Conference turris::womannotes-v1

RE: .1

"What I've noticed, however, is that a "woman centered" attitude is treated as
if the primary intention is to bring down and/or discredit men (and I personally
feel that this is a serious misunderstanding that needs to be cleared up.)" 

I understand your point.  But I think that it is important to choose your new
affirmations with care.  Phrase them so that they still allow others to be
valued.  Saying 'each woman has creative powers inside her' is fine.  Saying
that 'Woman holds the power of ultimate creation', is not.   Is the second type
really necessary?

RE: notebooks

The shelters on the Appalacia Trail have similar notebooks where each passerbyer
may preserve their thoughts for posterity.

Jim. 

    RE: .1
    
   >>  Saying 'each woman has creative powers inside her' is fine.  Saying
   >>  that 'Woman holds the power of ultimate creation', is not.   Is the 
   >>  second type really necessary?

    	   Evidently not, since that is not what was said.  If you're
    	   going to continue to nit-pick about Peggy's innocent statement
    	   (even AFTER making a huge public apology about doing that
    	   before), then at least try to quote her statement accurately.
    
       	   She said, "The power of creation is in woman."
    
    	   Can you show me a substantial difference between your "acceptable"
	   statement above and what Peggy *really* said?  (Without making
    	   it the tiniest nit ever picked in the history of notes, that
    	   is...?)

    	RE:  .3
    
    	Well, if you wrote the quoted statement yourself, then it
 	was meaningless to complain to us about it.
    
    	

RE: .4

It is not meaningless.  It is a simple statement that care should be taken in
picking affirmations so that your affirmation does not degrade someone else.

Jim. 

    	RE:  .5
    
    	Interestingly enough, you were the second man in this conference
    	to re-write Peggy's innocent affirmation into something that
    	you found objectionable (and then go on to protest about the re-write
    	as if it were the original.)
    
    	The original affirmation about women was, "The power of creation
    	is in woman."
    
    	The re-write in 670.10 was, "Woman is the ultimate creator."
    
    	Your rewrite in .1 was, "Woman holds the power of ultimate
    	creation."

    	I find it interesting that both men misunderstood/rewrote the
    	idea in almost exactly the same way (and then went on to protest
    	their own versions rather than *see* what was originally written.)
    
    	I'm sure that neither of you had any idea that you had done
    	this.
    
    	An analogy to this would be if you saw the statement, "Black
    	is beautiful" and protested it harshly (re-writing it to be
    	"Only blacks are beautiful.")
    
    	Rather than tell us to take care in how we write our affirmations,
    	I think you should be careful in how you *read* (and RE-write)
    	them.

"All characters, ideas, and events portrayed exist entirely for discussion
purposes.  Any resembalance or similarity is coincidental, and bears no relation
to any character, idea, or event in the past present or future, living, dead, or
yet to be born." 

Get the picture?

Jim.

    Reply to .7, Jim,
    
    Isn't that kinda' irrelevant to the topic? Try the PROSE or POETRY
    conferences.

    	RE:  .7
    
    	> "Any resemblance or similarity is coincidental..."
    
    	> Get the picture?
    
    	Yes, I think I do now.  You seem to be trying to tell us that your
    	statement "Woman holds the power of ultimate creation" is *NOT*
    	in any way a re-write or a mis-quote of "The power of creation
    	is in woman."
    
    	Can't imagine why you would bother denying something so obvious
    	(nor why you would expect me to believe that your statement
    	was an entirely original thought, considering that you found Peggy's
    	statement to be significant enough to open two basenotes
    	involving what you considered the controversy surrounding it.)
    
    	It's sort of like the small child who denies all knowledge of
    	missing cookies (while his face is still covered with cookie
    	crumbs.)  :-)  :-)
    
    	Hey, whatever.
    
    	The point I've been trying to make is that it is my opinion
    	that most of the "affirmations" made by women (and other minorities)
	about themselves are in no way insulting to the majority.
    
    	It is most often the majority who *finds* a way to be insulted
    	(by mentally "rewriting" the affirmation to add words that make
    	the statement take on a whole *new* meaning that has now *become*
    	insulting to the majority.)
    
    	Whether or not you want to consider your statement in .1 an
    	example of this, Jim, it doesn't matter.  I would still like
    	to extend to you a simple statement of advice...
    
    	Care should be taken in *reading* affirmations so that you
    	do not needlessly infer degrading statements (about someone
    	else) that are not really there.

    In an attempt to ignore blatant diversionary tactics...
    
    What does "woman-centered" and "woman-identified" mean to *me*?
    Well first of all, I don't have a "crisp" definition, but they feel
    like different things.
    
    	Woman Identified
    
    This one is easier for me to describe my feelings about. A Woman
    Identified person is one who sees themselves as a woman. This can be
    true of anyone, regardless of their "actual" physical sex. (Actual is
    in quotes because it's clear to me that someone's physical sex organs
    have less to do with what they actually are than what they know
    themselves to be). So a Woman Identified person is one who believes
    herself to be a woman. Sounds like a truism... 
    
    Another possibility is that Woman Identified means someone who is
    attracted to women. Is that right? I know there is some technical
    psychological term for what your self image is, and another for what
    you're attracted to, but I can't remember which is which. I know one is
    <mumble> Identified, but I don't recall the other. Help? 
    
    	Woman Centered
    
    This is harder to grasp. It seems to me that a woman centered person is
    one who's major interests, goals, activities, thoughts, and beliefs
    have to do with women. This is not to say that Woman Centered people
    are exclusively concerned with women, just that they are primarily
    concerned with women. Separatists are obviously Woman Centered.
    
    These definitions seem incomplete to me since they don't cover the person
    who's actions and beliefs are basically "feminine"[1] but who neither
    consider themselves women, nor center their lives around women. What do
    we call these people (do we need a term for them)? Is "feminine" the
    right word? Is is appropriate to men? How do men feel about being
    called "feminine"?
    
    Upon some reflection, I realize that *I* feel uneasy being described as
    "feminine" (though I think I am) because I perceive "feminine" to
    exclude "masculine" (which I am too). Why do these characteristics seem
    exclusive? Is it just *my* problem, or do other people feel this too?
    Is this perhaps a problem with our language and ways of expressing
    ourselves? [I'm going to get started on the Whorff hypothesis again...] 
    
    	-- Charles
    
    [1] Please don't push me for a definition of "feminine". "I may
        not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it" :-) [2]
    
    [2] Footnotes! Does this make this "scholarly"? :-) :-)
    
    [3] "Advice is seldom welcome; and those who want it most always
        want it the least."	Earl of Chesterfield, Jan 1748

    RE: .11 - "masculine" and "feminine"
    
    <*screeeeeeeek* - the opening of the rat hole trap door)
    
    I like to define "masculine" as 'those traits exhibited by males'
    
    and "feminine" as 'those traits exhibited by females'. Mostly to
    
    cr*p all over the socially-imposed definitions of same.
    
    Actually, I see those two terms as social creations anyway....
    
    --DE
    

            <<< COLORS::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 416.71                        Homophobia                          71 of 116
FDCV03::ROSS                                         33 lines   7-AUG-1987 12:06
                        -< Is There a Double Standard >-

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .
    .
    .
    .
 >   Off this subject, but related to homophobia (or lack of it), I
 >   happened to see on cable last week a movie called "Desert Heart".
 >   It is a very sensitive portrayal of a younger woman's falling in
 >   love with a woman in her mid-thirties, who has come to Reno for
 >   a divorce, and who finally comes to accept (and rejoice in) the 
 >   feelings for another woman that she had always supressed.
 >   
 >   I believe that the movie was expressing the concept of woman
 >   identified woman. It was very sympathetic to the feelings of
 >   the characters in the film; I know I was touched by it.
    
 >     Alan
     
 
    For those who may have missed it the first time around, "Desert Heart"
    is being shown again tomorrow night (actually, Wednesday morning,
    11 February, at 3:00 A.M. It is on cable, on The Movie Channel.
    
    And I believe it's on again sometime next week. I'll have to check
    my cable guide for the next date and time.
    
      Alan

    RE: "Desert Hearts" schedule.
    
    I checked my cable guide. The movie will be shown again next week,
    on Thursday, 18 February.
    
    It will be screened at 11:00 PM (EST) on The Movie Channel.
    
      Alan

RE:  .13  /  .14   ("DESERT HEART")   


This is also available for rental at the T.H.E. VIDEO Store in Hudson, MA
for those of you interested in renting it.  The store is located on Main St.
and one does not have to hold membership in order to rent any tapes.