Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    It's probably questionable whether Liesl's note is a true "processing"
    note, but it seems so close that it's more appropriate to move it
    here than to let a processing string spring up behind it.  
    
    With Liesl's permission, I've also taken some editorial liberty with
    the note in response to an objection from another member of our
    community to the original wording. 
    
    						=maggie
    
    ====================================================================
            < Note by NOETIC::KOLBE "don't grow nuclear plants" >
        
               -< women and men are people, we belong together >-
    
    I'm putting on my flame retardant suit - so get ready for an OPINION. 

    There seems to be a number of women (and men) in this conference that
    look on the opposite sex as the enemy. Certainly it's understandable if
    some women who have been abused (in whatever manner) by men dislike
    males and I can at least understand how some males feel threatened by
    women but come on...some of you almost scorch screen with your
    comments. 

    We want the super powers to give up atomic weapons and create a
    peaceful world and we can't even talk without fighting among ourselves. 

    I don't trust men I don't know and am leary around certain men even
    after I know them, but on the whole I like men. I don't have a problem
    with men or women that prefer members of their own sex for mates but
    some brief experimenting in my youth convinced me it wasn't for me. 
	
    I like the difference between the sexes. How can I say what effect my
    upbringing or culture has had as opposed to biology? Do I respond to
    men differently in work situations than women? Well, the only honest
    answer is yes. Men can sometimes intimidate me more than women and that
    probably does affect how I react. And sometimes I am sexually drawn to
    the men I work with, but that doesn't mean I do anything about it. We
    have to learn to live together. We were meant to be together, we are
    social animals. We have so many layers of history to remove before we
    can respond to each other as human beings rather than as males and
    females but hate doesn't remove those layers it just makes them
    thicker. 

    I know I'm rambling but partly that's because I don't know how to put
    into words how some of the notes have affected me. I quess my bottom
    line is that some notes have seemed to have between the lines feelings
    of "I hate you for you are the other, the oppressor". Maybe I'm just
    reading too much into comments that can't be softened by facial
    expressions or body language. Opinion over and out - liesl 

    Moved as being a comment on moderator behavior rather than an
    anecdote about sexism. 
    
                          			=maggie
    =================================================================
    < Note 13.143 by MCIS2::POLLITZ >
                          -< a red flag on the play >-

    RE: .142
    
    	I know, I know -- I seem to be "replying" to my own note.
    Well, "replying" is what this note is about.  I reposted note number
    13.142 from its original place as note number 13.139 for the reason
    that the title I had appended to it was changed -- without my knowledge
    or consent -- by a moderator of this conference.  Now it seems to
    me that when a moderator desires to reply to or to comment on a
    note posted here in this conference she ought to limit herself to
    the avenues open to ordinary noters and not make free use of the
    privileges she has been assigned as moderator.  The change that
    was made to the title I attached to my original note was purely
    editorial in nature.  It didn't serve to clarify or to purify; it
    was an editorial comment.  As such, I believe it ought to have taken
    the form of "reply," not the form of an arbitrary change in a note
    title.
    
    	I take the time and trouble to make this point since I believe
    this sort of shenanigans sets a very bad precedent.  Presently,
    someone here will be taken to task, not for something he or she
    may have said, but for words and/or comments which some moderator
    entered into the body of the note itself.
    
    	If it becomes impossible to distinguish between a justifiable
    moderator action and an editorial comment, then we will have no
    conference any more.  We will have chaos.
    
                                                   Russ P

    < Note 13.144 by WMOIS::B_REINKE "As true as water, as true as light" >
                                   -< foul! >-

    Russ,
    
    I have spoken to both of my comoderators this evening. Further
    we communicate by mail to each other when we act in a manner
    that could be controversial, such as deleting inflamatory notes
    or changing someones' title.
    
    Believe me, if either of my co mods had changed the title of your
    note they would have told the other two of us and sent you mail.
    
    Do you have a copy of your note with the original title so we
    can figure out when the change occured and why?
    
    Bonnie

    < Note 13.145 by AKOV11::BOYAJIAN "That was Zen; this is Dao" >


    It should also be pointed out that rather than deleting the
    note-with-changed-title and re-posting it with its original
    title, you could've simply changed the title back to what it
    was. You *do* have MOD NOTE/TITLE priviledges on your own
    notes.
    
    --- jerry

    I must apologise to Bonnie who defended me ...in good faith!...
    from a charge on which I am in fact guilty.
    
    I did change the title of Russ's note...and added "=m" as a signature,
    evidently not a clear enough one though.  I made the change as an
    alternative to moving or deleting it altogether because in its original
    incarnation (it appears to have acquired additional content since then)
    I judged it to itself be sexist rather than being an anecdote about
    sexism. 
    
    						=maggie

    RE: .8
    
    Oh, Maggie, Pat Sweeney (one of the umpteen mods of SOAPBOX)
    must have you under his spell. :-)
    
      Alan

    Good heavens, Alan, I certainly *hope* not!
    
    						=maggie

    Looks like a little clarification is needed ....
    
    Every moderator has something they feel strongly about.  Pat firmly
    believes in clear and relevant titles, and will occasionally change
    a title that he feels is ambiguous.  (Soapboxers, being extremely
    paranoid about any manifestation of moderator power, get up in arms
    about it.)

    I've just received mail from a member of our community who argues that
    I've exceeded my authority as moderator in applying a cooloff period to
    258/9.  Earlier, we all had received mail from another member urging a
    permanent closing.  Clearly there is no obvious solution. 
    
    May we have guidance from the community in this, please?   Preferably
    quickly :-) 
    
    						=maggie 

I have no personal objections to a cooling off period, but I think it's
time for corporate eeo to be formally involved in this question, and in
the question of whether the "Set ___ hidden" personal name is in conflict
with Dec "valuing differences" and "harassment" policies.

I would like to see a written statement from corporate personnel on these
questions.

Martin Minow

    Oh, for crying out loud.  Are we a bunch of children who have to
    have the principal, in the form of personnel, come in every
    time we have a squabble over who can play with the hockey boxes?
    
    Isn't this why we have moderators?  They're doing a good job;
    let's let them do their jobs instead of complaining all the time
    about harrassment and not being valued . . . 
    
    --bonnie

The mods have every right as part of their job to enforce a cooling-off 
period on a hot topic.  The issue of personal names is another matter 
and should be discussed separately.

    	RE:  .14
    
    	Martin, weren't you one of the moderators who decided that
    	the personal name "Lynch Communists" was *not* harrassment
    	in Soapbox (even though it was directed at an actual
    	communist member of that file and directly advocated KILLING
    	someone with his particular beliefs?)
    
    	Or am I confusing you with some other moderators?
    
    	I, for one, would be MOST curious to know if the same people
    	who made fun of the man who protested "Lynch Communists" are
    	now going to launch a protest over "Set ___ hidden."  (I'm
    	sure that the man in question would be interested in knowing
    	that bit of information as well.)

    I am in favour of the cool-off.
    
      Ann

    Has it really been decided that there cannot be a separate
    notes conference that is 'FWO', by registration only?  If so,
    I think that is a shame.

    I support the cooling off period....

    Perhaps the moderators could summarize the relationship of men
    to this conference, and that could become a more productive topic.

    I've found many notes that I have no interesting in reponding
    to, but I don't think it is then appropriate to announce that
    i'm not reponding.  I think the moderators should immediately
    delete or move notes written by 'known men' when they show up
    in an F�UUU�WO string.

    Anyone who had anything to say can remember it for 24 hours.
    Ice it.
    

	Having a right doesn't mean you have to exercise it. I don't
	agree with the policy of having FWO Topics, but it doesn't hurt
	me to reply in Topic n+1 so if it makes someone happy to do so,
	it's too little a thing for me to spend a lot of energy on.

	As for a "cooling off period", I think that there is much a chance
	for any bad feelings to sit and stew in that 24 hours as there
	is for them to dissipate, but its a judgment call, and making
	judgments is why the moderators make the big bucks. :-) It's
	not an unreasonable action, and even if I don't agree with it,
	it doesn't hurt to abide by it.

						Tom_K

    Give the topic a rest.  24 hours is not very long.
    
    Dondi
    

 
 
    Re: .13  I would prefer not to get laughed out of Alan Zimmerle's
    office.    
 
    The issues that surface here have much to do with why some noters
    cannot respect women's space.  *Women* as in female, not feminist,
    not right-wing, not single, married, divorced, lesbian or heterosexual
    but women who want to read/write/learn/argue/care about other women
    and the TOPICS that CONCERN WOMEN.  
    
    I think the personal_name issue is a reaction by some women who
    fear they no longer have a space in which to network with other
    women without being electronically hit over the head by a keyboard-
    wielding male.
    
    Is it too much to ask that our difference be "valued" in our own conference?

    Ann Marie

    I certainly don't think any moderator exceeds their power by shutting
    down a topic, particularly since this is simply a cooling off period.
    When people start getting too heated over a touchy subject, I think
    it is a very reasonable thing to do. 
    
    After all, if things get out of hand, it's the moderator(s)'s ass
    which gets called on the carpet when people complain. Since the
    moderator(s)'s are considered responsible for what gets written
    in the conference, I think that means they should have some say
    about what the boundaries are.
    
    Tamzen

    
    	Agreed.  Rest it!
    

    Full agreement here, this is an appropriate moderator action.

    
    Well I was kind of miffed that maggie froze my argument with Suzanne,
    giving her the last word, but that's the way it goes. I do not
    see maggie's action as stepping beyond her authority. The action
    was entirely justified and appropriate.
                                           
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

The mods have the responsibility for preventing this conference from getting
out of hand.  Given that tempers were starting to fly fast and furious in
the R*E*S*P*E*C*T notes, I have no trouble understanding why a moderator
might become worried.  Asking for a 24 cooling period seems to me like a
reasonable moderator judgment call.

Stick to your guns, Maggie.

						--Q (Dick Wagman)

       Yes to chill out, no to personnel. If it can't keep for 24 hours
       it can be said in private mail messages.

       I don't personally agree with those that used the set ___ hidden
       personal names but since it did not actually hurt anyone and
       could be interpreted several ways I say let it slide.

       Some of the men, some of the time in this conference say things I
       don't like or agree with, so do some of the women some of the
       time. liesl

    A vote for time/space/thought.

    I support the chill and, furthermore, think the moderators
    of this conference have an incredible amount patience and
    equability.  
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  I don't suppose I could convince any of you masochis, er,
          moderators that it'd be real fun to manage a rock band. . .?
          

      I support the cooling off period, and applaud our moderators for
      trying (yet again) to help us work out the controversies.
      
      I ask participants in this community to remember that there are
      other conferences where moderators shut down discussions
      permanently with no discussion or compromise.
      
      Our moderators spend much time, effort, and energy to help us work
      out each difficulty we face and allow us to continue to learn from
      these tough topics.  Why do we put their feet to the fire still
      more by waving Personnel in front of them?
      
      This is *not* the answer, for them or for us.  If (the collective)
      *we* use this option too many times we will not only label
      ourselves as sniveling children unable to cooperate, but brand our
      hard-working moderators also.  Can't we show ourselves to be above
      this?
					-Leslie

    Thank you all very much for your guidance...and your expressions
    of support for our community.
    
    						=maggie

    Let's make it 48 hours.
    
    Dale

    I say to hell with censorship, cooling off, etc...
    
    Let people have their say, and let the audience have the 
    forebearance to listen. 
    
    Sheesh. You folks are like sheep. 
    
    Sure, concensus is fine, but freedom is really what this
    country is really about, and DEC is but a subset...

    I, for one, am not at all like a sheep.  You probably would enjoy
    soapbox for it's "argument for argument's sake" tendancies more
    than Womannotes.  Act in haste and repent at leisure does have
    entertainment value but I'd much rather have our exchanges here
    be thought out than spit out.
    
    Dondi 

    re: .36
    
    Uh, "sheep"?  I'm beginning to get a d�ja vu feeling here,
    Bob (i.e. sounds like the fy '88 Bob Holt talking. . .).
    
    I agree that censorship is undesirable and that people
    "having their say" is important.  However, when that
    "say" starts to degenerate into name-calling and the
    like, it seems that people's "forebearance to listen"
    goes right to the circular file.  It's a well-established
    fact (i.e. tested umpteen times) that people, in general,
    don't listen particularly well; the "average" person 
    "hears" only about 25% of what's said.  When the heat
    starts to rise, that figure drops like a stone.
    
    It might help us all to help ourselves and the moderators
    to remember that NOTEing is a privilege that the company
    extends to us.  We exercise this privilege using corporate
    resources and this document known as NOTES is, from a legal
    standpoint, a corporate document.  What we say here could
    be used in a lawsuit.
    
    Steve (who has, at best, mixed feelings about having to
    co-mod. a potentially contentious conference next quarter).
    

re: .36
    
>    I say to hell with censorship, cooling off, etc...
>    
>    Let people have their say, and let the audience have the 
>    forebearance to listen. 
>    
>    Sheesh. You folks are like sheep. 
 

    Anyone who participates in notesfiles like soapbox comfortably has a
    flame-retardant skin that they can don whenever they wish.  They have
    developed an armor so that things others say which may well go against
    their grain do not bother them.  I have no such armor. I read and write
    (especially in this file) with very little covering my
    receptiveness/responsiveness.  This enables me to share the most, to
    care the most, to learn the most, to understand the most. When I read
    something wonderful, it is *very* wonderful, when not blocked by a
    protective shell. When I read something distressing it is *very*
    distressing.  This is who I am, and how I am.  This is why I do not
    participate in Soapbox.  I am not a sheep, I am just a sensitive person
    who's into self-preservation.  Chances are, if this file (heaven
    forfend) took on the ambiance of the 'box, you could count me gone in
    no-time-flat. 

    -Jody
    

    Being new to DEC (June) and newer to Notes, I would like to know:
    Is it always like this or has the political climate of the presidential
    campaign caused all of us to become more polarized???
    
    Nancy
    

    re: .40 (and other 'box-bashers)
    
    	   You may have a point about the armor we 'boxer have
    	developed.  It comes in large part from allowing ourselves
    	to be exposed to opposing viewpoints (as you have suggested).
    	As an interesting side remark, I must say that the most
    	intelligent people I have met on the net have come from 
    	the 'box.  It seems to attract that sort.
    
    	   Last year I felt the same way you have stated.  I thought
    	the 'box was for a lot of ignorant hot-heads whose main
    	goal in life is to belittle and berate all around them.
    	When they reopened it, I joined the fray (mainly out of
    	interest generated in the MODERATORS conference).  Since
    	then I have grown not only comfortable, but quite fond of
    	the 'box, even with those who disagree with me (which 
    	frequently means almost everyone).
    
    	   As you are not a 'boxer, you are unaware of my noting
    	style in general.  You are therefore equally unaware of
    	the vast number of notes I avoid responding to in this
    	conference because I realize it is NOT a completely open
    	forum, and as such my opposing viewpoints are not always
    	welcomed (no matter how carefully I word them).
    
    	   That, in my opinion, is the difference between the 'box
    	and the rest.  In the 'box you say what you really think
    	(or a reasonable facsimile thereof)... elsewhere it is
    	necessary to select only those opinions that can safely
    	be deemed non-offensive to the majority audience.
    
    	   And for those who operate under the misconception that
    	legal views notes as an official document over which DEC
    	could be sued, you are mistaken.  The current view from 
    	legal is that employee interest conferences (such as this
    	one and the 'box) are 'employee activities', much like
    	company picnics.  As such, Digital is not held responsible
    	for their contents... the individual noters are responsible
    	for their own remarks.  Period.  
    
    	   So, before we go on a tirade claiming that opposing 
    	opinions are inappropriate for notes conferences, we had
    	better find a REAL reason for such an opinion.  Notes
    	is NOT a set of contracts over which DEC can be sued.
    
    	- Greg

    A few weeks ago, a friend of mine relayed to me information
    about a study she had read.  The researcher conducted the
    study on how women and men do research, reach conclusions,
    and present their results.  One of several fascinating results
    obtained was:
    
    Some men chose `debate' as the format in which they wished to
    present their results and have them tested.
    
    No women chose `debate' as their format of choice.
    
    Thus, I achieved an understanding of *why* it was mostly men
    debating in the who-ya-gonna-vote-for notes; some men are
    comfortable with this technique, and very few women are.  I see
    a result of this same situation here:  Men who are comfortable
    with the technique are sure that *anyone* can become comfortable
    with it, and so they are urging its use, unaware that a lot of
    people will *always* be uncomfortable and unhappy with it.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .43:
    
    Well, Ann, don't just leave us hanging, what format *did* women
    (and presumably, some men) prefer to 'debate'?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    FormatS.  Plural.  Many.
    
    And I don't know; my friend only brought up this one.  Well...
    I think she mentioned one-on-one discussions.
    
    							Ann B.

    	And then there are those of us women who defy all the studies...
    :-)
    
    	I'm one who learns, thinks, and decides with my mouth open (or
    keyboard active).  I rarely feel comfortable deciding things without
    having discussed them extensively.  (Hence the length of my notes!)
    If no one is available to discuss them with me, I talk to myself.
    No, not just talk, argue.  Violently.  (You should see me driving
    home after some of the things I read here!  This file is challenging
    to me because the sensitivity level is so high that I realize that
    my usual think it through while writing/talking method will not
    be tolerated.  (While I'm going through this process, the ideas
    that I'm batting around are more important to me than the form I
    put them in.)  So I impose cooling-down thinking-through time on
    myself.  Then I go talk to my steering wheel...)
    
    	Bringing this back to the topic at hand....  I view externally
    imposed cool-down periods with mixed feelings.  It's frustrating
    as heck to have applied a 24 or 48 hour cool down to myself and
    be ready to put in a relatively calm thought through reply, get
    to the note and find "write locked for cool-down".  But I do recognize
    that it is needed.  I really don't mind cool-downs, even relatively
    quick ones.  (I'd view things differently if they were permanent
    shutdowns.)  I just wish I'd quit bumping into them after I'd just
    finished one of my own.
    
    Tracey
       

re: .41

Nancy, several women have said that it's been a long time since it's been as
bad as it was last week.

It was certainly the toughest week I've had as moderator, though I haven't been
at it long enough to believe the sample to be statistically significant.
	Mez

    RE: .43 & .44

	Hi Ann, were we at the same place?  I think so. ;-)

    I think one of the methods that women use over debating is discussion.
    Present data, suggest conclusions, encourage discussion.  Attempts are
    made to hear every participants experiences and develop a concensus
    based on inclusion and compromise rather than winning against other
    participants.
    
    It was intriguing for me to tie this to how I learn new technical
    things at work.  If a topic is particularly hard for me to grasp, I
    operate in a mode where I talk with people about how they process the
    information -- how do they think about it.  By hearing their recipe
    for analyzing the topic, I can learn a way to do it as I develop my
    own way.
    
    From the way the friend explained the study, my learning technique and
    the researching styles were, as a generalization, female-gender-
    specific.
					-Leslie

    re: .43, .48
    
    The good ol' Nashua _Telegraph_ reported on this study in a Sunday
    edition recently.  I remember a handful of the options for
    presenting one's conclusions [strictly from memory here]: 
    
    written form (I think there were formal and informal options here)
    lecture
    debate
    discussion
    forum 
    seminar    (As I recall, the difference between forum and seminar
                    was the size of the group.)
    one on one
    
    That isn't everything but I can't recall the others.  I don't
    remember what it said about formats for learning, either.
    
    I seem to recall that one's academic background was the heaviest
    influence on choice of presentation, with scientific types of both
    genders preferring formal lectures or papers while liberal arts
    types leaned heavily to discussions or seminars.
    
    I didn't save the article.  Ann, do you think your friend would
    know where I could get a copy of the study?
    
    --bonnie 

    Yeah, I 'd like to see the article, or have a little better 
    reference to it, so I could read it too!
    This conversation has made me think back to my high school/college
    days when I was heavily involved in speech/theater. I was always
    being asked to be on the debate teams....and NEVER wanted to be,
    adamantly declined, and even once threatened to quit class 
    altogether if I had to participate.  Most (no not all, but the
    majority) of debate team members were male...and they seemed to
    love it....maybe this study offers some explanation of that
    phenomenon.  Though I doubt it is physiological (sp?) or
    biological, or whatever, but rather societal...it is an
    interesting difference between the sexes.  I am certainly
    not comfortable with debate/argument...much prefer the
    independent presentation, or forum approach to any others...
    but I always attributed it to being a Libra...peacemaker and
    all that...
    
    oh well...
    

    re .50 women & debate:
    
    Interesting...when I was in high school, I was part of the debate
    team.  Of a team of about 10 people, *one* was male!  The mostly
    female composition of the team didn't hinder us in any way - we
    were ranked second in the state (Vermont).  The first place team,
    incidently, also had a mostly-female composition.
    
    Of all the debaters we were up against, the *only* pair that I found
    particularly frightening were the two women who ranked first in
    the state - they had a style that was coldly logical, go-for-the-throat
    vicious.  I've often wished that those two women worked for DEC
    and could sign in to SOAPBOX; I'd *love* to see the results!
    
    FWIW, we had a forensics team (for poetry reading, dramatic reading,
    prose reading competitions)  that was under the same "scholastic
    umbrella" as the debate team.  The gender mix for that was about
    50/50.
    
    Rita
    

    My American Heritage Dictionary:
    
    debate -  1. To deliberate, consider.   2. To discuss opposing points.
              3. To discuss or argue formally.
    
    discuss - 1. To speak together about.  2. To examine (a subject)
              in speech or writing; treat of.
    
    Now, I'm assuming that when the previous notes said "debate" vs.
    "discuss", they were speaking of formal vs. informal? I.e., debate
    team vs. team (or individual vs. individual), recital and rebuttal,
    vs. "round table" type of give and take...
    
    Meaning that men prefer to be more formal, and have more rigid rules
    about who can say what when, and women prefer the informal approach?
    
    Bill

    re: .52
    
    I think the contrast was between debate.2 and discuss.1 -- men
    prefer to state a position and then try to support it against the
    best arguments the others can offer, a key aspect being that it's
    okay, even expected that some men will be playing "devil's
    advocate" and presenting ideas they don't necessarily believe in
    but see as having some merit or requiring some answer. The result
    of debate is generally a decision that could be phrased in terms
    of a win/loss or a vote -- you try to convince others to go
    along with what you want to do.  Generally one idea will win
    and the other opposing ideas will be left behind.
    
    Women, on the other hand, prefer to put the idea on the table and
    then all contribute to an examination of the idea itself, perhaps
    changing it as the discussion develops.  They try to include the
    best parts of an argument they think has merit.  In general,
    arguing from a position one doesn't agree with is not helpful to a
    discussion. The goal of discussion is usually concensus, an
    agreement that we all want to do it this way because we've
    collectively discovered through exchange of ideas that it's the
    best thing to do. 

    [This particular aspect of men's versus women's interactions had
    been assumed in communications theory for some time, by the way.
    The survey we're talking about provided actual data confirming the
    theory, and I think added some new data about alternate
    communications methods preferred by both sexes.] 
    
    The professor in whose class I read about women's communication
    patterns thought that women's training in lack of assertiveness
    was a factor here -- women in general have been taught to be
    nonconfrontational and to yeild to others, so making a
    presentation that others are going to try their hardest to shoot
    down is extremely threatening. Men, on the other hand, tend to
    reject discussion as not a productive way to get things done;
    forming concensus is a slow process and the goals aren't always
    clear.  Men also tend to perceive a reliance on discussion as
    meaning the woman who's presenting the ideas isn't adequately
    convinced of their rightness or hasn't thought them through enough
    to be ready to present them for "real" decisions. 
    
    --bonnie 

    While reading Bonnie's reply -1, it occurred to me that for me
    debate implies competition - trying to "win" the argument
    whereas discussion implies an exchange of ideas sans the
    competitive aspect.
    
    Maybe this difference in style between men and women has to
    do with our social backgrounds.  When I was growing up I was
    taught that it wasn't ladylike to "win" an argument.  However
    my brother who was 2 years younger was taught that it was
    not acceptable to be anything but the "winner" in any situation.
    
    We've come such a long way since then, haven't we?
    
    Comments??
    Nanci

    re:.54
    
    I wonder... Have we really come a long way - or do we feel guilty
    if we "win" a debate, or even actually debate instead of discuss,
    for that matter!!
    
    Funny, if I argue with someone (esp. a man) and win, I usually try
    to be sure I haven't "hurt his feelings!!"  (Yuk!)

    re: 55
    
    I wonder, too; I have a feeling that we won't know how far we've
    come today until we can have the perspective of the next 50-100
    years to look back upon. . .
    
    Also, 
    
    � Funny, if I argue with someone (esp. a man) and win, I usually try
    � to be sure I haven't "hurt his feelings!!"  (Yuk!)
    
    Funny - for me, it's a sign of (some small) interpersonal progress
    that in discussing/debating, I try not to hurt or devalue feelings.
    Then again, I'm not into debating for it's own sake but as a way
    to get at "truth", solutions, etc. . .to the extent that it comes
    out feeling like a "win-win" transaction, I feel successful.
    
    Steve
    

re: .56
        
>    � Funny, if I argue with someone (esp. a man) and win, I usually try
>    � to be sure I haven't "hurt his feelings!!"  (Yuk!)
>    
>    Funny - for me, it's a sign of (some small) interpersonal progress
>    that in discussing/debating, I try not to hurt or devalue feelings.

    Steve, the difference is that you're worried about the feelings
    you might have hurt during the argument, from the tactics you
    used and the things you said.  
    For most women, however, the problem is the mere fact that we
    "won".  We had the best idea and supported it with logical,
    well-thought-out arguments, and it was accepted. 
    
    That, by itself, without any regard to what tactics we used or how
    we handled the proceedings, produces the guilt and the worry
    becuase we were taught that the man's feelings were more important
    than our own.  We worry that the mere fact of pressing our own
    ideas, which we really thought were better, hurt him becuase he
    was rejected. 
    
    Too many of us were never taught that rejecting an idea or
    proposal, as takes place in a debate, didn't mean the rejection of
    the person offering the proposal.  Once I learned that, and
    accepted that my own ideas were good and worth advocating, I
    became quite fond of a good argument, pushing an opinion I don't
    necessarily hold to its logical limit, and that sort of thing.
    
    I think mature, nonsexist communication would mean that each of
    us, male or female, would feel comfortable in a structured debate
    when it was the most appropriate forum, and in a discussion when
    that was the best way for the group to reach a decision, and in
    lecture or formal paper or whatever when that was necessary.  I'm
    sure we'd all have preferences (I'm rather fond of the essay,
    myself -- a form now practiced mostly in NOTES and letters to the
    editor) but our choice would be based on the situation more than
    on our culturally conditioned weaknesses.
    
    --bonnie 

    re 284.0  "Men ...(with a) pro-woman consciousness."
    
    
               So as not to distract from the discussion in 284,
               let me ask here - in your view what *isn't* a
               "pro-woman consciousness"?   What is?
    
               And, while we're at it, just what qualities enable
               one to have a pro-male consciousness?
    
    
                                                    Russ P.

    <--(.58)
    
    Are you just asking what I meant by the term "consciousness", Russ?
    
    I could have used the term "attitude" instead, I spoze, but I was
    really trying to get at a sort of way-of-relating-to-the-world, and
    "attitude" is typically used to describe a fractional or perhaps
    transient portion of the personality.  I had in mind something more
    global; "attitude constellation" might be close, what we sometimes mean
    when we talk in our fuzzy way about the "kind of person" someone is.
    
    Does that help?
    
    						=maggie 

    Well those men have been described as feminists.  Considering the
    Levin/Davidson critiques on the subject, I find the ideology a
    difficult-and unworkable way to relate to the world.
    
    While your own experiences of the world have led you to such a course,
    I do wonder if you are satisfied with the various ideological tenets
    that have evolved to form the feminist mind.
    
    I have a hard time understanding an ideology who's idea of Manhood
    is an emasculated wimp.
    
    Heck, even Friedan (Ms 12/88) now fears a resurgence of a 'feminine
    mystique.'  
    
    What is a feminist consciousness Maggie?  How sharp is it really?
    
    
                                                       Russ P.

>    How sharp is it really?

Can you translate for those of us who never could get above a B in Philosophy?
Or is this an artifact?
	Mez

�     I have a hard time understanding an ideology who's idea of Manhood
�     is an emasculated wimp.

    Russ, as far as I can tell you're asking me to evaluate a figment of
    your subcultural Zeitgeist and I don't know how to do that.
                                                                      
    [ Notes > set mod ]
    
    I think this topic, if we're to continue it, needs its own string:
    it has very little to do with "processing".
                 
    						=maggie

    re .61   Well Mez, I guess I meant "how well does feminism and feminist
             scholarship compare to other rigorous disciplines."
    
    
                                                     Russ P.

I understand it better, 'cause it resonates with me. But I suppose you're
asking after a different comparison?
	Mez

OK, what the heck is the problem? Is it holiday-itis? Are we taking it out on
each other here 'cause we don't have a dog to kick?

I find the number of pot shots intolerable. I bet others do to.

What the heck is the problem?
	Mez

    Re: .65
    
    Mez, about a year ago there was a note entitled "What Is Our
    Hidden Agenda", written, I believe, by Joyce LaMotte?
    
    While there may, indeed, be heated issues, there are other
    issues behind the issues behind the issues.............
    
    Noters do *not* exist in their own little vacuums, never
    interacting with others outside this medium.
    
      Alan                                              

See the article on "Seasonal Affective Disorder" in the December Scientific
American.

Martin.

    Aw, shucks, once a year maybe all animals have that urge to get
    down and dirty and take a roll in the mud.  Maybe it's the "snowball
    effect" - one tiny bunch of flakes get on the move and then -
    AVALANCHE! ;)
    
    

    A member of the community has suggested that 183.* (Abortion) be
    left locked until after the holiday rather than being reopened tomorrow
    after the 24-hr cooldown.  
    
    Comments?
    
    						=maggie

    	RE:  .69
    
    	Sounds good to me.  Let's do it.
    

	Seems like a reasonable request.


						Tom_K

But what will everyone do with their bad vibes? [1/2 joke]
	Mez

    re .72 Mez
    
     Wait till 6:00 and play in the Soapbox
    
    Mark

    re: .69 (Maggie)
    
    	   Works for me.
    
    	   I will admit, however, that I am dreadfully curious about
    	what was so offensive that this action became necessary.  I
    	suppose some things are better left unsaid (or unread, at any
    	rate).
    
    	- Greg

    
    Thanks, Maggie.  I'll be delighted to wait 'til next  year.
    
    am

    
    they have weak stomachs here...
    

�   =maggie once said "we need all the voices in the chorus" ... 
    
    Thanks for the credit, Eagle, but it should go to Bonnie, not me.
                                                             
    I take your meaning, though.  It's like a response I once heard to the
    proverb "It takes all kinds to make a world", which was  "No, it
    _doesn't_ take all kinds...but we've got'm anyway, worse luck" 
    
    In contrast, of course, we have the aphorism about knives needing
    abrasive stones to stay sharp.  Which leads in turn to the observation
    that constant sharpening wears out the knife, which isn't so swell
    either as an outcome or as an experience for the knife.
    
    Maybe moderation is the key <npi>.
    
    						=maggie

    Moved to preserve original topic.
    
-======================================================================
Note 356.13                      The Later Years                        13 of 14
REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet."              16 lines  27-DEC-1988 16:37
                     -< That's the appearance, all right. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mark,
    
    Your reply *did* sound patronizing.  You didn't mean it to be.    
    Fine.  That's life.  You can go back to the reply, analyze it,
    contemplate alternate phrasings, and learn from it, or you can
    give a martyred sigh and continue on.
    
    Now, Lorna was married young and divorced young, so there would
    very likely have been no build up of assets to split -- beyond
    the "I'll take the stereo, and you can have the toaster, the mixer,
    and the Mr. Coffee."
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Your insistance that you are entitled to a better understanding
    of Lorna's, well, situation is probably why you sound patronizing.

    in 356.12, mark levesque asked me if i'm androphobic. i assume that
    means "do i hate men". mark, i have a hard time understanding why
    reading about my perceptions of your behavior would lead you to ask
    such a silly question, but for the record, here's my answer: No.
    
    liz 

    Furthermore, Lorna's divorce settlement is really _very_ irrelevant
    to how we feel about old age and how we plan to prepare for it!
    If she, and others who are divorced, want a string on how people
    divvy up the goods, create one for that.  Very few divorce settlements
    are large enough (or late enough in life) to adequately finance
    a woman's later years...
    
    Nancy
    

RE: Note 342.144          ASDFGH::RENEE "Cant Buy me Love"
    
>    It is difficult to understand why men are so incensed over FWO
>    topics.

I have had gut level reactions against separatism at times and I think
I am beginning to understand why.  Basically, the reaction was one of
fear.  If women want to get together only with themselves, "why have
men anyway?"  was the gut level "thinking" going through my system.
For me, it was pretty simple fear reaction.  I guess that fear
underneath is one of not being valued.  It took me a while to
understand this - I had to get thru the automatic thinking level
response of "if men can't do this, women shouldn't be allowed either"
which was for me a way of not seeing the real underlying issues behind
this question. 

It took me a while to understand that the cultural conditioning is so
great that it may be necessary to have a women's only space.  That
even well meaning men can be overprotective.  That different forms
such as non-hierarhicial leadership may emerge only in a women's only
space.  That damage from violence, abuse, and oppression may be so
great that a healing space may be needed. I hope it may not always be
need to be that way but I think I can understand it. 

peace,
john

    re: .82
    
    John, that was beautiful!  Now don't _you_ leave =wm= !!
    
    Nancy
    

    <--(356.12)
    
    Mark, I've no doubt that you didn't intend to come across as either
    patronising or devaluing, and I appreciate the opportunity you
    inadvertently presented.  Please don't take this personally, it's
    intended as instruction to those who really can't even *see* how
    that might have looked to someone on the receiving end.
     
    
�     Hi Lorna, how'r ya Doin'? (sorry, but I've been waiting for that
�     one).

    For openers, Mark, you began your response with a flippant pun.
    Since the topic is rather grimly serious, and Lorna's responses were
    in keeping with that seriousness, you appear to be devaluing both
    the topic and, by extension, her assessment of her situation. 
            
�      Seriously, now. 

    This is the wrong topic for you not to have been serious from
    the start.
        
�     When you and your husband separated, didn't you get half of the
�     accumulated assets? I'm not trying to be nosy; I'm just trying to
�     get a clearer idea of the impact of the divorce on your financial
�     picture. It seems to me that if you had been married for a few
�     years, there would have been a sizable amount of assets to divide
�     between you. Assuming that you didn't fritter them away, there
�     should have been enough (one would hope) to provide for a secure
�     future for yourself. 

    Many women receive nothing substantial when they divorce.  For some
    couples and many reasons, there are no assets to divide even after
    many years of marriage; for others, the woman gets very little in
    comparison to her needs.  Although you acknowledge these realities
    in a paragraph below, your first assumption (judging by the amount
    of coverage you give it�) seems to be that Lorna is either
    untruthful or profligate.  You have no smallest right to make such
    an assumption and the best possible construction a reader can put on
    your doing so is that you yourself are painfully insensitive and not
    a little arrogant with it. 
    
    
�     I'm sure that every case is unique. One would hope that everyone
�     would be capable of providing for themselves upon retirement,
�     contrary evidence notwithstanding. 
�     
�      There are different people, and with them, different philosophies.
�     In a case where a couple divorce, some people would run out and
�     blow the money from the settlement. "Live for today, tomorrow never
�     comes" kind of philosophy. What a rude awakening when tomorrow does
�     come, eh?
�     
�      Others simply had nothing (much) after the settlement, or used
�     it to raise the kids. They are often underskilled, and less able
�     to meet their future financial commitments. These are the people
�     who need some help in retraining to be more productive and hence,
�     more able to take care of themselves.
�     
�      It is difficult for an ant to be concerned with a grasshopper that
�     has made their own bed. It is far easier for an ant to be concerned
�     with a victim of circumstance.
�                                                      
    
    By the time I got down here, I wondered why you had posted the note
    at all without completely rewriting it, since the musings that
    followed your first two paragraphs seemed to indicate that you
    finally realised that not everything is as we would wish in life.
    Since in fact you did post it, I was forced to conclude that no,
    your first paragraphs probably expressed your views and what
    followed was just said pro forma.  
    
    Is it any clearer why at least three of us found it unpleasant?
    
    						=maggie

    
    � "didn't you get half [of what I assume were a] sizable amount of
    assets", "assuming you didn't fritter", "some people would run out
    and blow the money from the settlement", "ant...grasshopper" 

(I had originally entered this as 356.16, but am moving it per 356.14.)

Re: 356.12

>    Re: Liz .... You are absolutely correct in stating that you don't
>    feel it was my intention to come across as patronizing.  I wasn't....
>    I am simply trying to understand her situation better.

Mark,

I think I can see how your writings could come across as patronizing.  In
356.5, Lorna said that

>    The difference I see in being married as opposed to single for
>    elderly women is not primarily one of companionship, but rather
>    economic.

She went on to discuss this general proposition at some length.  After that,
she included this brief personal illustration:

>   If my ex and I had stayed married, our house would have been paid
>   for by the time I was in my 60's and if anything happened to him,
>   I would have gotten the house.  Now, who knows?

That was all there was about Lorna's own situation.  Your reply in 356.8
asked, in part,

>   When you and your husband separated, didn't you get half of the
>   accumulated assets? I'm not trying to be nosy; I'm just trying to get
>   a clearer idea of the impact of the divorce on your financial picture.

I, too, was a bit surprised by your question.  The reason for my surprise is
that this subject is quite tangential to the discussion up to now.  The main
topic of note 356, after all, is women's concern's about old age, not how
people have managed their finances as they grew older.  I have absolutely
no personal knowledge of Lorna's situation, but I don't think her brief
comment in 356.5 was intended to generate an open season on how she handles
her money.  So when you asked a (somewhat detailed) question about her
personal finances, I think that it was inevitable for people to wonder why
(since it was off the subject).  Simply saying that you didn't intend to be
nosy isn't enough, this time; the question inevitably comes across that way.
Why should you get a clearer idea of her personal situation?  It might be
different if the topic were about handling one's finances after a divorce,
but in the context of the actual topic it does seem a bit presumptuous.

Again, from your 356.12:

>   Perhaps it is my inquisitive nature that you dislike....  Are you
>   androphobic?

I don't think any slaps were being taken towards your nature.  Rather, I think
they were replying to your specific question about Lorna's finances.  There
are other topics in this file in which such a question might be perfectly
apropos.  But I don't think you have to be androphobic� to be skeptical of
its relevance in 356.

						--Q (Dick Wagman), a non
							androphobe

�  I had to look this one up.  Andro-, meaning masculine, and -phobic, meaning
afraid of, thus afraid of men.  I saw no evidence of anything in Liz's reply
that suggested a fear of or aversion to men.  And, in any event, androphobia
is just another tangent to the original topic.

    <--(.82)
    
    John, please don't ever leave our community!  It's exactly that kind
    of insight we need more of, both here and in the larger world.
    
    You men are wanted for your humanity, your strengths, and (except by
    the lesbians in the world) your sexual warmth.  Most of us hope
    we're wanted by you for similar reasons (and typically in that
    order, btw ;').  We couldn't easily do without one another for very
    long even if we wanted to which most of us don't.  But, as you so
    eloquently expressed, just because we couldn't do without you for
    long doesn't mean that we don't want and *need* to do it
    _sometimes_.  Very different, "sometimes" and "always"; it's a pity
    fear so often blurs our vision. 

    						=maggie

    
    >It's exactly that kind of insight we need more of
    
    i.e. the politically correct kind...?

   re  342.143   MCIS2::POLLITZ

   > re .142   Seems you and Laura share that 'not all men but always
   >           men' chant.  
             
         Tell me, please, how it is that you think what a woman
         brings up in a discussion will NOT be "of interest to 
         women" and therefore NOT appropriate for the conference.
         Thus, 'not all men but always men', because women are 
         defined to be relevant.  Simple, right?  Actually, thats
         probably a little too simple, and may make it appear that
         I'm devaluing the other reasons other people have offered
         for that previously expressed sentiment.  I'm not; this 
         is merely MY view, my way to cope with that sentiment.

         Not too terribly long ago you told me that gender-oriented 
         conferences should stay oriented to that gender (in mennotes 
         310.34, I think), so I know you understand the concept, from 
         a man's side, anyway.  

    >          It strikes me as very revealing that you should seek
    >          support 'for the Community' (sounds Socialistic/Communistic)

         ...only if you completely ignore the normal meaning of community 
         implied by Maggie in 342.142.

    >          from a sex that feminists have long tortured, stereotyped,
    >          and objectified to hide their own insecurities, angers,
    >          and other serious problems.

         Yet another definitional problem.  Most feminists I know don't
         believe or acknowledge any such anti-feminist bashing as truth.
     
    >          Why should I defend you and other 'intelligent feminists'

         Perhaps you're not who Maggie had in mind as a would-be defender, 
         seeing how much trouble you have with the "community" concept.
 
    >          when Michael Levin and Nicholas Davidson have proven beyond
    >          doubt with definitive analysis, that what you believe
    >          is bogus as hell, and as anti-male and female as any ideology
    >          in history is ever likely to get.

         Why, indeed, would *you* defend this file from disruptive men?

         I, personally, have never met messieurs Levin and Davidson and
         I'd be indeed mightily impressed by their "definitive analysis"
         if they had truly deduced "what I believe" without ever meeting
         me.  Russ, its pretty clear the "feminists" you and they are attacking
         are strawomen, at least in this file.  I'm pleased to finally see your
         (Levin's, originally) definition of feminism in another discussion we
         are engaged in elsewhere, and I hope we do eventually resolve the huge
         differences between your authorities (ND and ML, above) and everybody
         else's implied usage of the word.

    >          Feminists here have created severe sexual tension, unlike
    >          the Europeans who know better.

         Pretty wide brush, Russ.  "Not all feminists but always feminists"?
         I think not.  A conjecture for you:  perhaps such defensive potshots 
         from men, whatever their reasons, have also contributed to our 
         culture's severe sexual tension...nah, couldn't be...

    >          I'll be in Euro_notes this winter healing, and thanks
    >          again for not allowing MY TOPIC to hold what should be
    >          truly held "up to the light" to be heard.
     
         Now for whom should this conference be oriented again, Russ?
         "MY TOPIC" betrays the boundary you've crossed.  But I'm sure
         we'll see you back...
                                                
    >          It's called lying and I'm on to it.
     
         When you chant "ML and ND" the way you did, its called 'the argument 
         from authority'.  Hey, dude- I'm *on* to *that*.

         DougO

    Question:  There is currently only one quotation note: "Quotable
    		Women".  If I wish to share a quote from a male source,
    		may I enter it under this note, or must I start another?
    
    (I already did a DIR/TITLE="QOUT", and above mentioned note was
    the only response.)
    
    patiently awaiting the opinions of the mods...............jonathan
    

Personally, I would start a parallel topic. That seems the in thing to do in
this notesfile.
	Mez (comod, but mostly person)

    How about "Quotable Men"....
    
    I'm sure it'll be "of interest to women", still...
    
    -Jody
    ('nother co-mod, and 100% person)
       (Mez - if you're mostly person, what's the rest ;)
    

Yes, by all means, quotable men.  Wouldn't do to have a "quotable people"
topic here.

Better start a third for "Quotable indeterminates" so they don't pollute
the the discussion.

Martin.

(ps: sarcasm, in case you were wondering).

    
    I can see that a quotable man topic will become a MCP of the Year
    contest.
    
    I say blow off quoting men here - it will just become a rat hole.

    heck, you can even start a note on quotes by each other...
    
    as long as they're "of interest to women"...
    
    -Jody
    

    <--(.94)
    
    Relax, Robert.  The only person talking about "MCP of the Year"
    is you!
    
    						=maggie

    a few people have mentioned that they notice when no one responds
    to their notes. one person even said that he deletes his notes when
    noone responds because he assume they haven't been effective. i
    used to worry about this phenomenon too: i'd write a long note and
    everyone would just step over it and continue the dicussion around
    my contribution. 
    
    a few times, someone's come up to me and said "oh, _you're_ liz
    augustine. i read your note about x a few months ago, and it's really
    changed how i feel about the subject" or "it's gotten me thinking
    about the subject along lines that i never imagined." 
    
    after a few such compliments, i decided that two-way communication
    is not always overt. in fact, it's kind of subtle sometimes. so
    if you've written a note that's gotten minimal response, take heart.
    it's probably touched someone or gotten them started on a long thought
    process and they just haven't gotten around to mentioning it yet.
    
    as for deleting notes, i'd like to encourage noters to keep their
    notes in the file even if your views have changed. when notes are
    deleted, it tends to be an inconvenience for people who read later
    -- the holes left are disruptive to the flow of conversation.
    
    liz (as noter)
    

  Yes, but what you think detracts from the discussion might be something that
someone else finds interesting/useful/whatever.  As for typing something you
regret saying, all the more reason to really make sure that you say what
you mean.  If there are trailing responses, deleting a note often leaves
confusing holes.  I have lots of stuff in conferences I'd love to delete (i.e.
incorrect technical advice), but, hey nobodies perfect!

  I remember reading through the old V1 version of this conference where, it
seems, half of the original topics had been deleted but all the responses were
still there.  It was an extremely disjointed set of notes.

Jim (who longs for the old PLATO system where you couldn't delete notes with
     following responses)

    
    
    re .99
    
    I'm sure it will be a very interesting explanation.  
    
    I managed to read your note.  I disagreed with it, but didn't find
    it inapprpriate as a topic.  You are a victim, perhaps, of being
    politically incorrect.  I find it to be the most virulent disease
    in this file.
    
    

I'd be glad to be carbon copied Steve. Maybe it's something all the comods
should know about.
	Mez

    
    How about co-mod? I'm pretty aware of dashes since one fell off
    my birth certificate back in '48.
    
    Ann "dash" Marie

re: last few

 I can't believe there's a to do about what the moderators of this conference
call themselves. They are moderators. They can call themselves whatever they
wish- co-mods, comods, modesserators, etc etc. I don't see any harm in a little
poetic license to coin a word to describe themselves and each other, 
particularly when to do so causes no friction between them.

 The Doctah

    re:.118
    
    � Why invent a word? �
    
    Why not?
    
    � What's wrong with "moderator"? � [as opposed to "comod"]
    
    (1) "Moderator" is four letters longer than comod.
    
    (2) "Moderator" gives no indication whether moderatorship is shared.
    	While many, possibly most, wouldn't care about that, some people
    	might.
    
    --- jerry

OK, maybe this is trivial, but since it has received more attention than it
deserves, I'll add to the damage.

I don't like "comod". I seems clusmy to me. I prefer "co-mod" to it, but
have this pedantic feeling that the best word to describe a moderator is
"moderator".

The word "moderator" does not, to anyone who knows NOTES, imply "sole
moderator". And often, if you want to make it clear that there are others, you
can describe yourself as "a moderator".

	Andrew (moderator of 2 conferences).

    but what if we like calling each other 'comods' ? :-)
    
    Bonnie

    I want to know what a "bozon" is, the quantum unit of humor, or
    the quantum of stupidity? (both derived from "Bozo the Clown")
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    P.S. BTW, :-)  

    
    This has got to be the stupidest argument I have ever seen, and
    I am sick of it. The word "comod" makes perfect sense. "Mod" is short
    for moderator and "co" indicates that there is more than one, so
    that a moderator does not risk the appearance of presumptiousness.
                     
    I try to stay off the language issue so as not to hurt people's
    feelings or embarrass them. I was a proofreader for two summers, and
    believe me, I catch them all.
    
    I am all for preserving the language, but let's not get snotty about
    it. When I see _clear cut_ errors in this file, like writing "principle"
    instead of "principal", I can't believe anyone would bother about
    the gd "comods".                  
    
    
    Roberta                                                        

Re:  .121

>    � What's wrong with "moderator"? � [as opposed to "comod"]
>    
>    (1) "Moderator" is four letters longer than comod.

OK, then.  How about "mod"?  That's two letters shorter than "comod".

:-)   :-)

On a serious note, I always hate to see more newspeak added to the language,
and adding another complex word to do the job a nice simple word already does
perfectly well seems to me to be an example of that.  So I prefer "mod(erator)"
to "comod(erator)".

However, as Roberta observed, it really isn't important enough to get worked
up over.  If the mods prefer to call themselves comods, I guess they can.

						--Q

>    Wearing seatbelts is not an infringement of your rights any more
>    than any other law. All laws are curtailments of your rights to some
>    degree. Therefore, according to your logic, all laws are dangerous.
>    To carry your note to it's logical conclusion, all laws should be
>    abolished. 
 
 Then neither would be a law banning abortion. Are you in favor of such a law?

>    Last but certainly not least, Mark, with respect to your admonishment
>    to "calm down" I want to point out that this
>    is not the first time that infuriating "calm down" attitude has
>    been displayed by a man in this file, and I for one am damn sick
>    of it. 
 
 First of all, you are making the tacit assumption that I am "talking down" to
you. You are wrong. I would've put that into a reply to another man, I've put
it into replies to notes in other conferences that were written by women, and
the same has been written to me by both men AND women in this file, all without
anyone taking offense. If, in fact, you want an equal footing, you can't
discriminate against me because I am a man. You are out of line. Men that say
"calm down" to other men aren't talking down. Women that say "calm down" to
other women aren't talking down. Women that say "calm down" to men aren't talking
down. And I am NOT talking down. If you wish to run down the path that I am
treating you differently than I would a male noter, that is your choice. But
a simple inspection of this, MENNOTES, and SOAPBOX notesfiles will show that
you have not been treated ANY differently than any other noter with whom I've
had a disagreement.

>"Doctah" my *ss.

 Ah, you tempt me...

>    I never thought I'd say this, but dealing with the men in this file is
>     turning me into more of a radical feminist every day. 

 Right.

 The Doctah

>WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern" 39 lines  21-FEB-1989 16:59
 

>    Wearing seatbelts is not an infringement of your rights any more
>    than any other law. All laws are curtailments of your rights to some
>    degree. Therefore, according to your logic, all laws are dangerous.
>    To carry your note to it's logical conclusion, all laws should be
>    abolished. 
 
>> Then neither would be a law banning abortion. Are you in favor of such a law?

Your premise leads to the conclusion that all laws are dangerous;
that does not imply that my premise leads to the conclusion that all
laws are good. I think you need to go back to school and take a logic class.

As for the rest of my note, it stands. I have never seen a man in this
file called "defensive, emotional" or told to "calm down". I reprint 
the relevant portion here so no one has to jump back to the other 
note to read it.

    
    Last but certainly not least, Mark, with respect to your admonishment
    to "calm down" I want to point out that this
    is not the first time that infuriating "calm down" attitude has
    been displayed by a man in this file, and I for one am damn sick
    of it. (Now I'm REALLY not calm).  As I said in note 437, I don't
    appreciate the implication that if a woman pushes her point
    aggressively she is an hysterical female while it a man in the same
    situation is considered articulate and strong. "Doctah" my *ss.
                                                  
    I never thought I'd say this, but dealing with the men in this file is
     turning me into more of a radical feminist every day. 
    
    Roberta

    
    re: .122
    
    For me, the best way to describe the attitude that exists among the =WN=
    moderators is "co-mod" with or without a hyphen. It implies our sense of
    collegiality and shared responsibility for moderating the file.

    am

re: Doctah and Roberta

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't think the Processing Topic is the place for
folks to bash one another. Am I missing a point about the file in general in
this discussion? Do we need the equivalent of SOAPBOX's famed 'jerk' note?
(I've only heard about...).
	Mez

    Roberta,
    
    Perhaps neither you nor I should reply here on this subject, but
    I do feel you are correct, because of something Ed wrote.  He wrote,
    "I would've put that into a reply to another man,..." and then
    "I've put it into replies to ... women,..."
    
    He had to use the subjunctive for men, whereas he was able to use
    the indicative for women.  You can tell a lot from someone's use
    of the subjunctive, as I learned while reading _The_Star_Beast_.
    
    		*		*		*
    
    I prefer co-mod to comod, but would prefer either to "one of several
    moderators", which is the accurate answer in this notefile.
    
    						Ann B.

re: .132:

Gosh, Mez, you can't tell the Doctah to calm down: you're invalidating
Roberta's claim that men are never told to calm down in this notesfile.

Martin.

RE: .130
                                                  
>    I never thought I'd say this, but dealing with the men in this file is
>     turning me into more of a radical feminist every day. 
 
Radicalizing the middle-class: a tough job, but someone has to do it.

Martin.

    re .138
    
    Te he he... 

    Going back a few days...
    
    I want to retract a statement I made in 15.111 in which I claimed
    that the moderators of WOMANNOTES had initiated a harassment
    complaint against a noter in the past.  I believed that statement
    to be true when I wrote it, but as it has been vigorously denied
    by the WOMANNOTES moderators and as I have no evidence other than
    my (possibly faulty) memory of what I had been told in the past,
    I withdraw the statement and apologize for any problems it may
    have caused.
    
    What IS true is that the moderators of WOMANNOTES have responded to
    inquiries by Personnel in regards to harassment complaints against
    individuals who wrote notes in this conference.  This is good, and
    is similar to what I wrote as part of the policy in TAMARA::MENNOTES
    note 1.13.  See note 1.9 in this conference for a statement on
    harassment from a WOMANNOTES moderator.
    
    I have the utmost respect and admiriation for the WOMANNOTES
    moderators, even if we don't always agree on moderation style.  But
    in this aspect, we DO agree - harassment and abuse is inexcusable,
    and we will do whatever we can to abolish it.
    
    There are corporate policies on harassment and the penalties which
    can be administered to those found guilty.   You'd be much better
    off if you never had to find out what those were.  I wrote some
    additional thoughts on this matter in TAMARA::MENNOTES note 1.13 -
    I invite anyone who may be interested to read it. 
    
    My earlier remark was prompted by a previous reply that made what I
    felt to be inaccurate and provoking comments about MENNOTES conference
    policy.  Though none of this really belonged in this conference, I would
    ask that if anyone has questions or concerns over the policies of a
    conference, to please take it up with the moderators by MAIL, (or in
    the "processing" topic if that conference has one.)  Using an innocent
    conference as a "kangaroo court" for another conference's moderators is
    unfair to everyone.
    
    					Steve

	Since the "earlier reply" mentioned in .141 is still set hidden,
    	it seems only fair to reprint some of it (rather than try to
    	explain how the subject came up.)
    
    	>RE:  somewhere in .107  -< =maggie tarbet= >-
    
    	>> ...I think that you're correct in your assessment of =mennotes=
    	>> and =human_relations=, and I (at least!) appreciate your concern
    	>> for our file...but simply because those files have a tighter
    	>> focus than ours and their moderators are more interventionist
    	>> doesn't necessarily mean that we should follow their model
    	>> instead of our own!
    
    	> Maggie, I appreciate the moderators of this conference more
    	> than you can possibly imagine, however I'd like to caution other
    	> noters not to assume that all other moderators are as fair and
    	> open-minded as our moderators are (and to be extremely cautious
    	> when defending minority individuals/issues/causes in some other
    	> files, including one or more of the files listed above.)

    	My note goes on to describe the policy mentioned in Mennotes
    	note 1.13 (which I won't repeat here.)
        
    	For anyone who wants to take the time to see a DRASTIC difference
    	in moderator style, I would suggest comparing Womannotes 1.9
    	with Mennotes 1.13 (on the subject of harassing mail.)  Both
    	notes have essentially the same message, but the one in Mennotes
    	makes mention of "severe" consequences such as dismissal (from
    	the company,) whereas the policy note in Womannotes mostly requests
	that people not do it.  Quite a striking difference.
    
    	Another policy note worth reading in Womannotes (on the subject
    	of harassing mail) is 1.12.  In this note, the moderators talk
    	about having discovered a case of (sexually) harassing mail
    	and having sent the offender to EAP (*not* Personnel.)
    
    	Since the subject of this topic is "Processing" in Womannotes,
    	and since another noter and a *moderator* felt free to discuss
    	the differences in moderator style, I felt that adding my comments
    	to the exchange would not be a problem.
    
    	Since the comments regarding the differences in moderator style
    	have been augmented yet AGAIN in note .141, surely this note is
    	appropriate as a followup to that one.
    
    	Since the author of .141 has already invited people to see his
    	note in Mennotes, it won't be a problem for me to do the same
    	(adding the references to Womannotes for comparison.)

    	... Hopefully, three paragraphs of justification this time will
    	prevent continuation of the rathole of whether or not I should
    	be allowed to express my opinions with others on this matter...

Re:  250.30, and the (currently deleted) poem to which it refers

Am I weird or something?  I read the poem before it was deleted, and I got
a chuckle from the last stanza.  I didn't feel threatened or insulted, even
though I'm male.

It has always seemed to me that poems of that nature are a way for women to
express their own awareness of their worth as human beings, and to show a bit
of solidarity amongst themselves in a world where men still dominate the
power (and medical) structure.  I think that taking the last verse of that
poem as an insult or an incitement to violence is a complete misreading of the
poem.  To me it was a wry observation on how the world may often become in-
sensitive to a woman's feelings simply by virtue of the fact that men make
the decisions and design the medical machinery (even though they have the
best of intentions).

I saw nothing in that poem that a man should feel threatened or insulted by.
I hope that the decision to delete it did not come from the moderators; if it
did, I call upon them to rescind that decision and allow 350.25 to be reposted
in full.

						--Q

    
>I saw nothing in that poem that a man should feel threatened or insulted by.
>I hope that the decision to delete it did not come from the moderators; if it
>did, I call upon them to rescind that decision and allow 350.25 to be reposted
>in full.
> 
>    						--Q
 
    Seconded.
    
    DougO

    in re the past two..
    
    I also found nothing threatening or insulting to men in the poem..
    (in fact the woman who posted it showed it to her husband and he
    thought it was funny). I thought it was one of those kinds of 
    humorous stories where one wishes that the inventor of something
    that didn't  quite work out the way it was intended would experience
    the worst side of his/her  invention.
    
    But we had notes and mail saying that it was man hating, sexist,
    discriminatory etc to publish that..and since I don't feel that
    =wn= is a file of women who want to do ugly things to mens privates,
    or what ever in re men to women's same..
    I asked Pat to delete the last verse, and she, not in any way wishing
    to give offense to anyone, did so..tho I don't know if she has
    reposted it yet..
    
    
    but I do wish
    
    
    that ALL OF YOU WOULD LIGHTEN UP..!
    
    DERN IT
    
     one rather tired moderator
    
    nite gang
    
    Bonnie

    Though the question is sort of moot at this point, since the
    poem has been deleted, I wish to add my appreciation for the
    poem, *including* that last stanza. That some men find it
    sexist and man-hating simply croggles the mind and shows a
    decided lack of sense of humor (if we can't laugh at ourselves,
    what the hell is the point?)
    
    --- jerry

    I thought it was so funny I printed it and gave to my wife,
    and she thought it was a scream, too.
    
    Now, what we need is a complementary piece for men: 
    
                     ODE TO THE PROSTATE EXAM    
    
   
    Bruce                                 

    
    I'm with you guys. Nice to see there are some guys in this file
    who don't feel oppressed by us men-hating women!
    
    Bonnie, did you get a LOT of mail asking that it be deleted? 
    
    Roberta

    
    I certainly wasn't offended by the poem, and I agree with Bonnie
    about the need for a sense of humor.  The ability to laugh 
    is the thing that keeps me sane (well, kinda sane).  Jan and I spend
    the best hours of our day laughing - about the dogs and cats, about
    work, about ourselves...
    
    The best comedy is about life and death matters, and, at its best,
    it's more effective than anger and outrage.
    
    Ron

The question of the border between "joke" and "harrassment" is currently
being discussed in the Digital Notefile (HUMAN::DIGITAL), note 740.

The question that the recently deleted paragraph raises is whether
it contains "written material ... degrading to either gender ..."
(policy 6.03 - Harassment).  Policy 6.54 (use of computer systems)
specifically mentions "sexual or ethnic slurs or jokes."  Policy 6.24
(Employee conduct) specifically mentions behavior "in a manner offensive
to others."  The policies are in the Orange Book (in every manager's office),
available on VTX, and posted in Digital Note 740.4 et.seq.

Who are you to decide what is offensive to someone else?  Why should
it matter whether one, ten, or a thousand people complained?  The
fact that it is not offensive to you is completely irrelevant.
I would refer you to the discussion of Cheryl Tiegs posters in
volume 1 (all 200 replies) for further information.

Martin.

    Re: .150
    
    Martin,
           
    There is virtually nothing you can print or say that will not be
    offensive to someone. How do you draw the line? Do you consider
    the poem a "sexual ... slur" [Policy 6.54]?
                                                   
    If the poem can be seen as offensive or degrading to anyone, the
    group under attack is the medical profession, specifically male
    doctors. 
    
    Bruce
             

re: .151       
    There is virtually nothing you can print or say that will not be
    offensive to someone. How do you draw the line? Do you consider
    the poem a "sexual ... slur" [Policy 6.54]?

As a moderator, when someone complains, it's offensive.  This is
part of "valuing differences," in my opinion.

Again, I would direct the gentle reader to the Cheryl Tiegs discussion
in volume 1, where the "but I don't find ... offensive" argument
received extensive discussion.

Martin.

    
    re: .153 
    
    That's funny! I always thought high heels were invented by men to
    torture _us_!
    
    Roberta

    My husband *swears* that a sadistic woman invented the tie.
    
    							Pat

    Not only was the last verse funny and therefore a great release,
    but without it the poem seems to just hang in mid-air!
    Glad I got it when it was whole, but if I were the author, I
    don't think I'd want the "shortened" version published at all!
    
    With all sympathy for the mods,
    Nancy

        I thought  it  was  funny as it was (even if the last verse did
        cause a rapid  crossing of the legs!) Let's not be too ready to
        take offence at what  is  clearly  humour, especially when it's
        meant to take 'your' mind  off  what  certainly appears to be a
        painful procedure.
        
        Andy
        

    Well, it's all water under the bridge now.  You can't dictate
    appreciation of humor any more than you can dictate morals or religious
    beliefs, so we'll just have to live with it.

    
    I'd still sort of like to know just how many people protested. It's
    not enough to say "if even ONE person was offended...". Christ.
    There are people who'd probably find a houseplant offensive.
    
    Roberta

    Re: .159
    
    As a moderator (of another conference), I feel I can safely say
    that it *is* enough to say "if even ONE person was offended."  You
    cannot dictate how anyone can feel, not even one person.  If you
    don't accept the objection of one person, how many people does it
    take?  It simply isn't possible to quantify an "acceptable level
    of offense" before taking action.  And, from a practical point of
    view, one offended person can raise a huge stink and all the moderators
    I know of *hate* dealing with stinks.  It might be that the offended
    party is content with having lodged a protest, which makes life
    a lot simpler for everyone.  Part of being a moderator is trying
    to reduce the damage.
    

    
    Okay. So if I take offense at every note in this conference, should
    every note be set hidden? 
    
    I respect the moderators and don't want to make life difficult for
    them. I know they have to make difficult policy decisions. But I
    disagree that one person is enough.
    
    Roberta

    
    Steve, I often find your replies rather cryptic. I'm still not sure  
    which side of the issue you're on!
    
    I have found a lot of offensive notes written by men in this
    conference, but I don't go crying to the mods every time to get
    the note deleted. I just state what offended me and why. Or I go
    away for a little while (can't stay away for long, though :^) ).
    I really resent that one person has the power to decide what I will 
    or won't read in this conference. Especially when that person is
    a male, and this conference is supposed to be "of interest to women."
    
    I should probably make it clear that I don't direct this resentment
    at all towards the moderators. As I said, I have complete respect
    for the job they take the time to do. 
    
    Roberta

    Re:  .162
    
    It's hard to discuss such an extreme case, since it's hardly likely
    to happen.  Someone might claim to be offended at every note here,
    but I can't see how that could be true and still leave them with
    any opinions at all (except "I'm offended").  One person's offense
    does not necessarily lead to the hiding or deletion of a note. 
    The situation could be resolved in a number of ways and the final
    disposition is left to the moderators' discretion.  However, the
    option should always be there.  If we can discount the feelings
    of one person, why can't we discount the feelings of two people?
    And then why not three?  Why not ten?  Since we can't draw a line,
    we must have no line at all.  One person's feelings must be sufficient
    justification, whether or not that justification is ever applied.
    
    Moderation has very few hard-and-fast rules.  I don't think there's
    any hard-and-fast rule that says, "If one person is offended, this
    must be hidden/deleted."  However, I think there is a principle
    that says, "If one person is offended, that is sufficient reason
    for me to hide/delete this."

    I've shifted Don's note so that I could edit out a typographical
    error that could cause offence, which I'm quite sure was not Don's
    intention.
             
    						=maggie
    ==================================================================

    
       If it were simply a case of one of complaints being sufficient to
       cause deletion of a note, then the moderators ought to resign
       en masse.  They could be replaced by a fairly trivial program.
       
       In fact, though, moderators (or comods, as they seem to prefer)
       are expected to use reason and judgment.  When a complaint is
       voiced, it is the duty of the moderators to decide whether or not
       the purportedly offensive note does in fact violate the guidelines
       (whether they be explicit or implicit).
       
       If the moderators decide to let stand a note to which someone
       objects, then there is indeed the risk that the objecter
       (objectionable employee?) may complain to someone outside the
       conference (personnel, for example).  It's the duty, therefore, of
       the moderators to make careful judgments and good decisions -- but
       presumably, that's why they are moderators.
       
       I'd have to believe that anyone who complained about the poem to
       personnel would be laughed out of the building.  I think the
       comods went overboard, and they should have told the complainer,
       "Sorry you took offense, but the note is reasonable in the context
       of the conference".
       
       --Mr Topaz 

       Well, I read the poem and it was no "Satanic Verses". :*)

       At least the comods didn't send out a death squad.

I deeply appreciate Chelsea's comments on this topic. In particular, the 'no
moderator likes a stink' comment. After a while as comod, I can see 'em coming,
and I wince everytime someone in this file says something that I know _might_
cause more aggravation. And believe me, that's a lot of notes! S&M? perhaps...

I believe the course of action we generally encourage is for noters to deal
with each other (the 'leave me alone' theory of comoding :-). In this
particular case I don't think they did, but I believe the results would have
been the same.

Yes Roberta, people who complain directly to the comods get heard. Sometimes
heard and redirected (ie - 'talk to the other noter involved and work it
out'), but heard.

Personally, I'm interested in feedback from members of the community. I'm
_particularly_ interested in opinions proceeded by phrases like 'I'm not asking
for any particular action, just giving you feedback' [hint, hint]. I have this
hope that encouraging feedback evens out the squeaky wheel syndrome. Though the
other comods may kill me :-).
	Mez

    Dealing with complaints about notes is difficult.  I appreciate
    all the thoughts on this subject here.  Whereas, it is important
    to realize that everyone has a right to their say, we are all cut
    from different cloth, and what others might simply find annoying,
    some people (or person) might find very painful, or unjust.  We
    all have our soft spots, and when they are hit we sometimes feel
    we must do something about them (like write a letter to the noter
    who has caused the discomfort, or perhaps to the co-moderators).
    
    When it comes to a notesfile like this one - catering to such a
    diverse group of people, with so many different points of view and
    experiences, it is hard to know what action to take sometimes. 
    We co-mods do the best we can, and hope that all involved understand
    we are trying to do what we feel is best for the file, and for the
    people involved in the file.

    -Jody    

I would still like someone to explain how a note that jokingly recommends
violence to men is less offensive than a photograph of a woman in a swimsuit.

My memory of the Cheryl Tiegs discussion in v-1 is that the poster in
question was unprofessional, offensive to some, and has no place in
Digital.  How is a joking reference to sexual violence different?
Would the joke be more or less offensive if a woman were the receiver
of the violence rather than the instigator?

How do you expect me to support you when you say "that rape joke is
offensive to me" if you don't see how your jokes offend others?

Martin.

    <--(.174)
    
    I suspect the difference may be in the context, Martin:  the mammagram
    poem is couched as the thoughts of a woman herself undergoing a
    procedure she suspects is unnecessarily painful because the designer of
    the equipment didn't need to worry about being exposed to it.  Rather
    like the jokes which would doubtless arise if the standard prostate-
    palpation test were designed and only administered by a female
    urologist.  The joke is about an appropriate revenge for bad
    engineering ("See how THAT sucker'd like getting something intimate
    mashed!"), Martin, not about men particularly.  That men figure in it
    at all is a function of the nature of the test --intimate and only
    applied to women-- and the high probablilty that the equipment *was*
    designed by men who therefore would never experience its use. 
    
    The poster issue appears to me to have been quite different, but
    I'd be interested in hearing your arguments.
                
                                                =maggie

    RE: .159
    
>    I'd still sort of like to know just how many people protested. It's
>    not enough to say "if even ONE person was offended...". Christ.
							     ^^^^^^
    
    As a born again Christian, I deeply resent your blasphemous remark. I
    am offended by it and demand that you delete and apologise for it.
    
- Vikas

    Of course, I am kidding.  I agree with you and rest of the community
    that someone saying "The note is offensive" does not mean that it
    has to be deleted summarily.  As Don T. had already pointed out,
    moderators of a conference are supposed to use their judgement in
    deciding if a note is indeed offensive or not.  In general, there
    should not be vast split in moderator's judgement and the opinion
    of the community.  If they are out of synch, something is amiss
    and should be corrected.

- Vikas

Re:  .160 (chelsea)

>   If you don't accept the objection of one person, how many people does
>   it take?

One person should be sufficient to raise an issue.  But it should still be
left up to the moderators' discretion as to whether to act upon it.  In the
case at hand I agree with maggie in .175 that the poem was not (even joking-
ly) saying it would be neat if men's gonads were scrunched; rather, it was
poking fun at what might be a piece of poor engineering.  My reading of the
poem suggested that the author would in fact have sympathy for men who were
thus victimized (and that is the difference, Martin, between the poem and a
rape joke).

I think the appropriate action in this case would have been to point this out
to the aggrieved party (who may not have read the poem in the manner in which
it was intended), and to leave the poem intact.  But the real purpose of rais-
ing this issue in the first place was not to yell about a particular modera-
tion decision (which I agree must be a judgment call).  Rather, it was an
attempt to influence any future decisions the mods might have to make about
similar notes/poems that might arise later.

						--Q

re :175:
                     -< It's not about "sexual violence"! >-

Maggie, the *entire poem* is about sexual violence: violence to the
woman's body caused, the author believes, by a man.  (I forgot: was it
"man" or "a man").  She has no specific knowledge that it was designed
by a man: her belief is prejudice.  At least, she didn't suggest the race
or religion of the designer.  Would the poem be more or less appropriate
if that author had written that the machine was designed by a black man
in answer for 200 years of slavery?

As with a prostrate exam, the doctor has to balance the physical pain
(and/or embarassment) of an exam with the potential physical harm that
might result from not doing the exam or not doing it properly.  (The plot
of a very famous Swedish novel turns on the unwillingness of a female intern
to perform a prostrate exam on a male patient because of her embarassment
about the procedure.)  From what little I know of medical procedures,
I would be extremely suprised if the machine had been designed without
input from women and a careful balancing of the pain of the procedure against
the risk of not detecting cancer.  I.e., the mammogram might very well
have been much more painful than it is.

>    The poster issue appears to me to have been quite different, but
>    I'd be interested in hearing your arguments.

As I've said several times before, the message I got from the poster
discussion is that you don't tell someone else what they find offensive.
"Valuing differences," remember?

Martin.

    
    RE: .176
    
    Actually, you were right. I shouldn't have said "Christ". I really
    could have offended someone, and I apologize if I did.
    
    Re: 178
    
    The woman writing the poem is not prejudiced to assume that a man
    invented it. First of all, the assumption is that a woman would
    know how it feels, and therefore could NOT have invented such a thing.
    More importantly, however, is the fact that since men have had more
    opportunities to be inventors and engineers, chances are the machine
    WAS invented by a man. This has nothing to do with prejudice.
    Actually, I'd be curious to know how long ago the machine was invented.
    
    Roberta
                        

 I am somewhat amused to see a theme that once caused me considerable grief to
arise again in a different light. The theme is "who can tell whom what they 
ought not to find offensive?" Some of the very same people who were upset with 
me for making a judgement call about what I thought was a reasonable reaction to
a given stimulus seem to be doing the same in this instance. It is not always
reasonable to be offended by a given stimulus; as Roberta stated, someone could
claim offense to every note in the conference. (To which, one might ask why they
are here in the first place.)

 I am perturbed by the stance that it is necessarily bad that a male (in this
conference directed towards females) could cause the deletion of a note by
his taking offense to the notes contents. This seems to imply that men are
inherently less valuable in a conference comprised mainly of women. I'm sure
no one would want the same to be said of women in a conference comprised mainly
of men. Part of the price we pay for equivalence is that unreasonable people of
the opposite sex can disrupt things for the majority.

 I also laugh at the idea that since files exist that have membership 
requirements, we ought to have all female or all male conferences. Well, 
actually there's no mirth involved. I am depressed that people would seek to 
segregate themselves in such a way. Such an action based on gender or race or
an equally arbitrary method devalues each person in the company.

 Finally, I am dismayed that anyone found offense with the poem. It was cute and
humorous, and I liked it. I wonder if the offended party was really offended or
simply wanted to disrupt or retaliate. In any case, I find that to be offended
by that poem was an overreaction, IMO.

 The  Doctah

 Eagle-

 If you do not like the discussion at hand, use Next unseen. Perhaps Martin and 
Maggie's conversation would best be had in mail, perhaps not. If we do not
continue to allow discussion to exist on this subject, those of us who are
interested may well miss an important point.

 the doctah (who_thinks_eagles_ought_to_eat_raw_fish_instead_of_caf_"food" :-)

    <--(.182)
    
�     ... unless you were speaking as moderator ... 

    Just for the record, Eagle (and anyone else who might wonder), if
    you don't see the "moderator flag" on my notes, I'm just speaking
    as my private self.  No sandbagging. 
    
    						=maggie
    

    
    Maybe I shouldn't have said the part about it being especially
    disturbing because a man had protested. I take that part back. 
    
    I still think there are ways to make it known you are offended by
    something without censoring it out of the conference. 
    
    Meg, I didn't mean to suggest that people shouldn't go to you to 
    complain. I guess I was trying to preempt any claims of hypocrisy (like
    in Doctah's note, if I read it right), by pointing out that even
    though there have been notes I found offensive, I didn't try to keep 
    other people from reading them. I really can't think of a case where
    I would ask that a note be deleted, no matter how offensive. I'd
    prefer to get in there and kick some ***  :^)
                                                       
    re. : Eagles and cafeteria food - now I REALLY BELIEVE you work 
    in Tewksbury! :^) 
                                                 
    re: Martin
    
    I'm with you, Eagles.

    Perhaps personal animosities should be taken to mail, as well. 
    If you must belittle someone's concerns, it would make life a lot
    easier for everyone if you did it outside of the context of this
    notes file.
    
    Frankly, I'm not sure of the point of the last several replies.
    The matter was discussed; the moderators, objectors and author all
    reached agreement on what to do; the agreement was implemented.
    I don't know what all the "Gee, I thought it was funny, why don't
    people lighten up" responses were trying to accomplish.  The matter
    is resolved.  If you object to the way it was handled, that's a
    subject for the processing topic.  If you want to protest the outcome,
    that's a matter for the processing topic.  If you're trying to
    accomplish something specific, that's appropriate for the processing
    topic.  If you just want tell us about how magnanimous you are and
    how you're not easily offended and how people who are offended are
    just troublemakers, spare us.  I, for one, really don't care and
    I dislike having to wade through content-free responses in order
    to see if there's anything of substance here.  Yes, it's a perfectly
    natural reaction to try to explain that *you* weren't offended,
    but try to restrain yourself.  Thank you.
               

    
    RE .188
    
    
   > is resolved.  If you object to the way it was handled, that's a
   > subject for the processing topic.  If you want to protest the outcome,
   > that's a matter for the processing topic.  If you're trying to
   > accomplish something specific, that's appropriate for the processing
    topic.
    
    Hi. Would you please be a little more clear about whom you are addressing,
    so that we will know which of us need to defend ourselves? I believe
    I was taking issue with the outcome, and not with the question of
    whether or not someone should be offended. Are you talking to me
    here? I sincerely am not sure.
    
    BTW, I think it's fine that men spoke up to say that they
    weren't offended. It may seem a little late, considering the issue
    has been ruled on, but maybe those people felt there was a chance
    of changing the mods' minds. When someone expresses offense at
    something, the only way the mods have to gauge the validity of deleting
    something (aside from their own judgement) is to see how other people 
    feel. If every other
    male in this conference WAS NOT offended, I want to know about it,
    and I would imagine the mods would too. I find it very important
    and valuable to know that many men have publicly said they were
    not offended, and only one has publicly said he was. 
           
    I really hate it when people try and tell other people what to write
    and what to keep to themselves. You never know when someone else
    is interested in something you aren't interested in. Thanks.
                            
    Roberta

re: .188
    Perhaps personal animosities should be taken to mail, as well. 
    If you must belittle someone's concerns, it would make life a lot
    easier for everyone if you did it outside of the context of this
    notes file.
    
Actually, Chelsea, as the object of their affliction, I was starting
to enjoy the replies.  They were, after all, criticizing me for what
I wrote, and not for what I was which, in my opinion, is perfectly
reasonable.  Of course, if they do want to call me an opinionated,
condesending, loudmouth boor, they really should get in line with
the rest of my friends.

Besides, there's an old Yiddish expression: "if one person calls you
a donkey, ignore him; if two people call you a donkey, be concerned;
if a third person calls you a donkey, buy a saddle."

M.

    The poem seems to offend some women and some men, and not offend
    other women and other men.
    
    There are many disagreements that are not gender-specific. This may be
    one of them, even though on the surface it *looks* like it is a gender
    dispute. Or is there a humongous rathole just below said surface,
    and we are slip-sliding in? 
         
    Bruce 

    What is deeply offensive to me is the secretiveness involved here.   I
    question the integrity of anyone who sees fit to censor other people
    (by asking the moderators to remove something) but does not want to 
    take public responsibility for this action.  While the moderators
    might feel that they had no choice, in some nasty way this incident
    seems akin to blackmail.  Remaining anonymous while attempting to control
    others is cowardly - and doing so while claiming to stand up for
    one's principles is laughable.
    
    Sue Kallas

    Sue,
    
    As a moderator I feel I must defend the right of individuals to
    be able to complain about something that they found offensive
    without bringing it to the public file. Although it may not be
    the case with each complaint, it is entirely possible that a
    more sensitive person would not speak out if required to do
    so publically. We would first encourage anyone who has a problem
    with another person's note to write to them directly, before
    contacting the moderators. Further complaining directly in the file
    often leads to 'cat fights' which are disruptive of the file.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .193
    
    While the objectors might not be known the noting community at large,
    certainly the moderators and probably the author of the note will
    know.
    
    Re: .189
    
    >Would you please be a little more clear about whom you are addressing,
    >so that we will know which of us need to defend ourselves?
    
    Since it was not addressed to a particular note, it was addressed
    to the members at large.
    
    >When someone expresses offense at something, the only way the mods
    >have to gauge the validity of deleting something (aside from their
    >own judgement) is to see how other people feel.
    
    I believe we've already gone over this.  Moderation by majority
    rule is not the style of moderation traditionally employed.
    
    >I find it very important and valuable to know that many men have
    >publicly said they were not offended, and only one has publicly
    >said he was.
    
    I don't.  Many, many, many readers never write to express their
    opinions, so public support or opposition is not a fair measure
    of anything.
    
    >I really hate it when people try and tell other people what to
    >write and what to keep to themselves.
    
    Which is what this whole argument is about, n'est-ce pas?  "Gee,
    *I* thought it was funny; what are you raising such a stink about?"

    In Florida, cops can stop people with "offensive" bumper stickers.
    One person that was stopped had a sticker that said "Humpty Dumpty
    did not fall down; Humpty Dumpty was pushed!"
    
    Crazy world, n'est pas?
    
    K.C.

re: .195
    
>    I believe we've already gone over this.  Moderation by majority
>    rule is not the style of moderation traditionally employed.
 
I was hoping you could see the subtle difference between majority
_rule_ and input from the community. I see nothing wrong with the
latter. If we are not permitted to express opinions, then what do we
have your permission to do?

>    >I really hate it when people try and tell other people what to
    >write and what to keep to themselves.
>    
>    Which is what this whole argument is about, n'est-ce pas?  "Gee,
>    *I* thought it was funny; what are you raising such a stink about?"

No, this argument is NOT about telling people what they may say. At least
it wasn't until you decided to do so. This argument was about insisting
on the deletion of certain notes. Not,"what are you raising such a
stink about," but "why are YOU deciding that _I_ am not allowed to read
this?"

Roberta

	Didn't Freud once observe that "Sometimes a cigar is 
	just a cigar"? I hold that if, every once in a great
	while, everyone decided that sometimes a joke is just
	a joke, and decided to laugh and move on, instead of
	trying to analyze it to death, we'd all be happier.


						Tom_K

    Re: .197
    
    >I see nothing wrong with the latter.
    
    True, in isolation, there's nothing wrong with it.  But the context
    implies that something would be done with it.
    
    >If we are not permitted to express opinions, then what do we have
    >your permission to do?
    
    Good heavens, what gave you the impression that you needed my
    permission for anything?  I've expressed my opinions about what
    I like and don't like.  If you're going to give such weight to them,
    perhaps I should branch out into other things that annoy me.
    
    >No, this argument is NOT about telling people what they may say.
    
    This particular segment of it, between you and me?  No.  In the
    context of the entire discussion about the stupid poem?  Yes, it
    has been an issue.  Had I been one who objected to the poem, there
    are a number of replies to which I could have responded, "Why are
    YOU deciding that _I_ should not be offended by this?  Why are YOU
    deciding that _I_ should not object to this?"
    
    >"why are YOU deciding that _I_ am not allowed to read this?"
    
    The objectors did not decide what you are or are not allowed to
    read.  The moderators and the author and the objectors decided.
    An objector can protest, but cannot control the outcome unless that
    power is granted by the moderators and/or the author of the offending
    note.  If you fear a dictatorship of a minority, where anything
    can be erased because of one objection, your fear is groundless.
    That's one of the things moderators are around to prevent.

    
>    >If we are not permitted to express opinions, then what do we have
>    >your permission to do?
>    
>    Good heavens, what gave you the impression that you needed my
>    permission for anything?  

Well, gee. Maybe it was this:

>    natural reaction to try to explain that *you* weren't offended,
>	but try to restrain yourself.  Thank you.
	    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Like I said, I don't like the idea of people telling other people what they 
can and can't write. That goes for poems, and it goes for opinions
on poems.


>    are a number of replies to which I could have responded, "Why are
>    YOU deciding that _I_ should not be offended by this?  Why are YOU
>    deciding that _I_ should not object to this?"
 
You can be offended by whatever you want. But don't decide for me what _I_
can or can't read. At least not without my (and others') input, which is 
what you wish now to suppress.
   
>    >"why are YOU deciding that _I_ am not allowed to read this?"
>    
    The objectors did not decide what you are or are not allowed to
>    read.  The moderators and the author and the objectors decided.

If the objector has a say in what is deleted, then those in favor of
the note in question must also have a say. So why are you telling us
to "restrain" ourselves? 

Roberta

P.S. It's good to argue with another woman for a change. Up until now
I was afraid I was leaving myself open to charges of man-hating
hysteria.  :^)

    If the objector is a "person of good repute" then in effect they *do*
    unilaterally control whether something is hidden/deleted, Chelsea,
    since their complaints cannot be dismissed as being ill-motivated.
    They may in fact *be* ill-motivated, but that's of no help if it cannot
    be proven against them.
    
    						=maggie 

    Re: .200
    
    "Try to restrain yourself" has something to do with permission?
    I'm afraid I don't see that at all.  As far as I can tell, it leaves
    the locus of power with the reader.  There is no statement of control
    on my part.  I do not control your restraint or your expression
    and I don't see how those words imply that I do.
    
    >But don't decide for me what _I_ can or can't read.
    
    I don't decide anything.  However, as a moderator in another
    conference, I can decide to delete or hide a note.  As an author
    of notes, I can decide to delete or hide a note.  Those people have
    the power and the responsibility to decide.
    
    >At least not without my (and others') input, which is what you
    >wish now to suppress.
    
    The time for input passed a looooong time ago, since the issue was
    already resolved to the satisfaction of the author and the objectors.
    The replies I saw mostly said, "Gee, I thought it was funny; what's
    the fuss about."  I see no point to those replies.  They have no
    purpose.  If their point was "I think the decision was wrong, I
    want the poem back," they should express themselves more clearly.
    What I would like to see is everyone leaving a dead issue behind
    them and moving on to other things.  No, I don't want to see any
    more replies about the stupid thing, especially when those replies
    contribute nothing new.  I do want to discourage them.  But suppress
    them?  Even if I wanted to, I couldn't without the cooperation of
    the moderators.
    
    >If the objector has a say in what is deleted, then those in favor
    >of the note in question must also have a say.
    
    On what grounds?  What purpose would that serve?  So what if you're
    not offended.  Does that make the offended person any less offended?
    Of course not.  Your saying, "Gee, I'm happy" doesn't make the problem
    go away.  It must still be dealt with.  If that means deleting the
    note, then so it goes.  That's something worked out by the people
    directly involved in the problem.  This doesn't mean you can't express
    your opinion.  So far as the conference guidelines allow, you can
    say whatever you want.  It does mean that your opinion might not
    carry the weight you think it ought to.  It all depends on the
    situation.
    
    >So why are you telling us to "restrain" ourselves?
    
    Because twenty to thirty content-free replies annoy me.  If you
    have a constructive purpose, state it.  Otherwise, I don't care
    what you think is funny and I don't see this note as being the 
    appropriate place to discuss your liberal sense of humor.  (And
    yes, that is the generic you.)
    
    One of the reasons this discussion has become an argument is that
    I lost patience with the stupid replies and then saw what border
    on personal attacks against someone who *did* state they were offended.
    That's the sort of thing I occasionally see in Soapbox and I reacted
    the way I do in Soapbox -- bluntly and with little compunction for
    alienating anyone.  I have not been nice lately in discussing this.
    I am not going to be nice.  Civil I can mostly manage, but I am
    much too annoyed with this whole stupid business to be nice.

I hope we've come to a resting place. Let's try to turn the annoyance level
down. It seeps through the terminal.
	Mez

    
    I agree this has gone on long enough, so this will be my last word
    on the subject. The time for input passed without that input because
    no one knew that deletion of the note was seriously being considered.
    When that became obvious, people spoke up. There's nothing wrong
    with that. If you don't like it, maybe you can get the moderators
    to delete those notes too.
    
    We are _all_ directly involved in the question, not just the objector,
    the writer and the mods. Therefore, we should all speak up, and
    not let others tell us what we "should" (read "may") write about.
    
    Roberta

                          <** Moderator Response **>
    
    I would second Mez's request ...while also agreeing with Roberta that
    it's nice to see two strong women being able to argue with one another,
    rather than having every face-off be between women and men.  And it's
    especially gratifying to see the exchange not produce wounded feelings
    and angry departures, which is unfortunately too often characteristic
    of F:M exchanges.
    
    						=maggie

    Re: .204
    
    >There's nothing wrong with that.
    
    Nor have I said that it is wrong.  Inappropriate, nonproductive
    and annoying in this case, but not wrong.
    
    >If you don't like it, maybe you can get the moderators to delete
    >those notes too.
    
    I don't consider that an appropriate response to the situation.
    Even if I asked it, I doubt the moderators would comply.  What makes
    you think I could get them to do it?
    
    Part of the issue is the question of trusting the moderators.  If
    you don't believe that the moderators took time to examine the
    situation in full, then perhaps you would be more comfortable
    elsewhere.  If you don't believe that moderators are usually very
    reluctant to delete notes, then perhaps you would be more comfortable
    elsewhere.  After all, who knows what those hasty and eager moderators
    will delete next?
    
    >We are _all_ directly involved in the question
    
    I had a feeling you would object to that.  Unless an individual's
    input is *required* in the process of problem-solving, that individual
    is not directly involved.  That individual's involvement is secondary.
    It might be that the moderators want more views than those they
    have gotten from themselves and from those noters they might have
    discussed the matter with off-line.  If that's the case, they will
    no doubt ask for it.  Feedback is not harmful, but any individual
    response is not necessarily useful.  If the feedback raises a new
    point that the moderators had not yet discussed, they will probably
    respond to it.  Otherwise, the feedback probably doesn't reveal
    anything new.  After several days and several notes of nothing new
    or productive, I reserve the right to get annoyed at the waste of
    my time and the waste of disk space.
    
    >not let others tell us what we "should" (read "may") write about.
    
    If I want you to read "may," I will write "may."  If I want you
    to read "should," I will write "should."  When I note, my goal is
    to communicate.  I can't do that if I don't say what I mean.  Either
    you didn't pay close attention to what I said about this earlier
    or you chose not to believe it.

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    um, gyns, could I repeat Mez's plea for peace?  It is definitely
    refreshing to see no blood being spilt, but it's better not to press
    our luck. 
    
    						=maggie

    No, it was sick but that was a temp thing.  The case of the slows
    it's had lately is file frag (I hope).  I have a crunch job submitted
    for 2 am. that I hope will fix the problem.
    
    						=maggie

    
    
    I think it's awful what happened to the Mammogram note, and I guess
    from the number of "set hiddens" at the end of that string, I'm
    not alone in my feelings there.
    
    Request:  Could we move all the process stuff that happened after
    the poem here, so that the mammogram string could be more useful
    to women seeking info?  Mammograms can save lives, and I'd hate
    to think of some newcomer having to sift through all our (I include
    my own note in this category) stuff when she really wants to know
    about what it's like to have a mammogram, when to have one, etc.
    
    Process_Stuff:
    
    Someone (maybe it was Roberta) said something about it being
    inappropriate for Martin to complain about the poem.  I strongly
    disagree with that.  (Not picking on you, Roberta, but I did want
    to respond to what you said.)  I think Martin's point about all
    of us having the right to say when we are offended is very important,
    and I agree with it.
    
    I have noticed a real difference, however, in the way that men and
    women (in this file, anyway) handle those kinds of complaints, and
    I want to describe it here to see if anyone else has noticed this
    difference.
    
    It seems to me that if a man writes something that women find
    offensive, the women write all kinds of notes about it, trying to
    explain why they're offended.  (There are, of course, exceptions
    here, but I'm talking about a trend not a rule.)  It has struck
    me that as women write these persuasive notes, their hope is that
    the man(men) will UNDERSTAND their position, will understand why
    they are offended.  I see very few women demanding retractions,
    apologies or deletions, and they seem more likely to raise the
    objection in the file than to go to a moderator for action.
    
    When men read something that they feel is offensive to men, however,
    it has been my experience that they are much more likely than women
    to go directly to a moderator and ask that the material be removed,
    or (in some cases) ask the author to delete her note.  It seems to
    me that it's only if there is backlash around the deletion that
    the man (or a man) will explain why he's offended.
    
    Interestingly enough, it is often the women who are accused of
    censorship when what they really wanted to do (in my opinion) is
    educate the man who has offended them.  Now if you frame this
    debate in terms of "equality" and "reverse discrimination" then
    of course, the discussion has little room to develop.  But if others
    of you have noticed this same difference in the way that men and
    women respond to notes that offend them, then I think that is something
    we might discuss.  Although many grow frustrated over the debates
    that go on in notes like the Cheryl Tiegs note, I think a lot more
    learning takes place when someone says, "This material is offensive
    to me because..." than when someone demands that a note be deleted.
    It strikes me as somewhat similar to the difference between:
     o reading Freud and talking about what in his writings feels sexist 
       				AND 
     o removing all books by Freud from a library because you feel they
       are sexist.
    
        
    Justine
           

    
    Justine:
    
    I never said it was inappropraite for Martin to complain about the
    poem. Please reread what I wrote and tell me where the misunderstanding
    took place.
    
    Roberta
    
    P.S. I don't understand what was found offensive in Suzanne's note
    that caused it to be set hidden. I appreciated her support
    and didn't think she wrote anything negative toward CHELSEA, so
    I don't see what the problem was. I would have replied myself but
    the file was write-locked for cleaning when I went in this morning.

	RE: 250.54
    
    	250.53>I just feel so sorry for people who have no concept of humor.
    
    	> The reason comments like this bother me (and why I'm so tired of
    	> seeing them) is that they come perilously close to that dangerous
    	> and politically incorrect error of invalidating feelings.  
    
    	Well, to be honest, I'm getting tired of people not being able
    	(or willing, in some cases) to tell the difference between
    	opinions and feelings (and then requesting sanctuary for
    	their opinions by asking people not to invalidate their feelings.)
    
    	> The implied message:  "You shouldn't be upset, you're just being 
    	> a party-pooper." If someone could explain to me how this differs 
    	> significantly from invalidating someone's feelings, I'm
    	> certainly curious.

    	No, the implied message is:  "If you are upset and you want
    	to complain about a poem that others found innocuous, you are
    	within your rights.  However, don't try to tell us that a
    	harmless little poem about MAMMOGRAMS is a call to sexual violence,
    	because it is not.  If you think that it is, that is your opinion,
    	and your opinion doesn't fall under the same santuary as feelings.
    	I have every right to disagree and to voice my own opinion about
    	this subject as well."
    
    	The poem about mammograms is *not* the "identical issue" as
    	the Cheryl Tiegs note (and it is *not* about equality and freedom,
    	except perhaps the "freedom" to control women by throwing our
    	own victories for equality back in our faces and using them
    	against us to demoralize us with protests about isolated incidents
    	that have no significance whatsoever in a cultural context.)
    
    	I'm getting tired of seeing, "Well, if you want me to support
    	you in your wish for equality, then <insert appropriate string
    	attached to support>..." 

    	Martin, you either support us or you don't.  If you support
   	us only as long as we do what you want us to do (and agree to
    	accept your definitions of "equality" no matter how you choose
    	to apply them,) then you aren't really supporting us, as far
    	as I am concerned.
    
    	How free are we (as women) if we have to walk on eggs around
    	men by worrying about offending them with harmless humor involving
    	a life-saving medical procedure?  (Breast cancer is still the
    	leading cause of death for women, if I'm not mistaken.)  
    
    	I'm getting tired of hearing some men demand that we "grant"
    	them what they have defined as *their* equality and freedom
    	(from us, I suppose) before we can even see the light at the
    	end of the tunnel about getting OUR equality and freedom.

>	Martin, you either support us or you don't.  If you support
>       us only as long as we do what you want us to do (and agree to
>       accept your definitions of "equality" no matter how you choose
>       to apply them,) then you aren't really supporting us, as far
>       as I am concerned.

    I take issue with this position. There are almost no organizations
    that  I  support  fully.  I  belong  to several organizations that
    generally  agree  with  my  positions,  and  support them. I don't
    always  agree  with  them, and I make my disagreements known. That
    doesn't  mean  that  I  don't  support  them.  Martin  is  far too
    discriminating to offer blind allegiance to any cause.

    It is  important to realize that arguing against a position that a
    group  takes  may be an attempt to support that group by asking it
    to rethink some position, or at least find a stronger argument for
    it.  The  either  support us or don't is a request for chauvinism,
    not a careful study of the issues.

--David

    
    
    
re: Note 15.214
    
    
    >I  support  fully.  I  belong  to several organizations that
    >generally  agree  with  my  positions,  and  support them. I don't
    >always  agree  with  them, and I make my disagreements known. That
    >doesn't  mean  that  I  don't  support  them.  Martin  is  far too
    >discriminating to offer blind allegiance to any cause.
     
    We are not talking about supporting an _organization, though. We're
    talking about supporting a _principle_. Martin can't say, "I am
    only in favor of equal treatment of the sexes if you do what I want."
    (Not a direct quote.)
    You either believe in equality or you don't.
    
    
    Roberta
    
    
    

    

    	RE: .214
    
    	David, I'm not asking for blind allegiance, nor do I think it's
    	necessary to support a minority cause "properly."
    
    	However, when a person starts trying to use his "status" as a 
    	member of the majority to influence the cause with direct (or 
    	implied) threats of withdrawal unless his agenda is given more 
    	importance than the goals of the cause, then the person starts 
    	to do more harm than good to the people he allegedly supports.
    
    	If a supporter of a cause (of which he is not a member) spends
    	more time trying to "educate" or "shape" the members than he
    	spends LISTENING to what they say (and how they feel,) then
    	again, I have to question whether he is a true supporter or
    	not.
    
    	What makes him think that his perspective on our issues is more
    	accurate than ours, in other words.  And why use implied threats
    	to get his message across (i.e., "How can you expect my support
    	unless you...")?

 I think the issue here is whether the women of this notes conference are
willing to give a single male complainant the same respect that they would
demand in a male dominated conference. A note was written. Someone found it 
offensive. It was deleted. There was a huge backlash (including me) that claimed
the note should not have been deleted. The exact same situation occurs in
other male dominated conferences when a women complains about a particular note
and has it deleted. There is an equally large backlash (including some women)
that the note should not have been deleted. Since we concede to the wishes of
a single female complainant in other files, it would be inconsistent to 
overrule a male in this file. I believe that Martin is simply calling for
the same treatment of males by the majority in this conference that females get
by the majority of male dominated conferences. 

 To claim to be in favor of complete sexual equality while practising sexual
inequality diminishes your contribution to "the cause." Hypocrisy makes the
cause look bad. How do you respond to those who say "If they want equality so
bad, why can't they start it in their own conference?"

 The Doctah

    I think a lot of stuff has come up around validation of feelings, and
    I'd like to respond to it.

    First of all, I agree with Martin and Chelsea that if we're going to talk 
    about validating feelings, then we have to extend that same respect to 
    everyone.  If someone says, "This hurts me," I think we must respect that.

    Now this is a tricky thing, because the very real danger exists that
    the language of emotion will be abused.  I think it's quite likely
    that some men - in order to stop women from expressing anger, or more 
    accurately to stop women from giving some energy to each other instead of 
    focussing all of it on men - use the one tactic that is almost sure to
    get women thinking about them again.  "This hurts me."  A disclaimer
    seems in order here: I know that sometimes men really are hurt.  I am
    only suggesting that sometimes they may claim to be hurt in order
    to stop an action that makes them angry.

    So if you accept this premise that I've outlined, that men sometimes
    claim they are hurt so that we will stop what we're doing, then we
    really get into murky waters.  We end up, I think, trying to determine
    and then prove that a man is falsifying his claim (of pain).  I think
    that we must work to avoid this, because we end up saying things like,
    "You don't really feel that way,"  and then we are really sunk, because
    men can then justifiably say, "You are denying my pain... just as you
    have accused me of doing to you."

    So what can we do?  I think we have some choices.  Here are some that
    I see:

    1.  Support some woman-only space.   

    	o  Those of us who wish to spend some of our energy trying to 
	   understand the feelings of men and trying to educate them 
           about our feelings can really benefit by having some time
    	   when we don't have to do that.  Sometimes I think woman-only 
	   space can be like a "Teacher's lounge" for teachers.  Even 
	   teachers who love and respect their pupils enjoy that little 
	   bit of time they get to spend alone with their colleagues
	   and away from their students.

	o  Those of us who do not wish to spend energy on men also
	   have a right to woman-only space, and they're often
	   the ones who work to create it.

    2.  Avoid attacking the validity of the claim.  Even if we feel that a
        man is using the language of pain to interfere with women's activities,
        I think we have to assume that the claim may be sincere.

	o  I think it's possible, though, to acknowledge the right of the
	   man to his feelings and still discuss both the method in which
	   he raised those feelings and the content of those feelings
	   (if he is open to explaining more about why he's feeling what
	   he's feeling, but respect for feelings means to me that
	   no one really *has* to explain him/herself -- if it hurts,
	   it hurts.  I just think that discussing why something is
	   painful can be really valuable.)


    I think that a woman's claim to her feelings is so important that it's
    better to have some men take advantage of the sanctity of feelings
    than to tarnish the claim that we have made that our feelings are valid.
    I think that the only solution, really, to the abuses that occur is
    to refuse to wage battles that are not good for us.  Denying men's feelings 
    still puts the focus on men.  I think that no matter how frustrated we may
    get at times when it seems like our work is being sabotaged, we are still
    able to grow and learn if we focus on each other.. and not on the acts of
    men.

    At the WITCH lecture last night, Alex Dobkin told a wonderful story about
    a group of women who got together occasionally to have woman-only space.
    It seemed that no matter where they went, word of it always leaked out to
    the men who often tried to break up the gatherings.  One night a group
    of men, armed with chains and other weapons, broke into a house where the
    women were meeting... with the intention of beating them.  The women
    formed a circle and locked eyes, and when the men arrived, they were
    so overwhelmed by the power that the women had when they focused only
    on each other, that they left without harming anyone.  I think that story
    is a wonderful model for how I want to be when I'm faced with hostility
    from men.

    Justine

    
    
    
Note 15.217       
    
    
    

    
    
    
    
    
    
    > Since we concede to the wishes of
   >a single female complainant in other files, it would be inconsistent to 
   >overrule a male in this file. 
    
Unless of course the man's belief that (reverse) sexism was at work was wrong.
    If almost every other man in the conference did not see this as
    a case of sexism, then there is reason to at least _question_ whether
    this man's (or woman's or whoever's) opinion was valid. (Pls note
    I did not say feeling; I said opinion).
    
> How do you respond to those who say "If they want equality so
>bad, why can't they start it in their own conference?"
 
    If you yourself were not offended by the note, then how can you
    say that it demonstrated the practice of sexual inequality?  
    
    If Martin had proved that the note was sexist, then he could say,
    "I will not help sexist women achieve equal treatment." Since he was able 
    to convince almost no one that sexism was present here, his threat
    to withdraw support from the cause of equality (not that I've seen
    his support but that's another issue) can be seen as no more
    than an attempt to cloud the issue (and maybe scare a few bitches 
    into line).
    
    Roberta
    
    P.S. Should be "badly", not "bad".
    
    

.217 was beautifully written.  Thank you, Justine.

	-Neil

    I'm not about to judge whether anyone is actually doing this, but
    I don't think that equal treatment should be a prerequisite for
    giving support to the idea of equal treatment for others.  After
    all, if we're in favor of equal treatment, we can hardly claim that
    one group is entitled to it before any other.  I believe that progress
    should proceed in parallel.  It's riskier, of course, since you
    have no way to guarantee that your "concessions" will be matched.
    However, very few things worth doing can be done without risk.
    
    I agree with Justine's observations.  The system can be abused.
    However much one suspects abuse, though, one really can't *know*
    unless one is a mind-reader.  It's basically the same principle
    as innocent until proven guilty -- inconvenient at times, but the
    alternatives are worse.
    
    In regards to Suzanne's comments on feelings and opinions, the
    distinction is not always clear.  I've observed that people can
    be very emotionally attached to their opinions.

Re: .215
>We are not talking about supporting an _organization, though. We're
>    talking about supporting a _principle_. 

    Supporting a  principle  is meaningless unless one acts in support
    of it. Martin has clearly expressed his belief in the principle of
    equality.

    The point  is that there are a lot of good causes out there, and I
    have  only  limited  time  and  money to devote to them. One of my
    criteria  is  "Do  I believe that this group is generally fighting
    for  things  I  believe  in,  and  do  I  consider  their  tactics
    effective?"  It is entirely reasonable to say, this group's raison
    d'etre  is  wonderful,  but they are not taking an approach that I
    consider  reasonable,  and  therefore I won't give them my time or
    money. 

Re: .216

    We're not  trying  to use our "status" to influence the cause. I'm
    stating  that  if you do things in a way I agree with, I'll donate
    my  time  and money. I will certainly listen to why a group thinks
    their  way  is appropriate, but no group has a right to my efforts
    merely because they claim that their cause is worthwhile.


--David

    	RE:  .222
    
    	> I'm stating that if you do things in a way I agree with, I'll
    	> donate my time and money. I will certainly listen to why a
    	> group thinks their way is appropriae, but no group has a right
    	> to my efforts merely because they claim that their cause is
    	> worthwhile.
    
    	You make it sound as though we are trying to "sell" you something
    	(and you, as the customer, should "always be right" if we expect
    	you to buy.)
    
    	If we don't fork up the right "goods" for your money, will you
    	join the bigots against us (if their goods look better?)
    
    	Aren't you prepared to take a moral stand (regardless of the
    	personalities involved on either side?)

    re:223  <<"bigots against us"
    
    Comments like that make those sure don't help.
    
    

    
    re.222
    
    What do _we_ of wn have to do with whether you give money or time
    to NOW, or whatever groups you may support? 
    
    If some women in WN do things you don't like, that doesn't have anything
    to do with organizations that support women's rights. WN is not
    asking for your time or money, and NOW did not hurt Martin's feelings.
                        
    Or are you going to punish all women for the actions of a few? Now
    _that's_ sexism.
    
    Roberta

>    Now this is a tricky thing, because the very real danger exists that
>    the language of emotion will be abused.  I think it's quite likely
>    that some men - in order to stop women from expressing anger, or more 
>    accurately to stop women from giving some energy to each other instead of 
>    focussing all of it on men - use the one tactic that is almost sure to
>    get women thinking about them again.  "This hurts me."  A disclaimer
>    seems in order here: I know that sometimes men really are hurt.  I am
>    only suggesting that sometimes they may claim to be hurt in order
>    to stop an action that makes them angry.

 You don't how how appropriate some men can find this with the genders switched.
The only difference I'd make is that I don't think the motives are as devious
as you imply. It just appears that some women are out to spoil a good time if
they cannot share it, even if there is really nothing offensive about it.

 I find your insistence to claim that men are trying to focus all energy on
themselves to be rather aggravating. I have not seen this to be so. If it really
is so (in some cases) I feel sorry for the men who act this way.

>    	o  Those of us who wish to spend some of our energy trying to 
>	   understand the feelings of men and trying to educate them 
>           about our feelings can really benefit by having some time
>    	   when we don't have to do that.  Sometimes I think woman-only 
>	   space can be like a "Teacher's lounge" for teachers.  Even 
>	   teachers who love and respect their pupils enjoy that little 
>	   bit of time they get to spend alone with their colleagues
>	   and away from their students.

 I find the idea behind a women's only space to be perfectly reasonable and 
justifiable. I find the analogy you used to express it to be somewhat insulting.
I really and truly believe if a man were to make such an analogy where men
was compared to a teacher and women compared to students the women of this file
would blow a gasket. I have seen more innocuous and less obviously degrading
analogies cause considerable consternation among the community, and that is what
I base my opinion on.

>    I think that the only solution, really, to the abuses that occur is
>    to refuse to wage battles that are not good for us.  Denying men's feelings 
>    still puts the focus on men.  I think that no matter how frustrated we may
>    get at times when it seems like our work is being sabotaged, we are still
>    able to grow and learn if we focus on each other.. and not on the acts of
>    men.
 
 This paragraph sounds incredibly separatist. It appears that you are claiming
that equality is 'our <women's> work.' Shouldn't it be the work of all of us
if it is to be successful? 'Focus on women' to the apparent exclusion of men
is definitely separatist. Can't it be 'focus on people and equality?' Your 
attitude seems to be elitist, separatist, and contentious. 

The Doctah

    What does .227 have to do with processing in Womannotes?
    
    						Ann B.

RE: .223

    I am  prepared  to take a moral stand. I also have to choose where
    to  put  my  efforts.  I  have  strongly  held convictions on many
    issues. Some of them are causes where my time and money could make
    a  difference.  If  I  don't  like the way one such cause is being
    handled,  I  can  put  less  effort  into that cause and more into
    another.  Asking  if I will join the bigots is a sleazy ad hominem
    attack, and unworthy of you.

Re: .225

    What women  do  in =wn= has little to do with what groups I direct
    my  effort  to.  It  does have something to do with it; if I think
    that  all the issues that women here are interested in working are
    unimportant,  I'll  move  my efforts to movements where people are
    working on the important issues. To some degree I use =wn= to know
    what issues the woman's movement feels are important.

>  Or are you going to punish all women for the actions of a few? Now
>   _that's_ sexism.

    No, that's  over  generalizing.  It's  a standard mistake, and has
    nothing  to do with the sex of the people involved. It's also part
    of the way the world runs. That's a pity, but reality isn't always
    what one might wish.

--David

Re: Note 15.229 
    
    Bottom line:
    Your convictions can't be very "strongly held", as you say, if your
    support of them hinges on what a few women in WN do.
    

    >It's a standard mistake, and has
    >nothing  to do with the sex of the people involved. It's also part
    >of the way the world runs. That's a pity, but reality isn't always
    >what one might wish.

    Glad you at least realize you (and/or Martin) are making a mistake.
    
    Roberta

    	RE:  .229
    
    	> If I don't like the way one such cause is being handled, I
    	> can put less effort into that cause and more into another.
    
    	Granted.  What does that have to do with the persons who suggest
    	in a *Notesfile* that they may remove their "support" unless
    	certain conditions are met?  (In the context of a notesfile,
    	it sounds less like a decision to put one's time and money into
    	best use than it sounds like a form of manipulation.)

    	> Asking if I will join the bigots is a sleazy ad hominem
    	> attack, and unworthy of you.
    
    	What I said wasn't sleazy.  Your interpretation of it *was*
    	sleazy, however.  Was it deliberately so, or accidently?
    
    	I was merely listing an extreme range of groups from which to
    	choose to make the point that if there is a moral issue involved,
    	the willingness to "please" you shouldn't be a deciding factor
    	for you.
    
    	Don't jump to such conclusions about what people mean.  That
    	is unworthy of *you*.

re several previous

In 15.213 I was accused about trading my support for ...:
    
    	I'm getting tired of seeing, "Well, if you want me to support
    	you in your wish for equality, then <insert appropriate string
    	attached to support>..." 

Several subsequent replies seem to have copied this claim.

In 250.43, I wrote:

> Why do you (plural) expect me to support you (plural) in your wish for
> equality and freedom from demeaning sexual references when you (plural)
> won't grant me the same equality and freedom?

I was unclear here -- the "me" should be understood as a more general "us."

I.e., if women-in-general expect support from men-in-general for their
freedom, then men-in-general should expect the same support.  I apologize
for any confusion my unclarity caused.

My understanding of several previous replies is that I am attempting to
control the issue.  In 250.43, I wrote

> Is this humor acceptable in Digital?

and

> The issue, to me, was never one of resentment towards women, or a wish
> to put women in their place, but grew out of a belief that equality
> cuts both ways and that violence doesn't become humorous when its
> directed towards some other group.

If this isn't clear, or you have other questions about what I write here,
I would appreciate it if you contact me offline, so that my bad writing
is not elevated to an importance far beyond its state.

Martin.

    Re: .230
    
    >-< Now we're getting somewhere >-
    
    This, in conjunction with the contents of your note, makes me curious.
    What do you consider to be the goals of this discussion?  I'm assuming
    you think there are specific goals, since your title indicates you
    believe progress has been made in their direction.

thanks for .218, Justine.

I'm been trying to see my way through this kind of problem both in this 
file and elsewhere.  It is pretty predictable in a mixed-gender 
situation that men will commonly react to women who express any kind of
negative, hurt, angry, or offended emotion with an insistence that the 
emotion is unnecessary, wrong, or misguided and the expression of it
should be changed, removed, or retracted.  For many women, claiming the 
validity of their feelings is an essential part of claiming the right to 
truly exist.

This controversy has been disturbing me because some of the women are 
lapsing into this customarily male habit of challenging the validity of
the objection.  This undermines our moral basis for claiming the
validity of our own feelings, yet at the same time part of me feels
that the situation is not really the same and there is validity to women 
objecting that their voices have been silenced.  I certainly felt that 
emotion myself, and it's a little hard to explain.

There is decidedly a difference of how power is being used here, even if
it can't be defined well by abstract rules of "fairness". It seems like
whichever side women are on, they are the ones who have to end up
defending themselves and it is the men who define the terms of the
discussion.  Given that whatever it is that women do they will be "wrong,"
it is doubly important to pick the battles and concentrate our energy 
on the ones that matter most.  It is hard to let go, but it may be 
necessary for long-term survival.

Anyway, I'm grateful for your reminder about women focussing on each
other.  We need to keep nudging one another that way all the time.  Even 
fighting with men gives them our energy and power to decide what a 
woman's life will be about.  We need to use that energy to 
empower ourselves!

    
    
Re: Note 15.232 
    

    
    >Eagles believe this
    >may be the ONLY non-work-related conference in Digital worth hosting.
     
    You forgot about Jazz notes. ;^)
    
    
    Roberta

In an attempt to get this discussion away from questions such as "who is deny-
ing his support for whom under what circumstances" and some other things
that have verged on being personal attacks and to get us back onto "proces-
sing", I'd like to pose a couple of questions which seem to me to come out
of all of this and which I think are relevant:

   1.	Is WOMANNOTES (or any other Digital-public conference) required
	to be totally non controversial?  Do personnel policies and pro-
	cedures require this?

   2.	If some controversy is allowed, is it unreasonable to expect that
	some people (note use of gender non-specific term) will be somewhat
	offended some of the time?

   3.	Is it a possible/permissible moderator response when a noter com-
	plains of something being offensive to her or him to suggest that
	the noter may have misread the writer's intent, and that since most
	noters would read the offending note differently, that the modera-
	tor would allow the note to remain?  Or is it necessary that no
	one ever be offended by anything said here?

These were some of the issues I hoped would be raised when I first called
attention to the deleted poem stanza, but I fear that they have been lost in
the shuffle. I would particularly value the thoughts of the conference moder-
ators on some or all of the above; I believe that clarifying some of this
might help several of us to know what to expect in the future (and what sort
of writing might or might not be appropriate).

Thanks.

						--Q

    	It is important to reiterate here that a number of women
    	have gone out of their ways to assure Martin that he was
    	welcome to express his objection to the poem (even if not
    	many other people agreed with him.)  As I've stated before,
    	I support his right to do that as well.
    
    	However, no one in this conference has ever had the right
    	to state a controversial opinion without having to face the
    	possible challenges that often follow them.  To request the
    	"equality" and "freedom" to state an opinion without
    	challenge is an "equality" and "freedom" that has never 
    	been a reality for *anyone* in this conference.  (In fact,
    	I question the very use of those two words in this context.)
    
    	It may seem easy sometimes to bring everything up to women
    	as "issues of equality" (thinking that we might be more likely
    	to relate to such jargon,) but when no one at all has a
    	certain privilege, it seems useless to imply that it is only
    	being denied in this one instance, to one individual when it
    	simply isn't true.
    
    	Objections, feelings, and opinions are not the same things.

    Q
    
   From my experience...
    
    1. No the conference is not required to be totally non controversial
    
    2. No it is not unreasonable to expect that some people will be
    offended etc.
    
    3. Trying to explain/negotiate/etc with the offended parties by
    mail/phone/carrier pigeon is what moderators do a lot of.
    
    Bonnie

    
    I've seen enough wn to realize that there will always be a double
    standard - one for the opressive white males and another for the
    noble enlightened wymmin struggling under the evil male yoke.I'm
    hearing that the rules of fairness are suspended here, while in
    mennotes talk of tit crushing machinery would be hushed up forthwith.
    
    I'm amazed at how these paragons of fairness talk out of both sides
    of their mouths - we want our own space, they cry, while in the
    other notes they threaten suit for acts of percieved unfairness.
    

    	RE:  .240
    
    	Actually, the people in this file bend so far over backwards
    	to give others the benefit of the doubt that we are harder on
    	ourselves than we need to be (causing us to defend a male noter's
    	opinions as though they were feelings, and causing us to suspend
    	talking about whether a LAW was actually employed or not in a
    	certain incident for fear that we might be invalidating another
    	male noter's "experience.")
    
    	> ...while in mennotes talk of tit crushing machinery would
    	> be hushed up forthwith.
    
    	There's a basenote in mennotes right now (written on March 5th)
    	that includes a joke about women tacked at the bottom of it
    	gratuitously (i.e., it has nothing to do with the subject of
    	the basenote.)  The joke involves the question of "man" asking
    	God why He made women "so stupid."  
    
    	Not only was it NOT "hushed up forthwith," the joke has been
    	sitting there for two weeks without anyone even commenting
    	on it beyond one person mentioning that "it's an old joke."
    
    	If we allowed a joke in here that said that God made men "so
    	stupid," we would hear about it to the ends of our days with
    	cries about what kinds of evil bitches could write such a
    	thing in a <gasp> Digital conference.
    
    	People don't even notice jokes that insult women (because such
    	jokes are an integral part of our culture.)  But a joke that
    	is anything less than completely respectful to men is one of
    	the most shocking and horrifying sins imaginable.
    
    	It's considered a serious breach of discipline (to the point
    	of being outright insubordination) in our culture.

    Martin and Bob (in chronological order) seemed to have missed one
    point.  In criminal law, *intent* is considered in determining if
    a crime has indeed been committed.
    
    Whahh?!  How does that relate? you ask.
    
    Bob speaks of "tit crushing machinery" and Martin spoke of putting
    breasts through a wringer.  Both of these images were supposed to
    parallel putting the gonads of the inventor in the device that
    presents breasts for mammography.  However, that medical device
    has as its intent the, ummm, spreading of breast tissue for best
    photographic resolution.  Its intent is not to cause pain, but to
    prevent it.  Thus, if another portion of the human anatomy, also
    susceptible to lethal cancers and also swarming with nerve endings,
    is treated the same way, the results should be considered in the
    same light.  If the result is pain, then the design is poor, and
    the designer is responsible, and should be made aware of this. 
    The poem suggested direct perception as the best method.
    
    It is therefore NOT a parallelism to suggest that a device *intended*
    to give pain is equivalent to that, nor is it parallelism to suggest
    that treatment afforded a woman selected at quasi-random is equivalent
    to bestowing treatment on a particular man-individual.  (I mention
    this because Martin's twin suggestions that a woman could have
    invented the breast spreader and a woman could have invented the
    prostate exam are both bucking the odds, and to assume otherwise
    is, again, not parallelism.)
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  I can understand (intellectually) the objector's squeamish
    (if that's what triggered things) response; I feel the same way
    about my right knee.

re: .237

   3.	Is it a possible/permissible moderator response when a noter com-
	plains of something being offensive to her or him to suggest that
	the noter may have misread the writer's intent, and that since most
	noters would read the offending note differently, that the modera-
	tor would allow the note to remain?  Or is it necessary that no
	one ever be offended by anything said here?

Speaking only of my experiences as a moderator of several "controversial"
notesfiles (Soapbox, No_Smoking, Smokers, and Bagels), and, specifically, not
speaking of my experiences as a contributor to Womannotes, I think that
moderators are on slightly shaky grounds when they try to suggest to
complaintant that it "is a minority opinion" and the note should stay.

My basis for this attitude is my reading of the applicable Dec policies
on Harrassment and Employee Conduct (exerpts were posted in a previous
reply to this note).  As a moderator, I am a part of Digital's management
structure.  There are specific court decisions that held companies
responsible for having written policies on employee conduct that were
not followed.  Digital's Harassment policy (6.03) begins:

   It is the policy of Digital Equipment Corporation that all our
   employees should be able to enjoy a work environment free of
   discrimination and harassment.

   Harassment refers to behavior which is personally offensive,
   impairs morale and interferes with the work effectiveness of
   employees.  Any harassment of employees by other employees will not
   be permitted, regardless of their working relationship.

As a (mere) moderator, I feel that only the reader is capable of judging
what is "personally offensive" to him- or herself.

Martin.

Ps: so there is no unclarity; I am not suggesting that the womannotes
moderators are wrong, or that my way is better.  I can also think of
some circumstances where I might leave a note in the file over the
objection of a poster.  One example would be the abortion discussion
where some of the notes were "personally offensive" to pro-lifers and some
were offensive to pro-choicers.  In this case, I would claim that the
corporation has a responsibility to make the Notes forum accessable
to both sides without favoritism to either side.

    in the future, could discussions on quotes go on outside of the
    quote notes?
    
    i made a mistake in starting up the men's quote note, i should have
    immediately started a discussion topic after it.  i haven't really
    been following this conference, but has one quote from a man been
    put on without commentary from noters following?  the quotable women
    note is so much easier to read, no opinions cluttering it.
    
    i don't know.  just something that struck me during my latest foray
    of NEXT UNSEENing through...
    
    jonathan

    when a moderator believes that a note is offensive because of a
    misunderstanding, she may try to get the two parties to negotiate
    and explain their positions. sometimes, a simple clarification is
    all that's needed. 
    
    i tend to agree with martin that notesfiles should be free of
    harassment no matter how small a minority is affected. for example, is
    it appropriate for there to be jew-bashing in blacknotes? black-bashing
    in bagels? gay-bashing in smokers? woman-bashing in muscle-cars?
    animal-rights activists-bashing in guns? in other words, think of
    something you hold dear, and imagine if you were one of a few people
    to hold that opinion in a notesfile of interest to you. if someone
    put in a harassing or offensive note, would you leave the file?
    contact the author? ask the moderators to work with you? try to
    retailiate? sit there and take it? it's a hard problem and there
    are no easy solutions or even solutions that work for everyone all
    the time.
    
    liz

    Jonathan, you're quite right.  I started that discussion and meant
    to move it to its own string.  I'll do that now, thanks for reminding
    me.
    
    						=maggie

liz-

 You raise an important point that I think may have gone unnoticed in .248.

 Not to contradict you, but I would like to question the motivation for someone
to go into a notesfile in which the prevailing opinion is against your own. What
I am specifically referring to is the infiltration of certain notesfiles by
members of groups whose aims are opposed to the aims of the general population
of the notesfile. For example, anti-hunters going into the hunting notesfile,
white supremacists going into Blacknotes, misogynists in =wn=...

 I sometimes wonder how it is that the moderators balance the good of the file
vs. individual's rights. Is it harassment for an anti-hunter to go into the 
HUNTING notesfile only to be belittled for their opinions? Is it harassment
for an MCP to enter =wn= only to be shouted down for his ideas on women's value
to society, etc? At what point do the comods say "Look, this guy is just trying
to harass us by saying he is offended by each and every little thing we say."
It just may be that certain MCPs ARE offended by the idea that women should be
able to get paid as much as men, etc. But does it constitute harassment to go
to a place where you _know_ you will hold the minority opinion and get a hard 
time?

 I agree that there are no easy solutions. While there is no excuse for a
personal attack in _any_ notesfile, notesfile membership is entirely voluntary,
and as such you assume the responsibility for the chance that some viewpoints
may offend you. I am not convinced that an MCP who comes here and tries to
"put women in their place" and gets walloped by the backlash is being harrassed.

 In addition, it seems to me that an individual could harass the group by 
taking to nearly every note placed in a conference. It seems to me to be a
kind of blackmail.

 The  Doctah

re: .250:

> Not to contradict you, but I would like to question the motivation for someone
> to go into a notesfile in which the prevailing opinion is against your own.
> ...  
> I sometimes wonder how it is that the moderators balance the good of the file
> vs. individual's rights. Is it harassment for an anti-hunter to go into the 
> HUNTING notesfile only to be belittled for their opinions?

Perhaps I was unclear in my previous posting.  I don't thing there is such
a thing as "the good of the file" -- or at any rate, it is superceded by
"the good of the company."  My recent actions as moderators have all been
on the behalf of someone "against the prevailing opinion" of the file:
pro-Palestinians in Bagels, followers of Islam offended by the Salman
Rushdie debate in Soapbox.  In some cases, this was after a complaint
by an employee, in others, I took preventive action on my own.  As a
moderator, it really doesn't matter whether the complainer is a reader,
contributor, "member of the community" or whatever: being an employee
is sufficient.  Frequently, I've found myself deleting notes by valued
friends and collegues.

> I agree that there are no easy solutions. While there is no excuse for a
>personal attack in _any_ notesfile, notesfile membership is entirely voluntary,
>and as such you assume the responsibility for the chance that some viewpoints
>may offend you.

However, notesfiles are public, and an employee should have the same
freedom from being offended in a notesfile as in any other company
publication.

> In addition, it seems to me that an individual could harass the group by 
>taking to nearly every note placed in a conference. It seems to me to be a
>kind of blackmail.

Which would be a form of harassment in itself.  There are mechanisms within the
company to prevent this from being a problem.

Martin.

    You know what I have a lot of trouble with lately in the file? 
    
    Some people are (within the file and in mail associated with
    the file) wielding statements about corporate policy, and harassment,
    and getting satisfaction by going to personnel, in order to work
    their issues about the file, and the discussions that go on in it.
    
    This is scary.  There is seldom need for this.  Speak with fellow
    noters via mail, then perhaps share with the moderators.  
    
    I feel that this file is trying to do the greatest good for the
    most people and that is *SO HARD TO DO* in this case - the audience
    is so diverse, everybody brings with them their emotional soft spots
    and their hot buttons, and everyone has an opinion.  
    
    Some people have expressed that they are afraid they are not being
    heard.  The quietest noter and the loudest noter should be "heard"
    equally, everyone has a right to be heard.  Everyone has a right
    to share, and please let it be gently.  The sharing may not change
    any minds, but at least one's opinion is succinctly stated and logged,
    and may spur others to question their own thoughts on a subject.
    
    This file gets very heated sometimes - and I wish there were a way
    to bring people back to The Big Picture - people trying to share
    and discuss their views, honestly and without ulterior motives.
    That's what I hope notesfiles like this are working towards.
    
    my .02 on process,
    
    -Jody
    the noter
    

    mr. levesque,
    
    i believe you misread my note. i wasn't talking about white
    supremacists in blacknotes. i was talking about jews in blacknotes.
    to me, they're entirely different. i can imagine that someone might
    like firearms without enjoying hunting. but to answer your question,
    i'm not sure why people go into notesfiles where the prevailing
    opinion is against their own. there certainly seem to be a number
    of mysoginists here, don't you think?
    
    liz

re .253

>    i'm not sure why people go into notesfiles where the prevailing
>    opinion is against their own. 

	Maybe because the prevailing opinion is wrong, and there
	is a need to present alternatives. If the above opinion
	had been applied universally through history, the US would
	still be ruled by a king, there would still be slavery, 
	and only property owners (probably further restricted to
	white males that didn't have "foreign sounding" names)
	could vote.

						Tom_K

    
    
    I think it would be helpful for us to separate moderator actions
    toward a complaint and the response of a community to a complaint.
    (If my understanding of the responsibilities of moderators is correct),
    If a noter complains to the moderators about a note, the moderators
    have to act.  My sense is that if the noter says that he has
    been harrassed, (and the claim passes whatever criteria there are
    for harrassment -- I believe Martin has outlined those criteria)
    then the mods have to see that the note is re-written or deleted.
    If the noter says that a note has made him uncomfortable, then I
    think the mods have some choices about how to act.  They may decide
    that the offended party has misunderstood the note and try to
    explain it to him, they may put the author and the reader in touch,
    or ask for a rewrite, or any number of other things that I suspect
    go on behind the scenes all the  time.
    
    The community response is a different thing, though.  If a noter
    complains that a note is offensive and/or if he moves to have a
    note deleted or changed, it's quite likely that there will be a
    response from the community.  As long as that community response
    does not include personal attacks or attacks on the person's
    RIGHT TO COMPLAIN, then I don't think that the complainant's
    rights to free speech, or to hold an opinion, or to have feelings
    are being attacked or diminished.  It may be uncomfortable, at times,
    to hold an opinion that is unpopular or to take a stand that makes
    people angry, but I don't think that a community's response
    to a noter's (or noters') actions necessarily constitute harrassment.
    
    Let's not confuse moderators (who implement policy and manage
    company resources) with noters (who state opinions or describe
    their feelings.)
    
    Justine                 

re: .254
    

>	Maybe because the prevailing opinion is wrong, and there
>	is a need to present alternatives. 

    Tom, when there is "opinion", there is only a collective consensus
    on what is "right" or "wrong".  And even then, "right" and "wrong"
    are incorrect adjectives to apply to opinion - opinion by its very
    nature is always "right" to those who hold it.  The "wrong" opinion
    is always someone else's.  The best we can do is present alternatives
    and allow people to make their own choices, based on what they think
    and feel.  By presenting honest, unbiased evidence for whatever
    side we believe in we can perhaps help the person decide to change
    their opinion.  Perhaps they decide to keep their opinion.  The
    purpose of informing is to *allow them to choose*, calmly, completely,
    and without belittling their right to keep their opinion or continually
    trying to convince them they are "wrong".
    
    Where there is no freedom of opinion, there is no freedom.

    -Jody
    

	re .257

	I think we are in violent agreement. But you said it much better.

							Tom_K

    � i'm not sure why people go into notesfiles where the prevailing
    opinion is against their own. there certainly seem to be a number
    of mysoginists here, don't you think? �
    
    Yes, there do seem to be a number of misogynists here, but I'll
    lay odds that over 90% of them don't consider themselves to be
    such. That, in general, is why I think some people go into files
    where prevailing opinion is contrary to their own -- because
    they don't understand that they aren't a member of the Party,
    so to speak.
    
    (Obviously, this isn't true in all cases, such as when militant
    non-smokers invade the smoking conference.)
    
    --- jerry

 I doubt that there are many misogynists in this file. It seems that the current
definition of misogynist is not one who hates women, rather it's one who does
not agree with everything the female womennoters say. It is possible to have a
difference of opinion without disliking the person you are disagreeing with.
It seems that any man who disagrees with any woman in this file is branded a
misogynist.

 I am not sure why it is necessary to resort to name calling whenever a female/
male disagreement erupts. In categorizing men as misogynists, you devalue their
opinions- as if they are unable to agree with women due to substandard 
intellectual capacity. 

 Perhaps over 90% of the alleged misogynists in this file don not consider 
themselves to be such because they are not?

 In my estimation, it is the radicals on both sides that prevent the problems
from ever being resolved. As long as we have men that are happy that women get
the short end of the stick and women who want to give men the short end of the
stick (and blame men for everything wrong with everything) nothing will be
resolved. I would like to see the hard liners from both sides soften up a little
and try to be more reasonable.

 The Doctah

There is a *significant* difference between acting on something written by a
noter and acting on something written by *someone else* and copied into a
notesfile for comment (or enjoyment).

As an occasionally-published writer (including poems), I would *strongly
object* to having a poem I have written *partially* censored.  Either keep it
intact or don't use it at all!!  I really feel that including the poem
in this notesfile -- without its last verse -- is unethical!  I think we have
no right to do that.  (It's not the same as quoting excerpts from something;
the censorship of the poem in this notesfile affects the poem's integrity.)

Are we really to the point of censoring *outside material* that noters share?
If this must be done, let's at least understand that that is *what* we are
doing.  There are certainly articles in notesfiles that contain material with
which I violently disagree.  If I ask the moderators of those conferences to
delete that material, are they supposed to do it?

Nancy

PS - I will send the complete Ode to a Mammogram to anyone who requests it.

    
    
    
    
    
    re: .260   >>     -< radicals keep the sides from meeting in the middle >-
    

    Doctah, it is the radicals of yesterday whose positions are those
    of the moderates of today. The suffragettes were considered radicals,
    the abolitionists were considered radicals... I don't really consider
    myself a radical (although that's relevant - most of my friends
    are 'starving artists'), but I say thank God for radicals! Someone's
    got to shake things up. Someone has to remind us of the original
    meaning of what we are striving for, while we're busy diluting it in
    the name of compromise.
    
    Jus' my opinion.
    
    Roberta

    
    Shoot, I meant to say "that's relative"  of course! Whether it's
    relevant is another issue entirely :^)
    
    Roberta

    
    .261 brings up a good point. It is disrespectful to the author to
    present part of his/her poem. Sort of like colorizing movies.
    
    Roberta
    

    A misogynist is someone who doesn't really like women, which implies
    lack of respect for them.  I'm sure there are misogynists of varying
    degrees in this notesfile, even women who have a degree of misogyny.
    After all, if it's a message reinforced by society, how can women
    avoid picking it up?  And if it's a message reinforced by society,
    how can men avoid picking it up?
    
    Re: .264
    
    The notes are probably hidden because moderators hate stinks and
    would rather clear them up than have them sit around in public view.
    Removing them reduces the chance of a public brawl over the matter,
    which is consistent with the goals of most conferences.

    I have seen lots of heated debates lately, and lots of heated words.
     It would do a great deal, I think, to take the sting out of
    potentially painful phrasing (although the author may feel that
    is the best way to get their point across) to place within the context
    of the reply the words:  I think, I feel,  It seems to me, In my
    opinion, I see it as, It makes me feel like, I just think that....
    
    you get the idea.  This might help remove some of the sting from
    some of the more sensitive discussions in this forum.
    
    Thank you,
    
    -Jody
    

re: killers and innocence

 In this community, we have several factions re: abortion. The two extremists
are the ones who say that any abortion is murder (thus making both mother and
doctor killers) and those who say that a fetus is the same as cancer tissue and
may be discarded at will by the mother. To the pro-abortion radicals, use of the
term "killers" wrt to mothers who abort is offensive. (This offensiveness 
extends to many of the pro-choicers and those who are less radical in their
approach to abortion). On the other hand, the use of "innocence" wrt a mother
who aborts her child is equally offensive to the radical pro-lifers (and some
who are not quite so radical). To exclude one term (and be perfectly fair), one
would have to exclude the other (assuming we value all members equally, 
regardless of race, sex, affiliation, etc).

 Now I am not embroiled in that debate, so I consider myself to be relatively
objective about this matter. What I see is an unpopular view being repressed
while the popular view is unmolested. while I may not agree with Tom's
views, I stand up for his right to say them. I think that the idea of having
two abortion notes is great- one can be for personal experiences and one can
be for "spirited debate." I don't think that people ought to have their notes
censored because they espouse unpopular views. 

 Now I understand that abortion is a touchy subject, and that there tends to
be alot of rhetoric in such a debate. My point is that the moderators ought
to be consistent. If we are going to consider "killers" to be too offensive to
allow, we also ought to consider "innocent" too offensive to allow. On the other
hand, we could all act adult and not complain every time someone writes 
something that pisses us off. We could also try to use less inflammatory words
to express our views. It seems to me that if this subject is the cause for that
much controversy, hurt feelings, and offense, it ought to be write locked. I
would hope, however, that we could debate the moral issues of abortion without
resorting to personal attcks (which ought to be deleted).

 My opinion only...

 The Doctah

Amazing. Doctah and I finally agree on something. I am strongly
pro-choice; Tom's notes make me sick, but I wouldn't censor him. It
seems it's the same old story of someone not liking what someone else says, 
so instead of responding and thereby discrediting what they say, it's
easier to just bring the moderators in to shut them up. 

This isn't directed at the moderators. I just wish people would learn
to fight their own battles.

Roberta
         

    I think calling abortion murder is reactionary, but preventing people
    from expressing reactionary views does not stop reaction. On the
    contrary, it gives them one more handle to claim that *they* are
    the grieved party and it gives them a chance to label us as
    *undemocratic*.
    
    It also serves to confuse. Some of the issues that are being discussed
    are genuinely misunderstood. It is not good to have a precedent
    of banning the thoughts and ideas that are being discussed.
    
    It is also not a good precedent to let some obnoxious views end
    the discussion. This topic of abortion is a very important one and
    this right is being attacked by very powerful forces. We must answer
    these slanders that are being put forward, not try to hide from
    them or end the discussion.
    
    Les

    at the same time, i think it's important to be consistent. if we're
    going to censor people from writing about mammogram machines because
    some readers find the writing offensive, then we should _also_ censor
    other writers who wound or offend fellow readers. and if we're going
    to stop a writer from saying that "abortion is murder", then we
    should be consistent about not letting that person say that "abortion
    is killing". lift either one of these constraints and i think we
    should lift this one too. 
    
    liz
    

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    There have been two events recently that caused formal protest to be
    made to us.  In the one case we mods all privately disagreed with the
    objection, in the other case we all supported it...but in both cases we
    acted, as our policy requires.  
    
						=maggie

    Also, particularly with the topic of abortion (and the "experiences
    with abortion" note can attest to this) there is a great deal of
    PAIN around the topic.  Calling the people in this file, their friends,
    their relatives, their spouses - (anyone who has made the painful
    decision or watched someone else decide to abort) Murderers and
    Killers HURTS them.
    
    If this pain is tolerable, then I believe the notes could stand
    as written.  But, if the phrases used cause a great deal of angst (in
    the abortion topic, or in any other topic) such that some noters cannot
    read the topic without being hurt a lot, and they lodge complaints
    with the moderators, and the whole situation is discussed, and a
    conclusion is reached, then the process has done its job to the
    best of its ability.  
    
    I believe most subjects can be discussed rationally without the use of 
    certain painful pejoratives.  I believe we all have a certain tolerance
    for pain, and we should acknowledge that others do, too.  I would
    hate to see people saying something *REALLY* hurts them when it
    really doesn't....but if it does hurt them a great deal, then I
    would hope the process would treat that honest pain as valid, and
    take the necessary actions to reduce that pain while still attempting
    to serve the needs of the community to the best of its ability.

    -Jody
        
    
    

    My personal feeling is that if a person came into this file and
    wrote something on the order of "I'm a Roman Catholic, I believe
    that life begins with conception, and thus feel that abortion
    can never be right" that such a note and such a person would be
    accepted. If a person is speaking from strongly held personal
    belief and faith then they will be far better received if they
    speak openly about that faith. I personally believe that they
    would have far greater success in getting people to listen to
    their message than they would by making flatly negative statements.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    i thought 183 started out as "Abortion concerns" and somewhere got
    transmogrified to "Abortion Soapbox".
    
    sure people have the freedom to write, but please follow the topic.
    if you aren't going to follow the subject of one note, start up
    a seperate one.
    
    jonathan
    

I agree wholeheartedly with both .272 (liz) and .276 (Marge).  I think every-
one realizes just how difficult some of these subjects are for some people,
and I appreciate the thin line the mods must walk when they pass on strong
topics.  But I don't believe it does us good, in the long run, to suppress
discussion of a topic just because it is controversial or painful.

To my way of thinking it is important to differentiate a statement such as
"abortion is murder" from a statement such as "[insert noter's name] is a
murderer."  I would agree with deleting any statement of the latter form.
But up to now no one has said anything like that.  The former statement is,
in fact, quite typical of the position taken by many anti-abortionists.
While I find it personally offensive, I believe it is important to bring the
idea out into the open and debate it (and there is no shortage of people
here who will be willing to slam such a statement), rather than to sweep it
under the rug by deleting or hiding the note.  I am aware that there will be
people who will find that statement terribly painful to read.  But it is no
different from what can read in a newspaper, and it will be tempered here
by a zillion supportive notes in response.  It surely is a topic of interest
to women, and as such seems to me to be consistent with the conference char-
ter.

I believe that Tom_K has responsibly presented a position which I find awful
but which is very relevant to the day.  I believe his notes should be un-
hidden.  And I agree with liz that it would be consistent to lift the con-
straints on the mammogram poem as well.

						--Q

    Marge,
    
    Except for yourself, I don't recall another noter who has even
    attempted to come into the abortion debate note and argue from
    personal faith or conviction against abortion. (I appologize if
    I have missed someone, it is a very long note.) My impression 
    has been, that people who are antiabortion, by and large, come 
    into the file and make strong brief statements, using emotionally
    charged words, and have refused to discuss things. (Again this is
    my impression of how the notes have gone over these months.) I still
    believe that if a person who was strongly antiabortion spoke from
    their personal faith and attempted to teach or share rather that
    to bully, or polemicise, that they would be well received, tho
    probably not agreed with, by the large number of those writing and
    reading here. I believe that we all have the greatest respect for
    your willingness to take a stand and the manner in which you have
    done so.
    
    Bonnie

    Also, speaking as a moderator, I would like to encourage everyone
    who reads this file (or any other valuing differences file) to
    submit notes anonymously through the moderators if you feel
    the topic is too sensitive for you to enter it under your name.
    We do not enter as anonymous mail only topics that we personally
    agree with.
    
    Bonnie J
    speaking as a comoderator
    

    My set-hidden note suggested the same approach that is in .278.
    Also, I believe I read all the recent hidden notes in this string.
    Some subsequent ones saying the same things as the hidden ones have 
    not (yet, anyway) been hidden.  
    
    You moderators certainly have my sympathy in this!
    
    Nancy

    Re: .278
    
    >And I agree with liz that it would be consistent to lift the con-
    >straints on the mammogram poem as well.
    
    But these are only the two most recent cases in which the principle
    has been applied.  What about all the others?  And what about the
    future?  If the principle is not applied in these cases, then when
    can in be applied?  If someone is offended by a note, have they
    no recourse?  Just grin and bear it?
    
    Most noting policies I've seen aren't "top down" mandates.  They
    come into being in order to address problems that moderators have
    encountered in the past.  If you toss a policy, you have two choices.
    You can decide that the problem of the past is not relevant or
    significant or you can implement a new policy.  So, if people are
    going to argue that the policy of hiding/deleting offensive notes
    should go, then they should be able either to explain why offensive
    notes are not a problem or to propose a new way of handling the
    matter.  (In other words, put yourself in the moderators' shoes
    for a while and figure out how you would deal with the situation.)

    Arpad,
    
    Being the moderator in question, I have twice written you
    about this issue and you have chosen not to reply. I will
    point out formally here, that I set hidden the three notes
    because of your earlier complaints about unfair treatment
    to men. In particular because of one of the first lines
    of your note which stated 'it is allowable (i.e. the note
    attacking you) because your [sic] female'. Both you and
    the subsequent noter complained that the first note was
    an unfair attack on you. The first note was deleted so
    I returned the notes to both of you. I did not arbitrarily
    delete them. You have a copy of your note and may reenter it
    edited to remove reference to the note that is no longer there
    if you so wish.
    
    My actions were in direct response to your complaint that men
    were treated unfairly in this file.
    
    Courtesy at least, would have dictated that you would have answered
    my mail to you rather than responding with inuendo in this forum.
    
    Bonnie

    p.s. I would also like to point out that we discussed the title
    by mail and the final altered title was one that you suggested.

RE: < Note 15.283 by TROA02::DEAK >

>You are theoretically equal if you are a male, but in practice are not 
>nearly as equal as a female, regardless of whether you are feminist or not. 

    I can't say I've noticed any discrimination against myself within
    this file.

>... Especially less 
>equal are those males that disagree with feminism, yet try to achieve the 
>same goals through fair and equitable practices.

    If you're referring here to feminism under the definitions you've put
    forward in the KKK/AA note (which is a type of "feminism" I definitely
    would not agree with), then I can only repeat the above - not noticed it
    myself.
    
>Can someone prove that this isn't so?

    Well, I suppose the comods could keep track of how many male noters
    have had their notes deleted compared with female noters.  If the
    proportions aren't the same as the proportions of contributors to the
    file (within statistical limits), then you might have cause for a
    complaint.  If they are the same as the noting population, then you
    have your proof that no such bias exists.  Of course, the population of
    contributing noters might not be large enough to eliminate anomalies
    due to individuals entering notes solely to try to get people annoyed
    (and this does happen, you know ;-} ). 

    Wait a minute, Arpad, are you asking for Womannotes to adopt an
    Affirmative Action policy? :-)  I thought if you just ignored perceived
    discrimination, it was supposed to go away all by itself? :-) :-) :-)

    
    >Can someone prove that this isn't so?
    
    I believe the burden of proof is on you to prove that it _is_ so.
    So far all we've seen is sleazy innuendo. I can't believe anyone
    would accuse the moderators of this conference, with all the time
    they put into it, of less than honorable intentions. Even if I
    sometimes disagree with them, I think such an accusation
    is ridiculous.       
    
    Roberta

       First off, I think people should lay of the moderators and avoid
       asking (or demanding) that notes be hidden or deleted, except in
       the absolutely most extreme cases.  It's clear that the moderators
       are spending enormous amounts of time on this conference, and the
       level of their eforts ought not be unduly increased by individuals
       who make official objections because this note or that makes them
       uncomfortable.  Another means of reducing moderators' burden is
       for each noter to use self-imposed limitations on contributions --
       if you write more than two or three replies to a note in any one
       day, then it almost certainly means that you're arguing for the
       sake of arguing.
       
       Having said that, I'd also suggest that a not insignificant
       portion of the moderators' burden is self-inflicted.  In .272,
       Moderator Augustine suggests that the moderators acted
       consistently, deleing (or hiding) notes whenever an objection was
       raised. In .273, Moderator Tarbet reiterates that the moderators
       had no choice -- they were simply carrying out policy. 
       
       I don't doubt that the moderators acted fairly, but using an even
       hand is not sufficient for making a proper decision. I'd again
       suggest that discretion is called for -- the moderators have a
       responsibility to judge whether the objection is reasonable, and
       only then should they proceed to take positive action. 
       
       (While I believe in the fairness of the moderators' decision, I
       can also understand why some people might not find the moderators'
       action credible.  As stated in .273, the moderators seem to hold
       similar views on the issues that have caused controversy, and that
       sort of homogeneity does not give much comfort to those who
       don't share the moderators' view.)
       
       --Mr Topaz

    clarifications to < Note 15.287 by CALLME::MR_TOPAZ >
    
    1) I have not been a moderator since 1 March.
    
    2) I suspect that the moderators did not personally agree with 
       the hiding of the mammogram poem. They took that action because
       they are committed to upholding the rules of the conference as
       well as the corporate guidelines.
    
    liz

    IMHO - the moderators are doing a great job considering the size
    of this conference, the volatility of some of the topics and of
    the some of the contributors :-) and heaven knows what else!
    
    On the other hand (I neither defend nor attack Arpad here), what is
    perception?  If Arpad perceives censorship, bias, or whatever, how is
    that different from 'feelings'?  I never did quite understand the
    difference between perceptions, feelings, and opinions.  To me, how I
    perceive, feel, or have an opinion is ME.  It is unlikely that if these
    emotions are deep enough that anyone will easily change someone
    else's viewpoint. 
    
    So, back to the topic at hand, I feel that "you can't please all
    of the people all of the time" and therefore unless it gets personal,
    let people express their opinions, etc., but anyone expressing
    themselves in an open forum such as this should also be prepared
    for debate and possibly even backlash based on the strong emotions
    of others!
    
    Hoping I made sense and offended no one.
    Otto.
          

Re:  .282

>   What about all the others?  And what about the future?  If the principle
>   is not applied in these cases, then when can in be applied?  If someone
>   is offended by a note, have they no recourse?

It's a difficult problem.  If I were in the mods' shoes I would try to treat
each complaint on a case by case basis, rather than try to implement some
all-encompassing policy such as "abolutely no note is allowed to offend any
noter."  I realize that judging these things on a case by case basis is al-
most surely more difficult (and perhaps subject to complaint) than is the
more conservative policy that appears to be in force.  But I believe that
it is a mistake to try to generalize something like this.  I just don't
think it's best to say that there will *never* be anything offensive in
the conference.  But I would not remove the the mods' discretion on the
matter.

In .272 I gave examples of where I would draw the line.  I guess reasonable
people might differ with me about the exact placement of the line.  I think
there are some situations where nothing you do will be perfect (and perhaps
this situation is one of them), and I don't envy the mods' position here.
But I would not try to implement a blanket principle.  I think that is the
issue that has drawn the heat in this case.

						--Q

    I believe that there is no such thing as "conference policy" -
    at least in terms of a measuring stick that you can hold each note
    up against and determine, objectively, whether it fits or doesn't.
    
    What you have instead is a group of volunteers, who willingly
    give their time, energy and emotion, for an often thankless and
    sometimes impossible task of keeping a conference running.  These
    moderators are human beings, who don't always come up with the same
    answer given similar data, and who have their own emotions,
    experiences and opinions to affect their decisions.  But I wouldn't
    have it any other way.
    
    Rather than beat on the moderators for what appear as inconsistencies,
    perhaps it would be better to recognize that the moderators are not
    your enemy, and that you can help them and help yourself by
    being positive and cooperative at resolving problems.  From my own
    experience, I know that I am least "fair" to someone who rakes me
    over the coals for some action I took as a moderator, despite my
    best efforts to do so.  On the other hand, those noters who look
    to see how they can perhaps modify what they wrote to become
    acceptable, or who use persuasion rather than antagonism, become
    much more effective.
    
    I can only wish that even a tenth of the energy people put in to
    arguing over "process" could be directed towards something
    more constructive.
    
    			Steve

	In general, people tend to consider themselves solely responsible 
	for what they write. Within VAXnotes conferences on DIGITAL owned 
	machines, this is not the case. A hierarchy of responsibility exists
	similar to the following:

		The writer
		The moderator(s)
		The owner of the file
		The system manager of the host node
		The management structures of the above people
		The corporation as a whole

	Now, 99% of the time it is reasonable to act as if the writer is
	solely responsible, as 99% of what is written causes no problems.
	However, as a problem reaches each level of the hierarchy, the 
	consequences of that problem may compound exponentially. Consider 
	the expenditure of resources needed for bringing a part of
	two persons management structures into resolution of a problem.
	For that matter, look at the problems which only elevating 
	responsibility to a moderator often involves. It is incumbent
	upon each of us to consider this in resolving problems at the
	lowest level possible.

	The moderators and host of a conference are the ones who stick their
	neck out the most. It is they who have to justify the resources to
	their management. It is they who expend time to ensure the smooth
	running of the conference. Even in conferences with little 
	controversy, this may become considerable. And when something goes
	bad, it is they who may end up having to explain what happened, and 
	how it got that way. And for what reward?

	I once tried my hand at moderating a much less active conference
	than this one, and quit in frustration after several months. While
	one (and myself in particular) may disagree heart and soul with 
	the moderators views, and how they run the conference, when all is 
	said and done, it must ultimately be they who have the final say. 
	Anyone who disagrees is free to try to justify the resources of 
	a competing conference to their management, and create and run 
	it them self in their free time. The current moderators
	of this conference have a difficult task, one I certainly wouldn't
	want, but they haven't quit in disgust yet. They are deserving a 
	tip of our our collective cap regardless of our personal feelings 
	of how they run the conference. 

	No, I don't like the idea of censorship. But if any of us wants
	uncensored speech, that opportunity (for most of us) is as close
	as the nearest street corner. Bring your own box.

						Tom_K

    In re Steve and Q
    
    Thank you both for your input. Steve hits much closer to the 
    truth here. There is no 'blanket policy'. What there is, is a
    policy, that if a legitimate complaint is heard, be it by
    mail or as a responding note, we are obliged to take some action.
    At a minimum, this would be to engage in correspondence with someone.
    We do negotiate, we are selective, and we do a heck of a lot
    of behind the scenes negotiating. What gets especially frustrating,
    is when you try and deal with a problem and the person involved
    attacks you for it. I am not referring in particular to  recent notes 
    by saying this. My personal feeling is that in the almost two years I 
    have been a moderator of =wn= is that the Chinese parable of the boy, 
    the old man and the donkey, is very apt as a description of what it is 
    like to be a moderator.
    
    (my apologies to those who have heard this several times before)
    
    There is an old man, a young boy and a donkey walking down a country
    road. The donkey is loaded with produce for the local market. As
    the two walk along, they pass a peasant woman. She berates the
    old man (grandfather) telling him how unfair it is that he is making
    the child walk. The grandfather, listening to the criticism places
    the child on the donkey and on they travel. Soon they pass a peasant
    man laboring in his fields. He, seeing the boy riding and the
    grandfather walking berates the boy. He tells him that he has no
    ancestral piety and does not deserve to ride while his grandfather
    walks.  So the boy gets down off the donkey and his grandfather
    rides. They then meet a third person who convinces them that they
    are still wrong and both should ride. Finally they pass a fourth
    person, who excoriates them for abusing the donkey who is already
    heavily laden with produce. So finally the old man and the boy
    continue down the road walking by the donkey.
    
    And as Steve said, we are five volunteers, who have jobs and
    families and private lives to attend to, and none of us is
    omniscient. 

    Bonnie

    re: 291 
        Well said, Steve!
    
    I think the moderators deserve a break!  They have bent over backwards
    to be fair and honest in doing an incredibly difficult job. It's one
    that takes a lot of time and effort, and that must be done in addition
    to their regular work, without affecting that work!  To be an effective
    moderator in *any* notefile can be trying, in a file like this,
    it has to be nearly impossible.  C'mon, everybody, relax a bit.
    
    re: .283
    
    Arpad, I think I missed something - you said, I believe, that a
    note of yours was *not* deleted, even though it was attacking someone,
    and that a note from one of the feminist woman was deleted because
    it was attacking someone.  You stated that this showed an *anti-men*
    sentiment, right?  HUH????  If anything, this shows, in my opinion,
    a tendency to be more lenient with *men* that with *women*.  If
    you wish to delete a note of your own, you may - they left you with
    the option, and didn't delete it themselves, as they did with the
    feminist.
    
    And Bonnie, who has made fairness a way of life, even pointed out
    that your notes were returned to you, so that you could edit and
    reenter them if you chose.  They weren't just deleted and lost forever!
    
    I hope I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you are *trying* to cause
    trouble for some hard-working people!  I especially hope that isn't
    the case because many of your entries are thought-provoking, and
    worth reading.  Not that I won't read them anyway, but I tend to
    react differently to people who are just trying to provoke, than
    to people who differ from me, but who are just trying help me 
    understand!  And I suspect there are a lot of readers whose reaction
    to some noters is "oh thats by soandso - just trying to irritate".
    How much good noting, good information, and even good potential
    friendships are lost?
    
    If, as has been said before, everyone was more careful to use such
    things as "in my opinion", etc, and stopped to think when writing
    "would I want this said to me?" we would all be able to enjoy more
    active discussions with a lot less pain.
    
                     In friendship to all!
                                      Linda 

    re:.276
    
    Marge, I really don't see anyone trying to suppress Tom's ideas,
    merely his language. Personally speaking, I don't wish to see
    either censored. I dislike his terminology, and I spoke out about
    it, but that's as far as I've gone or will go. The concept of
    abortion as murder I can deal with, and argue against as a concept.
    To refer to people who have abortions as killers is (a) attacking
    the people, not the concept, and (b) much more personal than arguing
    an idea.
    
    --- jerry

    Arpad,
    
    The reason why I said that you did not answer my mail is because
    you did not. I have in my files two mail messages sent 21-march-1988
    at 12:18 and 12:31, neither of which you have answered. I will send
    you copies if you so request.
    
    In re the title. You wanted to have a title on your note that stated
    "feminists as racists". I said in mail to you that such a title
    was not representative of the actual content of the material you
    were entering, and would bias readers against the material you were
    entering. The words "Honesty from Canadian Feminists" were what
    you suggested, (this may not be 100% word for word accurate since
    I am writing this from memory) the added words refering to minority
    problems I added to try and address what I felt to be your particular
    concern. This concern I felt to be that you saw feminists leaving
    out women of color and other minorities and you called this racist.
    I chose to add mention of the same situation in different words
    because of your concern.
    
    Bonnie

    Personal attacks have not been expressed by the pro-choice side.
    No one has made any accusations of illegal activity against the
    other side.  
    
    The issue isn't "emotional charged language".  The
    issue is corporate policy.  Accusing someone of murder leaves the
    company and the person making the accusation, open to a law suit
    and that is the purpose of corporate policy.. to prevent such 
    a thing from happening.
    
    Mary

Re:  .301

>   Accusing someone of murder leaves the company and the person making
>   the accusation, open to a law suit.

However, no one has accused any noter of murder--at least not in this notes-
file.  As I suggested earlier in this topic, there is a difference between
saying "Abortion is murder" and "Noter X is a murderer."  The latter is
clearly unacceptable writing; the former is a heavily charged and emotionally
laden statement that may not be supported by fact, but it does not accuse
any individual.  I think it's an important distinction.

						--Q

>However, no one has accused any noter of murder--at least not in this notes-
>file.

Noters in this file have been called "killers", in some of the 
controversial notes which have been deleted.

    	RE:  .305
    
    	Is it different to personally name someone who is a "killer"
    	than it is to label people in general who "do" a certain thing
    	as "killers"?  
    
    	Consider this:  "Anyone who would go into a file to label unnamed
    	(yet identifiable, in some cases) individuals as 'killers' is
    	a <insert the most hideous label that comes to mind.>"
    
    	Would that be acceptable to you, or can you see the lack of
    	distinction between calling a named individual some hideous
    	label vs. calling a partially-identifiable group the same?

    re .305
    
    Some time ago, in an earlier version of this file a person
    came into the file and wrote in capital letters, the phrase
    'abortion is murder, plain and simple'. I deleted the note
    immediately. Even if you do not call a specific person a murderer
    any person who has had an abortion or knows someone who has had
    an abortion would take that very personally. If someone came
    into this file and made remarks about short women in their forties
    that I found hurtful, should the remark be allowed to stand just
    because it wasn't about me personally?
    
    Bonnie

    	RE:  .307
    
    	OH!  Then you agree that it is ok to say that anyone who would
    	consciously use a hideous label like the word "killer" in a
    	file like this (knowing that some persons here have had abortions)
    	is <insert the most offensive label that comes to mind>.
    
    	It is my opinion, after all, although I suppose it would be
    	sporting of me to think of some hideous label as offensive as
    	killer to label the kind of person who would deign to make such
    	sleazy accusations in a file where we all work.
    

I feel like I, personally, have been called a killer.  And I, personally, 
resent it very much.  I don't feel that anyone has the right to say that 
to me on Digital time with Digital resources.

    	RE:  .311
    
    	Well, you avoided my question about calling people (who use hideous
    	labels like killer) some equivalently hideous name, so perhaps
    	you'd like to answer my question now.
    
    	Is it ok with you if I comment on how sleazy I think it is when
    	anyone repeatedly makes accusations of 'killers' in this file?
    	It is blatant, malicious name-calling (with complete disregard for
    	the feelings of others,) and not a mere opinion.
     
    	Now, mind you, I'm not naming anyone.  It is simply my opinion
    	that anyone who would repeatedly make these kinds of sleazy,
    	insensitive remarks (or drivel, if you will) is an <insert
    	worse hideous label than you thought of last time.>
    
    	Is that, or is that not, ok with you?  Yes or no.

You now, I don't think we all need to agree on this subject...
	Mez

    Bonnie (et al.)       
    
    I'm not sure about this, but it seems to me there might be a difference
    between innocently entering the file and seeing the phrase "Abortion
    is murder; plain and simple" sticking out at you in big letters,
    maybe in a note title, 
    and intentionally reading a note which has similiar language _embedded_
    in the text. The second is more easy to avoid, and wouldn't, I would
    think, be quite as traumatic for someone who has had an abortion.
                      
    Roberta

    Marge, if I saw a note that said "all black people are murderers", I
    would not assume that because it is a generalization and doesn't name
    any particular person that it is merely a person's opinion and is 
    therefore allowable.  
    
    David Duke (and his sort) may have similar objectionable opinions but
    that doesn't mean that we have to be subjected to such indignity and
    harrasement on Digital time using Digital resources.
    
    Mary

re .295

>	Marge, I really don't see anyone trying to suppress Tom's ideas,
>	merely his language. 

		"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide
		 a medium of expression for the world view and 
		 mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, 
		 but to make all other modes of thought impossible.
		 It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted
		 once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical
		 thought -- that is , a thought diverging from the
		 principles of Ingsoc -- should be literally 
		 unthinkable, at least so far as thought is
		 dependent on words."

		"This was done partly by the invention of new 
		 words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable
		 words and by stripping such words as remained of 
		 unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all
		 secondary meanings whatever."

			The Principals of Newspeak; Appendix to
			_1984_, George Orwell

	Whatever the noble intention, the effect remains. Since
	thought is dependent upon words, eliminating a word eliminates
	the thought that word is intended to carry. This would be intolerable
	in, say a newspaper. It is tolerable here because the purpose of the
	corporation is to design, build, sell, and service quality computer 
	products, not provide a forum for free thought. Alternative forums 
	(outside the corporation) exist for that purpose.
		 
re .312:

	I feel like I, personally, have been told I don't have a right to life.
	And I, personally, resent it very much. It does work both ways.

re a bunch of folks:

	Some folks in this conference have spent the week making a
	conscious effort to be kinder and gentler, whatever the provocation,
	and not respond in kind. Some folks have even tried to lighten 
	their remarks a bit, in the hope that, even if bridges can't be 
	built yet, the words hurled across the river might be more civil. 
	Now, I think that effort has gone a long way in the lowering of 
	blood pressure in several quarters. I also think that it would be 
	to the benefit of this conference if that group grew, because then 
	the cycle of provocation would disappear. People might then realize 
	that while they differ on some subjects, that they are a lot closer 
	than some would realize on others. But no one can endure repeated 
	provocation forever. It would be a shame if an attempt to break such 
	a cycle failed where it had a real chance to succeed.

							Tom_K

Re .320

>     I feel like I, personally, have been told I don't have a right to life.
>     And I, personally, resent it very much. It does work both ways.


    Please explain this.  Are there particular words or phrases that you
    find offensive, and would like the pro-choice advocates to avoid?  I'm
    sure we could accomodate, if we knew what to avoid. 
    
    I don't agree that small restrictions on what is "acceptable" language
    necessary stifle debate;  The purpose of this particular restriction is
    to allow people to cool-off and _return_ to debate, leaving emotional
    words behind.  If an argument is so dependent on emotionally charged
    language that it cannot be expressed without such language, then that
    argument is certainly not fit to have any influence on legislation. 

    re:.300
    
    Marge, I agree that if suppression is to take place, that it should
    be applied evenly to both sides. However, I don't think that it
    has been applied unevenly here. I still maintain that there is a
    large difference between attacking people and attacking actions.
    I feel that Tom was, by his choice of terminology, attacking people,
    not their actions. I don't believe that he was being malicious in
    doing so, but I believe that he was doing so nonetheless.
    
    re:.320
    
    You're inventing a Newspeak all your own. As long as you were using
    a particular predicate noun to describe an idea, a concept, a process,
    an action, people were content to provide counterarguments. When
    you chose to supply a related predicate noun to describe people,
    *that's* when folks got upset. We didn't attack your concept, only
    your choice of target.
    
    And now, for a little frivolity amongst the heaviness...
    
    re:.308
    
    Bonnie, if anyone rags on you for being short, just tell them that
    you prefer to be called "vertically challenged". :-)
    
    --- jerry

re .321

	It's pretty simple. I was once an unborn child. If a right to
	abortion exists, it existed (but was suppressed) when I was
	in that particular state of development. If you believe in 
	a right for a woman to have an abortion, than clearly you
	believe that my mother had the right to abort me. Therefore,
	phrases that advocate abortion as a "right", or as a reasonable
	alternative are personally offensive. However, I believe
	it would be very difficult to carry on a discussion with such
	phrased banned. 

re .322

	No, being intentionally malicious would be counter-productive. 
	Anything written was written in the interest of accuracy.

	I don't think it is Newspeak to objectively describe a person
	in terms of an action committed by that person. I'd prefer
	not to when the action is offensive, but I found myself unable 
	to communicate precisely without doing so. At any rate, the
	point is moot, as such an accurate description will not be
	permitted here, and I will try to abide by that.

						Tom_K

	So it begins again.

	The precedent having been set, it is now apparent that when
	one runs out of facts, and reasoned arguments, the day can
	be won by appealing to suppress the opposition. Why am I not
	surprised?


						Tom_K

    
    
    
    
<<EVER11::KRUPINSKI "A kinder, gentler, Tom_K"    
    

    >	The precedent having been set, it is now apparent that when
    >	one runs out of facts, and reasoned arguments, the day can
    >	be won by appealing to suppress the opposition. Why am I not
    >	surprised?
     >
     >
     >						Tom_K
      
    
    Or, if one runs out of facts or reasoned arguments, the last resort
    is to invoke the horror of Nazi Germany in an attempt to use emotional
    rhetoric in place of facts or reasoned arguments.
    
    Roberta

	It is neither a last resort, or a first resort. The analogy 
	fits, so it is used. It is the fault of the so-called Pro-choice
	movement that it fits, so direct your anger there, where it
	properly belongs.

							Tom_K

    Tom, all further responses are suppressed, not just those of the
    "opposition". People can read notes that have been written (unless
    a complaint has been registered with the co-mods about a particular
    note) on either side of the debate.  *None of us* can write for 24
    hours.  The moderators did not decide to suppress one side or the
    other of this discussion.                        
    
    Your note above says it's precensored, but I still think you are
    expressing your personal, valid opinion as if it were fact.  That's a
    well-known way to start another firestorm in a notesfile.  If you had
    prefaced the note with "in my opinion", it would be unlikely to start a
    firestorm.  I can always read your notes thoughtfully as long as I
    preface them with "In Tom's opinion...". 
    
    Holly

    	Well, I'd like to see Note 183 closed permanently (since there
    	doesn't seem to be much left to debate other than the levels
    	of absurdity and offensiveness it is possible for any one analogy
    	to reach single-handedly.)
    
    	We'll never change each other's minds about it, and quite frankly,
    	the disturbance that occurred in the topic today has made it
    	quite evident that the topic (itself) has become too dangerous/
    	volatile to be handled in a notes environment.
    
    	It's time for each of us to go off to our respective Marches
    	and/or political activism to make our voices known to our
    	government (with whichever side we happen to agree.)  
    
    	There's simply no longer any point to fighting this permanent
    	rathole here when the opposing sides exist in such potentially
    	violent disagreement.

    	The only thing that is left is to see how much personal damage
    	we can do to each other over this, and frankly, I don't see
    	the point of it any longer.

    
    To some extant I agree with Suzanne, and that's why for the most
    part I've stayed away from that topic. It really is one of those
    issues that you will never change anyone's mind about. After 700-odd
    replies, it does seem a bit futile to continue.
    
    Of course there will be those (ready Tom_k?) who will say we want
    to close the topic down to close down the voice of reason and dissent
    because we think we are losing the argument. 
    
    (Sigh) Whatever.
    
    Roberta

Re:  .328

>	Well, I'd like to see Note 183 closed permanently since there
>	doesn't seem to be much left to debate ... the disturbance that
>	occurred in the topic today has made it quite evident that the
>	topic (itself) has become too dangerous/volatile to be handled
>	in a notes environment.

I can't agree with Suzanne that the abortion topic ought to be shut down.
It is undoubtedly the most emotional and contentious issue facing women
today (as the number of replies to date confirms), and that emotion has
required moderator action at least once (and maybe twice; I can't remember
any more) before.  But I don't believe that forbidding discussion of con-
tentious topics is necessary or useful for a women's issues forum.

Every opinion I saw written in the abortion topic was one I had seen given
public display in some other public forum.  Some of the opinions raised right-
eous anger among other noters.  But I saw no noter accused of any crime.
Some of the comparisons of behavior (e.g., the holocaust and abortion) may
indeed be wrong or irrelevant.  But sweeping these beliefs under the rug will
not make them go away, and will not, in the long run, advance the cause of
women's rights, in my opinion.  I think that it is far better to bring these
comparisons into the open and expose them for what they are, rather than to
let them fester in hidden silence.  It is just this sort of public exposure
that the WOMANNOTES file can accomplish so effectively; it would be a shame
to shut it down.

Mind you, charges of harassment and threats of personnel action must be taken
seriously.  It seems quite appropriate to me for the mods to shut down the
topic long enough for people to cool off if these threats get out of hand.
But as long as the mods have the stomach to tolerate this discussion (thanks
again, moderators!), I see no reason to stop it.  Who knows.  Perhaps some
cooler heads may show up here some day, and actually enlighten us all.  It
would be a shame to make that impossible.

						--Q

    re: .331
    
    I agree.
    
    Someone has predicted, and I agree, that we are in for a long
    political civil war over abortion (and birth control) in this 
    country.  Let's just be sure it remains political -- but I
    increasingly see no way out other than "straight ahead" for
    both sides, until there is a clear, politically-fought-out law
    one way or the other.  (Then there may be a brief respite.)

    	RE:  .332
    
    	> Someone has predicted, and I agree, that we are in for a long
    	> political civil war over abortion (and birth control) in
    	> this country.
    
    	Yes, I believe that is true.
    
    	If we agree that we are engaged in a war, do we really want
    	to watch it waged here (where we work?)  That's the question.
    
    	It's just something worth thinking about, that's all.
    

    This is the processing topic, may we please keep it to process issues.
    The abortion topic is still write locked. Please let us all refrain
    from any sort of discussion on the topic until the 5 comods have
    a chance to confer.
    
    Bonnie

Re:  .334

>   Please let us all refrain from any sort of discussion on the topic
>   until the 5 comods have a chance to confer.

As I see it, the last few replies have been about whether or not to keep
the abortion topic open (a conference policy issue), not about abortion
itself.  As such, I would hope that the mods would consider these replies
as you confer on what to do about this issue.

						--Q

    It looked like there was a danger of the processing topic becoming
    a new abortion topic. Please discuss the issue of keeping the topic
    open but be careful to not let it spill over to discussing the
    subject.
    
    Thank you
    
    Bonnie

 In my opinion, the discussion should be allowed to continue. I feel that
anyone who does not wish to contribute to the discussion further has the
right to not respond, but not the right to eliminate further discussion of
others.

 The Doctah

    I was  plannning  to write a note similar to the one Suzzane wrote
    suggesting  that  the  abortion  topic  no  longer serves a useful
    purpose.  I haven't seen either side introduce either new thoughts
    or  new  ways  of  expressing  older  thoughts in the last several
    hundred  replies.  If  either were appearing it would be worth the
    pain  to  keep  the topic open, but when the topic generates great
    heat and no light, I'm in favor of moving it to soapbox.

    How can  I  state  this  position  and  still argue for Freedom of
    speech?  It  bothers me. I think the fact that this is a community
    and  not  a  publication  is  part  of it, and the existence of an
    equally available forum (soapbox) make this a reasonable request.

--David

    	RE:  .337

    	> I feel that anyone who does not wish to contribute to the
    	> discussion furthur has the right to not respond, but not the
    	> right to eliminate furthur discussion of others.
        
    	Mark, anyone here has the right to make *suggestions* about
    	whether or not a topic should be left open (and the moderators 
    	do indeed have the right to close topics permanently, if they so 
    	choose.)  Moderators in other files do it all the time.
    
    	This file is under no obligation whatsoever to discuss a topic
    	that is exceptionally volatile/sensitive for this file *if* the 
    	mods decide that it is doing us more harm than good at this point.
    
    	No one can force topics to be allowed in this file, *IFF* the
    	mods decide against it (based on input from the community.)
    
    	This isn't a Womannotes policy.  It's common in most/all notesfiles
    	within DEC.
    
    	As fair as our moderators are, I'm sure they'll make the best
    	possible choice (using their good judgment.)  I'll support whatever
    	they decide is best.

    
    I agree with David that since no new thoughts are really being
    introduced into the abortion topic, there is really no reason to
    keep it open. I don't think it's a question of free speech at all.
    It's a question of whether there is anything left to say on this
    issue. I don't think there is. Why should we re-read the same arguments
    over and over? Isn't 700 replies enough?
    
    Roberta
    

    Well, she said in a very small voice, there are some data I'd
    been meaning to put there, but haven't yet.  One datum was even
    in response to a question.
    
    						Ann B.

If everybody who has nothing new to contribute to the abortion topic
refrained from writing in it, it would "close" by its lonesome self.

M.

 re: Martin

 Yes, that is exactly my point.

 re: Suzanne

 The first two words in your quotation of my reply say it all.

 re: SOAPBOX

 I do not appreciate the implication that SOAPBOX is a place where all topics
"generate all heat and no light." SOAPBOX has its problems, but they will be
appropriately dealt with. Disparaging the 'BOX in this forum can be seen as
an affront to any members of this community that also happen to subscribe to
the box. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from insulting boxers who also
happen to note here... I don't think it would be appreciated if a womannoter
read less than complimentary things about =wn= in another forum, no matter
where.

 The Doctah

    Mike,
    
    The goal of this conference has always been to encourage the
    community to be active participants.
    
    Thank you for your note
    
    Bonnie

re .327:
	Holly, if you have a bunch of folks who want to say "X is Y"
	and a bunch of folks that say "X is not Y", and you ban everyone
	from saying "X is Y", then it it true, the suppression is imposed
	on everyone. But if you look at the effect, one side is silenced,
	and the other isn't.

	My note says it is pre-censored because it is. I have done the
	pre-censoring, to relieve others from the need to do so.

	Allow me to present the edited for =wm= version of the first 
	part of the US Declaration of Independence :

		In our humble opinion, we think that the following
		may be true: All persons should have certain rights.
		We think these include life, liberty, and the pursuit
		of happiness....

		John Hancock (who_hopes_King_George_isn't_too_offended)

	Kinda pales next to the original text, no? :-)

re 329:

	Far be it from me to suggest that you are losing the argument.
	The facts speak for themselves, and anyone with an open mind can 
	look at the record and decide for them self. People from both
	sides believe that a continuing discussion here can serve no
	useful purpose. That discussion is independent of other discussions.

re .332, .333

	A war has existed for over 15 years. I will not make further
	comment for fear of escalating the discussion here.

    

	I will offer no input to the decision, but will abide by its
	result. I would also hope that further discussion of the topic,
	if any, remains confined to the Topic set aside for it. There are 
	currently other topics into which such discussions have leaked. 
	(I am not referring to the Topic set aside for personal 
	experiences, which has been respected by both sides, to the best 
	of my knowledge)

							Tom_K

    Here's a timidly-offered suggestion from a relatively new noter.  
    If you disagree (or it's been tried before and found unworkable), 
    please respond with reason and moderation.  (In other words, please
    don't come down on me with your well-worn, steel-toed and cleated 
    work-boots, whoever you are!)
    
    Could heated topics (heat being measured by number and frequency
    of responses/counter-responses) be limited to X number of replies
    per noter?  This would ensure (1) responses are carefully thought-out
    before being entered; (2) a reasonable counter-response opportunity
    would exist; (3) new voices and ideas would still be welcome and
    given a forum; but (4) we wouldn't be subjected to the same noters
    flooding the file with variations on a theme.
    
    Once a topic is designated "heated," noters could be responsible
    for policing themselves (with, perhaps, a few necessary nudges from
    the moderators). 
                                                   
    I would hate to see any topic cut-off before the less-vocal or
    more-recent members of our community had a chance to contribute.
    But I must admit I've been hitting "next unseen" when the abortion
    topic comes up lately.
    
    In concern for a continued open-forum,
    Karen
                                      

    re .347 (Karen)
    
    I think this is a good idea. Maybe limit any noter to one reply
    to this topic per two days or some such formulation.
    
    Les

    
    I also think Ms. Godin's (do i have this right?) idea is excellent.
    Brava!
    

    re: .347
    
    � If you disagree. . .please respond with reason and moderation.
    
    Well said and it seems to me that one way to do just that is to
    dice the judgemental words and/or phrases (you know, gang. . .stuff
    like "stupid idea", etc).  Another suggestion I'd offer is to assume
    that all noters really are interested in an exchange of ideas and
    feelings; to *assume* differently will do everyone a disservice.
    It can often help to ask questions along the lines of "When you
    say '_____insert-their-quote______', do you mean to imply that
    '______insert-your-interpretation______'?"  
    
    And, speaking of feelings, (though this one is getting to be old 
    as the Mill), they're always valid for the speaker.  They may or may 
    not be an appropriate response to a given situation, but that's
    an altoghether different discussion.  At the risk of making a gross
    generalization, I'll go out on a limb and say that the one response
    we should *never* make to "I feel ___insert feeling_____" is, "Oh,
    you shouldn't feel that way"
    
    Steve

    	The main problem that I see with 183 is that the "politics"
    	of the subject often involve the use of carefully orchestrated
	series of uncompromising moral absolutes (which, in the heat
    	of battle, tend to make the exchange of any sort of meaningful
    	dialogue nearly impossible.)
    
    	The use of moral absolutes may work on the streets in the course
    	of political demonstrations, but to use emotionally-charged
    	buzz-terminology against identifiable individuals is simply *NOT*
    	an acceptable way to communicate with fellow peers/employees
    	on a corporate resource where we all work.
    
    	Now that the issue has reached the proportions of a political
    	war in our culture, we're in danger of seeing more and more
    	arguments involving moral absolutes launched against employees
    	at Digital, and I don't see any way we can allow this without
    	seriously breaching the guidelines of conduct set forth by our
    	employer for use on corporate resources.
    
    	More simply put - we all work here. Some moral absolutes make handy
    	dandy signs to be carried at demonstrations, but when they are
    	used against people at our workplace, they are simply not tolerable.
    
    	If we've come to the point in topic 183 where all that's left
    	to do is to see how many ways we can damn each other to hell
    	with moral judgments on each other's philosophies, then it may
    	be time to call it a day when it comes to purely political debates 
    	on that issue.

    The freedom to gain knowledge is our greatest asset as individuals,
    a corporation and a country.
    
    Learning that we do or don't like or agree with what we hear or
    read is an essential tool in decision making.
    
    Keep the notes open we have a lot go gain through other peoples
    experiences and writing.
    
    Let me make a choice of whether I want to read or not.
    
    M

    	RE: .353
    
    	> The freedom to gain knowledge is our greatest asset as
    	> individuals, a corporation and a country.
    
    	Not all "knowledge" is ours for the taking or giving (especially
    	in a corporate environment.)
    
    	Just as Digital has the right to put limits on what proprietary
    	information we are allowed to "give away" to customers (or to
    	anyone else outside Digital,) the corporation *also* has the
    	right to put limits on what kinds of implications can be made
    	about employees on company resources.  For that matter, even
    	the moderators have the right to set those kinds of limits in
    	Digital notesfile that they moderate.
    
    	How much "knowledge" that can be gained from the repetition
    	of damning moral absolutes against a political ideology is
    	debatable at best.
    
    	If people want free access to the hearts of each side of this
    	political issue, I'm sure that the various organizations who
    	work for the two sides would be glad to send enough literature
    	about their ideologies to satisfy almost anyone's healthy quest 
    	for knowledge about this subject.  

    	Hopefully, Digital's notesfiles are not anyone's *only* source
    	of information about the world outside our doors here.

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    We're hacking madly at a set of administrative rules to allow
    us to open 183.*  Please be patient?
    
    						=maggie

	Meanwhile, people are playing fast and loose with conference
	and corporate policy in Topic 325...

							Tom_K

    Re: .356
    
    When registering complaints, try to be specific (like which conference
    and corporate policies).  It speeds up problem resolution and cuts
    down on confusion.

Not too long ago, after I got divorced and became a pauper, I stopped
    getting the newspaper and didn't get a T.V. and began to notice
    the things I bought.  I began to notice that there are fad things
    that are seen on T.V. and in big, shiny adds in magazines and
    newspapers and the big stands at the super markets.  These things
    don't generally stand on their own merit.  They are not really useful
    to normal life.  They are sold to us by a marketing tactic known
    as association.  We associate a good T.V. show with a product and
    end up buying more of one brand than the other.  I've discovered
    that it is the Ad Agency's way of manipulating public opinion. 
    Associate you product with something good...associate you competitor's
    product with something bad.
    
    Topic 183, IMHO, exhibited the latter type of marketing manipulation.
    The base note is valid.  It is a topic that can, should, needs to
    be discussed and this is as good a forum as any.  Associating it
    with a known atrocity is manipulative.  I expect that one day I
    will be known as 'Mr. Antimanipulation'.  The tactic is unfair and
    I commend the moderators for controlling the situation.  Yes.  There
    should be freedom of speech.  The free speakers MUST self censor
    or the forum may wither.
    

    	RE:  .359
    
    	> Every word in every valuing differences note conference is
    	> personally offensive to someone somewhere on this worldwide
    	> network, I can imagine.  If that were the basis for determining
    	> what we could write, we'd all be mute.
    
    	Marge, there is a big difference between writing ideas that
    	are "personally offensive" to others and making blanket statements
    	(using extreme moral absolutes) that serve to *condemn* known
    	individuals for adhering to a certain belief system.
    
    	Saying that you believe in "X" may be personally offensive to
    	those who do NOT believe in "X," and both groups are certainly
    	entitled to their own beliefs (no matter who is upset by them.)
    
    	Where the problem comes is if, say, the non-believers start saying
    	things that *DAMN* the believers in "X" (like, for example,
    	if the non-believers started to express their position by stating
    	that the belief in "X" is equivalent to the practice of devil-
    	worship with human sacrifice, or cannibalism, or by using some other
    	atrocious analogy.)
    
    	Beliefs in an ideology are not the same thing as using manipulative
    	(and damning) moral absolutes as if they were the Indisputable
    	Truth.

What about believing how other people should believe?

[I request anyone trying to answer my question not use heavily-loaded words, as
I will have problems gleaning the thoughts throught them.]
	Mez

    	RE:  183.779 (Maggie, with new groundrules for Abortion Concerns)
    
    	Well done!!  You've addressed the concerns that were the
    	basis of the suggestions to close the topic (while keeping it 
    	open for all who feel it is too important to shut down,) and you
    	did it in a way that is fair to everyone involved!
    
    	What more could any of us have asked?
    
    	Thanks again to our wonderful moderators!!
    

    	RE: 325.301
    
    	Tom_K, why is it that when you write argumentative replies
    	in response to what you consider "inflammatory" replies, you
    	feel that "blame" for your replies should go to the author
    	of the reply to which you were responding (and not to you)...
    
    	*THEN*, when *YOU* write a reply that MANY consider inflammatory,
    	and it receives what you consider argumentative replies in
    	response to it, "blame" should go to the authors of the so-called
    	argumentative replies (and not to YOU, as the author of the
    	original reply that was considered inflammatory)...
    
    	You can't have it both ways, Tom_K.  Trying to redirect someone's
    	anger (at your reply) away from you and back to their own ideology 
    	(and persons with whom they agree) is a "tactic" (and not a very 
    	subtle one.)

re .363

>    	Tom_K, why is it that when you write argumentative replies
>    	in response to what you consider "inflammatory" replies, you
>    	feel that "blame" for your replies should go to the author
>    	of the reply to which you were responding (and not to you)...

	Because it is the originator of the string that has set the
	tone of the string by being inflammatory. If the the originator
	of the string did not want the string to be inflammatory, then the
	originating writer would not be inflammatory to begin with.
    
>    	*THEN*, when *YOU* write a reply that MANY consider inflammatory,
>    	and it receives what you consider argumentative replies in
>    	response to it, "blame" should go to the authors of the so-called
>    	argumentative replies (and not to YOU, as the author of the
>    	original reply that was considered inflammatory)...
    
	Because the tone of the string having been set by the originator
	of the string, it would be unreasonable to expect that subsequent
	replies have a different tone than that set by the originator of the 
	string.

>    	You can't have it both ways, Tom_K.  Trying to redirect someone's
>    	anger (at your reply) away from you and back to their own ideology 
>    	(and persons with whom they agree) is a "tactic" (and not a very 
>    	subtle one.)

	What's both ways? In each case the originator of the inflammatory
	string is responsible. If no one initiates inflammatory strings,
	everyone is happy. Am I missing something?

							Tom_K

    	RE:  .364
    
    	Yes, Tom_K, you *are* missing something.
    
    	No matter who *starts* the inflammatory section of a string,
    	you blame others for it.  If you start it, you blame others
    	for their reactions.  If others start it, you blame them
    	for *YOUR* reactions.
    
    	Note 325 was peaceful for nearly 300 replies before you came
    	in with your reply .286 to set off a series of angry replies
    	against your position.  If you had left it alone (given it
    	the respect that an "experiences" note deserves,) then the
    	angry replies to your note never would have occurred.
    
    	You (and other pro-lifers) have spoken repeatedly about how
    	important you felt it was to leave the "abortion experiences"
    	note undisturbed by your comments.  Well, no one has had the
    	nerve to TALK about their experiences in that note since January,
    	so note 325 has taken its place.
    
    	Please respect it.

re .365

	I lay blame only where it is deserved. If I have started 
	any inflammatory strings, they are a tiny percentage of
	the strings I entered in response to existing inflammatory 
	statements.

	Several people who said that they did not participate in the
	actual event wrote their reactions to it in Topic 325. Why
	do you believe I should be treated differently than they? Why 
	do you believe my reaction and experience is so unworthy 
	that I should not be allowed to mention it? My entry was peaceful
	in tone and restrained, even conciliatory, in content. It was 
	subsequent replies which became argumentative. In response to 
	that hostility, I merely raised objection rather than continuing 
	the argument. 
	
	I have been more than reasonable.

						Tom_K

    re: .364

    >	Because it is the originator of the string that has set the
    >	tone of the string by being inflammatory. If the the originator
    >	of the string did not want the string to be inflammatory, then the
    >	originating writer would not be inflammatory to begin with.
        
    Do you always give everybody what they want, Tom?
    
    >	Because the tone of the string having been set by the originator
    >	of the string, it would be unreasonable to expect that subsequent
    >	replies have a different tone than that set by the originator of the 
    >	string.

    It has always been my hope that just the opposite would occur.  What you 
    describe sounds like mob rule, individuals out of control of escalating 
    emotions.  I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that there are some 
    people in this world who can respond reasonably and firmly, from the calm 
    of deeply held convictions, even when provoked.  God, I hope not.

What are we processing here? Noter style?
	Mez

    Perhaps when there is a back-and-forth between two noters for several
    sets of replies to the same topic, and it seems to be more a one-on-one
    discussion/argument than anything else, it might just be time for
    them to take it offline and discuss it through mail, if it seems
    that perhaps it is generating more heat than light.
    
    -Jody
    

    As a comoderator I think that Jody's answer is a good one.
    If you find that you have exchanged more than three or four
    replies back and forth with the same person on the same topic,
    it would be a good idea to take the subject to mail.
    
    Bonnie

This may  not  be  the  right place for this note, but I felt it ought to be
said:

Almost invariably, when a "pro-choice" person refers to a "pro-life" person,
the  "pro-lifer"  is  usually called "anti-choice". Conversely, "pro-lifers"
tend  to  refer  to  "pro-choicers"  as "pro-abortion" or "anti-life". These
labels are inflammatory, inaccurate, and unnecessary to any discussion.

I think  that  each  group  should  be  referred to by the preferred by that
group.  Calling a "pro-choice" person "pro-abortion" is in its way as bad as
calling  a  Black  person "nigger". If you disagree with someone's choice of
adjective  to  describe  their position, include quotation marks to indicate
that you do not agree.

I think  that  "pro-choice"  and "pro-life" are accurate descriptions of the
two  groups' self-perceived positions. To the pro-choice people, the central
issue is a woman's right to chose, while to the pro-life people, the central
issue  is  a  foetus/unborn  baby's right to life. Let's at least try to use
non-inflammatory terms to refer to people's positions on this subject.

I don't know if I'm the only one who has this problem, but I cringe whenever
I hear someone say "anti-choice", "anti-life", or "pro-abortion".

- Brad_who_has_tried_to_keep_his_own_position_on_abortion_out_of_this

    re: 372
    
    Basically I agree with you, *except*  (I know this sounds like, 
    "But, Ma, *he* started it!"):
    
    As a pro-choice
    person, being called "pro-abortion" by some pro-life people led
    to some confusion on my part.  I don't consider myself to be
    "pro"-abortion, and I began to feel that I didn't want to be lumped
    with "pro-abortionists."  Then I realized that that was a label
    applied by the other side and that I was about to buy into it!  
    So, in self-defense, if I am replying
    to someone who has called the pro-choice movement by some other
    label, then I have (recently) decided to escalate *my* point of
    view as well by using terms like "anti-choice" or "no-choice"
    etc.  
    
    Both as a woman (who feels differently when called a "girl") and
    as a writer (who knows very well the power of words), I feel that
    the time to do this -- when necessary -- is now!

    Nancy

    I'd also like to support Jody's suggestion about taking 1:1
    exchanges to mail.
    
    And could I also ask that this topic be reserved to talking about
    the file and its administration?  Thanks.
    
    						=maggie

The quote below was entered into soapbox by Gregg Germain as part
of a longer note. I thought it an interesting comment on communication
and got his permission to enter the quote in this file as well.

Bonnie

	The folowing passage is from Carl Van Doren's biography of 
        Benjamin Franklin:

	"Perhaps he (Franklin) was most successful with Humility. He had
	not included it on his list, at first: "but a Quaker friend having 
	kindly informed me that I was generally thought proud; that my 
	pride showed itself frequently in conversation; that I was not 
	content with being in the right when discussing any point but was
	overbearing and rather insolent, of which he convinced me by 
	mentioning several instances; I determined endeavoring to cure
	myself, if I could, of this vice or folly among the rest.....I made
	it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction of the sentiments
	 of others, and all positive assertion of my own...I soon found the 
	advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engaged 
	in went on more presently. The modest way in which I proposed my
	opinions procured them a readier reception and less contradiction;
	I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong; and 
	more easily prevailed with others to give up their mistakes and 
	join with me when I happened to be in the right."

	(reprinted without permission in true box fashion)

As a co-mod, I will only response officially to a request if it is made to me
personally. Mail and telephone are both fine. I don't take action on notes
explicitly or implicitly calling for action. One of the co-mods got into
'trouble' doing this (in this very string, I believe :-).

I figured I should make this explicit. And allow for discussion, if it needed
it.
	Mez

Re:  .376

>    As a co-mod, I will only response officially to a request if it is made
>    to me personally. . .  I don't take action on notes explicitly or
>    implicitly calling for action.

I feel uncomfortable with a style of moderation that is this passive.

In the past, when trouble has arisen in this file there has often been a
fair amount of advance warning.  Often a topic may take a few days to heat
up, and occasionally the discussion may overflow into this topic.  (Witness
the recent abortion topic explosion, for example.)  I have often had the
sense that some well chosen moderator comments could help keep things cool
enough to prevent any real nastiness from developing.  (Maggie seems to do
this from time to time, and I have often felt that it helped).

If you wait for explicit formal requests to show up it may already be too
late to resolve an issue without engendering a fair amount of ill will.
While I would not suggest that you casually hide or delete random notes
(other than those that clearly violate conference policy), I do think it
would be helpful if you tried to nudge a discussion that appears to be
going over the edge, without waiting for a formal complaint.

						--Q

re: .377, .376:
>>    As a co-mod, I will only response officially to a request if it is made
>>    to me personally. . .  I don't take action on notes explicitly or
>>    implicitly calling for action.

>I feel uncomfortable with a style of moderation that is this passive.

On the other hand, this file occasionally has instances of people posting
notes that say, more or less, "this is offensive" or "this is harrassing."
When moderating Soapbox, where such postings are frequent, I assume that
the poster is blowing off steam if the complaint only appears in the file.

Martin.

>On the other hand, this file occasionally has instances of people posting
>notes that say, more or less, "this is offensive" or "this is harrassing."
>When moderating Soapbox, where such postings are frequent, I assume that
>the poster is blowing off steam if the complaint only appears in the file.

 Soapbox is a totally different animal. Comparing it to =wn= is like comparing 
mammals to fish.

 I think that it is occasionally helpful to put in a =maggie-like warning, but
I sometimes think they come too soon (or too late). All in all, nudges from
the comods seem to be somewhat helpful.

 I think that part of the reason we have comods in this file is because their
diverse talents and interests allow for a special kind of moderation. I
kinda like having moderators that are different from each other. As such, I have
no problem with Mez being a more passive comod than others, as long as the
moderating job gets done.

 The Doctah

>
> Soapbox is a totally different animal. Comparing it to =wn= is like comparing 
> mammals to fish.
	
	I'm sorry but I guess I don't follow either conference enough to see
	the difference. Seriously.

				Alfred

Ah yes, I guess I don't know myself well enough :-).

I have made "Watch it folks" statements without a direct request.

But don't assume I'm reading the same situation you are, and that I'll get to
it. I do have my blind spots.

So, perhaps what I'm saying :-) is don't assume I will get to it. Tell me.
Directly. I like blunt people.

Other co-mods may read minds better than I do.
	Mez

    Like Mez I prefer to have people tell me if they are upset.
    
    Several times I have heard through third parties about so and
    so who felt harassed or something in =wn=. Usually it was a note
    that I didn't pick up on. 
    
    So while I also will put in a 'watch it folks' or a moderator
    plea for cooling down, I would request that people contact
    the author of a note and/or the moderators if they have a problem.
    Don't assume we see things the same way you do.
    
    In general I assume that as adults, if someone doesn't complain
    they aren't bothered.
    
    Bonnie

    And, lest Mez and Bonnie be misunderstood, NO we are not asking people
    to complain to us more frequently!  Rather the reverse, if anything.
    
    Tolerance for most things, mail sent directly to the author for most of
    the rest, and a serious commitment to the welfare of the whole
    community --which I think we would all agree is typically not well-
    served by threats of appeal to Personnel!-- will go a long way toward
    keeping this file a warm, welcoming place in which our community can
    meet and share our lives. 
    
    						=maggie

    I think any complaints, to moderators or otherwise, should be done
    through mail.  You have a much better guarantee that your complaint
    will actually be seen.  Also, it's usually a lot easier to deal
    with wounded sensibilities outside of a public forum.  In a public
    conference (one that doesn't require membership), a SEND/MEMBERS
    while in notes should send your message to all the moderators of
    the conference.

       In Topic 545, at least five notes either propose or join the
       claque for a boycott of a corporation, based on 2nd or 3rd
       hand hearsay.
       
       In note 545.115, a moderator thanks a noter for "pointing out that
       we cannot talk about organizing boycotts of other corporations in
       a Digital Notes file"; the moderator then proceeds to do
       absolutely nothing about the collection of notes that does
       precisely what she says they cannot. 
       
       Had the details been reversed---that is to say, if a group of
       people supporting the reversal of Roe v Wade proposed and
       supported a boycott of a company that purportedly contributed to
       pro-choice groups---would the moderators have allowed the notes to
       stand with a wink and a wrist-slap?  We'll never know, of course,
       but the homogeneity of views represented by the moderators on many
       of the controversial issues that arise in this conference does not
       contribute to giving the appearance of fairness.  
       
       --Mr Topaz

    
    Perhaps the moderator wanted to give the people involved a chance
    to handle it themselves, being big boys and girls.
    
    You may have noticed  I have deleted my note.
    
    Roberta

    And I hid my 545.110
    
    Les

    The series of notes referring to a boycott have been hidden.
    
    

    Don knew very well that action would be taken...he just enjoys stirring
    the pot.

       re .389:
       
       > [Mr Topaz] knew very well that action would be taken
       
       Sure, I figured that you (plural) would do something after I'd
       called you on it.  
       
       The point is that a moderator:
           
           1) Read the notes in question, all of which appeared to be 
              from noters who share the point of view of all of the
              moderators;
           2) Acknowledged that the notes talked about something that 
              "we cannot talk about"; and then finally
           3) Did absolutely nothing to hide or delete the so-called
              unacceptable notes until the problem was pointed out
              by this noter the next day.
       
       Although I agree with the personal views of the moderators, I'll
       stick up for fairness and the rights of people who don't share
       those views.  If Moderator Tarbet wishes to characterize that as
       "pot-stirring", I'll stick up for her right for that, as well. 
       
       --Mr Topaz
       
       

    Actually Don,
    
    The moderator came home last night from dinner out with a stomach
    ache and a head ache.
    
    Read mail indicating that there was a problem.
    
    Entered a note asking people to be careful.
    
    and went to bed, assuming that there would  be time in the morning
    to take care of the rest of the problem.
    
    Bonnie

       
       It is reassuring to know this is one of the conferences where
       the moderators provide a forum in which they open themselves to
       the scrutiny and review of the conference contributors.  
              
       And one hopes that Moderator Reinke feels better with the morning
       light, and, that, in the interests of both her well-being and that
       of this conference, she avoids the type of dining establishment
       that gave her mal-de-tout. 
       
       --Mr Topaz

    It wasn't the restaurant....I felt that way before I left but
    wanted to meet my friends.. :-)
    
    Bonnie

    Mr. Topaz,
    
    Before you, or anyone else, ever again charges the moderators of
    Womannotes of biased hiding and not hiding of notes, I would
    request that you read note 210.167, and contemplate its possibly
    libelous comment -- and title -- about a pro-feminist magazine.
    
    And realize that no one has hidden it, or deleted it.
    
    							Ann B.

    I too can verify that many times I have had notes challenged by
    the moderators and have been required to substantiate the premise
    of several notes.  Had I been a more sensitive sort of person, I
    would have concluded that the moderators were biased against me.
    I must infer then that the moderators are quite balanced and fair
    in their appraisals and it is the contributors that are unbalanced_:-).
    
    Mary

    FWIW, my "warning" was responding more to what I *might* see than
    what I actually saw.

  Re: .394    

          -< Can only a man's ox be gored? >-

  For what it's worth, I've known Don for ten years or so and can attest
  to the fact that he is an equal opportunity offender.

  JP

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Could we reduce the snide in here too please?  Thanks.
    
    						=maggie

    I'm sorry if I offended anyone in the "Pope note". The man must
    have a sense of humor because he really sis do a guest spot on Alf
    last week. My responses were all in fun. Pope John Paul is a brilliant
    man. The first Polish pope. The youngest Pope. He's an athlete.
    He helped hide Jews in the underground in WWII. I have great respect
    for the man. 
    
    Kate
    
    
    

    Thanks for the vote of confidence, Mike.
    
    I entered the original note as "WN Lite" intentionally.  When I
    heard that it was the Pope's birthday, I began to wonder just *how*
    such a person celebrated.  I had no intentions of making light of
    anyone's beliefs.
    
    Judi
    

    
    If the Pope were female I'm sure the phone lines to Personnel
    would be a'humming, and they'd be building a gallows to hand
    someone on...
    

    
    re:.405
    i do not understand the intent of this. would you care to elaborate?
    

    actually, there's a lengthy and pun-filled light discussion of the
    pope somewhere over in JOYOFLEX....which didn't go overboard and
    was taken in the gently humorous manner it was intended by all
    involved.  Light discussion of topics that are sensitive to some
    can occasionally work, and if some are very uncomfortable with the
    discussion they should speak up and say what hurts and perhaps a
    clue as to why, and then the discussion can back off.  
    
    -Jody
    

    In general, I believe that people should be able to discuss
    anything they want, in anyway that they want.  I'm not
    here quibbling with DECnote policy.  DEC can do anything
    it wants with its machines.  I'm not quibbling with =wn=
    policy...  
    
    I do think, however, that outside those confines, freedom
    of speech is paramount.  If someone doesn't agree with
    someone else, that person should publicly disagree or go away.
    Anything else is or leads to censorship.  And if you can decide
    what I am permitted/forbidden to say, then it's just
    as permissible for me or anyone else to control what _you_
    say.  And soon nothing gets said except the official
    party line.  Which changes when the party in power changes.
    
    Complaining about a pope joke is (in my mind) different
    only in degree from calling for the death of Salman Rushdie.
    
    
    /bruce

    
                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Well, should the topic be reopened then?  I'd like to hear what Michael
    has to say about why he objected as he did.  I felt slightly nervous
    about the levity myself, but wasn't sure whether that was because I was
    raised an RC or what; I tried checking out my own feelings by imagining
    how I would feel if the humor were at, e.g., the Ayatollah's expense,
    or the Dalaj Lama's, or the Archbishop of Canterbury's...but before I
    got very far, Michael had objected and so I closed the string.
    
    						=maggie

Although this is not an official response, in this particular case, I don't
know how much of my personal opinion has been influenced by moderating this
file.

I find humor an important outlet (had you noticed?). If I was not able to joke
about important things (like work), things I love (like Joe), and things I hate
(like sexism), I would not be able to embrace them/think about them/work them
through. Religion seems like the sort of thing many members of this conference
need to think through. 

Now, I'm not sure that's what the pope-light topic was all about. But that's
what I used it for [note: I participated. that influences what I think too.]

I think the person calling for closure needs to interact with the moderators
until a decision is made. If there is no such person, I think it should be
opened. I think the person hurt or offended is more important than the person
indignant at the hurt.
	Mez

    I joke alot- and I try to find humor in what some would consider
    strange places. Nonetheless, I also found myself uneasy with the
    string. I assume it has something to do with my being raised RC.
    I can understand how people can get pretty upset wrt religious jokes.
    Some people take religion more seriously than others.
    
    I was not offended by the string- but I did feel uneasy. As much as I
    am able to remain irreverent about many things, _my_ church is not one
    of them. Since I have no problem joking about other people's religions,
    I would find it difficult to justify to get too bent out of shape about
    someone poking fun at mine.
    
    I have no problem with seeing the string reopened. After all, they are
    just words...
    
    The Doctah

    Let me comment briefly on why I suggested the string on jokes re:
    the Pope was in poor taste.  First, jokes concerned with race,
    religion, ethnicity etc. should be avoided, in my opinion, in public
    discussions.  In particular, focusing the humour on the Pope seemed
    a little insensitive.
    
    However, it is only my opinion and feeling.  I am not suggesting
    what the Notesfile contributors and moderators should do.
    
     Mike
    

    Why "in particular", Mike?
    
    						=maggie

    Haven't I seen postcards of the current pope looking/acting positively
    clownish? I.e., making funny faces and the like. Would this make
    a difference to how appropriate the string is?
    
    Dorian

    
    In the note on the sexist implications if any of the Ban de Soleil
    suntan oil adverts, I accidentally used an English idiom that could
    easily be misinterpreted.
    
    Firstly let me say that I do not wish to complain at having this
    pointed out to me, I would have been more than willing to correct
    the wording except that (a) Notes doesn't allow a note to be edited
    in place (though version 2 effectively does), and (b) the axiomatic
    expression in question had been quoted in other peoples notes (where
    only they or the moderators could expunge it...)
    
    I know that it is natural reaction to treat Notes like a personal 
    conversation and to reply immediately when something like this occurs, 
    but it is rather like having the conversation in the control booth at 
    CBS and discovering that the talk-back mike is live and 50 million 
    people just heard you...
       
    I'd like to suggest that matters like this be taken up by mail,
    but I am curious to see what the readership think.
    
    /. Ian .\                                                     
    

    maggie
    
    " In particular", because Pope John Paul is the leader of the Roman
    Catholic Church and is the particular representation of the faith
    to which I, among others, subscribe and experience.  I would
    not joke aabout other religions or, in particular,
    their leaders.
    
      Mike
    

    Mike, are you saying that we should take Ayatollah Khomenei
    seriously? (Well, possibly we should when he puts a bounty
    on our head, for making fun of him).
    
    You're a Christian, Mike. Isn't Jesus the representation of your
    faith? 
    
    The pope is, after all, only a man.
    
      Alan

    re: 417  
    
    Alan,
    
    I would prefer not to enter into a piece of theological dfiscourse
    as a result of this issue.  Suffice it to say that I am uncomfortable
    with ad hominem humour.  Can we let the issue go ?
    Thanks.
    
     Mike
    

    Geesh,
         
    Mike didn't ask that we close the discussion.  He just pointed out
    that, while the previous comments probably weren't meant to be offensive,   
    they nonetheless were to him.  He was effectively reminding us that
    when it comes to sensitive topics (and religion is one), that we 
    should "proceed with caution."
                         
    And PLEASE do not tell him that he does not have the right to feel
    the way he does.  (Does this sound familiar?)
                         

    -Tracy
    

    By the way, I was talking about the "Pope" topic (611, I think).
    
    Also:	
                                                              
    In answer to a question that was raised several times:  To those
    who subscribe to Roman Catholicism, the Pope is _not_ just another
    human being with the same flaws as the rest of us.  Per that doctrine,
    he is God's selected representative on Earth (successor in that
    job to Jesus) and he is infallible.
    
    And, on the lighter side, the Pope on ALF was played by an actor.
    He did look just like him, so I watched the credits.  Sorry, Kate.
    
    -Tracy
    
    
         

    A discussion of leading questions has cropped up in another topic.
    
    Personally, I find I use them rarely, as they tend to be unproductive
    in sharing information and allowing free and open discussion of
    a topic.  I find I use them only when I'm *angry* about something
    someone has said.  I sometimes see them as a statement of..."a-ah!
    I have you now and you *have* to grant that my point is valid if
    you look at it this way...even if you don't *agree* with what I'm
    saying, I certainly said it *cleverly* and now you're *trapped*.
    So *there*."  
    
    It's sort of a mentally rhetorical smirk where if the person doesn't
    answer, they may risk looking dumb (and often the question is pointed
    at one person in the conversation), and if they do answer, all that
    generally ensues is an argument based on mutual attack and defense.
     I guess a leading question looks to me like an attack of sorts
    - why not ask an open question and allow everyone to make up their
    own minds?  Make your point and leave it at that.  And if an argument
    or flame-fest is going on around you, make your point "in a
    vacuum" (i.e. not referring to the heated argument) if the topic is 
    getting heated around  you and you wish to see things calm down.  
    
    -Jody
    
    

Another kind of questioning is the "thought experiment" -- ask the reader to
imagine a situation, and what her thoughts, feelings, or actions would be
in that situation.

An important difference between leading questions and thought experiments is
that an honest thought experiment is posed as a way of allowing yourself and
others to gain insight into your feelings about something.  The readers might 
end up agreeing with you, but the *intention* is discovery, not persuasion.

A good thought experiment can be a valuable way of exploring an idea from a
variety of angles.

	-Neil

Always on the alert for particular ways of interacting that turn discussions
into arguments, I offer this for your consideration:

Rhetorical questions confuse people. People may think the questioner may really
be interested in and open to an answer. They may bang their heads against the
wall, and get mad. The questioner may get mad that the answeree doesn't see
that there is not answer.
	Mez

	Even if they're labeled rhetorical, Mez?

					--Doug

Was that a rhetorical question Doug? :-)

Well, I would hope people wouldn't get confused if they were labeled, so the
rest of my example certainly wouldn't hold.
	Mez

    I'm posting this reply in hopes of opening up discussion about the
    direction of this file as regards general political discussions.  In my
    ever so humble opinion, political discussion as regards issues which
    are not specific to women are better left for Soapbox.  Of course,
    there are many political discussions (affirmative action, abortion)
    which are very specific to women and deserve full discussion in a
    woman's forum.
    
    Marge

    Since I recently started a political topic (re Bush's stand on
    flag-burning) that is not specific to women, I should probably respond
    here.
    
    First, as I have said before, I think that "a topic of interest to
    women" is any that women choose to discuss.  I don't think it's 
    appropriate for the moderators or anyone here to start defining
    what we can talk about.  I do think that if a topic is not of interest
    to women here, that it will die a "natural death."
    
    Second, I think discussing issues that may not be identified as
    "women's issues" is appropriate here.  I think it brings a perspective
    (that is unique to this community, if not to women) to the discussion 
    that one cannot find in Soapbox or other forums.  I _want_ to read the 
    opinions and insights of this group, which is so "sensitized" to what 
    it means to have one's personal liberties limited.
    
    Finally, exploring the ramifications of (for example) the president's
    stand on flag-burning--even if it doesn't affect most of us--is probably
    helpful in understanding the attitudes, values, political maneuvers,
    etc. of someone who is going to have a very direct effect on "women's
    issues."
    
    -Tracy
        

Personally, I do not read SOAPBOX, am not especially interested in notes
discussions of general political topics, and tend to skip over them when
they occur here.  (My recent response in the flag-burning topic demonstrates
that this is not universally true.)  I generally perceive the purely political
topics as anomalies in the conference.

But I offer this only as the attitude of one reader, and not as a request
or recommendation for change.  As has been mentioned, the conference charter
is "topics of interest to women," not "topics about women;" and if women want
to discuss banks, flags, or the minimum wage here, I certainly will not say
that they shouldn't.

	-Neil

    	RE: .428  Marge
    
    	> I wonder if there is a "hidden agenda" in posting political 
    	> discussions here.  Is it that women are interested in such 
    	> topics, but choose to have them discussed in a more highly 
    	> moderated conference than the 'box?  Certainly noting in the 
    	> Soapbox can be intimidating! 
    
    	Marge, I guess I'm having some difficulty figuring out what
    	you're trying to accomplish with this train of thought.
    
    	Regardless of the subject being discussed, Soapbox is not 
    	every noter's idea of an environment that fosters healthy debate.
    	
    	If you can sort between the insults and the macho posturing and
    	chest beating, there are *some* replies worthy of consideration,
    	but I would have difficulty finding fault with *anyone* (male or
    	female) who lacked the patience to scour through hundreds of
    	replies daily in search of these few gems.
    
    	As for Soapbox being intimidating...  Hey, it's only ASCII code
    	on a disk (on some little MicroVAX that sits under a guy's desk.)
    	I don't consider 1's and 0's to be intimidating (even if they *do*
    	tend to be arranged in a form that translates to insulting words,
    	which happens more often than not in Soapbox.)  Big deal.
    
    	Although I do engage in battle in Soapbox myself on occasion, I
    	don't consider it the DEFAULT place to discuss political issues
    	(with Womannotes being an exception.)  Soapbox is fine for those
    	who enjoy that particular kind of environment, but, like I said
    	earlier, it's not for everyone!  For those who wish to discuss
    	issues elsewhere (or in some forum that does not exist on a 
    	computer at all,) where is the harm?
    
    	Soapbox is not the only political forum in notes, nor is it the
    	only one that most people would normally encounter in the course
    	of their normal lives.
    
    	So, what is the problem?

    I'm not sure it's a "hidden agenda," but given the choice of discussing
    a political (or, for that matter, any) topic here or in Soapbox,
    I would (and if fact, did) choose here.  
                                 
    Part of that (to be honest) is that I just can't be bothered following 
    too many different notesfiles.  Part of it is that I am particularly
    interested in sharing information and opinions with the people who
    choose to participate in this forum.  I don't think it's a case of being
    intimidated by Soapbox.               
                                          
    I do see your point, though I'm uncomfortable with formally adopting
    stricter guidelines.  Maybe it's appropriate to ask noters to "think 
    twice" before entering topics or to make an effort to look at
    the ramifications for women specifically when discussing topics
    that are not women-specific on the surface.       
                                          

    -Tracy
    

A few thoughts from a person who is also a co-mod:

The two topics Marge mentions are a co-mod's nightmare. In fact, the closer
that topics are to the bone (_specifically_ woman's issues), the hotter they
tend to get in here. 

Sometimes 'just men' carry on a topic, and it's tough to tell if it's died a
'natural' death for women, or from a women's point of view. I have no problem
with that. In fact, I bet that every time this happens there's a least one
(non-co-mod) woman following the discussion with interest.

I don't note in other conferences (no time, and not much inclination). I've
noticed that people who do note heavily in other conferences are irked to see
the same thing in multiple places. While I can empathize with that, I don't at
all have the same reacton (because I don't see it twice).

	Mez

    
                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Eagle, the litmus test we're using is whether at least one woman
    indicates that she's interested in a topic when it lacks female
    participation.  If none does, then it really doesn't matter very much
    how suitable the author of the topic or the other respondents think it
    is.  (Obviously, if women are responding too then the topic is, ipso
    facto, of interest to them).  
    
    						=maggie

        One of the reasons that it's taken me nearly a year to get back
        here to the file I find the most supportive open conference on
        the net is quite simply that I've heard a number (probably a
        fairly smal number but not so small as 1) refer to WomanNotes as
        "the other SoapBox" sometimes with no other explanation as if it
        were obvious that that meant WomanNotes.
        
        Now, I feel I HAVE to read SoapBox--I'm one of the moderators
        and sponsered it to management. I don't have to feel at home
        there. I don't particularly want to be in more than one one file
        like the 'box. It's an education, but at 38 I feel pretty well
        educated out at times.
        
        I'd say that this conference has a bit of a problem with its
        political notes and with becoming an alternative (or even an
        alternative to) SoapBox.
        
        Just my two cents.
        
        JimB.

    	It's strange, but not so long ago, someone else was berating this
    	conference for *failing* to bring up political topics that were
    	*other than* "definable women's issues" (because the person said
    	that it supported the stereotype that women are uninformed and/or
    	not interested in politics, which most of us know is *NOT* true!)
    
    	The person challenged us with questions like "Why is there no
    	topic here about Japan?" (and went on to ask us why we hadn't 
    	brought up other such general political topics.)
    
    	So now we're being asked "Why *are* there general political
    	topics here?" (accompanied by reasons that explain why there 
    	*shouldn't* be such topics here.)
    
    	It seems obvious to me that there will always be some who will
    	second-guess our behavior no matter what we do, so I think that
    	we might as well introduce any topic that interests us and leave
    	it up to the community as to whether the topic thrives or fades
    	away (which is what we are doing already.)
    
    	If some folks are having trouble finding their "next unseen"
    	key, I'm sure that explicit directions can be provided.

    I always thought it was bad form to discuss one conference in another
    conference, but as everybody seems to be discussing SOAPBOX pretty
    freely, why should I refrain? I happen to READ ONLY in SOAPBOX,
    and am always trailing the notesfile by about 1000+ notes, but I
    look into it regularly enough to be able to say, in my own words
    and in my not so humble opinion, that there is a world of difference
    between Womannotes and Soapbox. I wonder if people who compare the
    two notesfiles read both of them, or just... just what, by the way?
    Just repeat what they have heard other people saying, just glance
    through one or the other file occasionnally, just read one file
    and comment about the other?
    
    I get the impression from the last few responses regarding discussing
    politics in WN, that we are "damned if we do, damned if we don't".
    
    In that case why don't we just do as we damn well please?
     
    Apart from an increasing annoyance over the assumption that "WN
    shouldn't discuss politics, after all there's Soapbox for that",
    which statement I feel to be unfair both to WN and to Soapbox, I'd
    like to state (or is it reiterate? I may already have said so before
    in this file) that people living in today's modern society may choose
    to be apolitical, or to not interest themselves in politics, but
    I fear that the women's cause will not be helped unless women take
    an active part and interest in the world that surrounds them. Nowadays,
    everything is linked to politics, be it abortion rights, acid rain,
    honesty in advertising, adoption, use of animals in medical research,
    etc... etc... etc...
                        
    Now for a non-rethorical question: Jody, I believe, collected some
    inputs (via mail) from us some time ago; Jody, if you have had time
    to look at those inputs, was politics or lack of it in WN a point
    that was raised by some/few/several people? More generally, will
    you and the other moderators be able to extract some common thoughts
    and impressions from the inputs you received? 
    
    Joana
         

Heavens no eagle. People always think what they have to say is interesting to
everybody! I can't imagine someone saying "Yeah, I don't think it's really of
interest to women, I'll delete it." It's like hiding people's notes; no one
ever thinks their notes should be hidden either. I mean, why would they bother
to write them? Just to give the co-mods a work out?
	Mez

re: .435:
                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Eagle, the litmus test we're using is whether at least one woman
    indicates that she's interested in a topic when it lacks female
    participation.

I believe that taking official notice of the gender of a participant
is contrary to Digital's corporate non-discrimination policies, as
well as the charter of Womannotes.

Martin Minow

    Martin, I would be interested in hearing how you think the matter
    should be determined.  Quite frankly, I can't think of another method.
    
    						=maggie

    	RE: .442  Marge
    
    	> John, your note tends to reinforce my query whether =wn= 
    	> isn't just being used as a forum for general political 
    	> discussion because the current forum [Soapbox] isn't 
    	> serving everyone's needs.
    
    	Marge, I still fail to understand this great concern about 
    	the political content of =wn=...
    
    	> I wonder if it would be possible to have a friendly (?) 
    	> equivalent of Soapbox for general political discussion and 
    	> focus on women's issues in =wn=.
    
    	Wait a second.  Could your concern about the political content
    	of =wn= have anything to do with the obvious mobilization that
    	has been evident among Womannoters since the recent Supreme
    	Court decision (including the fact that a number of people here
    	have stated quite clearly that we intend to impact the broad
    	spectrum of politics as part of our battle to protect women's
    	rights?)
    
    	If we no longer find a separation between women's issues and
    	non-women's issues, then everything political we discuss is
    	a women's issue.
    
    	Do you have a problem with this?

    	RE: .447  Marge
    
    	> I've seen a number of notes recently, however, which are not 
    	> particular to women.  The one on placing your savings in banks...
    
    	It's particular to women if we decide that it is, Marge.  Or would
    	you like to make that decision for us?
    
    	> We should grant our moderators the privilege to set a pointer 
    	> to the appropriate conference and write lock the note.
    
    	If the majority of us decide that all the topics present are 
    	"particular to women," then there is no need for the moderators
    	to intervene by write-locking some topics away from us, is there?
    
    	Or, should you be allowed to decide *for* us what does or does not
    	constitute topics that are particular to us?
    
    	If you don't like certain topics, you are still free to hit next
    	unseen (as always.)  Why has it suddenly become so important to
    	you to curtail what we talk about in this conference???

RE: .446

    The thing  that  makes =wn= my favorite notes file is the sense of
    community and the supportive atmosphere. If =wn= were to turn into
    a   political   debating  society  we  would  probably  lose  that
    atmosphere, and that would be a real loss.

    Personally, I  don't  see  flag  burning as a particularly woman's
    issue,  but  it  certainly  attracted  a  lot of replies, so it is
    clearly  of  interest  to  this  community  (and since not all the
    replies  were  from  men,  to  at  least  some of the women in the
    community.)  Does it belong in =wn=? Damned if I know. I found the
    debate interesting (and I did participate), but I could accept the
    argument  that it has the potential to be too divisive to allow in
    =wn=.  I don't beleive that, but I would understand someone taking
    that  position. I'm inclined to believe that the occasional debate
    like  that  is good, but if that were to be the dominant style for
    this  file, I would consider it to be a real loss. (I'm using that
    note as an example, and am not trying to argue it's merits here.)  

    The attack  on  Marge  implying  that  her opposition to political
    issues  in  =wn= stems from the current mobilization over abortion
    strikes  me  as  misplaced  (she's  not the only one raising these
    issues),  and  unfair, for while I don't allways agree with her, I
    appreciate  her  point of view and find her to be quite careful in
    her  noting  style.  To  imply  that she would try to cut short an
    argument  because  she  feels  that  others  disagree  with her is
    unreasonable.  And  in  any  event,  abortion is clearly a woman's
    issue, and I don't see anyone arguing that it's not appropriate to
    discuss it here.

>        If we no longer find a separation between women's issues and
>        non-women's issues, then everything political we discuss is
>        a women's issue.

    I think  this  will  happen  in  the  millenium. I went to a panel
    discussion on "Men in High Tech" recently (a successor to a "Woman
    in  High  Tech"  discussion).  The interesting issue to me is that
    there  were no issues. It was all about generic people working for
    a  generic  company.  There  was  no  counterpart  to the standard
    "woman's  issues"  (sexual harrasment, child care, ...) When there
    is   no   longer  any  seperation  between  "women's  issues"  and
    non-women's issues, we will have reached an egalitarian ideal. I'm
    not holding my breath.

--David

    I like Marges' idea of pointing out more appropriate forums for
    some discussions, with 2 qualifiers :
    
    a) don't write lock the note in question
    b) if the 'more appropriate forum' is Soapbox, the discussion
       probably *does* belong here. Soapbox is not a forum of
       discussion in the civilized sense of the word.
    
    Dana

    

    The problem, as I see it, in having an arbitrary decision made about
    what is a 'woman's issue', is that this is one of the tools that
    society has traditional used to keep women in their place, to silence
    them or to otherwise restrict them.  
    
    Why were women refused the vote?  Because voting wasn't a woman's
    issue.
    
    These are troubled times.  All voices must be heard.  To silence
    some of us is unfair to all of us.
    
    In Japan, for the first time, women have joined together in political
    action.  They have defeated a politician and in so doing have acted
    as a strong political force for the first time.  
                          
    It time for the women of the world to speak up and join hands with
    those men of like minds.  We cannot be silenced, we have just begun
    to fight_:-)
    
    Mary
    
    p.s. This is in no way a reflection on Marge.  She won my respect
    in her crusade to help in the AIDS crisis and whether we differ
    in opinion or not, I still consider her a friend and an ally.

    			-< ALONG THESE LINES...>-
    
    re - last some
    
    This seems like a discussion on the note 584 (SEEKING INPUT ON
    WOMANNOTES).  What ever became of this input?  Was anything discovered
    or noted about how the community feels annonomously (SP?) about
    womannotes.
    
    Maybe we need to conferences.  One on woman's political issues and
    one on Woman's only issues.  Just a thought.  Please don't flame
    me on this.  I am just an innocent by stander.
    
    jeni

re: .444: (concerning my posting claiming that gender distinctions were
inappropriate when moderating Womannotes):

    Martin, that is true as an employer. How does that relate to the
    conference at hand where the primary topic is issues of interest
    to women?

I think the decisions taken by moderators *are* decisions of the employer,
rather than decisions of employees.  Also, to the extent that I am correct,
*no* Digital employee is permitted to discriminate on the basis of gender
(etc.).

re: .445:

    Martin, I would be interested in hearing how you think the matter
    should be determined.  Quite frankly, I can't think of another method.
    
    						=maggie
I think that all moderation of Womannotes can -- and should be -- done
in a gender-neutral manner.  Under the Dec umbrella, we are not generally
permitted to make gender-specific distinctions, and this ought to be
true of Womannotes as well.  (This is true even if you believe that there
are gender-specific dialects and modes of argument: I'm talking about Dec,
not your personal life).  For example, if I ran this notesfile, I would
rewrite the "Introduction" note as follows (addtions are in CAPS):
 
-- INSERT THIS PARAGRAPH ---
    This conference and all notes and replies are DIGITAL INTERNAL USE ONLY.
---

    This file is meant to serve as a forum for the discussion of topics
    that are interesting or important to women.  Essentially any topic is
    fair game:  art, children, cookery, crafts, family, history, home,
    humor, life, politics, religion, sport, spouses, work, the world...
    anything at all. 
   
    In this file, the views of *all* DEC \women\EMPLOYEES\ --
    all skin colors, ages, GENDERS,
    nationalities, jobs, sexual orientations, native languages, and degrees
    of feminist/traditionalist consciousness are sought for and welcomed.
    This is our place to talk with one another. 
   
-- DELETE THIS PARAGRAPH --
-   While we also generally encourage and support participation by men
-   in this space, this file does not exist to meet men's needs for
-   education or sport. Whenever it seems clear to us that the needs of
-   women and the needs of men are in conflict --and ONLY in that
-   limited case-- the needs of women will take precedence and we will
-   take whatever action seems appropriate to meet those needs. 
--- INSERT THIS PARAGRAPH --
+   Contributions should be relevant to the purpose of Womannotes, sound,
+   in good taste, objective, coherent, consise, nonrepititious.  Diversity
+   is welcome.  The participants are asked to treat each other with respect
+   
+   The participants are especially reminded of their duty to understand and
+   respect  Digital's Personnel Policies, expecially 6.03 (Harassment), 6.24
+   (Employee Conduct), and 6.54 (Proper Use of Computer Systems).
---
    Whether this file succeeds or fails is up to the members of the
    community, not the moderators.  We will do our best to manage the file
    on an ad hoc basis, but formal policy decisions are made by the members
    of the community through a balloting process. The privilege of voting
    is limited to those members registered in notestrings 2.* or 7.*.
--- DELETE THIS SENTENCE ---
-   Where the voting reveals a division of opinion by sex, the views of the
-   women will prevail.
---
    We will enforce whatever decisions are taken in
    this way by the community.  

Martin.

    The survey was responded to by a good many noters, and many offered
    opinions, suggestions, recommendations.  I anonymized, sifted, sorted,
    and shipped the opinii (opinions) off to the other co-mods, and we are
    mulling them over.... 
    
    Many issues were brought up by many people, and we appreciate the
    thought and effort given by all involved.....(and I really liked
    hearing from some hitherto silent read-only and read-mostly noters).
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  For those who haven't responded yet, the lines are still open.

    	RE: .449  Wittenberg
    
    	> The attack  on  Marge  implying  that  her opposition to 
    	> political issues  in  =wn= stems from the current mobilization 
    	> over abortion strikes  me  as  misplaced  (she's  not the only 
    	> one raising these issues),  and  unfair...
    
    	If you define "attack" loosely enough to label my mere *questions*
    	about the source of her concern as an attack, then I guess your
    	note to me would qualify as an attack, as well (as would Marge's
    	accusation earlier that we discuss political issues here as part
    	of a "hidden agenda.")
    
    	As Mary said, finding reasons why women should be shut up or
    	forced to do what is "best for us" against our wills has been
    	a problem for women in our culture for a long time.
    
    	The decision about what is or is not a "women's issue" is not
    	something that should be made FOR us (for our "own good.")
    	
    	This is nothing against Marge (whom I, too, admire for her stand
    	in the AIDS crisis.)
    
    	However, it is my opinion that censoring the file on the grounds
    	that political concerns are not "particular to women" is both
    	a repressive and insulting suggestion.  I oppose it.

    Martin, I appreciate your views on what changes should be made to file
    policy, but I'm still at a loss to know how you would determine whether
    some note is or is not a "Topic of Interest to Women".  Which was the
    issue under discussion, I think.

    	RE: .460  Marge
    
    	> I said that there are political concerns that are very particular 
    	> to women and others that are not...
    
    	So who gets to define what is or isn't particular to women, Marge?
    
    	I have a great idea!  If you don't feel that an issue is particular
    	to women, then hit next unseen.
    
    	How about allowing political topics to thrive or fade on their own
    	merit instead of interfering with (and limiting) what women are
    	allowed to talk about in this conference...
    
    	That way we can each choose for ourselves what is particular to
    	us as women (and what isn't.)  Doesn't that seem like the fairest
    	solution?

    	RE: .463  Marge
    
    	If you're only talking about providing "pointers" to other forums
    	that are discussing certain subjects in some depth already, I
    	would have no problem with that (and I believe it is done to some
    	degree here already.)
    
    	The thing that bothers me is the idea of "writelocking" topics
    	for our own good (because they are covered better elsewhere, or
    	whatever.)
    
    	> ...must we be the single catchall forum for everything?
    
    	What is the problem with being a "multi-purpose" conference?
    	Who is being harmed by this?  Why limit our choices unnecessarily?

re: .461:
    but I'm still at a loss to know how you would determine whether
    some note is or is not a "Topic of Interest to Women".

Since someone decided to post it here, I would assume that that person
felt it was a "Topic of Interest to Women."  The fact that *you* (moderator)
don't think so is irrelevant (as long as the note is otherwise appropriate).
If *you* (participant) don't think so, the solution -- as others have already
pointed out -- is as near as the <next-unseen> key.

Digital defines "harrassment" as solely the decision of the person who
feels harrassed.  I think "relevance" can likewise be defined as the
responsibility of the person posting.  This is not to say that I would
object to a note saying "Rutabagas are perhaps best discussed in the
gardening notesfile", but I wouldn't see the the need to worry about
the relevance of root vegetables to woman's issues.  If the participants
don't want to discuss rutabagas, the topic will die out on its own; if they
do, they've confirmed the relevance of the topic to the participants.

What I am objecting to, in case it's not already clear, is the feeling I
occasionally have that the moderators believe that women may discuss
rutabagas, but men may not.  It is this that conflicts with my understanding
of corporate policy.

Martin.

I find it sadly ironic that comments observing that the "=wn= difference" is
the personal concern that the participants show for one another should be
punctuated with this sort of innuendo and personal attack:
    
>    	It's particular to women if we decide that it is, Marge.  Or would
>    	you like to make that decision for us?
    	
	...

>    	Or, should you be allowed to decide *for* us what does or does not
>    	constitute topics that are particular to us?

	...
    
>    	Why has it suddenly become so important to you to curtail what we 
>	talk about in this conference???

-Neil

    	RE: .466  Neil
    
    	For what it's worth, I consider your singling out of my remarks
    	out of context (accompanied by caustic remarks) to be a personal 
    	attack against me!!
    
    	So now I guess you've gotten even with me for what you think
    	I did.
    
    	Good for you.
    
    

    	RE: .467  Marge
    
    	> Sooo, if I drop the suggestion of writelocking topics, you'd agree?
   
    	Without the aspect of writelocking included, your argument is
    	absolutely moot.
    
    	People can bring up whatever they choose, and others can provide
    	pointers and/or hit next unseen.
    
    	No problem for anyone.  Agreed?
    

    PLEASE let's make sure we're generating more light than heat!
    
    IFF you are restating the same points repeatedly over a span of
    notes, please STOP.  
    
    IFF you are finding yourself irked, unnerved, or uncomfortable with
    a certain opinion espoused, stop and think for a minute what your
    response (if you decide to post one) will be.  And PLEASE don't
    ascribe motivations to other people....if you wonder why they feel
    a certain thing, ask.

    -Jody
    

    	RE: .472
    
    	> ...if you wonder why they feel a certain thing, ask.
    
    	Ahem, I did ask.  It was interpreted as a personal attack,
    	so I guess asking doesn't work either.
    
    	Oh well...
    

    
    I don't have time to read all the replies. I just want to add my
    vote: allow anything to discussed here that people want to discuss.
    
    
    Roberta

    And, FWIW, when it comes to topics not specifically definable as
    being of interest to women as a collective group (she said cautiously), I
    would support having them in the file if there was interest in either
    responding TO the topic, or reading ABOUT the topic, primarily from
    women, though also from men in the community.  HOWEVER......
    
    I get the distinct feeling that if a topic that is entered
    in a separate notesfile (such as soapbox) is also entered here,
    there might be a tendency on occasion for the TONE and TENOR of
    the discussion in womannotes to change, due to the fact that people
    may be reading about the topic and replying to the topic in both
    files (or in other files that get heated, for that matter).  I think
    the most VITAL part of womannotes is the supportive and thoughtful
    atmosphere, and I am concerned with its continuation....
    
    -Jody
    

    Re: .476
    
    >I get the distinct feeling that if a topic that is entered in a
    >separate notesfile (such as soapbox) is also entered here, there might 
    >be a tendency on occasion for the TONE and TENOR of the discussion in 
    >womannotes to change, due to the fact that people may be reading about 
    >the topic and replying to the topic in both files
    
    I've followed a number of topics in both Womannotes and Soapbox.  There
    is frequently a difference in the tone of discussion between the files. 
    However, the most significant difference is one of perspectives; women
    frequently bring up points that men haven't touched.  (This is one
    reason why I'd like to see more women participating in Soapbox.)  The 
    ones that "heat up" in Womannotes are the divisive issues -- abortion, 
    handguns, etc. -- and I would expect discussion to get heated
    regardless of the conference.
    
    Marge does have a point about different topics having more appropriate
    conferences.  Rdb/VMS is a topic of interest for me, Marge and probably 
    a number of other women who work with it in some way.  Is this the most 
    appropriate place to discuss it?  No.  Some conferences have a tight
    focus; topics within that focus are best discussed there.
    
    I'd be happy to see pointers to other conferences/discussions.  I think
    it's something that all participants could help with; the moderators
    have enough to do without keeping track of all the conferences and
    discussions within conferences.  I'm not fond of seeing "universal"
    topics in Womannotes, but I'm usually not too fond of those topics. 
    (Handguns?  Noriega?  Oliver North?  Bleh.)  I'm frequently surprised
    to see them; it doesn't fit with the direction the conference has taken
    in the years I've known it.  They're not necessarily a bad development, 
    just not what I prefer.

    Re: .469
    
    Even within context, I've received the impression that you feel Marge
    has a personal interest in controlling the topics of discussion within
    this conference.  That's not necessarily what you mean, but the words
    you use, the words you emphasize, the way you phrase your sentences and
    questions all imply, to me anyway, that Marge is an enemy of some sort. 
    I've noticed this in one of your Soapbox discussions lately -- although
    you are questioning, to me you appear to accuse.

    	RE: .479  Chelsea
    
    	Well, I'm glad you recognize that it's not what I mean, because I
    	certainly do not consider Marge an enemy of any sort.
    
    	Considering that the idea of "limiting women's choices" has become
    	(especially within the past few days) one of the hottest buttons 
    	and one of the most divisive issues that our country has faced
    	since the Civil War...
    
    	...and considering the current crisis is considered by many
    	(including me) to be a declaration of WAR against women's rights...
    
    	This was not a good time to start making suggestions of other ways
    	in which women's CHOICES could be reduced in some way...
    
    	Please don't get into a debate with me about how one defines the
    	reduction of choices, ok?  Let's just drop it.

    While all topics can of interest one woman or another, sometimes I get
    the feeling that there are some out there who add trivial topics on
    purpose and by so doing dilute the flavor of =wm=. Yes, women are
    interested in the Jim Wright scandal, and also root vegetables. But I
    can't shake the feeling that some men (I know that I shall be flamed
    for this) deliberately add topics like earthworms and sea lions just so
    that they maliciously eat away at the foundation. Before long, there are
    no women issues being discussed. Just a bunch of topics that *they* are
    interested in.  Yes, women can indeed hit next unseen. But all the next
    unseens won't take away from the feeling that the conference is
    being taken over by "them." 

    This all comes back to valuing one's need for space. 

    I appreciate Marge and others raising this subject in =wn= and 
    the responses of the noters todate. This is a question that I've
    been thinking about for a long time. It has become more of 
    a issue very recently when I, as a moderator, referred two noters
    to other files for questions that had very specific files to
    deal with the question and then write locked them. This is actually
    the first time I recall ever doing this, but the two topics, at 
    the time, seemed to me to very clearly belong some where else
    in their narrow scope. I welcome the input of the community on
    this topic..(and would have no problem with unwrite locking the
    two notes if that is what people feel is appropriate.) Personally
    I'm uncomfortable with womannotes becoming another version of
    ask the easynet...but that is my own bias showing. I fear diluting
    the focus of the file if it becomes too diffuse.
    
    Thanks to everyone who has given (or will give) time and thought
    on this issue.
    
    Bonnie

    I, too, fear that making =wn= a "universal" file for bringing
    up any possible subject under the sun will dilute its purpose.
    In fact, I brought this up sometime back when asking what a
    particular generic-political/economic topic had to do with
    "women's issues". But, I don't make-a the rules here, so, whatever
    the mods feel is appropriate is not for me to gainsay.
    
    With respect to what Martin brought up -- Martin, I feel that
    you are relying too much on the "letter of the law" rather than
    the spirit of it. Given that the whole raison d'�tre of this
    conference is a place where women can air their feelings about
    what interests them, it seems clear to me that holding women's
    opinions of what is of interest as more important than men's
    opinions is a reasonable approach, not because men's opinions
    are "inferior", but because otherwise, the whole point of the
    conference would be undermined.
    
    --- jerry

	As host and (co)moderator of ASKENET, I guess I should put my 2� in...

	ASKENET, while intended as a general-purpose Q & A conference, 
states in the conference introduction:

1.0: <me>

	ASKENET is intended as a general information question and answer
file similar to the Boston Globe's "Ask The Globe" column.  The moderators
reserve the right to point you to a better place to ask, change your title
to something more meaningful, and delete inappropriate notes.

1.6: <Tom Blinn>

        As indicated in note 1.0, "ASKENET is intended as a general
        information question and answer" forum.  If there is a conference
        on the Easynet that's devoted to the specific topic about which
        you have a question, you probably should ask your question there
        first. 
        
        In some cases, it may be appropriate to post a question here as
        well as in some other topic-specific conference.  However, if you
        are doing so, please make it clear that the question is being
        asked in the other conference(s).  In general, you should not post
        questions here that *clearly* belong in some other conference,
        unless you have first asked in the appropriate topic-specific
        conference and failed to get an answer in a reasonable amount of
        time. 

				****************

	With this as my framework, I too am afraid of diluting this conference
with "general purpose" topics, but, as Jerry said, I don't make the rules.  For
example, I know of at least one note that was posted here, ASKENET and MENNOTES
and the author had it returned from ASKENET (and I've been told, from MENNOTES)
because there were better places to ask (and =wn= and MENNOTES weren't the 
places I recommended.)

	I use the next-unseen key a lot.  My notebook carrys 60 conferences that
I manage to keep pretty much read up, and I still do my work.  It would be
nearly impossible to carry that kind of a conference load without selectively
reading. I'm interested in =wn= for what it offers that other conferences don't.

					--Doug

    	In regards to recent replies...  I would have to say that I would
    	certainly agree that it wouldn't be a good idea to turn =wn= into
    	Askenet (or Easynotes_Conferences, either, for that matter.) 
    
    	In other words, there probably *is* a limit to what kinds of things
    	are appropriate for discussion here.
    
    	My strong concern was primarily aimed at the idea that women might
    	be prevented from discussing *political issues* with each other
    	in this conference because those particular specific political
    	issues were already being discussed in Soapbox (or in another
    	politically-oriented file) and were not strictly defined as women's
    	issues per se.
    
    	There are a lot of issues today that indirectly affect women's
    	rights (such as the topic about removing our savings from U.S.
    	banks as a form of protest about numerous problems,) and I would
    	hope that we would never be told that we are not *allowed* to
    	discuss such things here because "banks" are not strictly a women's
    	issue per se.  That's my main concern.

    
    My opinion is that topics of interest to women should be
    allowed and that each author determines in good faith the
    appropriateness of her note.
    
    For instance, if I have information about women's groups in Central
    America or in Europe, while it may bore the heck out of some noters, I
    would assume that other noters will appreciate that information and/or
    become involved in a discussion concerning that topic.
    
    am, speaking as a noter.

    In my opinion as a woman, I am very glad to be able to read and
    sometimes write in womannotes.  I find it very reassuring to
    find so many women with strong opinions and ideas.  To see that
    other women are interested in politics (and all of the other topics)
    is reassuring!  Yes, I am interested in what affects me and politics
    definitely influences my life in many ways, as does economics, health,
    the ecology, literature, etc.
    
    I think also women have a unique perspective on how all of these
    diverse topics are connected.  I vote to discuss topics of interest
    to women.
    
    Martha

    The subject currently under (heated) discussion is one that has been
    concerning me for a while, and at times in the past I've communicate
    my feelings on it to the moderators.
    
    I think that most of the arguments here are a result of the question
    being misstated.  In .461 (or .462, not sure), Maggie asked about
    how to determine if a note belongs to the category of "Topics of
    interest to women".  That's the wrong question.  Instead we should
    be considering whether "Topics of interest to women" is indeed the
    desireable focus (such as it is) for this conference.  I maintain that 
    it is not.
    
    It's probably not obvious to most readers of MENNOTES, but some time
    ago I changed the title of that conference from the original,
    "Topics of interest to men" (clearly derived from that of WOMANNOTES),
    to "Topics pertaining to men".  A small change, but a significant
    one, and one that I believed more accurately reflected the true
    charter of MENNOTES.  I've similarly been arguing that WOMANNOTES
    ought to be focused on "Topics pertaining to women", and I suggest
    it here now.
    
    The issue goes beyond that of "do you know where your NEXT UNSEEN
    key is" - it affects the usefulness and the audience of this
    conference to the entire Digital noting community.  The key word
    here is volume.
    
    I often ask my women friends if they read WOMANNOTES.  Most are aware
    of it, but do not read it.  When I ask why, one of the most common
    reasons I get is the sheer number of entries, something I can certainly
    sympathize with.  If I get a day or two behind here, I'm often faced
    with hundreds of new notes.  Yes, I take the effort to pick my way
    through, using my NEXT UNSEEN key often, but I know the wheat that
    lays scattered amongst the chaff - many others do not, and decide
    that they don't have the time to read all those notes.  Some try
    but then quit when they find few notes that are actually about women
    and women's issues.
    
    I believe that this conference would be more useful to us all, and
    also to those who would be a part of our community, if the moderators
    would make an effort to discourage new topics that don't reasonably
    have some specific relevance to the subject of "women".  I would
    not attempt to tell them how they should decide relevance, I only
    ask that they ask themselves if a noter might be astonished to find
    such a topic in a conference nominally on the subject of women.
    
    I'd also suggest that the so-called "lite" topics be discouraged - 
    I know I've contributed to some of these, but I wouldn't miss them
    and they often contribute significantly to the huge "unseen count"
    problem this conference has.
    
    
    While reading through the fifty (!) new replies to this particular
    topic in the few days since I last looked in (I think this in itself
    says something), I've come to wonder if perhaps some of those arguing
    on the "anything goes" side have significantly more time available to
    read notes than the average noter, and that perhaps this affects
    their opinions.  And of course the volume of this topic alone 
    contributes to the problem.
    
    
    Martin's comment about the gender bias inherent in the moderation
    policy of this conference hits upon something that has bothered me
    too.  I would suggest that folks not be so quick to dismiss Martin's
    observations.  I feel that the relevance of a note should be decided
    on its subject matter rather than the gender of who wrote the note
    or responds to it.
    
    
    I don't claim to have the ultimate truth.  But my experience in the
    conferences I moderate is that by keeping the conferences in focus,
    they are useful and productive, without any diminishment in
    supportiveness and caring.  I also feel that a bit of moderator
    guidance up front leads to vastly reduced moderator load in the
    long term.
    
    					Steve

    	RE:  .489  Steve Lionel
    
    	> While reading through the fifty (!) new replies to this particular
    	> topic in the few days since I last looked in (I think this in itself
    	> says something), I've come to wonder if perhaps some of those arguing
    	> on the "anything goes" side have significantly more time available to
    	> read notes than the average noter, and that perhaps this affects
    	> their opinions.
    
    	It's probably not a matter of "hav[ing] significantly more time
    	available to read notes than the average noter," but is rather a
    	matter of being more focused on one conference than the average
    	noter.
    
    	Some people in this very topic are moderators of a dozen or so
    	work-related and employee interest conferences (and *participate* 
    	in another few dozen as "noters" on top of that,) while *others* 
    	of us only participate fully in ONE non-work conference at a time.
    	It makes a huge difference in the time one has to devote to notes.
    
    	Another thing is that NOT ALL of us work normal hours (like the
    	average noter might) and thus, MOST of our noting time is done
    	when we are NOT at work or on duty.  That makes a huge difference
    	in the time one might spend in a single discussion.
    
    	While some people make a habit of adding one or two entries to
    	almost every single topic in a conference, others of us tend to be
    	"read only" in almost every single topic in a conference (except
    	for *one* or *two* topics at a time.)  It's just a different noting
    	style, and is certainly valid for those who choose it.
    
    	> The issue goes beyond that of "do you know where your NEXT UNSEEN
    	> key is" - it affects the usefulness and the audience of this
    	> conference to the entire Digital noting community.  The key word
    	> here is volume.
   	> I often ask my women friends if they read WOMANNOTES.  Most are 
    	> aware of it, but do not read it.  When I ask why, one of the most 
    	> common reasons I get is the sheer number of entries... 
    
    	Popular conferences have lots of entries (just as popular movies
    	have lots of people in the theatres when the movie starts.)  It
    	may be inconvenient to stand in long lines, and have to sit in
    	crowded theatres, but that's not a sign that the movie should have
    	been produced in a way that would have *prevented* these things
    	from happening.
    
    	> I'd also suggest that the so-called "lite" topics be discouraged - 
    	> I know I've contributed to some of these, but I wouldn't miss them
    	> and they often contribute significantly to the huge "unseen count"
    	> problem this conference has.
    
    	I sincerely hope that no one here is **ever** discouraged from
    	entering a light-hearted note in this conference.  The "LITE"
    	topics give this conference "balance" at times when we need it
    	the most.  I would miss "Lite" topics SEVERELY if they were no
    	longer allowed (and I think some others here would, too.)
    
    	Also, I don't personally think of the "huge unseen count" as being 
    	a problem.  I like the variety of people who participate here (and
    	I would hate more than anything for this conference to start
    	focusing on ways to KEEP people from participating here as much
    	as they want to because we now perceive the large amount of 
    	participation in =wn= to be some kind of "problem.")

    .489   I think Steve has some very valid points here...and I thank
           him for entering this reply.  I have a love-hate relationship
           with =wn= and participate in the file sporadically for some
           of the reasons he has given.  
    
    .490   Suzanne, I understand what you say but I really wonder what
           variety of contributors there are in =wn=.  I wonder if anyone
           would be willing to take a sample of the contributions for
           a given week and compare them to the introduction notes to
           see what percentage of individuals that have signed in have
           contributed during a period.  I would also be interested
           in a comparison (not by name) of contributions for a given
           week to contributors...Noter #1 contributed 20% for instance.
           I do not have the expertise to perform such an analysis.
    
    This conference has the potential of reaching out to a large group
    of people educating, informing and supporting on many important
    issues of the times.  I use to hate the 'Processing topic' but I
    have since changed mind...it is useful and important that we
    continually look at how we operate as a community and how we can
    better serve those within the community and those we would like
    to join.

    <--(.490)
    
    � Popular conferences have lots of entries (just as popular movies have
    � lots of people in the theatres when the movie starts.)  It may be
    � inconvenient to stand in long lines, and have to sit in crowded
    � theatres, but that's not a sign that the movie should have been
    � produced in a way that would have *prevented* these things from
    � happening.
                                      
    Suzanne, I *love* this analogy!   I wish I'd thought of it, it hit spot
    on and made me giggle at the same time!
    
    						=maggie
                                          

    I love the analogy too... and can't help but point out the contribution
    that the film editor makes to a fine film.
    
    :^)
    Marge

    ah, but what if we were blocked from seeing the fine movie because
    the lobby was filled people selling t-shirts and posters and
    buttons and plumbing supplies and potted plants...and inside there
    were two or three extra screens showing films unrelated to the movie
    we had come to see.....?
    
    Bonnie
    
    just being 'devil's advocate' for a minute here.

    	RE: .494  Bonnie
    
    	> ah, but what if we were blocked from seeing the fine movie 
    	> because...
    
    	...there were too many people in the theatre complaining about
    	the long lines and the crowded conditions *instead* of just
    	enjoying the film...  >;^}
    
    	Seriously, what are we talking about here?
    
    	Obviously, if there were 14 discussions of RdB going on here,
    	and a number of notes about what kinds of jockstraps are best,
    	we wouldn't want them to cloud the file.
    
    	However, I don't see that happening.  I see one note about Banking
    	that originated because of one woman's reaction to the Supreme
    	Court decision about abortion (which makes the topic *very much*
    	a woman's issue in that context.)
    
    	Where are all these other political discussions that are not
    	considered appropriate here?  I don't see any.
    
    	If we're talking (as Steve suggested) about a "problem" with
    	too many replies (and too MUCH active participation,) then I
    	think we have to stop and think long and hard before we start
    	trying to increase our effectiveness to the community by
    	suggesting that people participate here LESS than they do now
    	(as a group.)
    
    	If we're talking about the =WN= LITE topics as being something
    	that should be discouraged (as Steve also suggested,) I don't
    	think that it's this file's charter to make a point of discouraging
    	light-heartedness (especially in these *exceptionally* trying
    	times for women!)  I think we need all the LITE topics we can
    	get, as a matter of fact!
    
    	So, let's stop talking theory now, and get down to cases.  Where
    	are all these topics that don't belong here (aside from the two
    	ones involving Easynotes_Conference questions that were already
    	satisfactorily resolved)..?

    <--(.493)

    Nice point, Marge!  I didn't think about that one.
    
    						=maggie

A movie theatre presents a single image to a large audience.  Perhaps
a better analogy for Womannotes would be a community art museum.  If I'm not
interested in Roman statuary, I can pass by that room.  If you're not
interested in French Impressionists, you can pass by that room.  As
long as the museum is large enough (and eclectic enough) to house both,
nobody is seriously impeded.

Martin.

    As I said in a previous note I can see the value of this note and
    view it differently then I have in the past...it does get tiresome
    discussing process.  And yet to achieve something exceptional requires
    planning, reorganization and discussion.
    
    I think we have something special here...and we have an opportunity
    to make it even better.  A goal that I consider admiral is the number
    of participants in the conference.  I think this is far more newsworthy
    then the number of entries.  The quality of the entries would have
    a large impact in the number of participants. 
    
    Another goal would be to encourage participants from all areas of
    Digital, from women who are working to supplement their family incomes,
    to women who work to achieve career goals.
    
    In a file that has a lot of entries we discourage the participant
    that does not have access to a terminal at home or time during the
    work day that they can access notes.  It is difficult to feel like
    you belong to a community if you are not aware of all that is going
    on.
    
    I took a brief look at the directory...and found the following notes
    that I *might* question if we were to have a conference that was
    dedicated to discussion on topics pertaining to women.
    
    I have included the note number and the conference where the subject
    matter is discussed.
    
       593     Soapbox
       602     Sample_Conference
       613     Human_Relations
       615     Holiday_Travel
       635     Digital
       641     Virginia
       649     Medical
       679     Environment
       690     H_R, Parenting
      
    It seems there are a few notes that are not directly related to
    Women's Issues.  That does not in any way mean that we as Women
    are not interested in those subjects.  If we are the impact is far
    greater when we share our opinions where the readership is already
    interested in the subject matter...for instance there are many serious
    environmentalist in the Environment conference that do not read
    =wn=.
    
    The facts are available...as I suggested before...look at a weeks
    activity and analyze it.  
    
    

    	RE: .499  Joyce
    
    	> In a file that has a lot of entries we discourage the participant
    	> that does not have access to a terminal at home or time during the
    	> work day that they can access notes.  It is difficult to feel like
    	> you belong to a community if you are not aware of all that is going
    	> on.
    
	Joyce, I guess I don't see what kind of a solution it would
    	be for us to encourage LESS participation in the file as a way
    	of encouraging MORE participation...
    
    	When I'm really busy, sometimes I can't read the file for DAYS
    	or even weeks (depending on the situation.)  I don't expect
    	everyone to cut down on the number of replies they write so
    	that I can catch up when I come back.  Quite honestly, I don't
    	think anyone expects that, do you?

    	As for the notes you listed as being discussed in other conferences,
	how many of us belong to those conferences (and participate
    	on a regular basis?)
    
    	Even if many of the same people do belong to those other conferences,
	should our message be that we don't want a diversity of topics,
    	but want our focus to be extremely narrow instead?
    
    	What is to be gained by limiting what we are allowed to do here?

    Suzanne,
    
    I do not even pretend that I could make a point that you did not
    agree with.  Your ability with words far exceeds mine.
    
    But I will try one more time.  I would rather see 100 notes about
    subjects pertaining to one theme by 25 noters then 150 notes about
    multiple themes from 10 noters.
    
    And that is what *I* think we have here...a few people with the
    time and resources to note.  
    

    What we gain is a conference dedicated to subjects pertaining to
    women.  When a person adds this conference to their notebook they
    can open it and find subject matter that is relevent to being a
    woman.
    
    And if they are interested in politics they can open Soapbox and
    if they want to move to Maine they can open Maine.  
    
    If being a woman generates 5000 notes a day so be it...the issue
    is not only volume but content.  And clearly the current Supreme
    Court decision is important to us...and if we were to discuss the
    environmental impact of using Kotex or if we all wanted to move
    to Maine because there were supposedly more men there...lets 
    discuss it.
    
    
    

    re: .501
    
    � And that is what *I* think we have here...a few people with the
    � time and resources to note.  
    
    While I tend to agree with you Joyce, I'm not sure I see a solution
    for the very reasons you site.  I think that a relatively few people 
    do have the resources and/or inclination to enter topics and replies,
    but if those few were to contribute less, would others note more?
    If they haven't the resources or inclination in the first place,
    how would that change if some people responded less often?
    
    My overall sense of this conference is that things are as they should
    be:  there's a fairly heavy volume, but that reflects a variety
    of people's thoughts, feelings, and moods; there are discussions
    from time to time about whether or not the conference is headed
    on the best course, and that strikes me as healthy and democratic.
    
    I don't think this conference or any similar one can be all things
    perfect and pleasing to any or all the individuals because we *are*
    individuals.  Some would like "less", some "more"; some would have
    "heavier", others "liter".  All things considered, I like it as is.
    
    Steve                                                     
    
    And lest this be left to implication, let me say explicitly that
    I think the moderation is second to none.

I'd like to ask a different question, one that's been blowing around in the
back of my head for a while.

When those high-quality topics comes up, why the heck don't I (we) contribute
more? For instance, the mentoring topic interested me a lot, but I didn't know
how to participate, and it just died.
	Mez

    I would prefer that =wn= continue to be "Topics of Interest to Women."
     I think that any topic that a woman chooses to bring up for discussion
    and that other women respond to, *is* a "topic of interest to women."
     
    I also enjoy the "lite" topics and would be sorry to see them go.
     I believe I can learn something from knowing the views of other
    women on "lite" topics as well as on serious topics.  I am almost
    as interested in hearing what other women say their favorite songs
    are, or who they think the sexiest man in the world is, as I am in
    knowing their stand on abortion or their opinion of career
    opportunities for women at DEC.  I think getting to know one another's
    views on these "lite" topics can help us relate to each other more,
    and recognize that we are all human/similar even though we may disagree
    on other issues.  I hope we'll continue to have a few "lite" topics
    mixed in with the serious.
    
    Lorna
    

    I only hope we are truly discussing processing and are not seeing an 
    attempt to censor the file in favor of a particular political
    philosophy or outlook.
    
    When the term "woman's issue" comes up, I tend to cringe.  Visions
    dance in my mind of "knitting, cooking, housekeeping, typing and
    childcare".  There was a time when these were considered to be the
    only appropriate issues for women to concern themselves with.
    
    Discrimination today is far more subtle.  We are still steered in
    the appropriate directions and discouraged from participating in
    anything that might make the powers that be uncomfortable.
    
    To me, the problem is in having someone else, indeed anyone else,
    once again decide what is a 'woman's issue'.  As much as I love
    baking bread and crocheting, the world needs us right now.  There
    is too much yang in the world and our presence is needed center
    stage.  We can't allow ourselves to be silenced by either the 
    clenched fist or the gentle caress.  We are needed now, we must
    do all that we can do and be all that we can be.  This forum is
    unique and outstanding.  It is our forum, one in which each one
    of us can freely speak.  It gives substance to the expression of
    the female mind.  
    
    Even if all of us do not agree, all of us should be allowed to speak.
    That is what a democracy is all about and Womannotes is a symbol
    of that ideal.

    Eagles -
    
    Part of 'why y'all seem 2 enjoy such endless discussions' is probably
    a gender-linked difference in ways women and men relate to each
    other.  Sociological research (and I'm sorry that I can't quote
    sources) has indicated that women develop friendships with other
    women by discussing *everything under the sun*.  Men develop
    friendships with other men by participating in activity together.
    
    I feel that part of what we are seeing in this file is the willingness
    of women to discuss, sometimes ad nauseum, everything in their lives.
     This is how we develop friendships and relationships.  This file
    is a community in ways that others are not, because of those
    discussions.  I cherish the sense that in need, I will find friends
    here.  Please, don't change it.  The community will change it as
    the needs develop.
    
    Alison

... on =wn= and a few of the topics brought up in the last 
    50 or so replies ...


< "topics of interest to women" vs "topics pertaining to women" >

There's something about the phrase "pertaining to" that I'm not quite
comfortable with...  and I'm having a hard time trying to decipher what
the connotation is that's bothering me...

I'd read a subtle shift in the purpose of the conference if =wn=
were described as "topics pertaining to women" as opposed to "topics of 
interest to women".  So instead of reading topics "of interest to" me,
I'd be reading "topics pertaining to" me...  like the conference
was for anyone to talk *about* woman.  ...Can anyone please explain this
better than I am?


< Suzanne Conlon  & acceptable levels of aggression in women >

Suzanne Conlon's contribution to =wn= is quite unique in that she is 
more outspoken, agressive, critical, and blunt then any other woman I 
have read in =wn=.  Her wording is definitely not as "careful" as most;
she speaks her mind.

Even though I do not agree with everything she says, I appreciate Suzanne's
notes because her argumentative skills are SO atypical for a woman to
have....not that they are better or worse.  They bring diversity to =wn=,
and I see this as a very positive thing.

But what about the hurt feelings that her caustic statements might cause?

I think members of =wn= have done quite well defending their positions
when they happen to differ with Suzanne's.   Marge Davis is the most recent
example of this.  I want to learn how to defend my stance on issues to 
all types of people I might encounter on the opposite side of the fence.
I am learning by observation, here in =wn=,... how to deflect and dissipate
a personal affront and respond to the real argument...how to persuasively
debate...how to debate effectively...how to be alert for people changing
the issue of discussion...etc., etc.. 

I think Suzanne has received some flack for her notes partially because
her behavior falls out of the norm of what is an acceptable level of 
aggression for a woman.

But so that you know where I am coming from on this...  As I said in
my intro (if you made it that far - it got kind of long :-), I have
been criticized for having a "hard edge" professionally (whatever that
means), so I am especially sensitized and aware of this whole situation,
and would appreciate any thoughts others have on the issue.  Is there a
topic for this?)


< on controlling 'suitable topics' for =wn= >

I find the present level of moderation to be fine.  I don't think the
present moderators could ever be oppressive, but I wouldn't like to
see the trend be towards greater control and restrictions.  I removed
a very interesting conference from my notebook because one of the moderators
always seemed to be lurking around any reply that was the tiniest bit
off track.  

What constitutes a 'suitable topic' should also never be controlled by
one person.  

For example, I strongly disagree with a reply in this topic that stated
handguns were not a woman's issue.  I think handguns are very much a
woman's issue when they are the most effective way to deter a violent
crime from being committed, not to mention the fact that women in my town 
are denied permits and men are not...[but I'm fighting that fight now]

Also, from some of the replies in this topic I would think that the only
way to read =wn= is on a next/unseen basis.  For a very long while
(8 months?) I read =wn= by looking only at topics that interested me,
and then reading the entire strings sequentially.  I found this much
more helpful than next/unseen.  Glancing past a topic I thought was
irrevalent only takes a fraction of a second.  These topics are few and
far between.



< on monitoring conference usage >

This really hit a hot button with me.  If I were not informed ahead
of time that monitoring of my useage was going to take place and
for how long, I would consider it a major invasion of my privacy.  I
heard something very disturbing at a party not too long ago about
electronic monitoring of people's actions at Digital and was positively
repulsed.  I would not be opposed to the idea as long as I was informed
in advanced.  


...enough for now...
							nancy b.

    re 509:
    
    Since my name was mentioned, I'll take an opportunity to address the
    topic of "style".  I think it's important than women feel free to be
    angry, happy, sad, agressive, submissive, anything they'd like. 
    However, if one is consistently angry/happy/sad/agressive/submissive,
    then it becomes difficult to ascertain when they are *moreso* a/h/s/a/s
    than at other times.  The "punch" is lost.
    
    Someone who knows opera can probably fill me in on this ... but isn't
    part of the beauty of opera the fact that these variations exist?  
    Wagner buffs need not reply :^)
    
    Marge
    

    Ah, but life isn't an opera,... it's more like a soap opera_;-)
    
    We can't tell people how to feel, can we?  What emotion to express
    and when?  Rather, shouldn't we accept each other as we are.  Shouldn't
    we try to relate to each other as we really are, instead of trying to 
    change each other to conform to our own personal ideals.

        The beauty of humanity lies in it's diversity.  It is our differences
    that make us special and unique.  It is our acceptance of each other
    that sets up the circumstances under which we can love and understand
    each other one would think.
                                                                          
    Mary

    re: .510 (Marge)
    
     You make a very important point. In music, the term to describe the
    phenomenon you are talking about is "dynamics." You definitely lose
    something when you always note in a certain manner, in the same way
    that even a hard rock album needs a ballad or two lest it lose its
    effect. Whenever a noter constantly notes with the same attitude and
    tone regardless of subject, the noter runs the risk of categorization.
    When people read, they tend to try to order things in their mind. (At
    least I do, if only unconsciously).
    
     After having read several replies from a certain person, they can
    begin to form a pattern. Then subsequent notes by the same author are
    predictable, and typical. Thus a particular response by said noter is
    merely another leaf in the pile. But when a noter writes an atypical
    note, people sit up and take notice!
    
     If Bonnie were to write a searing diatribe about a certain subject,
    people in here would be not only surprised, but also riveted. For
    Bonnie to become openly impassioned and to really let loose would be
    news, sense she normally is extremely careful about what she says and
    how she says it. On the other hand, if another noter who has written
    x� diatribes about that subject wrote the x�+1th diatribe, the effect
    would not be as great. (Hope you didn't mind me using you as an
    example, Bonnie :-)
    
     The other extreme is when a noter who is characterized as "harsh" and
    strident writes a very thought-provoking note that relates to feelings
    etc. It seems out of character so it has more effect than the status
    quo.
    
     The Doctah

    
    re:.512
    strictly speaking 'dynamics' refers only to the volume or decibel
    level of the music; its 'tone' or 'attitude' or 'mood' can be
    altered in a number of ways in addition to dynamics.
    
    

    I've been  thinking  about  this for a while, and I think Alison's
    reply  (.508) comes closest to my thinking. This file behaves more
    like  a  community  than  any other notes file I know of. From the
    title  of  note 7 (Current Directory of Our File) mentioning "our"
    file to the =wn= banner, there is a feeling that this is our place
    (whoever "we are is not always clear).

    In many  ways =wn= acts like a coffee klatch (in the best sense of
    that  term).  We  drop  in  and  chat  about  what's on our minds.
    Sometimes it's the state of the world, sometimes a problem we want
    help  or support with, sometimes something that's important to us,
    and sometimes just light chat. I we want to know something we ask,
    and  someone  probably  knows the answer. Is this why the file was
    created?  I  don't  know.  Does  it  have  anything to do with the
    description   (topics  of  interest  to  women)?  Clearly.  Is  it
    manageable? I'm not sure.

    I find  the  unseen count can be daunting, and several others have
    expressed that concern as well. While at times we've come close to
    "Ask  Enet" it hasn't happened too much, and we seem to be able to
    deal  with  that.  I  can see it becoming a problem, but it hasn't
    yet.  I  find  the  "lite" topics fairly tame. It's an interesting
    comparison  with  "Home_Work"  where  some  topics degenerate into
    rather  crazy  jokes.  I find some of the topics in Home Work much
    funnier  than anything that has appeared in a "lite" note in =wn=,
    so  I'd be just as happy without the "lite" notes, but expect them
    to continue as an important part of the atmosphere. You can't talk
    about serious stuff all the time.

    I don't  think  I'd change anything about the file, but I think it
    may  have a maximum workable size (measured in number of members).
    I  don't think that can be enforced formally, but will happen when
    people  find that they don't have time to follow it they will drop
    out.  It  might  be  nice to have a smaller area for busy (or shy)
    people, but I don't see how to do that. (Communities do split when
    they  get  to  big,  often because they can't all fit in someone's
    kitchen anymore.)

--David

   Maggie collected information on the participation
   in womannotes for the week of July 2nd to 8th by
   name, number of notes and number of lines. I sorted
   that information by gender to determine relative
   participation in womannotes.

    Here are the results:
  
    There were 108 noters who entered a total of 287 notes,
    and 5,130 lines.

    
    Of the noters 68 or 63% were women
                  35 or 32% were men
                   5 or  5% were unknown (individuals who entered only
                       one note, who I either couldn't find on a search
                       through the week's notes, or who did not indicate
                       their gender in their note.
    
    Of the total number of notes 200 were entered by women, 82 by
    men and 5 by unknowns. That works out to be 70% of the notes
    entered by women, 29% by men and 1% by unknowns.
    
    Of the total number of lines written, 3,3619 or 70% were entered  
    by women, and 1,462 or 28% by men.

    The ten most active noters entered a total of 110 notes and
    2,155 lines. The top twenty accounted for 163 of all the notes
    and a total of 3,091 lines. 26 people (17 women and 9 men) entered
    only two notes and 48 people (30 women, 13 men and 5 unknowns) entered
    only one note.

    Bonnie

    
    p.s. If I have the time I'll try and continue to track this. Volunteers
    welcome.

    Thanks a lot Maggie for collecting the information
    and Bonnie for reporting it.
    
    To me it looks healthy....and we do not have the majority of
    notes written by a minority.  It would be great to have more
    people contributing and I think we can do that and still enjoy
    the contributions of people who have a lot to say.
    
    

    Re:  "of interest to" vs. "pertaining to"
    
    I'm not sure I'd use "pertaining to," but I think I understand the
    intent.  "Topics pertaining to women" are topics that affect women
    because they *are* women.  Noriega and flag-burning don't affect women
    any differently than they affect men; these are generic issues.  The
    Supreme Court decision obviously influences women.  Favorite/least
    favorite songs (two of my least favorite notes) might or might not
    pertain to women.  A discussion of how women are represented in music
    obviously pertains to women, but I'm not sure a particular woman's 
    appreciation of music differs significantly from how some number of men
    appreciate music.

Note 15.517                   
ACESMK::CHELSEA 

    
>    I'm not sure I'd use "pertaining to," but I think I understand the
>    intent.  "Topics pertaining to women" are topics that affect women
>    because they *are* women.  Noriega and flag-burning don't affect women
>    any differently than they affect men; these are generic issues.  

If we are only allowed to discuss issues that affect women because they
*are* women, that doesn't leave us much to talk about I'm afraid.  Just 
things like childbirth, illness of particular female organs, physical 
conditions related to femaleness.

Nearly every topic is generic in one way or another.  The Supreme Court
decision obviously influences men as well as women.  Many of the more 
passionate pro-choice and pro-life people are men.  Men as represented
in government haven't (obviously) left this decision to us women because 
it effects us the most, have they?

Because an issue effects men as well as women, it doesn't effect women any 
less does it?   Why such an effort to restrict our subject matter?  
Can't we (as women) be interested in what we have to say to each other
about generic matters as well as matters that effect us as women?

    
Mary

    Re: .518
    
    >The Supreme Court decision obviously influences men as well as women.
    
    But not, I think, in the same way.
    
    >Because an issue effects men as well as women, it doesn't effect women 
    >any less does it?
    
    Depends on the issue, actually.
    
    >Why such an effort to restrict our subject matter?
    
    I don't see anyone expending effort to restrict subject matter.  I do
    see a lot of effort being put into ascertaining whether it is a
    worthwhile idea.
    
    >Can't we (as women) be interested in what we have to say to each other 
    >about generic matters as well as matters that effect us as women?
    
    Certainly.  The question is not whether women should discuss generic
    issues.  The question is whether we should discuss such things here.

Note 15.519                   
ACESMK::CHELSEA 

    Re: .518
    
>    But not, I think, in the same way.

     Is it relevant whether it effects us in the same way or not?
    
>    I don't see anyone expending effort to restrict subject matter.  I do
>    see a lot of effort being put into ascertaining whether it is a
>    worthwhile idea.

What value is there in restricting our subject matter then?  How does that
benefit us as women?  Why should we limit ourselves?  Can we not communicate
intelligently with others in areas that are generic as well as areas that
pertain to us physically?  Certainly childbirth, menopause and other issues
are of interest, but we are not made of womb alone, we do have a brain as well.
The men's notesfile isn't restricted to issues that effect them as *men*.  
Why must women's notes be restricted then?  
    
>    Certainly.  The question is not whether women should discuss generic
>    issues.  The question is whether we should discuss such things here.

Why shouldn't we discuss generic issues here?   What is it we can't handle?

Mary

    It sounds to me as if the question isn't so much a matter of
    whether or not to restrict discussion, but how to determine what
    restrictions are most appropriate.  It seems like all agree that
    discussions of the arcane delights of application software are
    better off in conferences dedicated to same.  Likewise, I've
    yet to see a topic along the lines of "Hey!  How about those
    Red Sox?".  
    
    Ultimately, I think the conference does fairly well at restricting
    itself� and discussions like this one seem to be the means of defining
    the bounds of the conference.  If a "borderline" topic gets going,
    someone usually raises a question about whether it's appropriate,
    some discussion follows, and that seems to be all that's needed
    to ensure that folks give some thought to what fits best here and
    what belongs elsewhere.
    
    Steve
    
    � For example, a noter might couch a baseball topic in language
    to make it appear to belong in =wn=, but I have a feeling it would
    die a quick, natural death.  F'rinstance:
    
    Note 999.0			Sexism in Baseball		1 reply
    BOZO::CLOWN					    19-JUL-1989 14:15:23
    
    
    I've noticed that there are no women starting pitchers in any major
    league team's starting rotation.  I mean is this sexist or what?
    
    		--------------------------------------------
    
    Note 999.1			Sexism in Baseball		1 of 1
    NODE::ANYBODY                                   19-JUL-1989 14:15:00
    
    re: .0
    
    Who in their right mind cares?
    
                                                            

    Mary,
    
    The reason why I would prefer to discuss different subjects in 
    different notesfiles is that I want to be well-rounded and diversified.
    
    I enjoy =wn= for subjects that are specific to being a woman...the
    conference has provided me with a lot of insight into problems and
    issues that in the past I had felt were mine alone.
    
    But given the way things are set up in the Noting community, I feel
    that I want to be a part of other conferences, H_R, Friends,
    Weightloss, Digital to name a few.
    
    After reading the many replies I have come to realize that there
    may be more people who prefer to do most of their noting in this
    one conference.  If that is the consensus I can handle it.                         
    
    
    
    

    Re: .520
    
    >Is it relevant whether it effects us in the same way or not?
    
    Is it relevant to what?  To Womannotes?  To women?  I think that's what
    we're trying to decide here.  I think it's relevant to women that the
    effects are different.
    
    >What value is there in restricting our subject matter then?
    
    I believe that this has already been discussed.  It has value if it
    produces the kind of conference that women expect to find when they
    open Womannotes.  Some people come here looking for a specific
    environment and the conference will have more value to them if it
    provides that environment.  The questions are, what is this environment
    and how (if at all) do generic discussions affect that environment?
    
    >Why should we limit ourselves?
    
    The issue is not limiting ourselves, but limiting ourselves *here*. 
    There are other outlets for expression and discussion; people are
    limited by their own circumstances.
    
    >Can we not communicate intelligently with others in areas that are 
    >generic as well as areas that pertain to us physically?  Certainly 
    >childbirth, menopause and other issues are of interest, but we are not 
    >made of womb alone, we do have a brain as well.
    
    I don't know why you feel obliged to bring these points up.  It's
    possible you think that I hold a contradictory position.  If so, think 
    again.  It's possible you got carried away by your own rhetoric.  If
    so, calm down.  I'm very tempted to be snide when I see someone get
    carried away.  Perhaps you believe that by "affect women *as* women" I
    mean only the biological aspects of being a woman.  If so, think again.
    
    >The men's notesfile isn't restricted to issues that effect them as
    >*men*.
    
    Are you sure?  Steve said that the description of Mennotes reads
    "Topics pertaining to men."  I think that follows the same general
    idea.
    
    >Why shouldn't we discuss generic issues here?
    
    Have you read any of the previous discussion -- like perhaps the note
    that starts it all off?  If someone didn't think there was a reason not
    to discuss generic issues, would they have brought it up?
    
    >What is it we can't handle?
    
    I'm tempted to be snide again....

Re:  .523

I have avoided replying on this issue up to this time because I believe
that women should ultimately be the ones who determine how this conference's
agenda should be set.  Since I am not a woman, my comments should be viewed
as being of an advisory nature only.  If women decide to set the agenda
differently, I will go along without complaint.

>    Some people come here looking for a specific environment and the
>    conference will have more value to them if it provides that environment.

I think that this sentence accurately summarizes the nature of the recent
discussion here.  In my judgment, generic discussions tend to clutter up
the conference (even when they are fascinating by themselves).  I would guess
that limiting the conference agenda to issues pertaining specifically (some-
how) to women would make the conference more useful for more people.

>    The issue is not limiting ourselves, but limiting ourselves *here*.

And this is precisely why I believe it would be reasonable to limit this
conference's agenda.  I think it would be a travesty to forbid  women (or
anyone else) from discussing such topics as banks and economics, for example.
But fortunately, if this conference limits such discussions there still re-
mains a conference whose agenda is well suited to this sort of topic:  Soapbox.
It is true that that conference is often noisier (and more acrimonious) than
this one.  However, I believe that that effect would be significantly lessened
if Soapbox had more participation from calmer and more rational people.  (I
should also point out that there are already a number of such people over
there; it never hurts to have more, though.)  My own wish is that more people
from this conference choose to participate more frequently in the 'box.  In
that way women would not only be able to choose what topics they felt a
need to express themselves on; they would also get a considerably wider
audience for their views than this file has.�

Meanwhile, the effect of such a limit would be to make Womannotes more of
a conference for "networky" kinds of issues, and things on which women might
have a special focus.  My guess is that that would ultimately make the con-
ference more valuable to the community at large.

						--Q


� I don't really know the actual size of the Soapbox and Womannotes reader-
  ships; I am merely guessing based on the number of contributions that each
  conference receives currently.

    I was not going to reenter this discussion, but since Mary used
    an inaccurate statement about MENNOTES to support her position,
    (which Chelsea correctly challenged), I'll set the record straight.
    
    The moderators of MENNOTES have as a goal to keep the conference
    focused on discussions pertaining to men.  (The choice of the word
    "pertaining" is my own - if I am using it incorrectly, I'd be
    happy to be enlightened by MAIL.)  Contributions which we feel are
    not appropriate to the "charter" of the conference are quietly
    returned to the author with an explanation and an offer of
    assistance if further discussion is desired.  Because we act
    swiftly and silently, and do not allow drawn-out discussions in
    the conference about how it is run, other noters are often unaware that
    any action has occurred.  We feel this is good, and keeps the
    community's energy focused on positive and useful discussions.
    
    In general, we are fairly liberal about what "pertaining to men"
    means, and tend to act only in cases where there is clearly no
    relevance.  In most cases, the notes we return are those where the
    noter is using the conference as a substitute for a bulletin board.
    It's not often that someone attempts to bring up a discussion topic
    that we end up returning.  We tend to use the "return to author"
    mechanism rather than hiding notes, because, at least in my experience,
    it is more effective and less disruptive.
    
    Lastly, and to head off a reaction I've seen before, in no way do I
    believe that WOMANNOTES must be run a certain way just because
    MENNOTES is.  I am merely offering MENNOTES and my experience
    in moderating it as an example to be considered.  (I'll also mention
    that HUMAN_RELATIONS is run much along the same lines, though with
    a different "charter" and a disjoint set of moderators (excepting
    myself.)
    
    				Steve
    
    
    P.S.  I have seen inaccurate statements about the content and
    moderation policy of MENNOTES many times in this conference.  I
    don't intend to rebut each and every instance, so I'd ask that
    if you read someone's statement regarding MENNOTES that appears
    defamatory, please ask for specific evidence, go look for yourself
    (it's QUARK::MENNOTES or EASYNOTE.CONFS.VALUING_DIFFS.MENNOTES for
    you DNS fans), or inquire of the moderators.  We're not ogres.  Really!

Being new here, I guess I oughta keep my mouth shut, but I was thinking
something about =wn= that no one seems to have mentioned.  ('sides, I am
notoriously unable to keep my mouth shut...)

Everyone is saying "Why should we disucss topics that aren't especially
different for women than men?"  Well to me it's because there are mostly
women here.  Recently there were statistics posted that the majority of
noters are women, and the majority of notes written are by women.  I have
no evidence, but I doubt that situation exists in many other notesfiles.

For me, it's nice to be able to talk about anything, knowing that the
response I get will be predominantly female.  As people keep pointing out,
women as a whole often respond differently issues than men, even on 
issues unrelated to gender.  Where else, other than =wn= am I going to
get that kind of predominantly feminine reponse if that is what I am looking
for?

I guess for me =wn= does (actually did, last year) act as a subsitute
for being with a group of women.  I went to school where there was a 5:1
male:female ratio.  I work in a predominatly male company.  The activites
I involved myself in tend to be mostly men.  So =wn= is a place I can
talk about the same things I talk about elsewhere but with a different
perspective in response.

Anyway, my vote is for being *very* lenient in the "pertaining to women"
restriction.

D!

    As I have stated before, one of the advantages to the style of
    moderation in this conference is that it does allow "drawn-out
    discussions in the conference about how it is run", as illustrated by
    the existence of this very topic.  Rather than treating the conference
    as their own collective proprietary domain, the moderators have opened
    it up to the entire community of participants.  They do not consider
    open policy discussions to be a challenge to their authority or a
    threat to their egos.  Rather, by encouraging active participation on
    policy issues, they have fostered a greater sense of community among
    its membership.

    This policy may not be the sole reason for the active and lively nature
    of this conference, but it may be a contributing factor.  For that
    reason, and also as a matter of general principle, I generally do not
    participate in those employee interest conferences that censor policy
    discussions.

    Once again, the moderators are to be congratulated.

    -- Mike

re: .527

 Well stated, Mike.

 The Doctah

Note 15.523                   
ACESMK::CHELSEA 
    
>    The questions are, what is this environment and how (if at all) 
>    do generic discussions affect that environment?

Then DEFINE THE ENVIRONMENT and perhaps it can be determined how generic
discussions affect the environment.  Thats all I am trying to find out.
What is the environment you are looking for?  What issues are to be allowed?
    
>    The issue is not limiting ourselves, but limiting ourselves *here*. 

Why should we limit ourselves *here*.
    

>    I don't know why you feel obliged to bring these points up.  It's
>    possible you think that I hold a contradictory position.  If so, think 
>    again.  It's possible you got carried away by your own rhetoric.  If
>    so, calm down.  I'm very tempted to be snide when I see someone get
>    carried away.  Perhaps you believe that by "affect women *as* women" I
>    mean only the biological aspects of being a woman.  If so, think again.

I'm afraid you are mistaken on all assumptions.  Since I am obviously having
difficulty understanding what you are trying to accomplish and why you
are trying to accomplish it, it would be greatly appreciated if you would
explain it in detail rather than my having to guess.  

>    Are you sure?  Steve said that the description of Mennotes reads
>    "Topics pertaining to men."  I think that follows the same general
>    idea.
    
Are you saying that political discussions are not allowed in mennotes?

>    Have you read any of the previous discussion -- like perhaps the note
>    that starts it all off?  If someone didn't think there was a reason not
>    to discuss generic issues, would they have brought it up?
>    I'm tempted to be snide again....
    
Chelsea, what environment do you want set up and what issues will be allowed?

Its a very simple, polite and non-threatening question.  How about a straight,
simple and polite answer for a change.  

It isn't fair for the terms and conditions to be so vague that one will not 
know if one is following them until one breaks one of the unwritten rules.  

Is it unreasonable to ask for distinct, clear and concise information about 
what is to be allowed and what is not?

Note 15.525 

>And this is precisely why I believe it would be reasonable to limit this
>conference's agenda.  

My problem with this is that no one seems to want to list those specific
issues that should be included on the agenda and those that should be
excluded.

Note 15.525                   
QUARK::LIONEL 

>    I was not going to reenter this discussion, but since Mary used
>    an inaccurate statement about MENNOTES to support her position,
>    (which Chelsea correctly challenged), I'll set the record straight.

Steve, I apologize for any inaccurate statement I may have made
about mennotes?   I am having trouble grasping which topics are to be
allowed here and which are not.    

When you say that only topics that pertain to men are allowed in mennotes
does that eliminate political discussion?  Is abortion allowed as a
topic?  What kinds of issues are considered to be inappropriate over
there?  
    
    Do you have a written set of standards regarding what is
allowed and what is not, or do you as moderator just decide what you        
want to be included as topics come up?   In other words, is there a
predetermined set of issues that are considered suitable or is the
decision regarding what is suitable made by the moderator (you) at
the time a topic is entered?          
    

Re: .530

> When you say that only topics that pertain to men are allowed in mennotes
> oes that eliminate political discussion?  Is abortion allowed as a
> topic?  What kinds of issues are considered to be inappropriate over
> there?  

Abortion is certainly allowed as a topic, and has several extensive
discussions (though nowhere near as much so as here).  For example, there's
a discussion on whether or not the prospective father should have a "say"
in whether or not a woman can or should get an abortion.  I consider this
a topic that has many interesting angles pertaining to men.

However, straight political topics are generally directed elsewhere.  For
example, the topic here on the "flag burning" Supreme Court decision would
have been discouraged in MENNOTES.
    
>     Do you have a written set of standards regarding what is
> allowed and what is not, or do you as moderator just decide what you        
> want to be included as topics come up?   In other words, is there a
> predetermined set of issues that are considered suitable or is the
> decision regarding what is suitable made by the moderator (you) at
> the time a topic is entered?          
    
We are not naive enough to pretend that we could come up with a predetermined
list of issues.  We look at each topic individually and in its own context,
sometimes flavored by the approach that the author took.  And we are certainly
open to persuasion.

As I said earlier, it's rare that we return a topic to its author.  When we
do so, it's almost always because the conference is being used as a bulletin
board.  Types of notes routinely returned are: apartment-hunting notes,
advertisements and solicitations, attacks on the moderation policy of other
conferences, and other similar notes that have no apparent connection to
"men".  By keeping the conference focused on "topics pertaining to men",
we make the conference more useful to the community as a whole.


However, Diana Carroll (welcome back!) had a very reasonable view in .526,
and one that may indeed be what a majority of the women readers of this
conference want.  If WOMANNOTES is to become a women's combination of
SOAPBOX and FRIENDS, that's fine.  I just think it will repel some of the
community who might most benefit from participation.

				Steve

    	RE: .531  Steve Lionel
    
    	> However, Diana Carroll (welcome back!) had a very reasonable 
    	> view in .526, and one that may indeed be what a majority of the 
    	> women readers of this conference want. 
    
    	Agreed!  
    
    	> If WOMANNOTES is to become a women's combination of
	> SOAPBOX and FRIENDS, that's fine. 
    
    	Honestly, Steve, I think it does an injustice to =WN= to describe
    	the unique atmosphere here in terms of other conferences.
    
    	Womannotes has its own distinct flavor (always has and always
    	will, as far as I'm concerned.)  Let's give the file its due.
    
    	> I just think it will repel some of the community who might most 
    	> benefit from participation.
    
    	Well, I guess I have a hard time imagining that the greatest good
    	we could do for those "who might most benefit from participation"
    	would be to try to be something we are not in this notesfile (by
    	attempting to re-design what the community has already created
    	here.)
    
    	We tend to like discussing a great variety of subjects with each
    	other in =WN=, and I can't see how that could ever be *nearly*
    	as repelling as it would be if we were to try to limit the kinds 
    	of things that could be brought up here.  IMO.

    Re: .530
    
    >What is the environment you are looking for?
    
    Oddly enough, I'm not looking for anything.  I believe, from what I've
    seen in this discussion, that some people are looking for something. 
    They have already defined what they're looking for.
    
    >What issues are to be allowed?
    
    I don't think anyone could produce a list of allowable issues or even a
    list of unallowable issues.  Rather, assuming we did decide to restrict
    the topics, we'd have to come up with some kind of criteria for whether
    a topic was allowable.  I couldn't predict what those criteria would be
    because I don't know what everyone would agree on.
    
    >Why should we limit ourselves *here*.
    
    I think we've already gone over this.
    
    >I'm afraid you are mistaken on all assumptions.
    
    I carefully avoided making assumptions.  All those possibilities are 
    proceeded by the word "If" so I have made no claims that any of them
    are true. In fact, by listing a variety of interpretations, I indicate
    that I do not claim to know the appropriate interpretation.
    
    >Since I am obviously having difficulty understanding what you are
    >trying to accomplish and why you are trying to accomplish it
    
    You apparently hold the position that we should not restrict topics of
    discussion in Womannotes.  Several times you have asked why we should
    limit the topics here.  I'm trying to answer your questions.  Simple as
    that.  I'm not trying to get the topics of discussion limited.  I'm not
    trying to keep them unlimited.  I haven't taken a side.  Both sides
    have very good reasons for their positions.  In my opinion, it doesn't
    come down to whether one position is right and the other wrong.  In my
    opinion, the only thing that really matters is whether the community on
    the whole is happier having more or less of a particular focus.  Since
    I'd be happy either way, I don't have a side.
    
    >It isn't fair for the terms and conditions to be so vague that one
    >will not know if one is following them until one breaks one of the 
    >unwritten rules.
    
    If it is decided that topics should be limited, I presume that we would
    develop some criteria for allowable topics.  I'm sure that the
    moderators would actively solicit the community's input.  Then, since
    this would be a conference policy, it would be posted in the conference
    so everyone would be able to read it and know what was expected of
    them.  As always, it would be the role of the moderators to enforce the
    conference policy.

    I agree with those who do *not* want to see topics limited!  
    I would be extremely disappointed if we had an approved/disapproved
    list of topics, or a more narrow "charter."  I agree with those who
    feel more comfortable discussing "generic" topics in a forum where the
    majority is female and where the predominant *style* of noting, as well
    as the content, is female.  (This does not in any way negate the fact
    that I appreciate male notes in this conference, too!)  
    
    I am curious, however, whether there has ever been a string begun by a
    man and responded to only by men through a large number of replies. 
    Has this ever happened?  What do/would you think about that if it did? 
    Would you think that probably a number of women were silently following
    and enjoying it -- or would you think that men were somehow infringing
    on resources intended to serve women?   
    
    How would the mods feel, too?
    
    Nancy

    In re: topics that MAY belong in other notesfiles...like looking
    for a new place to live or seeking some sort of other resource.
    
    If you have tried the "appropriate" venues, and still not gotten
    results, I have opened topic 18 "Requests for Resources", so that we
    can post this type of thing, and request that people respond via
    E-mail, so as not to take up space in the file.
    
    -Jody
     

  The processing topic seems rather busy so I'll post this as a
  stand-alone note and the moderators can/may move it/tell me to
  move...

>================================================================================
>Note 710.2                  In NEW_HAMPSHIRE Notes...                     2 of 2
>LEZAH::BOBBITT "invictus maneo"                       8 lines  25-JUL-1989 11:41
>                           -< notes etiquette point >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    re: .0
>    
>    I don't know if you asked the people in the other conference whether
>    or not you could cross-post their notes to this notesfile, but,
>    fwiw, it's considered bad notes etiquette not to consult noters
>    before cross-posting their notes.  
>    
>    -Jody

Jody:

  I disagree.  I would agree that it is improper to post private mail
  without permission of the author being expressed or implied as the
  author didn't necessarily intend that their note get quasi-public
  visibility.  I would similarly agree that is extremely improper to
  repost notes from a restricted conference without permision.

  I disagree that it is improper to repost notes from one open conference
  to another without first getting permission from each and every author.
  Think about the basic metaphor behind VAXnotes -- This is a bulletin
  board, and what you write upon this (unrestricted) bulletin board can
  be read by anyone.  Reposting from one unrestricted bulletin board to
  another really doesn't change the situation except to give the notes
  more "airplay".

  If you feel that the problem is that the original authors won't have
  a chance to rebut any comments made in *THIS* conference, then let's
  conduct the consequent discussion (regarding the base-note, not this
  meta-note) in NEW_HAMPSHIRE.  (I'm sure they'll be happy to provide
  rebuttals there.)  We could enforce this by posting the suggestion to
  adjourn to NEW_HAMPSHIRE and write-locking note 710.* here.

                                   Atlant

Nancy,

The 'sound bites' note was pretty much that. After a while, one of the co-mods
asked if this was a topic of interest to women, and one of the women said yes.
So we let it go it's merry way.

Mary,

Well, one nice, easy (some might say brainless) way to tell if a topic was of
interest to women would be if a woman started it. I bet that wouldn't fly too
long, though. One way of telling if a topic 'pertained' to women would be if it
had the word 'woman' (or equivalent) as an integral part of the base note. I
find both of these suggestions amusing, particularly after taking a vacation!
	Mez

    Discussion on the etiquette of reposting notes may be found in
    Note 63, starting at reply 4, of the -- what else? -- Etiquette
    note file.
    
    							Ann B.

re: .536:
>Well, one nice, easy (some might say brainless) way to tell if a topic was of
>interest to women would be if a woman started it. I bet that wouldn't fly too
>long, though.

It might be easy, but it's also sexist and contrary to Digital's Policies
and Procedures.

Martin.

    re: .537
    
    I am simply repeating what I have read in other files.  I, personally,
    would prefer that people request my permission before cross-posting or
    mailing any of my notes anywhere.  To me, it would be common courtesy,
    to inform me that my words were being shared elsewhere.  There are
    many cases where I would have no objection at all to them being
    cross-posted.  But I would like to have a say in the matter....
    
    -Jody
    

    Agreed re mailing of notes, Jody.  I once received one of my notes
    which had been forwarded around the globe and finally arrived back in
    my mail queue.  At the least, the original forwarder could have cc'd
    me.  Often when a reply is read out of its original context, the
    meaning is lost.
    
    Marge

    
    re: .539
    
    Huh?  You mean if I wrote a note, posted it and identified
    it as a note of interest to women, I am being a sexist??

    Ann Marie
    

>         <<< Note 15.538 by REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." >>>
>                            -< Pre-discussed.  :-} >-
>
>    Discussion on the etiquette of reposting notes may be found in
>    Note 63, starting at reply 4, of the -- what else? -- Etiquette
>    note file.
>    
>    							Ann B.

  ...and I wrote reply 63.5 which said much the same thing as I said
  in 15.537.  I'd say the discussion in ETIQUETTE never reached much
  of a concensus but it certainly didn't result in anything like a
  proscription of re-posting without authorization.

                                   Atlant

    True, Atlant, but people did admit that
    	1) retaining the context was a good idea
    	2) at least *informing* the noter was courteous
    
    							Ann B.

    Re: .539
    
    >>Well, one nice, easy (some might say brainless) way to tell if a
    >>topic was of interest to women would be if a woman started it. I bet 
    >>that wouldn't fly too long, though.
    >
    >It might be easy, but it's also sexist and contrary to Digital's
    >Policies and Procedures.
    
    Depends.  What exactly is being proposed?  If a woman starts a topic,
    it's of interest to at least one woman.  So we can take it that notes 
    started by a woman are of interest.  What about notes started by men?  
    Nothing is said about them.  I suppose we'd have to have some other 
    criteria for determining whether they were of interest to women.

Someone contacted me a month or so ago asking to repost one of my
notes in Soapbox.  

I declined, and was very grateful the person chose to ask me first
before reposting my note.

It's good ettiquette, common courtesy, and shows a respect for privacy
(well, as much as you can have that when you post something to VAXnotes).

						nancy b.

Ben,

You are quite courageous to use a personal name like this ....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAVEN1::TYLER "Find the Intergalactic Woopi Wench"    3 lines  24-JUL-1989 05:11
                                  -<   ;^)   >-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

here in =wn=.  I also think this makes you a good candidate to wear the target 
silhouette at the next =wn= party!  Please contact the Doctah at 
WAHOO::LEVESQUE to borrow his :-).

Did that come from the movie "Earth Girls on Venus" or was it 
"Amazon Women on Mars" ?
						  	     nancy b.

    re:.547
    
    I think the name of the film you're looking for is AMAZON WOMEN
    ON THE MOON, a delightful parody of all that is bad in bad "sci-fi"
    [*sic*] movies. In any case, the quote doesn't come from that film.
    
    --- jerry

    Re: .549
    
    To clarify, "Nothing is said about them in .536" -- which is the note
    that proposed one way to tell if a topic was of interest to women.  I
    have no idea why notes about men were left unmentioned, but I suspect
    it was because the author was offering a suggestion rather than a
    complete solution.

Yes indeedy Chelsea, I was.

Let's see; we could also have a special note, where each reply paralleled the
topics in the notes file (like, reply .550 for topic 550), where one woman
would have to say "this topic is of interest to me!".

	Mez

    But if no one voted for a topic, the numbers would get all out of
    order....
    
    Hmmm.  If no woman responds to the topic, a moderator posts a note
    stating that she is accepting bribes to keep the topic around or delete
    it.  Whichever side comes up with the best bribes, wins.

      Geeze, leave notes for a week to do some work and the place
      explodes.

      If we are to have topics that are of interest to women then any
      topic mentioning men ought to be allowed. They're certainly what
      interest me! ;*) (sorry, I can't help myself, I've been working to
      hard and the mind has gone) liesl

    The "Woopi Wench" came from the comic strip 'Bloom County'.
    Opos (sp) dressed in his space gear walks up to a lady who is waiting
    at the bus stop with her groceries. He then explains that the all
    great leader of the universe is wanting a mistress and she IS going
    to be it. She is struck dumb at this and submits.
    
    As for it being in my personal name, I think you may have the wrong
    idea about it.
    
    She needs to be found. She needs help. I want to help the poor girl!
    
    ;^)
    Ben
    
    PS. Please use a big gun. I don't want to suffer long.

        ...were the  feelings I had when I saw negative male reactions to
        a reply I entered... 714.36, when I described an experience where
        I imagined  a world  in which  men were not outside at night, and
        women were  free to go anywhere, anytime, in relative safety, and
        relatively free from fear.

        Disappointed...because I  tried to  carefully word  my reply such
        that it would be difficult to misinterpret.

        Deja vu...because  I've previously  offended several  men of  the
        =wn= community  by what  I said  in 667.9, "Any man is capable of
        rape...".


        I feel  that in WOMANnotes, women should be given the freedom and
        space to  discuss what  are, to  many men,  uncomfortable truths,
        unpleasant truths,  without hate-mail, without subtle and not-so-
        subtle stabs  in WOMANnotes  by males  at the  woman  making  the
        statements. [Yikes,  check out  the wording  in my last sentence!
        Permit  me  to  rephrase...]      Above  should  read  ...  women
        *deserve*/should not be denied the freedom and space...

        But wait!  Deja vu, again.  Hasn't this been stated before?
        Yep.  In 525.47, Doug Olson said :


             ------------------------------------------------------------
             Supporting a  woman when  she says  things that are hard for
             men to hear expressed is *important* because she should know
             that the  message is  recognizable, and  understandable from
             this side of the gender gap, even if that comprehension hap-
             pens infrequently...or  even if  it causes  some men to feel
             pain.   Here, my  politics are  showing.   I really do think
             that encouraging  the expression  of women's feeling even at
             the expense  of some male readers is the right, VoD thing to
             * do.  The goal, of course, is not to hurt men. The goal is*
             * to support individuals as they teach themselves to       *
             * understand and live with the knowledge of their feelings.*
             ------------------------------------------------------------


        For me,  at least, the potential for negative male reactions have
        a censoring  effect on  my note-writing.  [and this is because, I
        am very likely to accept what a man says as the final word on the
        matter... probably  since, when  I was  growing up, and my father
        told me  something or  asked me  to do  something, I  jumped.  No
        questions asked.   He  was always  right.   On the  other hand, I
        could disagree,  question, compromise, and reason with my mother.
        I am  aware of and fight this conditioning, this annoying circuit
        in my  mind all the time.  So, for example, when I am called sex-
        ist or alluded to as obsessive or afflicted by a *man*, I am very
        likely to  think, "Yea, he's right, I am probably f*cked up", de-
        spite the  fact that  several *women* would dare to publicly dis-
        agree with the man.]


        Alas, the problem is very clear now:

        It appears  to be  unrealistic to expect all male readers to just
        turn the  other cheek  when being  confronted with  uncomfortable
        truths.   Yet, I  would still very much appreciate if I and other
        women in  analogous situations  could express  these thoughts and
        feelings without the male reactions that I've encountered and de-
        scribed above.


        What is the solution?


        I have an idea...

        For several months now, I've been considering entering a topic in
        MENnotes entitled :

                                     How Men Feel


        Where topic replies could consist of:
        ...their responses  and feelings  generated by  unpleasant state-
        ments regarding men made by women in =wn=
        ...discussions amongst  men of the implications for men of state-
        ments made/subjects discussed in =wn=
        ...etc...whatever...men feel...

        Part of my interest in seeing this topic in MENnotes is because I
        am curious as to how men would describe their reactions and feel-
        ings to  what is  written in  =wn= amongst themselves, in *their*
        space, without having to be concerned with feminist claws drawing
        blood in the next reply.

        Another benefit  (in my  eyes) would be that men could freely ex-
        press, instead  of repress  their true feelings, in a place sepa-
        rate from  WOMANnotes.  Therefore, discussions initiated by women
        on sensitive  subjects is less likely to be eroded into a man ex-
        pressing "How  could you  say that..."  and others  responding to
        *him* mostly, in either agreement with him or in defense of the 
        woman, instead of discussing the original subject of interest.


        So what do you think?  Good idea?  Bad idea?

        Any thoughts on other solutions?

        (Or should I just...get a thick skin (sorry-conditioned responses
        are hard to change, but I'm working on it)
        ...or not  write anything that could possibly offend men (my cur-
        rent resolution)
        ...or to  enter potentially  offensive notes with a warning and a
        formfeed asking men to hit next/unseen... (I really don't want to
        do that)
        ...or...  what?
                                                     nancy b.

	One of the techniques of argument I notice in here is "dismissal of
opponents argument by declaration of semantic quibbling."

	Words are the only way we have here to express ideas.  It's not all
"playing word games."  If someone's arguing with your choice of words, it
may not be that they're quibbling over semantics, but challanging the very
ideas your words put across.

	English has a lot of slack in everyday usage.  This isn't JOYOFLEX
or GRAMMAR, but if the topic is important to you, it pays to choose words 
carefully.

							--D

    You can't argue with emotions. 

    When someone says for example, "I feel that all men ...." you can't
    argue with the feeling that this person is expressing. 

    Too often the noter is put down by others or even attacked because
    they have expressed how they feel. It's like saying "I have a
    headache," and having others reply that you don't really have a
    headache, or you only think you have a headache, or that they don't
    have a headache so why should you have one. I think this is one
    reason why some people do not want to express themselves here.

    You can discuss feelings ("I'm sorry you feel that way" or "Yes, but
    I feel this way , ....,"  or even "Why do you think you feel that
    way?" etc.) but you can't deny the fact that the person actually
    feels that way and has expressed their emotions. 

    We would get on better in this file (and in the world, too) if the
    expression of feelings was accepted at face value. We would have
    more fruitful discussions, air more feelings, and maybe even change
    some.

    [Not every statement that starts off "I feel ..." is an expression
    of emotion, and not every emotional statement begins with "I feel
    ..."  Let us avoid wending our way down that rathole.]

    Bruce

     

    re: "How men feel"
    
     Nancy, I hate to say it, but men are far less likely to say "how they
    really feel" in mennotes than women in =wn=. IMO, of course.
    
     There is no such noting place where men can say what they want and not
    worry about feeling the claw marks up and down their backs. As long as
    their is open access to all files, this problem will exist. I think it
    is rather analogous to the problem seen here of men who appear opposed
    to the concept of sexual equality. Just as some female noters will
    refrain from speaking from the heart to prevent male backlash, men
    would do the same to prevent getting ripped to shreds by a claw
    wielding feminist.
    
     The Doctah

The way I read your suggestion Nancy, womannotes and mennotes would have to
form some sort of agreement to make it work. Like, it would be a real pisser if
a =wn= co-mod said "that belongs in mennotes" and a mennotes mod said "we don't
let that here".

It's an interesting suggestion, and one that might work, with a lot of work
from all the mods involved.
	Mez

    RE. 559  When in doubt, take it to =HR=     :-)/2

    Actually, it seems easier (for me) to express feelings
    in 'neutral territory' than in either =wn= or =mn=.
    
    Dana

re: 13.448 (David Wittenberg)
    -------------------------

>    We have  seen a person describe an emotion, and a lot of people of
>    the  opposite sex deny that emotion. 
     ...
>    The particulars:

>    Steve L. said that he was disturbed by what nancy b.'s note seemed
>    to  say. That's his emotion. Many people weren't disturbed, but we
>    should not deny his feelings.


I reread all the replies from people w.r.t. Steve's note.  It didn't seem
to me like his *feeling* of being disturbed was being denied by anyone.

What was denied :

(in my notes)
   1. his assertion that my fantasy implied that "instilling fear is 
      the only attribute of men, and that they have no other value." 
      which added meaning to my original note that simply was not 
      there.
   2. his use of words like obsession and affliction w.r.t. me;
   3. his assertion that "fear of men" is the theme of my notes


(in 714.60)

   o  #1 above
   o  that Steve (or herself) could not understand my fear when 
      he has not been through my experience
   o  #2 above; 

(in 714.61)
   o #2 above; lack of sensitivity
    
(in 714.65)
   o #2 above

The feeling of being disturbed after reading my original note (714.36) 
is one that I bet many women would expect men to have.

David, Steve's assertions were objected to...not his *feeling* of being 
disturbed. 

Thus, I disagree that responses to his note exhibited sexism as you 
suggested in 13.448, "Sexism is alive and well in..."

							nancy b.

Random thoughts:

Were Steve's feelings in things that looked like assertions to some of us (only
Steve can answer this one)?

Did Steve feel his feelings invalidated by the calling into question of his
assertions?

Just trying to make sense out of differing opionions of opinions...
	Mez

re: .555:

        I feel  that in WOMANnotes, women should be given the freedom and
        space to  discuss what  are, to  many men,  uncomfortable truths,
        unpleasant truths,  without hate-mail, without subtle and not-so-
        subtle stabs  in WOMANnotes  by males  at the  woman  making  the
        statements. [Yikes,  check out  the wording  in my last sentence!
        Permit  me  to  rephrase...]      Above  should  read  ...  women
        *deserve*/should not be denied the freedom and space...

If only Nancy had written

        I feel  that in WOMANnotes, people should be given the freedom and
        space to  discuss what are, to many people,  uncomfortable truths,
        unpleasant truths,  without hate-mail, without subtle and not-so-
        subtle stabs  in WOMANnotes by people at other people  making the
        statements. [Yikes,  check out  the wording  in my last sentence!
        Permit  me  to  rephrase...]      Above  should  read  ...  people
        *deserve*/should not be denied the freedom and space...

How happy I would have been that we had moved beyond trivial gender differences.

-------

As I've said before, this is a public forum.  I would recommend to the
participants that they

-- understand that not all human experience is suitable for discussion
   in a work environment.

-- assume that anything they write here is attached to their resume.

-- assume that anything they have ever written here may be handed to a
   new companion wrapped in a ribbon that says "here's what he/she
   really thinks."

-- assume that there are contributors who will take a certain pleasure in
   twisting your words to suit their prejudices so they can attack you for
   refusing to conform to their norms.

-- assume that there are contributors who will read beyond your words and
   say things, out of love and concern, that you may not wish to hear.

Martin.

Re: .563, others...

The statements I made were not intended as assertions, but rather as
"here's how it looks to me".  Some of it was intended to show how I felt
about certain things that were said.  I didn't think that anyone was
invalidating my feelings by questioning my "assertions", though some may
have wanted to.  I must learn to be more careful in the future.

The difficulty is in separating the person from the words.  I was wrong to
express an opinion of Nancy-as-person based on what I read into her notes.
I should know by now that through notes, we only see a small facet of the
entire person, and sometimes not even a representative facet at that.

Addressing the general issue, I've recently observed that a lot of the
fury in this conference is caused by people trying to follow two mutually
exclusive "rules":

	1.  Feel free to say anything you feel you must, without
	    worrying about whether someone will be hurt or made to
	    feel uncomfortable about it.

	2.  Be careful that what you write doesn't hurt others or
	    make them feel uncomfortable.

The conflict is that we can't have it both ways.  One possible resolution,
one that seems to be implicitly supported by many, is to assign rule 1
to women and rule 2 to men.  Is this a good solution?  I've been puzzling
over it for days and haven't come to any conclusions.

Perhaps just by being aware of this conflict we can make this a better
and more supportive environment for us all.

						Steve

Martin,

	Careful with the word "public" with respect to conferences.

	Conferences on the Easynet are not public.  They are nominally
Digital Internal Use Only and some are actually Digital Confidential.

							--D

I think Steve is on to something important in .565.

> Addressing the general issue, I've recently observed that a lot of the
> fury in this conference is caused by people trying to follow two mutually
> exclusive "rules":
>
>	1.  Feel free to say anything you feel you must, without
>	    worrying about whether someone will be hurt or made to
>	    feel uncomfortable about it.
>
>	2.  Be careful that what you write doesn't hurt others or
>	    make them feel uncomfortable.

Perhaps rule 1 could be characterized a little better, but I felt a shock of
recognition on reading this -- "Oh, of course! ... Why didn't I ever realize
that?"

> The conflict is that we can't have it both ways.  One possible resolution,
> one that seems to be implicitly supported by many, is to assign rule 1
> to women and rule 2 to men.  Is this a good solution?  I've been puzzling
> over it for days and haven't come to any conclusions.

Indeed.  What an excellent conundrum.  Again, I agree with Steve:  there 
seems to be a tacit cultural principle in =wn= that men should generally 
abide by rule 2, while rule 1 or rule 2 may aply to women, depending on
the circumstances.

And, like Steve, I don't really know what I think about that.  Perhaps
discrimination=bad (the knee-jerk reaction); but perhaps this is part 
of the essential quality that makes this WOMANNOTES, and not MENNOTES 
or HUMAN_RELATIONS.

I would love to see some further discussion of this.

	-Neil

    > When in doubt, take it to =HR=     :-)/2
    
    Ever tried to start a "Processing Topic" in HR or mn?  Good luck.
    
    - Vikas

                            So would I, Neil.


                                             -Robert Brown III

    Oh come on. Get serious.
    
    One of the (often-discussed) purposes of this file was to provide
    a safe space in which WOMEN could share experiences, fears, hopes
    and concerns.  In a sense, the file should probably be more like
    the various "members-only" support conferences (eg for Gay Dec
    Employees, recovering Alcoholics and their relatives, etc etc) than
    the "touchie-feelie" conferences (Friends, Human Relations, etc
    etc). 

    I see nothing wrong with having a clear distinction between male
    and female noters IN THIS FILE.  I see nothing wrong with saying
    "Men contributors should try to be considerate of the feelings of
    other contributors" IN THIS FILE.  I'm glad to be able to read this
    file; I have learned a number of things from my years of reading
    the file; I have exchanged mail with several of the noters (some
    of whom agreed with me, some who disagreed, some quiet, some vehement
    (Hi Sandy!!)) and I have yet to see a conspiracy raise its ugly
    head. But then I've come to the file to learn and to listen, not
    to present opinions cleverly disguised as facts! 
    
    Look, every couple of months some male puts in a note about how men are
    "second class citizens" in this file; everyone gets stirred up for a
    while and then things calm down again with only a few gray hairs on the
    moderators to show for it all.  As an example, Steve (since his name
    came up most recently in this context) has been grinding his particular
    axe on this topic for ages now, without really saying anything new!
    And the same people agree with him, and the same people disagree.
    This is not productive!
    
    In one of the conferences which I follow, a disgruntled noter was
    complaining about the quality of moderation in a given notesfile. That
    noter was offered the old advice "If you don't like the way the file is
    run, feel free to start your own."  It is good advice, and has been
    offered by many respected members of the noting commnity over the
    years.  Maybe some of the more disgruntled writers of this conference
    could take it to heart and start a "LITTLE_LADY_NOTES" conference
    somewhere else...  (-: � 
    
    
					Nigel
    
    ps: oh hell, another male laying down his opinions! But at least
    MY opinions are right!!!   (-:  (-:  (-:  ouch!    

    Re: .571
    
>    What seems to be missing from the Steve Lionel analysis about
>    Rule 1 for women and Rule 2 for men is that just maybe we are
>    all making the assumption that this is UNFAIR ...
    
    What do you mean "we", oh feathered friend?  You're the only one here
    so far who seems to assume it's unfair.  As I said, I haven't
    come to any conclusion, and as Neil said, maybe the separate rules is
    indeed what is needed here. 
    
    The value I hoped to add was to make more people aware of the conflict
    so that we can better understand the issues involved.
    
    Please don't ascribe to me (or anyone else) your own views.
    
    					Steve

>    In one of the conferences which I follow, a disgruntled noter was
>    complaining about the quality of moderation in a given notesfile. That
>    noter was offered the old advice "If you don't like the way the file is
>    run, feel free to start your own."  It is good advice, and has been
>    offered by many respected members of the noting commnity over the
>    years.  Maybe some of the more disgruntled writers of this conference
>    could take it to heart and start a "LITTLE_LADY_NOTES" conference
>    somewhere else...  (-: � 
    
    I like that.  I love it even more when the same "respected members of
    the noting community" seems to whine about how "noone understands
    them".
    
    - Vikas

    re 206.303, Paul-
    
    Hey, dude, that's the 'best songs' topic.  Take complaints over to
    'worst songs', and don't call it a rathole.  ;-).
    
    DougO

    Recursion! What a powerful concept!
    
    We discuss. Then we discuss our methods of discussion. Then _that_
    discussion is subjected to in-depth analysis of how we discuss _and_
    how we discuss our discussions.
    
    I feel like Alice-through-the-Looking-Glass having stepped through a
    time-warp to watch the nightly news and hear that a war cannot end
    because negotiations cannot begin until the shape of the table is
    decided which we cannot do while standing so we cannot agree on a table
    because we cannot sit down at nothing so a war will not end.
    
    oh yes -- when I say 'we' I use it to abbreviate 'myself and a
    significant number of participants in this conference' in para #2 and
    to abbreviate 'the US and other concerned parties' in para #3.
    
      Ann

	Since 29 August this note has had 16 replies from males and
	3 from females with one name I don't recognize.

	Did I fall into Mennotes again??????


	_peggy

    This can't be Mennotes, because that conference doesn't have a
    Processing Topic.

    -- Mike

Doc,
Ever notice that the mod never steps in until the anti-crimer speaks?
This happened twice this week already.  

JWHITE made the gratuitous remark and you noted it for the record, but didn't
rebut it.  Then the mod stepped in and, in effect, asked for YOUR cooperation!
So you are placed in the position of being like the little kid who says
"He/she started it!".  What gets lost is that the person who did start it
shouldn't have.  Should a rape victim not go to the police because "the other
person started it"?  You stepped in because the moderator wouldn't, and the
moderator comes down on YOU!

It just happened again.  Are anti-crimers are, by definition, incapable of 
sensitivity?  Only pro-crimers are sensitive?

That's what Mike Valenza is saying by posting .432 in this string.
But don't object... that would be insensitive.

The exact same thing happened when he posted his little ditty last spring.
It was offensive to some, and clearly designed to provoke, but the mod
had harsh words for those who objected.  Objections were deleted, but I'll bet
you can still find his note!

You have my permission to post this note, but only ANONYMOUSLY and without
attribution.  I don't "use" this conference.

    <--(.582)
    
    What're "pro-crimers" and "anti-crimers", Mark?  And how does that
    relate to the notes to which this person is objecting.  I'm puzzled.
    
    						=maggie

 pro-crimers vs anti-crimers

 Similar to the other source of division for the country, ie abortion, each
side in the gun control debate has similarly charged labels which tend to
make their side seem better than the other side.

 In this instance, the pro-crimers = pro gun control, and the anti-crimers =
anti-gun control.

 The Doctah

"Doctah":

   While I don't necessarily agree with your use of the terms "anti- crime"
and "pro- crime", I must say that I noticed the bias you are talking about.


   I shall be watching with great interest how others react to what you
are saying.

                                                 -Robert Brown III

>   While I don't necessarily agree with your use of the terms "anti- crime"
>and "pro- crime", I must say that I noticed the bias you are talking about.

 The terms were present in a mail message I *received*. They are not my terms.

 The Doctah

Look! There's a note in processing already!

Is this a result of my note? If so, I _really_ resent not being told about it,
but being discussed as gossip on the net. I know it happens all the time; I
still resent it. I do not resent the posting; thank you Mark. But I'm p*ssed as
H*ll at the person who wouldn't say something in a direct manner.

Right; I only step in when I see things escalating; when it looks like neither
party has enough cool to keep a lid on the entire discussion. If
pro-anti-something-or-others are always second, I can see how it might hurt.
I'm sorry if I have hurt someone (if it's someone just b*tching without being
hurt, I'm not sorry :-). 

On how I personally deal with the need to 'get back' at someone: I hope someone
else will raise a valid point that hasn't been raised yet. I try to do it
myself. I try to start the conversation _I_ want to participate in
(pro-my-views, instead of anti-my-views, or anti-their-views). I hope other
people will share how they deal with this difficult situation.
	Mez

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    My model is typically to let the victim of a shot get a chance to
    respond and then try to put the lid on it so that it doesn't get to
    look like a schoolyard quarrel.  Sometimes it seems as though one
    particular "side" always takes the first shot so that it then looks as
    though I'm supporting that political position when I come in with my
    lid behind the victim's response.  Not so, McGee, it's just the
    perspective that makes it look that way.  Check it out.
    
    						=maggie

    I really get frustrated when this sort of thing happens. Do people
    really think that the four of us have nothing better to do than
    sit around thinking of people we can discriminate for or against?
    
    If someone notices that we appear to be biased in how we deal
    with issues why can't they send *US* mail rather than starting
    another round of gossip about womannotes? If I were to get
    mail pointing out that I had acted in a fashion that showed bias
    I would listen, try and determine why I had acted in the way
    I had, and try to be more careful in the future. I'm confident
    that the other three moderators would also!
    
    Very often I won't get to a note until a couple of tit for tat
    replies have gone in, so if, as Mez said, the second replier
    is always on the same 'side' of issues, it may well look like
    their reply was the one that made me or another moderator write
    when it was rather, a coincidence resulting from the order of
    the notes.
    
    I really wish that those of you who get mail from someone critical
    of womannotes would encourage your correspondants to have the
    intestinal fortitude to write to the moderators as well. I get
    *very* tired of mail and notes that say things like "three men"
    or "two women" or "one person" wrote and told me <.............>
    about womannnotes. Yet these people who seem to be able to read
    my and Maggie's and Jody's and Mez's mind at a distance lack
    the courage to write to us directly.
    
    Bonnie

 Wow- I didn't expect this type of response. I feel like a focal point for alot
of anger on the net from both sides. Try to have lunch and POW! Mail up the
ying-yang. Whew!

re: Mez

> I should probably not note again today, I'm so angry

 That's how I felt when I left for lunch. I'm better now.

>Is this a result of my note? If so, I _really_ resent not being told about it,
>but being discussed as gossip on the net. I know it happens all the time; I
>still resent it.

 I believe it is a result of your note. I suspect that the problem arises as a
result of a read-only noter not wanting to get involved in a fracas. This is
often unavoidable IMO.

>If
>pro-anti-something-or-others are always second, I can see how it might hurt.

 If you noted in another forum and the mods seemed to tell you to calm down
after you responded to something objectionable posted by an anti-abortion
type noter, I think you'd feel annoyed. Especially if it was in something like
::FUNDAMENTALIST_NOTES or something where it was perceived that the prevalent
opinion was against your position. Speaking as someone who has seen a fair
share of "calm down" comod responses, it sometimes _appears_ as though the bulk
of the tone it down responses come after I respond to a note I have a problem
with in kind. (Alright- crappy sentence structure, sorry :-) The bottom line is
that it does hurt- the perception that it's predominately after "my side"
responds that the fire extinguishers arrive.

re: =maggie

> Sometimes it seems as though one
>    particular "side" always takes the first shot so that it then looks as
>    though I'm supporting that political position when I come in with my
>    lid behind the victim's response.  Not so, McGee, it's just the
>    perspective that makes it look that way.  Check it out.

 I suspect you are probably right, but jeez- how can we cry conspiracy???
;^)

re: bonnie

>steamed moderator

 My diagnosis is that you are suffering from acute long week/ anonymous noter
complaintitis. Prognosis: good, if you follow the prescribed treatment.
Treatment: "copious" amounts of Michelob from a keg ;^) and good company

>    If someone notices that we appear to be biased in how we deal
>    with issues why can't they send *US* mail rather than starting
>    another round of gossip about womannotes?

 Good question. Could someone involved please answer? (It's ok to send me
mail). I _will_ ask for permission to post it, though.

>If I were to get
>    mail pointing out that I had acted in a fashion that showed bias
>    I would listen, try and determine why I had acted in the way
>    I had, and try to be more careful in the future. I'm confident
>    that the other three moderators would also!

 Sounds like a good solution to me.

>I get
>    *very* tired of mail and notes that say things like "three men"
>    or "two women" or "one person" wrote and told me <.............>
>    about womannnotes. 

 Sounds like a crappy situation. Maybe we can find a solution.

 The Doctah

    >I believe it is a result of your note.  I suspect that the problem
    >arises as a result of a read-only noter not wanting to get involved in
    >a fracas. This is often unavoidable IMO.
    
    Hi Doctah,
    
    It may not be unavoidable.
    
    One thing that might have helped is if you had forwarded the note (with
    the original sender's name removed) to the moderators instead of
    posting it.  I think the sender's main concern was anonymity to the
    moderators.  The person gave you permission to post it, but it was your
    decision to actually do so.  The moderators could have been notified of
    this person's concern without making it a public affair.
    
    Just another way of handling it that might have brought about the
    result you and the anonymous sender wanted to achieve without posting
    to the notesfile something that appears to attack the moderators'
    motives without sufficient evidence.  
    
    Pam

re: .591

 A fine idea. I will take your advice forthwith (as I have received another 
piece of mail from the same source.

 The Doctah

�    One thing that might have helped is if you had forwarded the note (with
�    the original sender's name removed) to the moderators instead of
�    posting it.

	He could, but this would be a violation of the lastest policy on 
"proper use of Digital computers", and could get him in a lot of trouble if
the original author complained.

	The policy is posted in VTX (Livewire) for those of you who would
like to reference the complete policy, but the part I refer to is:

Responsibility for content of messages sent or posted on the network

  Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are the responsibility
  of the original author.  Posting these materials in a notes file/conference
  without the explicit permission of the author is prohibited and is a
  violation of this policy.  When forwarding messages or posting them to
  conferences, removal or falsification of the original message header (which
  indicates the author) is prohibited.


						--Doug

    re .593
    
    "When forwarding messages OR POSTING THEM TO CONFERENCES, removal...
    of the original message header...is prohibited."
    
    Based on the excerpt you quoted, what the Doctah did do was in
    violation.  Kind of negates any type of anonymous postings if you
    adhere to the letter the regulation.
    
    Hmm.  
    Pam

	The Doctah had explicit permission to post anonymously (and included
that permission in his posting.)  That, indeed, is one of the grey areas in
the new policy.

							--D

I'm back. (oh goody you exclaim :-).

On the topic: hey folks, pluh-ease offer advice on how you deal with
tit-for-tat to keep it in hand. I think we could all use it.

On the rat-hole: 
I've only read a little of the policy. It reads wierd, and doesn't always say
what one of the participants in it's formation tells me it should (at least,
_I_ don't understand that it does). I personally believe anonymous information
is better than no information at all, when it's about inter-personal
communication. I believe the policy was meant to combat the rash of mail with
no author's name with rumors about DEC. Does anyone knowledgable in the policy
know how to provide the former (anonymous interpersonal information). Like,
maybe as quotes; somebody told me "....".
	Mez

    The way I read it was that having permission to post and removing the
    header were two separate issues.  In other words, yes, he had
    permission to post but no, he could not remove the header.
    
    If we can read it so differently it looks like the policy's poorly
    worded in any case...
    
    Pam

>On the topic: hey folks, pluh-ease offer advice on how you deal with
>tit-for-tat to keep it in hand. I think we could all use it.

 As I said in mail to the author of the orignal "observations," I probably could
have avoided the problem by simply complaining to one of the mods about the
piece that bugged me. That may or may not have worked. If the mod agreed with
me that the note was encouraging the development of a small bonfire, the problem
could have been avoided. If, on the other hand, there was disagreement, the
problem probably would have been worse.

 I suppose that one way of dealing with the problem is to avoid responding to
such a note but instead making a system call to the moderator process, and
advising that a tit-for-tat condition was about to force code into a nasty
loop (recursive and redundant. :-) This has the unfortunate byproduct of
requiring more effort on the part of the mods, who are busy enough as it is! :-)

 It's not an easy problem, keeping everybody happy.

 Have a nice weekend, all.

 The Doctah

    Another way of dealing with tit-for-tat is to only allow the pro-gun
    position to be expressed in this notes conference.  This would
    eliminate all heated discussions, since only one side of the issue
    could be expressed (namely, the Correct one).

    These one-sided discussions would then reduce the tit-for-tat to a mere
    tit.  And I think we can all agree that there is much to be said for a
    notes conference with tits.

    -- Mike

Re: .590

> the perception that it's predominately after "my side" responds that 
> the fire extinguishers arrive.

Could be Doc, but perhaps the explanation isn't a Moderators Conspiracy?
"Where there's fire extinguishers, there must be flamers"? We've all heard
the arguments before, neither side is going to convince the other. Let it lie,
eh?

The solution used in Usenet newsgroups, and some other Notes files is to have
a place for the things that keep causing flames. Usenet has talk.abortion
abortion discussions/flames, talk.origins - creationism discussions/flames, 
talk.politics.guns - you guessed it (there is also rec.guns for a safe 
"gunspace" where people who like and use guns get together to talk about them).

"Take it to soapbox" is a similar sort of thing, as is "The Junknote" in another
conference.

	-- Charles

The following paragraph was sent to me via mail. Since it has useful ideas, I
asked if I could post it anonymously. The mailer agreed.
	Mez

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[...]
    As to the question, how does one deal with quid-pro-quo? My answer
    is, when it's brought to my attention, I try to deal only with the
    specifics of the argument, avoid ad hominem, apologise profusely,
    and/or get the hell out. I'm not sure that solves the problem, but
    it seems to keep it from getting worse.
[...]

>    Another way of dealing with tit-for-tat is to only allow the pro-gun
>    position to be expressed in this notes conference.  This would
>    eliminate all heated discussions, since only one side of the issue
>    could be expressed (namely, the Correct one).

 Censorship? Hmmph. Even though the anti-gun position is indeed faulty, to 
disallow people to express that opinion would undermine the ability to show
that the pro-gun position does indeed have advantages. With nothing to compare
it to, it would just be there. As for eliminating all heated discussions,
surely you must read notes other than gun protection? Then even you must
realize that the arguments about guns in this conference are almost 
insignificant in terms of the number and strength of the heated discussions
thereof.

 As for your final paragraph, all I can say is "it's you."

 The Doctah

    Honest to mcgillicuddy.....I leave for a weekend and what do I find?
    Another round of dragging the comoderators through the mud (that
    was my initial reaction).  But of course, I looked for a secondary
    reaction, too.
    
    Thinking deeply, I don't think I have EVER placed a
    tit-for-tat-quelling note after ANYONE specific posted.  I just
    don't work that way.  If I sense the tit-for-tat will cease within
    a reply or two, I will generally hold off.  If I sense it will escalate
    further, I enter a "hey, calm it down, folks" note, which, of course,
    does not preclude taking whatever tit-for-tat you were participating
    in from going off-line, if whoever is tit-for-tatting is that HELL-BENT
    on continuing, who am *I* to stop them?  I *firmly* believe womannotes
    is a place for thoughtful, sharing, discussion....for exploring
    how you think and feel.  Tit-for-tat, once it passes a certain point
    (which I agree is different in everybody's head), does not contribute
    in a positive way to the file (I think a majority of people in this
    file would agree with me, but probably not all....)
    
    -Jody
    

What's needed is an ad hominem topic - in which such attacks can be entered.
Such a note would be write-only, of course (requiring an ECO to Notes), so that
after you write the note, nobody can read it but you.

In fact Paul, I was wondering if the famed 'jerk' topic in soapbox helped
syphone off antagonism. Does anyone know if it did?
	Mez

    
    Mez, I think the box topic did. You could blow off a little
    steam by referring people to 204. 
    And there also exists the Pope-of-fools topic which serves a
    similiar purpose.
    
    								Hank

    Doctah, while I normally oppose censorship, I think that in this case,
    Logical and Correct Opinions (such as the pro-gun position) need
    nothing to compare themselves with.  Allowing anything but the pro-gun
    position, in particularly those who have the gall to introduce moral
    arguments, merely detracts from the shining Beacon of Truth as
    expressed by those with superior logic.  Contrasting opinions on the
    gun control issue results in a tit-for-tat; instead, I think that we
    could properly call a strictly pro-gun discussion a rat-tat-tat, which
    would be music to our collective noting ears.

    As for the heated discussions regarding other issues, I think that all
    we need is a thermos-tat.

    -- Mike

          re: <--.608  COORS::M_VALENZA

          Is he for real ??  (or has he just been in the =wn= flotation
          tank for too long downing too much of his nodename's brew :-) ?

          re: 820.25 (Marge Davis Hallyburton)     "Is S&M PC ?"

          > If you wish to discuss this further, perhaps we should
          > take it to the processing topic.

          My most humble opinion is that the discussion to date in topic
          820 has been appropriate for =wn=.  I've been curious as to just
          what people are finding offensive in the string...  The terminol-
          ogy used has seemed harmless enough to me - pain, pleasure, domi-
          nance, submission, etc... But I don't know how this would compare
          to Sexcetera.

          (I think I've used much more explicit language and description in
          notes I've written here, though perhaps in a more Politically
          Correct context.)

          The "nipple piercing" and "S&M" topics are providing me with in-
          sights into other women's lives that would be otherwise beyond my
          scope of experiences.  They also provide an excellent example for
          the valuing-differences lesson, "What is true in your mind is
          _not_ true for all women".

          Perhaps some of the reactions to the topic is partial answer to
          Charles Haynes' question/topic title.

                                                       nancy b.

So, is having a 'jerk' topic helping???? (in case I'm being too subtle, it's
obviously been brought here. Which actually is fine with me if it stays here,
if that's the best we can do.)
	Mez

    In ee cummings' book "i six nonlectures" he makes a statement that I
    feel explains the basis of the PC "problem".

    "Little by little bruise by teacup, my doubly disillusioned spirit
    made an awe-inspiring discovery; which (on more than several
    occasions) has prevented me from wholly misunderstanding socalled
    humanity: the discovery, namely, that ALL GROUPS, GANGS, AND
    COLLECTIVES-NO MATTER HOW APPARENTLY DISPARATE - ARE FUNDAMENTALLY
    ALIKE: and that what makes a any world go round is not the trivial
    difference between a Somerville and Cambridge, but the immeasurable
    difference between either of them and individuality."

    The caps are mine. This (IMHO) explcains the problem with PC: it can
    not accept invidual differences. That is the issue. To be a memeber
    of X I must ascribe to ALL of x's doctrines. This is why in another
    note I said I could not call myself a feminist. I know that I hold
    views and feelings that do not fit with my understanding of what
    modern feminism entails. So we reach the issue of such ideas as
    women who prefer in their private lives to be submissive to a man.
    I know women (outside of this file) that consider this an aberation
    rather than a choice freely made. I can't say which it is. I do
    claim my right to feel that way, or any other way I chose.

    Here I stand once again, the perenial fence sitter. The liberals
    call me a conservative and the conservatives see me as a liberal. I
    see myself as me and defend my right to chose that option regardless
    of what any group,gang or collective wants me to be. liesl

    Re: .609
    
    Actually, although it is probably unpatriotic for a Colorado resident
    to admit this, I don't drink Coors.  :-)

    -- Mike

RE: .last

>I don't drink Coors.  :-)


	 what's that?  :-)

	 k

    re .615
    
    Coors is a rather thin "beer"  brewed in Colorado, and now I guess
    somewhere on the east coast (virginia?).  It's only real claim to fame
    is that, since it is unpasturized and has to be shipped and stored
    under 40 degrees f,  for years it was not sold west of the
    Mississippi.
    
    The Coors family's politics make Ronald reagan and Phyllis Shlafly look
    left of center, truly, and some of their labor and corporate behavior
    is less than polite.  Also a Coloradoan, I wouldn't drink the stuff on
    a bet its a terrible waste of taste buds.
    
    Meg  

    Coors....AKA....Colorado KoolAid
    
    YUCK!!!
    

    Re: .613
    
    Thanks for that note -- you summed up a lot about the nature of
    freedom and responsibility.  That recognition and respect for
    the individual and individual actions is what enables people to
    make tough choices in hard times, to do the right thing rather
    than the dogmatic thing.
    
    Ron

    "Coors - proves that John Denver's voice isn't the only thing thin and
     weak to come out of Colorado."

    RE .613  GREAT!
    
    How can we ask our kids to 'just say no' to drugs, be strong, don't
    go along with the crowd if the 'in crowd' [you add your defination]
    considers you not 'pure', or 'committed', etc, and you fall for
    it. YOU are an individual! If you let someone else, friend of foe
    define you, YOU are a fool. If you let someone else coerce (sp)
    you into doing something, or trying to be someone who you are not,
    YOU are a fool. liesl probably has it correct. If you are called
    xx by yy and yy by xx at various times, you probably are your own
    person. Reject any package presented to you by any group, iealogical
    (sp), political, religious, etc. Examine each part and see if it
    feel correct to you. Maybe you will change some views, maybe not,
    but at least you will think!
    
    Steve
    
    

                -< Processing topic does NOT refer to brewing >-

    

    RE.613:
    	I am another noter who appreciates not only what you have to
    	say, but the lovely way you have of saying it.  Your thoughts
    	not only provide us a window to you, but also a clear mirror
        to look into.   

    	Thanks, liesl    
    	dave

    Maybe this should be under hot buttons, but!
    
    Abortion note .1034 is set hidden. Who set it hidden, Why is it
    hidden, Who can see it? If it is inappropiate, why is it not deleted?
    
    Are there some, other than moderators, who can see hidden notes,
    etc.
    
    I have a real hard time when I see 'NOTE HIDDEN'. Maybe my understanding
    of the DEC notes system is lacking, but I think every note [if
    appropiate] should be able to be seen. Remember equality?
    
    Steve

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Hidden notes/responses can be read only by the original author and
    moderators who have their privs set.
    
    Mez hid the response because it violates the guidelines in .779, q.v.  
    A more limited and conformant posting is being developed.
    
    						=maggie

    Steve,
    
    We have a very strict set of guidelines in regard to what can be
    put in the abortion note. Any note that is entered in that note
    that doesn't fit the guidelines is set hidden until the Mez Zurko
    who has agreed to monitor that note can work out any problems between
    the content of the note and the guidelines.
    
    Before we put those guidelines into place the topic was tearing
    this file apart.
    
    In general there are some notes that we would delete out of hand, such
    as obscenities, explict sexual material, trash notes (i.e. notes put
    in only to harass and start fights) (trash note deletion was in
    response to a poll of the memebers a couple of years ago), notes
    that are offering services for cash such as a business, and notes
    that clearly violate the digital solicitation or notes guidelines.
    
    Other notes may 1. have a problem with the wording but be generally
    acceptable or 2. offend another noter or 3. have other problems
    
    Rather than delete such notes we set them hidden until the moderators
    and the author and any offended party can work out the problems.
    The note may be able to stay as written when problems are resolved
    or may need to be rewritten or actually deleted. But until such
    issues are resolved we just hide the note.
    
    I hope this helps you understand 'hidden notes'. No one but the
    moderators or the original author can read them or set them unhidden.
    It isn't any kind of 'in' group that gets to read a special part
    of the conference.
    
    Bonnie
    
    
    p.s. Maggie, I started this note ahead of your reply, but got it
    in after you because I found too many spelling errors in my
    original.

    Thanks to both of you for the explaination.
    
    
    Steve

    Is S&M PC?  If your SO requests B&D in the AM, do you comply ASAP? 
    When you don't understand the ABC's, learn them on the QT.  If you are
    a politician in the USA, make sure to CYA, lest the AP and UPI, who
    don't mind their P's and Q's, find out, in which case you are SOL.
    
    
    OK?

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    Herb, I think you're misunderstanding The Eagle.  (Or perhaps I am, but
    I don't think so)
    
    The topic is whether or not S&M _is_ "politically correct".  Unless
    there is some substantial differeence in its pc-ness depending on some
    practical factor...and that doesn't seem to be the case so far...then
    there is no logical reason for detailing the practical aspects of the
    orientation.  
    
    If there were a logical reason demonstrated...not contrived... for
    detailing the practices, then we could have a context for figuring out
    how or whether to allow such expos� without running afoul of corporate
    policy and/or the reasonable sensibilities of our other members. 
    Absent such an unforced reason, please let's not feel sad because we
    can't do what isn't needed anyway.
    
    						=maggie

	re: the last couple notes...
    
    could we move this discussion on discussions to a more appropriate
    topic?
    
    -thanks,
          maureen

                          <** Moderator Response **>

    I'm going to honor Maureen's request and shift this discussion to the
    processing topic. 
    
    						=maggie

    Thanks -
    
    Now as to whether we can carry on an adult discussion without
    either violating corporate policy or the senstivities of others
    in this conference...
    
    First of all, we are all adults here, right?  And I think we all
    have at least a passing acquaintance with adult activities, right?
    If not, there's lots of resource material available for study...
    
    I see no need to go into exact details of any sexual practices
    in this conference.  We can have a meaningful discussion regarding
    the political, societal and emotional ramifications of controversial
    activities without going into play by play descriptions. I think
    the more colorful descriptions are best left ot other media.
    This is, after all, a forum on women's issues and not a downtown porn
    store.
    					-maureen
    
    

    No apology is necessary.  Actually, I'm not too sure what you'd
    apolgize about.  But to run into a considerate person is indeed
    refreshing!
    
    Now about this adult_processing - I have visions of some sort of
    industrial strength bass-o-matic.  Know what I mean?   It slices.
    It dices.  It makes rational adults in seconds.  We could get
    Ed McMahon to market it!
    
    -maureen
    

I love the phrase "set hidden." It describes the condition of women in
our society more accurately than anything else I've seen in =wn=.

Dorian

	Yes, and once a note is set hidden, and lots of people have seen 
	that notice, it gets unhidden but no one sees it, because their
	unseen mask says it's been read.

	Wanna extend your analogy to include that issue?

	Beverly

    re: .643
    
    � Then there are those of us who. . .get even more determined to do 
    � what we believe is right when we find our reference to Anne Rampling 
    � (Rice). . .gets erased ...  If it doesn't violate the corporate 
    � notes policy then it is Nazi Fascism to stiffle an honest opinion 
    � or a prefered style ... and they may stifle but we (men who fish) 
    � are the ones
    
    You seem to be implying that someone, presumably with moderator
    privileges, has engaged in "Nazi Fascism" in this conference.  Is 
    that your intention?
    
    Steve

What's up? My notebook says the last reply was entered around 11:41 today, but
I haven't seen one. And, there are no replies to the 'last' topic about rotten
images in movies, and I know I said something earthshattering there.
	Mez

    Apologies for the inconvenience, gyns & guys.  The notes pack went
    south and the most recent dump tape was probably Friday's.  If you have
    copies of your missing notes, please re-post.
    
    						=maggie

But I'm still not seeing new notes (I didn't see this one). How can I fix that?
	Mez

    the SET SEEN/BEFORE=30-OCT-1989 command seems to work. Perhaps this
    should go as the conference announcement instead off the one about
    T-shirts. If you're not seeing new notes, you still see that
    announcement.
    
    Tamzen

    Another proof that great minds think alike, Tamzen.  :-)

	re: .646 (=maggie)

	>  If you have copies of your missing notes, please re-post.
    
	[*whew*]  OK.  I thought the moderators were giving me a hint
	or something when I notice that 3 notes I entered were "deleted"
	from =wn= *twice*.

							nancy b.

    You give us too much credit for subtlety, Nancy ;')

    						=maggie

    re .645, .646, I didn't keep a copy of my earth shattering response
    to the topic on women in movies, so those thoughts will now be lost
    to the human race for all time.  Oh, well.
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  Like Nancy, I first thought the moderators just didn't like
    my reply!
    

    Are you two just trying a chain-yank, or do we really have that bad a
    rep?  And if we do, where t'hell'd it come from!?
    
    						=maggie

Well Maggie, I remember a couple of times we dropped the ball in telling noters
their note had been hidden. We apologized profusely _afterwards_ for not
telling them, but it has happened. 
	Mez

    Yeah, Mez, but not *deleted*, jeez!

I guess I don't find it such a shocking leap of logic. I'm guessing they didn't
either. I'm hoping they'll correct me if I'm mis-speaking. People are always
saying things like "Why didn't you just delete a note, instead of hiding it."
I, like you, find the difference pretty important, but obviously not everyone
does.
	Mez

    Re .653, Maggie, with me it was only a fleeting thought, and I never
    would have even mentioned that it *was* a fleeting thought, if Nancy
    hadn't mentioned it first.  I thought it was more an example of
    *my* paranoia than your reputation!  When I realized that 2 or 3
    other replies, besides mine, were also missing then I figured they
    must have gotten lost when the system was down.  (And I was only
    kidding about my thoughts being "earth shattering" because Mez used
    the term.  I'm sure the human race will survive even if nobody else
    ever hears my opinion of "Look Who's Talking"!)
    
    Lorna
    

          re: .653 (=maggie)

          >    Are you two just trying a chain-yank, or do we really
          >    have that bad a rep?

               Maggie - no cause for paranoia - that was a 100% total
               chain-yank (and it worked, heh heh :-) !!!

                                                       nancy b.

Herb,

My position as co-mod of this file does not include hiding notes I disagree
with, or I think are unhealthy (no matter how often I get accused of doing just
that :-).
	Mez

    
                        <** Moderator Response **>

    I've hidden .660-.661 as personal attacks.
    
    						=maggie

    re .658, Nancy, *I* didn't know you were joking either.  Thanks,
    for making me feel like a fool for saying I wondered the same thing.
    :-)  
    
    I wasn't joking.  I really did wonder if my note had been deleted,
    but I didn't mean it to be an insult and I don't understand why
    it would be taken as one.  I mean, I'm sorry I wondered it, but
    the thought just sort of popped into my mind, unbidden, if you knwo
    what I mean.  I didn't realize it would be taken as an insult. 
    I figure you moderators have a right to do what you want.  I'm not
    a technical person, and if I see that a note I entered has dissapeared,
    how am I supposed to know what happened to it?????
    
    Lorna
    

>    My apologies if this seems to be reductio ad adsurdum but your point
>    seems very weak...

 I think that the point is that Mez and the other mods (comods) endeavor to
keep an even hand when moderating this file. They practically bend over 
backwards to be fair. And the point is that Mez (and I think this applies to
the lot of them) does not delete or set hidden notes under the sole criterion
that they are contrary to her position or are unhealthy in her opinion. She
acts within the parameters of the file which are largely dictated by the P&P
procedures.

 As one who once complained about the mods of this conference, I would like to
say that I think they all do a heckuva good job, and a difficult one at that.

 And I'd also like to apologize for speaking out of turn.

 The Doctah

    <--(.663)
    
    No sweat, Lorna, not to worry.  Take it from me:  we hide, but we don't
    delete. 
    
    If *anyone* has a note mysteriously vanish ASK us about it.  If we
    don't know what happened, we'll surely want to know _that_ it happened.
    
    
    <--(.664)
    
    Herb, at the risk of getting caught in the crossfire, I think you're
    misinterpreting what Mez said.  One of us is, anyhow.
    
    I think she's saying that it's not part of our job to filter out things
    just because they don't conform to our personal ethical/religious/moral
    stands.  It doesn't matter how we personally feel about something.
    
    						=maggie

    Mods and Co_mods...
    
    
    
    
    are only Human.

           EQUAL RIGHTS, FACT OR FICTION IN WMnotes

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The following string of mail messages list in chronological order a series
of conversations between a Mod and myself after I entered a reply to my
own base note. I would like to point out the number of times I calmly asked
that Mod entered reply 5 be changed to show the order of events and/or to
indicate the note(s) that were labeled trashnotes. 
	In the course of these mail messages, it was suggested that I:

1. Was incorrect in my interpretation
2. Was being overly sensitive
3. Was very angry/upset
4. That should accept a free lunch instead of a corrected note



	In the course of my replys, I repeatedly asked that Mod entered
note 5 be fixed. Finally, in frustration, I bacame angry.

	Equality in WMnotes? I do seriously wonder now!

=========================================================================

From:	CSS::MOSAIC::TARBET       "Sama budu polevat'" 25-OCT-1989 09:45
To:	WOODRO::KEITH
CC:	co-mods,TARBET
Subj:	Notefile WOMANNOTES-V2 Note 799.9

    Steve, I'm going to do what I probably should have done in the first
    place:  purge .1, .2, and .8 as trashnotes.  I'm also going to purge
    your .9 because it will then be irrelevant.

    If you would prefer that I not do this, please send me mail asap.

    						=maggie

               <<< $2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 799.9             A experience that changed your view               9 of 10
WOODRO::KEITH "Real men double clutch"               22 lines  25-OCT-1989 07:16
                          -< THINK BE FOR YOU STRIKE >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    TO THE AUTHORS .8, .1, & .2
    
    I thought some of you might like to know that I had mail before
    .1, .2, & .8 were written by a women from this notes file who thought
    this was a "great idea" and had several experiences to list and
    exchange in my note. Well congradulations! I have not seen them.
    They will probably NOT be entered because of the sarcasm and redicule
    you decided to attach to this note.
    	I had started this note to help smooth over some rough spots
    created in previous heated notes. It was entered in good faith as
    a follow on to the safe place note. 
    	Maybe some good came out of this. We now have the SRO category.
    Do we need it...? I guess so.
    	I am fairly tough skinned. Like a boss of mine once said 'call
    me anything but late for lunch', but not all notes are. Your arrogance
    and insensitivity turned off one sensitive person from replying.
    How many others though about responding but did not for the same
    reason?
    
    Have a nice day and think about those you turned off.
    
    Steve

=========================================================================
From:	APACHE::KEITH        "Real Men Double-Clutch" 25-OCT-1989 09:57
To:	CSS::MOSAIC::TARBET,KEITH       
Subj:	RE: Notefile WOMANNOTES-V2 Note 799.9

If you feel that you should, go ahead. However, I though many days before
writing this reply. I waited until my frustration/anger/hurt had subsided.
My point was to show that the writers of .1, .2, and .8 that their notes
had more of an impact than just upon me. With her permission, If you would
like, I would send you the mail that I refered to in my .9 I had also thought
about including these notes in mine but decided against it.

	I feel at this time that if you decide to eliminate these responses,
that you should remove the entire note. It has had a mode set onto it that
renders it useless. 

	I had also thought about removing the base note after note .3 or
.4 but did not. I probably should have.

	I have been causing you and some of the co-mods to work extra on
a couple of my notes lately. Hope this doesn't cause you problems.

Thanks
Steve

=========================================================================
From:	CSS::MOSAIC::TARBET       "Margaret; Product Operations; 226-2513; LJO2/C10" 25-OCT-1989 10:00
To:	CSS::APACHE::KEITH
CC:	TARBET
Subj:	RE: Notefile WOMANNOTES-V2 Note 799.9

    nope, no problem, Steve...that's what they pay us for :-)

    I'll just tidy up, then and we can see whether it can revive.
    Plants quite often do, so why not notes.  Let's see, anyway.

    						=maggie

=========================================================================
From:	CSS::MOSAIC::TARBET       "Margaret; Product Operations; 226-2513; LJO2/C10" 25-OCT-1989 10:02
To:	CSS::APACHE::KEITH
CC:	TARBET
Subj:	RE: Notefile WOMANNOTES-V2 Note 799.9

    oh, btw, if that rx was written in your calm, not-angry state, I
    can't imagine what you must have been like while angry!

=========================================================================
From:	APACHE::KEITH        "Real Men Double-Clutch" 25-OCT-1989 11:21
To:	CSS::MOSAIC::TARBET,KEITH       
Subj:	RE: Notefile WOMANNOTES-V2 Note 799.9

Actually, in an upset state, I can be sharp but I do not get angry at people.
People are human. Now inantimate objects....


Steve

=========================================================================

From:	CSS::KEITH        25-OCT-1989 12:48
To:	MOSAIC::TARBET,APACHE::KEITH
Subj:	maybe I should leave well enough alone, BUT!

I think I have been slimed [to use the venacular of Ghost Busters]. In reading
the responses .1, .2 and .8 to my note 799, I felt somewhat upset by these
responses. I wrote 799.9 in response stating that .1, .2, and .8 had probably
prevented someone who sent me mail from responding. A mod contacted me and
asked if .9 could be deleted by her along with the .1, .2, and .8 that she 
said on second thought should have been deleted sooner. I agreed suggesting 
that as the note had been damaged, it might be better to delete the 
whole note. Everything is fine with me UNTIL it read the new .5

>===========================================================================
>           <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
>                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
>================================================================================
>Note 799.5             A experience that changed your view                5 of 5
>MOSAIC::TARBET "Sama budu polevat'"                   7 lines  25-OCT-1989 10:07
>                -< Irrelevant rxs deleted...and topic reopened >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                          <** Moderator Response **>
>
>    To resuscitate this string, if possible, I've purged one note under
>    provision of the trashnotes policy and 4 others as irrelevant without
>    the trashnote.
>
>    						=maggie
>
>

Unless I have misunderstood something here, MY response was a TRASHNOTE,
and the others were irrelevent or light hearted or trivial?
	With the references I have copied here, I think I was the one who
was trashed!





           <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 1.3                            Welcome!                             3 of 22
MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE "Purple power!"                    29 lines   2-JUN-1988 13:35
               -< Guidelines for writing about sensitive topics >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


       
    In general, we encourage all types of discussions here. However, some
    notes need to be answered with tenderness, sensitivity and support. At
    those times, judgement and nit-picking are inappropriate. 
   
    When you start a new topic that you are particularly sensitive about,
    please let other noters know what type of response you want, and be as
    specific as you can. For example, say something like: 
      .  I need support only right now
      .  I need support and also welcome supportive questions
      .  I would like support and also welcome discussion pro and con
      .  I'd like feedback from other noters
      .  All responses welcome
   
    We, the moderators, expect all noters to comply with these requests.
    Next time you see a note that starts something like: 
      .  I'm having trouble with...
      .  I'm at the end of my rope...
      .  I have a deeply painful problem...

    Please stop, think and feel. In a similar situation, how would you
    feel? What kind of response would you want? What kind of response has
    been asked for? How can you be most helpful to this person? Will you
    feel proud of your response? 
    
    Thank you
    Bonnie, Holly, Liz & Maggie
    
=============================================================================

           <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 799.0             A experience that changed your view             5 replies
WOODRO::KEITH "Real men double clutch"               23 lines  25-SEP-1989 12:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I would like to start a new note on the subject of things (you must
    have personally experienced) that have changed your view/outlook
    on a subject. This is meant to be positive. I would like Ren (was
    that her?) on more of what she learned from Bhudism (sp) and some
    of the experiences she has seen.
    
    I will start:
.
.
.
.
.
=============================================================================

           <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 1.1                            Welcome!                             1 of 22
MOSAIC::TARBET                                      108 lines   2-JUN-1988 11:09
                                  -< History >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

.
.
.
.    
.
   .24 (19AU87) We are voted (438.*) the authority to summarily delete
   or otherwise dispose of "trashnotes", defined as "entries that appear
   to be pointlessly provocative, or otherwise devoid of worthy content
   according to the purposes for which this file exists. Notes that are
   merely light-heartedly trivial are specifically *not* considered
   trashnotes within the meaning of this policy.  Since any action is
   necessarily a judgement call on the part of the moderator(s)
   involved, you might wish to save a copy of any marginal submissions
   for later re-posting if needed.  Responses that will be "orphaned" by
   the removal of a trashnote will also be removed." 
. 
.
.
.


=========================================================================
From:	CSS::MOSAIC::TARBET       "Margaret; Product Operations; 226-2513; LJO2/C10" 25-OCT-1989 13:35
To:	CSS::KEITH
CC:	CO-MODS,TARBET
Subj:	RE: maybe I should leave well enough alone, BUT!

    Calm down, Steve, it was .1 that was the trashnote.  .2, my
    admonishment (.3? .4?), .8, and .9 became irrelevant after I purged
    .1

    Right?  All clear?

    						=maggie

=========================================================================
From:	APACHE::KEITH        "Real Men Double-Clutch" 25-OCT-1989 14:24
To:	CSS::MOSAIC::TARBET,KEITH       
Subj:	RE: maybe I should leave well enough alone, BUT!

1st I am calm, just upset after reading 5.  You will note the tenses in my
mail to you. I had written it for the HOT BUTTONS note, but decided to send
it to you instead. If I wasn't calm, I would have just put it in and let
the chips fall...

My objections to the new .5 are as I and I think others would
see it.

********* Chronology of events ********************

1.  base note
2.  trashnote (not trashed)
3.  trashnote (not trashed)
 .
 . days go by
 .
9.  reply from me

Immediate request to delete 9, 1, 2, etc. only after 9 is entered.

Permission given by me.

New reply 5 states trash note deleted. Other irrelivent notes eliminated.

*****************************************************

As nothing was done until .9, and then .5 states trashing note deleted,
even a casual observer would IMHO think .9 was the trashing note.


People are sensetive, myself included. In this WMnotes file I personally
have been questioned about replys with hidden meanings. This new .5 to me
seems to place the blame (trashnote) on me because of the chronology.
To me, this .5 implies now hidden trashing by me.

Others have asked, so will I. Would you please rewrite .5 to clarify, maybe
just using the logic you presented to me in our private mail so as to present
the trashers and the trashee in their proper prospective.

You have a nice notes file here. Please try to bend over backwards to moderate
fairly and see all sides. Remember, I and another women were the victims.

Steve

=========================================================================
From:	CSS::MOSAIC::TARBET       "Margaret; Product Operations; 226-2513; LJO2/C10" 25-OCT-1989 14:54
To:	CSS::APACHE::KEITH
CC:	TARBET
Subj:	RE: maybe I should leave well enough alone, BUT!

    Steve, if you think that people will misunderstand what I did,
    please put a note in the processing string asking for feedback on
    which response people take the trashnote to have been.  Remember,
    anybody who didn't get a chance to read your .9 in the 2 hours it
    existed hasn't the faintest CLUE what prompted me to clean up the
    string. 

    Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm willing to bet the price of a
    good lunch that you're unnecessarily sensitive on this subject. 
    Wanna bet?

    						=maggie

=========================================================================
From:	APACHE::KEITH        "Real Men Double-Clutch" 25-OCT-1989 15:52
To:	CSS::MOSAIC::TARBET,KEITH       
Subj:	RE: maybe I should leave well enough alone, BUT!

I am sure we both have better things to do than to communicate back and
forth all afternoon.

Sensitive, maybe, but curious also. The other day I had a note set hidden
because I, in my ignorance used a word that offended someone. I took great
pains to explain my rationale and FIXED the problem to the apparent
satisfaction of the person offended. 
	I cannot understand why when I am offended by a note, the common
courtesy to bend over backwards which I showed in my offending note is not
extended to me. Am I asking that much? Have you polled everyone to see how
many read my note before it was deleted? Why not err on the side of caution?

Basically: Do you believe in equal rights? If so change your note to MY
           satisfaction and STOP [yes I am yelling now] accusing me
           of being overly sensitive. I offered the person a changed
           note without being patronising. I don't want a lunch, I want
           a good note. 


I will assume your note .5 will answer the question above for me. 

May I string our mail messages together and put them in the processing
or hot buttons note?

Steve

=========================================================================
From:	CSS::MOSAIC::TARBET       "Margaret; Product Operations; 226-2513; LJO2/C10" 25-OCT-1989 16:03
To:	CSS::APACHE::KEITH
CC:	TARBET
Subj:	RE: maybe I should leave well enough alone, BUT!

    Steve, Goddess knows that I've been wrong before and I have no
    smallest doubt that I will often be wrong in future, and on those
    occasions I hope that She will give me the strength to admit my
    error and make what amends are possible. 

    I think I have solved the original problem, Steve.  If you think
    that I've created a new one, feel free to solicit any supporting
    evidence you can in any way you believe will produce a fair sample,
    including concatenating these mail messages and posting them in the
    processing topic.  

    If it turns out that I did indeed create a new problem, I will be
    glad to solve it at that point.

    						=maggie

    re 15.669, Steve-
    
    I hadn't a clue which notes had been considered trashnotes when
    I saw Maggie's 799.5, as I'd been out of the file for days at that
    point, and hadn't the ability to go back and check (the notes were
    gone at that point).
    
    From reading the whole dialogue of mail between you, I got the
    impression that after your .9 was entered, Maggie belatedly realized
    that the earlier notes were grossly out of place, ie, she *agreed*
    with your assessment in .9 and decided to give your interpretation
    an 'official' slant by deleting the recognized trashnote (she called
    it out when you asked, yes?) and, per usual trashnote policy, all
    subsequent entries which were orphaned by the trashnote's removal.
    
    So your .9 went away, but Steve, to me it looks like you won the
    war...the bad entries and hurt feelings (.2, .8, and .9) are gone,
    and the note now stands with relevant entries in it.  Frankly, while
    I can see that you're upset, I can't say I understand why.  
    
    From what I can see, Maggie bent over backwards for you, too.
    
    DougO

Well, the best I can figure is that note -.1 was soliciting opinions, so...

*I* read APACHE::KEITH's message (.9) before it was deleted, as well as
Bonnie's note (.5) and I, for one, understood perfectly well that Bonnie
was referring to the not so funny notes in early responses to the base note,
*not* to .9.  In fact, I to am incredulous that someone could have 
misunderstood that...

D!

    
    For the record, I knew exactly which note was the trash note, and I
    felt that Maggie's note was clear. Usually, I tend to hope that a
    person is asked to re-word something when it is clearly offensive.
    If *you* knew that .9 was not a trash note, were *you* offended?
    
    It looks to me like Maggie was just trying to be friendly, after all,
    she did remove the notes AND the string has taken off into the kind of
    discussion that the basenote describes.
    
    As to the equal rights question, I really can't say whether things
    would have been different if a woman had written exactly what you have
    written. Maybe Maggie would have offered her a lunch, too??? :-)
    
    My personal gut reaction is that this went down somewhat of a rathole
    once the topic took off... I'm just glad I'm not a moderator!!! 

    in re .671
    
    D! I think that was =maggie not me that you were refering to! :-)
    
    and in re Steve Keith, if you have a complaint and want us to take
    a particular action please write us, don't just complain in the file.
    We are much more apt to take a specific action when it is brought
    to our attention by mail.
    
    Bonnie

    
    re .669:
    
    I didn't read the whole tiresome exchange after I read the first
    few lines.  I didn't have to to know what you're trying to do.
    
    A real classy attempt to drag one of the moderators down into
    the mud.  But it's not working.  It's backfiring on you.
    
    I want to add a note to the moderators that at least *I* appreciate
    the job you're doing.  To have to have this mud-slinging at you as
    well as having to do the job must be just *miserable*!
    

    re .674
    
    Me too.  I think that the moderators are doing a very good job. All of
    them, including Maggie. 
    
    I'm kind of surprised that the personal correspondence between the
    moderator and the noter went public.  Oh well...

    Well, either you're a time traveller, or you are being oversensitive.
    
    Everyone who is bright enough to hit the right keys on a keyboard
    most of the time is bright enough to understand that a trashnote
    comes before the responses to a trashnote.  So, without time travel,
    the blame would have to go on <whatever>.1 rather than on <whatever>.9.
    
    							Ann B.

    Re: .675
    
    >I'm kind of surprised that the personal correspondence between the
    >moderator and the noter went public.  Oh well...
    
    So was I, since posting another person's mail without their permission
    is explicitly forbidden by policy 6.54 (the latest revision).
    
    The other reason I didn't read it is because I don't believe in
    moderation by vote, which is the sort of thing this type of note is
    usually about -- "I was wronged, tell them I was wronged and make them
    do something about it."

After reading Steve's reply, I was thinking to myself, "Ah, an unfortunate
misunderstanding -- Maggie was AGREEING with Steve, and he thought she was
saying that HE was the problem. Ought to be easy to solve."

But then a dark thought intruded, why did Steve choose the "Equal Rights in
Womannotes?" rubric? I'm afraid my uncharitable second thought is "I didn't get
my way, I'm a man, that must be why..." That is blatant, rampant, sexism in the
second degree. Steve, do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the moderators
treated you differently because you were a man? That they've treated women in
a similar situation differently.

Your upset was valid, I hope that has been cleared up. Your thinly veiled
accusation is unjustified.

	-- Charles

re: .669 (Steve Keith)

      Steve, if it makes you feel any better...

.679> Steve, do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the moderators
.679> treated you differently because you were a man? That they've treated 
.679> women in a similar situation differently.

      my reply to Charles Haynes' question above would be that I was
      _not_ treated differently in a similar situation as yours, when
      a string of notes were really upsetting me here.  (I do not wish
      to discuss details, though).  

							nancy b.

It's a pity that those who have commented on "posting mail without permission"
or "resolving problems through mail instead of taking them to the conference"
couldn't have either

    (1) refrained from forming and posting an opinion

or

    (2) taken the trouble to read all the way through, and discovered the
	following portions of Maggie's messages to Steve:


>    Steve, if you think that people will misunderstand what I did,
>    please put a note in the processing string asking for feedback on
>    which response people take the trashnote to have been.  Remember,

and

>    I think I have solved the original problem, Steve.  If you think
>    that I've created a new one, feel free to solicit any supporting
>    evidence you can in any way you believe will produce a fair sample,
>    including concatenating these mail messages and posting them in the
>    processing topic.  

I'm bothered by the attitude that "I didn't bother to read it, but here's 
my opinion about it."

	-Neil

By the way, on the subject of the original question:  

    -	Like everyone else who has responded, I never had any doubt which
	was the trash note.

    -	I thought that the note of concern, Maggie's .5, was perfectly
 	reasonable and appropriate.

    -	Politeness certainly dictates considering why someone has been
	offended by a note one has written; but I don't believe that it
	dictates deleting or rewriting such a note, if, upon consideration,
	one concludes that the offense is unreasonable and there was nothing
	wrong with the original note.

    -	The standard policy is that a request for the removal of an offensive
	note should go first to the note author, and then to a moderator if
	the problem cannot be resolved.  Where the author of the offensive
	note is also a moderator, it would seem logical that this second
	step should be to take the problem to *another* moderator for
	impartial consideration, if it can't be resolved with the author.

    It's a pity that those who have commented on those who have commented
    on "posting mail without permission" couldn't have refrained from
    forming and posting an opinion.

    Re: .681
    
    It's a pity that someone who bothers to enter a 400-line note can't
    provide a reasonable summary of the point behind the note in the first
    screen or so.  The two screens present a very strong sense of "I've
    been abused by the moderators."
    
    Yes, first impressions *are* important -- especially with long notes.

    I read through the whole thing, though I think I missed seeing
    the original notes which were the subject of this particular
    incident, so I can't comment directly on that situation.
    
    But one thing did strike me as peculiar in Maggie's responses,
    something that was also echoed by a few of the subsequent replies
    here.  I would have considered Maggie's "aren't you being a little
    bit over-sensitive" (or words to that effect) belittling - denying
    Steve K. the right to his own feelings.  That's how I would have
    reacted should Maggie have used such a technique on me.
    
    Or is it now ok for me to suggest to women who express anger and
    discontent here that they're "just a bit too sensitive"?
    
    I sense a real double standard here, and I don't care for it.
    
    				Steve

    So, Steve, why don't you think men should be encouraged to be
    introspective?
    
    						Ann B.

    Steve,
    
    Maggie has told me a number of times that I was over reacting
    to things and was being over sensitive. Most of it in personal
    mail or by phone, but the material quoted was from personal mail.
    
    Bonnie

re: .679:
>But then a dark thought intruded, why did Steve choose the "Equal Rights in
>Womannotes?" rubric? I'm afraid my uncharitable second thought is "I didn't get
>my way, I'm a man, that must be why..." That is blatant, rampant, sexism in the
>second degree. Steve, do you have ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that the moderators
>treated you differently because you were a man? That they've treated women in
>a similar situation differently.

I don't know about Steve, but my personal reading of the Conference
Policy in 1.2 is that men are subjected to special scrutiny in
Womannotes specifically because of their gender.

The "community" here apparently thinks this is correct.  I disagree.

Martin.

    
    re:.684
    i confess i had much the same thought regarding 'invalidation of
    feelings' and even went so far as to enter a reply stating my
    concerns. then i read mr. haynes's .679 and, much as it pains me
    to admit it, i think he is on the right track.
    

    It is important that we remember when replying to notes to
    deal with issues and not to make light of other people's feelings.
    
    Bonnie