Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    re: .0
    
    This conference is not restricted and, as far as I can tell, there
    is no plan to restrict it.  As a matter of pure fact, you're not
    restricted from replying to anything - the discussion is simply
    *where* to put that reply.  I believe the purpose of 848 is to 
    announce the voting and that, if it is write locked for the moment,
    it is because the voting period doesn't start 'til Monday (mods.
    please correct me if I'm incorrect here).
    
    The current interpretation of  Personnel 6.54 (10 Aug 1987, not
    '88, unless Mr. Peabody has ECO'd the machine. . .) is that, while
    access must not be restricted, in some non-work conferences it makes
    good sense to require registration (e.g. recovering alcoholics conf.)
    In any case, I see no violation of the policy here in =wn= (and,
    BTW, I work in Personnel and have bounced the question around with
    mgt. up to the group level).
    
    Speaking strictly for myself, I think "FWO" is an o.k. idea.  It seems
    to me that there are enough legitimate reasons for an individual
    to want replies from only women (or men, for that matter) and, as
    long as the FGD notes follow, there's no restriction on replying.
    But then, for me, it's not an issue - if someone asks me to answer
    "over there" (FGD) instead of "here" (FWO) because they'd feel more 
    comfortable, it's o.k. by me and granting that request is, to me,
    simply an act of courtesy; no "argument-from-reason" here. . .it's
    just the way I was raised and I'm comfortable with it as an adult.
    
    Steve
    

    In re .0
    
    The current vote is in no way intended to restrict the *conference*
    but only to ascertain if the members of the conference (members
    being anyone who reads or writes in the conference) wish to allow
    for women only notes assuming that they are paired with for general
    discussion notes.
    
    The reason for only allowing voting by people who have registered
    in the conference is simple...it is to prevent people who have never
    read the conference from coming in and "stuffing the ballot box"
    during a vote. In the first vote that we held we allowed registrations
    during the vote. Since then we have announced the vote a week in
    advance to allow unregistered persons to register to vote.
    
    For those who are going to vote may I suggest a few things. Go
    back through the directory. Read Peggy's note back in Dec. Read
    the other FWO notes that have been entered, especially those since
    the moritorium went down on discussion at the end of January. Just
    how many FWO notes have been entered? What percent were they of
    the total notes in the file? How many answers did they get? did
    the FGD companion note get?
    
    Then think at bit....if some people in the file wish to have such
    notes is this necessarily bad? Does it disrupt the file? Make your
    decision on what has actually happened not on what you think abstractly
    should happen or could happen. 
    
    and please believe me, the moderators are very sensitive to the
    issue that this type of note could be used trivially, although for
    the most part I don't believe that is has been. However, we would
    be quite willing to address the author and possibly delete a FWO
    note that appeared to be of questionable value - just as we have
    done with other notes in the file. To a great extent you have to
    be able to trust Maggie's and Liz's and Holly's and my common sense.
    
    Now after saying all of that...for my personal feelings not as a
    moderator.
    
    I would wish that FWO notes were not felt to be necessary. Had there
    not been rudeness and impoliteness and insensitivity in the file
    in the past I don't think that they would have occured. I don't
    personally like the idea of discrimination for any reason...
    
    Bonnie

    re:.0
    
    Steve's right. You are not prevented from replying to Note #848.
    The fact that your reply is 850.0 rather than 848.1 is irrelevant.
    
    There are always going to be people who pick up the P&P Manual
    and demand that the policies be held to without question. And
    there are others, like myself, who feel that it's the *spirit*
    of the law that should be followed rather than the letter.
    
    Certain policies in this conference may well be in violation of
    the letter of the law. That's up to Personnel and Legal to decide.
    I don't see that any of them violate the spirit of DEC's policies,
    though.
    
    --- jerry

    I see FWO and FGD as an opportunity to view a subject from
    two perspectives and I believe in the usefulness of more
    than one perspective.  

    As usual, Steve is quite correct in another matter as well:  848 will
    be unlocked when voting begins on monday. 
    
                                           =maggie

    re: .1
    
    Your attempt to parallel this conference to one for recovering
    alcoholics is poor. The business needs of Digital would seem to
    be weel served if sick people have a forum by which they can share
    valuable recovery information. I fully support registration to such
    a conference. 
    
    	FWO topics and discussions do as much for Company business as
    any other general topic conference, such as TIMESHARE or GOLF. It's
    a great place to exchange ideas and share feelings, but don't try
    to set it or its users upon a pedestal. Criticism of attempts to
    take a part or the entire conference private should be welcomed.
    Your attempt to trivialize such criticism is not as "adult" as you
    seem to believe.

    I'm confused about your citation of the Personnel Policies and
    Procedures, Section 6.54, dated 10 AUG 88.  How do some of our
    currently-restricted conferences, such as the one for the Gay
    and Lesbian employees, or the one for Children of Alcoholics, fit
    into the category of supporting DEC business.
    

    RE: .7
    I don't know if they do or don't. It really doesn't matter to me
    since I have no interest in participation in any of those conferences.
    But I do have an interest in FWO! I enjoy the stimulating exchanges
    that occur within this forum. If I had an interest in a forum on
    Gay employees, I'd fight the same battle with the moderators and
    users of that conference.
    
    I'd like to attempt to understand how limiting the replies to a
    specific note is any different than the situation women were in
    before they were allowed to vote. I can't participate in a specific
    discussion, but a CAN participate in THAT discussion, over THERE.
    Maybe women of today have lost sight of the origin of their new
    found freedoms and rights. Those that haven't can relate to the
    feeling of exclusion and their need to rely on Bills' of Rights
    to demand their rights. 
    
    	I would like to stand on the P&P as a clear definition of my
    rights, and demand free access to ANY portion of ANY non-work related
    conference.

    RE: .7
    I am a member of one of the members-only conferences, in which one of
    the moderators explained that by DEC policy, they could not deny
    membership to anyone who asked for it.  It is hoped (and generally
    true) that only the truly interested and sympathetic will bother to
    request membership.  Sort of like putting a lock on your door -- it
    will stop casual intrusion, but determined individuals can get in. 
    Conferences like "Gay and Lesbian Employees" and "Recovering
    Alcoholics" might have special-case exemptions, since the members of
    these have a right to keep the implications of their membership
    private.  To my mind, only conferences like these deserve such
    protection.

    RE: .0
    Anyone who enters a base topic can write-lock it, to indicate that no
    replies are solicited.  If you want to discuss a write-locked topic,
    simply enter a new topic of your own for discussion of it (like this
    one).  You can even extract portions of the note that you're
    discussing, if you like.
    
    							-- Mikey

    Crud, I hate these discussions...I guess the moratorium on them
    is over, eh?

This seems to be an appropriate place to enter this...the following
    is taken from a letter written to me by a male noter who wishes
    to be anonymous
    

	When it's time I'll vote in favor of continued For Women Only
as I feel it (the experiment) has resulted in a file many women enjoy.
I feel it's a shame that we can't be more "equal" than "feminist" in
our behavior ... BUT ... one needs only look at Soapbox to see what
happens when there is no active moderation to keep a conference close
to its chartered goals.

	I honestly believe it is wrong to prevent anyone from voicing
an opinion because of sex or color or income or height or religion.
However it only takes a few very vocal male fools to make it obvious
that to truly "value differences" you have to use the FYO tactic some
to get across the more subtle point that =womannotes= is _FOR_ women
and not a free-for-all forum where all viewpoints are debateable 

    no one is being prevented from voicing an opinion, they simply voice
    them in different places (FWO and FGD).
    
    Please, if anyone has just joined the notesfile recently, or has
    concerns about the FWO/FGD matter and they haven't read the full
    discussion of the topic, I suggest you look at all the volumes that
    have been written - if you have questions they may have already
    been answered there.

    -Jody
    

    
    Re: .7 & .9
    
    In certain cases, an employee can be denied access to a members-only
    conference.  
    
    As founder/moderator of the Epilepsy conference and co-moderator
    of the Recovering Alcoholics conference, I have denied membership
    to employees requesting it.  These conferences were given a buy-off
    by Personnel under Valuing Differences.

    The purpose of such files is to protect the anonymity of the members,
    yet provide them with a forum of others who will understand what
    the average person does not (i.e., do you know the difference between
    grand mal seizures and absence seizures?).  Thereby, providing a means
    for those individuals to help themselves while on the job -- call it
    an "electronic stress reliever" if you wish.
    
    re: .0
    
    I think what I just stated above also gives this conference sufficient
    reason to warrant FWO topics.  Many women feel more comfortable
    asking questions of other women.  Men are not being discriminated
    against.  There are always FGD topics immediately following the
    FWO topics to provide you the opportunity you demand for responding.

    Beckie

    Re .11,
    
    I wish I'd said that!  I guess I'll just have to second it.
    
    	-Neil

This is a letter from another man with whom I have corresponded in
    the past over various issues related to the file. He gave me permission
    to enter this letter in the file as long as his name was not included.
    
    ______________________________________________________
    
    
    Bonnie,
 
	Makes you wish for the ability and authority to exclude people
doesn't it? :-) That's one of the silliest arguments I've seen in a
long time. Even in SOAPBOX. I will not vote on the FWO issue just as
I have made it personal policy not to vote on any other voting issue
in WOMANNOTES but I wanted to get my 2 cents in. Lucky you get to
read it since I am trying not to reply in WOMANNOTES anymore.
 
	The idea of a FWO note bothered me at first (why back when
it first came up). Reading the arguments and thinking over how topics
so often went off track changed my mind. All too often bringing male
replies diverted attention from the topic. Women responded to men and
not to what they said. Like wise men responded to women rather then
what they said (if it was on topic) or over reacted to the female reaction
to the male reaction. None of that was any good. Everyone needs protected
space. 
 
Because of the way society is today men have more power in many forms
of communication. Compare MENNOTES and WOMANNOTES and you'll see that
women are almost never able to re-arrange the direction of a topic in
MENNOTES but even (comparatively) mild men frequently re-arrange the
direction of topics in WOMANNOTES. I don't understand how this happens
exactly but it appears to happen none the less. This makes it understandable
that a woman would feel the need for a protected topic. 
 
As long as men can react to a topic in a parallel note I fail to see
how men are being excluded. They can reply to any reply in the FWO topic
as well as start new lines based on their own perspective. They are
not being left out. The arguments against FWO notes made so far in topic
850 do not make logical sense to me so I'm at a loss to reason against
them.
 
As you know I am very familiar with the section of the P&P that was
quoted. I am also familiar with the intent of that policy. I see no
reason to believe that FWO notes violate the intent of that policy.
Of course one can interpret that policy to ban WOMANNOTES if one
wants to. In fact, I believe that a better case for closing the whole
conference down can be made then just prohibiting FWO topics. The
former is more likely to happen if someone complains about FWO notes
then just prohibiting FWO notes. I doubt either would happen but things
could get uncomfortable. I wonder if that is the intent of topic 850?
 
As a general principle I support communication and discussion on issues.
Since I believe that FWO help those things and do not hinder them I
support FWO topics in WOMANNOTES. Please do not count this as a vote
though. WOMANNOTES is not my conference and I do not wish to set its
rules.
 
		

    I hear things like "silly argument" and "no right" being bantered
    about by anonymous men and women that believe men have no right
    invading their privacy or their conference.
    
    Then I read things like "sexism will not be tolerated" and "comments
    from men are welcomed and encouraged" in the charter of this conference
    which should be supported by its moderators and charter members.
    
    Then I recall that these machines that we are all typing away on
    belong to all of us.
    
    Then I ask myself, "What is the argument?"

    MBoutcher,
    
    Twice today I have asked you to register so that you can vote on
    this issue. You have neither answered my mail nor registered.
    
    Have you gone and read the whole history of how this issue came
    about or have you come new into the file and not bothered to understand
    the history of what you are speaking about.
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator

    
    re:.6
    
    One might argue that it serves the business needs of DEC to promote
    and encourage the discussion of women's issues. An employee that
    is not living or working up to her potential is surely a loss to
    the company. Since it seems obvious that in our society women are
    routinely kept from fulfilling their potential, anything that can
    be done to try to awaken and encourage that potential- e.g.
    womennotes- will be to the advantage of the company and (dare I
    say it?) the world at large.
    

    Yes, Mike, please do listen to the suggestions made here, and please
    do listen to the moderators when they reiterate the suggestions.
    
    >I hear things like "silly argument" and "no right" being bantered
    >about by anonymous men and women that believe men have no right
    >invading their privacy or their conference.

    Well, if "silly" or "no right" have been used in this string, they've
    since been deleted.  Besides, who are you to call anyone here
    anonymous.  Most of us have registered, many of us sign with our
    full names, and a lot of us have actually met each other.  
    
    From an earlier note:
    >Maybe women of today have lost sight of the origin of their new
    >found freedoms and rights. 
    
    Perhaps so, but I don't know any of them.  The origin or women's
    _reclaimed_ freedoms and rights is just what the FWO notes are about.
    Even a brief reading of the history of women's suffrage will show
    the power of the movement came from women-only conventions and meetings
    and from women activists who worked together with women.  By providing
    an occasional undiluted eddy for women to convene again and discuss
    what they may have in common, we celebrate the works of these women
    of our history by repeating their actions and their methods of work.
    
    As a male employee of Digital, you can hardly be expected to base
    an understanding of feeling isolated from other members of your
    gender and an understanding of sexism direct towards you at the
    workplace, but we could all hope you would be open to listening
    to those who believe that by providing very small spots within this
    notesfile for women only we help alleviate the stresses many women
    in this company continue to be subjected to.
    

    Bonnie J.,
    
    Maybe I haven't made myself clear. I don't believe that this is
    an issue that needs to be voted on - a non-issue, if you will. I
    don't intend to register with this conference, but I do have every
    intention to continue using it.
    
    					Thanks anyway,
    
    						Mikez

    Well Mike if you chose not to vote that is your perogative.
    However, we do not intend to call off the vote because you
    disapprove of it.
    
    Bonnie

    OK, Mike, you dislike the fact that "anonymous men" disagree,
    so here's a non-anonymous man disagreeing.
    
    Like one of the anonymous men whose opinion Bonnie posted in a
    previous reply, I make a personal policy of not voting on any
    issue in this conference. I feel as a "guest" here, usually
    just reading and keeping quiet, replying generally only when I
    feel my male viewpoint (or in some instances, just a personal
    viewpoint not gender-related) may help the discussion. Letting
    the women set the agenda in this conference is an implicit, if
    somewhat subtle, support of the very reasons this conference
    exists in the first place. It's *their* game, I think it's
    only fair to let them make the rules (especially as I consider
    myself a kibbitzer at most).
    
    You aren't being denied access to this conference. You aren't
    being denied the opportunity to reply to *any* note. Under the
    current arrangement, if Topic #n is FWO, and you want to reply
    to #n.10, you simply reply in Topic #n+1. I just don't see the
    problem. Men aren't losing anything by this arrangement. It *is*
    however, easier for women who are interested only in hearing
    replies from other women to avoid reading replies from men. Yes,
    they could just NEXT REPLY their way along, but (1) it's not always
    obvious whether the note is written by a man or woman until the
    signature appears at the end, and (2) why make it more difficult
    for them?
    
    I do understand at least part of your point. FWO/FGD topics do
    smack something of Jim Crowism, but as a man, I don't feel the
    least bit insulted, threatened, or pushed aside by them. I don't
    understand why anyone would be, unless he has a very thin skin.
    
    --- jerry

    Mike, how familiar are you with the Digital policy of Valuing
    Difference?  The one developed by Barbara Walker (who has been working
    closely with the moderators of this conference to help identify and
    clarify some of the issues mentioned here) and signed and distributed
    by Ken Olsen. 
    
    One can certainly interpret Valuing Difference in a variety of ways.
    It would be easy to say "Everyone is equal!  No special treatment
    for anyone whether they have been historically unempowered or not".
    It would be just as easy to say "Protected groups deserve all the
    special treatment/rights/privileges they can think of in order 
    to become fully empowered".
    
    The moderators of this conference are not willing to stop at this
    level.  We don't believe that Valuing Differences is about getting
    simple answers from policies.  Valuing Differences challenges us to
    look at our assumptions and to ask ourselves some tough questions about
    doing things "the way we've always done them". If we don't like some of
    the results we have been getting, we probably *don't* want to keep
    doing things the way we (as a society or as a corporation) "have always
    done them". 
    
    The moderators of womannotes are neither separatists (we promote a
    forum where men and women can work together and exchange ideas) nor
    among those who believe that we have reached a point where women and
    minorities enjoy the rights and privileges that white men do. 
    
    For that reason, we will continue to promote a conference where men and
    women can talk together.  We will also continue to promote a conference
    where the needs of women are taken very seriously.  (I personally
    believe that Valuing Differences includes creating opportunities
    for men and women to talk together *as well as* creating opportunities
    for women to hear one another without redirection or interruption.)
    
    When there are conflicts of needs we will evaluate the situation
    thoughtfully and try to create a compromise that works reasonably
    well.  Not all compromises will be equally appealing to all
    participants.                                       
    
    Holly Hendricks
    co-moderator                                                      
    
     

    
    
    Since I feel like the mother of this issue - FWO notes - I would
    like to express my view of the situation.
    
    There are a number of topics that women need to discuss between
    themselves that do not need nor want the opininons of non-women
    (men).  These are the topics that are difficult for a woman to
    even in a protected environment and for each woman what those
    topics are may be different.
    
    History lesson:
    
    Prof:  What is the most powerful threat to the group in power?
    
    Student:  The possiblity that the individuals in the groups that
    		have be oppressed will talk to one another and see 
    		that they have infact been oppressed by the same group.
    
    Prof:  What is the most significant means of attaining this knowledge?
    
    Student:  A situation where the individuals of the oppressed group
    		are able to openly talk about their personal experiences
    		without the oppressor or a representative of the oppressing
    		group around to divert the discussion to safe topics.
    
    Prof:  So then what most the oppressor do to retain their position?
    
    Student:  Keep the individuals within the oppressed groups for sharing
    		their personal experiences.
    
    End of lesson.
    
    If you want to discuss the Herstory of the Women's Movement I suggest
    that you first get your facts right.  As Lisa stated, and I will
    expand - Every time that the movement has made progress (and I beleive
    that very little progress has been made) it has been through the
    work of women meeting and sharing their personal experiences with
    other women and realizing that it is women that are oppressed not
    individual women.  The difference being that if a woman sees that
    she is not able to get a specific job or house or whatever not because
    of who she is but because of what she is, she is then able to combat
    this oppression by baning with other women who have suffered the
    same oppression.  These women may not be able to end the oppression
    but atleast they know they are not alone in the struggle.
    
    I think I have said enough.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    
    			The Goddess gave women the voices so that
    			they too could speak of their experiences
    
    

    Whether or not you want the opinion of non-women is not even in
    question since this is a non-business related conference (see the
    NAUTILUS or ENVIRONMENT conference) and everyone has a RIGHT to
    be involved. This isn't a privilege that can be given and taken
    away at a whim.
    
    	The direction of discussion in this conference can easily be
    controlled with the aid of the Moderators. I have no intention of
    misdirecting or redirecting any topic. The few replies that I have
    offered have been in line (I feel) with the intent of the topic.
    I do regret that I failed to sign my replies to indicate my gender,
    but I can correct that. 
    
    	It appears as if the only point of contention is knowing whether
    a response is from a male or female. In that case, what would be
    wrong with requiring a [F]/[M] prefix to every note? The need for
    FWO and FGD topics would be eliminated and an unsegregated conference
    would be ensured. It works for stray notes where the moderator just
    eliminates the note and all trailing replies, why not for non-gendered
    replies?
    
    	I value the views of women and respect the differences in values
    and daily life, although I may not understand them. I don't need
    to prove that I'm a man by screwing up this or any other conference,
    but I do believe in principles. In this conference I see an entire
    spectrum of views and values - from the most profound and
    thought-provoking to the most ridiculous. What makes these interesting,
    is the ability to respond and question within the same forum, to
    understand the different perspectives. I won't give up my opportunity
    to learn and understand without a fight.
    
    	(Sounds a little corny, huh? Don't know how else to make a point,
    I guess)
    
    					Thanks,
    
    					Mike Boutcher

	Mike,

	Where we disagree is in that I don't think you are giving
	up any rights at all if you are asked to reply in a separate
	string from the original.  Hey, we ask you to umm, relieve
	yourself in a different room from women and although some
	people disagree with that, it's generally accepted and really
	isn't too much of an inconvenience.

	The difference between your method of identifying gender
	within the same string and the proposed method of having
	separate strings is that the topic won't be derailed as
	has happened in the past.  Some women will respond to
	derailments (as they should), so that the entire topic
	will be derailed and reading [F] only notes will not
	keep the topic in line.

	I'm not saying that only men derail topics, I'm just
	dealing with the reality of what has happened in the
	past in this conference.

	I have many more reasons for why I support FWO topics
	which I have already stated.  The most important reason
	is because without a semi-safe place (in their perceptions) for
	women to discuss things, then no discussion will happen.
	Having this space for women is *more* important than
	allowing men to reply to all topics because there won't
	be those topics without it.

	...Karen

    Mike,
    
    You have said that you wish only to reply.  Fine.  As has been stated
    REPEATEDLY, you may do so, in the note which has been thoughtfully
    set up for you for that very purpose.  Yet you complain that you
    are not allowed to do this in one note in particular (and ignore
    the reality that this situation might obtain only three or four times
    in a year).
    
    Therefore, it seems to me is that you do not wish only to reply,
    but that you wish to be read when you do so.  Since freedom of
    speech does not guarantee that others will be forced to listen to
    you, I see this as a problem which you should work out with your ego.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Please do not use the argument, ~Well, if she doesn't want
    to read my reply, she just has to hit KP3.~.  When an individual
    writes about a class of problem, seeking a solution, she should
    not be obliged to read her responses with her stomach clenched in
    a knot, or with her hand over most of the screen so that she can
    examine the sender's node::name (and then try to remember -- if
    she ever knew -- the gender of that person) before reading the
    reply.  Also, striking KP3 does not guarantee the instant removal
    of the offending entry from one's screen, as I trust you have
    noticed.
    
    							A.A.B.

    RE: .25 Anyone who believes that the direction of discussion in
    this or any conference or even in a specific topic can *easily*
    be controlled by the moderators has obviously never been a moderator.
    Or if they have they haven't tried to control the direction of
    a topic over anyone's objection. It can not be done short of
    restricting access and bouncing people out of the conference.
    That is not *my* idea of easily.
    
    Topics can be redirected *unintentionally* more easily then they
    can be redirected intentionally. There are times when a man may
    feel that his comments are in line with the intent of a topic
    and most women will not agree. A wise man once said that "any
    man who claims to understand women is either a fool, a liar or
    both." I suspect the same could be said about women understanding
    men but I don't understand women enough to know. That's why I'm
    mostly read only here.
    
    I don't think that knowing whether a response is from a man or a
    woman is at all related to this issue. Women want not to have to
    see that a reply is from a woman or a man but to feel secure that it
    *is* from a woman. They want to have to make an effort to read a
    man's reply not to have to make an effort to avoid a man's reply.
    A subtle but important difference. The only point of contention
    appears to be does this exclude male participation from an issue.
    You appear to be the only one who feels that it does. I believe
    that all minority (in this case male) rights are still intact.
    
    ~Cliff

    	Every time this subject comes up, it seems like "someone" surfaces
    	in the discussion to vehemently protest FWO notes.  The person
    	cites Personnel policy (and/or goes to Personnel or threatens
    	to go to Personnel), and vows to fight this issue to the death
    	for the Principle that the person feels is involved.
    
    	The bottom line of all this is that it does not hurt men to
    	have to respond to topics in the n+1 string instead of the n
    	basenote where the discussion was introduced.  Men get to say
    	what they want and the discussion goes on in TWO strings instead
    	of one.  Big deal.  The inconvenience is slight or non-existent.
    
    	Since all this has been said a zillion times since the FWO idea
    	was first introduced, I apologize for repeating it once again.
    	I think that it is very likely that the newest "I'm gonna fight
    	this thing to the death" person just hasn't read all the previous
    	discussions about it.
    
    	One thing I'd like to mention is that I think it is a great
    	fallacy to assume that one can only "learn" and "benefit" from
    	a discussion if one is allowed to WRITE in it.  Personally,
    	I've learned far more when I've done a "read only" on certain
    	topics (especially if the topic is about something that I know
    	very little about.)  In cases like that, I don't feel that I
    	have anything valuable to say anyway (except maybe, "Gee, I
    	didn't know that" or "How interesting" or "Thank you.")  The
    	point is, regardless of whether I have actually made those
    	comments, I've learned something that I didn't know before
    	(and I benefit.)
    
    	Men *can* and *do* benefit from FWO topics.  They can see what
    	women say to each other when men do not join in the conversation
    	(which in and of itself can be interesting!)  At any rate, it
    	is interesting to me and to many in this conference, and as
    	a point of courtesy, I don't think it is asking too much to
    	have such notes in a conference that was set up to discuss topics
    	of interest to WOMEN.
    
    	Well, I guess I've made it clear how *I* will vote, eh?  :-)

re: .25
    
>    Whether or not you want the opinion of non-women is not even in
>    question since this is a non-business related conference (see the
>    NAUTILUS or ENVIRONMENT conference) and everyone has a RIGHT to
>    be involved. This isn't a privilege that can be given and taken
>    away at a whim.
 
    No, you're right, it's not, but this and hundreds of other non-business
    related conferences are based on mutual respect and trust - of one
    another - and of all other participants to uphold the charter and
    spirit of the conference so that it can fulfill its purpose in a
    clear, concise, and creative way.  Again, it's not that we do not
    want men's opinions, we just, in rare cases, wish them to be separate
    from some women-only discussions, in an adjacent note for general
    discussion by all.  And general discussion notes are not for men
    only (or does this surprise you)...women get involved there too
    so it isn't really all that "segregated" (as you put it).
       
>    I have no intention of misdirecting or redirecting any topic. 
    
    good.
       
>    In that case, what would be wrong with requiring a [F]/[M] prefix 
>    to every note? 
    
    there is no need for this if everyone signs in to the proper place,
    topic 2 or 7.  Then we know their gender...actually most people
    here are fairly well acquainted with one another (at least via notes),
    which makes it even less necessary.
    
>    The need for FWO and FGD topics would be eliminated and an 
>    unsegregated conference would be ensured. 
 
    No.  FWO/FGD topics are to make talking about difficult subjects
    easier.  It's not whether it's a man or woman responding, it is
    at this point where and how they respond that makes the difference.
    
>    What makes these interesting, is the ability to respond and question
>    within the same forum, to understand the different perspectives. I
>    won't give up my opportunity to learn and understand without a fight. 
 
    Let me get this straight - you like the ability to respond and question
    within the same forum.  You can do so in the FGD note (which comes
    directly after the FWO note).  You can read the FWO note, if you wish.
    You can respond to things you see in the FWO note by posting to the FGD
    note.  The only thing you can't do is respond in the FWO note.  How
    does this remove your ability to learn and understand?  The only
    complex thing it introduces is the need to keep track of parallel
    discussions, which really isn't too much of a strain if you are
    interested enough in the topic to read it.  Also, due to the sensitive
    nature of some of the FWO topics, all readers (men and women alike)
    are cautioned to handle the subjects with kid gloves and respond
    gently and with as great understanding as possible.
      
    
    -Jody
    

    Please don't be so quick to judge this conference as a "non-business
    related conference".  A number of conferences are classified as
    Valuing Differences conferences -- womannotes, mennotes, blacknotes,
    gay DEC employees, and so forth.  The full list can be found in
    a reply to note #2 in the Easynotes conference (ANCHOR::EASYNET).
    
    The Valuing Differences conferences don't directly address our product
    line, but people at the top of the corporation have decided that
    Valuing Differences is correlated highly enough with our productivity
    to provide staff and space for programs, to train middle management
    in Valuing Differences, and to allow a number of employees to
    participate in "core groups".  People who participate in core groups
    meet about half a day per month *on company time* to discuss many
    of the same issues we discuss here.  
    
    Valuing Differences is a corporate goal.  If we are pursuing that
    goal using the network, I believe we are supporting Digital.  Contributing
    to the "bottom line" is not the only metric for being business-related.  
                                                                
    Personnel management (with the help of the legal department) is also
    looking at this issue in the hopes of defining the issues more clearly. 
    
    Holly Hendricks
    co-moderator
    

    Er, quick interruption--is the Personnel P & P still on line somewhere?
    I remember accessing it through VTX once...
    
    Now, back to the real discussion.

    
    re:.22
    Thanks Mr. Boyajian! you speak for me as well.
    

in .23, one of the moderators mentioned that Barbara Walker, who developed
Digital's "Valuing Differences" program has been working with the womannotes
moderators "to help identify and clarify some of the issues mentioned here."

Could the moderators kindly inform us what Ms. Walker's views on the
question of "separate but equal" notes might be?

Also, when the ballot question was first published, I asked the moderators
whether the right to create "for woman only" notes was to be restricted
to women, as stated in the ballot, or whether it is intended to be a
privilege extended to all participants in this file.  I would hope that
this question is clarified before voting begins.

Martin.

    Last time I checked I was MALE, and I have no problem with seperate
    and individual topics on the same item.  
    
    The only comentary that I have seen otherwise seems to be of the
    small boy/girl type where I can play where ever I choose, or I am
    telling and you won't be able to play at all!
    
    I am indeed for the FWO/FGD Qualifiers.
    
    And I will be voting that choise!
    
    I see the differences and I respect your desires.
    
    Dave..I usually include my name..if its not there I forgot!
    

re ?:
    I can't KP3 past offending notes; from the Midwest it takes
    too long to get into East Coast conferences during the day so
    a batch job "reads" them overnight and they show up in MAIL
    the next morning. Obviously there are times when I'm willing
    to take the time during the day to write something.  :) 

    I used the FWO/FGD scheme, and I *think* I'd have discussed
    the topic without having an FWO/FGD dichotomy. But on another
    topic I might *not* feel I could discuss it without that
    separation, and many women might not be willing to bring up a
    topic if they were uncomfortable with men's replies.  We
    all lose then. 

    -- Linda

    Martin, as I understand it FWO notes are to be entered by women
    only.  If a man is interested in responses specifically from women,
    he is welcome to ask, but I personally would not consider the note
    an FWO note since the base note was not entered by a woman.  
    
    We are still in the discussion stages with Barbara Walker.  We are
    still clarifying what the issues are as we see them and as she sees
    them.  We are not the only people she is discussing notes related
    issues with, by the way.  She has not made a definitive statement
    on the subject at this point.
                                                                   
    My goal in mentioning that we are working with her on these issues
    was to let people know that we care deeply about a number of painful
    issues raised both in the conference and in the off-line mail we
    receive, and that we are using the corporate resources available
    to us to problem-solve and to learn.  I'm not willing to discuss
    the content of our meetings at this point -- the subject is essentially
    still in "phase 0".  
    
    Alfred Thompson responded to my note a few replies back about the
    easynotes notesfile that he maintains.  He pointed out that he
    arbitrarily classifies the various conferences as Valuing Differences
    conferences and that his list should not be construed as an "official"
    list. I believe that most employees with experience of Valuing
    Differences would concur with his judgement in general which is
    why I suggested looking at the list.
    
    He also thought it would be better to access the conference on
    TLE::EASYNOTES_CONFERENCES.
    
    
    Holly Hendricks
    co-moderator

This note is very difficult for me to write.  Difficult because it expresses
some of the great emotional turmoil that has grown within me over the
past six months or so regarding this conference - pain and a sense of loss
so severe, that I dropped out of the conference over three months ago.
I had to - I could no longer participate rationally, as much as I wanted to.
However, a very dear friend has urged me to speak once more.  And I am going
to try as hard as I can to avoid the didactic manner I often find myself
falling into.

I do not like the notion of FWO topics.  In fact, I despise it.  But my
strong negative feelings towards the concept don't stop me from seeing that
FWO notes achieve the goals they were created with.  But at what cost?

I am one of the earliest male contributors to this conference.  This and
a quarter will get me a cup of coffee, but I mention it because it is
the changes I have seen in this conference that have influenced my
attitudes about it.  Once upon a time, I felt I was a welcome, full partner
in the numerous conversations and discussions here.  I made many new
friends, listened a great deal, spoke a little and learned a lot.  But
something changed - over a rather short period of time, the tenor of
the conference was altered.  Now, men were the enemy, responsible for all
the evils in the world.  A few ill-mannered men were allowed to create
havoc in the conference, and the backlash was directed at ALL male
participants.  Votes to restrict membership, votes to make the conference
women-only, and then, what I felt to be the most insidious of all,
the FWO note.

I felt that I was no longer welcome in the conference.  It didn't matter
that I had not been responsible for any of the "trashnotes" - I was
being discriminated against by the very group of people, women, whom I felt 
ought to know better!  It was as if I'd been a member of a club for a long time,
and woke up one morning to find that all the rest of the members had formed a
new club, leaving me out. I was so hurt and upset that I finally decided to take
a "vacation" from the conference.  When I did so, a great deal of tension was
lifted from me and I found I could be more productive in other areas. I missed
the conference, missed the feeling of familiness, but I knew that with the
current state of affairs, I'd never see that again anyway, so I stayed away. 

Why is it that I dislike FWO topics so much?  It's because, to me, it
is simply "NOTES apartheid".  Just like in South Africa, you create little
"homelands" (the misnamed FGD topics) for the men, so the women don't have
to see them.  The real effect, based on my examining the FWO topics that
have been created, is that men simply don't participate.  Sometimes it
makes no sense for them to do so, but other times it does, and it's
a formidable psychological barrier to participation.  I also liken it to
the obstacles placed in the path of blacks throughout the history of
the US, such as literacy tests for voting, being forced to ride in the
backs of buses, and the "separate but equal" schools.  All of these were
declared illegal and unethical - why is it different here?  I don't
understand....

I really envy the few men who have stayed active here, and who don't appear
to mind the prejudice.  I wish I knew of an obvious and fair solution to
the real problems that exist which didn't alienate a large segment of the
noting population.  But I don't - not one that will do any good anymore,
anyway.  

I will vote against FWO topics, because I believe it is wrong.  But if it
is accepted, as I'm almost certain it will be, it should be made clear
that the conference is no longer "topics of interest to women", but rather
"for women - participation by men is subject to various restrictions."
It will be unique - I am not aware of any other conference on the network
that operates in this fashion.  I just hope it isn't a Pyhhric victory...

				In peace and friendship,
					Steve

	RE: .38

	Steve, the calmness with which you have presented your ideas
	is very much appreciated.  I realize that this is a very hot
	subject with you (as evidenced by former notes you've written
	on the idea of FWO and the rage that was evident in your tone.)
	Also, I did notice that you left the conference over this whole
	thing, which I feel is sad and unfortunate.

	However, for the life of me, I cannot fathom how you can possibly
	be hurt by responding in the n+1 string instead of the n string
	in a tiny, tiny, TINY (i.e., less than 1 percent of the basenotes
	so far, if I'm not mistaken) portion of the total topics in this
	conference.  How can it hurt you so badly that you think that the
	whole conference is ruined for you?

	As for comparing the tiny portion of the conference that is
	FWO to Apartheid, let me point out to you that you are *still*
	a member of the empowered group in our culture (and women are
	still *not*.)  Even if we wrote thousands of FWO notes, nothing
	would change that.  In your analogy, WE are the blacks of South
	Africa, and YOU are a member of the white empowered group who
	is telling South African Blacks that you ought to be allowed
	to have your hand in EVERY SINGLE THING WE EVER SAY OR DO in
	this conference (and that you despise the fact that we are
	allowed one tiny portion of space, less than one percent, in
	which your voice is not present.)  Think about that.

	Before we continue on that vein, however, I'd like to request
	that we *NOT* continue to compare our struggles here with racial
	prejudice.  In another conference, someone mentioned that it
	is unbelievably tiring to see one's race used *repeatedly* as the
	handiest analogy to use for every argument that comes down the
	net where groups of different power-levels are interacting (and
	I tend to agree.)  Let's let the racial_prejudice_analogies
	REST for awhile (and just talk about the realities of our 	
	situation, ok?)

	The bottom line in this whole thing is that you are not being
	prevented from speaking your piece about any subject that exists
	in this conference.  In one percent of the notes, you may need
	to put your responses in the n+1 string, instead of in the n
	string.  This is not a huge hardship.  Please try to keep this
	thing in perspective.  OK?

       I can understand why contributors to this conference would
       be upset by the characterizations in .38.  I'm sure that it's
       got to be difficult to justify egalitarianism and separatism,
       all at the same time.  
       
       The relative paucity of FWO notes is not, to me, the key issue;
       the issue is the atmosphere that the acceptability of FWO creates
       and fosters, namely, to discourage participation by men in this
       conference.
       
       If the participants of this conference continue to allow FWO
       notes, they will continue to foster an atmosphere in which
       significant numbers of people choose not to contribute. 
       
       --Mr Topaz
       
       p.s.: Suzanne's answer (.39) to Steve in condensed form would be
       this: "Steve, you ought not have the feelings that you have."
       Not very enlightened, I'm afraid.

    	RE: .40
    	
    	Don, thanks for your Reader's Digest version of my note, but
    	it only shows me how little of it was understood by you.
    
    	I deliberately did *not* address Steve's discussion about the
    	general atmosphere in this conference because I think that it
    	would be a terrible mistake to drag the most gigantic ratholes
    	that this conference has ever seen into a vote that involves
    	one point (and one point only):  Should we or should we not
    	have moderators continue to support the presence of FWO notes
    	(followed by FGD notes) in this conference?
    
    	I think it would be a definite smokescreen to bring up every
    	other rathole that we've ever had in this conference as points
    	to be solved FIRST or INSTEAD -- all it would succeed in doing
    	is confuse the issues here.
    
    	The things I said about the percentage of notes that are involved
    	were very much to the point (as was the mention of the fact that
    	everyone is free to comment on the subject at hand in the
    	following FGD note.)  
    
    	Without dragging your ten most favorite ratholes into this
    	discussion, how does the presence of one percent FWO notes
    	(with accompanying FGD notes) constitute an 'inconvenience'
    	so great that one would decide that the whole conference
	was ruined?

    re .38-.41:
    
    I find Steve's feelings perfectly understandable.  Regardless of the
    extent to which the FWO mechanism has actually been used, regardless
    of the fact that men are free to write in FGD discussions (and in
    all other non-FWO discussions), the fact is that FWO does
    discriminate against men, symbolically at least.
    
    Unlike Steve, I am not upset by the discrimination.  I have
    participated here almost as long as he has (my intro note is dated
    two weeks after his), but I have always felt that this is a
    *women's* conference.  Men are tolerated, even welcomed here; but we
    are guests, and the hosts have the right to set the rules.  If FWO
    discussions can further the *primary* goal of this conference,
    support for *women*, then I am happy to accept the personally
    distasteful fact that this requires excluding me from some
    discussions.
    
    	-Neil 

    I've seen the FWO notes as places where a woman can express
    herself in an atmosphere of "this is *so* troublesome for
    me that I can't deal with it in mixed company/conversation."
    It has not been abused. The FWO/FGD format is a bit awkward,
    but if we lose ten "That's discrimination !" finger-pointers
    and gain one deep personal viewpoint, it is more than
    justified, it is of great value. I was leery of it at first,
    but it has worked well. 
    
    Dana
    

    I have trouble understanding why people get so emotionally involved
    in topics (not "strings", TOPICS) like this. It's just a notes
    conference, for Pete's (er, Patricia's?) sake. The world is full
    of people who don't agree with each other.
    
    On the subject of FWO/FGD notes, I don't particularly like them,
    because they're mechanically cumbersome. I would prefer it if the
    request for FWO participation in a note were made more in the form
    of "I am primarily interested in inputs from other women on this
    subject" (encoded IAPIIIFOWOTS) than a policy-mandated ban.
    Reasonable men will take the hint and steer clear; those misguided
    souls of the XY persuasion who insist on replying can be ignored if
    you so choose. 
    
    Either way, I still maintain that it's far more detrimental to this
    conference to have continual discussion about process than to EITHER
    endure the occasional "radical right-to-note" lunatic fringe OR
    continue with FWO/FGD paired topics, and hope that once this flurry
    passes the conference can resume the ban on excessive discussions of
    this sort. 

    
    	I don't suppose I'll vote on the issue, since I am a little
    for it, and a little against it.   I suppose some restrictions
    may have become necessary due to some male 'interference', but I
    don't like this particular solution.    During this period I
    have withdrawn some from participating here.
    
	I *have* felt discriminated against by trying to participate in 
    the "FGD" portion of a discussion.    I put my reply there, and it 
    just kind of hung out there by itself for several days until I deleted 
    it.    Meanwhile, the "FWO" part of the note was rolling merrily
    on.    I felt like I was in a room where everyone was ignoring me.
    For this reason, although I may really be interested in a "FWO"
    topic, I will never again try to reply to one in the "FGD" topic.
    Hey, I try to be sensitive to other's needs and desires, so if you
    say "leave us alone", I will.    It doesn't make me feel happy though.

    		Alan.

    Re:. .39, .41
    
    Well, since Suzanne has told me that my feelings are invalid, and has
    dismissed them in one fell swoop by categorizing them as "ratholes",
    I'll just have to find some other basis for my argument....
    
    Really, Suzanne, both Don and Neil understood perfectly what I said -
    you missed it completely.  And furthermore, I have no idea where
    the "rage" you referred to comes in, unless it is your own note.
    
    Maybe if I make a simple list, it will be more obvious:
    
    	- I have no desire to deny women a "safe" place to discuss
    	  whatever they want to discuss.  I don't understand why most
    	  of the women here seem to feel that it is necessary to
    	  exclude men from participation, Peggy Leedberg's self-serving
    	  "lecture" notwithstanding, but I can accept that some women
    	  insist on doing so.
    
    	- I personally feel shut out, even "kicked out", by a group of
    	  people I used to think of as friends and family.  I am still
    	  friends with many of the contributors, but the feeling of 
    	  family is long since gone.  (And PLEASE don't tell me I ought
    	  not to feel this way!  That is exactly the attitude you've
    	  been complaining about!)
    
    	- I sincerely believe that having FWO topics be an "official"
    	  mechanism of this conference imposes a definite psychological
    	  barrier to male participation ANYWHERE in the conference.  It
    	  doesn't matter if there's only one FWO note out of a thousand,
    	  or how "easy" it is to do my talking "over there".  FGD topics
    	  are like being banished to Siberia - out of sight, out of mind.
    	  Why bother?
    
    As Don Topaz suggests, you can't have it both ways.  Either this
    conference welcomes male participation or it doesn't.  Support of
    FWO topics by the moderators tells men that their participation is
    discouraged.  If that's what's decided on, then be up front about it.
    Perhaps the men who would like to discuss women's topics, and the women
    who would like to discuss those topics with men, can then find another,
    more hospitable place.
    
    I feel I've already lost - I once considered this my favorite
    conference, and spent a lot of time listening and discussing the issues
    and experiences detailed here with friends.  But I don't feel I can do
    that anymore.  I'm sorry.
    
    					Steve

    	RE: .46
    
    	Steve, although the pompous rhetoric in your note was highly
    	amusing, you are still evading the issue.
    
    	Obviously, you don't have any sort of good sound argument as
    	to why the very tiny portion of the conference that has been
    	occupied by FWO notes constitutes a huge inconvenience for
    	you (and why your objection to them is worth giving up the
    	98-99% of the conference that is still non-FWO.)
    
    	It must be obvious to you by now that the FWO notes are valued
    	by a large number of women in this notesfile (even if we *do*
    	only intend to employ them in 1 or 2 percent of the whole
    	conference.)
    
    	The only thing with which I agree in your note was the line
    	about how you "don't understand" why the FWO notes are so
    	important to women.  If you were a true friend, I would think
    	you would make it your business to understand (and to accept
    	our decisions about it.)  
    
    	Apparently, you are unable to do that, which is quite sad.

    RE .45 Alan, one of the prices you pay to be in this conference
    is that occasionally your witty, erudite notes are completely
    ignored. I don't especially understand the phenomena myself :-)
    
    Dana
    
    PS On the bright side, some of my sillier remarks have *not*
    been shoved down my throat. I guess women feel safe ignoring
    us here. 

       Steve,
              Good arguements and sound points, but what's the use.
    I recently made clear my sentiments about family values along with
    my disdain for ideological systems that tout individualistic aims
    that are (often) at the expense of the family.
    
       The 'Family' of policies here reflects the dominance of collective
    individualistic aims over genuine M/F Community ones. 
    
       One result of such policies involves nothing less than the
    dehumanization of men.
    
       Welcomed as 'visitors' or 'guests', men are immediately placed
    lower in status than women. Inferiors if you will.
    
       Many men have written me that they feel as though they are viewed
    and treated as inferiors in this Conference. 
    
       That Policy questions continually revolve around the matter of
    Gender and Gender preference only confirms the negative attitudes
    that abound regarding men. What seems forgotten is that women and
    men are alike in their good and bad ways.
    
       More important, what is forgotten is that this Conference needs
    an outstanding vision that involves the entire Community.  
    
       Mennotes does not discriminate on the basis of sex and I respect
    that strength.
    
       Policies that discriminate on the basis of sex are ill-informed,
    ill-grounded, and invalid.
    
       The real problem of this Conference is not the FWO's - it's what
    they may mean.  
    
       Arguements regarding FWO statistical "insignificance" - are
    insignificant.  Arguements focused on building genuine partnerships
    between women and men ARE significant.
    
       Womannotes rises or falls depending upon the level of a positive
    and life-affirmative Community feeling.
    
       I don't know if this latest Policy question reflects an act of
    arrogance or one of careful consideration.
    
       I guess only time will tell.
    
                                                    Russ

    	RE: .50
    
    	Arguments that say that arguments regarding FWO statistical
    	"insignificance" are insignificant -- are insignificant.
    
    

    I would also point out that since the fwo trial was instituted there
    appears to have been an increase in the number of what might (for want
    of a better term) be called "traditionally feminine" topics, and a
    corresponding decrease in the amount of fang-and-claw defence that
    seemed to be needed too often in the past.  As someone pointed out,
    women do seem to feel less threatened in here now, and if that makes it
    a perhaps less exciting place for those of us who are good at verbal
    combat and fearless with it (Ann, Catherine, Justine, Lee, Sandy, and
    Suzanne spring instantly to mind --and the Goddess bless them all!),
    it's still a net gain for the community, wouldn't you say?
    
    						=maggie

    	RE: .52
    
    	Yes, Maggie, the conference has changed considerably in the
    	past few months (and completely for the better, as far as I'm
    	concerned.)
    
    	In this string, I've seen several of the older ratholes that we
    	used to fall into regularly, and it almost strikes me as
    	nostalgic (because most of us no longer need to get embroiled
    	in those old wornout discussions anymore.)  I think it's
    	wonderful!
    
    	Thanks to everyone for helping bring a measure of peace
    	to this forum, and I look forward to the future here (among
    	many people that I've grown to care about so much!!)

    Re: .51
    
    >Arguments that say that arguments regarding FWO statistical 
    >"insignificance" are insignificant -- are insignificant.
    
    I strongly disagree.  Convenience/inconvenience is not the primary
    issue.  The primary issue is whether or not it is right.  Convenience
    has no bearing on that issue.

    Yes, Suzanne, I agree; this note is like a trip down "memory lane" 
    back to the days when we spent a huge amount of time talking about 
    this issue.  And I too feel that during this "trial period," the file 
    has felt more peaceful, and it seems like generally more women have 
    been talking to each other both in and out of the FWO notes.  

    Steve (Lionel), I want to respond to something in your note, and I don't
    mean to single you out, but it was your note that got me thinking about
    this again.  I think that there is a misconception (i see it as a 
    misconception) out there that women in this file want to sometimes have
    FWO notes because of a few, obnoxious men who would otherwise give us
    no rest.  I disagree with that assessment.  Frankly, the hit and run
    notes are generally easy to spot, and though bothersome, easy to ignore.
    What I have found more disturbing is when well-intentioned, generally
    supportive men write in topics that women would really like to discuss
    among themselves.  Sometimes actual experience is important enough to
    warrant a request to limit the discussion to only those who have
    really been there.  Certainly, the issue of violence against women,
    for example, affects all of us.  But I believe that women who have 
    experienced violence need to talk about that without having to defend
    their own actions, or to define terms.  I also think that including
    the letters  "FWO" in the title of a note need only serve as a
    reminder that this is simply one note where only the experience of
    women is what's requested.  I hope that the request will be honored.

    Justine

	The same words are once again called upon to state what
should be, but apparently isn't, obvious.  Discrimination is
ugly and wrong.  FWO files are discriminatory.  Therefore FWO
files are ugly and wrong.

	An example which might be a bit more clear:

	People A, B and C request a FWO file within a file which is open 
to all.  They agree without argument to the concept and inclusion of
FGD files.  A, B and C are Caucasians and their FWO file is For Whites
Only.  How many of us would support their request for FWO notes?  I
hope none of us.

	We in the U.S. have managed to begin to correct many of our
social ills.  I am ashamed that we had to pass equal rights legislation
but pleased that such legislation was passed.  The citizens of the U.S.,
more than the citizens of most other 'developed' nations, should be
repulsed by any form of segregation.  Most of our parents came to this
country to escape religious or social discrimination.  Have we so
quickly forgotten our pre U.S. history?  Have we also forgotten the
1960's?

	There is (was?) a bar outside Ruston, Louisiana called Moon's.
The bar was open to both whites and blacks but the blacks couldn't 
drink on the "white side."  The blacks could walk through the white
side and even talk with the white people on the white side but they
could not order a drink.  Somehow, Moon's was judged to be within
the law.  

	There is no place in a healthy society for male only rooms in
clubs.  There is no place in a healthy society for white only rooms in
clubs.  There is no place in a healthy society for women only rooms in
clubs.  Separate but equal is segregation.

	For Women Only notes in WOMANNOTES, with or without FGD notes,
support the concept of separate but equal.

Douglas

    re: .56
    
    �Discrimination is ugly and wrong.
    
    Not necessarily.  The first definition in the dictionary is "to
    make a clear distinction; differentiate".  The second is "to
    act on the basis of prejudice"�  
    
    I'll agree that in the second definition, discrimination is generally 
    undesirable, especially because the word, in this sense, has taken on 
    the connotation of those in power discriminating *against* those not 
    in power.  However, I don't think that's what's happening with FWO
    notes.
    
    It seems to me that it's the first definition that applies to FWOs,
    not the second.  Analogously, gender-specific bathrooms are
    discriminatory - if you find FWO notes offensive, you must be outraged
    at the separate bathrooms.  I think that the "acid test" to determine
    if it's the "prejudice" kind is to look at what's being gained or
    lost and by whom.  As in the case with bathrooms, comfort is gained,
    the facilities are, in fact (or so I presume), equal in quality, and 
    so there is no loss.  
    
    As a matter of physical fact, FWOs don't prevent you from replying any 
    more than the sign prevents you from entering the women's room - it's 
    simply a question of how quickly someone will come along and remove
    you (in one case the moderators, in the other, the security cops).
    And though you'll be moved, you can still say (or do) what you came to
    say (or do) - just in a different *but equal* place.
    
    I fail to see how FWO abrogates anyone's ability to participate
    in NOTES discussions.
    
    Steve
    
    � American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd edition
    
    

    The moderators in this discussion are far from non-partisian and
    the stout supporters of the FWO strings find no argument to be valid.
    I have found that since the premise of the opposing viewpoint is
    discrimination and injustice, the system manager of this computer
    should be required to enforce corporate policy. I have sent my
    arguments to MOSAIC::SYSTEM and encourage others to do so. Maybe
    the vote for discrimination can be abolished, discriminatory practices
    within this conference can be eliminated, or the conference can
    be deleted. 
    
    Regards,
    
    Mike Boutcher

    I am really trying to understand all this arguing. I, personnally
    don't understand why the guys are to be shut out of certain topics.
    I have started a few notes in the past and have received invaluable
    inputs from both male and female. I don't think I would care for
    it if I were to go over to the Mennotes and have a reply of mine
    moved from a FMO note.
    I am not writing this to flame anyone. I have read all the notes
    and replies concerning this issue and I am still muddled.
    Franny
    

    RE: .59
    
    I *promised* myself I would not write anything about this topic,
    which has been more than sufficiently discussed. However, I am appalled
    that after all this, there are still people who don't get it.
    
    "The guys" will not be shut out of certain TOPICS. They may REPLY
    to their heart's content to the TOPIC. They would be shut out of
    NOTHING. Their access to this file and EVERY SINGLE (#%^&%( TOPIC
    IN IT will  remain totally intact.
    
    --DE
    

    I like the restroom analogy.  "Ladies" and "Gents." How separate
    and equal. Few people complain about the inequality of restrooms,
    the inequality of "smoking vs non-smoking" sections of restaurants.
        
    _karen 

    Re: .60
    
    Right.  So if the replies can be around anyway, the whole point
    of putting them in a FGD note is to make them easier to ignore?
    For the sake of (uh-oh) convenience?  So you can make do with the
    NEXT UNSEEN key rather than the NEXT REPLY key?
    
    What we have here are irreconcilable inconveniences, I think.

    re: .58
    
    � The moderators in this discussion are far from non-partisian and
    
    I don't agree, but I'd be willing to look at evidence to the
    contrary.  Certainly the moderators have their own opinions
    which they've stated from time to time as individuals.  To
    the best of my recollection, they've been careful to indicate
    when they're offering opinion (vs. moderating).
    
    � the stout supporters of the FWO strings find no argument to be valid.
    
    Though I wouldn't count myself as a "stout supporter" (just don't
    feel *that* strongly about it), I do agree that the arguments
    against ("injustice"/"discrimination") don't strike me as valid
    (see .57)
    
    � I have found that since the premise of the opposing viewpoint is
    � discrimination and injustice, the system manager of this computer
    � should be required to enforce corporate policy. I have sent my

    I believe that corporate policy (spec. Personnel 6.54) *is* being
    followed.  The conference is open to all and all can enter their
    comments; all topics can be replied to by all individuals.  That
    someone may request (reasonably, I believe) that some folks reply 
    in note "n" while others reply in "n+1", I hardly see this as
    "injustice" - no privileges have been taken away from anyone. I
    have yet to hear concretely *why* FWO's represent injustice or 
    inequality (vs. racially segregated schools which were shown
    graphically to *not* be equal.)
    
    Steve 
    
    NPO Personnel
    

    Steve, (re:.63)
    
    	Assume that note 'N' is an FWO note string, and note 'N+1' is
    the accompanying FGD string.
    	
    Situation: I desire to reply to note 'N'. Why can't I?
    
    	Without mentioning the 'N+1' string, since that string is similar
    to any other non-FWO string (of which there are many as has been
    so eloquently stated...nearly 99%, I believe), why can't I respond
    to note string 'N'? I understand that 'N+1' is related to 'N', but
    I could find many topics and strings that are tightly interwoven
    throughout this conference. If I desire to see my reply in the same
    conversational string as the others, then creating an 'N+1' string
    and requiring me to place any comment there is exclusionary.
    
    	Would you enjoy a conversation, of which you might have some
    valid questions, to exclude you until the conversation was completed
    and everybody involved went home. Sure, now you are free to question
    and comment, but who's to hear? 
    
    	I consider myself a good listener and as such have little to
    say when somebody is discussing problems or emotions or just needs
    to "let the air out". When I interject, it's to obtain clarification
    or to make a point or to redirect the discussion. I know when I'm
    doing it and I don't intentionally disrupt a discussion.
    
    	.... I'll look forward to your answer to my initial question....
    
    	Mike Boutcher

    Mike,
    
    To fulfill your desire to reply, you reply in note 'N+1', as directed.
    
    Now, let us consider [oh, no! not] another analogy.  Person A is
    giving a party, invites friends, and they invite friends.  Person
    B (among others) is informed that A is currently feeling unwell,
    and would B please smoke only on the porch for the time being?
    
    If B goes to the porch, B will find an intercom thoughtfully placed
    so that those on the porch can hear everything inside and may, by
    pressing a button, be heard inside.
    
    It may be that A is a little deaf, and cannot distinguish words
    over the intercomm without making a special effort, which A declines
    to do while feeling queasy.
    
    If B does not go on the porch, and does continue to smoke, A may
    become violently ill.  A might, with the help of a forceful friend,
    become violently ill over the person of B.  Or said forceful friend
    might "merely" bodily eject B from the party.
    
    Now, what you do not seem to understand is that when a woman says
    that she does not want any replies from men, she is not lying.
    She is telling the truth.  To behave as if she were lying is to
    harass her.  To act upon your apparent belief that you know what
    she wants/needs better than she does is rude and unconscionable.
    
    Do you understand that?
    
    							Ann B.

    Mike, I think you might unwittingly be doing the cause of FWO notes a
    service by providing a live example of the sort of arrogance that got
    FWO proposed in the first place.  Or is that actually your intention
    and you're really laughing up your sleeve at how seriously we're taking
    this string you started? 
    
    						=maggie

    Mike, I think you might unwittingly be doing the cause of FWO notes a
    service by providing a live example of the sort of arrogance that got
    FWO proposed in the first place.  Or is that actually your intention
    and you're really laughing up your sleeve at how seriously we're taking
    this string you started? 
    
    						=maggie

    Mike, I think you might unwittingly be doing the cause of FWO notes a
    service by providing a live example of the sort of arrogance that got
    FWO proposed in the first place.  Or is that actually your intention
    and you're really laughing up your sleeve at how seriously we're taking
    this string you started? 
    
    						=maggie

    <--(.66)
    
    I think there's a note there (the same one as in .67), but there
    appears to also be a very subtle bug at work.  Thank goodness we'll be
    moving to the new file soon.
    
    						=maggie 

re: .65:
Ann's analogy (to a party where a smoker is asked to smoke outside) is
inapplicable because men are being asked to move elsewhere because of what they
are (gender), not because of what they do (smoke).  The smoker may choose
to refrain from smoking in order to stay inside.  I cannot change my sex
in order fully to participate in the dialog.

    Now, what you do not seem to understand is that when a woman says
    that she does not want any replies from men, she is not lying.
    She is telling the truth.

Fine, but I don't believe that this is a truth she has a right to *within
a Digital context*.  If she only wants to converse with women, she has every
right, but not inside Dec.  To continue the party analogy, you are not
required to invite me to your house, or publish my letter in your magazine;
but Dec is not *your* house, and Womannotes is not a privatly published
magazine, but a corporate document; and we are participating here within
our corporate existance. I feel that woman-only notes are as inappropriate
here as they would be in a product-specific notesfile.

I believe the policy is in violation of corporate anti-discriminatory
regulations in that it requires different behavior of participants depending
on their sex.

I further believe that the controversy has very little to do with "woman-only
responses" and everything to do with power and control.  In my opinion, FWO
notes are a symbolic "victory for womanpower" and will see little, if any,
use if they are permitted.  The underlying message they are intended to
convey is that men are not welcome here, no matter what the "official"
welcome message states.  You may believe differently; and my opinions give
me no joy.

Martin.

    Arrogance?.....I don't think so!
    Laughing up my sleeve?.....Not at this issue!
    Bewildered?.....Getting closer. You people amaze me! All I ask is
    "not to be excluded" and it gets turned into my one-man-sabotage
    attempt! I thought my question in .64 was valid. The arrogance and
    hatefulness of .65 (approved by the obvious lack of moderation)
    goes to show that I am not the one that needs to take a step back
    and examine what is happening. I have repeatedly stated that my
    intentions are true to the guidleines of this conference. Each time
    I do, some self-righteous grandstander twists the intent of my comments
    and keeps the coals hot. All I ask is that the vote occurring in
    848 be terminated and everything return to the way it was. 
    	You know, Maggie, of the 20,000+ notes/replies in this conference,
    I've probably read 1000 and replied twice-never hatefully or with
    intent to mis/re-direct the conversation. I read and will continue
    to read about the good and bad times that women go through on a
    daily basis.
    	Laughing up my sleeve.....arrogance......give me a break. I
    wish I could sit down with you over a cup of coffee and find out
    what kind of people you really are. After all, you may not be the
    mainstream women that you believe you are.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    Mike Boutcher

    	Attention Michael R. Boutcher!
    
    	You are being discriminated against in the following notes
    	conferences:
    
    		BETHE::SOAPBOX_1988
    		QUARK::HUMAN_RELATIONS
    		TAMARA::MENNOTES
    		  and a list of so many more that one would have
    		     to use Easynotes.lis to name them all
    
    	You are being RESTRICTED (yes, YOU!) from writing in notes
    	that often appear in the first basenote in the conference (or
    	in some cases, the first several basenotes.)  Moderators have
    	set these notes WRITE-LOCKED, preventing you (yes, YOU!) from
    	writing in those topics that have been set aside for special
    	purposes (like policy announcements) in the above-named conferences.
    
    	Naturally, you are completely outraged by this (and will write
    	letters to ALL of the system managers of the various conferences
    	that practice this ugly and morally-wrong discrimination.)
    
    	In your note .0, you said "I intend to be able to access this
    	notes conference with NO restrictions."  If you believe that,
    	then I will expect to see such announcements in every conference
    	on the net in DEC (with appropriate protests about how the
    	lack of moderator privileges is an act of discrimination against
    	you.)
    
    	I will open the conferences named above and will look for your
    	announcements.
    
    	What I would suggest is that you launch a protest to the group
    	who wrote VAXNOTES and *DEMAND* that they take out *ALL* write-
    	lock features from non-technical notes files (and give ALL NOTERS
    	IN DEC full moderator privileges in ALL conferences.)
    
    	What right should moderators have to keep you (yes, YOU!) out
    	of notes that make formal policy announcements.  If people don't
    	want to see your notes among the policy announcements, they
	can ALWAYS hit next unseen.
 
    	On a more serious level now...
       
    	I might have joined you in this protest, Michael, but I don't happen
    	to believe that all write-locked notes are necessarily practicing
    	discrimination.  People may like or dislike the fact that
    	conferences have moderators (perhaps some may even think it
    	is morally-wrong to have moderators in notesfiles) -- but the
    	practice has been established here in DEC, and I doubt if anyone
    	will be successful at abolishing it.  Notesfiles are part of
    	our business, whether the subject matter is technical or
    	recreational, because they exist on DEC property.  As such,
    	DEC has the right to insist that notesfiles retain moderators
    	(with privs) to manage the operation of this part of the business.
    
    	Since restricted-access notes are allowed (for purposes of
    	announcing conference policy, etc.), other kinds of special-purpose
    	notes can be allowed, such as those written in the spirit of 
    	corporate policies on Valuing Differences.  
    
    	As Maggie alluded to in 848.0, it has been researched and
    	established that the moderators of this conference have the right 
    	to enforce FWO notes.  The moderators of Womannotes were very
    	careful to ensure that corporate policy was being followed
    	*before* they announced the vote.
    
    	The vote is for the purpose of determining if the majority of
    	this community wishes for them to put into PRACTICE a policy
    	that they already know is within corporate policy.
    
    	Unless you happen to have more authority than those who write
    	and interpret corporate policy, I would suggest that you take
    	this information to heart.
    
	Back to a less serious level for a minute...
    
    	Let us know how your protest against write-locked Policy Announce-
	ments is coming along.  With so many conferences to protest,
    	and so many system managers to send letters to, you'll undoubtedly
	be too busy to write in this conference anymore.
    
    	Perhaps we *can* all "do lunch" sometime.  However, rather than
    	letting *you* sit in judgment of us (per your .70) to determine
    	whether or not we are "mainstream" -- we will sit in judgment
    	of you and determine the degree of proximity that your head bears
    	to the portion of your anatomy upon which you recline in a
    	relatively vertical position (*figuratively* speaking, of course!!)
    
    	Warmest regards,
    	Suzanne Elizabeth Conlon

    
    So that's what the "E." is for...
    
    It has a nice ring... 
    
    

	RE: .54
   
        >>Arguments that say that arguments regarding FWO statistical 
        >>"insignificance" are insignificant -- are insignificant.
    
        >I strongly disagree.  Convenience/inconvenience is not the primary
        >issue.  The primary issue is whether or not it is right.  Convenience
        >has no bearing on that issue.

    		The proof of a moral imperative (i.e., the "wrongness"
    		of having topics running in two strings instead of one)
    		has yet to be proven satisfactorily, as far as I am
    		concerned.
    
    		In the Soapbox conference, there is a long list of
    		topics at the beginning that were started by moderators
    		(for a variety of special purposes involving the 
    		management of the file.)  Every one of these topics
    		is write-locked.  In basenote 11.*, called "Soapbox
    		- Policy Discussion," noters_at_large comment on
    		things that are happening in the conference (and
    		*also* comment on anything they might see in the
    		write-locked notes 1.* through 9.* that have been
    		reserved FMO --> For Moderators Only.)
    
    		In other words, instead of having a For General
    		Discussion note following each of the 9 write-locked
    		notes, they have one "catch all" note For General
    		Discussion on the whole 9 notes.  Although I am
    		sure it is an inconvenience to some to have to write
    		their replies in note 11.* instead of in 1.*-9.*,
    		it makes the conference easier to read to divide it
    		up that way.  
    
    		There is no moral issue involved, as far as I can
    		see.  For want of a better word, it is a matter of
    		book-keeping/organization.
    
    		The same applies to FWO/FGD notes.  As long as every
    		person in DEC is allowed to reply to any given subject,
    		no one is being locked out.  There is no discrimination.
    
    		If the moderators feel that, for organizational purposes,
    		it would simpler (i.e., easier to read) certain notes
    		for some *special* reason involving Valuing Differences
    		-- then they should be (and are) allowed to set the Policy
    		of the conference to include the logistics involved
    		with the placement of such notes.
    
    		For every argument you could give me about why it is
    		"wrong" for there to be two strings (FWO/FGD) for any
    		given note, the same thing applies to the comments about
    		conference policy in Soapbox.  If =wn= moderators should
    		be forced to allow men to write in FWO notes, then the
    		Mods of Soapbox should be forced to allow all noters
    		to write in the write-locked conference policy notes
    		in 1.* - 9.* .
    
    		In each case, it is a matter of how the moderators choose
    		to organize the file.  In neither case is it a matter
    		of morality (since no one is being prevented from saying
    		what they want to say on any given subject.)  If you
    		think that the moderators should not be allowed to make
    		decisions like that about the files that they moderate,
    		then write-locked Conference Policy notes are just as
    		"wrong" as FWO/FGD notes.

re: Note 850.62
    
>    Right.  So if the replies can be around anyway, the whole point
>    of putting them in a FGD note is to make them easier to ignore?
>    For the sake of (uh-oh) convenience?  So you can make do with the
>    NEXT UNSEEN key rather than the NEXT REPLY key?
 
    I can't speak for anyone else, but I read both the FWO and FGD notes.
    
------------------------------------------------------------------------    
    
    re: .70
    
 >  You people amaze me!
 
    surely no more than you amaze us.
    
 >   I have repeatedly stated that my
 >   intentions are true to the guidleines of this conference.
    
    good.  But the guidelines of this conference include the purpose of
    furthering discussion of topics of interest to women.  And to enable
    women in the group to discuss things more comfortably, we are exploring
    the option of FWO/FGD notes.  You will also notice that we are having a
    DEMOCRATIC VOTE on the FWO/FGD issue.  The guidelines support the
    option of FWO/FGD notes, by the very core of their intent.
    
>    Each time I do, some self-righteous grandstander twists the intent of
>    my comments 

    who's the one with the prejudice now?
    
>        All I ask is that the vote occurring in 848 be terminated and
>    everything return to the way it was. 
    
    this is the way it has been for the past 3 months.  And it has been
    going pretty smoothly.
    
>    I've probably read 1000 and replied
>    twice-never hatefully or with intent to mis/re-direct the conversation.
 
    good.  But you can't guarantee the actions of others for all time
    to come - hence FWO/FGD notes.
    
>    I wish I could sit down with you over a cup of coffee and find out what
>    kind of people you really are. 
 
    why don't you join us at the party, where you can meet us
    face to face.  After all, we may find we even have something in
    common - we're all human beings and we all like good food.  Now
    please let the noters continue to mold the notesfile in the form
    which the majority believes will best suit its purpose...
       
    -Jody
    

    
    For what it's worth.....
    
    I agree completely with Mr. Minow regarding this matter.
    I also think that Mr. Lionel made some good points as did
    Ms. Chelsea.
    
    I'm not voting though as I had removed my so-called registration
    when this experimental period started and I can see by the way
    the vote is going that I won't really be a part of this community
    in the future, even though I'd like to enjoy and be part of more
    conversations here with people I like. Sure, I can talk "about"
    a given issue, over-there, but sometimes, when it's not
    inappropriate, I'd really like to be able to talk "with" you and
    be a part of a given dialogue.
    
    I guess more than anything, it's the principle I oppose.

    	RE: .75
    
    	> I can't speak for anyone else, but I read both the FWO and
    	> FGD notes.
    
    	So do I.  My notebook is arranged in a seen/unseen basis, so
    	I see everything that is written in this conference (no matter
    	where the replies land.)  I assume that is how most other noters
    	do it, too, so it is impossible to miss anything that is written
    	here (the first page of it, at any rate.)
    
    	Being mostly_read_only (and only occasionally quite_active now,)
	I tend to read many more than I answer.
    
    	Getting very few replies to a note doesn't mean it isn't being read.

    ******** DISCLAIMER ********
    
    I'm replying here to Mike's reply (.64) without having seen .65
    through (as I write this) .77.  If experience is an indicator,
    others have probably already said (better) what I'm thinking.
    But since I've already edited my reply (and since you can always
    select the next reply) I'm gonna let it fly.  Apologies in advance
    if it's redundant (probably), long-winded (definitely), or just
    plain dumb (hey, now, wait just a second. . . :-D  )
    
    **********
    
    re: .64
   
   It took me several readings of your reply, Mike, to hone in on
   what I think could be a key point of our different viewpoints.
   (BTW, I thought .64 was a "good" reply. . .well thought out,
   articulately presented; I don't necessarily agree with the point
   of view, but it struck me as a good presentation of that side of
   the picture).
   
   I've extracted a few lines of .64 that I hope will show this
   point of difference:
   
 �  Situation: I desire to reply to note 'N'. Why can't I?
 �   
 �	Without mentioning the 'N+1' string, since that string is similar
 �  to any other non-FWO string. . .I understand that 'N+1' is related 
 �  to 'N'. . .
   
   I must apologize in advance and mention the "n+1" string because I
   suspect that the way we see this string is the key to our different
   opinions.  I don't view "n+1" as "related" - I see it as the same
   discussion in a larger group.  If note 2000.00 is requested as
   an FWO discussion of framistans and 2001.00 is automatically designated,
   by convention, as framistans FGD, I see them as the same discussion,
   not related.  I, being male, happen to read something in 2000.10 that
   I wish to reply to and I do so in 2001.nn with "re: 2000.10" as a
   header or title.  To me, I'm still "in" the discussion.
   
   I will of course grant that there is some "different-ness" although in
   thinking through this reply, I'm at a bit of a loss to say *exactly*
   what the objective nature of that different-ness is.  The subjective
   difference is obvious - some people undeniably do *feel* that it's
   different.  
   
   But is there an objective difference and, if so, what is it?  The 
   disk is the same, and all disk addresses are "different" to begin 
   with so there's no "inequality" there.  Yes, the number designators 
   are different, but objectively, 2000.10 or .11 is no "better" or 
   "worse" than 2001.nn - just different. 
   
   The difference seems, then, to be in whether we *feel* excluded by
   the FWO process.  We are not, in fact, excluded but some do, in fact,
   feel that way.  These feelings, then, are what I'm looking at in
   considering the FWO situation.  One group indicates that it would
   feel good if it could occasionally designate a note FWO with the
   understanding that the same discussion would be openned FGD in the
   immediately following note.  The other group says that it feels that
   such an arrangement would feel exclusionary.  So, in deciding how
   to vote, I'm considering the feelings of these two groups.
   
   FWIW, the way I "weighed" it was this:
   
   	FWO opponents				FWO proponents
   
   . relatively smaller in number	. relatively greater in number
   
   . mostly men 			. mostly women, but I'm guessing
   					  that number of males is equal
   					  to or greater than opponents
   
    . men feel "excluded" by FWO	. men don't feel "excluded" (not
   					  certain - since I don't feel
   					  excluded, I'm guessing that
   					  others have similar feelings
   
    . ?! don't know if there is an	. some women feel increased 
      "opposing" point of view here -->	  comfort/security with FWO
   
   There are a few other factors (and opposing views) such as the apparent 
   "quietness" during the experimental three months (could be for other 
   reasons, maybe quiet is not "good"); there are relatively few FWOs 
   (doesn't matter if the issue is one of principle); maybe a few other
   factors, but you get the idea.  Basically I think the perceived "gains"
   for the proponents outweigh the perceived "losses" for the opponents.
   
   Since I've already run on at the mouth for so long, I'm going to
   stop here.  I suspect that my view won't change yours, Mike, but
   I thank you for the opportunity to trade ideas.  If you really want,
   I'll address your other questions (off-line if this discussion is
   driving lots of folks nutz. . .)  
   
   The only think I'd add in closing is that though one may *feel*
   excluded by an FWO/FGD situation, I honestly believe that a man making 
   an important, relevent point in an FGD string which adds significantly 
   to the entire FWO/FGD discussion will, in fact feel included; if the 
   words are that "right on", they will be read, replied to, and discussed 
   and FWO or FGD won't make a lot of difference to the value of that 
   discussion.
   
   Steve
   

    Re: .73
    
    >the "wrongness" of having topics running in two strings instead
    >of one) has yet to be proven satisfactorily, as far as I am
    >concerned.
    
    And the "rightness" has yet to be proved, as far as I'm concerned.
    Unless that issue has been settled, convenience is not an issue.
    
    >As long as every person in DEC is allowed to reply to any given
    >subject, no one is being locked out.  There is no discrimination.
    
    I haven't said that there is.  If you've read my vote in 848, you
    know what my objections are.
    
    >For every argument you could give me about why it is "wrong" for
    >there to be two strings (FWO/FGD) for any given note, the same
    >thing applies to the comments about conference policy in Soapbox.
    
    Probably.  The notes serve different functions (announcement vs.
    discussion), so there might be some arguments that sneak through.
    So what if the same arguments apply to Soapbox?  Maybe Soapbox
    moderators are acting improperly as well.
    
    >In neither case is it a matter of morality
    
    There are many aspects to morality.  One of them is free will. 
    When women request responses only from other women, then it is only
    courteous to respect that request.  Courtesy by its very nature
    is voluntary.
    
    Your argument seems to be that, since men can still reply, what
    does it matter where exactly they respond?  That argument works
    both ways.
    
    I think the idea is that you don't want men "intruding" on
    conversations that the originator has requested to be women-only.
    Yet, since they can still respond, their "intrusions" are still
    there.  Why does it matter if they're in a separate note or not?
    Their comments are still there for everyone to see.  The only
    difference I can think of is that you can hit the NEXT UNSEEN key
    if you want, instead of moving to the next reply.
    
    Ann's smoking analogy breaks down because, while you can't ignore
    smoke, you can ignore comments you don't want to hear, as with any
    discussion.  A more apt analogy might again be a party, and women
    having a conversation ask men to please not intrude, though they
    can certainly discuss it on the other side of the room.  You can
    ignore the conversation across the room, even if a comment is made
    loudly enough for you to overhear.  If a man interjects a comment
    into the women's discussion, you can ignore him, too.

    Re: .78
    
    >I don't view "n+1" as "related" - I see it as the same discussion
    >in a larger group.  If note 2000.00 is requested as an FWO discussion
    >of framistans and 2001.00 is automatically designated, by convention,
    >as framistans FGD, I see them as the same discussion,
    
    If they're the same discussion, what's the point of splitting one
    discussion into two notes?

    re: "arrogance" (& I promise to be brief; I can't *believe* that
    last one. . .103 lines. . .I can quit anytime. . .honest   :-} ) 
    
    Am I correct in believing that one of the main reasons for accusing
    Mike of arrogance was the following phrase (in .64)?
    
    "When I interject, it's to obtain clarification or to make a point or 
    TO REDIRECT THE DISCUSSION." (caps mine)

    Though I agree the capitalized portion could sound arrogant, it
    also might be coming from the point of "I'm trying to re-focus
    the discussion on the original topic".  If such were the case, I'd
    see less "arrogance"; yes, I'll admit that this interpretation could
    also be termed "arrogant" (along the lines of "who are you to tell
    us where this discussion *should* go?"), but I guess I'm a little
    uncomfortable with the word because, to me, arrogance carries a
    connotation of "with intentional put-down"; the (unwanted) I-only-
    wanna-help offering strikes me as more cloddish than arrogant.
    
    Anyway, was that the main trigger for the "arrogance" accusation?
    
    On the other side of the coin, Mike, I don't see why you feel .65
    is a display of "arrogance and hatefulness".  Could you explain
    why you feel thus?
    
    Steve                                  
    

    	RE: .79
    
    	Chelsea, if your argument is that you are anti-FWO until such
    	time that we prove to you that the practice is inherently
    	"right," then you must necessarily be against most of the rest
    	of the noting world (unless this criteria of "rightness" is
    	only being required in this particular instance.)
    
    	Who proved to you that Soapbox, as a concept and as a practicing
    	notesfile, was "right"?  Who proved to you that noting in general
    	was "right"?
    
    	Noting can be valuable, but I don't see how you can call the
    	practice itself as "right" in a strictly moral sense.  More
    	likely, it is "non-wrong" (except during those times when it
    	is clearly "wrong.")
    
    	Your argument seems to be that there is something morally wrong
    	about forcing courtesy.  (If not morally wrong, then morally
    	non-right.)  Until someone can prove to you that forcing courtesy
    	can be considered "right" -- then you are against FWO.
    
    	Not everything here can be defined in moral terms (unless something
    	out of the ordinary happens -- such as a violation of corporate
    	policy -- when it can be considered "wrong" in the sense that
    	it is against DEC's stated principles and policies, for example.)
    
    	I don't happen to believe that FWO was designed to enforce
    	courtesy.  I still think of the practice as an organizational
    	one.  I don't generally think of organizational procedures as
    	inherently right or wrong.  They are practical, beneficial,
    	advantageous, workable, and supported by people who intend to
    	implement them (or they are not.)  Assigning moral value to
    	practical considerations is like trying to find the best filing
    	system based on questions of morality rather than what works
    	the best.
    
    	You said that my argument seems to be that since men can still
    	reply, what does it matter where exactly they respond.  Obviously,
    	it matters a *great deal* to me where they respond in FWO/FGD
    	notes (or I wouldn't have voted YES for them.)  
    
    	Also, you said, "So what if the same arguments apply to Soapbox?
    	Maybe Soapbox moderators are acting improperly as well."  If
    	Womannotes is engaging in the same activities as Soapbox, Mennotes
    	and the rest of the conferences in DEC and it is only WOMANNOTES
    	that is taking the "heat" for those practices (along with the
    	threats from Michael Butcher to shut the conference down,) then
    	there is indeed something WRONG with that.  It begins to sound
    	to me as though Womannotes is being singled out for some reason
    	(and is being asked to live up to standards that the other
    	conferences in DEC are not being asked to live up to.)  

re: .82
    	Also, you said, "So what if the same arguments apply to Soapbox?
    	Maybe Soapbox moderators are acting improperly as well."  If
    	Womannotes is engaging in the same activities as Soapbox, Mennotes
    	and the rest of the conferences in DEC and it is only WOMANNOTES
    	that is taking the "heat" for those practices (along with the
    	threats from Michael Butcher to shut the conference down,) then
    	there is indeed something WRONG with that.  It begins to sound
    	to me as though Womannotes is being singled out for some reason
    	(and is being asked to live up to standards that the other
    	conferences in DEC are not being asked to live up to.)  

Both SCOTCH::CHELSEA and I are ex-moderators of Soapbox.  At no time
during my tenure was anyone asked to act differently because of their
race, sex or religion.  This is also true of the BAGELS, which discusses
Jewish issues.  In that notefile, both pro-Israelis and pro-Palestinians
are conducting a dialog (not necessarily successfully) without anyone
suggesting that, say, "Arabs should reply in note N+1."

To my knowlege, only Womannotes is proposing separate classification of
responses on the basis of the sex of the participant.

I am "singling out" Womannotes for something that appears to be unique
to Womannotes, and asking it to "live up to standards" that are appropriate
for all aspects of our business environment.

Martin.

Well, well, well.  This topic does bring back waves of nostalgia, but I 
have to confess that I haven't missed the "old" Womannotes at all, with 
its self-important men giving us the constant benefit of their deathless 
wisdom, guidance, and "help" whether we want it or not.  After all, we 
know the women really want it no matter how much they say otherwise, and 
a man wouldn't be much of a man if he didn't stick his advice anywhere 
he wanted to put it.  As for women who want to talk primarily to other 
women, all they need is a good strong male opinion inserted in the topic 
to straighten them out and show them what's what.  It's very generous of
men to let us have a little equality, and we shouldn't hurt their
feelings by telling them where to put their notes.  I mean, 5000 years 
of dominating the world is a very tiring job, and we ought to be 
more understanding about their needs.  Since the FWO experiment began,
you can see how the conference has gone downhill. Girls will chit-chat,
you know.  And everyone ought to know the dangers of having a few
women-only disk blocks in a conference of this magnitude -- it could
lead to lesbianism, man-hating, the destruction of the family, and the
downfall of western civilization!

    Re: .82
    
    >if your argument is that you are anti-FWO until such time that we
    >prove to you that the practice is inherently "right," then you must
    >necessarily be against most of the rest of the noting world
    
    That's a possibility.  I'll have to think about it.
    
    >Who proved to you that Soapbox, as a concept and as a practicing
    >notesfile, was "right"?  Who proved to you that noting in general
    >was "right"?
    
    Nobody.  I pretty much worked it out by myself.
    
    >Your argument seems to be that there is something morally wrong
    >about forcing courtesy.
    
    Yep.  Kind of the same thing as being against a state law requiring
    seat belts.  Sure, it's a good idea.  But it is right to *force*
    people to do it.  If you follow a strict interpretation of courtesy,
    it's also rude.
    
    >I don't generally think of organizational procedures as inherently
    >right or wrong.
    
    Anything can be right or wrong, depending on the premises upon which
    it is based.
    
    >Obviously, it matters a *great deal* to me where they respond in
    >FWO/FGD notes (or I wouldn't have voted YES for them.)
    
    Why?
    
    One of the reasons I object is that it's pretty much a functional
    no-op.  It doesn't enable you to do anything that you can't already
    do now.  Maybe it feels different, probably because it's easier
    to ignore things you don't want to respond to, but it doesn't change
    anything except the number on the replies, which is purely cosmetic.
    
    >Womannotes is being singled out for some reason
    
    Yup.  It got put to a vote here.  You highlighted the issue and
    made people notice that it was going on.  If you don't tell people,
    they probably won't notice.

    re: .80
    
    The point (that I obviously didn't explain well enough :-{ ) is
    that I see this as a matter of feelings.  I don't see any objective
    difference so it becomes a discussion about how folks feel about
    FWO/FGD.  I don't agree that the issue is "rights" or "power" or
    "prejudicial discrimination"; I think it's simply a matter of what
    feels best to the majority of participants.  JOPO
    
    Does that explain it any better? (he asked, not at all certain he
    wanted to hear the answer. . .)
    
    Steve
    

    Re: .87
    
    >Does that explain it any better?
    
    Yup.

    Right, Catherine.
    
    Of course one can understand and sympathize with a man's abhorance
    of the idea that the miasma of his masculinity could cling to each
    note he writes as surely as the stink of stale smoke can cling to
    a smoker's clothes.
    
    							Ann B.

    Womannotes is being singled out and the moderators and members should
    be honored. If the membership or readership of the other conferences
    that might be paralled to this one had as much interest in their
    conferences as some do in this one, the same note would be found
    in those conferences.
    	Maybe somebody will soon realize that the effectiveness of
    Womannotes is based on the peolple that use it. But to use it properly,
    there needs to be free and open perticipation by those readers and
    writers. 
    	The courtesy to stay out of an FWO note can't be FORCED upon
    anybody. You can educate and require people to do many things, but
    what they ultimately do is their own decision. When THEIR decision
    (not somebody elses) is erred, then the job of a moderator should
    begin. 
    	"Does this reply belong in a conversation intended for women
    only?" ,or, "Should a parallel conversation be started to address
    the differences that the male and female readers might encounter?".
    Why does a blanket policy need to be created to exclude male noters
    from ANY string? How can anyone say that ANY topic of discussion
    should be limited to a particular group without feeling that some
    level of knowlege might be lost? 
    	I don't have periods, never been raped, never been excluded
    from a club or sporting event. But I have cried when I broke off
    a relationship, have difficulty understanding the opposite sex,
    wonder when the world will be equal, and need to know many things
    about people in my world. 
    	When discussions along those lines are taking place on a system
    that belongs to a company that I work for, and a policy is in place
    to prevent me from being restricted (not excluded) to participate,
    and the members and moderators of that conference are doing everything
    in their power to prevent my involvement- well, here we are. 
    	I have no bones to pick with the other conferences- just this
    one. The solution is easy, as I see it. Some may call this attidude
    arrogant. Call it what you will, but my rights are subject to being
    violated and I've been known to take a stand on lesser issues.
    
    Mike Boutcher

    Catherine, those "waves" you feel are nausea, I believe, not nostalgia.

              		[Yes, I'm still here, for an indeterminate period.]

    re: .85
    
    Good stuff, Catherine.  I'm still laughing.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  Ghod I'm tired of all these years of dominance, though what's
    this business of 5,000 years?  That barely scratches the surface!
    I mean just because it wasn't going to be recorded do you think we 
    could shirk our domination duties?  Hell no!  We've been at this grind 
    for a lot longer than that and, by damn, it's time we got the
    recognition we so richly deserve. . .
    

    re: .78 - amen
    
    re: .85 - harsh but extremely thought provoking - good to hear from
    you.
    
    re: .92 - ba ha ha.  I know some people who'd be glad to take the
    reins if you're too tired...
    
    

    How do the replies of .91 and .92 differ from the type of replies
    that this discussion is trying to eliminate? Tough concept, eh?
    (I'll expect some type of comment like, "Well. this is not an FWO
    topic!", and I guess that will make a difference to the authors
    of those 2 replies).
    	But I guess its a good illustration of what people can do when
    they don't want to listen to others and how easily egos can be bruised.
    
    	And as far as who's laughing now, I guess no further comment
    is required!
    
    Good day,

    Re: .89, .91, .93
    
    Huh?  A heavy-handed and grossly oversimplified statement on thousands
    of interactions that doesn't even have the advantage of being original?
    Well, I suppose clich�s can be considered classic....  (Hello, and
    welcome to one of my pet peeves.)
    
    Re: in general
    
    Martin's note got me to thinking (uh-oh).  The FWO/FGD is based
    on the idea that "separate but equal" does not discriminate beyond
    the sense of "to distinguish between."  I haven't entirely decided,
    but I'm inclined to agree.  So it doesn't seem to be discriminatory
    in terms of access.
    
    The *only* reason I can think of for putting men's responses in a
    separate note is to make them easier to ignore.  The implication
    is that someone plans to ignore men's responses because they were
    made by men.  In other words, someone plans to *treat* men differently
    because of their gender   That certainly *sounds* like discrimination;
    I haven't entirely decided on whether it is or not.  No one has a right
    guaranteeing that their entry will be responded to, so it's not like
    they're being deprived of a right.  But whether or not there's any
    tangible effect, the intent still seems to be discriminatory.  At
    least, that's the way it feels.  I have to think about it some more.
    
    None of this "turn about is fair play" garbage, either.  If it's
    wrong for men to do it to women, it's wrong for women to do it to
    men.

    This discussion is incredible. It's really sad that this notesfile
    has deteriorated to this. 
    
    As a member of the MIS group which manages the Vaxcluster that
    womannotes resides on, I'd like to voice MY opinion.
    
    The SYSTEM account is now receiving mail complaining about this
    notesfile. MIS seems hardly the place to take a complaint regarding
    conference policies.
    
    I would prefer to see some of the resources used by this notesfile used
    for business purposes. The disk space could be used in several ways.
    Like many MIS groups in the company, disk space is always at a premium.
    Also, the network load is increased greatly by the popularity of
    this notesfile. The network resources on this cluster are already
    heavily used by PCSA, the additional load doesn't help any.
    
    I just wish this notesfile was not on one of our systems. Any takers?
                                                                         
    

    re .96
    
    John, as the mail the SYSTEM account is receiving is from one person
    (or a limited number), I suggest that the complaining about the
    mail go to that person, not to this notesfile.  Only one noter has
    advocated sending mail to the notesfile, and that is Mike Boutcher.
    ELF lists his dtn if you are concerned enough to contact him by
    phone.  I don't know anyone else who would think the idea of sending
    mail to the SYSTEM account was appropriate.

    
    Perhaps we can look at FWO/FGD notes as a way to respect
    the noter's wishes and *INCREASE* equality and participation.
    The moderators could have chosen a policy of 'if the writer
    of the basenote requests that only Germans reply, we will delete
    any messages that are not from Germans'. Maybe corporate would
    have problems with that, maybe not. Instead, they have wisely chosen
    to respect the noter's wish and *REQUIRE* a place where the same
    topic is open to all. Those of you who oppose FWO notes, why not
    boycott them and only respond to the FGD notes. If you feel FWO
    notes are bigotted or unfair or discriminatory, go to the *REQUIRED*
    FGD note and say, 'I think the FWO discussion is discriminatory;
    now here's what I think about the topic:'.

    re: 'enforced courtesy'
    
    Call me a socialist, but I believe many things can and should be
    'enforced' for the common good. In an ideal universe, if a noter
    said, "Please, just replies from hoosiers", we would all simply
    respect her request. It has been shown to my satisfaction, however,
    that not all womennoters have been brought up properly. If courtesy
    is a good thing, then it should be encouraged and discourtesy should
    be discouraged; firmly if necessary.
    

    re: .94
    
    � How do the replies of .91 and .92 differ from the type of replies
    � that this discussion is trying to eliminate? Tough concept, eh?
    
    I'm confused - this discussion isn't trying to eliminate *any* replies.
    I (.92) think Catherine's reply (.90) is a fine piece of satiric�
    humor (and I'm still smiling).  And my postscript was meant only
    to play into and continue that humor.  I'm at a loss to understand
    what about .91 and .92 bothers you, Mike.  
    
    Perhaps I should have stated that "having read and enjoyed other
    things Catherine has written and believing it to be satirical in
    nature, etc. etc."  If so, apologies, particularly if I bruised
    anyone.  I assure you I *am* listening to you and the others who've
    participated here and causing hurt is most certainly *not* my intent.
    
    � And as far as who's laughing now, I guess no further comment
    � is required!
    
    Au contraire, further comment is requested (I have no power to 
    *require* anything here); I don't understand what your meaning
    is here.
    
    Steve
    

    Re: .99
    
    >If courtesy is a good thing, then it should be encouraged and
    >discourtesy should be discouraged; firmly if necessary.
    
    This isn't encouragement, this is a mandate.  I'm on the side of
    free will and personal responsibility.

    Well, I continue to disagree with most people on both sides of this
    argument.
    
    [Generalization Alert...] The only real reason for FWO topics is to
    provide a forum which only involves responses from women. If
    responses from men on the same topic were really desired (by the
    author), then there would seem to be little point in segregating
    them into a separate topic. So the FGD note is not really intended
    to promote responses from men; it's a repository for unwanted
    responses in the actual topic. 
    
    However, I don't buy the arguments about "rightness" and "wrongness"
    in regard to FWO/FGD topics. I don't feel the least bit impaired in
    my (hopefully non-intrusive) participation in this conference as a
    result of these notes. Irrespective of moderator-imposed policy, I
    would avoid entering a response to a topic whose author marked as
    FWO, so I am simply not affected. I simply can't understand why
    someone would deliberately violate such a request (unless, of
    course, I was being personally attacked in the topic, in which case
    there are other avenues of response). And unless it is your intent
    to violate the request, why object to the policy?
    
    	<Rat-hole alert: this raises the opportunity to go down the
         "if you're not a criminal, you shouldn't object to police
         searches" kind of argument. Restrain yourself...>

    I was bothered by the image brought up <mumble> responses ago
    which pictured a woman, reading the "FWO" responses, nervously
    fingering the Next Unseen key lest she accidentally read a response
    entered by a man. The reason this bothers me is that notes are
    inherently IDEAs, and the worth of an idea shouldn't be measured
    by the gender of its author. If you can't tell the gender of
    the author, take the response on its own merit. In fact, I believe
    it would be better to ban any response which deliberately specifies
    the gender of its author.
    
    So, to me, the idea that FWO notes promote a more "safe" environment
    in which to note is an exercise in self-deception, especially in
    light of the FGD requirement. But so what? There are lots of
    placebos available to us. It's difficult to take the stand that an
    imaginary aid (such as belief in astrology, or a deity, or crystals,
    or high-tech stereo interconnect wire, or FWO/FGD topics) which
    actually makes somebody feel more comfortable is bad just because
    it's imaginary. 
    

        Why can't people understand that there are no right or wrong
        answers to every situation?  I can see valid arguments on
        both sides of this issue.  Yes, FWO notes are discriminating
        against men.  I don't know if that's necesarrily wrong. 

        Women have been discriminated against for their entire
        lives.  Their conversations are easily derailed by men on
        the subconscious level. Women are used to being second. Many
        men can't understand that their experiances can't relate to
        women.  So even when they try to "help" they do the
        opposite.  This is what FWO notes are about. So women are
        asking to be allowed to discriminate so that they can
        explore their feelings amongst women to work out their
        problems to allow them to grow.  Unfortunately they can't
        grow without an excessive (perhaps) nurturing environment.
        FWO notes are an attempt to provide that. When women have
        been able to grow through this opportunity and are then on
        an equal footing with men, then they won't need to ask men
        to stay apart.  But if we just look at the surface and say
        it's discriminatory and therefore wrong, will women ever
        have the opportunity to grow.  Will women always be second
        because they could never be first?  Will women always bend
        over backwards to put all others first? 

        I don't know what's right.  I try to balance the pros and
        cons of situations and work out what's right for now.  And
        that's how I vote.  I don't know the answer to the world's
        trash/ecology problems either.  Should I kill japanese
        beetles with insecticides and harm the ecology or allow the
        beetles to harm the ecology?

        So maybe that's why we have a democracy.  So we can debate
        issues, disagree, and let the majority decide.  We may still
        disagree, but I don't think that's any reason to give up on
        each other.

	...Karen 

    A quick rejoinder to my own .102 - lest someone accuse me of
    being patronizing with my allegation that FWO/FGD topics are
    a placebo (rather than a true cure) vis � vis the "safe" noting
    environment - it occured to me that I was not clear in stating
    that it is the "FGD" part of the equation that, to my mind, creates
    the placebo. Out of sight/out of mind and all that.
    
    Aside from that, .104 (Karen Sullivan) seems to me a pretty
    reasonable analysis.

    re: "the only reason for FWOs. . ."
    
    Interestingly, two people have put in two different "only
    reason"s for FWOs.  I think Paul's reply most accurately states
    the function of an FWO (to provide an author with a women-only 
    forum).  And while Chelsea's (.102) reason is one, others have
    already indicated that it's not the "only" reason (f'rinstance,
    increased comfort in knowing replies will be FWO and desire
    to hear from those with same experiences have been mentioned).
    
    Granted that these may strike some as the same reasons.  Suffice
    it to say that some of us feel that they aren't.  
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  BTW, Chelsea, I don't think people should try to force
    courtesy either (except perhaps in their children) mainly because
    I don't think courtesy can be "enforced"; at best, the impact 
    of rudeness may be reduced somewhat, which is what I think FWO/FGD
    is about.
    
    And o.k, Sandy, I'll shaddup now.

    Re: .109
    
    All aspects of the same phenomenon.
    
    >increased comfort in knowing replies will be FWO 
    
        Knowing that one will not have to deal with replies from men;
    in other words, being secure in the knowledge that they can be safely
    ignored because they will not intrude.
    
    >and desire to hear from those with same experiences have been
    >mentioned
    
        A desire to hear *only* from those with similar experiences,
    rather.  Replies from men do not prohibit the presence of replies
    from women.  Implied is a desire to not see (ignore) all replies
    not from those with similar experiences, such as men.

    Mike,

    Let's look at some of your own statements, and analyze them a bit.

    In the base note, you wrote:

    "... may I offer the following rebuttal.
    
    "Personnel Policies and Procedures, Section 6.54, dated 10 AUG 88.
    
    ""COMPUTERS, SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS WITH RESTRICTED CONFERENCES
     (VAXNOTES)
    
    "Conferences (VAX Notes) with restricted access must be in support
    of Company business. Conferences (VAX Notes) not in support of Company
    business must be open to all employees.""

    You put this in as the support for you claim, although
    	a) you knew Womannotes was not a restricted access conference,
    	b) you knew it was open to all,
    and c) you made no effort to find out that it had been determined
    	to be in support of Company business.

    This is arrogance.

    In reply .25 you wrote "... this is a non-business related
    conference ..." 

    In reply .23 one of the moderators explained how Womanotes had been
    determined, through official channels, to be a business-related
    conference.  The name of the official who had made this determination
    was given.  You did not communicate with her on this subject before
    making your very authoritative statement.

    This is arrogance.

    (Now, I do not believe that you feel that your opinion is more valid
    than those of our conference moderators because they are women and
    you are a man; I think you feel your opinion is more valid because
    you are Michael R. Boutcher, and they are not.)

    In reply .58, you wrote, "I have sent my arguments to MOSAIC::SYSTEM
    and encourage others to do so."

    This is arrogance.

    You then wrote, "I have repeatedly stated that my intentions are
    true to the guidleines of this conference."  You write this even
    after having been informed by the makers of those guidelines that
    you are not even following them!

    This is arrogance.

    You wrote, "All I ask is that the vote occurring in 848 be terminated
    and everything return to the way it was."  You do not seem to be
    aware that the conference had been operating happily for three
    months under this rule which you claim to abhor; i.e., what you
    so dislike *is* "the way it was".

    This is ignorance backed by arrogance.

    In reply .90, you wrote, "Womannotes is being singled out and the
    moderators and members should be honored."  Honored by the attention
    of Michael R. Boutcher, that is.

    This is nothing but arrogance.

    I find that what you have bveen demonstrating, Mike, is classic male
    arrogance.

    Now, you wrote of my note .65 (without mentioning me by name):
    "The arrogance and hatefulness of .65 ... goes [sic] to show that ..."

    So, what did you find there that was arrogant?  And what did you
    find that was hateful?  (This is the second time you have been asked
    about this, you know.)

    You write, "I consider myself a good listener ..." yet have made
    multiple factual errors about the nature of this conference.  This
    tells me that you don't pay much attention to what you're told.

    You wrote, "The few replies that I have offered..." when you had,
    at that point, written a base note and 5 replies.  Your idea of
    "a few" does not match mine, and leads me to believe that you have
    a distorted view of yourself vis a vis this conference.

    You are told by a moderator that you have been arrogant, and your
    full reply is only a breezy, "Arrogance?.....I don't think so!"
    To me, this shows a thorough absence of sensitivity and of
    willingness to undertake introspection.

    All of these things are keeping you from understanding that your
    "desire" to see your reply in one quasi-particular place is
    not a *need* by any standards, and is only a whim by many.  

    I will now repeat the ACTUAL REASON why FWO notes have been used.
    Each one is created by a woman who has been hurt unbearably by
    a man or men.  She enters such a note in hopes of finding a way
    to make the pain bearable, so that she can again deal with the
    other half of the human race.  For *any* man to reply in such
    a note is to poke a dirty finger into an open wound.  The dirt
    can be cleaned out, but the pain can not be taken back.

    No claim of "I just wanted to..." or of "I thought it would be..."
    or of "It would have been all right if everyone else had just..."
    is excusable.  Have we seen this?  Yes.  A man wrote to an FWO
    string because he sincerely felt that he was doing the right
    thing.  His answer was a) partially redundant, and b) totally
    inapplicable.  So his belief was, simply, wrong -- in addition
    to being just the sort of forcing himself upon her attention
    that had so distressed her originally!

    For a man to insist upon replying in an FWO string is therefore
    -- BECAUSE OF THE *CAUSE* OF THE REQUEST -- to insist upon
    deliberately hurting a woman.

    Do you understand?

    						Ann B.

    Honk!  Tweet!  Clank!!
    
    Double-bozo warning:
    
    Just recently (.109) I flaked out. . .twice.  First I attributed
    .102 to Chelsea - wrong!  Shoulda been .95.  Secondly, while realizing
    that error, I re-read .95 and, though maybe it's a minor point,
    she described ignoring men's replies as the only reason *she could
    think of*  That last phrase significantly changes the connotation
    of the sentence for me (not nearly as absolute sounding).  So I
    raise my hand for the scorekeeper and somebody gets to go to the
    foul line.  Apologies, Chelsea.  In any case, all I mean to imply
    is that what one person perceives as "ignoring" another may perceive
    differently.
    
    not-Steve (on accounta Steve promised Sandy to pipe down, so he
    hadda get not-Steve to enter this on accounta the apology seemed
    like the lessor of two weevils, ya know?)
    

    	RE: .111
    
    	Excellent observations, Ann!  
    
    	Won't it be nice (when the vote is over) to go back to the
    	ban on process discussions?  I'm assuming that we will be
    	able to do that again -- it was wonderful!!
    
    	Living through all this hasn't been so hot.  :-}
    

    RE: .111 by Ann Broomhead
                         
    I'm glad you entered that note. Being that I don't even read FWO
    notes I never quite knew what started this. 
    
    I still find it hard to believe, based on your note, that this
    whole thing was initiated due to the actions of one note by 
    one man who, by your own admission, had the best of intentions when
    the note was entered. 
    
    You know, I really hate to see this community divided due to the
    inappropriate actions of a single individual.
    

    Thank you.
    
    But:  No!  No!  No!  The FWO was set up, was working, and then,
    it just happened that there was a "terrible example".  His actions
    were *not* a cause in any way.  Even without that incident there
    would have been all the same actions.  It's just that some man made
    it possible for me to point an accusing finger and say "See?  See?"
    
    							Ann B.

    It had taken me a while to understand this whole issue but I
    think one only need read this note and it's 100 + responses to
    get a better handle on the need for FWO of which originally I
    was pretty much opposed to. 
    LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING!! who is contolling this note? the
    men are, well a couple in particular, and it is resulting in
    the women getting sidetracked in defending what they feel
    they need which is a few notes to discuss things among themselves.
    And if the men who can't accept this have it there way this
    notesfile will be made to suit themselves and not the women
    for whom this notesfile was set up for.
    I see all too clearly now the need for FWO.
    Franny
    

	There needs to be a means for ENCOURAGING women to express
	their views and experiences freely without possible
	intimidation. The FWO may not be a perfect mechanism
	but then what is.

	I have witnessed situations where women have been abused
	(verbally). I can empathize with their tragedy but I CANNOT
	in any way tell you how it was from their point of view.
	The communication of these kinds of experiences that only
	a woman can provide need to be encouraged. Although this 
	conference was provided to do so, I have seen
	notes/replies in which many women  feel threatened in an
	evnironment of exposure to males.

	The FWO, I feel, wants to encourages more women participation.
	Unless they are encouraged to do so we all lose vital
	information. The discrimination issue raised looks to me
	like a red herring. Think of all the feeling of discrimination
	of the women who do not feel free to participate.
	Lets give FWO  a chance.

    Thank you to the writer of note 848.72.  It was a thoughtful and
    supportive statement.

    In .111 Ann referred to the discussions we are having with Barbara
    Walker that I mentioned earlier in an attempt to assure people that the
    moderators of this conference have no wish to *subvert* corporate
    policy, but rather to work closely with those who *set* it. 
    
    I need to clarify something.
    
    Barbara Walker is very busy, as are we.  We are all very interested
    in this issue, and believe it is an important issue which will continue
    to come up in a variety of ways.  At the same time, all of us have
    a number of other commitments to Digital to honor!
    
    We are meeting with her about once a month, and have met together
    3 or 4 times.  We are *still identifying the questions*.  No policy
    has been made.  She is gathering information about notes and other
    notes conferences since we all agreed that we could not readily
    generalize from Womannotes to all conferences.  
    
    No one should infer that Digital or Barbara Walker has given any
    kind of official sanction to the way the moderators are running
    this conference.
    
    It is my hope that everyone would realize, however, that we are
    working *openly* with Corporate Valuing Differences Personnel in an
    attempt to bring what we feel are important issues to light, and
    to "do the right thing" (as we see it).   
    
    All four of us feel strongly that FWO/FGD is an important issue.
    We did not create the concept, but it was created in the conference
    we moderate, and we were required to respond to it in some way.
    We spent a lot of time clarifying our personal positions, and trying
    to come up with a fair and honest solution.
    
    We knew that there was no position of consensus.  We made a conscious
    decision to let the registered members of the conference decide the
    outcome.  We will support the outcome of the vote whether it is in
    alignment with our personal convictions or not.  
    
    Holly Hendricks
    co-moderator
    
                

    Harrassmaent of the women who write in this conference is not only
    immorral but against Corporate policy, as is intimidation, verbal
    abuse or anything else that the proponents of FWO claim that it
    is designed to prevent. 
    	Claims that the are designed to eliminate opinions (of any sort),
    or the desire to let one sex control the direction over another
    are sexist and discriminatory and are also against Corporate policy.
    	You'll have a tough time squeezing the FWO concept under some
    banner of Corporate policy protection. If you are able to, I'll
    abide by the decision. While it's not, you oght to abide by the
    established policy instead of a dream-policy that doesn't exist.

        Harrassmaent of the women who write in this conference is not
        only immorral but against Corporate policy, as is intimidation, verbal
        abuse 
             
    Yes, so why do you keep doing it?

    
    	People have, in general, very little *respect* for one another
    in the individualist society we live in. If there was *any* respect,
    there wouldnt be this issue which generates reply debates in the
    *hundreds*. The FWO requests would simply stand, based on the personal
    respect due to the requesting party.
    	I guess some people (some people!) must think that "respect"
    "has to be earned" or whatever. Thats bullshit. Respect is a given
    and the sooner the world realizes that, the better off we'll all
    be, regardless of gender. An individual can only prove that he/she
    no longer *deserves* any respect, usually only by their own
    disrespective actions or intent.
    
    	Joe Jas

    RE: .122
    
    	I couldn't agree more.

I was reading a very interesting essay last night, "Some Reflections on 
Separatism and Power", by Marilyn Frye (from her collection _The 
Politics of Reality_, The Crossing Press, 1983).  I'd like to include a 
couple of excerpts:

	"Differences of power are always manifested in asymmetrical 
access.  The President of the United States has access to almost 
everybody for almost anythimg he might want of them, and almost nobody 
has access to him...  The slave is unconditionally accessible to the 
master.  Total power is unconditional access; total powerlessness is 
being unconditionally accessible.  The creation and manipulation of 
power is constituted of the manipulation and control of access."

	"All-woman groups, meetings, projects seem to be great things 
for causing controversy and confrontation.  Many women are offended by 
them; many are afraid to be the one to announce the exclusion of men; it 
is seen as a device whose use needs much elaborate justification.  I 
think this is because conscious and deliberate exclusion of men by 
women, from anything, is blatant insubordination, and generates in women 
fear of punishment and reprisal (fear which is often well-justified).  
Our own timidity and desire to avoid confrontations generally keep us 
from doing very much in the way of all-woman groups and meetings.  But 
when we do, we invariably run into the male champion who challenges our 
right to do it.  Only a small minority of men go crazy when an event is 
advertised to be for women only -- just one man tried to crash our 
women-only Rape Speak-Out, and only  a few hid under the auditorium 
seats to try to spy on a women-only meeting at a NOW convention in 
Philadelphia.  But these few are onto something their less rabid com-
patriots are missing.  The woman-only meeting is a fundamental challenge 
to the structure of power.  It is always the privilege of the master to 
enter the slave's hut.  The slave who decides to exclude the master from 
her hut is declaring herself not a slave.  The exclusion of men from the 
meeting not only deprives them of certain benefits (which they might 
survive without); it is a controlling of access, hence an assumption of 
power..."

	"When our feminist acts or practices have an aspect of 
separatism, we are assuming power by controlling access and
simultaneously by undertaking definition.  The slave who excludes the
master from her hut thereby declares herself *not a slave*.  And
*definition* is another face of power..." 

	"If these, then, are some of the ways in which separation is at 
the heart of our struggle, it helps to explain why separation is such a 
hot topic.  If there is one thing women are queasy about it is *actually 
taking power*.  As long as one stops just short of that, the patriarchs 
will for the most part take an indulgent attitude.  We are afraid of 
what will happen to us when we really frighten them.  This is not an 
irrational fear.  It is our experience in the movement generally that 
the defensiveness, nastiness, violence, hostility and irrationality of 
the reaction to feminism tends to correlate with the blatancy of the 
element of separation in the strategy or project which triggers the 
reaction... Hence, heterosexuality, marriage and motherhood, which are 
the institutions which most obviously and individually maintain female 
accessibility to males, form the core triad of antifeminist ideology;
and all-woman spaces, all-woman organizations, all-woman meetings, all-
woman classes, are outlawed, suppressed, harassed, ridiculed and 
punished -- in the name of that other fine and enduring patriarchal 
institution, Sex Equality."

	RE: .124
    
    	Catherine, the essay you quoted has to be the most startling
    	description I could ever have imagined that someone would
    	write about the dynamics of what has been happening in this
    	file (without having actually been here to see it.)  I am
    	speechless.
    
    	I'd just like to reiterate some of the things in the essay
    	that struck me as the most familiar:  [emphasis added in places]
    
	"All-woman groups, meetings, projects seem to be great things 
for causing controversy and confrontation.  Many women are offended by 
them; many are afraid to be the one to announce the exclusion of men; it 
is seen as a device whose use needs *much elaborate justification*.  I 
think this is because conscious and deliberate exclusion of men by 
women, from anything, is *blatant insubordination*, and generates in women 
fear of punishment and reprisal (fear which is often well-justified)...

    "Our own timidity and desire to avoid confrontations generally keep us 
from doing very much in the way of all-woman groups and meetings.  But 
when we do, we invariably run into the *male champion* who challenges our 
right to do it...

    "...all-woman spaces, all-woman organizations, all-woman meetings, all-
woman classes, are outlawed, suppressed, harassed, ridiculed and 
punished -- in the name of that other fine and enduring patriarchal 
institution, Sex Equality."

    re: .120
    
    Mike, I need to ask for some clarification as I'm not sure I'm
    interpreting your reply correctly.
    
    � . . .or anything else that the proponents of FWO claim that it
    � is designed to prevent. 
    
    What I think you are saying is that FWO note proponents claim that
    such notes are designed to prevent harrassment, intimidation, and
    verbal abuse.  Is this paraphrase essentially correct?  If so a
    couple of thoughts come to mind.  The first is that I don't recall
    claims that FWOs will *prevent* such behaviors but could/would mollify
    their effects; if there are such claims, could you point me to them?
    (I don't think I have the stamina at this point to research all
    notes & replies to re-research this one)  The second thought is
    that the only person who can prevent harrassment/intimidation/etc.
    is the harrasser (assuming nobody can read my mind, know my harrassing
    intent and shoot me first).  As a conference, company, and society
    we can (and I think should) make it mighty uncomfortable for the
    convicted offender (and then possibly prevent future offenses), but 
    I'm at a loss to understand how the initial offense can be prevented.

        
    �    Claims that the are designed to eliminate opinions (of any sort),
    � or the desire to let one sex control the direction over another
    � are sexist and discriminatory and are also against Corporate policy.
    
    Could you rephrase this?  I just don't understand the meaning; it
    appears (to me) to say, in part, that some claims are sexist and
    while I'm pretty sure I'm missing your intended meaning, I'm just
    not sure what that meaning is.
    
    Help, please & thanx,
    
    Steve

    Re: .116
    
    >who is contolling this note? the men are, well a couple in particular,
    >and it is resulting in the women getting sidetracked
    
    The women LET themselves get sidetracked, which is how men (or anyone)
    can control this note.  No one controls you without your cooperation.

    
    re .127
    
    Spot On!
    
    If women didn't seek permission so often, they wouldn't be
    bothered by the presence of men during their discussions.
    
    It seems strange that NOW would, on the one hand, rage against
    male only clubs (as well they should) while excluding them 
    from some of their own meetings. A simple minded guy like
    me would conclude that they want it both ways....

    	RE: .127
    
    	Actually, no one in this topic has been side-tracked at all.
    	Michael R. Boutcher opened his basenote to discuss the very
    	thing that has been debated throughout this whole string.
    
    	His tone has been arrogant and authoritative, but it seems
    	now that if he hadn't come in to do this, someone else would
    	have.  It was a foregone conclusion that this topic would
    	come up at this point (with the accompanying arguments from
    	someone like Michael Boutcher.)  Nothing could have prevented
    	it.
    

RE:     Holly Hendricks

  > We knew that there was no position of consensus.  We made a conscious
  > decision to let the registered members of the conference decide the
  > outcome.  We will support the outcome of the vote whether it is in
  > alignment with our personal convictions or not.  

    The .0 and subsequent noisea from similar sources have made it clear
    how truly charming this conference had become during your experiment!
    
    But since this is =WOMANnotes= ... may a male ask what exactly do
    Y'all mean by "no position of consensus" ???  Just LOOK at the VOTES
    from WOMEN and it is obvious that FWO topics served a purpose for
    the group it is intended to serve!  They served a secondary purpose
    in demonstrating to the male READership that male "intrusions" were
    not going to be tolerated in this conference.  There has been nobody
    asking "why don't male noters write here" as there have still remained
    many more mouthy male intruders than serves the needs of this group.
    While male interest may be "welcome" it certainly isn't necessary!
    
    As was asked earlier ... what difference is there in mind-set between
    someone who rapes women in the streets and some noter who knowingly
    forces his unwanted presence into an FWO Topic?  Fools can always be
    removed to the FGD companion topic by the moderators.  But the lack
    of respect for the dignity of women is equally evident and we assume
    women feel as emotionally "violated" by such noter behavior into their
    intellectual space.
    
    /~~e~~\  Eagles_Really_Are_More_Convinced_By_Evidence_Than_By_Theory_!

    re .131:
    
    > As was asked earlier ... what difference is there in mind-set between
    > someone who rapes women in the streets and some noter who knowingly
    > forces his unwanted presence into an FWO Topic? 
      
    Sheeet, after a few months abstinance, I take one peek into this
    conference and there it is once again, the very statement that was
    the main reason for my absence. 
    
    This time, I don't care. I am still just as offended by it as I
    was then, but I just don't care. Life is too short. One cannot, and
    should not try to, change the mind of every one he meets.
    
    Eagles think "obnoxious" equates to "rapist", by his reasoning,
    anyone who tries to win an argument is a rapist, in that they are
    trying to dominate and subjugate their opponent.

                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    re:.132
    
    do you really think that winning an argument must of necessity
    mean dominating and subjugating your opponent? in one little sentence
    you speak volumes...
     

    re .133:
    
    no I don't think that. I was using what I believe to be Eagle's
    argument combined with the very common perception that the very
    concept of "winning" implies domination. I am not saying that in
    order to win an argument one must dominate and subjugate your opponent.
    
    I am saying that the very concept of "winning" implies that the "loser"
    has been "beaten". Logically then, one should not try to win an
    argument, but simply present one's views, point out any flaws in
    the other's argument and leave it at that. Anyone who tries to "win"
    must therefore be doing it out of a desire to dominate his opponent.
    Since this is also the goal of a rapist, the two must share a common
    "mind-set".
    
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    There is also the concept of the Double Win.  When each party is
    the winner and there is no loser and no one has to be beaten.
    

    Steve (Thompson), I think of consensus as something we can all come
    to an agreement about as a group.  People may have differing
    preferences but in the end, they can come to an agreement to do
    things one way or another.  I was certain that would not be true
    in this case.
    
    That's why we decided to let the majority decide the issue, not
    quite the same as consensus.
    
    Holly

    re .131:
    
    > what difference is there in mind-set between someone who rapes women 
    > in the streets and some noter who knowingly forces his unwanted
    > presence into an FWO Topic?
      
    What difference is there in mind-set between someone who rapes women
    in the streets and some woman who knowingly forces her unwanted
    presence into a men-only club, or the blacks who forced their unwanted
    presence into whites-only restaurants, or jews who forced their
    unwanted presence into WASP-only country clubs?
    
    I guess you're right; I can't see any difference, can you?
    
    
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                  

    The former says, "I *will* dominate you.  My kind always has;
    my kind always will."
    
    The latter says, "We will no longer be dominated by you.  Your
    `fine feelings' mean no more to us than our `second-class'
    feelings do to you."
    
    						Ann B.

Re: .127

>    The women LET themselves get sidetracked, which is how men (or anyone)
>    can control this note.  No one controls you without your cooperation.

Well, if Mike Boutcher hasn't understood the majority (? - TBD) viewpoint after
137-odd replies to his note, perhaps an alternative way to deal with .0 is to
just stop bothering to argue about it, and let him flame out.  (I know how hard
it is to do this!!!)  Why beat your head against a brick wall?  If personnel
decides that he's right, I'm sure they'll let the moderators know.  In the
mean time, the record in this conference shows that they have done what they
believe is the right thing.

    re .138:
    
    exactly my point. To ascribe the former attitude to one who protests
    discrimination by violating it is what I am objecting to.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    re .137
    
    	The recipients of prejudice/oppression making a statement against
    	the continuation of these injustices.
    
    				   versus
    
    	The perpretators of prejudice/oppression making a statement
    	about their absolute right to continue.
    
                                                                
    
    
    
    Briana Walker (taking Gene's place while she is on vacation)

       There will be no problems with the new Policy.  The additional
    measure of privacy should prove satisfactory to the Community as
    a whole.
    
                                                    Russ

    Because of MANY requests that we not allow this process discussion to
    continue once the vote was taken, the topic is now locked and informal
    attempts to revive it will be dealt with under the trashnotes policy.
                                                                    
    						=maggie