Conference turris::womannotes-v1

Note 673.23          WOMEN: What do WE Want to do?  --> FWO             23 of 23
PLDVAX::ZARLENGA "Lost the will to compromise"       19 lines  26-JAN-1988 19:26
                                -< arrivederci >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    	Well, it was really nice (for a while) meeting all of you.
    
    	But it looks like the intolerance and irrationality are not
    decreasing.
    
    	When the women in this conference decide that :
    
    		a) it is alright for a man to enter successive replies
    		b) it is alright for a man to be honest
    		c) it is alright for a man to disagree in a fair and
    		     	reasonable fashion with a woman contributor
    		d) sexist disrimination in _any_ form is not good
    
    	, I would appreciate a MAIL msg so I can once again note here.
    
    	Until then, I don't believe my presence is helping the current
    state of affairs.
    
    -michael zarlenga

    Perhaps there is another topic in which this would be more appropriate,
    but I didn't want to add this to the Official policy note..
    
    
    
    1.0>         Try hard to avoid sexism, you'll feel silly and embarrassed
                 otherwise.

    1.1>         Sexism whether overt or covert is unwelcome.  It's expression
                 will be the subject either of gentle correction or scathing
                 criticism according to the will of the community in the
                 actual event. 
                                                 
    
    Both 1.0 and 1.1 seem to stating that _any_ sexism is unwelcome.
    But then 1.2 says...
    
     1.2>        Whenever it seems clear to us that the needs of women and
                 the needs of men are in conflict, the needs of women will take
                 precedence and we will take whatever action seems
                 appropriate to meet those needs.
    
    Ummm...  Is this sexism?  Or since 1.1 is the "history" note, does
    that mean that the statement "sexism is unwelcome" is history?
    
    I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just curious...really!
    
    Dave
    

    David, this file is =womannotes= it is set up to help meet the
    needs of women in Dec....is it racism or sexism if a valuing
    differences file gives precedence to the needs of those for whom 
    the file was created? We are only talking here about situations
    where there is a confict along female/male lines. If we can find
    no win/win solution what do you suggest  - that the needs of the male
    participants be given precedence? What would you say if such a conflict
    occured in Bagles or Blacknotes..whose needs do you feel should
    have precedence in those files? Ideally we will work for win/win
    solutions for all.
   
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    
    I'd like to see a person's ideas listened to, regardless of gender.
    It would be nice if "precedence" giving was unnecessary, where
    poeple could discuss issues of interest to women without having
    their thoughts "lessened" by their gender.  If certain men (or women)
    degrade the discussion through insensitive/hurtful/thoughtless replies,
    then those notes/noters could be delt with as individuals.  I feel
    this is fairer to everyone, and will promote a file with more "light"
    and less "heat".  I think that the FWO issue is just throwing out
    the baby with the bath water - we should all (my opinion) spend
    more time on the *real* topics.  If a person's opinions were welcomed
    based on content (and not pre-judged based on gender), I think that
    these "wasteful" topics would dry up.  Does this seem reasonable
    to you?
    
    Dave
    

    
    I was going say something here, but after re-reading 673, I see 
    little sense to it. One get tired of talking to brick walls and 
    having sincere words fall upon deaf ears. I find it frightening
    and sad to see and hear the general level of animosity aimed at
    men. To hear that the women of this file have a problem practicing
    what they preach for themselves. why bother .
    

    
    I have been following this notes file for a couple of months now
    and indeed, I think it more or less ruined by only a couple of persons.
    Now there are technical solutions for this...
    
    One solution would be to make this a restricted conference. This
    would mean that X-thousend people had to be registered. 
    
    Another solution would be to maintain a (short) list of people who
    just seem to reply to this file, because they just like typing!
    
    Than , when a person of this list replies to a topic, the
    'SCREEN_UTILITY' says : 'Sorry, you have entered to many rubbish
    into this notesfile' and the reply will not be entered. 

    Timo_who_hopes_that_his_name_will_not_be_on_the_screening_list
    
    

    It really doesn't matter what the majority of participants in this
    notesfile want.  The more vocal women, (because they are vocal,
    and because they are women) will have their own way here.  As
    Maggie said in another note - "How can we be expected to grant equality
    [in WN] when we haven't been granted it [in the 'real world']".
    
    When thinking like that makes the rules, the opinions of lowly
    males means little.  Sigh...  One small step for Womannotes, a giant
    step backward for mankind.
    
    Enjoy the noble "seperate but equal" experiment, I'll be in the
    back of the bus watching and waiting for common sense to prevail,
    and I think it's gonna be a long wait....
    
    Dave
    

	RE: .7
    
>                          ...  One small step for Womannotes, a giant
>    step backward for mankind.
    
	:-) but maybe a step forward for womankind?    

    Re. 5  Bob, I see the animosity directed not at "men" but at a
    certain few men. And I don't take offense because (slight grin)
    surely they don't mean me. I appreciate this conference enough
    to mind my manners, be polite, and just listen when asked to.
    Most members here prefer polite discourse to the raving style
    of Soapbox. I agree. But there are times when I would like to
    say "Take it to 204, jerk !" And I suspect others here must
    also restrain themselves at times. 
    
    Dana

    > It really doesn't matter what the majority of participants in this
    > notesfile want. 
    
    You will get a chance to vote on the final outcome, Dave.  Are you
    unable to observe an experiment for 3 months which will give
    us some direct experience of an idea we hope is a "win/win" but
    which may, in fact, not be?
    
    We expect the overall percentage of FWO topics to be quite low (based
    on past experience). 
    
    I would describe the tone of the above note as "passive/aggressive".
    You are presenting yourself as a helpless victim who has been unjustly
    silenced (or in some way stifled), which you are not since you are
    
    	o	welcome to note during the next 3 months 
        o	welcome to respond to any FWO note in the ensuing
    		general discussion which will follow it
                         
    
    Holly
    
    (note: after 2/1/88, notes discussing FWO topics will be deleted.)
    
    

      I can see this file in a couple of months.
    
    Note 900.0 is for women to reply only on the subject of sex. FWO
    Note 900.0 is for men tp reply only on the subject of sex. FMO
    
     Get a picture of this happening?
    
            REK

    	Enough already!  What the hell is wrong with a group of people
    stating they wish to have a discussion with a limited number of
    people and then defining which people they wish to include or exclude?
    
    	This discussion has been going on in WN for months.  Is it to
    continue for months to come?  Enough already!  The arguements have
    been presented (not very well in my opinion by either side) and
    the position of neither group has changed very much.  Isn't it time
    to stop beating the poor dead horse?  
    
    	The 'experiment' which will run over the next three months,
    in my opinion, is silly and rather condescending to many people.
    There is nothing wrong with recognizing a need for 'personal space'
    and acting on the recognition.
    
    	I would ask the men who respond in this file against FWO notes
    to recognize and respect the requests for such notes if I thought
    they had the intelligence, empathy or concern necessary to recognize
    the validity of FWO notes.
           
    Douglas

    re: .12 and Holly
    
    Well, to extend your thoughts:
    
    	What's wrong with having seperate restrooms for blacks and whites?
    	Whites just want a little space where they can talk or go to
    	the bathroom without being afraid of getting mugged.  This doesn't
    	mean all blacks mug people, but some do, right?  After all,
    	the blacks can still go to the bathroom (in other restrooms).
    	Of course, we we listen to the blacks opinion on the matter,
    	3 months after we have implemented it as an 'experiment'..
    
    	See how silly this sounds when you put "black" in place of
    	male, and "white" in place of woman?  That's just the way I
    	view it.  I realize that I can contribute to any discussion
    	in the 'general' notes, and the parallel notes to the FWO
     	topics.  It's much more a matter of principle to me.  I guess
    	I expected that others would be able to see the parallel to
    	the 60's civil rights conflict, but I guess not.
    
    	Holly - I am sort of "powerless" to change the 'system' at
    	this point.  I understand that this is an 'experiment', and
    	that a vote will be taken in 3 months on the issue.  I know
    	I will have a say in the outcome, but I do not know if my vote
    	will be worth anything, based on earlier discussions concerning
    	the wishes of women taking precedence.  
    
    	As I said before, it's really just a matter of principle,
    	not the practice of it that bother me.  I can't understand
    	why those who feel like unequal members of society are so quick
    	to relegate others to that status.
    
    	Dave
    

 Men are welcome in the file.  Men can comment on any note in the file; 
men can offer opinions and enter almost any debate going (notwithstanding
that certain notes preclude men by their very nature -- eg the PMS note).
This policy has been stated and seems to work... I notice lots of contributions
from men in the file. But, we are being asked to change our noting habits (some
of us). We will still get to read the notes that are entered. We will still 
get to enter notes that we want to write. We will still get to debate issues 
to death and beyond (-:

 What is lacking currently (and what we are being asked to move towards)  is 
common courtesy. What certain noters seem to fail to understand (perhaps 
deliberately) is that it is not discriminatory to say "please, if you have 
input, we would prefer that you put it in that note rather than this note". 

 Comparisons between this simple politeness and racial discrimination are at 
best specious, and more likely are an attempt to confuse and obscure the issue
until the more reasonable voices give up in disgust. The argument form seems to
be:
	We all agree that X is bad. I can, by suitable manipulation of 
	words and nuance, make an irrefutable assumption� that behaviour
	Y in this file superficially resembles X. Therefore, anyone who 
	supports Y must de facto be a supporter of X.

 An alternative is that we rename the file "GRINDSTONE.NOTE" and let everyone 
grind their axes in it. Maybe the world is ready for another Soapbox.

					Nigel


�An example of an irrefutable assumption goes as follows:
 Person A:	If you are truly sensitive, you will see that this is indeed
		discriminatory.
 Person B:	It doesn't look like discrimination to me.
 Person A:	Well, you're obviously not as sensitive as I am.

    Re Dave --
    
    To extend your analogy, which may not be fair, I would have no problem
    with it if black people were to say that they needed some space
    to hear one another.  I don't think it would be exclusive or racist
    because they are still reclaiming their power as a group.  They
    need to hear one another clearly; they already know what the 'white
    voices' are telling them.
    
    For this reason, I would have totally different reactions to 
    blacks asking for a little breathing space from whites than for whites
    asking for a little breathing space from blacks.
                  
    The first is a necessary step for a group which has been historically
    disenfranchised to continue claiming their power.  The second is
    (to me) racist discrimination.
    
    That's why I don't find your claim of retreating to the "back of
    the bus" to be particularly valid.  In relation to women, men were
    never there!
    
    Holly

    re: .14
    
    Rereading Nigel's remarks helped me resolve a nagging question
    I'd had kicking around in my head:  is an FWO topic an example
    of "separate but equal".
    
    The answer I came to was yes and no.  Yes if the words are taken
    literally - that is, *without* historical context.  As Nigel
    noted, we can all still read and write what we want and the
    facilities we have for these things are equal.
    
    Where I think we're getting into trouble is the historical context
    of the phrase.  The Brown decision (1954) ruled that the implementation
    of "separate but equal" facilities is unconstitutional because
    separate in practice was not equal.  Facilities (schools in the
    Brown case) were, in fact, not equal.
    
    The ruling was not that separate *cannot* (ever/across the board/in
    all instances) be equal.  If this were so, we might have a topic
    suggesting some radical idea like "separate public bathrooms might
    be a good thing" instead of vice versa.  Sometimes separate can be 
    equal and even the "better" solution (not meant as an opinion on 
    separate bathrooms).
    
    But, as Nigel said, we *can* all read and write what we want and
    it's all within this same conference.  I don't feel that I've been
    treated unequally if someone requests that I make comments over
    "there" instead of over "here".  
    
    BTW - I think FWO is not unequal treatment; others think it is
    unequal treatment; seems to me, then, that neither side can be
    *proven*. . .it's simply another "valid for me".
    
    What I do feel is that when someone requests FWO, I've been asked 
    for a conversational courtesy, one which I'm more that happy to 
    give (pretty easy take:  if I speak my mind "over there" (where 
    everyone can still hear them), I'm "courteous" - I may still be a 
    wierd and twisted person, but now I'm at least a *nice* wierd and 
    twisted person.)
    
    Steve 
    

re 677.6

In my opinion, it is obvious that you do not value differences, in fact your 
tolerance level must be pretty low for things that don't meet *your* 
standards/terms.

I think your response is rubbish, and I'm not generally prompted to get so
bothered enough to reply to this file.

Penny

    	RE:  .18
    
    	Don't forget that another extremely knowledgeable resource
    	are the people from "Valuing Differences."
    
    	I think it is way past time that "Valuing Differences" is
    	consulted (if they haven't been already.)
    
    	It is possible that the moderators of Womannotes have already
    	done this (I noticed a quote from K.O. on this subject in a
    	recent note from a moderator, although I cannot recall which
    	note.)
    

    Re: .13
    	Come on.  Let's not push too far!  .12 says nothing about separate
    notes files, simply notes in a common notes file which are open
    to be read by all but responded to by invitation only.
    
    	Too often in the difficult world of notesfile communicating
    a word or phrase is taken from a response and badly misunderstood
    because it, like most words, fails to hold up when analyzed without
    its supporting words.  A perfect case in point is a line from
    Shakepeare's "The MErchant of Venice" which goes something like
    "... kill all the lawyers ..."  Quite often this line is used as
    an example of Shakepeare stating lawyers are more trouble than they
    are worth.  However, within the context of the play, the line is
    proven false.
    
    	A writer has the obligation to present words in such a way that
    the writer's meaning will be understood.  A reader has the obligation
    to make some effort to understand the author's message.  Communication
    is a two way street ... Communication 101, Public Speaking 101,
    etc.
    
    	
    Douglas

 I have checked into policy concerning FWO notes with Augusta personal
and talked to the person who supports note files based here in Augusta.
I was told that note files are a new frontier and the policy regarding
them is still evolving.The moderators have a great deal of latitude in
how they manage a file.If you do not like something you can formally
complain and personal will look into it, otherwise no one really has to
much to say about it.I felt that although I could not disagree with the
policy of FWO more strongly I would not at least at this time formally
complain.Why? because so many women have stated such a strong desire for
space and I do not know what the results of a complaint(S) might be.
 I decided to view notes files a little like social clubs. Their are all
kinds with all kinds of goals and rules.If you do not like a notes file
for some reason, such as its rules,goals,or what ever, do not bother with it.
Complaints and the resulting rules could stifle all note files.

 I applaud the moderators in updating the welcome note.Hopefully new
noters to this file will enter it with a more accurate sense of
expectations about its goals and rules.

 I think I will probably continue to be a visitor to this notes file
on occasion,I have gained insight from it.I wonder if that means I
am a little masochistic.I never thought of myself as kinky before ;^).   


                    George D.

    The recent preoccupation with the nature of this conference as
    a topic of conversation (to be kind) within this conference reminds
    me of a stray cat we found a few years ago. (If you're into drawing
    unwarranted conclusions, yes the cat was male.)
    
    The cat had a severe case of fleabite dermititis, and had licked
    the affected area on his haunch until the skin was gone and the
    muscle exposed. The only way to save the cat was to prevent it
    from licking the affected area at all. (As it happens, the cat's
    condition had deteriorated to the point where we had to have
    it put down.)
    
    Various attempts have been made to reduce the degree of circular
    discussion here, without real success. I'm beginning to think
    the only solution is a complete, enforced moratorium of ANY
    discussion of the conference itself for some period of time (not
    just of FWO notes).
    
    This approach could be described as "martial law", and some would
    object to it on that basis. I think it's worth a try, if only
    to get the conference back on track. The alternative is to redo
    the charter and call it "Womannotes - topics about Womannotes".
    
    As such I hereby offer up this note as the first to be deleted under
    the proposed new policy. (Picture neck being stretched out...) 

    	RE:  .22
    
    	Excellent suggestion!!!  
    
    	How about if we try that, for say, a year?  (Ok, well, whatever
    	the mods think.)
    
    	Seriously, that would be great.
    
    							Thank you!!

    Re: .22 & .23
    
    I would like to 3rd the motion. I think it is a great idea. Any ban on
    meta-discussions would make this notes file more interesting for me to
    read. How about just creating new notes file (that I won't bother
    subscribing to) just for discussing what should or should not be
    discussed. 
    
    Should you or any other member of the force be captured or killed, the
    secretary will disavow all knowledge of your existence. This note will
    self-destruct in 2 days. 
    
    PK

    To add a bit to what George (.21) said, we're essentially
    making the policy day-by-day.  Like so many other things
    in DEC (my job in Personnel/HRP, f'rinstance) some people
    saw a need, checked to see if it was generally an o.k. thing,
    then went out and created this solution called womennotes.
    
    Policy in such situations is created as the solution goes
    forward, changing with time.  If nothing else, for those
    who feel they may have no say in policy making, here is a 
    place where you *do* have a say; by stating your thoughts
    and feelings here, you become a part of the policy making
    process.
    
    Steve  
    
    BTW - I wouldn't have it any other way; my current job
    is the third one I've had in DEC in which I've been allowed
    to "create the job". . .saw a problem, told mgt. that I
    had some solution ideas, and was told back "O.K. . .go solve
    the problem and here's a job title to go with it."  As a matter
    of fact, I ended up filling out the "job description" portion of
    the personnel req. since I was the only one at the time who had
    any solid idea about what the new job should be; I then interviewed
    for this job I'd invented and lucked out and got the job.  I suppose
    the fact that there were no other candidates helped my cause 
    somewhat. . .