Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I thought we'd done away with this FWO-FGD nonsense?  Sigh...
    
    Actually, I feel the same way about this conference - when men enter
    notes about their feelings, they often get abused and slammed by
    women, and told that they have no right to express an opinion -
    usually couched in language such as "please don't intrude".
    
    My fondest hope would be that both the women and the men of this
    conference would give up on pretending that they are natural
    adversaries and start to cooperate and communicate towards their
    common goals.
    
    Every time a woman blames her problems on "men", she is avoiding
    taking responsibility for her own life.  It's all to easy to just
    run away from your troubles - but you'll never rid yourself of them
    that way.  (This also applies to men who gripe about "women".)
    
    One thing that is very difficult - in notes as in real life - is
    to understand that sometimes someone only wants sympathy, not advice.
    We're always quick to advise and to judge.  But it's rarely clear
    what is wanted - I've seen many notes here that asked for opinions
    but then turned around and lamented that not everybody agreed with
    the author's original sentiments.
    
    Justine, do you really expect the men of this conference to just
    sit back and ignore what they feel are unjust accusations and
    generalizations about them?  Should this conference just turn into
    one big "pity party" for women?  That's the impression I often get.
    
    I'm sorry if this sounds like "just another harsh attack by a man".
    I care, I really do, it just pains me to see women trying to find
    new ways to avoid taking charge of their own life.  If I didn't
    believe in you and your cause, I wouldn't be here.
    
    			Steve

    Re: .2 (Steve Thompson)
    
    Well gee, Steve, I DID put my reply here rather than in the FWO
    note, so that those who insist on wearing blinders won't be
    disturbed.
    
    I'm sorry that you missed my point completely.  Perhaps I didn't
    express it well enough.  Let's try it a different way.
    
    1.  I am willing to respect the wishes of FWO notes, even though
    	I believe they are counterproductive.
    
    2.  If you ask for advice and opinions, you're going to get them.
    
    3.  If all you want is sympathy, you'd better make that clear,
        because most people (both women and men) are quick to advise.
    
    4.  A woman blaming her troubles on "men" is avoiding the real
    	issues.  Concentrating on the "war" means you divert your
    	energies from the true battle.  It's comforting to say it's
    	"someone else's fault", but the only one who can make a difference
    	in your life is YOU.
    
    5.  It's unreasonable to assault and demean men, and then to complain
    	when men take umbrage with it.
    
    Justine's note complained that men in this conference are often
    found complaining that certain things women write are sexist.  Is
    this supposed to be a surprise?  Or, as you are implying Steve,
    are men supposed to be dishonest just because this conference is
    about subjects related to women?  Why should a discussion on what
    goes on in this conference take place somewhere else?
    
    I take great pride in my personal integrity.  A part of that is
    that when I see something I think is unjust, I am not afraid to
    speak out about it, even if it isn't the "politically correct"
    thing to do.  I stand behind what I say, unlike some noters who
    always seem to distance themselves from their writings.  I don't
    go back and delete notes just because I took some heat for what
    I said (unless it is clear I made a mistake and the note is
    inappropriate, and I don't recall ever having to do that.)
    
    My weakness is that I automatically expect everyone else to have
    the same personal integrity that I feel I have, and I get sorely
    disappointed when that seems to not be the case.  I am always
    out there urging people, women and men, to assert control over
    their lives.  What keeps making me write notes like this here is
    the frequency in which I see women appearing to simply blame all
    their ills on "men".  It makes them feel good, sure, but does it
    actually solve anything?  No.
    
    I really like what Catherine Iannuzzo wrote in note 5.89 about
    intellectual honesty.  I think her note should be required
    reading for everyone.  (And I will enter it in the "hall of fame"
    note.)
    
    To me, intellectual honesty means standing up for yourself, refusing
    to give in to jingoism and taking responsibility for your own actions.
    
    Why is this so hard to swallow?
    
    					Steve

    I think .1-.3 are off the topic, which is a general discussion of 
    the number 174.
    
    174 is a nice enough number; it's 2*87, and 87 is a prime number, so 
    that's pretty significant. Add the digits, and you get 12; add them 
    and you get 3 - still more significant if you look at it right.
    
    Or maybe I missed something here. Perhaps, if this is supposed to be 
    a general discussion of TOPIC 174, a more descriptive title could be 
    supplied so we get some hint about the CONTENT of the discussion...?

    Steve, you touched a nerve. But I'm REALLY glad you put your note
    here.
    
    'Is WOMANNOTES just to be a "pity party"?'
    
    Gee, WHY NOT? 
    
    This is VERY hard for me to express without revealing things about
    my way of life which I don't consider subject for debate. But I
    will attempt this, hope that my point is clear. (Also, I should tell
    you that I deleted the first attempt.)           
    
    I've been practicing Buddhism for 5+ years. It does WONDERFUL things
    for me. But they're not easy to explain. I guess the fact is that
    I have some memories of how intolerant people can be about the fact
    that I participate... But, I repeat myself.
    
    At any rate, as a YWD (member of the Young Women's Division) in
    the Buddhist organization that I belong to, I have always noticed
    that the separation of sexes seemed very WRONG. (Even though,
    considering how boy-crazed most of us are, we certainly get more
    done this way. And I hear that the YMD are frequently lectured about
    what they are NOT here for...) But I've noticed this year, as I've
    developed close friendships with 3 different YMD, that the two
    different organizations seem to cater to some societal differences
    about how personal strength should be developed. So, I think less
    of the fact that I wish it were different, and I appreciate what
    it is. At any rate...
    
    In the chorus that I sing in, I remember getting REALLY bummed once.
    And my reaction was to switch gears and withdraw. The head of the
    2nd sopranos came over to where I was sitting and talked to me for
    a while. She heard me out, dried my tears and then just encouraged
    me to get up and try to get through the day and turn around whatever
    negativity I was feeling. We had to perform that afternoon, and
    I was one of the brightest people on the stage. I could feel people
    looking at ME for encouragement. And part of my enthusiasm was knowing
    that I had really made a personal break-through for my life by not quitting.
                                      
    But I DID get to have my pity party. 
    
    Another friend of mine, on the other hand, related his "never give
    up" experience in a YMD activity. He was auditioning for a brass
    band on Father's Day. The head of the band was talking about the
    fact that these guys had chosen to spend Father's Day auditioning
    and how he hoped that they still planned to spend time with their
    fathers. But this guy's father had just died two weeks ago. And
    he was REALLY bummed, especially by the preceeding speech. However,
    he stood at attention for a good several hours, without shedding
    a tear or saying a word about his pain. And he got a part in the
    band.
    
    I asked him if anyone came up to him or how people would have reacted
    if he had cried. And he spoke of a silent sympathy that he could feel
    from the other YMD that I KNOW I would have missed. But that not one
    man reached out physically to him.  However, the silent sympathy was
    all he needed for encouragement. 
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    I'm not saying this very well. But in our society, men and women
    are often used to different things. And I don't know that men are
    used to pity parties. Most women I know are used to needing AND
    bestowing them. And I think its QUITE appropriate that they would
    appear in this conference.
                             
    >    Every time a woman blames her problems on "men", she is avoiding
    >taking responsibility for her own life.  It's all to easy to just
    >run away from your troubles - but you'll never rid yourself of them
    >that way.  (This also applies to men who gripe about "women".)
    
    >it just pains me to see women trying to find new ways to 
    >avoid taking charge of their own life.
    
    
    It is VERY true, and a deep part of my religion, that even if something
    is not your "fault", its still your *responsibility* to resolve it, if
    it is manifesting itself in YOUR life or YOUR environment, and you're
    being affected by it. 
    
    But, this is what my faith teaches me, and it also teaches me that
    taking charge is a hard and painful lesson. Please re-read the joke
    about God making women stupid. Its priceless, in that it shows how
    equally HUMAN we are. People are going to arrive at the truth about
    responsibility at different points in their lives, and it can take
    from an instant to eternity to learn to act on this truth. Sounds
    like you've stumbled upon it already... please don't belittle anyone who
    hasn't or isn't acting on it yet; it detracts from what you've learned.
    The trick is not to bash people so that they will wake up, you might
    kill them in the process! But to share what you've learned in the
    hope that if it touches their life, they will awaken to their OWN
    reality. In other words, you cannot beat the truth into someone.
    You can only show how you've benefited from that truth. The rest
    is up to them.
                                         
    Sometimes, people seem to want women, and womannoters, to be more
    than human. Gee, that's such a tall order! I've been guilty of it
    enough times myself. I think its time I stopped. 
    
    This reminds me of Marion Zimmer Bradley's books. Ever notice how
    whenever she has a strong "Gloria Steinem" type heroine, there's often
    a strong "MRS. Schaefly" type character... whom the heroine simply
    cannot relate to but must learn to respect, often because the other
    woman has a quiet, unshakable sense of human dignity in her own
    element? It always shakes me up when she throws in those characters,
    because I want ALL the best characters to be "feminist" and for the
    Mrs. S types to dwindle... but they don't. Her books add a funny sense
    of reality. The world is not all one way, all women are not superhuman
    crusaders for justice and equality, and some women are QUITE successful
    at creating value within our current society. 
    
    I think we all can site examples of women whom we respect for the
    latter as well as the former. (I"m trying desperately to tie this all
    together!) Women seem to have the capacity to fall anywhere between
    these extremes or to simply be STRIVING to be somewhere within this
    range. So I guess in the end, I'm hoping to try, personally, to
    celebrate the humanness of women, from our ability to "bring home the
    bacon" to our knack for "fry[ing] it up in a pan" or which ever one
    we choose if we choose not to attempt both and to include our
    ability for both laughter and tears and anger. And while I'm busy
    recognizing how wonderfully, stupidly human we are, perhaps I can remember
    that men are too. 
                                                                
    Maybe you missed my point in all of this... but I think that a lot
    of us, not just Steve, are putting women and womannoters on an
    unrealistic pedestal, and feeling horribly disillusioned when we
    act human. When we snap, cry, rant, rave, judge, criticize or condemn.
    Or when we want pity parties. 
    
    Right now, I figure I should be equally happy about two things:
    human womannoters and superhuman moderators!   :-)
                                          
    
    ...I haven't exactly figured out what my point was. Anyone who wants
    to fill in the bottom line is welcome.
       
    Lauren Foster

    Re: .5 (Steve Thompson)
    
    You want to delete your notes again, Steve?  Don't let me stop you.
    Please excuse me if I don't join you.
    
    You seem to have missed the point of Paul Beck's humorous reply,
    which referred to the fact that this note's title implied that
    it was a discussion about the number 174 rather than the topic of
    note 174.  But that's ok - I forgive you. :-)
    
    Re: .6 (Lauren Foster)
    
    Lauren, thanks for talking about your experiences and beliefs. 
    You are quite right that people need to make up their own mind -
    I guess I haven't yet learned how to take the subtle approach.
    
    But perhaps I wasn't clear with my views on WOMANNOTES being a
    "pity party".  I agree 100% that very often one just wants a
    supportive ear, a shoulder to lean on.  Women seem more likely
    to look for sympathy than men, who typically have been taught that
    to show emotion is not something a "real man" does.  For many
    years, I kept all my troubles inside, and it poisioned me.  Once
    I learned how to open up, to look for help, my life really improved.
    
    In no way am I suggesting that women not look for just sympathy
    in writing a note.  In fact, I wish more would.  But what Justine
    writes about in 174 is asking for opinions and being upset that
    some of the opinions are not to her liking (this is how I read it.)
    
    The hardest notes to deal with are those in which a woman found
    herself in a bad situation, asks for opinions, but goes ahead to
    pre-judge the answer, often placing the blame for her problem on
    "men".  How do we deal with these?
    
    I would hope that WOMANNOTES can encompass both types - a sympathetic
    ear to bend AND a wide variety of opinions and advice when called
    for.  The problem is I often wonder if the author herself knows
    what it is she wants.
    
    Lastly, you are probably right about women being expected to be
    "superhuman".  I'm as guilty of this as anyone, and will see what
    I can do about it.
    

     Re: 174.0 (Justine Sullivan)
    
    I understand why you and others look for a "space" free of
    dissent, but, as I tried to indicate earlier, feel that if you
    are indeed looking for advice, and not just sympathy, that you're
    doing yourself a disservice by shutting out dissenting views.
    And by insisting that men's opinions are automatically unwanted,
    you unjustly insult all of us.
    
    				Steve

    Steve (Lionel),
    
    I find your notes about this subject to be extremely
    condescending. 
    
    Just because you seem to think that you have discovered some
    ultimate truths doesn't mean that we must all inevitably
    come to the same conclusions.
    
    	bruce

    ....which makes me wonder just exactly *whose* "pity party"
    this is.
    
    
    I *swore* I wouldn't reply to yet another note sidetracked by a
    male discussion of a closed issue.
    
    I am not a strong person.  :-|
    
    

    Re: .8
    
    No, but some of might have anyway.  I noticed it myself in the "no
    matter how women act in business, they're not going to get respect"
    note.  Can't be assertive, can't be conciliating, can't do anything
    without men looking down on it.  Fine!  Quit!  You can't anything,
    so you might as well give up.  Why kill yourself by repeatedly running
    headlong into a brick wall?  In fact, you're never going to be free
    of the domineering men, so why don't you just kill yourself now
    and save yourself a lifetime of grief and frustration?  (Disclaimer:
    caustic sarcasm.)
    
    It shows up in a lot of places and it's frustrating as hell.

    Steve,

    In .3 you complained that you `see women appearing to simply blame
    all their ills on "men".'  I would not reply to you on this matter,
    even though I believe you to be thoroughly wrong, except that you
    also wrote `I take great pride in my personal integrity.'.

    <esc>[?451h
    I have *N*E*V*E*R* seen any woman anywhere blame ALL her troubles
    on men.  As I would expect from any creature with enough brain
    cells to form coherent sentences, women perceive their problems
    as coming from 1. living in an entropic universe (168), 2. being
    mortal (127), 3. being human (5, 53, 116), 4. being biologically
    female (163, 170, 177 -- This is a biggie.), 5. being a particular
    individual (172), and 6. being in a particular situation (166), as
    well as finding themselves involved with male people.<esc>[?451l

    (In fact, the point of 174 is to be a place where a woman can ask
    "Is this all in my head, or did <event a> really occur because of
    <attitude x>?".  Women worry about this a lot.  (Do men?  I have no
    data.)  Validation is important, and most women don't get enough
    of it.  Therefore, a topic on requests for validation is useful, and
    is not a call for pity.  Now, given that women have entire sets of
    experiences which men do not experience (and it *is* true, and thus
    a valid "given"), it is not useful or True or necessary for a man to
    say "Well, *I* have never had that experience, (so it *must* be all
    in your head).".  Therefore, the topic on requests for validation
    has been marked FWO.)

    What I believe has [most] upset you [most recently] is the note on
    catcalls.  You [seem to] sincerely and deeply believe that if a
    woman adjusts her self and her behavior appropriately, then her
    problem with catcalls will go away.  Fine.  I have started to examine
    this belief in 155.148.  (Notice that I refer *only* to this situation.
    In the general case, adjusting one's self is indeed the best response.)

    							Ann B.

    It bothers me when some men take over a discussion and try to dilute
    it by comments that are either irrelevant or incorrect.  I have
    noticed that in certain instances it is effective to just ignore
    the individual and they do go away by one means or another.  
    
    And I have some sympathy for some men who have made an honest effort
    to be a part of the conference, have subcribed to the feminist issues
    and find that they are still outsiders in a group they want to work
    with and resolve those problems.
    
    There are many issues that are dear to my heart and I feel very
    comfortable discussing in this conference, there are many areas
    where the insight of strong individuals has raised my consciousness
    and I appreciate that.
    
    And I sometimes do not feel as I belong...here and it is 'some'
    women that make me feel that way.  And I have had 'some' women
    sidetrack discussions I have inititiated that were not popular feminist
    subjects.  
    
    I guess it doesn't bother me that much because I still read and
    contribute every now and again.  I have seen so much positive that
    I refuse to dwell on the negative.
    
    This subject is important and we are getting there....it just takes
    time...
    
    Time to get use to the medium we are using...and time for each of
    us to become part of the group.  Logic says we are just so much
    disk space.  But =wn= is a very cohesive group.  Everyone is welcome
    and I do not believe there is an agenda (especially one that would
    exclude men).  
    
    And it is true for us that the most vocal, the people with the most 
    time will tend to lead...
    
    I think that every oppressed group needs to go through a period
    where they can bring out the issues they have and receive a certain
    amount of sympathy.  I do not want to turn every issue in my life
    to one where I had no responsibility and there are instances where
    I would appreciate a gentle reminder that maybe a different approach,
    attitude or action could have resulted in a different result.
    
    I am rambling for my own benefit I guess...summarizing would be
    difficult...and yet it would be so nice if as someone else said
    that we could discuss these issues and not know the gender of the
    contributors.
    
      

    Re: .11 (Ann)
    
    There is a lot of truth in what you say.  It was a gross exaggeration
    to say that any woman blames all her trouble on men - though there
    have been a lot of notes that seem to blame many problems on men
    and so-called power demonstrations.  However, your point is well
    taken.
    
    I really need to stop expecting women to be any more rational or
    clear-thinking than men.  It's not generally true and I just get
    myself in trouble for believing it.  I still think that some of
    what I said is valid, but I won't push it further.
    
>    What I believe has [most] upset you [most recently] is the note on
>    catcalls.  You [seem to] sincerely and deeply believe that if a
>    woman adjusts her self and her behavior appropriately, then her
>    problem with catcalls will go away.  Fine.  I have started to examine
>    this belief in 155.148.  (Notice that I refer *only* to this situation.
>    In the general case, adjusting one's self is indeed the best response.)

    Excuse me?  I NEVER said this!  And in no way do I believe this
    even the tiniest bit!  I would appreciate pointers to text that
    led you to make this claim - perhaps what I said could be
    misinterpreted.  All I was taking issue with was the claims that
    catcalls were an expression of a man's power over a woman, but I
    fear that we got bogged down in semantics and I don't see any point
    in continuing that thought.  I was trying to suggest that the
    motivation of the men for catcalling was generally not what was
    claimed.  I did make a sociological comment that the behavior
    was randomly reinforced by some women, which is why it is so hard
    to get rid of.  Perhaps it was this you took as a suggestion
    that it was the woman's fault?  Sorry.....  What is needed is
    sociological reform of men's attitudes on a grand scale.
    
    
    I think that I will revise my expectations of this conference and
    put away my "lecturer's hat".  It didn't fit too well anyway.
    
    					Steve

    
    	I had to write something in this topic....it may not be clear
    or coherent but maybe some light will be shed somewhere.
    
    	I don't label myself in any way.  My viewpoints on different
    topics vary according to the topic.  Sometimes I'm ultra conservative,
    as in high defense budgets.  Sometimes I'm ultra liberal, I'm
    pro-choice.  The point here being that sometimes in this conference
    I don't really feel like I belong because I'm not really a part
    of any of the different types of "groups"(for lack of a better word)
    that sometimes seem to emerge on opposite sides of a discussion.
    I don't know if this has anything to do with male/female or whatever,
    but I felt that I needed to say that and since this note is looking
    for support (sort of, I think) I decided to put it here.
    
    	My next point, kind of unrelated, perhaps addresses the issue
    of this particular note more directly.  I have no brothers and I
    lived in an all-women dorm in college.  I find that I relate very
    well to other women and I have some very close friendships with
    them.  I also have a number of very close male friends, whom I love
    a lot, but I don't have as many as I do women and the relationship
    is different. What I'm trying to do is to come down on the side
    that says that it's not only nice, but necessary, to sometimes have
    a discussion with "women only".  It's kind of hard to do in the
    files, since everyone can read them, but at least if no males respond,
    women can half-believe that it's just women discussing something.
    There are some things that I just don't want to tell my guy friends.
    There are some things that I won't tell them.  But I have a real
    need to tell some of these things to my women friends.  In a way
    it's prejudice and I'm sorry if that offends anyone.  It's hard
    to explain, and I'm not sure that it's even possible.
    
    	So, while I feel that it's good to have men in this file, I
    belive that there are times when women should have notes where only
    women respond.  It's only my opinion, but I hold it very strongly
    so please don't try to change it.  I only entered this note to go
    "on the record".
    
    	GO IRISH!
    
    	Rachel

    Steve,

    Here is my attempt to recreate my chain of reasoning.  (By the way,
    I very much resent the demands by some men, which I see in this file
    all too often, that I and every other woman perform great gobs of
    research in order to prove a point with which that man disagrees.
    Today I am in the mood to see your request for pointers in this
    light.)

    In your note 176.3, you wrote:

"   4.  A woman blaming her troubles on "men" is avoiding the real
    	issues.  Concentrating on the "war" means you divert your
    	energies from the true battle.  It's comforting to say it's
    	"someone else's fault", but the only one who can make a difference
    	in your life is YOU.                                                "

    That is the specific.  The general is that in your notes 176.1 and
    176.3, you seem to be reacting to having had one of your hot buttons
    pressed very recently.  (Note opportunity for misunderstanding here.)

    Now, what topic could I recall that had had  that effect on you?  My
    immediate thought was of topic 155, "Catcalls!!!".  Your responses
    there were replies .99, .131, .139, .143, and .145.  Clearly, you
    were becoming more involved with it.  (Note opportunity for
    misunderstanding here.)

    Your reply .131 ("Strutting") was given as a response to Peggy's .129,
    and your initial comment was:

"   Wow - catcalls are destroying our planet.  Let's see now...  "

    Clearly, this is an example of heavy sarcasm.  Clearly, you disagreed
    with Peggy's assertion.  You then went on to offer you own assertion
    indicating how harmless catcalling really was:  "[C]atcalls are really
    just a human version of the "strutting" behavior seen in animals".

    Here I must fall back on facts.  I know that strutting or other
    display behavior is found in *male* animals only.  Further, according
    to my dictionary, the root of strut is the Old English strutian, which
    means "to stand out stiffly".  (Dear, dear!  This is all very sexual.)
    This behavior is used to obtain dominance either over other males or
    over females.  In either case, its purpose is to win procreative
    opportunities for the strutter.

    I assumed that you knew this because I assume you are not stupid.
    (Note opportunity for... oh, forget it. ;-)  Therefore, from that
    line of reasoning, I believed that you were denying something which
    you knew to be true; i.e., that in the Darwinian world the power to
    procreate is the ultimate power, and that these strutting men were
    attempting to exercise that power.  (Note opportunity for
    misunderstanding here.)

    Lastly, at the end of your reply .143, you wrote "Can you agree that
    the balance of power depends on the attitude of the woman?"

    Voil�!  This sentence says to me, ~If this woman who objects to
    catcalls could just develop the attitude of those women who like
    catcalls [who were mentioned earlier], then she would feel she had
    the power in the situation, and catcalls would no longer be a problem
    for her.~  (Note that this conclusion may indeed be the result of
    making the most of too many opportunities for misunderstanding.
    Alternatively, it just *might* be what you think when you are not
    in your left brain.)

    						Ann B.

    Re: .16
    
    Thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning.  I'm sorry
    if you felt put upon - you had made a statement about my beliefs
    that was untrue (in my eyes), based on, you said, something I
    wrote, so I wanted to know what it was I said so I could avoid
    future misunderstandings.  I don't like it when someone thinks
    negatively about me for the wrong reasons - I'm sure there are
    enough right reasons to go around.
    
    Trying to "correct the record" is off the topic of this note, so
    I'll send you mail.  I'll just say here that you did misunderstand
    me and came to some incorrect conclusions.  I appreciate your
    saying so, rather than just quietly stewing.  (And if anyone else
    is troubled by something I said, I'd be happy to discuss it offline.)
    
    And no, the catcalls note was NOT the hot button that got pressed
    - actually, it was the earlier note on women's assertiveness in
    the workplace that got me thinking about this, and Justine's
    note in 174 caused it to spill out.  Maybe I should have started
    a new topic for it, but I'll drop it now.

    				Steve

    Perhaps it's time to define a few terms or conventions, so we can
    have ease of expression without miscommunication.  For instance:
    
    $ DEFINE MEN -
    "Lots of men, both past and present, but not all men everwhere"
    
    Or, since there's the generic <ethnic>, perhaps we could have the
    generic <men> and <women>.
    
    I'm not fond of generalizations, but when you're discussing history
    or society, all the qualifiers can get cumbersome.

    <--(.18)
    
    Chelsea, I really like your idea!!  It really might save some hassles
    in here.
    
    Anyone else in favor of establishing three new conventional terms:
    <people>, <women>, and <men> for use when we don't want to write
    a paragraph stinking of legalese?
    
    						=maggie 

Back in the 1960's someone (Lenny Bruce or Paul Krassner) said
"Ralph Bunche -- he's allright, he used to be a nigger."

    RE: .7
    
    Steve, perhaps I don't understand the purpose of WOMANNOTES, but
    I thought the primary purpose was NOT dissent, but as a forum to
    air current and ongoing problems and concerns in a concerned,
    compassionate, and caring enviornment, tempered with genuine warmth
    and support from other members of the community--be they women or
    men.  I have tried to phrase my replies with this in mind for both
    sexes.  I believe it is possible to be both honest and relatively
    tactful at the same time.  I don't make it a habit to slam men,
    any more than I make it a practice to slam women.  We are all people
    with feelings, pain, responsibilities, and needs.  Just because
    we can't see the face at the other end of the terminal doesn't mean
    that they might not be caused pain or take offense at our "honesty".
    When that happens, it may be wise to reconsider our personal version
    of "honesty" and find out if we have the courage to rephrase it
    in a gentler context but still get our point across with our honesty
    intact. The quote by Ben Franklin comes to mind, "A person convinced
    against their will, is of the same opinion still." (Paraphrased)
    
    My greatest hope for this file is that we can have a better
    understanding between all its members.  With everyone's help, I
    think we can.                            
    
    Barb

    Re: .21
    
    Barb, I couldn't agree more.  Like in all endeavours, it's the
    squeaky wheels who get the attention and reactions.  It's also
    a chore for many of us to be neutral and fair - it's all too easy
    to slide into generalizations and insults.
    
    I think the key for all of us might be to try to look beyond the
    words to the ideas and feelings, and think about what the author
    is experiencing that prompted them to write what they did.  I'm
    going to try hard to do this - to assume good intentions, even if
    the phrasing upsets me, and see if it helps.
    
    Apparently, I have a writing style that really irritates people
    who don't know me - I'm not quite sure what it is about it that
    causes this, but I will try to modify it.  So I will also try
    harder to think about how my words would be taken by someone
    who is unsure where I am "coming from".
    
    
    As for the suggestion to use tokens such as <men> and <women>, I
    share Martin's skepticism.  When pressed, someone who makes one
    of these generalizations is typically quick to respond "of course,
    I didn't mean ALL men (or all women)," but it is usually apparent that
    the author DID think of it that way.  Am I to suppose that if I
    wrote, for example, "<women> don't know how to change a tire", that I
    would be excused for having used the alternate form, even though
    it is obvious to all of us that SOME women DO know how to change
    tires?  I'd rather stay away from such word games and try harder
    to be fair.
    
    					Steve

    
    RE. 21 --- I agree with what you say, and good quote it reminded
    me of the reason never to give advice: a fool won't listen and
    a wise man doesn't need it  (hope the man in there doesn't
    offend anyone -- i don't like to neuter old sayings)
    
    i have found that getting aggressive and angry over discussions
    really doesn't help anything.  it just makes the person being 
    attacked all the more likely to cling to their viewpoint just as
    aggressively.
    
    Bob

    I disagree, Steve, that writers mean ALL men or ALL women. For
    some odd reason, many men seem to take as wholesale indictment of
    the gender, statements which are *clearly* not meant to be so.
    
    This has happened even when the phrase (which I very much like;
    thanks, Laura) "not ALL men, but ALWAYS men" is put as a 
    ...well...disclaimer, if you will.
    
    My god, has anyone *really* said anything in this, or V1, even
    remotely resembling "All men do so-and-so"? No, I don't believe
    they have; however, I believe people's remarks have been
    misinterpereted to have said that. Actually, I *know* remarks
    have been misinterpreted that way, because I was personally involved
    in such a situation, and how anyone with the brains to read English
    prose could've read it that way is a mystery.
    
    I don't think we need a convention for "some" "many" or "most" -
    no one has ever said "all".
    
    --DE
    

    I think I agree with Steve that most unquantified uses of a word
    like "men", "women", "Americans", "blacks", etc. ought to be
    avoided, simply because they can so easily produce
    misunderstandings.  They tend to stereotype; and when even when the
    stereotype is valid in general, it oughtn't to be surprising if
    members of the stereotyped population who don't fit the stereotype
    take it amiss.
    
    Let's consider a few hypothetical examples:
    
    1.  It bothers me when Orflings salivate on my clothing.
    
        All I am saying is that *some* Orflings have salivated on
        my clothing, and that it bothers me.  This is a simple fact,
        and ought to be unobjectionable; but even so, this can easily
        slip by connotation into
        
    2.  It bothers me that Orflings salivate on my clothing.
    
        Suddenly we have a universal statement about Orflings; and
        even the assertion that of course not *all* Orflings do this
        does not make it substantially different from
        
    3.  The problem with Orflings is that they salivate on people's
        clothing.
        
        This one, of course, is a blatant generalization, and any
        non-salivating Orfling would be entitled to be offended.
        
    Is it not worth the cost of a few extra words in our writing, some
    inconvenience, some extra care in our phrasing, if we can produce
    notes that cannot be misunderstood, instead of having to rely on the
    our readers to understand what we "obviously" meant?  Why not say,
    "I have had Orflings salivate on my clothing, and it can be a very
    upsetting experience"? 
    
    Of course, no amount of care can avoid offending someone who is
    seriously determined to be offended. But that's another problem.
    
    	-Neil 

    Re: .24, .25
    
    Thanks, Neil, for expressing better than I could how I feel
    about one aspect of the issue.
    
    Dawn, I'm curious about your attachment to the phrase "not ALL men,
    but ALWAYS men".  Can you tell me what additional information and
    sentiment is expressed by the "but ALWAYS men"?  Sure, it means
    "never women" - but by saying this, aren't you implying that being
    male is a reason for the behavior?
    
    However, what I'm really wondering is if you understand that you're
    asking us (the men who protest the generalizations) to justify our
    feelings about your using language that, to us, treats us as
    a uniform group rather than as individuals.  Why should we have
    to any more than you should have to justify your feelings to us?
    We don't like it.  Please stop.  Thanks.
    
    					Steve

    FWIW: Male noter here...
    
    Well, I've been reading this note, and its companion note for a
    bit.  I expect I will get flammed for some of what I have to say,
    but so be it.
    
    I think that this forum is great, as are many others.  The only
    time that I have entered reply's is when I felt that an error or
    misjudgement has been made or when I truly wanted to learn something
    (eg: my note on feminisim) or when I *really* felt that I could
    add something of worth.  (I will also admit that I have entered
    a comment or two in the form of a flame because I felt 'picked on'
    and attempted to 'defend' myself...:-|)
    
    Anyway, here's my 2 cents...
    
    I agree that women should have a place where they can converse,
    confortable that they can speak their mind, men should too.  I believe
    this to be the main purpose of these two conferences.  Due to corp.
    policy gender restriction can not be enforced so the honor system
    has been installed.  Almost worked too, and maybe it's not too late.
    
    When my wife wants to talk with her girl friends I bow out, out
    of curtisy.  If I happen to over hear something on a subject of
    interest I ask permission to offer my opinion before butting it.
     She offers me the same respect, not because she is my wife, but
    because she knows how to practise common curtisy.  If she wants me
    involved she will let me know, if not I can figure that out.
    
    I am going to attempt to adopt such a noting style here, as I think
    it is what is desired and what will help this conference become
    as productive as all would like.  This is not to say that I shall
    abstain, but rather I will reason if this or that topic is ment
    for the inclusion of *my* opinion.  If I find that I all too often
    misjudge the intent of a note, thus causing women to become frustrated
    with this conference, I will bow out WITHOUT ANY HARD FEELING, as
    this conferences success for women is more important than my
    entertainment or edification.  (the inverse, I feel, is true of
    MENNOTES.)
    
    A few more things.  Many *people* have commented on how important
    it is to share *all* views, both male and female.  This is true,
    but is not, as far as I can see, the reason for THIS conference
    to exist.  This is a conference *by* and *for* women.  While a man
    may be invited to *read* "Our Bodies, Ourselves", you can bet men
    weren't invited to *write* it!  Likewise, MENNOTES is a conference
    *by* and *for* men.  Probably a better way of describing it would
    be to say that WOMENNOTES is about interrelations and discussion
    between women.  If a topic *really* needs the input of both genders,
    as determined by the AUTHOR, a better place for it may be HUMAN
    RELATIONS, as that is, specifically, gender free.
    
    Also, if I may put my foot in my mouth... ;-)  I believe that .26
    said something like: "men as a group are rather insensitive...",
    of course 'we' are!  We are raised to be so, and women are raised
    to be more sensitive (Generalization alert!!  my opinion!).  I have
    also noticed (and back this up with comments from a counseler) that
    the LOUDER one objects to a generalization or a sterotyping the
    more insecure that person is.  If someone says "All men are rude",
    and I object LOUDLY, could it be that I too beleive it to be true
    and don't want the word to get out, or maybe I am afraid that people
    will look at me and 'see' a rude person because I *didn't* object.
    I know all men are not rude.  The fictional author of that comment
    knows that.  Pointing it out simply shows that she got my goat...
    
    Finally, if it really becomes a problem 'baring ones soul' in this
    conference because of the intrusion of men, I would like to suggest
    that a sister conference to this be created as a RESTRICTED conference
    where MEMBERS ONLY can read/write.  This would allow you complete
    control, freedom and comfort.  I would not like to see something
    like that *replace* this conference, as the only way *men* will
    get 'better' is to understand women, and the only way for *women*
    to get 'better' is to understand men.
    
    This may sound sexist, but it's not intended as such, but I can
    'hear' many women saying "Oh, but I *do* understand men", and then
    enter a note saying "How can you say something like that!??!". 
    You don't *really* "understand", do you?
    
    Well, now that I got that off my chest, on with the noting!
    jim
    

    Ever since the file started I have been a reader/writer in Black
    notes. Sometimes there will be notes entered in that file that
    are very negative about white people. Remarks such as their smiles
    hide a lie, they are never to be trusted, that a Black who is
    friends with a white person is kidding themself. When I read such
    comments I can understand more how men feel at times in this file.
    When you know inside that you are not 'the enemy' it can be very
    painful when people write as if you were.
    
    Personally, with the exception of notes where the author is clearly
    dealing with what is for her very sensitive material, I welcome mens
    opinions and input. 
    
    Bonnie

    in re .28
    
    to have a restricted non work related conference is against corporate
    policy.
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator
    

    Re: .28 (Jim Flis)
    
>    Likewise, MENNOTES is a conference  *by* and *for* men.  

    Sorry - as a co-moderator of MENNOTES, I must respectfully disagree.
    MENNOTES is a conference *by* people, *for* people, and *about*
    men.
    
    Jim, clearly you were not around for the drawn-out and sometimes
    destructive arguments about creating a woman-only conference or
    the FWO notes.  You may want to go back (to V1, mostly) and see
    what went on.
    
    You would seem to believe that it is the sex of the author that
    is the relevant factor in where a note belongs.  I cannot possibly
    disagree more.
    
    (Let me remind people, though, that I have always respected the
    request for "no men", even though it hurts.)
    
    				Steve

    RE:  .31
    
>   You would seem to believe that it is the sex of the author that
>   is the relevant factor in where a note belongs.  I cannot possibly
>   disagree more.

    I agree that the sex of the author is not an absolutely relevant
    factor.  I believe the type of response (critical, supportive,
    belligerant, etc) is a relevant factor in some discussions.  However,
    I've also observed a strong correlation between the sex of a noter and
    the type of response.
    
    Nancy

    Re: .27
    
    >However, what I'm really wondering is if you understand that you're
    >asking us (the men who protest the generalizations) to justify our
    >feelings about your using language that, to us, treats us as
    >a uniform group rather than as individuals.
    
    Men are not the only ones generalized, here or anywhere else.  I
    also dislike generalizations.  I dislike oversimplification.  This
    does not mean I dislike simplification.  This does not mean that
    I am all for complexity.  Generalization is a necessary tool,
    especially when discussing things in a historical or societal context.
    People *think* in generalizations (engineers, women, feminists,
    married couples, joggers) because, without generalizations, it would
    be difficult to think at all.  No one can think of 100 individuals
    unless they also use 'individual' as a generalization.  It is
    impossible to hold 100 personalities in your mind at once.
    
    So, the trick is to use simplification without falling into the
    trap of oversimplification.  Generalizations are used to say "lots
    of <x> but not necessarily all <x>."  If we all recognize and accept
    this, we can use generalizations without harming communication.
    The context of the generalizations should convey what criteria are
    used to group the individuals.  Usually it will be some kind of
    behavior or attitude.  We are all intelligent people and we all
    realize that generalizations do not hold for everyone.  We just
    have to trust that everyone else here -- like the author -- realizes
    that as well.  (I'm not terribly good at this myself, so it's going
    to be tricky.)

This originally appeared in Dear Abbey and was entered
originally in Mennotes.

    
    Men, Women locked in the prison of stereotypes.
    
    Equality Day
    
      For every woman who is tired of acting weak when she is strong,
    there is a man who is tired of appearing strong when he feels
    vulnerable;
      
      For every woman who is tored of acting dumb, there is a man who
    is burdened with the constant expectation of knowing everything;
    
      For every woman who is tired of being called an "emotional female,"
    there is a man who is denied the right to weep and to be gentle;
    
      For every woman who is called unfeminine when she competes, there
    is a man for whom competition is the only way to prove his masculinity;
    
      For every woman who is tired  of being a sex object, there is
    a man who must worry about his potency;
    
      For every woman who feels "tied down" by her children, there is
    a man who is denied the full pleasure of shared parenthood;
    
      For every woman who is denied meaningfull employment or equal
    pay, there is a man who must bear full financial responsibility
    for another human being;
      
      For every woman who was not taught the intracacies of an automobile,
    there is a man who weas not taught the satisfactions of cooking;
    
      For every woman who takes steps toward her own liberation, there
    is a man who finds the way to freedom has been made a little easier.
    
    
    

    Thank you, Bonnie!

    re: .24
    
    Dawn,
    
    I got the not all men but always men from Alix Dobkin.  Just want
    to make sure credit is given where credit is due.  But it's a great
    saying, n'est ce pas? (that is the only thing I remember from french
    101).
    
    Regards,
    
    Laura
    

    are there things that are not all women but always women?
    
    Bonnie

re: .34
    
    I'm wondering who has denied men  the full pleasure of parenthood?
    Who is forcing men to be the sole support of someone else?
    
    The rules of patriarchy were designed to keep women in the control
    of men and to give men all the advantages.  And the patriarchy was
    developed by men (not all men but always men).  
                        
    I can't imagine that any women who is trying to raise children wouldn't
    welcome more participation from the fathers of all these children.
    But for all the fathers who are delinquent in child support payments,
    etc. obviously someone is holding a gun to their heads telling them
    not to send those support checks.  Poor fellows.
    
    No doubt that men are subject to behaving in a certain way because
    it is the expected standard of behavior, but they are their own
    jailers in this case.  I do not agree that when women take a step
    toward liberation, men get closer to liberation too.  
    
    If women getting out from under the power of men was such a great
    and joyouse experience for men and one that was going to make them
    'free' why is there such resistence to this change.  Why are
    'liberated' women put down, still, in this society.  Why are their
    men who try to incite conflict within women's political organizations
    by saying, 'oh if you belong to THAT organization then it means
    you're a man hating dyke, (remember the early days of NOW), etc.,
    or how women have been systematically kept out of decent paying
    professions and jobs so we have been forced to rely on others (men)
    for economic survival.  
    
    I provide the sole support for another adult, and no one is forcing
    me to do it.  I find that statement insulting to all the single
    parents in this file who happen to be women  providing for their
    children.  No  one is forcing them to do that, but perhaps they
    do it out of love? 
    
    My father was the sole support of my mother and his two children.
    I got the impression from him that he did it out of love.  I knew
    damn well that he hated the neck-tie and the wing tip shoe routine,
    that suits were dreadful in the summer, especially when the
    air-conditioning wasn't working on the commuter train, which was
    almost all the time, but he did it because he wanted all of us to
    have certain advantages that his income could provide.  ANd he did,
    very much so, appreciate  my mother's  real work and real contributions
    to the whole process, the clean clothes that were always in his
    drawers and closet, the meals ready when he came home at night,
    the fact that my mother took care of all the household expenses,
    made sure that money was saved for our educations and for family
    vacations.  My father, because of how my mother took care of all
    the other things, was able to concentrate on his job and be successful.
    He was very much aware of my mother's critical contribution to the
    family's success.  Can Dear Abbey put a dollar  value on  that,
    or isn't it worth anything because my mother didn't bring home her
    own paycheck.  
      

re: .38

Your note brought flooding back the shock I had when I read a NYTimes Mag
article on the non-election of Ferraro about a week after the event. Women
(women I say!) were saying how a woman couldn't be a leader and a VP, how they
knew they couldn't hold up in difficult situations and not cry, so of course
other women couldn't, etc.

Darn, I don't _care_ about enlisting the men. Let's get the rest of the women.
Since I firmly believe it's in their interests, if I'm right, it'll be cake
:-).

There's a lot of new-phobia in all of us. Change is scary stuff.
	Mez

Although patriarchal role playing limits both men and women, there can 
be no denying that the male role is one designed to facilitate the use 
[and abuse] of power, and the female role is designed to facilitate 
submission.  Lacking the freedom to cry in public cannot be weighed
against lacking the freedom to get a good-paying job, be free of sexual
harassment, or control one's own body. 

    Re: .38
    
    >And the patriarchy was developed by men
    
    There's the key -- *was* developed.  It has been supported over
    the centuries by both men and women.  It is a well-ingrained social
    structure.  Men can be trapped by the structure as easily as women.
    The problem is inertia.  That's why men are also freed when women
    make progress toward liberation, because the women are helping to
    break up the momentum of inertia.  And it works just as well the
    other way.

    I am married and happily so, however I wonder who invented
    marriage and to what purpose.
    
    Go back to cave days and picture this, the male is a bit
    stronger and developes hunting skills, and his role becomes
    protector of the women and children.  Did they have marriage?
    I do not think so, however I was not there then, so I have
    no answer.
    
    Some where in time the need has been reduced and still
    the concept of marriage and family continues, is it for
    good or bad, who can say.
    
    I like having my wife at home when I come home but, finances
    dictate that she work, and she is now on second shift, and
    we only see eachother on the weekends now, I let her sleep
    in the mornings, and she lets me lie in bed when she comes
    home at 2:30 in the mornings.
    
    Who makes up the rules?
    
    Dave
    

    Granted, both men and women support the patriarchy.
    
    I have noticed something, however. If someone makes a racist
    remark, women and men are willing to say something to the 
    "remarker" about it.
    
    I have never heard a sexist remark made by a man, to which
    another man reacted negatively by saying something to the
    remarker. In other words, I've never heard one man call another
    man on saying or doing something sexist.
    
    Many men in conversation with women, seem quite willing to acknowledge
    the sexism in a situation, commiserate with the woman, etc. Yet,
    they seem reluctant to tell another man that what he did was sexist,
    inappropriate, objectifies women, etc.           
    
    Since we "all" support it, don't we "all" have to try to withdraw
    our support?
    
    --DE
    
    
    

Since I inadvertently entered this in the FWO discussion (Note 174),
I am putting it in the FGD string. I've deleted my 174.20.
    
It is a reply to Note 174.19       
   
  Alan   
    
               <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 174.20      FWO: Woman to Woman Sanity Check, Advice, Etc.         20 of 27
FDCV13::ROSS                                         53 lines  19-SEP-1988 14:25
                          -< Here's One For Starters >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RE: .19
    
Dawn, does the note, reprinted below, qualify? I also take issue with
your statement that "women (not ALL women) were trying to make a point
about an *attitude*" (on the part of men). 
    
I think you might mean a *perceived-attitude*, since a person cannot
really know what another's actually is, unless the attitude is stated
out loud. Because a person chooses to maintain a belief, doesn't make
the belief necessarily true.     
   
Also, within that Note string - 60.* - there were some opinions that
men walked behind a woman while ascending stairs, for the purpose     
of looking up her skirt.
    
I can categorically state this is not true for me. I tend to hang around
the gratings over subway systems for my up-the-skirt-watching endeavors.
                            
   Alan
    

    ***************************************************************************
               
    <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 60.80                      "Lady" vs "Woman"                      80 of 122
REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet."              20 lines   5-AUG-1988 10:04
                            -< An attitudinal one. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    John,
    
    Nothing, per se.  However, when a man makes a big show of racing
    around and opening a door for a woman, it does [sometimes] look
    like he is thinking, "Here, weak, stupid woman.  I will work this
    door fastener for you which you do not have the brains to operate,
    and then I will swing open this dweat, heavy door which you do not
    have the strength to open or the stamina to keep open."
    
    Not an agreeable thought, is it?
    
    Also, many of us remember that it was used as an argument against
    equality:  "Well, we can ignore all these clamoring women, because
    they really want us to open doors and hold chairs for them."  Why
    a woman would rather get fifty-nine cents on the dollar and have
    an occasional door opened for her instead of being paid the full
    dollar, and *tipping* whoever opened the door for her was a question
    not to be asked.
    
    							Ann B.
                                                             

Since I inadvertently entered this in the FWO discussion (Note 174),
I am putting it in the FGD string. I've deleted my 174.22.
    
It is a reply to Note 174.21 (by Dawn Evans, since deleted).
    
  Alan              
    
               <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 174.22      FWO: Woman to Woman Sanity Check, Advice, Etc.         22 of 32
FDCV13::ROSS                                         10 lines  19-SEP-1988 14:49
                              -< Does It Follow? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RE: .21
    
    > I believe that 99% of the time, what we feel is the attitude behind
    > an action, *is indeed* the attitude.
    
    Dawn, so when (many, not all) men in this file feel that the attitude
    of (many, not all) women in this file is anti-male, then this must,
    indeed, be their attitude? 
    
      Alan 

    Fine, Alan.  Now I can merge my afterthought with my response.
    
    No.  The ability to *correctly* perceive the attitude behind an
    action depends very much on being able to see, hear, even smell
    and feel the event or set of events.  Words on a screen are in
    no way as good as being there.  This calls to mind one of the
    best lines I ever read.  It is from _A_Connecticut_Yankee_in_King_
    _Arthur's_Court_ by Mark Twain.  Hank describes how a woman gave
    him a look of gratitude, then gives up on describing the look:
    
    "Words are but painted fire; the look is the fire itself."
    
    As you just proved with your re�terated misunderstanding of my
    note.
    
    For the record:  I was thinking of two young men I dated in college.
    One was a clumsy puppy, and he'd race around, and open a door for
    me -- because he'd been taught that that was polite.  That was
    fine.  Another was more mature, even sophisticated.  Read that as
    supercilious.  I did not like *his* attitude when he opened doors
    for me.
    
    You may quite legitimately claim that you don't know any men like
    him -- he worked at IBM quite happily for many years.
    
    							Ann B.

    For those of you who do not want the door opened for you, and
    if you consider that action an insult, then just tip the door-
    opening offender, and continue on as tho that person were a 
    servant or employee who was doing that as a job.
    
    I as a male open doors for females when it is Convenient, I
    would not hasten to do something awkward to do so.  However
    if a male or female is approaching with a burden, I will attempt
    to get the door even if that takes some physical jockeying.
    
    And I have enjoyed having females open the door when I have
    something in my hands.
    
    Courtesy never hurt anyone, If I were offended by an action 
    by another person, I would attempt to talk with the person,
    and let them know my feelings, and thank them for the time
    that the "offending action" had taken.
    
    Dave

    ...and not to beat the deceased equine, here, but: No one in this
    file has slammed anyone for making a *courteous* gesture, with a
    *courteous* attitude.
    
    --DE
    

    "I never see evil when I don't look for it. When I look for evil
    I see it everywhere."
                            I think I just made a quote....
    
    Anyway,
    
    This is the way I sometimes imagine some of the females that note
    in this conference. I sense such hostility and anger that I honestly
    can say that I hope I never have to work with some of the women
    who have lashed out so strongly. I find it hard to believe that
    so many women have been so mistreated by men that they feel the
    world would be better without us. 
    
    Why is it that there has to be a sanity check for women only? Why
    does there have to be a sanity check? Why is there such a need for
    support? Does this need for feminist support suggest that there
    is weakness? I am not bashing, I'm asking questions so please take your
    fingers off the Hot Buttons. Why does one lash out at another and
    then run for support? Is it to get approval, a sense of right? Or
    is the sanity check really just a way to get in a few choice cheap
    shots and dump some hostility off one's chest? Please understand
    that I'm trying hard to understand why there is such hostility toward
    my gender. Is it insensitivity by men as a gender, by individuals (m)
    to individuals (f) that has been interperted to include everyone? 
    
      I find that the harder I try to be sensitive to women about certain
    issues the more I fumble and misque, and open my self to attack that
    really makes me become bitter. Let me give an example. While in
    a general discussion with two women, I inadvertently used the words
    "you girls". I was immediately attacked (viciously, I must add)
    by one of them (a Pers. Cons.) and I retreated and apologized. Being
    ever wary of the same mistake, the conversation lost its balance
    and interest. As I was trying to end the conversation (the other
    female was persuing the subject matter) I said "girls" again because
    I was trying not to say it. Immediately, I was chastized and verbally
    assaulted and the woman came out of her seat to emphasize her point.
    I again apologized but that wasn't enough, and she had to make sure
    that she got in the last shot before she let it die. The other female
    through this whole episode was laughing histerically. By this time
    I was angry that the women had lashed at me so visciously and thought
    it the proper response for her to make. I ask if the roles were
    reversed and she had said the word "boy" and I had reacted the way
    she did, what would the result have been? Would I be considered
    to be overreacting? Touchy? Was she right in her response to me?
    Would it not have been better if she had just said "hey, wrong word
    again!"? or something similar?
    
    Maybe this is not in the context of this note about a sanity check,
    but I wonder this: Why is it that one took word "girl" so personally
    while the other would not support her and laughed at the whole event?
    
    Maybe I need a sanity check?
    
    Ken
    
    Moderators: If this doesn't belong here, please move or delete or
    whatever. I hope that some answers can enlighten me.

    Ken,
    
    Well, perhaps it's because people write badly and read worse.
    
    For example, in your note, you described a situation and stated
    that both women in it were hostile to you.  Yet when you got
    down to details, one of those "hostile" people was laughing
    hysterically at the other one!  Presumably because the laugher
    found the scolder's behavior towards you to be outrageous.
    So, you wrote it wrong.  Now, if you, who were there, could get
    it wrong, how much more bollixed up could a reader skimming it get?
    
    (I suspect you would find, if you went back and asked, that the
    situation of a-man-calls-you-girl-and-you-respond had cropped up
    for those two earlier that very day, and you got a cumulative
    effect.)
    
    Now, on your original question...  What is being talked about in
    this note is not what note 174 is supposed to be about, so you're
    facing a confusion there.  What 174 is *supposed* to be for, is
    for a woman to write, "<X> happened.  I feel like it happened
    because I was a [adjective] woman.  Am I crazy to think this?"
    This would be followed by lengthy hashings and clarifications
    and junk, which would boil down to "No, you're right." or "Well,
    you're mistaken, because if you look at it from <angle Y>, it
    makes perfect sense." or both.  (The last case is most likely.)
    
    Does this help?
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Please don't expect a response from me until Monday at
    least.  My cluster, group, and self are moving to Westford over
    the weekend, and REGENT is going down in an hour.

    Thanks Ann, that's exactly what I was asking....
    
    Gad that was easy.
    
    Ken