Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    I am saddened by Laura's decision.  I dislike seeing abusive or
    ignorant notes here also (though I'd respectfully disagree that
    its *always* men who offer them).  Laura, and all of us, must of course
    each choose for ourselves whatever level of participation is right.
     
    Maggie recently noted elsewhere that the worst of the abusers
    seem to have left us, and wasn't it nice to see their backs.
    I agree...but evidently those of us who remain are still sometimes
    insensitive.  Perhaps we can take Laura's declaration as a reminder.
    Good luck in your energy levels, Laura.
    
    DougO
    

    
    
    And the 'battle of the sexes' continues.  Frankly I don't
    understand women who constantly blame men for abuse, discord,
    insensitivity and/or ignorance.  Believe me, men haven't cornered
    the market on those attributes!  
    
    Within each gender there will be people (very important word there,
    people) who agree, disagree, argue, support, understand, belittle,
    empathize and sometimes simply ignore, other people's opinion. 
    I find it difficult to believe that only men are capable of being
    negative, and only women are capable of being understanding.  That's
    certainly not my impression of the real world.
    
    I guess the question(s) I would have are:  why does the gender of
    the noter matter?  Why would a dissenting opinion be easier to
    swallow if the person with the opinion happens to be a female?
    Are you implying that women have never disagreed, or challenged
    your opinions?
    
    Why does it bother you so much that men might not always agree
    or understand?  Why do you allow men (in this case) to have such
    an impact on your feelings?  Why is it so important to you if they
    don't agree, don't understand, don't relate to what you are saying?
    
    Deborah
    
    

    Deborah and Mike,
    
    Perhaps it's because men, not being trained as women are (to be
    considerate of others' feelings, and to express one's self
    unobtrusively), produce opinions whose *phrasings* have passed
    her tolerance level.
    
    Perhaps it's because men have been taught all their lives that
    women's opinions are unimportant, and it shows in their writing,
    and she has gotten da%n sick and tired of trying to clamber over
    that barrier.  (It's not as if Other People's Upbringing were her
    pproblem, after all!)
    
    						Ann B.

       If a woman finds herself threatened or uncomfortable by notes that
       men [with disclaimer as in 258.0] write, I don't see the point of
       say that she ought not feel threatened or uncomfortable. It's like
       saying that you shouldn't fear spiders or flying or calculus. 
       
       An eternity ago, or it seems so at least, a discussion went on
       (and occasionally on) about a women-only version of womannotes --
       one that would be in addition to, and not in place of, the
       existing conference.  It might be a good time to revisit that
       idea; the environment has changed.

       The obvious argument in favor of such a conference is that it
       provides a conference for those women who, for reasons such as
       those expressed in 258.0 or whatever other reasons, would find it
       more productive to participate in a conference where men aren't
       among the contributors. 

       The main arguments against such a conference were:

           1. Both conferences would probably be diluted and there would
              likely be redundancy between the conferences. 

           2. The conference would be exclusionary, and that's a bad
              thing because it's ethically wrong (apartheid is the usual
              analogy) and because men may have valuable contributions to
              make. 

           3. It's against company policy to have an exclusionary
              employee-interest conference. 

       I don't think that any of these, except possibly part of #2, hold
       much water.  There are hundreds upon hundreds of conferences,
       many of them overlapping the subject areas of several other
       conferences.  As new conferences are being added every day, more
       and more DEC employees are discovering, using, and contributing
       to VAXnotes conferences.  There's no shortage of people who are
       ready to contribute to interesting conferences; I don't see any
       reason to doubt the viability of two orthogonally parallel wn
       conferences. 

       I don't buy the notion that a women-only conference would prevent
       us guys from expressing our insightful and brilliant commentary.
       If we want to say something about a subject, there's no dearth of
       conferences where our morsels of wisdom are welcome; civilized
       society need not fear that our words will go unvoiced. (And it's
       tough noogies for the people who don't get to read our notes.) The
       ethics of an exclusionary forum gnaws at me some: maybe it would
       be reasonable not to have a members-only conference, but to
       restrict contributions to women.  That way, anyone could read the
       conference, but only women would enter notes. 

       It's true that semi-official policy says that employee-interest
       conferences have to be open to anyone who wants to participate.
       This policy isn't written in stone -- I'm on shaky ground here,
       but I believe it's in a memo rather than in the P&P -- and the
       realization of the Stone Center and other women-oriented programs
       might make this the right time to seek an asterisk to that policy. 

       I'm not at all sure about the suggestion that the conference be
       R:world and W:women-only.  A true women-only conference -- one in
       which the only people who read or write to the conference are
       women -- is clearly impossible in this medium.  Anyone who
       believes that no man would gain access to such a conference is
       being deceived.  A conference that is not members-only would have
       the advantage of attracting new participants who would just like
       to browse the conference without the (sometimes intimidating)
       process of having to ask for membership and of being much less of
       an administrative headache for the moderators.  (On the other
       hand, enforcing a policy of women-only participation could get
       tricky at times, too.)
       
       Hoping not to reopen a #12 can of worms,

       --Mr Topaz

    RE: .5 - how big is a #12 can of worms? 
    
    Well, here I come with another can-opener. 
    
    This is not directed at you, MR_T, it was , however ocassioned
    by your note. Why is it that when women say they (we) would like
    to be able once in a while to communicate only with other women,
    or when an individual woman chooses to do so, a man always brings
    up the suggestion of a separate, women-only file? 
    
    [IT may be a good suggestion - to answer that isn't my purpose]
    
    Why is it that when a woman, or some women say "we would prefer
    not to communicate with men ALL the time" there are men who seem
    to hear "we never want to communicate with men?"
    
    I have never understood this. It comes up all the time. It's another
    variation on "Well, lady, if you don't want me to hold the door
    for you, I'll slam it in your face!" It's dichotomous thinking,
    and seems to be  quite common in situations when women express
    some kind of independence from men. 
    
    IF we don't play by "their" rules, we can't play at all? But
    whose backyard is it?
    
    --DE
    

    Has anyone yet said "deja vu"?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    "Deja vu." :-)
    
    I only wanted to say that, oddly enough, note 258 and its ilk drains
    *my* energy (regardless of the author's sex). Hence, I will respect
    the author's opinion, but without reading more about it.
    
    -b

    re 258.3:
    
    > I get the impression that Laura intends to stay very much with us
    > and  that she is not closing the lines of communication at all --
    > merely concentrating them on women.
      
258.0> What this means is that I will not be responding to the notes 
258.0> in this file that are written by men.
                                                            

    It sounds to me like closing off communication. Laura is not saying
    that she won't respond to rude, obnoxious, or offensive notes. Any
    note written by a man will be ignored, regardless of his tone or
    the content of his note.
    
    This is her choice and I will not debate it, I got that out of my
    system in Volume 1. 
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Laura....
              Good Lord I cant believe what I am hearing. To believe
    that  only "men" can be abusive is another form of bigotry I have
    tried to speak out against. It speaks of a form of segragation no
    different that Black vs White, Streight vs Gays, and now it is going
    to be Women vs Men. Believe it or not Laura I think I can understand
    how you must feel. It does hurt to be told you are wrong but does
    that mean you must withdraw from discussing any subject with someone
    just because they are men? Have you never met a Woman you did not
    care for?  I have! I have met both men and Women that I would not
    wish to discuss anything with.
    
            I am not angry, but sad that such an idea could occur in
    a time when women are LEADING many of the fights this country needs
    to be aired. Can any of you men really imagine what would happen
    if all women felt the same as Laura? What a sad world this would
    be. I for one have learned a great deal from women. 
    
           I also believe in my ideas firmly enough that to convince
    me that I am wrong takes a form of logic that sometimes only women
    have. Should you be abused? NO you shouldn't but if you ideas are
    strong enough convince "people" of your logic!

    re: .2
    
    Deborah,
    
    If I had been feeling abused by the women of this note file, I would
    have said so.  But the fact is that I feel abused by some of the
    men in this note file.  Thus going back to my point that if men
    choose to exercise their right of freedom of speech in an abusive
    manner, then there are consequences that go with it, like being
    viewed as abusive.  And I never said that men corner the market
    on those attributes.
    
    For example, your questions to me about "why does it bother you
    so much that men might not always agree or understand"...or "why
    do you allow men to have such an impact on your feelings"...are
    in fact statements that I feel to be invalidating of my feelings.
    
    And who agrees or disagrees with me has nothing to do with gender,
    except that so far, in this note file, I haven't felt abused by
    women.  Your response makes me feel that you did not 'hear' what
    I read because you have interpreted that the primary message of
    my base note 258 has to do with people disagreeing with me.  What
    it really has to do with is the level of abusive language that is
    being hurled at women in this file.  I think that all of us can
    find ways to express different views without being hurtfull or verbally
    abusive. 
    
    I feel that the abuse in this file has grown to a degree that I
    needed to make an extreme statement of just how disturbing I find
    the lack of respect in this file.  I received a mail message of
    support from one of the male members of this file, and I responded
    in kind to him.  Although this means that I will also not be responding
    to the non-abusive male noters in this file, I felt strongly enough
    that I needed to make such a serious statement.
    
    re: .4 and .6
    
    Ann and Dawn...thanks for your support.
    
    Laura
    

    	Well!  I knew I was lonwinded, but I didn't realize that I had
    written godzillion lines!
    
    	For those who wonder what happened to the last reply, it was
    taking so long to enter that I hit a few ^T's to make sure my machine
    was hung and accidentally hit a ^Y.  The reply was evidentally far
    enough along in being entered that the whole text is there but hadn't
    finished it's housekeeping.  Thus the outrageous line count and
    the "note 259.12 is being written message."   
    
    sorry!
    tlh
    

[re-entered by moderator]

           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 259.12                    FGD: R*E*S*P*E*C*T                       12 of 13
STC::HEFFELFINGER "Tracey Heffelfinger, Tech Support" 0 lines  28-OCT-1988 16:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    	Laura,
    
    	I am saddened and (like Beth Rust) drained by your note.  You
    may not have intended it to be a "slap in the face", a "closing of
    the door", or a "condemnation of all men" but it sure came across
    that way to me.  
    
    	You say you did not claim that men have the corner on abusive
    language.  But you DID say things like "not ALL men but ALWAYS men"
    do thus and such.  
    
    	I guess I think you're trying to have it both ways.  You seem
    to want the men in this conference to weigh every word they say, carefully
    consider every possible connotation, swallow anything they have
    to say that may be valid but have the slightest chance of "invalidating
    a woman's feelings" and in general want make your sensativities
    the men's problem to deal with.  And THEN you turn around, post
    what I consider a highly abusive slap in the face to those men who
    have played by your rules, have taken the time to carefully formulate
    their answers, try to use non-abusive, non-threatening language by
    telling them, "doesn't matter, boys! A few men aren't playing by
    my rules so I'm going to ignore you all.  Besides since you don't
    have tits, you're not worth my time and effort."  
      
    	Now I realize that is probably not at all what you intended
    as your message.  But why is it OK for you to be careless with your
    words?  And when people are questioning you and telling you that they
    feel hurt by what you said, why is it that you aren't invalidating
    their feelings but rather explaining what you meant?  Consideration 
    and respect runs both ways.
    
    	And as far as respect is concerned, I don't see any lack of
    respect here for the most part.  Yes, some people are less eloquent
    than others and so they are often misunderstood.  Give them the
    benefit of the doubt.  The same one you want when you say something
    that you do not intend to be offensive but it somehow comes out
    that way anyway.  As far as abuse, over the last two weeks I've read
    the majority of this conference, I've only seen one male noter
    that I consider abusive that is still active.  Frankly I've seen
    more notes that I consider abusive come from female noters.  (The
    climate in this notesfile is definately one that tolerates deliberate
    rudeness from women as "an expression of rage over past oppression,
    etc" but does not allow men to make a single mis-step, even when it is
    "anger over being dumped on again and again for things I didn't
    do/don't believe" or even anything as innocent as using a word that he
    had no idea that for *you* had a bad connotation.)  I do not deny that
    different people find different things abusive.  I do not mean that you
    are "wrong" to feel abused by notes that I do not consider abusive. I
    just don't understand how you can attribute malice to only male
    "abusive" notes.  I don't understand how you can see similar things
    said by females and males and only consider the males abusive. 
    
    	As for a man noter proposing a FWO -wn-.  Well the only reason why
    Don was the one to bring it up was because he beat me to it.  Being
    3 months pregnant, I think I can definitively say that I'm female.
    
    	I can understand your frustration.  I think you are entirely
    within your rights to selectively respond to notes and ignore those
    that take too much energy and are just too discouraging to respond
    to because you just don't think the person on the other end is
    listening.  Hell, that's my normal operating mode.  As a matter
    of fact I *almost* accorded that treatment to this note. (There have been
    times when I dropped this conference from my notebook because I
    was ignoring more than I was finding valuable.)  I can see
    you putting a note in like Peggy did saying that her time in the
    file (and thus reponses) would be cut back.  I can understand
    you putting in a note like marge (I think? One of those "m" names.:-))
    that said if "I don't answer, I'm not ducking; I'm ignoring you." 
    Fine.  Ignore abusive replies.  But don't be surprised when people
    are hurt when you make generalizations about gender and abusiveness 
    in your "withdrawal statement".  After all their feelings are just as 
    valid and hurtable as yours.
                                                             
    Laura, 
    	
    	I really want you to understand that I understand your frustration
    and recognize your feelings as valid.  It just that I don't agree
    with the actions that you've decided to take based on those feelings. 
    
    
    	In parting, notes like this one and the "watch your mouth" note
    by one of the moderators a while back are pushing the "ignore" to
    "valuable" ratio way up and I may be dropping this one again soon.
    So if you respond to me and I don't answer, I'm not ducking; I just
    may be on a short sabbatical from this file	while I let my blood
    pressure come back down.  :-)  
    
    	"But I'll be back eventually," she said.
    
    	"Is that a threat?" they replied.
                       
    tlh
    

    re.14 [sort of]
    
    I've been an off and on participant in =wn= for almost two years.
    
    During that time I have a one time or another:
    
    	1) hit 'next unseen' when I came to certain strings because
    	   a) I felt pain or distress at the content of replies
    	   b) I got fed up with the 'childishness'
    	2) hit 'next unseen' when coming to particular noters, because
	   I just didn't want to bother with them
    	3) refused to read responses from men
    	4) read men's notes but didn't bother responding
    	5) threw up my hands and refused to deal with stuff that was
	   addressed to me [and in other conferences as well]
    
    While I certainly didn't announce my intentions, the intentions
    and the actions stand.  
    
    Laura has been a _Very_ active participant in any number of
    note-strings.  If she tried any of the passive ploys as outlined above,
    she could conceivably be subjected to: - 'Laura where are you?' 'Laura
    are your ignoring me?' 'Laura has refused to answer me, hence...'
    
    My point is, I'm sure that lots of us have staged limited withdrawals
    over the years.  Unannounced.  Now we don't all have to wonder.
    
    Isn't this a bit more tidy?
    
      Ann 
    
    
   
    
   
       	
    	 
    
   

    re: 258.0
    
    As I recall, the Aretha Franklin tune continues with a line
    "Take care, TCB. . ." and if, for you, taking care of "business"
    (i.e. yourself) means responding in a particular way, it sounds
    to me like the right thing to do.
    

    re 258.12   I know that Steve Lionel and others will vouch that
                 Women are not 'visitors' in files like Mennotes.
    
                Mennotes welcomes all people as full and valued
                participants, and treats people as equals - an equality
                I might add which is healthy and obvious.
    
                
                                                    Russ P.

    Re: .19
    
    Russ is indeed correct about the MENNOTES moderators' view towards
    women's participation.  However, this is not MENNOTES so I don't
    see this point as really relevant.
    
    In a way I understand what Laura feels about "energy levels".  I
    withdrew from V1 of this conference earlier this year when it
    just became too difficult for me to participate.  After a while, I
    saw that the atmosphere had changed somewhat - and I had had a chance
    to "recharge" - so I rejoined.
    
    What I don't understand is Laura's arbitrary (to me) decision to
    blindly choose not to respond to any note written by a man.  I
    don't consider it an insult - she is free to pick and choose whatever
    notes she cares to respond to - but I do think that by selecting
    by sex she is doing herself a disservice and making her voice (one
    which I have been delighted to see in this conference) much less
    effective.
    
    I really don't agree with Laura that the men who participate in this
    conference are trying to invalidate women's experiences.  Perhaps she
    reads this into notes that disagree with her or that take issue with
    some of her arguments.  I am sure that Laura views me as one of her
    "oppressors" (my word), as I have, several times, pointed out what
    I saw as inconsistencies and unsupported assertions in her notes.
    I wish she could understand that I do this not out of antagonism but
    because I am searching for the truth.  I do not deny her feelings, but
    when she says "X happens because of Y", and makes no further statements
    to support this assertion, I look for more.
    
    In any case - I will look forward to seeing Laura's continued
    participation, even if it is incomplete.  I will try to understand
    what it is she writes (as long as it is not in FWO topics, which I tend
    to skip), though I will be without her aid in comprehension.
    
    Perhaps after a while Laura will be able to join us in full once more.
    
    				Steve

re 258.12

>	I feel that the ones who make less of their presence known in this 
>	file are the ones who are truly here to learn.  

	It is more efficient to display what you believe to be true,
	and then, when you are wrong, let people tell you so. Otherwise,
	you might go on believing something that is incorrect for a 
	long time, simply because no one ever told you it was wrong,
	and the reason no one ever told you it was wrong was because
	no one knew you believed it to be true, in the first place.

	There is an old saw about "Better to be silent and let people 
	think you are ignorant, than to speak, and remove all doubt."
	That's bunkum. Better to say something wrong, and let someone
	correct you, that way you learn something, than to not say what
	you think, and not give anyone a chance to challenge it.

						Tom_K

    re: 258.13-15
    
    Would you guys perhaps consider moving those replies over here (259)
    with appropriate references?  The only "justification" I can give
    for the request is that Laura asked for "fwo" in 258 and maybe it
    wouldn't hurt us to do fgd here.
    
    Please (raised to the power of 100) - I *don't* want this to resurrect
    the fwo/fgd debate; I suspect we all have our feelings pro and con
    and I'm sure many remember the discussions that have gone on before.
    If you feel it's important to leave the replies there, then, by
    all means, do so.  I just felt that it might help keep the confron-
    tation quotient a bit lower. . .
    
    
    re: .20
    
    "What I don't understand is Laura's arbitrary (to me) decision to
    blindly choose not to respond to any note written by a man.  I
    don't consider it an insult - she is free to pick and choose whatever
    notes she cares to respond to - but I do think that by selecting
    by sex she is doing herself a disservice. . .
    
    It doesn't sound to me as if her choice is "blind", Steve, just
    as your choice to withdraw from v1 wasn't blind - simply a matter
    of what she needs and/or wants to do for the moment.  And, like
    you, I have a real strong empathy for the limited energy feeling.
    From that angle, it seems to me that she best serves herself, and, by
    extension, everyone by paying spending her energy where it feels
    most "right" for her.
    
    Also, I don't think I've heard Laura say ". . .that the men who 
    participate in this conference are trying to invalidate women's 
    experiences."  I do think I hear her saying that it feels to her
    like some men try do so (e.g. "not all men, but always men").
    
    I think this is one of those cases where "reality" is a matter of 
    subjective view - if that's how it feels to her, then that is the 
    reality for her.  It may or may not be anyone else's reality, but 
    it sounds to me like "other's" realities are not the issue for her 
    right now.
    
    
    "I will try to understand what it is she write. . .though I will be 
    without her aid in comprehension."
    
    That's one of the most concise, positive statements of respect I've
    seen in a long time.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  editorial:  it's a good thing some use pen names (e.g. Eagle);
    any more "Steves" and we may as well borrow from the Monty Python
    sketch (". . .mind if we call you Bruce?")
    

    RE .22   You obviously haven't read Andrea Dworkin.
    
             The point is male voices and *feminist* voices are the
             ones that clash in this file.
    
             Euro_Woman is quiet not because there aren't men in there
             but because...
    
    
                                                   Russ P.

re. 20

>	(as long as it is not in FWO topics, which I tend
>    to skip), though I will be without her aid in comprehension.


Steve,

Could you aid my comprehension please ? I don't see the diffrence between Laura
choosing not to respond to notes written by men, and you skipping FWO notes ? 

I choose who I will communicate with - on buses and trains and in the cafeteria
as well as notes files, and I see no difference between my choices, Laura's and
your's - what am I missing ? 

Roger

    re 258.20   Yes, that's what the note says: Men stink.
    
    
    Russ

    	RE:  .26
    
    	That's only the message you got after filtering her words through
    	your own prejudices, Russ.
    
    	That's not the same thing as understanding what she really said.
    
    

    
    Re .27
    
    He is not alone.  That's what I thought it said, too.  Perhaps I
    share his prejudices.
    
    Val

    re 258.12:
    
    > I do not view expecting men to have 'vistor' manners as a slap in the 
    > face, I view it is ettiquette.
      
    The slap in the face is slamming the door on every man because *some*
    men have put their metaphorical feet on your metaphorical coffee
    table.
    
    You did not say that you would no longer tolerate abusive behavior
    and refuse to respond to it. You said that because *some* men (and
    *always* men) have been nasty that you will not respond to *any*
    note written by *any* man regardless of its content or demeanor.
    
    Your statement is like a restaurant owner who refuses to serve blacks
    because he was once robbed by a black.                
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    Re: .23
    
      "but because..." there aren't feminists in there?  Who's bashing
       whom???
    
    am, the noter.            
    

    	RE:  .29
    
    	Baloney!  No person in Digital has the *RIGHT* to receive
    	responses to NOTES!  
    
    	In your analogy, the restaurant would *NOT* be refusing to
    	serve ANYONE!  
    
    	On what basis do you think that any person in DEC could DEMAND
    	that a non-moderator respond to his/her notes (and claim 
    	discrimination if and when responses are not received?)
    
    	Every time you write a note, how do you know which people are
    	ignoring you and which people simply have nothing to say to
    	you about your reply?
    
    	You are confusing RIGHTS with social amenities.  They're not
    	the same thing.

re: .32
    Assume an FWO base-note is written here and thoughts are shared via
    MAIL.  Any women who wish to be included on the mailing list would
    make replies under the base-note but actual discussion would occur
    off-line in mail.  Does this method violate Digital P&P guidelines?

I would hold that any restriction of access to notes on the basis of
sex, race, etc. is in violation of Dec Policy and Procedures, especially
6.24 "[employees will not] discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age,
religion or ethnic background."

Martin.

    re .31:
    
    Where did I mention anything about a "*RIGHT* to receive responses
    to Notes". My analogy was meant to go only so far as was presented
    and no further (Ann Broomhead's disclaimer paraphrased). I was
    describing an attitude, not demanding an action.
    
    >   On what basis do you think that any person in DEC could DEMAND
    >  	that a non-moderator respond to his/her notes (and claim 
    >	discrimination if and when responses are not received?)
        
    On what basis do you ascribe this attitude to me? Re-read .28
    I do not claim discrimination because I am ignored by her. I claim
    that she has adopted a prejudicial attitude based on her statement
    that she will not respond men. And not because she only wants to
    talk to women, but because *some* men have written abusive notes.
    
    > You are confusing RIGHTS with social amenities.
       
    You are putting words into my mouth. I said nothing about rights.
    Where in my note do you get the idea that I want to force everyone
    to respond to every note?
    
    The analogy of the restaurant was meant only to illustrate the adoption
    of a prejudicial attitude. It *CANNOT* be extrapolated to say that
    since restaurant are not allowed to refuse service that therefore 
    Laura is not allowed to ignore whatever notes she wants.
    
                                                    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    	RE:  .34
    
    	Pardon me, Steve.  I thought your analogy was supposed to be
   	*ANALOGOUS* to the situation somehow.  Your justification
    	for the analogy is pretty damn thin.
    
    	Steve, why bother bringing up a CLEAR CASE where rights have been
    	violated as if it has anything to do with a CLEAR CASE where
    	rights are *NOT* being violated?  What did you possibly expect
    	to prove by that?

    	Just curious...

    This string is closed for a 24-hour cooling-off period.
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

This is a repeat from the FWO note:

OK folks, it's been 24-hours. We'll find out if that's been enough and, if it
hasn't, try to cool down again. I find the cool-down periods useful to remind
me that I should; when I'm mad, I rarely think of cooling down (and I'm in awe
of those of you that do).

Many of us believe in community and family; try to hold those good thoughts
while participating. As a co-moderator said to me 'this seems hard because it
_is_ hard'. Let's try to listen, learn, give space, and value differences, even
in opinion.

Hugs to all,
	Mez

    re .35:
    
    Suzanne, I'll concede that the analogy was "loaded". I truly did
    not mean to imply anything about rights.
    
    > Your justification for the analogy is pretty damn thin.
    
    Well, excuuuuuse me.    
                       
    > Steve, why bother bringing up a CLEAR CASE where rights have been
    > violated as if it has anything to do with a CLEAR CASE where
    > rights are *NOT* being violated?
    
    I do not want to get into a discussion of whether or not a
    restauranteur has the right to refuse service to anyone he pleases.
    I think he does. But, history denies it, so I picked a bad example.
    Sue me.
    
    Let me restate the analogy this way:
    
    Your [Laura's] attitude is like that of the man who won't let blacks
    into his home because he was once robbed by one.  
                       
    He has every right to do so, but isn't it silly?
    
    or how about this analogy:
    
    This attitude is like that of the black man who refuses to talk
    to any white because some whites are bigots.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    I dont understand the problem about FWO notes. if women only want
    responses from women for whatever reason so what,let them have it,
    the men should butt out in thoes cases.
    
    	john
    

    	
    	I take exception to such allegations "always men", and "men
    are brought up to not care about women's opinions", etc.
    	These are the statements that set "men's" minds into an extremely
    defensive posture and begin the "attack sequence" of actions to
    either preserve themselves or protect themselves from the exact
    abuse that we are accused of. 
    	My father and mother taught me that respect is earned by action
    and words, not bought or demanded by those that want it. Any one
    who demands my respect will never get it. Those who throw a tantrum
    because they think they didn't get respect, won't. DO SOMETHING
    to earn it and you will get it. Your opinions, words, and actions
    will magnetize respect from everyone you touch.
    	This pi**ing and moaning about men being abusive does no more
    than attract the responses from men that they are not abusive and
    from feminists who say we are and the argument digresses to a "no
    I'm not, Yes you are" session.
    	Laura, you lose. You refuse to "value differences" in opinions
    different that your own from those of us who can never experience
    some of the things you do. We as men see many things in a very cold
    black and white even though we think it's sorta gray. You lose because
    you have "limited energy" to expend on responses by men instead
    of searching for reserve energy to expand yourself. You lose because
    you demand that you not be criticized severely for your beliefs.
    Sorry, only matyrs, saints, and heros and maybe fools have shown that
    they are willing to pay the ultimate price for their beliefs.
                     
    	I saw no woman or man in this file beg you to reconsider your
    choice and rejoin. I respect your choice. 
                                              
    Ken

    ken,
    you seem to have missed some basic points that laura has made. once
    more, she did not say that she objects to people disagreeing with
    her. she objects to the treatment women in this file tend to receive.
    they're two very different phenomena. and she didn't say she was
    going away. perhaps to you she will be invisible, but i suspect
    that she'll still be a vocal participant in the file.
    
    liz

    	RE:  .38
    
    	Apology accepted (for your inappropriate analogy.)  Somehow
    	I just *knew* you'd be the first one in this topic when it
    	was re-opened.  :-)
    
    	BTW, you made an assumption about what my "attitude" is towards
    	responding to male noters.  I never stated how *I* felt
    	about it (one way or another.)  All I did was defend against
    	the noters who took Laura's words and bent them so far out
    	of proportion as to be unrecognizable (and worthy of space
    	travel.)
    
    	Just wanted to set you straight on that point.

    I think we're all in agreement that Laura has the option/right
    to read and respond to *any* note that she wants to.  She
    has decided to limit her energy to those notes writen by women.
    I understand her to mean that she is in this file to discuss
    women's issues with _women_. Period.  She has chosen to explain
    her decision to everyone.  So what's the big deal?  
    
    What some of the men are doing is creating an atmosphere in
    these strings of notes that just confirm _Laura's_ reasons
    for her decision.  This is not and men vs. women issue here,
    it is _her_ right and _her_ individual action.  Others may,
    and have, chosen to do the same thing, only they haven't made
    their intentions known that way Laura has.
    
    Is it really such a horrendous thing that she wants to talk
    *to* women *about* women?  That she chooses to want a *woman's* 
    opinion on a certain event?  I don't think so, just as I don't think
    it's horrendous for a black person to want to discuss black
    issues with only black people.  How much insight about a black issue
    does the black person want to get from non-blacks?  Does the black
    person want to talk to the white person about how the white person
    has _heard_ what life is like in Harlem?
    
    This is all Laura is doing and she has given us the _courtesy_
    of an explanation.
    
    What is really the big deal?
    
    Dorothy

    re: .43
    
    Well said!
    

    re. all
             In my last note I tried to make the point that by excluding
    49% of the population as having nothing to offer in any discussion
    concerning woman is a little like men (as they did many years ago)
    saying that because women are stupid that they shouldnt vote! Women
    of all people should be the first to "get up in arms" about that!
             Since I have stated my position already in this note, I
    wish only to refere "any" readers to 258.0 and then to read 259.14.
    Since both are written by "women" nobody should be able to take
    offence to the question.
              I will say one more thing..... I object to the practice
    of segragation what ever form it might take. Now since I am new
    to this conf. I WILL respect whatever the moderators feel is necessary
    to keep open and honest discussions within this forum...but to see
    FWO and then FGD notes is not only  redundent but also a form of
    segration that I have seen in no other conference. I hope enough
    said.
    
    Dave

    
    
    THANKS Dorothy!!!!(re.43)
    
    
    I guess I'm kinda' confused why this has become *THE ISSUE* that
    it has.  Very fair statement by Laura (my opinion), not that she
    needs _consent_ for her position!
    
    
    re.40
    
    What makes you think that to choose to communicate to women only
    (in this women's space) makes *anyone* a looser?! STRANGE (my opinion)
    mindset . . . . . . . . .

re: .45

Hello Dave,

I'll give you the same schpeal [sp?] I gave Alan, with the same assumption (ie
- you'll think this is a nit...). If you say how 'women should feel', you're
gonna lose your audience. Women are tired of being told how they should feel.

>    Women
>    of all people should be the first to "get up in arms" about that!

I'm doing this 'cause I can tell you haven't heard part of what's being said:
that a great many women believe in the primacy of experience [where's DEC
GRAMMAR when you need it?]. And these women are going to be the ones that
shudder when they hear anyone implying how they 'should' feel, and they're
going to be the first ones not think that someone who isn't female has much to
say on being female.

Now you may disagree, and that's hunky dorey. But I wanted to make sure you
understood. I've found myself falling into a lot of stupid discussions because
I thought someone didn't understand when it was _really_ that they didn't
agree, or vica versa.

And Dave, I think I understand what you're saying.
	Mez

    re: 47
           Thank you Mez for that tender slap on the hand. You are right
    in that I should not presume to know what any PERSON feels. But
    you must relize that I come from West Texas, A place with a rep.
    for putting down Women,Mexicans,Blacks,Indians and any others who
    are not the "West Texas Good Old Boy". I have always found myself
    on the side of women on most arguements until this one. My whole
    premise is dont exclude anyone from any discussion or you run the
    risk of making the same mistakes that the mostly Men world has and
    are making now. I have seen the "women are stupid" attitude in the
    world I live in and have fought against it. My question to all in
    this note is ... If I see that attitude in a Woman don't you feel,
    to be true and honest, I should fight against that form of wrong
    also?
    
    Dave

    re: .23 
    
    � RE .22   You obviously haven't read Andrea Dworkin.
    
    I suggest that what's "obvious" to you has more to do with what
    you're reading into my remarks that what is, in fact the case.
    
    I could list a dozen things I've read that you haven't, and twice
    that number of experiences I've had that you haven't.  However to 
    do as a justification for an argument is invalid (sort of a cross
    between an ad hominem and non sequitur).
    
    
    � The point is male voices and *feminist* voices are the
    � ones that clash in this file.
    
    Speak for yourself, please, not for this man nor all feminists;
    I've had any number of conversations with people who term themselves
    feminists and we rarely, if ever, clash.
    

    � MCIS2::POLLITZ "Feminist expert"
    
    I suggest that the personal name in this instance is a matter
    of self-proclamation only.
    
    
    re: .24
    
    � Her choice wasn't blindly made.
    �
    � Her choice was to act blindly.
    
    I think her choice was not to respond, for to certain notes and 
    replies (vs. "acting blindly").  Why is this acting "blindly"?  
    I have occasionally considered not responding to certain peoples 
    notes/replies; in truth, I've had this thought several times of late.  
    Replies from some people almost always annoy and/or anger me - I 
    find some folks have a penchant for mis-reading and misinterpreting 
    what I've written.
    
    In my mind, they've painted a target on me and all they really 
    want to do is debate (� la Monty Python's "Having an Argument"
    sketch).  After a while (i.e. a significant amount of history),
    I just get tired of that and I decide that I don't care to converse
    with them any longer.
    
    I will readily admit that "the problem" (i.e. my annoyance/anger)
    is mine, but I'd disagree that I'm acting blindly.  I see noter
    "...."'s name at the top and I'm automatically on to the next 
    reply - I see him/her coming and I'm out of here.  To me, that's
    not blind at all - experience has taught me that, for the moment,
    responding to this person is an exercise in (my) frustration and
    I don't feel like making that trip just now.  Perhaps, at some
    point in the future, like when I see a different kind of response
    from this person, I'll start to respond again, but in neither 
    case are my blinders on.
    
    
    re: .26
    
    � re 258.20   Yes, that's what the note says: Men stink.
    
    No, that's how you're interpreting the note.  Your interpretation
    is no doubt valid for you, but your words read far more like a quote
    than an opinion.  And, if if isn't already apparent, it's an opinion
    I don't share in the least.

    Steve (# something or other)
    

    re .42:
    
    > BTW, you made an assumption about what my "attitude" is toward
    > responding to male noters. 
      
    Where did I do that? 
    
    259.7  -> "deja vu" note
    259.9  -> 258.0 is a slap in the face
    259.29 -> reply to Laura's note that expecting etiquette is not
    		a slap in the face. bad analogy included.
    259.34 -> explanation of bad analogy
    259.38 -> retraction and rephrasing of bad analogy.
    
    	
    > Just wanted to set you straight on that point.
      
    Same here.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    RE: .48
               I am sorry but I forgot to add an idea that has been
    bothering me so here it is......Several years ago the world heard,
    form feminists, that Women only wanted to be "seen" as persons.
    I agreed then as I do now. I am a person first and a man second
    just as the feminists wanted to be persons first and women second.
    I believed then as now that this idea was not only right but the
    only possible solution to the "sex gap problem". It is the perceptions
    of people that need to be changed, hence the reason why this conf.
    is so valuable to the very men who have "gender problems". Now it
    seems that men invalidate womens feelings. I must say that I am
    not sure what that means( I might be stupid) but I can't see how,
    by the spoken word, I can invalidate anyones feelings. Try this
    If I could invalidate anyones feelings then are they "valid" in
    the first place? I don't think so!
    
    Dave

    re .52:
    
    > I must say that I am not sure what that means( I might be stupid)
    > but I can't see how, by the spoken word, I can invalidate anyones 
    > feelings.
    
    Won't work. I tried that argument back in Volume 1 which got me into
    deep doo-doo, driving me to leave the conference for several months.
    Seems that it is only men that can invalidate women's feelings,
    while the reverse is quite impossible. 
                                          
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

        I offer the following as ONE WOMAN'S feeling about sometimes
	   -- occasionally, once in awhile, not very often --
        NOT wanting to communicate with men:


		---> Speaking ONLY for myself: <---
		-----------------------------------

Some of the times when I want to communicate with "women only" are:

(1)
I find that I take a lot of responsibility for how others "hear" me.  My first
inclination if I am misunderstood or misinterpreted is to blame myself.
"Perhaps I..." or "I should have said..." or "I really meant..."  Sometimes I
spend a lot of time and energy in this activity, and it can be VERY tiring!
I have to stop and remember that the hearer brings his or her own agenda to the
communication, too!

But if I am trying to communicate with another _woman_ about some aspect of
women's experience, I may not want to spend that time and effort in explaining
to a _man_ just where I'm coming from.  Sometimes it is just SO REFRESHING to
share an experience with a woman who, because she, too, has had the same
experience, can understand even if I express it awkwardly!  And sometimes
_I_NEED_ to draw apart in order to realize that I am not responsibile for all of
men's misunderstandings. 

(2)
Then, too, there is the cultural (i.e., male) definition of who I am as a woman.
When I find that I am accepting that definition too easily, I need to
communicate with _women_ as one means of regaining my own self-identity.  I
need to compare my experience with theirs, not with men's; I need the
validation that comes from women rather than the approval (or disapproval) that
comes from men; I need to rediscover my uniqueness as a female.

In those situations it doesn't matter what a man who also rejects the cultural
definition is trying to communicate to me -- my own "cultural hearing" gets in
the way and needs to be "re-tuned!"

So sometimes I want to draw apart, or go on a retreat with just women (a very
rare opportunity).  But, for me, I always want to come back to the mainstream,
female-male world.

    re: .50
    
    I suspect that we'll have to agree to disagree here - we agree
    on the Laura's actions, we disagree as to what it should be called.
    One person's "blind" actions are another's "policy" decisions.
    So be it.
    
    Steve
    

    Dave,
    
    You wrote, "It is the perceptions of people that need to be changed..."
    
    This is correct.  However, what bothers Laura (among others) is
    that so often some man or other would tell a woman that it was
    *her* perception that was wrong and that she should adopt his
    perception.  Some would become adamant about it.  Some would deny
    the validity of any and all facts presented by anyone to demonstrate
    that her perception was more correct than his.  Some would bring
    up the argument in later notes.
    
    That 100% of perception differences between women and men are the
    women's fault is unlikely, that certain men hold this belief is
    distasteful, and that Laura has decided to rest from the effort
    of correcting instances of this misbelief is understandable.
    
    (Now, it is hard to know if a man agrees with a woman's perception
    if he doesn't respond, and response (by anyone) in such a case
    is unlikely.  (No one likes to be redundant.)  In notes one cannot
    hear the silences.  Therefore, I may have overstated the second
    clause of the previous paragraph vis � vis the people in this
    conference.  Please feel free to assume I'm talking about the
    Great Grey They.)
    
    Now, Dave, imagine that, instead of being told that you were
    mistaken in your observations once in a great while, that you
    were told this on a daily basis, by many people.  Think about it
    for a few minutes; I'll wait.  <pause>  It would get wearing,
    wouldn't it?  The more of it you got, the harder it would be to
    get up the energy to position each denial, and the more likely
    you would be to wonder if the majority were correct.
    
    Also, what you believe and what you think you believe are not
    always the same thing, so how can *anyone* be sure?  (See my entry
    in 116.)
    
    						Ann B.

    RE .57
       Ann,
            Your words are quite convincing, For that I thank you. You
    may assume that I handle the problem of being wrong or told I am
    wrong different from Laura. I have tried to have an open mind about
    all issues. I am not always sucessful. But on those occasions that
    It is me against the world so to speak I do pause and try to see
    the other side. To make an issue of this kind of problem,I believe
    is wrong. The very problem she is against, she is guilty of. I have
    never believed in such tactics. Please read 259.14 because she (tracey)
    expounds on this issue better than I can.
    
    Dave

    Thank you, Dave.  (I think we're doing well here.)
    
    Two things.  First, you wrote that when "It is me against the
    world..." you assume you could be wrong.  Aha!  My very point.
    You spend effort analyzing.  (This is the right thing to do, btw.)
    
    Something most people don't realize is that what is called "normal
    behavior" (and things of that ilk) isn't.  It is the normal
    behavior of college-educated Caucasian males, because that is
    the group that psychologists have studied.  In fact, for many
    years, budding psychologists were warned not to include women or
    minorities in their studies, because it threw the data off!  (Kudos
    to those people who realized that there was information being lost
    that way, and who started doing something about it.)  Medical
    responses are those of Caucasian males, speech patterns are those
    of Caucasian males, et cetera.
    
    In other words, when it's women against the world, the world is
    wrong very often, because it isn't really the whole world.  The
    people proffering this view don't realize it's flawed, the people
    opposing this view don't realize the others don't know it's flawed,
    and we all get very tired.
    
    Second, I have again reread Tracy's note.  What I believe she
    is objecting to the most is that Laura said something that was
    found to be hurtful.  I believe that Laura said that so that the
    men *whom she found tiring* would question themselves.  I believe
    that no one could get the latter result without the former problem.
    Should she have not said it?  Well, to stop replying silently has
    been done before, and it has solved the individual's problem.  It
    leaves the [putative] meta-problem in place, however.  It might
    even make it worse.  Should she have named certain individuals to
    whom she would no longer reply?  Ouch!  Now, *that* is hurtful.
    Much better for the person who would never consider questioning
    himself anyhow to be spared that.  (This all reminds me of a
    problem my grandfather faced....)
    
    Also, Tracy spoke of Laura not feeling men were worth replying
    to, when I believe Laura made it clear that it was an issue of
    affordability, not one of worthiness.  (Tracy also touched on the
    affordability part; I'd just like to emphasize the worth part.)
    
    						Ann B.

    RE .60
        Ann,
             Your previous note made a lot more sense than .60 did.
    I am sorry, maybe I am slow but I can't believe that you or any
    reasonable person could read Lauras' note and not believe that
    indeed it was a "slap in the face" to Men. I have run into just
    as many Women who were insensitive as I have Men. 
             Now Ann, I will not debate the issue of Womens rights.
    They (Women) have a strong and valid point on Womens issues and
    in fact ALL issues. But to say "I'm going to take my ball and go
    home" is not a valid or honest response to injustice. It seems to
    me that I have delt with that very problem with my children. It
    is not what she did but how she did it that I disagree with. Sometimes
    In fact I believe most times it is more effective to be an example
    rather than part of the problem.
    
    Dave

    re: .61
    
    "I can't believe that you. . .any reasonable person could read 
     Lauras' (sic) note and not believe that indeed it was a "slap 
     in the face" to Men."
    
    I suppose that since I think her note was Laura talking about
    how she feels about herself and the world around her and not
    a "slap in the face" to men, I must therefore be unreasonable.
    Must be all those years I spent in Materials. . .what can I
    say?  I *have* had my face slapped once or twice and it felt
    nothing like Laura's note. . .
    
    Steve
    

    	Ann (and others),
    
    	I'd like to clarify a few points that I made (perhaps poorly)
    earlier in this note.
    
    	I thought I'd made it clear, but perhaps not, that I didn't
    say that Laura said that men weren't "worthy" but that the way she
    stated the "affordability" issue was such that it was *very* easy
    to read it as she meant not "worthy" rather than not "affordable".
    (I thought that she said that I meant....  Whew!  It's starts getting
    convoluted after a while.)   
    
    	I fully understand, sympathize with, validate, condone, <insert your
    similar verb here> Laura's feelings of frustration and weariness.
    I fully <see above list of verbs> Laura's need to ration her energy
    and put it where she feels it'll do her and the noting community
    some good.  I don't as fully agree with the decision to announce
    this although I understand it and she certainly doesn't need *my*
    approval.  :-)  I don't agree with the manner in which she chooses
    to "filter" the notes, I think both she and the noting community
    both lose.  (Anytime anyone shuts out half the population based
    on gender, race, religion etc. I think they've diminished themselves,
    but that's *my* belief system.)  I feel she could have accomplished
    what she wanted, as I understand it of course, by saying: "I had
    had it up to my gizzard with people who write notes that *I* find
    abusive.  I don't have to time or energy to respond to these notes.
    But I also don't want you to think that my silence is my consent
    that you are "right".  So you if address a note to me and I don't
    answer you, I'm just rationing my energy for those discussions I
    think are worth entering into."  Note that there are no sweeping
    gender assertions here.  This not only saves some feelings but sets
    her up to ignore abusive notes from women without having to come back
    and make *another* statement as to who she's ignoring now and why.
    It also moves the issue of "worthiness"/"affordability" to the
    *discussion* not the *person*.
    
    	So why do I find it so important to "save the feelings" of a
    group of people that she finds to be generally abusive?  (By generally,
    I mean a large enough subset that she felt she could choose a valid
    filter by gender.  I recognize that she never said "all men are
    abusive".)  Because by this very note, she's shown how easy it it
    to be abusive when you don't mean to.  She has said that she did
    not mean for this note to be a slap in the face or a closing of
    a door.  As the author of the note, she is the absolute final authority
    on what she meant by it.  I think it would be valuable for everyone
    to realize from this note that 1) Intent is important and 2) Intent
    notwithstanding, what you say in all honesty and with the greatest
    tact of which you are capable may still hurt someone.
    Everyone has shown awareness of this from time to time in this file.
    What saddens me is that all too often I see people, men and women, all
    too willing to apply #1 to their own notes and #2 to other people's
    notes.  (I'll be the first to admit that although I'm pretty good about
    applying #1 to others.  I don't apply #2 to myself nearly often enough.)
    Perhaps if we applied #1 to others' notes, we wouldn't be hurt so often
    or perhaps just as often but less deeply.  Perhaps if we applied #2 to
    our own notes more often , we would be a little more careful in how we
    phrase things, a little more willing to not say "I didn't mean to hurt
    you" (thus implying that you shouldn't have been hurt) but rather, "how
    could I have said this better?" 
    
    	I realize that this is simplistic view.  There are things that
    are important to be said that can be phrased to take some of the
    sting out but just can't be sanitized to the point that *no one*
    will take offense/be hurt.  That's the way it is when people
    who discuss things that they deeply believe in disagree.  But it
    doesn't hurt to *try* to take the sting out does it?
                      
    	Sorry if this rambles.  It's 3am and I'm waiting for a machine
    to come up so I can give it a clean bill of health and go back to
    bed...
    
    tlh
    
    	
    
    	

    re: .49
    
    �I have occasionally considered not responding to certain peoples 
    notes/replies; in truth, I've had this thought several times of late.  
    Replies from some people almost always annoy and/or anger me - I 
    find some folks have a penchant for mis-reading and misinterpreting 
    what I've written.
    
    In my mind, they've painted a target on me and all they really 
    want to do is debate (� la Monty Python's "Having an Argument"
    sketch).  After a while (i.e. a significant amount of history),
    I just get tired of that and I decide that I don't care to converse
    with them any longer.�
    
    I feel the same way. I've also occasionally had the idea of not
    even *reading* such notes in the first place, let alone respond
    to them. (And surprise! -- with respect to this conference, it
    is, to borrow Laura's phrase, "not all men, but always men".)
    However the difference between your/my response to the problem
    and Laura's is that we are singling out *individuals*, while
    Laura is tossing all members of a specific group into the same
    stew.
    
    --- jerry

    Dave,

    In my fifth paragraph, I wrote "... Laura said something that was
    found to be hurtful."  I then went on to say that I felt it was an
    inevitable result of Laura's statement, thereby indicating that I
    found it to be a fact.  Yet in your response, you wrote, "... I can't
    believe that you or any reasonable person could read Lauras' note
    and not believe that indeed it was a "slap in the face" to Men."

    Do you think that "hurtful" describes an entirely different
    condition from "slap in the face"?  Do you think I think hurtfulness
    is good?  Did you not read my note carefully enough to realize
    that was part of what I said?  Do you feel that if I don't use the
    term that the men use that I have not said anything?

    I will assume that your answers are No, No, Well..., and No, and
    continue.

    I am not easy to read, I know.  I condense by using accurate but
    abstruse terms; I use terms to evoke rather than explicate; I dive
    into nested parentheses; I present data but leave conclusions to the
    reader; and so on.  Even so, I would appreciate it if you would
    reread my .60.  I think it would help you if you did so while
    keeping the following in mind:

    Laura perceived a problem in Womannotes:  Men being abusive to women
    in Womannotes.  (Are there other problems in the world?  Yes.  Are
    there other problems in in Womannotes?  Yes.  Does Laura know about
    these other problems?  Yes.  Has she chosen to address these other
    problems?  No.  Is she entitled to do that?  Yes.)  Laura perceived
    a problem in herself: Her replies to these men being abusive to women
    in Womannotes was making her tired.  To solve the latter problem,
    she decided to stop making that effort.  Yet she still wished to
    solve the former problem.  She chose her solution and implemented it.

    Subsequent discussion of her solution has centered around its being
    hurtful, i.e., "a slap in the face to Men", with the capital letter.
    Subsequent discussion of her solution has not centered around its
    being ineffective.  I think it is ineffective.  Therefore, I went
    back and tried to explain [one of] the roots of the problem, so
    that you [all] could perceive it, and so that a solution could be
    worked on.  Now, if you [one] are not going to be part of the solution,
    you are part of the precipitate (and Laura will filter you out
    (I'm sorry; that was bad.  I just couldn't resist.)).

    Remember, if there were no problem, Laura would not have made any
    announcement.  I therefore see the problem as the problem, and I
    would rather see discussion on solutions to the problem than
    discussions of the (failed, but done-is-done) solution as the problem.

    That is what I am asking for.

    Now, back around 1970, I thought about prejudice, and getting an
    end to it.  I wondered how long it would take.  For racial prejudice,
    I decided that, even with the best will in the world, it would take
    three generations (about sixty years).  From what I've seen, that
    looks about right.  (Those who feel that "the best will in the world"
    is not being applied may add years to that.)  For sexual prejudice, I
    decided that, even with the best will in the world, it would take
    FIVE generations.  Yes, that's about one hundred years.

    And when I read something like "They (Women) have a strong and valid
    point on Womens issues and in fact ALL issues. But ..." I see the
    problem being ignored, and I don't see "the best will in the world"
    being applied.

    							Ann B.

    Gads, has there been a lot of activity here since I last looked in.
    Anyway, the "cool-off" period prevented me from responding to
    Roger Gascoigne's note in .25 earlier, so here it is..
    
    In reference to my earlier remark that I tended to skip FWO notes,
    Roger asked:
    
    > Could you aid my comprehension please ? I don't see the diffrence
    > between Laura choosing not to respond to notes written by men, and you
    > skipping FWO notes ? 

    The answer is quite simple.  I am simply honoring the request of the
    noter who designated her note FWO.  FWO means "For Women Only," does
    it not?  And, last I checked, I'm not a woman.  As I understand it,
    women who start FWO topics do so in an effort to prevent male
    "intrusion" - they say they just want to discuss the issue with
    other women.  Fine, I say, I won't intrude, so I skip the topic.
    I will read the base note, and if it is something about which I think I
    have something worthwhile to contribute, will find the corresponding
    "male homeland" note and reply there. 
    
    I presume that if the topic author wanted men to participate (and
    participate means, to me, reading as well as writing), she wouldn't have
    hung out the "no men wanted" sign.
    
    If my understanding of FWO topics is incorrect, I'd appreciate
    some illumination (by MAIL - no need to sidetrack this note.)
    
    
    As to the general issue of Laura's proclamation - I don't think I could
    do a better job of elucidating my thoughts as Tracey did hers, which
    I share.
    
    				Steve L.

    Ann,
        Forgive me but the last few days (this morning most noteable)
    has made your words run together right before my eyes. Would It
    be possible to continue this discussion over maybe vaxmail? It would
    allow me the convience of discussing these issues one at a time
    instead of defending my position on several fronts at the same time.
    
    Dave

    You may use MAIL, if you *will* use it.
    
    Why do you feel you have positions to defend?  What have I
    attacked?  (Except omissions.)
    
    						Ann B.

        In this  and  in  the FWO note there are multiple references to
        "men who abuse women in this conference".  Would someone please
        post the fragments they  consider  _abusive_?    This  is not a
        mischievous request - I (and  I  suspect others) genuinely wish
        to know what constitutes _abuse_ by men of women in WOMANNOTES.
        
        Andy
        

    RE: .69
    
    	I respectfully second the suggestion.

    
    .69
    
    Yes, I've been wondering the same thing myself.  In fact, in
    the past 6 months I have, on several occasions, in several
    conferences, asked the questions a) what is the definition of
    a feminist?  and b) in what ways are women oppressed by men?
               
    To date, neither of these questions have been answered.  
    
    Deb
    
    

    Please see string 178 for definitions of feminist.
    

    
    
    Thank you for the pointer.  The base note asks all the questions
    I've been asking in my head.  
    
    I became an adult (in the eyes of the law) in the very early '70's.
    During that time, the term 'women's libber' was coined.  It was
    often used in a derogatory manner.  Also during that time, that
    awful book "The Total Woman" was published, as a counter-attack
    on the fight for equal rights.  I thought women who believed in
    traditional roles were called 'feminists'.  
    
    Thanks again for the pointer.
    
    Deb
    
    

    I think the request for a listing of where women found abusive remarks
    in this file is a good one,  so....
    
    I've started a sting for it.  Since we're talking about how people
    have felt abused,  let's try to be very considerate and not add
    to the pain.

    I feel that posting a listing of abusive remarks would be
    "finger-pointing", and would involve extracting from certain notes
    written by certain individuals who would then possibly be singled
    out and labeled "abusive".  This would be a bad thing.  If there
    were enough examples, what would that prove?  How many is enough?
     If one person seems to be more abusive than others, what action
    should we take?  What would change by pointing a finger and saying,
    "THERE is where you hurt us.  And THERE.  And THERE."  Would that
    change the hurt, or the pattern of hurting?  Would that change the
    way people note?  The way people read?  I honestly don't think so
    (in light of ALL the discussions on sensitivity and process and
    consideration and validation/invalidation that have gone on in V1
    and V2 of womannotes).
    
    Also, what one person considers abusive, and what another person
    considers abusive, may vary considerably.

    -Jody
    

        What are abusive remarks?  Consider the following;  a new woman
        noter opens this  conference, reads about 'men abusing women in
        this  conference',  and possibly  assumes  that  the  above  is
        consistently true.  Set mind  defensive  and  look  for  malice
        where probably none is intended -  this  aggravates the gap and
        inhibits progress.
        
        I'm asking those women who claim to  have  been  abused here by
        men to quote what they consider to be abuse (note - i don't say
        that men have not abused women here - abuse must be a perceived
        reaction by the woman involved, and thus is valid to her).
        
        Andy
        

    Re .75, I completely agree with Jody.  I'd hate to see people dragging
    out old notes and rehashing when they felt they'd been harrassed
    by men in womannotes.  And, then the men who wrote the notes would
    have to defend themselves and say why they don't feel they were
    harrassing.  Why put so much effort in something so negative that
    would only make people get angry again over something they may have
    forgotten long ago?
    
    As far as .0, I think that Laura has a right (obviously we all do)
    not to respond to any note that she doesn't want to respond to.
     I'm not sure I think it was a good idea to announce that intention
    in the notesfile, though, since I think I can understand where some
    men might feel offended or that it was "a slap in the face."  I,
    personally, would never set my priorities the way Laura has.  I
    don't automatically think that all women are more deserving of my
    energy than all men.
    
    Lorna
    
 
    could never put my priorities

    I can see why identifying specific people, even indirectly
    through extracts of their notes, is potentially dangerous (perhaps
    even against Digital policy). On the other hand, it would be
    very valuable to find out what some women consider abusive notes.
    I have seen occasional notes in here that seemed to me to be
    abusive towards women, or which "invalidate" their feelings (I
    think "invalidate" is the wrong word, for a person's feelings are
    valid for that person regardless of what anyone else may say, and
    a better phrase may be to "deny [one's] feelings", but I digress...),
    but notes like 258.0 imply that I'm only seeing the tip of the
    iceberg. How can I see the rest of the iceberg if no one shows me?
    I don't believe anything I've written in this file is abusive or
    deny's anyone's feelings, but I can't see it through a woman's eyes,
    so I can't be sure. How can I be sensitive to what hurts women if
    they don't say what it is that is hurting them?

    Mike

    I respectfully decline the offer to spend my time and energy looking
    up, rereading and reposting notes that I found offensive the first
    time around.                                                
                                                                
    I understand your wanting to know what we find abusive, but I think
    in general those who find them abusive have been pretty good about 
    making that known promptly and clearly.
    
    
    -Tracy
                          

    re: .77
    
    Lorna,
    
    I didn't say that I felt that women were more worthy of my energy
    than men, I just said that in this particular forum, =wn=, I would
    only give my energy to women.
    
    I participate in two other notes file where I do respond to entries
    made by men, not to mention mail messages as forums for communication.
    
    Regards,
    
    Laura
    

    Re .80, Laura, but, is that saying that =wn= is only for women,
    so in =wn= you'll only give your energy to women?  I'm not sure
    I understand the point or the significance of announcing it.  Everybody
    has limited energy.  I only respond to what interests me but it
    doesn't matter to me if a man or woman wrote the message to begin
    with.  
    
    Lorna
     

    re: .81
    
    I don't feel that =wn= is only for women, but I do feel that if
    some of the men in this file were truly interested in understanding
    women's experiences, they would spend less time arguing about why they
    disagree with our experiences.
    
    Lorna, I don't think I can add anything more to either my own initial
    note or any discussions thereafter that will further clarify the
    reasons why I chose this particular couse of action.
    
    Regards,
    
    Laura
    

    This topic has been bothering me for quite a while now.  Perhaps,
    it's because when I first started reading Notes, I was really
    struck by the number of "enlightened" men out there.  (I work
    in a very small and remote office!)  It made me feel like the
    women's movement was, indeed, making progress because suddenly,
    to me, it seemed so many men really understood and others really
    WANTED to understand "our" issues.  It's been most encouraging!
    
    We all know that there are, shall we say, "off the wall" noters
    in any conference.  I guess what I want to say is that I don't
    want to see this progress slide because of some men who are
    "arguing about why they disagree with us".  I want to commend
    the men who are trying to understand and even, help with, our
    "movement".  The others will see the light eventually.....

    For the general readership who may wish to re-read 258.0:
    
    (touching on 85.25   "... or anything by Mary Daly for that matter.")
    
        
                              Wickedary
                        Beacon Press, Boston.
                     (1987, Mary Daly, Jane Caputi)
                                310 pp.
    
    p. 75  Feminism, Radical  1: the Cause of causes, which alone of
    all revolutionary causes exposes the basic model and source of all
    forms of oppression - patriarchy - and thus can open up consciousness
    to active participation in Movement, Transcendence, and Happiness
    2: be-ing *for* women and all Elemental Life, which implies going
    to the roots of the oppression of all Others  3: way of be-ing
    characterized by (a) an Awesome and Ecstatic sense of Otherness
    from patriarchal norms and values  (b) conscious awareness of the
    sadosociety's sanctions against Radical Feminists  (c) moral outrage
    on behalf of women *as women.*: WOMAN-IDENTIFICATION (d) commitment
    to the cause of women that persists, even against the current, when
    feminism is no longer "popular": CONSTANTCY. *Canny Comment*:
    
           My friends, do we realize for what purpose we are convened?
           Do we fully understand that we aim at nothing less than an
           entire subversion of the present order of society, a dissolution
           of the whole existing social compact? 
                                         - Elizabeth Oakes Smith (1852)
    
    
    p. 96  Separatism, Radical Feminist : theory and actions of Radical
           Feminists who choose separation from the Dissociated State
    of patriarchy in order to release the flow of elemental energy and
    Gynophilic communication; radical withdrawal of energy from warring
    patriarchy and transferral of this energy to women's Selves.
    *Compare*: DISSOCIATED STATE; separatism, phallic (W-W3)
    
    
    p. 194-5  Dissociated State  1: condition of low-grade multiple-
    personality disorder common among women under patriarchy; the state
    of a woman who is severed from her Original Self and splintered
    into myriad false selves   2: patriarchy, the state of separation
    from Biophilic purposefulness. See separatism, phallic (W-W3)
    
    
    p. 225   separatism, phallic  : disorder at the core of patriarchal
    consciousness, engengered by phallocentric myths, ideologies, and
    institutions: state of disconnection from Biophillic purposefulness,
    exemplified in such atrocities as the worldwide rape of women, the
    rape of the Third World, and the soulless manipulation and torture
    of laboratory animals.
    
    
                                                  Russ P.

    Well, Russ, I read your note twice.  Then I went haring off to 85.25.
    Then I reread 258.0.  Then I reread your note again.
    
    Did you have a point?  Thanks for the research and your typing time,
    but if you think I can sagely nod and say, "I see", well...I don't.
    
    DougO

    re .85   Check the p. 96 paragraph in .84 and compare with 258.0's
             remarks.
    
             My point is that ideology is involved in the decision.
    
    
                                                     Russ P.

    Re: .60  (.75)
    
    > Second, I have again reread Tracy's note.  What I believe she
    > is objecting to the most is that Laura said something that was
    > found to be hurtful.  I believe that Laura said that so that the
    > men *whom she found tiring* would question themselves.
    > ...                              
    > Should she have named certain individuals to whom she would no longer
    > reply?  Ouch!  Now, *that* is hurtful. Much better for the person who
    > would never consider questioning himself anyhow to be spared that. 

    Ann,
    
    So, Laura chooses to spare the individuals who really bother her by
    hitting all men broadside.  You seem to reason that this it better than
    singling out the guilty parities.  The problem is that there are many
    sensitive men (like me) in this file who take to heart every negative
    comment directed at all men (I'm here for my negative therapy) while, the
    guilty simply assume that she is talking about someone else.  The only
    men who end up feeling the hurt are the innocent ones (Since I've
    been silent, I assume I'm innocent, I think?). 
    
    If the fingers were pointed, the innocents could see that they
    were not the one's pointed out and would stay and contribute.
    The guilty may choose to move on.  If the guilty are not pointed
    out it may be the other way around.
    
    I have no objections to anyone using any criterion they choose to
    filter this notes file down to the size that fits their energy.
    If they choose also to fire a salvo at those they have filtered,
    they should make an effort to not repeat the crime of those
    they accuse in the process.
    
    					MJC O->
    

    Well, I am assuming that someone may be `guilty' AND sensitive.
    
    After all, have we not had men ask what sort of men's comments
    were being considered abusive?  Should I not presume that it was
    so they could learn to avoid that pitfall?
    
    From two or three data I have received over the past few days,
    I do believe that there are men out there who have asked "Could
    it have been me?" and are getting a bit embarassed at the answer.
    
    Mind you -- I don't "blame" them; it is almost certainly how they
    were taught, and they will be able to unteach themselves with
    salutory speed.  And it looks to be better than I expected!  (Oh,
    I love it when I'm too pessimistic!)
    
    						Ann B.

    Re: -1
    
    > Well, I am assuming that someone may be `guilty' AND sensitive.

    I can agree and disagree with this.  I don't believe that someone
    can be all that 'guilty' and truly sensitive.  There may be
    many psudo-sensitive men who think themselves enlightened.  They
    come to the file with their list of good deeds and are surprised
    that instead of having a metal pined on them they are pointed out
    as part of the problem.
    
    To the more sensitive, the abuse is pretty obvious.  The ones who
    need to ask are either 1) sure that there is no abuse or 2) aware of the
    limits of their understanding and seek enlightenment to shore up the
    rough edges.  I wouldn't call either ones of these examples of true
    sensitivity.  Both are limited in thier perception of the problem.
    
    There is another way to be both 'guilty' and sensitive.  One
    characteristic of womanspace is the freedom from having to edit
    out feelings that would tend to do damage male egos (most women
    having been trained to protect male egos.).   Women may need
    a place to jump up and down without fear of stepping on someone's
    toes.  A sensitive man in this environment is less then useless.
    He is not 'guilty' as such, just in the way.  Since womannotes
    cannot be free of men there will always be a few sensitive men
    getting in the way.  Occasionally, thier "whining" will overcome
    some women's instinct not to lash out at them.  The result is
    a feedback loop that limits the survivable amount a sensitivity
    a man can maintain.

    					MJC O->

    <--(.89)
    
    Nice analysis, MJC!
    
    						=maggie

    FWIW, quite often I come into =wn= to read what women have to say on
    certain subjects. While I values men's viewpoint, there are times when
    I need the opinions of women. There are somethings only women
    experience and generally those are the things I want to read about here
    in =wn=. I like to read others experience with PMS, what are their
    symptoms (misery loves company) and how they deal with that time of the
    month. I also like to hear about problems with birth control (the pill
    made me feel insane at times, etc) and the alternative route the
    women too to avoid those problems. I'm sure that men can contribute
    to those discussions, but it will be second hand information. Sometimes
    I need first hand info. Which is why I think that FWO is a good
    ideas. 
    
    Women get abused in other notesfile too. I note in other conferences
    and in order to protect myself from the subtle abuse from some men
    I don't identify myself as a woman. The most popular form of abuse
    of women by some men is the dismissal of everything the women say
    as "sensitive and irrational" when those women's opinions don't
    coincide with the men's. There are certain buzz words which are
    used often in the abuse - overreacting, emotional, calm down, stop
    blowing things out of proportion, stop being so confrontational.
    As a woman I totally agree with Laura when she said that it takes
    time and energy to fight those individuals.  Sometimes it's just
    not worth it. 
    
    _karen

    <--(.92)
    
    Well, not really, Mike; I think Karen is saying that, like most of us,
    she only wants to apply that kind of filter sometimes --not always--
    and that FWO works just fine for her on those occasions.  Makes perfect
    sense t'me.
    
    						=maggie 

re: .91: "she only wants to apply that kind of filter sometimes ..."

There is an interesting paradox -- she writes in some files with a
gender-neutral name so others don't apply a "For Men Only" filter,
but wishes to apply a "For Women Only" filter to what she reads here.

(Or am I misunderstanding the message.)

Martin.

    re .94
    
    When it is assumed by males that I'm male I get less harassment 
    from males. Females tend not to harass me. I'm talking about the 
    abuse some  women suffer at the hands of some male just because 
    those males know that those women are female. I guess my point is, 
    once a person is identifiably female the ball game is over. At that 
    point, the person may want to filter out the men who react to females 
    in abusive manner. At that point, the  person may want to have FWO  
    topics because discussions in FWO topics tend to be less stressful and
    tend to be void of this type of abuse. Maybe Laurie has gotten to the
    point where she no longer wants to deal with the men who are abusive
    and hence wants women-only space. This way she probably can let
    her hair down and not worry about those abusive men jumping all
    over her.
    
    BTW .94, I don't write with a gender-neutral name. I write with my
    name, packer::Wharton or kelvin::Wharton.  Although this company
    has many female employees, the rule of thumb still is "when in doubt
    assume male."  Its not my fault that some people assume that packer::wharton
    is male                                   

    When am I?
    
    
    
    I thought that we had a big vote, and that the winner was...
    
    
    
    FWO:  followed by FGD: in the next note, or soon thereafter.
    
    
    
    Did I enter a time warp to some previous time to the vote?
    Do I get to vote again?  What is up?  I see no problem in 
    staying READ ONLY IN FWO: notes, and Write to FGD: if so moved.
    
    Dave

    RE: .96
    
    An announcement was made by the moderators some time back that the
    FWO/FGD scheme was found to be against corporate policy and that they
    therefore could not enforce it.
    
    I choose to respect the base-note author's wishes.  Some do not.
    
    								-- Mikey