the intended audience of WOMENNOTES?
Deccies...
2) What are the needs that are/should be met by WN?
needs involving women
3) Are these needs being met by the current structure/approach of WN?
50% of the time, at 50% efficiency... basically no.
4) If not, how would YOU change WN to meet these needs?
discourage sexual dicrimination, and abuse of noters. more moderation and
more Moderation.
Jim.
|