Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    None of us has any idea what "reality" is.  We each have
    our own, subjective view of reality, based on our
    experience.  I suspect that it is probably more
    worthwhile to listen to another's perception of
    reality, and so enlarge one's own experience and
    ability to interpret phenomena.  Perhaps if one is 
    willing to pay attention to another's reality, the other
    will then be willing to pay attention to one's own.
    Each individual's perception of reality is equally
    valid.  To suggest that one's own reality is more
    correct and that others should change their
    perceptions to match is the height of arrogance.
    
    
    	bruce

Right on Bruce! That's on of the things that feminism means for me!

WITCH lecture attenders - doesn't this sound like the philosophy of the
specific, in the final lecure?
	Mez

Re: .1  

    I agree  with  Bruce somewhat, but there are limits. To use an old
    Yiddish  saying,  The  majority  isn't  always right, but when the
    whole world says your drunk, you should go home and lie down.

--David

    (You can  tell  what our group is up to today, the first 3 replies
    all came from Ultra.)

    Okay, a couple of examples of peoples' feelings (valid for them,
    since they feel it), but out of touch with reality:
    
     - A teen age girl who weighs 85 pounds, feels she is still too fat,
       and needs to lose more weight. Do we tell her that, since she's
       entitled to her feelings, it's okay that she continues to not
       eat?
    
     - A person who feels that the world is flat and, thus, refuses to
       take a cruise with his/her SO, since of course the ship would
       fall off the edge of the Earth? Should we let this person go on
       with this delusion, since it would be wrong to invalidate another's
       feelings?
    
     - A person who feels that cats are tools of Satan, and therefore
       must be wiped off this planet. He goes around killing cats, 
       wherever he may find them. Should we not attempt to invalidate
       this belief? Or, since this is his view of reality, is it okay?
    
      Alan 
                                                                      

    Al,
    
    You seem to be confusing actions with feelings.  (Also, you are
    using only examples of [what I think of as] psychosis as feelings.)
    
    Why is this?
    
    						Ann B.

    Ann, I admit the examples I've given in my previous reply are
    extreme.
    
    The issue, as I see it, however, is that many of my (probably all
    of our) actions/deeds in life are predicated on feelings.
    
    And there have been times in my life that I have reacted badly to
    a person or a situation, because I was operating within the
    framework of feelings that were based on my own fantasies about
    a situation, rather than the reality of that situation.
    
    Does this make any sense?
    
      Alan

    So how is this a topic of interest to women?  It sounds to me like
    you are toying with a justification for confronting some of the
    feelings that have been expressed in this notes file, rather than
    facilitating them.  Whether you agree with the ideas or not there
    may be a good reason to help facilitate their expression anyway.
    
    In the book Woman's Reality the author talks about process therapy.
    Her description of process therapy includes facilitating the
    expression of many ideas in her patients that she found appalling.
    Women that hated or hurt themselves or stayed in violent relationships.
    The therapy requires that the therapist facilitates these feelings
    so that the patient can work through her process.
    
    The therapy proceeds from the original feelings though other stages
    that are dominated by blaming and feeling like a victim.  These
    stages too have to be facilitated so that the patient can work
    through them.  When the feelings are facilitated the patient usually
    needs much less time to work though these stages.
    
    The last stage is rage and again the therapist is there to facilitate.
    
    In real life, as in this notes file, many people are upset by seeing
    blaming, acting lie a victim, and rage in women and they try to help
    the woman to stop. They think that they are helping, but in reality they
    are only stopping the woman from working through her process. 
    
    I don't know if womannotes can truly be a place where women can
    hope to find only facilitation for their struggles with their process.
    I think that I will try to stand out of the way when it looks like
    doing otherwise might keep someone from having a growth experience.
    
    After reading the chapter on process therapy it occurred to me that
    the stereotype that women like to be blamers and victims may have its
    roots in the fact that they are not allowed to express their rage.
    If women are working through their process naturally and are not
    allowed rage then you would expect that they might get stuck at
    the victim or blamer stage.  Men are free to rage and are therefore
    seldom seen being stuck as victims or blamers.
    
    						MJC O->

"None of us has any idea what "reality" is."

I disagree.  Although every person has a different view of life, there is only
one concrete reality.  When someone says, 'you don't love me'.  that is the view
of the person, but that cannot make or break the concrate reality that there are
people who love them in their hearts, even if the person does not see it. 

Certainly it's a good idea to listen to other's views, because our own views are
as faulty as anyone's, and by piecing together different views we can often get
a more 3d view of the concrete reality then just one view.  Also, it can help us
communicate the reality that is in our hearts to the reality of the person whom
it is intended for...

"The therapy requires that the therapist facilitates these feelings so that the
patient can work through her process." 
 
Youch!  That sounds painfull... but I can see how it could be very helpfull. but
perhaps 'public' notes is not a good place for it...  it seems that this has the
best net effect when the majority is expressing the feeling, and there is a
minority being subjected to that feeling unnecessarily; like group therapy, or
one on one.

A type of behavior such I feel bothered by, related to this topic is the scene
where a man is giving advice to a woman, and the reply is 'I don't need a man to
tell me what to do!'.  I feel very abused when I am in that situation, and it
seems to me that such replies as, 'thanks, that's a good idea', 'I don't think
that would work, here's why...', or 'thank you, I'm quite aware of that...'. 

Sure, the former type of reply may suit the woman's needs better at that point
in time, but it may have very little to do with the reality of the current
situation; often it seems to deal with some issue from the past.  The latter
reponses deal directly with the present situation and what advice is being
given. 

Comments, please?

Take the same sort of situation where a woman is 'behaving badly'.  I don't mean
'not acting like a lady', or some other feminist hot button, I mean just plain
not acting like an adult civilized person.   Again, a common response is 'I
don't need a man to tell me what to do!'.  Again, doesn't it make sense to
consider what is being said on it's own merits, rather then discounting the idea
because of who it came from? 

I was going to start a seperate note on this, but I think it's quite related
to this note, so I will but it in here...

JMB 

    	Actually, it is quite a common phenomenon for some men to place
    	themselves in the position of Parent/Authority_figure when it
    	comes to trying to influence the attitudes/behavior of women.
    
    	This phenomenon often disquises itself as a deep concern for
    	the woman in question (as his charge) and involves the subtle
    	use of words that are designed to convince the woman that
    	following the Authority Figure's advice is the "adult" thing
    	to do (assuring the woman that the Authority Figure is only
    	looking out for her best interests.  He, of course, is the
    	best judge of what those best interests might be for her.)
    
    	When the woman resists the Authority Figure's attempts to
    	shape her behavior, he may actually scold her for "misbehaving" 
    	(which is another subtle positioning of himself over the
    	woman as the arbitor of what constitutes proper and improper
    	behavior on her part.)

    	When that fails, it is not unusual for the Authority Figure
    	to adopt the attitude that some sort of affront (akin to mutiny
    	on a ship) has taken place.  He begins to treat the woman as
    	though she has committed some sort of infringement of his
    	right to influence her.  At this point, the Authority Figure
    	will begin to display a show of anger (hoping to bring her
    	behavior back in line, but knowing that it may not be enough.)
    
    	What happens next is that the Authority Figure starts to
    	analyze the woman from a psychological standpoint, explaining
    	to her (from his position as Authority Psychoanalyst) that he
    	is privy to the inner workings of her mind and knows why she
    	is resisting his influence.  He then goes on to explain her
    	to herself (with the full certainty of a world class expert
	on the hidden meanings and motives behind everything she does.)
    
    	At this point, if the influence still isn't working, then there
    	will be some serious dues to pay for it (and the Authority Figure
    	may begin a multi-faceted crusade to discredit the woman, born
    	of his humiliation at having failed to change her and backed
    	by the arrogant idea that he was within his rights to demand that
    	she listen to him in the first place.)

    	Of course, not all men do this.  Not by a long shot!  In fact,
    	all similarities in this reply to persons living or dead are
    	purely coincidental (and any assumptions to the contrary will
    	be reported to the FBI!)  :-)  Or something like that...

    What is this??????
    
    Question....first you say..."actually, it is quite common....
                                                  
    then you say...."Not all men, not by a long shot!"
    
    So which is it???
    
    As for the rest....I am not quite sure what is happening between
    you two.  It would apear that there is a power play on words to
    see who can out Psych the other best..... why is this..?

    	RE:  .10
    
    	Al, there is no contradiction between "quite..common..for some
    	men" and "not all men do this."  (Both sentences emphasize that
    	this behavior occurs in some individuals but is not meant to be
    	characteristic of men, or anyone else, in general.)
    
    	As to the rest...
    
    	It was just an exercise in middle_of_the_night_tongue_in_cheek
    	_goofing_around.
    

This is exactly the behavior which I was wrote about in -.2

Rather then take the advise/criticism on it's own merit, the cry 'Help, Help,
I'm being repressed!' is raised by feminists as the general rule anytime this
situation occurs. 

JMB

    Jim,
    
    What Bonnie was trying to establish is that in some cases the
    "merit" of "the advise/criticism" is only that it is an attempt
    to dominate, and as such, the woman is perfectly justified in
    flaring up.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  "Advise" is the verb; "advice" is the noun.  Allen Drury
    has a lot to answer for in this.

    Re .9, Suzanne!  I don't think it's a coincidence.  I think you
    must've been hiding in the closet listening during much of my marriage! :-)

    Lorna
    

    RE: .13
    
    >                                             in some cases the
    > "merit" of "the advise/criticism" is only that it is an attempt
    > to dominate
    
    Ann, sure, in some cases this is true.
    
    Yet, in many other situations, the advice or criticism is warranted.
    
    That's part of the problem: a person will negate another's valid
    criticism by saying "You (the critic) are just trying to dominate
    me, and I refuse to be manipulated by you".
    
    The argument gets shifted from the validity of the criticism to
    the perceived motives of the critic.
    
      Alan

    Re .13: Don't pick on Drury, Ann; the "advise" in his title _was_
    a verb. "Do the Senate advise and consent to the nomination..."
    Is it his fault if people didn't read that far?
    
    Re the topic: I'm not sure I see the problem here. From the examples
    that the author of .0 has given, it sounds like he's describing
    situations where (for whatever reason) someone suffers from feelings
    that have no basis in reality. These do exist, right? And if we
    see someone suffering, it would be nice to help out, right? So how
    do we go about doing that without trying to help them recognize
    the misconceptions that have caused those feelings?

    -b

    Suzanne,
    
    Maybe .9 was meant tongue-in-cheek, but it was a right-on-target
    description of more than one more man that I know!
    
    -Tracy
    

    
    
    Perhaps some women feel that if men truly respected women as
    responsible adults, capable of leading lives, making and recovering
    from mistakes; men would find themselves willing and able to recognize
    that in some settings women want feedback only from other women.
    This needn't suggest that women wish to ignore the thoughts of men
    for all time, but that in a setting where communication between
    women is the desired activity, advice and criticism from men feel
    inappropriate and disrespectful.   Instead of asking why women don't
    pay closer attention to men, one might ask why men insist on offering
    their "assistance" when there are plenty of sensitive, capable,
    intelligent women here who *wish* to talk to each other.
                  
    It strikes me that how we frame the question is the most telling
    thing of all.
    
    Justine

    I agree whole-heartedly with Justine and Suzanne.  There are many times
    that when asking for help or advice, a fellow woman would see the
    need of the other woman and help and advice would be less condemning
    then a mans help would be.  A man would tend to want to be the "strong"
    one and not allow the woman the growth of coming to her own conclusions
    based on advice given if the result was against what "he"would have
    done. 
    
    vivian
    

re: .19

I do see people (who are often men) giving advice (did I get that right?)
from a 'strong' perspective, when what is really needed (in my humble opinion)
is more give-and-take. I don't think that those people reserve that kind
of influence for women. I see them giving it to men. It's just that women
(particularly women who've noticed it) know when they need something else!
	Mez

    
    re:.9
    very nicely done!
    

"What Bonnie was trying to establish is that in some cases the "merit" of "the
advise/criticism" is only that it is an attempt to dominate, and as such, the
woman is perfectly justified in flaring up."

Some people seem to equate "an attempt to dominate" with any attempt to help, or
any situation where the woman is at a disadvantage through nobody's fault. I
disagree.  Take the advice for what it's worth, give feedback on the advice, and
end the story.  Leave out the "attempt to dominate" cr*p. 

"in some settings women want feedback only from other women"

Nobody's arguing that.  However, directing a woman how to back up a trailer, for
instance, and many other instances, are not these settings. 

"There are many times that when asking for help or advice, a fellow woman would
see the need of the other woman and help and advice would be less condemning
then a mans help would be."

Does this mean that if a man came up behind you while you were working a problem
on your screen, and said 'you can do it this way...', that you would ignore the
solution? 

Sure, it doesn't allow you to work through all the possibilities for solutions
to the problem and decide which solution is best in complete ignorance of what
solution might be best.  'I'd like to work through the solutions and see what I
come up with', *is* a valid answer; I do it a lot myself.

But we ARE supposed to be able to learn from other people's experiences, right?
That's what DEC pays senior engineers etc. higher salaries for, right?  I
wouldn't want to spend my whole life reinventing the wheel... 

Of course it helps if the person giving advice has the attitude that the other
person has the right to take or leave the advice as they choose as well.

JMB 

    re: .22
    
    although this is somewhat off the topic, if someone of *any* sex
    came up behind me and read my screen, i'd be pretty upset. what
    about privacy? 
    
    so, that's not a particularly telling example, for me. 
    
    jenny

    	To me, the main thing is that there is a huge difference between
    	friendly, helpful (WELCOME) advice and the kind of advice that
    	gets rammed down one's throat even when one has made it patently
    	obvious that the advice is neither wanted nor appreciated.
    
    	The basenote seems to ask us whether we should feel obligated
    	to give advice anyway (because we think we have a better handle
    	on reality than the person on whom we wish to bestow the gift
    	of our wisdom.)
    
    	Well, in a case like that, if one is insisting on giving advice
    	where it is not wanted, then one has to be prepared for the
    	consequences (which could be fairly unfriendly, depending on
    	exactly how insistent the advice-giver has become and exactly
    	how insulting the advice-giver has decided to be in retaliation
    	for being refused the chance to interfere in someone else's
    	life without their consent.)

	Re: Justine, Suzanne, & Vivian

>	"Sometimes women only want advice from other women..."

	Perhaps we should move this to the "Sexism is alive and 
	well..." note :-).  I don't want to invalidate your 
	statement, but I do want to point out that this is SEXISM.
	I also want to point out the fact that, contrary to 
	seemingly popular opinion, sexism is not always a dirty
	word.  If you're going to accept it sometimes, than
	you can't use it to condemn other people other times,
	just because they disagree with you.  

	I personally like many perspectives when working through
	a problem.  I not so worried about someone manipulating
	me because *I* make my decisions, noone else does.  If 
	a man is strong I don't think you should dislike him for
	it, I think you should emulate him.

	STOP, go back, reread the preceding sentence using "woman," 
	"she," and "her" instead of "man," "he," and "him."  

	Do you agree now?  Do you respond to the two sentences *any* 
	differently at all?  If you answer yes, then you are experiencing 
	sexism *in yourself*.  Be aware of it, accept it, then work to 
	change only that which you don't like.  If you answered no, 
	congratulations, you have wiped sexism from *one* area of your
	life.  It *does* exist in others.  But if you notice it I think
	you'll find yourself more accepting of yourself and others.

	Kb

    	RE:  .25
    
    	Hey, you can tell me all day about how you don't want my advice
    	to you as a woman about what you should do about problems you
    	are having with your male genitals and guess what?  I won't
    	say you are a sexist for that.
    
    	That makes me a whole lot more tolerant and realistic than you
    	sounded in your note just now.
    
    	You are obviously assuming quite a bit if you read into our notes
    	that (on ALL occasions) we said we refuse all help that could
    	possibly be offered on any subject because the person offering
    	the advice is a male.  No one here said that.
    
    	We were talking about situations where a male forces his advice
    	upon us against our will (and how *some* men are not only likely
    	to DO that, but are also likely to *INSULT* us if we refuse to
    	allow them to ram their advice down our throats anyway.)
    
    	You made what I would consider quite an erroneous assumption about
    	what we were saying.  Worse than that, you thought you could
    	convince us to agree with what *YOU* think by insulting us (calling
    	us SEXISTS.)
    
    	I consider your tactics quite manipulative (and an almost CLASSIC
    	example of what we have been talking about in this note.)

    Hear, hear!
    
    Helen.

    Re: .26
    
>    	We were talking about situations where a male forces his advice
>    	upon us against our will (and how *some* men are not only likely
>    	to DO that, but are also likely to *INSULT* us if we refuse to
>    	allow them to ram their advice down our throats anyway.)

    I'm at a loss to understand how anyone can "force" advice on someone.
    If it is indeed advice (that is, an opinion of how you should do
    something), why aren't you free to ignore the advice if you so choose?
    Why spend so much energy on preventing the other person from giving
    their opinion in the first place?  It seems a misdirected effort
    to me.
    
    If the advisor is actually in a position of power over you and the
    advice is in reality a command, the situation is different, but
    so should be the reaction.

    However, I do agree with you that your choosing to reject the advice
    of someone because their sex makes their advice, in your opinion,
    irrelevant, does not automatically make you a sexist.  However,
    if it is a pattern that you ALWAYS reject the advice of someone
    based on their sex, then there may be some sexism inherent.  As
    an example, how would you feel if any opinion you offered to a
    man was met with the reaction "Oh, don't pay any attention to her
    - she's just a girl - what does SHE know?"  To me, that's no
    different than women who systematically reject opinions from men
    just because they are male.
    
    					Steve

    Steve, I think this is the kind of thing they're talking about:
    
    I know of an incident recently in which two developers of equal
    rank but opposite gender were kicking around ideas for coding
    something, concluding that there were two ways to do it, one
    quicker to implement and the other likely to perform faster.  The
    man felt the functionality wasn't important and as long as it
    worked, she should get it done as quickly as possible.  The woman,
    who was the one actually doing the coding, talked to some other
    people, too, and finally chose to spend more time doing the faster
    routine. 
    
    A couple of weeks later when she wanted to kick around more ideas
    for something they're both working on, he refused because "You
    don't listen to anything I say anyway." 
    
    So the advice wasn't "forced" in the sense that she had to take
    it, but in the sense of "If you don't do it my way, you'll be
    blamed," it was forced. 
    
    Women deal with that kind of thing every day.
    
    --bonnie

    Re: .30
    
    Yes, this does seem to be the kind of thing they are talking about
    and I still don't understand why this is considered "forced".
    In your example, the female developer ignored the advice of the
    male developer.  That it later caused friction between the two is
    a separate problem, and one that needs to be addressed at a different
    level.  If the female decided to capitulate to the male just because
    he throws a tantrum, I would say that she has just as much a problem
    as he does.
    
    What you are saying to me is that women don't have the guts to stand
    up for what they believe in, and, from what I read here, I REFUSE
    to believe THAT!
    
    				Steve

    What ever happened to the "old-fashioned" method of *asking* someone
    if he or she *wants* help and/or advice, and giving or not giving
    it according to the answer?
    
    --- jerry

    re: .31 

    No, I'm not saying women are wimps [though many of us were trained
    to be ladylike rather than assertive].  But what would you
    suggest she do in this situation? 
     
    The only alternatives she sees are to capitulate or to ignore him,
    and she's got enough confidence in her ability and her decision to
    not give in. She's a competent developer and will do fine without
    his input, but it's not good for teamwork and you know that
    bouncing ideas off someone else helps you polish and refine your
    own ideas. 

    --bonnie
    
    p.s. For the people who know me -- this isn't who you think it is.
    It isn't even in the group I work with, it's in a friend's group. 

    re: many of the replies here, about "forced" advice as well as many
    other topics ...
    
    Is this not an issue between PEOPLE rather than between men and
    women? I have run into this situation many times (someone giving
    advice and becoming upset if their advice is not followed). I have
    also, I am sorry to say, been the "giver" in such situations. (It
    all seems *SO* CLEAR to me what is the "right" way ... it's frustrating
    to not be able to make someone else see that.) ((I'm not excusing
    this behavior, by the way. Just because I have been known to do
    this doesn't mean that I think it is right.))
    
    My point is that I don't see this happening more frequently 
    M --> F than F --> M or F --> F or M --> F. It just happens between
    people. 
    
    -Amy.
    
    
    

    Re: .33
    
>    The only alternatives she sees are to capitulate or to ignore him,
>    and she's got enough confidence in her ability and her decision to
>    not give in. She's a competent developer and will do fine without
>    his input, but it's not good for teamwork and you know that
>    bouncing ideas off someone else helps you polish and refine your
>    own ideas. 

    Right - she ignores him.  It's her choice.  Nobody forces her to
    accept his advice (and I'd say she did the right thing).  Yes,
    bouncing ideas off others is great and I do it all the time, but
    if someone other than my project leader tells me I HAVE to do it
    a certain way, I am free to do whatever I think is best.  And if
    I have problems interacting with a certain project member, I either
    stop interacting or take it up with my supervisor.  
    
>    No, I'm not saying women are wimps [though many of us were trained
>    to be ladylike rather than assertive].  

    So if you were trained to be "ladylike" (by this I assume you mean
    nonassertive), then the problem is your training.  Getting angry
    at the people you allow to take advantage of you is like getting
    angry at the clouds for raining when you're outside without an
    umbrella.
    
    
    We're drifting a bit from the claim that some men "force" their
    opinions on women, and how this relates to sexism.  Regarding
    Jerry's question in .32 about "asking for advice", I think we can
    look at the closer context of this conference.  By entering a note
    here one is, I believe, implicitly asking for advice.  And men have
    valuable opinions to offer just as women do.  (And I'm glad to see
    that someone in Corporate Personnel saw the light about this.) 
    The whole battle over FWO notes is relevant to this topic.  (Since
    I expressed my views on this in WOMANNOTES-V1 I won't repeat them
    here.)
    
    				Steve
    

    	Getting back to the idea about having advice forced on you...
    
    	If someone were to offer you some advice and you made it clear
    	to the person that you had other ideas/beliefs and had no
    	intention of following that advice, how would you feel if the
    	person then followed you around and gave it to you 10 MORE TIMES
    	(being louder and more insistent each and every time?)
    
    	Now, remember, this advice is about something that is YOUR
    	BUSINESS, and not the other person's at all.  But that doesn't
    	seem to matter to the other person.
    
    	That person starts pestering you so badly to listen to the unwanted
    	advice that you start to become annoyed.  The person is ENRAGED
    	that you could be so ungrateful for the fact that the person
    	cared enough to pester you to death with advice that you didn't
   	want.
    
    	So now the person starts telling you that you are discriminating
    	against the person (for not accepting the advice) and that you
    	are not behaving like an adult.  The person goes on to tell
    	you that you would probably refuse advice from <whatever group
    	the person belongs to> no matter WHAT the subject had been.
    
    	In other words, the person runs you through the whole gamut
    	of insults and explanations about why you won't listen (until
    	you're ready to punch a hole through the wall.)
    
    	That is what I meant by "ramming it down someone's throat"
    	(and/or "forcing" advice.)  You don't have to follow advice
    	to have it forced on you.  It is forced on you if the person
    	doing the advice-giving finds it impossible to ever, ever, ever
    	(no matter what!) take no for an answer even if it is about
    	something that is none of that person's business.
    
    	It doesn't matter in the LEAST how valuable that person feels
    	the advice to be.  If it isn't welcome, it isn't welcome
    	(and there isn't a rationalization in the world that can make
    	personal advice valid to someone who doesn't want it.)

>    	Hey, you can tell me all day about how you don't want my advice
>    	to you as a woman about what you should do about problems you
>    	are having with your male genitals and guess what?  I won't
>    	say you are a sexist for that.
 
	What if you're a doctor, will you say I'm sexist now?
   
>    	That makes me a whole lot more tolerant and realistic than you
>    	sounded in your note just now.
 
	I'm sorry, I don't think so.
   
>    	You are obviously assuming quite a bit if you read into our notes
>    	that (on ALL occasions) we said we refuse all help that could
>    	possibly be offered on any subject because the person offering
>    	the advice is a male.  No one here said that.
 
	I didn't say that, I was refering only to the three women who
	claimed that it was their right to say they only want advice
	from woman.  I didn't say they didn't have that right, I think
	they have the right to ask what ever they want, I just said that
	that was sexist.  I also said (in fact the whole point of my
	reply was to say that) sexism is *not* insulting.
   
>    	We were talking about situations where a male forces his advice
>    	upon us against our will (and how *some* men are not only likely
>    	to DO that, but are also likely to *INSULT* us if we refuse to
>    	allow them to ram their advice down our throats anyway.)
 
	Steve and Amy are doing a good refutation about people "forcing"
	their advice.  Incidentally, I like your reply in .36.  It refers
	to "people" which does not sound sexist, because it doesn't single
	out one sex.

	As to the definition of "sexist": 

	1. descriminating in favor of members of one sex.

	I still hold my original point.  Any on who asks for advice
	from women only is being sexist.  IT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE
	WORD.  What I'm trying to say is that sexism is not always bad.
	Until we realize that, we'll have a hard time dealing with it.
	I think the woman are perfectly justified in only wanting advice
	from women, but I still say they are being sexist when they
	say so.
   
>    	You made what I would consider quite an erroneous assumption about
>    	what we were saying.  Worse than that, you thought you could
>    	convince us to agree with what *YOU* think by insulting us (calling
>    	us SEXISTS.)
 
	I hope I've cleared up the thing about insulting.  I *am* trying
	to make you look at things in a new way.  If you don't agree with
	me, that's ok.  But I am glad you are willing to voice the
	opinion and are willing to listen to my ideas, just as I am willing
	to listen to yours.
   
>    	I consider your tactics quite manipulative (and an almost CLASSIC
>    	example of what we have been talking about in this note.)

	I'm hope I've changed your mind.  :-)

	By the way, I suppose that my wanting to change you mind could
	be considered manipulative.  I agree with that, but I don't 
	agree that I'm using any tactic other than logic to do so.

	Kerry

    Kerry,
    
    You seem to have missed the entire base context in which those
    three women said that they wished only advice from women.  I assume
    that this is because you are new to this file, and are not
    thoroughly familiar with the contents of its predecessor.
    
    They were referring to specific situations/times in which they would
    be explicitly soliciting information only from those people who
    could speak from their -- meaning female/feminine/gender-specific
    -- point of view.  As a subset of this, they were referring to
    times when they were actively not interested in hearing about the
    point of view of members of the sex that had just done/said
    something which had triggered this particular mess.
    
    Does this help towards clearing things up?
    
    							Ann B.

    	RE:  .37
    
    	Well, I'm not a doctor, Kerry.  Would you mind if I give you
    	some advice about the problem with your male genitals ANYWAY?
    	If you say that you wouldn't like it, I don't care.  I'm going
    	to give it to you regardless (and drum the advice into your head
    	until you can't stand it anymore.)  Because I intend to help
    	you, whether you want to be helped by me or not.
    
    	Do you understand how this phenomenon works a bit better?
    
    	If a *man* refused to listen to your advice (and told you that
    	he would rather hear from people with whom he had shared specific
    	experiences,) would you tell him that he was being sexist towards
    	you if the only people who had shared his experiences happened
    	to be women?  Could you be a big enough person to allow him
    	to choose his friends/advisors himself?
    
    	If not, why not?

    Re: .36
    
    That is certainly obnoxious behavior.  And I've encountered it in
    men and women.  When faced with it, I just turn and walk away
    (or ignore the screaming notes or mail messages).  Works like
    a charm - they eventually realize they've lost their audience
    and give up.  Screaming back only encourages them.
    
    Maybe there's a lesson in here somewhere...
    
    				Steve

    A bit more light and less heat, please?  Please?
    
    						=maggie

	First let me say that I'm *extremely* sorry that my note
	has illicited the emotions that it seems to have.  I really
	had hoped that it would be enlightening for people to 
	see that sexism is sometimes bad, and sometimes necessary.
	If you don't agree with me on that, you're entirely right
	that you have a right to that feeling. 

>    	If a *man* refused to listen to your advice (and told you that
>    	he would rather hear from people with whom he had shared specific
>    	experiences,) would you tell him that he was being sexist towards
>    	you if the only people who had shared his experiences happened
>    	to be women?  Could you be a big enough person to allow him
>    	to choose his friends/advisors himself?
 
	<sigh> He is being sexist only if he is favoring one sex.  
	Ie. he is being sexist if he specifically says, "I only want a
	response from woman" rather than stating the specific experience
	he is looking for. By the definition of the word.
	I am sexist because I tend to like women better than men (I'm
	trying to change this).  I am sexist because I'm straight, and
	not bisexual (I like ambisexual, better, I forget where in here
	I saw it :-) )

	As to "Could you be a big enough person to allow him to choose
	his friends/advisors himself?", <sigh again> yes.  I have said 
	in each of my notes that the three women that I was 
	refering to had every right to feel the way they did.  I did
	not offer any advice to their situation.  I have never (and
	will never) respond to a FWO discussion, even given the new
	policy.

	I do respect people's wishes as much as I can.  I'm sorry that
	my enthusiasm for a new concept offended so many of you.
	Incidentally, I agree totally that people can
	be obnoxious in pushing their own opinions down your throat.
	But my initial reply still holds true for me, I make my own
	opinions, not other people.

	I just deleted another attempt to explain my case.  I don't
	want to force anything more down anyone's throat (I hope this
	is not viewed as manipulative, I'm not sure how to act right
	now).  If you are interested in discussing this further, 
	please send me mail.

    re.36 and then .40
    
    .36 describes my mother's attitude toward my life so exactly that
    I would almost believe that you'd spent the last 16 years listening
    in.
    
    .40, when I began ignoring her, she actually became louder than
    when I snapped at her -- one technicolour incident resulted in her
    screaming so loud and long she actually haemorraged in her throat
    -- so it took a deal of intestinal fortitude to make it work.  But
    it did.
    
    -----
    
    In general, I think un-solicited advice is the cause of a good deal
    of the world's troubles.  Generally an advice-giver _is_ assuming
    superior knowledge or insight, if only on the the subject at hand.
    And un-invited stances of personal superiority are distasteful on
    the down-side.  
    
    FWIW, with some notable exceptions, I haven't found men's comments
    or advice in this forum to have been given in the spirit of superiority
    based upon _gender_.  This does not say that their comments don't
    bear a distinctly flavour, because more often than not they do.
    Frankly, if I feel a man's voice is not germaine to an issue, =wn=
    is the easiest place I've found to just not even hear it.
    
      Ann

'what about privacy'

Assume the environment is not a 'private' envirnment... a couple of people
sitting in the lab BSing or something...  but then the type of person likely to
get upset about being given advice is not the type to sit around BSing.. 

Geez... it seems like you all are taking a situation of offhand well meant
advice, and insisting that it is 'rammed down one's throat', 'obviously not
wanted', 'insistant', 'insulting', etc, etc, etc...

How many different ways can I qualify/describe the situation to get you to stop
insisting that the situation must be something other then what I described? This
is the same attitude that happens in the situation where advice is given, and
the guy gets stomped on for no reason... 

For a while there I thought I could have imagined it, or that there was an
explanation, but this note reconfirms it.

"We were talking about situations where a male forces his advice upon us against
our will"

What we have here, folks, is a lack of communications.  That's not what I'm
talking about, and I'm fairly certain that's not what Dave started this note to
talk about.

This is as bad as a talk show I saw with a father's rights organization
representative, and a woman from a battered woman's shelter.  The host would ask
both of them general questions 'how do you feel about divorce mediation?', the
father would answer, and the woman would contradict him, citing special cases
and treating them as though they were the rule.

The host couldn't get the woman to take a wider view for two seconds, she
insisted on relating every question to abused women to the point of monomania. 

At that point, a discussion ceases to be a dialogue, and turns into a monologue
of you about your past.  It's like the other person isn't even there, and
it doesn't matter what they say or how they react.

The same thing is happening here.  You are insisting that every instance (that
we are talking about) of a man giving advice to a woman is an insult,
manipulative, insistant, etc, etc, etc...  Give it a rest for a moment, eh?


But then again, I will probably get back a bunch of flak about how I'm opressing
women by wanting to get a word in edgewise... Geez...

Why isn't ignoring one sex's ideas, thoughts, feelings sexist?

"A couple of weeks later when she wanted to kick around more ideas for something
they're both working on, he refused because "You don't listen to anything I say
anyway.""
 
Sure, that kind of thing happens... There are other situations though...

I can easily put myself in the guy's shoes.  Maybe he put a lot of energy into
the scheme he was promoting, maybe his own work depended on the woman's work
being a certain way....  If I put a lot of energy into explaining some code, and
then it is ignored, I wouldn't want to waste my energy again. I'd need to be
convinced that it was worth it.

Then again, I can understand the woman sticking to her own scheme.  It is *her*
work, and she has the right to put herself in the program, and not someone else
if she chooses; right or wrong.  I like to reinvent a better wheel myself.

This reminds me of a woman in school that used to ask me for programming advice
I'd give her some ideas and procedures for figuring out what needed to be done,
and then want me to help her do something entirely different.  Sometimes I would
refuse, because I didn't want to put *my* energy into that.  If she wanted to do
something different, fine, but I didn't want to go into that. 

About a month later, after I had stopped giving her advice I saw one of her
programs and she admitted that she had tried a lot of things out, and had ended
up going with my idea.  That kind of situation makes me wonder why I am giving
advice; obviously it was good advice, but it didn't seem to save anyone any
work, since she felt compelled to run through the possibilities anyway.

Like I said, I tend to do that a lot too with advice, so I have a certain amount
of respect for that, but it sure can be frustrating. 

"*asking* someone if he or she *wants* help and/or advice"

I guess I don't understand not wanting advice such that it's necessary to ask.
Hell, I'll take any advice...  I may not implement it, but it's usually worth
listening...  If they have already given me the same advice in the past, I
usually stop them and remind them that I've heard it before, and ask if they
have anything new of the subject, or are they repeating themselves? 

I have another friend that I've been badgering for quite some time to give up
WPS and learn TPU/EVE, especially since there isn't really anything *to* learn.
 
JMB

    	Clear distinctions have been made between well-meant and
    	unwanted advice, the later being the subject of much of
    	the discussion here.  Confusion between the two can be
    	easily cleared up by re-reading the notes and seeing
    	the way these types of advice have been sharply contrasted.
    
    	At no point has anyone stated that they would never at any
    	time listen to any advice (in any situation) that was offered
    	by a certain sex.  Assumptions to the contrary are just that.

    	At this point, it hardly seems appropriate to offer NEW advice
    	(with lectures) about things that haven't been stated here.
    
    	However, it is expected that such <groping for word here> advice 
    	is often inevitable, so go ahead with it ...

    	If you must ...

   
    
    re: definition of sexism- economic exploitation and social domination
    of members of one sex by the other, spec. of men by women (Webster's
    New World). it really does noone any good to go around picking your
    own definitions for words.
    
    re: various
    one can't help but get the feeling that most of you guys 
    naturally assume that your advice is the best thing since sliced
    bread and that it is in constant demand. someone even said that
    they assumed that anyone writing in notes wanted their advice. sorry
    chaps. in general, most people couldn't care less what you or anyone
    else thinks................. now, STOP...i don't mean you
    specifically. nor you. or even you. i mean in general. when i listen
    to you, i am doing you the favor. you are *not* doing me a favor by
    talking to me. most of us are brought up to try to be polite, so
    most of us make some minimal effort to listen. too often then
    this courtesy is taken to mean that the listener actually cares what
    you think, which is patently not true.         

    oops that should read:
    of women by men
    
    damn noisy lines....and stupid fingers
    

    RE:  .42

    The problem which I have with your repeated assertion that "not all
    sexism is bad" is that it seems to be an oxymoron.  The word "sexism"
    is a recent one and was coined explicitly to give a name to
    discrimination *against* someone on the basis of their sex.  Asking men
    to withhold their opinions *when it will not profit them to give it*
    cannot be sexism, by definition.

    What you've done is to take a term, widen its definition to suit
    yourself, and then ask us all to buy into the new definition.  It's
    equivalent to redefining the word "murder" to include any killing of
    anything, with or without malice aforethought.  Then you could say "All
    murder isn't bad -- I murder innocent insects all the time.  You
    wouldn't lock me up for that, would you?"

    My point is that we need a word with which to speak of "harmful and
    unfair discrimination against people on the basis of their sex".  If
    you widen that definition to include discrimination which is not
    harmful, then we don't have a word for the first definition anymore,
    which makes it difficult to discuss it.

    An interesting thing to note is that my dictionary (The Random House
    College Dictionary, Revised Edition, copyright 1975) defines "sexism"
    as pertaining only to discrimination against women.  I'll admit that it
    has recently come to be commonly used to describe discrimination
    against either sex.

    								-- Mike

    RE:  .46
    
    Funny what can happen while you're composing your reply -- I entered
    .48 when .43 was the last reply.   Interesting that your dictionary's
    definition of sexism differs from the one in mine -- "discrimination
    against women, as in career choices, job opportunities, etc."  At least
    both were written by lexicographers 8^).
    
    							-- Mike

re:.44 (BARANSKI)

Jim,
 Here's some advice.  Read the following extract from your reply to this very
string.  Think about it. 

					Nigel

|At that point, a discussion ceases to be a dialogue, and turns into a monologue
|of you about your past.  It's like the other person isn't even there, and
|it doesn't matter what they say or how they react.
|
|The same thing is happening here. 

    thank you Nigel
    
    bjpr

    re .46, .48
    
    Bravo!!
    
    lt

    	RE:  .46 ----> .50
    
    
    	Thanks from me, too!

    

    re:.35
    
    �Regarding Jerry's question in .32 about "asking for advice"...�
    
    I feel obliged to point out that I said nothing about asking for
    advice. I wondered what was the problem about asking someone if
    he *wants* advice or help.
    
    Analogy: "A" is walking down the street, and notices someone in
    a wheelchair having some difficulty. Being a good samaritan, "A"
    asks the person, "Would you like some help?" If the person says,
    'Yes, please,' "A" helps; if, 'No, thank you,' "A" goes along
    his merry way.
    
    Now, if the wheelchair-bound person didn't want help from "A",
    but "A" decided to give it anyway, wouldn't you consider that
    rude and unfeeling?  At least some of the women in this file
    feel that way when a man gives his advice to them unasked.
    
    re:.38
    
    Another definition of "sexism", from the AMERICAN HERITAGE
    DICTIONARY:
    
    	"1. Prejudice against the female sex. 2. Any arbitrary
    	sterotyping of males and females on the basis of their
    	gender."
    
    Discrimination against one sex is not sexism, per se. Treating
    the two sexes non-equivalently *is*.
    
    --- jerry

Hi folks,

  A couple of mail messages have shown me how poorly I put
my point across my first reply to this note.  Below is the
text of a mail message I sent to Matt.  It is my best attempt
to explain my viewpoint on several issues.  I'm not trying to
change anyone's opinions on anything.  I'm just trying to
explain my opinion.  If you're not interested, don't read it.
I welcome comments but if what I say *really* upsets you,
please wait a little bit, and try to figure out what upsets
you.  This will help me decide if I should try to change 
my opinions.  Thanks.

Kerry



Matt,

  The situation you described sounds terrible.  I hope the
same never happens to me.  As to my response to their responses
(.56 you said, I'm not sure which one that was), I was
not saying anything that I didn't feel.  I agree that there
is no reason to bow down and accept what someone tells me
vocally while thinking something different.  But my way of
dealing with people generally includes trying to reduce 
violent conflict.  The woman were responding strongly because
they read into my note something that I had not meant them
to.  I hoped to show them I had not meant that.  And I 
was sorry that it had come across that way for them.

  One thing that I haven't been able to get across yet (I wonder
if I'm the only one who feels this way) is that I do think
it is important for woman to have a closed-minded forum to
discuss issues that are important to them.  They are correct
when stressing that they have felt oppression much of their
lives, and they don't want it to continue in this notes file.
Hopefully, after feeling that they have every right to give
their opinion, they will begin to feel that others have that
right, too.

  Problem is, we strongly influence people with our words.
You and I have had the good fortune to recognize that we
are the only one accountable for our opinions.  But surely
we had to work through a process of growth before we realized
this.  I think womannotes has a wonderful opportunity to help
women come to this rationalization.  When a woman says, "Woman
are oppressed."  What she really is saying is, "I have felt
oppressed, and I can see that other woman have felt this way
too."  

  Unfortunately, our emotions often cloud our explainations,
even to the point where we often cannot explain why we feel 
a certain way.  I think a forum where women can openly
explore themselves without too much fear of rejection is 
the best way to help women understand themselves.  Maybe then,
they can distinquish between the emotion and the explaination.

  I also think such a forum would be worthwhile for men, or for
any person regardless of sex.  Funny thing is, I feel that
womannotes fullfills that need for me, where mennotes does not.
Is that sexist?  Yes.  But then, see note 102 for my feelings
and requests for other's feelings on the definition of sexist.

  Thanks for writing!

  Kb

"Assumptions to the contrary are just that."

What about experiences to the contrary, eh?

"someone even said that they assumed that anyone writing in notes wanted their
advice."

Wrong.  Steve said HIM writing notes implied HE was asking for advise. I tend
to agree.  Why say anything in a conversation unless you want a reply of some
sort?

"discrimination *against* someone on the basis of their sex"

I don't believe that it is any more possible to discriminate *for* someone
without also discriminating *against* someone (else), then it is to have a
perpetual motion machine that charges batteries. 

"At that point, a discussion ceases to be a dialogue, and turns into a monologue
... It's like the other person isn't even there, and it doesn't matter what
they say or how they react."

Well folks, it certainly does matter to ME how the rest of you react, or what
you say...  say something intelligent for the audience now...

JMB


(yes, I realize that last is no more productive then the last few notes...)

 

 

    A friend of mine sent this to me recently.  Someone had posted
    it in a different notesfile, but I think it really speaks to some
    of the things we've been thrashing about here.  
    It's a poem by Ralph Roughton, M.D.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    When I ask you to listen to me and you start giving advice,
         you have not done what I asked.
    When I ask you to listen to me and you begin to tell me why I
         shouldn't feel that way, you are trampling on my
         feelings.
    When I ask you to listen to me and you feel you have to do
         something to solve my problem, you have failed me,
         strange as that may seem.
    Listen!  All I asked was that you listen, not talk or do --
         just hear me.
    Advice is cheap:  A quarter will get you both "Dear Abby" and
         "Billy Graham" in the same newspaper.
    And I can DO for myself.  I'm not helpless.  Maybe
         discouraged and faltering, but not helpless.
    When you do something for me that I can and need to do for
         myself, you contribute to my fear and inadequacy.
    But, when you accept as a simple fact that I do feel what I
         feel, no matter how irrational, then I can quit
         trying to convince you and can get about the business
         of understanding what's behind this irrational
         feeling.  And when that's clear, the answers are
         obvious and I don't need advice.
    Irrational feelings make sense when we understand what's
         behind them.
    Perhaps that's why prayer or meditation works, sometime, for
         some people -- because god/silence is mute, and she/he
         doesn't give advice or try to fix things.  "They" just
         listen and let you work it out for yourself.
    So please listen and just hear me.  And, if you want to talk,
         wait a minute for your turn, and I'll listen to you.
    
    
    Ralph Roughton, M.D.
    

    Maybe we're not connecting on what is meant by "forced".  The males
    here seem to envision physical force and the women psychological.
    Obviously, no one can discuss the use of physical force in notes
    because it just doesn't happen.
    
    What I believe Suzanne in particular means is that a man will offer
    his "more worldly - more educated" opinion and just automatically
    expect women to stop and ruminate on it.  But further, if women
    DON'T display that they have done this, (and what constitutes
    display?), the advice-giver begins in with insults.  I've seen the
    dynamic many times in this file and in life.  Very many.  I think
    it's the insults that follow the lack of automatic acceptance that
    women refer to as "force".  No, he's not holding her down and screaming
    in her ear, but if he insults a woman who'd rather take her advice
    from someone OTHER than him, (herself or someone else), then the
    implication is clear - he believes he knows better and further that
    he has a right to PROVE it to her.
    
    And that's the arrogance I too read into Alan's base note.  Tho'
    Alan, in the brief time I spent talking with you I didn't see you
    as arrogant at all.
    
    There IS only one reality but each of us only has a "view domain"
    of it.  (Too much datatrieve here!).  Therefore, no one really has
    the right to even believe that their particular view is any closer
    to reality than someone else's.  EVEN if they have absolute and
    ultimate knowledge!  Because if everyone holds a different view
    of reality, then even reality itself is just another variation!
    
    It's the feeling, (and I get it and I know many other women get
    it), that men often easily consider themselves mental superiors
    to women and often DO take advice-rejection as an affront to that
    belief.  Ego gets in the way, heels dig in, and before you know
    it this "concern" of his has mushroomed into rage.
    
    It's a fact that men interrupt women far more times than women
    interrupt men and also that men love to guide and instruct women.
    Where do these characteristics come from in men and is it wrong
    to assume that the sub-conscious beliefs held by men who engage
    in these behaviors could also be responsible for other behaviors
    towards women?  Such as not only giving advice but in expecting
    it will be heeded?
    
    If the advice is just that, then why are the recipients' reactions
    monitored and further, why are certain reactions verboten?  Advice
    is advice.  Why don't men just lay it on us and simply shrug their
    shoulders if it's not heeded?  Why the insistence on proper displays
    of acceptance and rumination and insistence on proper "thank yous"
    and reasons and so on if after all the proper obescience is done
    to the advice and it's giver is rejected?  
    
    It's this convoluted scenario that certainly makes ME feel that
    men believe they have a right to both advise and to have their advice
    taken with the proper displays of female deference.
    
    When I see men getting outraged at other men, (instead of the usual
    shoulder shrug and an "it's his life" attitude), then I'll begin
    to believe that this is an issue that occurs between people rather
    than just another power play on women.
    
    I'm sorry, but there is no question in my mind that in our society
    we believe that men ARE the arbiters of female behavior.  Did they
    ask many WOMEN before they voted on the laws around birth control
    and abortion?  Not likely.  And I'm sure you can think of a zillion
    examples where women's behavior, (and opportunities), is dictated
    strictly by men.  It's this same dynamic at work here when men believe
    they actually have an ISSUE about their advice not being heeded!
    Heavens!  Women don't listen to men!  Stop the presses!  Let's address
    this RIGHT NOW!  ;-)
    
    I don't know about you, but there have been times in my life when
    MY advice hasn't been heeded and I'm not enraged about it.  I'm
    not upset about it.  It's that person's life.  It's certainly not
    an affront to me.  Geez!

'poem'

*very* nice...  I can see myself on both sides of that...

"a man will offer his "more worldly - more educated" opinion and just
automatically expect women to stop and ruminate on it"

Yes, the person giving advice would like the other person to *think* about it.
They'd like to think that they weren't wasting their time giving advice. That
seems like a common courtesy to me.  And if the other person can tell the
adviser why they agree or disagree with the advice, then the advisor has a
chance to learn something too! 

"Therefore, no one really has the right to even believe that their particular
view is any closer to reality than someone else's."

True, but we can compare them, and perhaps improve the accuracy of both of
the views.

"that men often easily consider themselves mental superiors to women and often
DO take advice-rejection as an affront to that belief."

I don't think it's "mental superiors", but it can be 'experience superiors'. And
I think that that is valid.  But then, both people's experience can be superior
to the other person's experience; they both can have something to teach the
other.  Then, if the other person chooses not to follow that advice, that's
their life; but I am usually curious to know why.

I realize that what I am describing is not how it happens all the time, but I
think that that is how I would like to have it be, and I try to do thus. 

JMB

    
    re:.60
    no doubt i'm reading too much into this, but you said something
    to the effect that the person giving advice would like the receiver
    to listen, partly so that the advice giver would know that they
    were not wasting their (the advice giver's) time. not a word about
    the receiver's feelings or the receiver's time. be that as it may,
    if the advice giver has good advice, and reasonable self-esteem,
    it seems to me that they would know that and wouldn't need the
    ego-biscuit of the receiver's 'respect'. it all sounds a little
    too much like insecurity to me.
    
    

    re: .59
    
    yup...what she said
    
    -Jody
    

   "Everybody has [AT LEAST! jw] one!
   
    As well meaning as they may be, opinions are often off-track, and
    more often unwanted.  You may well give yours, but should not get
    upset if they are not immediately met with appreciation.  Maybe
    some day, down the road, the person will remember what you said,
    and probably disregard it AGAIN!  ;^}
    
    But we'll continue to give it.
    
    Enjoy!
    
    Jack
    

    Re: .61
    
    >it all sounds a little too much like insecurity to me.
    
    Not to me.  When you give advice, you're making an effort to help
    someone.  You're doing them a favor.  It's nice to have that effort
    appreciated.
    
    Of course, the world would be lovely if everybody was considerate,
    so that no one offered unwanted advice and everyone acknowledged
    (respect is secondary, I think) the contribution.

	While the issue being discussed here is advice in general I think
	that our jobs in DEC , which are highly technical,  really put us,
	as women, right in the fray. My experience has been that if you get
	in a meeting with several men of equivalent technical skill and there
	is an issue they disagree on the sparks will fly. The technical egos
	clash like a war of titans and more often than not talking to the
	participants afterwards you hear alot about how the other guy just has
	no idea what he's talking about. I heard one person discribe this as
	everytime men are in a room together it's a contest of who has the
	biggest (insert body apart of your choice here). Now, it was a man that
	said this and it was obviously a metaphor but I felt it was apt for
	some individuals. 

	This has been going on between men for (a guess) generations. Then
	we reach today where a good many of the technical folks are starting
	to be female. All of a sudden men have to deal with women, who they
	traditionally regarded as lessor in the technical arena, and also 
	thought that women shouldn't fight back. And when they do I can't help
	but feel that some men feel betrayed. In some cases I see fighting
	back as not taking the advice that was given. I believe these same
	folk are just as unhappy when another man does not take the advice
	but with women it has that little extra sting, they were supposed to
	listen, it's their place. liesl

	

    re: .35 
    
    Steve,
    
    This is reaching back kind of far in this string, but it's the
    first chance I've had to respond.  So I'm going to quote more than
    I usually would in a response, just to make sure the context is
    here. [An aside: *I'm* not angry about this.  I have observed the
    phemonenon and I'm interested in discussing it, but it doesn't
    make me furious. I'm not complaining about the clouds, and I have
    my own umbrella, thank you.] 
    
>    Right - she ignores him.  It's her choice.  Nobody forces her to
>    accept his advice (and I'd say she did the right thing).  Yes,
>    bouncing ideas off others is great and I do it all the time, but
>    if someone other than my project leader tells me I HAVE to do it
>    a certain way, I am free to do whatever I think is best.  And if
>    I have problems interacting with a certain project member, I either
>    stop interacting or take it up with my supervisor.  
    
>>    No, I'm not saying women are wimps [though many of us were trained
>>    to be ladylike rather than assertive].  

>    So if you were trained to be "ladylike" (by this I assume you mean
>    nonassertive), then the problem is your training.  

    Now we're getting somewhere. 

    Yes, the problem is our training.  That's what I was trying to
    point out.  And there are plenty of men who are willing to take
    advantage of our training, whether consciously or not, to get
    their way. 
        
    When I said women are raised to be ladylike, I didn't mean the
    passive "nonassertive".  Rather, I meant the way most women were
    taught to be actively responsible for the smooth functioning of
    our relationships.  We were taught to be nice, to go out of our
    way to make groups work smoothly, to put other people's feelings
    first and our own second. 
    
    For many of us, ignoring someone is a choice that indicates
    that we have failed to keep things going smoothly.  
    
    A situation in which someone in the group is not speaking to us is
    very nearly intolerable, especially if it stems from some action
    on our part.  It doesn't matter how justified our behavior was, or
    how wrong the other person was -- the group is disfunctional, and
    we've been taught that we should do something about it. 
    
    It would not be uncommon for the supervisor or project leader to
    say to the woman, "Well, it's not that important, but we can't
    have him sulking like that -- can't you give in just this once,
    since it doesn't really matter?"  And since we've been raised to
    think it's our duty to make the world run smoother, we give in. 

    And men have been trained to be assertive, to get what they want. 
    
    It's a perfect setup for misunderstanding and hurt feelings. And
    it's not easy throwing aside years of training. 
         
    --bonnie

    RE: .66
    
    ...good point Bonnie, and in addition: Not only is the woman
    more likely to be asked to give in to smooth the troubled
    waters, but if she doesn't *SHE* is then viewed as "the problem",
    and "uncooperative", not to mention "bitchy".
    
    It's a no-win situation.
    
    --DE
    

    Re: .66
    
    Yes, I see your point and agree with it.  What I disagree with was
    the feeling I got that some people were blaming the men instead
    of recognizing that they themselves were possibly allowing the men
    to take advantage of them.  I objected to the tendency towards wanting
    to "solve the problem" by stifling the men.  I don't think that's
    the right approach.  Instead, recognize that you too can have good
    ideas and assert yourself.  If it causes friction, then work out
    that problem.
    
    Re: .67
    
    I view these statements as a cop-out.  You're claiming defeat before
    you've even started.  How do you ever expect things to change if
    you're not willing to take some responsibility?
    
    					Steve

"if the advice giver has good advice, and reasonable self-esteem, it seems to me
that they would know that and wouldn't need the ego-biscuit of the receiver's
'respect'. it all sounds a little too much like insecurity to me."

Not at all, no more then "Please", "Thank You", and "You're Welcome", are
ego-biscuits for insecure people.

"All of a sudden men have to deal with women, who they traditionally regarded as
lessor in the technical arena, and also thought that women shouldn't fight
back."

I my experience it's more likely that the women *don't* fight back (when they
should), and get tromped on by the men who don't know how else to act in that
situation.

"It would not be uncommon for the supervisor or project leader to say to the
woman, "Well, it's not that important, but we can't have him sulking like that
-- can't you give in just this once, since it doesn't really matter?""

Does this really happen?  At DEC?

JMB

    re:.65
    
    The clash of male egos you describe is generally referred to, in
    the vernacular, as a "pissing contest" (i.e. to see who can "shoot"
    the farthest -- because of design differences, this is a singularly
    male trait).
    
    --- jerry

    re: .69
    
    Yes, Jim, this does happen.  Even at DEC.
    
    --bonnie

    RE: .68
    
    Steve,
    
    You may think what you like of my statements. That does not
    make them any less true. Nor does it mak any less true the fact
    that, in the given situation, if a woman gives in to placate the
    boss and the boys, she is seen as weak, placating, and thus not
    good "material" for the business world. And on the other hand, if
    she *doesn't* give in, she's seen as a castrating bitch who is thus
    not good "material" for the business world.
    
    We do not have the choice of "copping out" - we choose one path
    or the other, and take the chance of being branded one way or the
    other because of it. 
    
    --DE
    

    Re: .72
    
    Dawn,
    
    I respect your opinions, and agree that what you describe often
    occurs, but, to me, that's a long way from making it "a fact".
    By taking this position, you imply that there's no way to win,
    so why bother trying - instead you'd just sit there and suffer.
    Sorry, I don't buy into self-fulfilling prophecies.
    
    What I would do in such a situation is to go ahead and do what I
    think is right.  I would do my best to not hurt others' feelings,
    but if stepping on toes was necessary, I wouldn't hesitate.  I've
    never been one to shy away from a position just because it was
    unpopular.
    
    					Steve

    Steve,
    
    You seem to have missed the point. First of all, it appears that
    you have never met Dawn. I can't imagine her "just sitting there
    and suffering". 
    
    But more importantly, men and women are often treated differently in
    business environments. If you (Steve) go off and do what you think is
    right, stepping on toes if necessary, some people will be mad. But if
    you really did the right thing, you will eventually be rewarded in some
    way. Many women have found that no matter how they act, their behavior
    is perceived to be inappropriate in a business setting. If they "act
    like a woman", they're not "business-like", and if they "act like a
    man", they're strident.
    
    Hope this is a little clearer.
    Liz 

    RE: Liz, Steve
    
    Liz: YES! YES! YES! *That* is exactly what I was trying to say
    (and apparently, failing miserably)
    
    Steve, women make these choices all the time. Yes, they do what
    they think is right all the time. So do men. The difference is that
    men are not branded with particular labels in certain situations,
    when they do so.
    
    The point is not that 2 given groups of people act differently in
    a particular situation...
    
    The point is that the *same* act will often be *percieved* differently
    depending on whether that act is made by a man or a woman. AND,
    if a woman, that perception is more likely to be a negative one,
    given the type of situation we are discussing.
    
    Thanks again, Liz. 
    
    --DE
    

    So, really, Steve, we now have *3* possible actions:
    
    1. Don't get involved        "She always cops out"
    
    2. Give in to placate the guys      "No guts"
    
    3. Don't give in to placate the guys      "Castrating bitch"
    
    --DE
    

    I have met Dawn...  that in part is why I found this self-defeating
    attitude so hard to swallow.
    
    I agree "violently" that there are often real differences in
    perceptions if a man does something and if a woman does the same
    thing.  Maybe that means a woman has to be a bit more circumspect
    in how she steps on someone's toes.  Maybe it means having to
    accept the idea that someone may think less of you because you
    did what you know is right.
    
    (I am sure that a lot of the women out there are saying "what a
    jerk!" as they read my notes.  But it doesn't stop me from speaking
    out for things I believe in.  One thing I've come to realize in
    life is that it's impossible to please everybody.  And I'm
    going to take a rest from this discussion for now - maybe someone
    will want to pick it up again at the party this evening.)
    
    					Steve

    "Maybe it means having to accept the idea..."
    
    Well, ladies, that's it.  Maybe he's right.  We should just learn
    to be "more circumspect" than men have to be, (even if they then
    think of us as "manipulative" because of it), and to just accept
    the idea that when we "stick to our code" and "do what is right"
    we will be considered bitches.  Seems pretty easy to me.  Boys will
    be boys and we will just have to learn to try and sigh because business
    is now and will continue to be defined by men.  That means women's
    discomfort or problems will be considered "women's issues" and not
    "business issues".
    
    We should be lucky that we have gotton SO far as to actually get
    a man to admit that "there are often real differences in  perceptions
    if a man does something and if a woman does the same thing."  We
    shouldn't just expect we're now going to get them to discuss WHY this
    is so and WHAT men should do about it to change that perception.
    Heaven knows women have been told to death all the things that THEY 
    need to do.  The missing bit of info is that those things don't
    usually work since men, sitting above us in status, still have the 
    choice of perceiving us any way they please no matter what we
    do, and can and do make actual business decisions based on that perception.
    
    I carried something around in my wallet for years and threw it out
    a while ago but it was something like this:
    
    He's dilligent and follows through - She doesn't know when to quit.
    
    He's easygoing - She's too much of a pushover.
    
    He's having a tough day - She's just on the rag.
    
    He pays attention to detail - She's petty.
    
    And so on.
    
    And Steve, even if a woman HAS guts, she usually gets no glory.
    Glory for women is most often reserved for Miss America, centerfolds,
    courtesans, expensive call girls, models, and the VERY rare woman who is
    none of these.  One quick example - do you know who is on record
    as possessing the highest IQ in the world?  I'll bet most people
    don't.  If it were a man, you would know his name as well as you
    do Einstein's.  Her name is Marilyn Mach vos Savant Jarvick.  I'll
    bet any man can name 3 fashion models and a centerfold or three.

  RE: .44
    
  > What we have here, folks, is a lack of communications. That's not what I'm
  > talking about, and I'm fairly certain that's not what Dave started this
  > note to talk about.                                   ^^^^
      
  Jim, Dave????  :-)
    
  
  RE: .59
    
  >                                                             'Tho
  > Alan, in the brief time I spent talking to you, I didn't see you          
  > as arrogant at all.
    
  Sandy, thanks (I think).  :-)
    
    Alan    

    *********     WARNING:  VERBOSITY ALERT    *************
    
    This one went on far longer than I'd originally intended so
    read on at the risk of your own boredom. . .
    
    
    Someone (Liz?) indicated that when a man steps on toes in
    the process of "doing the right thing", he'll eventually be
    rewarded while a woman doing same will be castigated.  A bit
    later Steve (.77) said,
    
    � Maybe that means a woman has to be a bit more circumspect
    � in how she steps on someone's toes.  Maybe it means having to
    � accept the idea that someone may think less of you because you
    � did what you know is right.
    
    First, let me acknowledge that I've seen the "pushy broad" dynamic
    at work so these observations are *not* meant to deny or justify
    it's existence.  It's at least worth noting, however, that the
    first person I knew who'd been tagged with the "pushy broad" label
    was, at the time, a Materials Sr. Planner (wage class 4, approx.
    level 4).  Within a very few (like three, maybe) years, she'd become
    a Materials mgr. and, the last time we spoke, she was continuing
    to climb the corp. ladder.  On the flip side of the coin, I know
    of a number of men who have struggled for years to get beyond that
    same stage.  Some of these men have been quite articulate about
    how they "did the right thing" and got screwed for their troubles
    (e.g. got labelled "attitude problem").  Reading the quoted lines
    from Steve's reply reminds me of another dynamic that's at work.
    
    The woman I mentioned had one thing going for her that the men 
    didn't:  she knew how the game was played and she was ready to
    play.  By "ready to play" I mean she was, for example, prepared
    to accept the idea that some men would label her and think less
    of her, simply because she was a woman.  This did *not* mean she
    accepted such attitudes as "good-ness".  Nor did it mean that she
    remained totally mute on sexist attitudes.  
    
    What it did mean was that she'd decided that such attitudes were part 
    of the turf and that, for the most part, were not worth the time and 
    energy to try and change.  She concentrated instead on demonstrating 
    to the business' management that she operated in a manner that was 
    consistant with *their* view of a business professional.  Did this
    mean that *sometimes*, when someone made a dumb sexist remark, that
    she zipped her lip?  Absolutely.  Why?  Because she was following
    on of the major precepts in business:  if you're going to get into
    a fight, you're better off when you can pick the time and place.
    Did she "accept" the remarks as in "like" them?  No.  Did she "accept"
    the remarks as in "let it go for now"?  Yes.  The result is that
    today she's in a position to hire (or not) those same peers and
    managers.  
    
    And, it's also worth noting that, along the way, she has held to
    the principal of "doing the right thing".  But at the same time
    she kept in mind her business career strategy and her success is, 
    in no small part, due to *the way* she has done the "right thing".
    
    Conversely, for a number of years I did the "right thing" and, all
    too often found myself getting hammered.  It took a long time for
    me to hear that it wasn't what I was doing, but how I was doing
    it that was keeping me down.  A f'rinstance:  thinking back at some
    of the, um, outspoken things I said in meetings makes me wince;
    remembering the shouting match I had in a meeting (with my manager,
    no less) makes me positively cringe.
    
    With a great deal of help from a couple of mentors, I finally managed
    to let go of the notion that not speaking (or shouting) out at 
    certain times (and later working the issue off-line) was not
    necessarily a compromise of ideals.  I could choose to view it instead
    as a tactical move in a larger strategy and, it turned out, this
    was more consistant with my management's ideas of professionalism.
    
    And wouldn't you know it, I started to climb the ladder much to
    the resentment of some of my former peers.  It hurt some when a
    few people stopped talking to me after I'd been promoted ahead of
    them.  I didn't like (i.e. accept) their attitudes that I was simply
    a brown-nose.  But I knew that changing those opinions was, at best,
    unlikely - I was seeing business through one framework, they through
    another.  And the effort spent shovelling it against that particular
    tide at that particular moment would have been effort better spent
    elsewhere.  One aside:  it's particularly rewarding to hear how
    one of those who'd labelled me was recently promoted and that some
    of his "friends" had stopped talking to him.  (And yes, you better
    believe I took the opportunity to bust his chops big time when next
    I saw him.)
    
    So perhaps there's another way to interpret Steve's remarks, especially
    if we don't equate "accept" with "like" and if we view circumspection
    as an exercise in tactics.  For while it is certain that the dynamic
    of sexism is playing, I believe that the "professionalism" dynamic
    is also at work.
    
    Of course, as Richard Bach sez, "Everything in this [reply] may
    be wrong."
    
    (other) Steve
    

Note 95.80  HANDY::MALLETT

>...she was, for example, prepared to accept the idea that some men would 
>label her and think less of her, simply because she was a woman.  

You're confusing attitudes with the actions resulting from those attitudes.
You state this woman continued to climb the corporate ladder.  Therefore
sexism to her IS just an attitude and can easily be ignored.  She's getting
what she wants anyway.  Most women loose out because of attitudes.  If we
got treated fairly in business, I doubt we'd really care what "attitudes"
our bosses hold.  I know I wouldn't.

> She concentrated instead on demonstrating to the business' management that 
>she operated in a manner that was consistant with *their* view of a business 
>professional.  

You've missed the point.  "Their" view of a business professional is often
a man.  And if this woman didn't have exceptional management who held the
rare view, there wouldn;t be any kind of show at all that she could put on
that would convince them otherwise.   Her success is due in part to her 
ability, but in large part to the men who allowed her to advance.  Otherwise
we'd have to believe that every woman in Digital is doing exactly what her
ability and her ambitions have deemed she will do.  And since we're all
clustered at the bottom of most org charts, I find it difficult to believe
that men simply ARE smarter and more deserving of the top jobs.

>Conversely, for a number of years I did the "right thing" and, all
>too often found myself getting hammered. ... A f'rinstance:  thinking back 
>at some of the, um, outspoken things I said in meetings makes me wince;

>remembering the shouting match I had in a meeting (with my manager,
>no less) makes me positively cringe.

You call these "the right things?"  What do you suppose would happen
to a woman who does THOSE right things??

Is your example meant to illustrate that the problem with women is that
they are simply too pushy?

>So perhaps there's another way to interpret Steve's remarks, especially
>if we don't equate "accept" with "like"...

Bingo!  Many men in business DO equate accept with like.  They don't have
to like it that women are just as capable and deserving of the goodies
but since they don't like it, they won't accept it.

> and if we view circumspection as an exercise in tactics.  

Women have always been circumspect to get what they want from men.  Trouble
is that method has NOT been viewed by men as "an exercise in tactics" but
as manipulation and another reason why women are "inferior".  It seems you're
asking women to be exactly what it is I believe men need to be.  We already
understand "circumspection" far more than men do, because it has been a major
component of our lives.  And we already know the difference between liking
and accepting because we have accepted all our lives crap that we don't like.

I believe it is men who need to learn what "circumspection" by women really
is and why we are usually much more circumspect than direct.  I believe it's
men who need to stop treating directness from women as a challenge to their 
egos, (their supremacy, their positions), so that women CAN be more direct.
And I believe men need to learn to separate like from accept.  They may not 
like equality but they're going to have to accept it just as women don't like
inequality but have had to accept it all their lives.  The points made in your 
note should be made to men.
    

"We should just learn to be "more circumspect" than men have to be, (even if
they then think of us as "manipulative" because of it), and to just accept the
idea that when we "stick to our code" and "do what is right" we will be
considered bitches."

I don't believe Steve meant it that way...  (although it certainly can be taken
that way) I think he is saying that there might be more productive ways to
correct the situation then are commonly employed by women.

"We shouldn't just expect we're now going to get them to discuss WHY this is so
and WHAT men should do about it to change that perception."

Perhaps use the same tactics I have to resort to in this conference; explain
several times over what your issue is, and why it is important, and when someone
says 'just on the rag', be explicit and say, "No.  it is not because ...  My
reasons are ... and I feel that it is important that these concerns be looked
into. ..."  You should have at least as much success as I have had. :-)

In case you haven't guessed, discounting someone else point and trivializing it
is *not* a male monopoly.  Women do it in their areas of expertise just as
well. 

"I'll bet any man can name 3 fashion models and a centerfold or three."

I'll bet that they can also name the equivelent half dozen sports personalities.

"Most women loose out because of attitudes."

The point is that the label 'attitude problem' gets slapped on men too, for the
same reasons.

"Otherwise we'd have to believe that every woman in Digital is doing exactly
what her ability and her ambitions have deemed she will do."

No more then you'd have to believe that every man at Digital is doing exactly
what thier ability and ambitions have deemed they do. 

"They don't have to like it that women are just as capable and deserving of the
goodies but since they don't like it, they won't accept it."

I don't believe that that is true.  I feel that it's plain competition in many
cases.  You put a man in the same shoes doing the same thing, and the majority
of the time the same thing will happen.

"I believe it is men who need to learn what "circumspection" by women really
is and why we are usually much more circumspect than direct...."

I can agree with that...

" I believe it's men who need to stop treating directness from women as a
challenge to their egos,"

*Any* directness can be viewed as a challenge.

JMB

    re: .81
    
    Au contraire, Sandy.  I do understand your point (at least I think
    I do) and, in general, agree with it.  At this point I feel like 
    you've missed my point, or, more fairly stated, I've failed to make 
    my view clear to you (and when I go more than 30 lines or so, that's 
    always a risk).
    
    All I was trying to say is that there was I time when I was locked
    in place because of my method of "doing the right thing", a method
    that was, of course, defined by what I thought the "right thing"
    was.  Yes, stupid as it was (or, more correctly, ignorant), I
    thought that I should speak out forcefully (*very* forcefully :-} )
    for what I thought was right in that meeting.  The trouble was that 
    what I thought was right and my ways of going about it were at odds 
    with what the average manager thought was "professional".
    
    Another way of saying it is that my exhibiting those behaviors 
    got me little more than a label of "unprofessional".  The same
    can and does occur with women.  As I said, this isn't to infer
    that the dynamics of sexism aren't working; it is to say that
    the dynamics of professionalism are sometimes working as well.
    
    � You state this woman continued to climb the corporate ladder.  
    � Therefore sexism to her IS just an attitude and can easily be
    � ignored. She's getting what she wants anyway.  Most women loose 
    � out because of attitudes.  If we got treated fairly in business, 
    � I doubt we'd really care what "attitudes" our bosses hold.  I know 
    � I wouldn't.
    
    Though I didn't say or infer it, I'd agree that one component of
    sexism *is* "attitude", the belief that women are somehow inferior.
    The other component are the reslting actions of those holding such 
    attitudes. Kay realized that her management held those attitudes and 
    would act upon them.  However, she also believed that if she delivered
    business results *in the way those managers wanted to hear them*
    she would succeed despite those sexist attitudes.  

    Did this mean that she occasionally played silly, male-ego-
    gratification games?  Yes, when it was the right tactical move
    for her overall strategy.  At the time some called her a "pushy
    broad", others felt she'd "sold out to the system", and those managers 
    (whom she now outranks) felt she had become "one of the boys".  
    
    In retrospect, one might say she was making some very effective 
    tactical/strategic moves.
    	
    � And if this woman didn't have exceptional management who held the
    � rare view, there wouldn;t be any kind of show at all that she could 
    � put on that would convince them otherwise.
    
    I'm afraid you've made a bit of an assumptive leap:  these male
    managers were not in the least exceptional.  They were quite average
    and the year was 1977.  If anything today's male manager is, on average,
    a bit more "exceptional" if for no other reason than the work done
    over the last 11 years by feminists.  Before anyone gets on my case
    for that one, I only said "a bit" more enlightened. . .
    
    � Otherwise we'd have to believe that every woman in Digital is doing 
    � exactly what her ability and her ambitions have deemed she will do.
    
    Not at all!  My point is simply that lots of men are also not doing
    what their abilities and ambitions deem they will.  The example
    I gave from my own experiences was meant to illustrate that.
    
    This is, again, not to say that sexism does not have a terrible impact 
    on this company and this world.  It does.  However, there was a
    time when I was labelled "unprofessional" and Kay was labelled "pushy
    broad" and we were both at the bottom of the ladder.  Long before
    I got the message (I dunno maybe that extra x chromasome *does*
    yield a learning disability. . .) Kay was leaving me (and that very
    average management) in the promotional dust.
    
    For she was/is a very strong, results-producing, hard-nosed-professional
    "pushy broad" and the results she produced got her managers "attaboys"
    and got the attention of her managers' managers (no accident, that).
    By the way, one of her prime methods was to concentrate on results
    that had high-visiblity dollar impact; if there's one thing that will 
    override any attitude (or "ism") in business, that one thing is the 
    almighty dollar.
    
    � And since we're all clustered at the bottom of most org charts, 
                      ^^^
    I'll have to ask Cathy, my manager's manager (a Plant staffer) to answer
    that one. . .   Sorry, I couldn't resist; it's just that you're
    so rarely given to such generalizations, Sandy. . .
    
    � I find it difficult to believe that men simply ARE smarter and more 
    � deserving of the top jobs.
    
    I find it impossible to believe.  Did I assert that somewhere?

    � Is your example meant to illustrate that the problem with women is that
    � they are simply too pushy?
    
    No.  My example is meant to illustrate that I was very mistaken
    at the time in regards to both what "the right thing" was *and*
    how to go about achieving it.
    
    � Bingo!  Many men in business DO equate accept with like.  They 
    � don't have to like it that women are just as capable and deserving 
    � of the goodies but since they don't like it, they won't accept it.
    
    Hold the phone here, pard.  I was referring to the fact that, although
    she didn't (and doesn't) like sexism, she was prepared to accept
    the fact of its existance.  Accepting that fact, she then devised
    strategies and tactics to overcome it.
    
    � Women have always been circumspect to get what they want from men.  
    
    Granted.
    
    � Trouble is that method has NOT been viewed by men as "an exercise 
    � in tactics" but as manipulation and another reason why women are 
    � "inferior".  
    
    Smile when you say that, pard. . .I'm a man (at last check) and
    I'm the one saying it was tactics (and it was a male manager who
    hipped me to what Kay was doing); you seem to be the one calling
    it manipulation. . .  OK, ok.  That was kind of a cheap shot and,
    in honesty, I agree that many men did/do view these kind of actions
    as manipulative.  My point is that her management *didn't* view
    Kay as manipulative; they viewed her as someone who was getting
    them lots of back pats.  Past that point, I doubt they cared or
    even gave it thought.  I mean think about it for a second - can
    you imagine a bunch of mfg. mgrs. sitting around in '77 discussing
    the "manipulative nature of women"?  'Twould be giving more credit
    than was deserved.
    
    � It seems you're asking women to be. . .
    
    Most assuredly not and if I gave that impression, I apologize for
    not making myself clearly understood.  All I was trying to do was
    reflect on the interpretation of Steve's usage of the word "circumspect".
    
    If I consider taking action X and think of it as "circumspect" I
    might not do it because I carry negative connotations on the word
    "circumspect".  However, if, in considering the same action, I think
    of it as "tactics" I'll take the action because, for me, the word
    carries positive connotations.  My point was not whether some *men*
    consider an approach "circumspect"; it was that perhaps some *women*
    might find power in the "tactical" interpretation.
    
    Again, I was trying to suggest that one reading of Steve's reply
    might be that "accept" was meant as "accept the fact of sexism's
    existance" (vs. "like").  I'm specifically *not* suggesting that
    "accept" be read as "it's here and there ain't a damned thing you
    can do about it".  I offer my suggestion of the tactical interpretation
    as proof:  tactics being the stuff one *can* do about it.
    
    Further, I was trying to indicate that I (a male) ran into a lot of 
    stumbling blocks because I wasn't circumspect at all.  For both
    men and women alike in business, being direct works well only when
    one has wisely chosen the fight, the time, and the battleground.
    
    My remarks were meant only to offer possibilities that some might
    find empowering.  Among other things, that's part of my job at
    the moment.  If I wasn't clear, I take responsibility for the
    ineffective wordsmithing and make due apologies (and, obviously, 
    try again).  On the other side, could I ask you to consider the 
    possibility that you've read some things into my reply that weren't 
    there?
    
    Steve (the once again long winded; uh oh; bad vibes. . .I went more
    than 30 lines again; what I need is a good ghost writer. . .)
    
    

    re: .83
    
    A hundred and sixty seven freakin' lines??!!  Help!  Somebody
    shoot me before I note again. . .
    
    S.

    don't quit Steve, you write good sensible notes..
    
    b

    (Ok, back from vacation - I guess it's safe to reenter this discussion.)
    
    Steve M. understands exactly what I meant by "accept", and furthermore
    I don't understand how someone could interpret "accept" as equivalent
    to "like".
    
    I think that most of us agree that there are some real differences
    in perception in demonstrations of assertiveness in women and men.
    But my earlier arguments took issue with the statements (at least
    the way I perceived them) of Dawn and others that it was a "no win"
    situation if a woman needed to be assertive.
    
    Steve M. outlined the approach I was trying to suggest - recognition
    that direct confrontation was often inappropriate (no matter what
    your sex) and that there are often other ways of making your point.
    Goodness knows this is a lesson I learned myself some time ago.
    
    If you believe that there is a bias against you, then you need to
    find a way to work around the bias.  Don't be afraid to do this.
    
    
    On a lighter note, I found the comments about men being able to
    name centerfolds and models amusing.  I could instantly name
    Maria Mach vos Savant (haven't seen her listed as having another
    name), but couldn't name a centerfold to save my life.  Unfortunately,
    vos Savant has succumbed to the traditional role of the "super genius"
    and answers what have got to be the world's dumbest questions in
    a column for Parade magazine.
    
    And as for women "at the bottom of org charts" - in my organization
    (of about 150), my supervisor and cost-center managers are both
    women, and if I were on a different project, my development manager
    might be a woman too.  My previous supervisor was also a woman.
    And my organization is one of the top revenue-producing groups in
    the company.  Sure, it's not like this everywhere, but it's not
    bad everywhere either.
    
    					Steve

The following is being entered for a member of the community who
    wishes to remain anonymous.
    
    Bonnie J
    comoderator
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    
    

 There seems to be an undercurrent of feeling in =wn= that all feelings
are to be valued; that all feelings are reasonable and acceptable. On the
surface, this may sound good, but further study shows serious hypocrisy
being practiced in =wn=. As it turns out, many of the women have feelings
on certain issues that some men _feel_ are strange, wrong, excessive, or
whatever. What I find hypocritical is that the very women who complain that
their _feelings_ are being invalidated by men in fact invalidate the men's
feelings who disagree with them. I'm not sure if my point is coming through
so let's try some examples. (Yes, they will be extreme, but that seems to
be the best way to prove my point)

 A woman feels that men cannot do _anything_ that doesn't relate to power
and control over women. As she starts to walk down the hall, her boss, who
is talking to another employee, reaches out and touches her arm to stop
her so he tell her something. She reacts by lashing out at him for his "power
play," that he could've just said something to her, and she would have stopped.
She feels that the only reason he touched her was because she was a woman.
In point of fact, this particular boss frequently uses this same tactic
to stop members of both sexes, including his boss! He tells her she is
overreacting. She counters that he is "invalidating" her feelings. But in
so doing, she is _also_ invalidating _his_ feelings. She goes to personnel
and complains. They investigate and decide her accusations are unwarranted.
She now feels that the system is male dominated and against her, while in
fact, all of the personnel people that dealt with the problem were female.
She feels that the women that investigated the case are pawns of the men
of the company- and traitors to the cause of feminism. (Actual story)

 Personally, while everyone _is_ entitled to their own opinion, some opinions
make sense and some don't in the realm of reality. It can be someone's
_feeling_ that the sun comes up in the west and sets in the east. That doesn't
make it so. It can be someone's feeling that murder is justifiable when
a man opens a door for a woman. :-) That doesn't make it a _reasonable_
feeling.

 While some feelings can easily be proved or disproved, most often feelings
have a very subjective basis. As such, they are personal. The issue of reason
comes up when two people have diametrically opposed opinions. When most
people would consider a certain action in reaction to a feeling an
overreaction, something is wrong- and usually with the minority opinion.
While majority opinion is not always correct, it usually stands a better
chance of correctness than does the minority opinion. 

 If one person feels that it is acceptable to scream at the top of their
lungs whenever they are not addressed as Ms., they are generally of the
minority opinion. That another feels that they are overreacting does, perhaps,
invalidate "old yeller's" feelings, _but only in the other's mind._ The
fact that most people agree with the other only goes to show that "old yeller"
probably has unreasonable reactions/feelings about being addressed as Ms.

 On the other hand, if a busload of people feel that it's ok that the new
black passenger must sit at the back of the bus, it's clear (to most) that
the majority on the bus is wrong. As usual in life, there are no hard and
fast rules.

 I find that many women claim that their feelings have been "invalidated"
by men, simply because men have different feelings than they do about a
particular issue. This is bad enough in and of itself, but they usually
take it a step further. They claim that the _man's_ opinion is now invalid
since it doesn't coincide with their own. This seems to be quite hypocritical
to me. As far as I'm concerned, only _you_ can allow your own opinion to
be invalidated. That a member of another group, be it race, creed, income
class, or SEX, has a differing opinion can invalidate your feelings only
if you let them.

 

    <-95.88  Well Said!  Anyone who disagrees with that is definitely
    a few bricks short of a load!  But that's just my opinion! :-)
    
    Otto.

       In all the cases of sexism I've witnessed in my life I've never
       seen a woman "lash out" or scream at anyone. I certainly don't
       think that just because someone thinks a certain way that I must
       change my way of thinking nor do I require that they do. I may
       however, try to get them to see my side.

       I've never lashed out at anyone (outside of close personal
       relationships where sanity was not always involved) becasue they
       didn't agree with me. I have heard people say that my opinion
       just couldn't be right because they didn't share it. I believe
       that is what some of the women of this file have felt from some
       of the men. On the other hand, it's a common practice in SOAPBOX
       for this to happen and it's usually men talking to men so I don't
       think men reserve this attitude for women. liesl

        re: .88
    
    In reply to the example you gave:  
    The woman *felt* put-down and angry.  
    
    The next sentence, however, is inaccurately stated:  "She
    feels that the only reason he touched her was because she was a
    woman."  _That_ is a thought or conclusion, but _not_ a feeling!
    We are each responsible for our individual _feelings_ (emotions).
    We should "own" them, ex., "I feel put-down when you do that."
    But we don't have the right to dictate what the motives of the other
    person are or were.  We may strongly believe that the motive was
    such-and-such, but our belief about that motive is only that, a
    belief, *not* a feeling!
    
    Therefore, if it could be documented that he touches everyone, male
    and female, boss and subordinate, in the same way, then that evidence
    appears to refute her conclusion.  She may still *feel* the same
    way.
    
    Yes, the boss *was* invalidating her feelings by saying that 
    she was overreacting.  He should have said she misunderstood
    his motives -- that is, he should have directed his response 
    to her judgement/belief rather than to her feelings.  (But 
    these responses can only be dissected after-the-fact!

    (I don't have anything to say about how this relates to notes.
     Your anecdote _seemed_ simple enough to analyze, but I
     wouldn't want to generalize from that.)
    

    Re: .92
    
    >We should "own" them, ex., "I feel put-down when you do that."
    
    Alas, not every one does as they should.  What do you do with those
    who don't own their feelings?  When the self-image is threatened,
    one of the most common reactions is to believe deliberate intent.
    Indignation is such a satisfying emotion.
    
    >a belief, *not* a feeling!
    
    However, some people are very emotionally attached to their beliefs.
    I think reactions are emotional responses.  If a belief arises in
    reaction to something, the emotional component is strong enough
    that the belief can be considered almost a feeling.
                                             

    re: .93
    
    I agree with you!  My comments were an after-the-fact analysis of
    the example.  Like Monday-morning quarterbacking, 20/20 hindsight,
    etc.!  
    
    What do you to with someone who doesn't "own" his or her
    feelings?  Muddle through the best you can - realizing that none
    of us really owns all our feelings all the time!  Seems to me that
    those who don't even try don't usually _talk_ much about feelings 
    and would be unlikely to accuse others of invalidating them -- but 
    maybe I'm wrong!  
    
    But if I am going to try to own my own feelings and if I expect others
    to validate them (or at least not to INvalidate them), then I should
    try to learn to distinguish between feelings and
    thoughts/conclusions/opinions that may result from, but are not
    themselves, feelings.  Of course I won't always succeed.
    
    If my husband points out that my conclusions about his motives and
    behavior are not in keeping with the facts of a situation, then I must
    look into myself to try to figure out the source of my still-very-real
    feelings!  THIS can be very scary/painful!
    
    Nancy

I had real problems reading .88, since it launched right into stereotypes that
I believe to be pretty much inapplicable. And it used language I considered
loaded. Other women may have problems responding as well.
	Mez

    I also  have problems with .88, probably because it seems to use a form
    of logic my sister often uses. (BTW, she usually 'won' by default,
    because it is so hard to point out the falacy in the argument.)
    It is also a technique often used by lawyers.
    
    You take an argument with two sides, obviously.  However, neither
    side has a cut & dried case; instead, both are multi-dimensional.
    (otherwise, it'd be very easy to dispassionately decide who's
    right).  You re-phrase the argument, with a few variations.
    Everywhere  your side can be toned down to a very logical, 'sane',
    obviously correct approach, you do so.  Everywhere the other side
    can be built up into inflamatory, outragous, 'wrong' approach, you
    do so. 
    
    QED, the answer is clear: the other side is obviously wrong, no
    sane person can dispute that.  
    
    Now, someone highly skilled in this technique doesn't take it to
    total extremes, but just enough to get his chosen point across.
    It is very hard to argue with this approach, since most people
    will agree with the scenario presented.  The true value of this
    method comes when these same people, agreeing with the single
    example presented, extend their agreement to all cases.  To 
    argue with this approach, you have to make sure that you don't
    go down a rat hole argueing the single case made by the presenter.
    
    
    Now, I'm not saying that .88 definitely used this approach, just
    that I get the same feeling I used to when my sister did.
    
    You can't argue with any specific point he brought up, but you don't
    buy the total message he is saying.  

    Re: .96
    
    Is there any reason you're automatically assuming that the anonymous
    author of .88 is male?
    
      Alan

    	RE:  .97
    
    	> Is there any reason you're automatically assuming that the
    	> anonymous author of .88 is male?
    
    	Perhaps the word 'he' was being used in the generic sense. 
    	The author of .96 didn't make a POINT of saying the author was
    	male.  Perhaps you are *assuming* that the use of the word 'he'
    	was a definite decision (on the part of .96) that the author
    	of .88 was male.  That may not be the case.
    
    	However, I do agree with others that .88 was far too rife with
    	drastic (negative) stereotypes to be taken seriously (whether
    	the author was male or female.)

    Not to mention that the author of .88 used "feel" to mean both
    "to have an involuntary emotional response to an event" and "to
    have a considered intellectual response to the description of an
    event".  Perhaps the signal that .96 (among others) noticed is
    that the former usage is what the women prior to .88 in 95.* intended,
    and that the latter is what .88 was ascribing to men.
    
    						Ann B.

 Re: .98
       
 .96>    Now, I'm not saying that .88 definitely used this approach, just
 .96>    that I get the same feeling I used to when my sister did.
    
 .96>    You can't argue with any specific point he brought up, but you don't
                                                 ^^
 .96>    buy the total message he is saying. 
                               ^^
 
 .98>    The author of .96 didn't make a POINT of saying the author was
 .98>    male.  Perhaps you are *assuming* that the use of the word 'he'
 .98>    was a definite decision (on the part of .96) that the author
 .98>    of .88 was male.  That may not be the case.
    

 Suzanne, the author of .96 also did not make point of making her pronouns
 gender-neutral, either. When I read the word 'he', I didn't have to assume
 that my assumption was incorrect. The word 'he' does refer to a male.
                     
    
 .98>    However, I do agree with others that .88 was far too rife with
 .98>    drastic (negative) stereotypes to be taken seriously (whether
 .98>    the author was male or female.)
    
 An interesting possibility is that the anonymous author is, indeed, female.
               
   Alan  
 

    To whom this is may concern, the author of .96 is Mary Driskell.
    
                      REK

    Re: .101
    
    Yes, we know the gender of the author of .96.
    
    It's the gender of the anonymous author of .0 that's unknown,
    and why Mary seems to have automatically assumed the author is male.
    
    
      Alan

    Still not quite right, Alan.  It is the gender of .88 that is
    ostensibly unknown .and. referred to by Mary.
    
    As it happens, I would rather see a discussion of the point Mary
    raised, and which I consider perfectly valid, than a rathole
    discussion of how this particular individual should not have used
    "he", although all of us in this notefile have individually and
    severally been repeatedly assured that "he" is generic and should
    not be jumped upon just because it has been used casually.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    Re: .103
    
    > Still not quite right, Alan.  It is the gender of .88 that is
    > ostensibly unknown .and. referred to by Mary.
    
    Oops, you're right, Ann. It is the gender of .88 that is unknown
    ('ostensibly' is your opinion; I'm certainly not going to try to
    change your mind.)
    
    > As it happens, I would rather see a discussion of the point Mary
    > raised, and which I consider perfectly valid, than a rathole
    > discussion of how this particular individual should not have used
    > "he", although all of us in this notefile have individually and
    > severally been repeatedly assured that "he" is generic and should
    > not be jumped upon just because it has been used casually.
    
    Are you indicating that, if it turned out that the anonymous author
    of .88 were female, the subsequent replies would have been the same?
    					
      Alan

	RE:  .104
    
    	> Are you indicating that, if it turned out that the anonymous author
    	> of .88 were female, the subsequent replies would have been the same?
    					
    	"If it turned out" when?  Sometime in the future?  If the author
    	of .88 turns out to be a duck or a being from outer space, how
    	can that possibly change the 'subsequent replies' that have
    	already been posted?
    
    	:-)
    

     Thats It!! I've had It!! It has finally happened!!!!!
    
    I'm all gendered out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
                    REK
    
    Please note smiley face :-}

    Alan,
    
    I just put in "ostensibly" to bait you.  (It worked!)  And because
    I was feeling legalistic, since the author of .88 knows, and since
    the poster of .88 knows, and since I (or other[s]) might have
    cajoled it out of the poster and thereby know.
    
    Also, may I say that if the author of .88 is a woman, she is a true
    master of empathy.  She has been able to not only put herself into
    a man's viewpoint, and the viewpoint of a particular type of man at
    that, but has been able to blind herself to any actual understanding
    she has of a woman's "feel"ings, and has gritted her teeth and
    refrained from suggesting a more balanced (from a woman's perspective)
    scenario, on the grounds that this type of man would never do that.
    
    That's real role playing, and it's hard to do.  Trust me (as role
    players say).
    
    						Ann B.

    Will the real author of .88 please stand up? Or at least reveal
    his/her gender so we can end this frivolous rathole? Ostensibly
    a man! 8-) Undoubtedly a man! So what?! Does this behavior exist,
    or is this guy on drugs? (Probably both)
    
    Running from the rodent...
    
    -E

    Re: .105 and .107
    
    Suzanne and Ann, I surrender
    
    ......for now. :-) :-)  (Besides, I have to continue unpacking boxes
    from our latest office move from the first to the second floor of
    the ever-lovely-PKO3).
    
    And if, indeed, the author of .88 is male, he should've entered
    it under his own name and taken his lumps.....like a *real* man. :-)
    
      Alan

    wow. you know what? we could ...
    
    just stop talking about it and return to discussing the base note
    topic!
    
    pretty novel idea, eh?
    

    Re:110 Naw, this is more fun....
    
             REK

    yeah, Liz, my thoughts exactly!

    � Will the author of .88 please stand up? Or at least reveal
    his/her gender so we can end this frivolous rathole? �
    
    No, please don't. The note should stand on its own. Any comments
    on it should reflect the content, not the author of it.
    
    Sometimes I wish *all* notes could be anonymous so we could
    discuss the content, not the sex of the author.
    
    --- jerry

    OK, next time I'll make sure I sign my name, and use gender-neutral
    pronouns everywhere.  just in a "too-big-a-hurry-but-really-wanted-
    to-reply" mode last time. no excuse. i agree.
    
    the author of .88 has contacted me by mail, and we will be discussing
    this further.  however, my reaction would be the same. i asked myself
    was this writer male or female, and deceided that .88 bothered me
    so much i didn't care who wrote it.
    
    back to the original topic.  I think we all invlidate feelings at
    various points in time.  we are human after all (at least most of
    the time)  however, when informed that a particular actions is
    translated as "invalidating my (a womans'(generic) or a mans (generic))
    feelings", and we continue to do so, we've now passed the border
    into deliberate insults.  That's what i see happening in this file
    sometimes.  
    
    I do it myself sometimes.  an example is the phrase, "not all men
    but always men".  several noters have complained about this, and
    contined use could be seen as invalidating their feelings.
    
    i happen to think that the phrase expresses a concept quite eloquently
    (and accurately).
    
    does useage of this invalidate the objectors' feelings?  quite possibly.
                                                                   
    will i use this phrase anyways?  i'm not sure, but probably so
    
    do others have the right to use this phrase?  ABSOLUTELY
    
    do still others have the right to object?  ABSOLUTELY AGAIN
    
    I think there are several cases in this file & in daily life where
    one party invalidates anothers feelings.  for us to grow, this needs
    to be pointed out & discussed.  
    
    mary
    
    ps...i'm not sure what i set out to say,  just there are many feelings
    i've been having that i wanted to express in part.
    

    
    I think there's a difference between invalidating someone's feelings
    and offending (or continuing to offend) someone, whether it's with
    the "not all men but always men" phrase or any other behavior.
    
    Invalidating feelings is to essentially say, "You don't really feel
    that way," or "You SHOULDN'T feel that way."  I might continue a
    certain action with the full knowledge that it causes So-and-so
    to feel a certain way.  The other person has let me know how it
    makes him or her feel, I have considered that, and I choose
    nevertheless to continue the behavior for some reason or other.

	I'd like to invalidate .88's feeling that what happens
	in the hall is indicative of what happens in =wn=.

	...Karen

 If you want to invalidate some else's feelings, fine. Just don't complain
when someone invalidates yours.

 On another level, how can you invalidate .88s feelings unless he allows you to?
If he feels that way, you can disagree with him, but can you really make
his feelings any less valid? (Only if he allows you to). The whole idea
about "invalidating feelings" is almost a moot point if you accept the premise
that only you can allow someone to invalidate your feelings. If you don't
like it, don't allow it to happen.

 People are not going to agree about everything. That is a fact of life which
has been abundantly proved here. :-) In this conference, many of the noters
seem to be more tolerant of some ideas than others. This is not unexpected
due to the demographics of the conference. What needs to be stated is that
while we may not always agree with someone's opinion, they still have the
right to their opinion and the right to express it. Denigrating someone's
opinion because it does not jive with our own may make you feel good, but it
does nothing to change that person's opinion. 

 Now for the recursive test: Because someone states an opinion about someone
else's opinion (or feelings) it does not in any way affect that opinion's
validity. It is simply someone's idea regarding said opinion or feeling.
If I get very angry because someone wants to take my gun away, and someone
says that I am overreacting, that's fine. That's their opinion. Mine will
not change, and I will not allow their feelings to supercede my own. 

 The only way someone can invalidate your feelings or opinions is if you value
their feelings or opinions more than your own. (In the case of opinions
regarding verifiable facts, you may also be proven incorrect).

 The Doctah

    Re: .117
    
    I think the distinction between "feeling" and "opinion" is starting
    to get blurred.  Opinions are fair game for invalidation (even at
    the cost of hurting feelings).

    Yes.  One may say, "I feel the Copenhagen Interpretation of
    Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is correct." but it is *very*
    unlikely for one to have a purely emotional basis for the
    statement.
    
    						Ann B.

Re: opinions and feelings

 I am not convinced that they are all that different. In fact, in my handy
dandy American Heritage Dictionary, definition 5 for "feeling" is opinion.
Feelings, in the current context, means to me the gut level reaction to a
certain stimulus. Opinions mean to me thoughts or feelings regarding a certain
subject that are partly based upon facts, and partly based upon gut level
reactions. So I think that in terms of invalidation, they are sufficiently
similar to be treated the same.

The doctah

    re: .122
    
    However, definitions one through four (same source) are significantly 
    different.  Also, as the AMH defines "opinion" the notion of cognition
    runs through all three definitions.
    
    Steve

    re: 121
    
    Most psychological counseling therapies *do* make an important
    distinction between feelings and opinions.  I believe that it is
    out of these that the idea comes of "validating" someone's feelings:
    counselors attempt to validate the client's feelings without necessarily
    agreeing with the client's ideas or approving of the client's behavior!