Conference turris::womannotes-v2

Nothing like a poll to draw opinions from all angles.

I think I've made my opinions pretty clear. I'm hear to talk to women. If I
want to talk to men, I can walk down the corridor.

This is a place for all women, not just me. So, if other women want to talk to
men, that's fine by me.
	Mez

	The intro topic says this conference is to discuss topics of
	interest to women. So that's what I discuss here. Fortunately,
	women seem to be interested in most things.

	If someone doesn't want to read entries from male participants, 
	(or any other subset of the participants) then need simply
	hit KP3.

					Tom_K

    re: .0
    
    If anyone considers a topic/reply in this, or any other conference, to
    be non-constructive or offensive, they are able to: 
    
    1. Write a reply stating their objections, or 
       
    2. Request the conference moderators to take appropriate action, or 

    3. Ignore the topic/reply, or
                                 
    4. None of the above.

    BTW: I didn't know non-constructive or offensive writing was strictly a
    male attribute. 

    Mike

    I view this file as a forum for women.
    
    I view the male readership as guests.
    
    Since (2) is not the "way it is", then (1) is not the "way it is".
    
    That is unfortunate, but it is nonetheless, fact.
    
    There are many men who read this file and act entirely appropriately.
    Some of them we never hear from. Some we do. 
    
    That I am glad these men, and men like them, exist on the planet
    does not change one bit my thought that the focus of this file
    belongs on the women in it.
    
    --DE
    

    
    Good grief, how many times must I agree with you Dawn?!?
    This is getting out of hand you know....:-)
    
    I NEVER thought I'd say this and but I do think that the
    women here are often times getting drowned out. What to do?
    I don't know. Hell, I even feel hypocritical entering this note
    because of the way I feel. But, Dawn IS right. (my opinion)
    
    						Regards,
    
    							Hank   

    
    Dawn, I love agreeing with you.
    
    am

    I, too, have noticed that women have been in danger of being drowned
    out in some discussions.  It certainly doesn't help matters when
    it happens.  Women feel threatened and look for reduced participation
    by men, then men feel threatened and assert their freedom of expression
    and then everyone's unhappy.
    
    I certainly believe there are some topics to which men simply can't
    contribute much merely by nature of not being female.  Likewise,
    there are aspects of men's lives of which women have limited, if
    any, understanding.
    
    On the other hand (you knew it was coming), just as women can provide
    insight into the behavior of men (see the "girl" or cat-calling
    discussions), so can men provide insight into the behavior of women.
    By saying "this is how I react to a particular behavior," both women
    and men contribute to better understanding and communication.
    
    I do agree with the point in .0 about contributing in terms of adding
    value to the discussion.

    
    As a guy, I believe that I should be a WORM participant (Write
    Occasionally, Read Mostly) in this conference and have tried to keep
    myself that way.  (Just recently I got fired up by a debate, but I'm
    over that now--I think 8^).  I've mostly kept my input to an article
    typed in here or there, an occasional question or a some quoted
    statistics.
    
    *I* get annoyed when I see 6-10 consecutive replies in a topic all
    written by men, or especially when I see men telling women that they
    shouldn't feel the way that they do, or that they're making too much of
    something to which they've taken offense.  I don't think that male
    behaviour needs to be defended by men in this conference.
    
    I also think that all men should honor the FWO/FGD mechanism when it is
    (infrequently) invoke as simple matter of courtesy.
    
    							-- Mikey

    Re: .11
    
    Greg, your view of what this conference is FOR is one view.  Others
    disagree with you.  While your view is the one I would prefer, I
    understand and recognize the needs of those who disagree.  Since their
    needs are greater than mine, I no longer argue the point or
    bull-headedly write something just because I have an opinion on it.
    
    Nowadays, I mostly listen.  If a point of information comes up that
    I can be helpful with, I'll comment.  If a discussion arises in which
    I think I have something novel and constructive to say, I'll say it,
    in the least irritating tone I can muster.  (Unfortunately, this seems
    to have the side effect of being ignored, only to have someone else's
    sharply-worded restatement ten replies later be fawned over (or jumped
    on), but - them's the breaks.)  I say what I have to say, and then
    leave it - I don't repeat myself just because someone disagrees.  I
    also have learned to recognize when further discussion is pointless.
    
    But I continue to speak up if I feel that an injustice is being done.
    
    I agree with Dawn and others that men's voices here often drown out
    the women's.  There are some topics here that seem to be only men
    arguing amongst themselves.  This is not good.  We should encourage
    those less vocal women to feel comfortable about speaking up - and I
    feel the best way to do that is to give them the space and significance
    they deserve.
    
    I believe that men's voices are important here.  In many cases, men
    are part of the problems that women have in our society.  Because of
    this, men must also be allowed - even encouraged - to be part of the
    solution.  This will mean putting up with some "noise", true.  But
    the benefits to women - and men - exceed the costs.
    
    				Steve

re .12:
>   ...I'll say it,
>   in the least irritating tone I can muster.  (Unfortunately, this seems
>   to have the side effect of being ignored, only to have someone else's
>   sharply-worded restatement ten replies later be fawned over (or jumped
>   on), but - them's the breaks.)

    Not ignored, Steve, often just listened to as quietly and
    calmly as it's stated.  I like having both the Chelsea's and
    Steve Lionel's and Bonnie R's (both of 'em) with their
    quiet, helpful, points of view as well as those who are able
    to inflame us--whether for or against.  Sometimes I feel like
    talking/listening quietly about something, sometimes I want
    to wave my arms and shout, or get excited with someone else
    doing so.

    By the same token, although I sometimes get frustrated with
    some people's replies (and in the topics I'm interested in,
    they are often, though not always, men), I wouldn't want to
    exclude a group of people just because sometimes they make me
    grit my teeth and say "Doesn't (s)he *listen*?"

    -- Linda

    This question has been raised, hashed, and re-hashed.  I don't know
    that there is anything new to be said.
    
    I have noted that there has been an upswing in male participation
    in this conference since the Soapbox began restricting access hours.
    
    Marge

    <--(.15)
    
    oHO!  Is that what happened, Marge?  I was being semi-facetious
    when I asked whether =soapbox= was broken, it didn't occur to me
    to ask whether there was some other factor at work.
    
    						=maggie

    I hit "Next Unseen" ALL THE TIME!  The male participation in this
    notesfile doesn't really bother me because I barely read anything
    written by one.  I'm sure I must of read one or two, but for the
    life of me, I cannot remember which ones!  
    
    I don't care if they're here or not, and I certainly don't let it
    get me upset.  
    
    Anna
    

    As a male, I feel that I am a guest here.  I read this note file
    daily but very seldom reply.  Thanks for letting us in.
    
    Pat

    Well speaking both for my self, and as one moderator who has had
    to deal extensively with a couple of men who were delighting in
    trashing the file in the past....I like to have men contribute to
    the file. I have met many of the male contributors and find them
    in the vast majority to be fine and sensitive people. I dislike
    it when notes become dominated by male voices but I enjoy reasonable
    and thoughful and personal statements by members of both genders.
    
    Bonnie

     RE: .22
    
    Bob, I hope my entry wasn't one that lead to your decision.
    If so, I didn't mean it that way.
    
    					Hank
    
    
    And eagles (.20) thanks so much for the kind words. Best wishes
    to you too.

    	re: statements like  "Men dominating the notes keeps this file
    from serving the women's needs..."
    
    	Actually it keeps the file from serving *some* women's needs.
    As in all things, you can't tell what a person needs just by gender.
    I personally don't need an all women's space and in fact I doubt
    I would participate in this file if it were women only.  (Note I
    don't say that a women's space is a bad idea; only *I personally*
    don't need it.)                                                  
                                                           
    	Frankly, I read a note's content first, often intentionally ignoring
    the name attached to it until I'm done.  (I have pre-conceived notions
    of what some people will say.  I know that's wrong and unfair to
    them (and me) and this is my way of teaching myself to *listen* (at least
    as a first step. Eventually I'll be able to *listen* even knowing
    who is speaking.))  Because of this, I am often unaware of the gender
    of a particular author unless he/she says "my wife", "when my period
    starts...", etc.  If a note makes sense, it makes sense and I listen. 
    If it's hogwash , I sometimes repond (but more often ignore it
    completely).  It is categorically unimportant to me what the geneder
    of the author is.
    

    tlh
    

    I wholeheartedly agree, personally and as a mod, with Bonnie's
    position.  
    
    Some men...they range from liberal to conservative in political view,
    btw, and I think they know who they are...are *always* welcome here
    because, fundamentally, they're strong and self-confident and in
    consequence are able to relate to us as equals.  I enjoy hearing their
    views here because, in the first place they don't feel that women are
    helpless and rudderless unless we have the constant benefit of their
    wisdom, and in the second place we can disagree even heatedly without
    them metaphorically clutching themselves in self-protection. It makes
    for good conversation. 
    
    Other men --a *few* other men--really aren't welcome here at all...at
    best they're tolerated like a bore at a party:  we can't toss them out
    so we try to ignore them as much as possible.  They're the ones who,
    judging by their behavior, think that because we're women we must need
    constant instruction on what to think and how to live our lives.
    They're overbearing, loud, and, typically, both ignorant and oblivious
    with it.  They usually *don't* know who they are because it would never
    occur to them to reflect on the feedback they get. 
    
    Most men, of course, fall somewhere in between...as does our reaction
    to their behavior:  sometimes we applaud, other times it's phazers-on-
    kill.  Would we want them to go away?  Yeah, sometimes, but not for
    ever, just long enough to calm down. 
    
    
    Please, if you want to know whether you're being subtly urged to
    leave...ask one of the mods.  We won't pull any punches.  But don't
    just get upset and go away because one or two people say something
    unkind-sounding: it probably isn't even directed at you! 
           
                                        in Sisterhood,
    					=maggie

    Maggie,
    
    On reading your note it occured to me why polite, courteous, well
    intentioned men saying that this should be womanspace and they
    won't write or read and write bothers me. At one level I am hearing
    them being very considereate, at another, I am hearing that they are 
    staying out of the file to *protect* us. While I respect
    anyones decision to contribute or not contribute to the file, I
    don't think we need speical consideration or protection from men's
    contriubtions.
    
    Bonnie

    
    re .13
    
    only some are more different than others... :-}

    Re: .27
    
    Bonnie, oh how I wish that were true.  Unfortunately, those of us who
    consider themselves "reasonable" men (ignoring for the moment, whether
    or not we are in truth reasonable), see constant reminders that some
    women feel the need for "protection" from male participation - the most
    obvious example of this is FWO notes, which until recently were being
    enforced by some of the moderators, and are still supported by many.
    
    Other reminders are notes from women saying that they don't want to
    see men participate, and will ignore anything men write.  Given this
    state of affairs, it's hard NOT for us to conclude that we are better
    off remaining silent.
    
    As I see it, WOMANNOTES is serving a somewhat broad spectrum of
    women, but the distribution is heavily weighted towards those who
    appear to have a distaste for men's participation.  There does not
    seem to be any one answer that will satisfy all.  I have decided
    for myself that "quiet" participation has highest benefit/cost
    ratio.  I tried full participation, but the pain wasn't worth it.
    I tried no participation, but the emptiness brought me back.
    
    We've been discussing (arguing) this issue ever since the conference
    opened.  I don't think it's really ever going to go away - especially
    when you consider that the community changes constantly, with new
    members coming in who are unaware of the history and old members
    dropping out.
    
    Perhaps what makes the problem more difficult is that since the
    "responsible" men tend to be quiet, the "irresponsible" men are more
    visible, and serve to set the "standards" by which all male
    participants are judged.  Unfortunately, I don't see any simple
    solution to this.  It would be nice to wave a magic wand and just
    tell everyone to ignore the problem noters ,(which set also includes
    a small number of women), but it's not that easy.
    
    All I can suggest is a clear statement of position by the moderators,
    enhanced vigilance and reduced toleration of disruptions.  That,
    and a modicum of understanding by all.
    
    				Steve

There are some topics which I believe that male participation is
necessary, conversely there are some where it is rubbish.

Those topics, where I feel it is necessary, are where
there is a conflict issue between what women see and what men see.

I could mentions specific topics but that isn't my point.
Discussion of topics by groups that have different views is good.
Understanding, or acknowledging, others viewpoints provides for a
more informed opinion.

I have my own opinions about certain things but I like to hear 
different opinions and the reasoning for those opinions. I have found
that it makes me rethink my own ideas and gives me a better perspective on
the topic. This doesn't mean I change my mind but it makes me think more
about the topic.

That is why I think male participation in some topics is a necessity.

mike

It's pretty entertaining that some people see FWO as 'the shrinking violet
syndrome'. In my experience the women who desire some 'wimmin-only' space are
strong, fun, and free-thinking. I'm one of 'em :-). I realized after going to
WITCH lectures that we can play with ideas in FWO space (such as a WITCH
lecture) without the bother/boredom of defending them. Maybe we could call them
FBO (For Brainstorming Only). I bet that would seem less offensive :-}.
	Mez

As far as I'm concerned, you guys can have a FWO notesfile when I can
have a FMO project.

Oh? you think there's a difference?  Think again.

Martin.

    	RE: .32
    
    	> ...you guys can have a FWO notesfile when I can have a
    	> FMO project.
    	> Oh? you think there is a difference?  Think again.
    
    	Who are you talking to here?  I didn't see anyone making an issue
    	out of wanting an FWO notesfile (nor did I see anyone sending
    	any such request to you personally.) 
    
    	As a matter of fact, most of the discussion about FWO has been
    	from males (and the basenote itself was written by a male.)
    
    	So, I guess I am curious as to why you worded the note the way
    	you did.
    

    RE: .32
    
    Uhm....so what you're willing to allow women to "have", depends
    on if you can have what *you* want? 
    
    --DE
    

Suzanne (re: .33),

I believe the note you are discussing illustrates some of the 
deficiencies in logical and abstract thought that are often demonstrated 
by males in our society.  The first is the compulsion to create extreme 
dichotomies, even if they don't exist.  A discussion (started by a man and
primarily engaged in by men) about male participation is extrapolated to
mean that women are clamoring to exclude all men from the entire file. 
Although some women have wistfully expressed the idea that they would
like to engage in discussion with only women, at no time has there ever
been a "movement" to seriously make Womannotes FWO in its entirety.  
That so many man seem to labor under this misapprehension indicates the 
severe reality-distorting effects of this intellectual handicap.  

The second common failing exhibited by many males is difficulty
conceptualizing the dynamics of social relations.  There is no
similarity whatosever between an out-of-power group getting together to
talk to each other, support themselves, validate their own culture, and
experience their own worth and power without an oppressor present to
enforce their old social programming, and a group of those-in-power
getting together to participate in the business function of the society
and excluding any others from the opportunity to try to succeed in the
society on the strength of their individual skills and effort.  

The clever trick of making the two seem to be equivalent behaviors
serves to give those-out-of-power the idea that if they want to be
treated as "individuals" in terms of social access, they must give up
identifying with their "group".  Thus, they can be "individuals" only if
they do so in the way those-in-power have defined such a thing to be,
and cannot bind together with others of their "group" to discover what
power there may be in their "other" identity.  This way, those-in-power
can be served, no matter whether they use blatant segregation exerted against 
the will of others to keep them out-of-power, or an "integration" that
requires those out-of-power to "blend in" on the terms defined by
those-in-power. This second tactic is in fact more successful, once it
appears those out-of-power are getting hostile about their excluded
status.  It makes it look like there is progress (pulling the teeth of
any incipient revolt), while maintaining the real status quo
(those-in-power still call the shots). 

It's actually too clever a trick for the average male to be a knowing
particpant in the scheme, but their ignorant participation serves
a cultural purpose.  It makes those-in-power (males) numb to the
realities of those out-of-power, which in turn aids in the daily
exercise of their power over others.  As long as they are helping the 
cause of male domination along, it's better if they don't know how or 
why they are doing it.

                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    You've got it backwards, Steve.

    I'm pretty sure Martin is referring to the fact that both conditions
    would violate DEC personnel policy as it now exists.  Of course as
    Suzanne pointed out, nobody is actually advocating an FWO file, so it's
    not very clear why Martin felt the need to take so clear a "fighting
    stance".
    
    Perhaps he'll enlighten us?
    
    						=maggie

re: .35

I had a 'click'. The other day I was discussing alternatives with a coworker
(who happened to be male). There were three:
1) cover over all possible bugs/probings of a certain type (ie - recover, but 
	never report)
2) catch the ones that are cheap to catch
3) catch them all

It was obvious to me that 2 & 3 were most in the spirit of what our group is
all about (security). I was totally comfortable with 2, but he was totally
_un_comfortable with any option that wasn't absolute. It was pretty wierd; we
were each respecting each other's opinion, but coming from different ends of
the universe. Maybe I'll be able to vocalize about it better next time. Thanx.
	Mez

    
    Re: .40
    
    Good point, Mez!  I've always been somewhat uncomfortable with
    absolutes - preferring flexibility and compromise.  I think it has
    a lot to do with why I prefer spending work and non-work time with
    mixed-gender or all-female groups.  I've never felt totally comfortable
    in all-male groups - my impression was one of posturing and 
    one-upping rather than cooperation.  (Of course these are
    generalizations, I've met males, mostly at DEC, that share my
    "tolerance for ambiguity"  8^)
    
    I've enjoyed (and learned a lot from) this notesfile.  I hope I
    can contribute in the future...
    
    Ron

    um, Mike,
    
    Where does it say that .35 is now the operational guideline
    of the file? each person who writes in this file brings their
    own view point and way of expressing themself. Should you
    assume that the moderators will only leave things in the file
    that they agree with 100% and that each word so written should
    be considered the gospel of the file?
    
    There is no rule that only those men who agree with Catherine,
    or Suzanne, or Maggie, or Chelsea, or Bonnie RS or me or any other
    outspoken woman in the file, are welcome.
    
    Bonnie

	Anyone ever consider that the real problem is not that there
	is too much male participation, but rather that there is not
	enough female participation? If people consider that the male
	participation in the conference overshadows the female participation,
	the obvious solution is more female participation. Of course, you 
	can lead a noter to a conference but you can't make them reply.

	Probably because the women are busy doing real work.


						:-)


							Tom_K

    re .37:
    
    Not backwards maggie, incomplete. Actually it should be:
    
    It is notes like .35 that produce notes like .32 that produce notes
    like .35 ...
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re .46  You know, the parallels between Millett and Catherine are
            rather striking.  Essentially, anything Levin and Davidson
            (see 84.16,20) say about Millett also applies to our very
            own.
    
    
                                                      Russ P.

As a mostly read only noter, I concur with those that for the
most part listen to what women have to say.  Lately, there have many
long and arduous debates that I have have learned next to nothing from
except how draining they are.  

I agree with Catherine that there is a difference between
discriminatory exclusive groups and other exclusive groups.  Many of
the clubs that have been challenged as guilty of discriminatory
practices against women and other oppressed groups.  To equate these
on a stricly logical level neglects the fundamental issues that
are being addressed.

If there are folks that feel they need a women's only enviroment due
to past injustices and a need to explore in a safe environment, then
the more power to them.  It is my understanding the same folks would
welcome non-discriminatory men's groups.  If a group of
men formed an associatation to explore the effects of cultural
conditioning on men in a safe environment so that men could understand
their own blind spots and societally imposed limitations that get in
the way of a full expression of the human potential, would women
feminists try and stop such an action?  I think not.

The women's movement has shown that it is possible to explore and be
free of limiting cultural conditioning that imprisons all of us.
For this movement to really succeed, a similar understanding will have
to come to men so that we can understand and see clearly where all
these ideas of how we are supposed to be come from and stop being
afraid and acting defensiveley if we find we do not measure up to these
ideals.  The conditioning around sexual roles, sucess, and power are
things that need to be seen and understood so that we can all be
ourselves and not blindly follow this conditioning that 
causes so much of our suffering in this fleeting life.

A story.  Hung-jen saw some monks agruing about a fluttering pennant.
One of them said, "The pennant is an inanimate object and it is the
wind that makes it flap."  Another said, "Both wind and pennant are
inaminate things and the fluttering is an impossibility."  The third
one protested, "The fluttering is due to a certain combination of
cause and condition."  A fourth proposed the theory, "After all there
is no flapping pennant but the wind is moving all by itself."
The discussion grew quite animated when Hung-Jen interupted and said,
"It is neither wind nor pennant but your own minds that flaps" thus
ending the discussion.

peace,
john

    re .49  So long as it's not Webster's Intergalactic Wickedary. :-)
    
    

    	RE: .49  Mike Zarlenga
    
	<.35>I believe the note you are discussing illustrates some of the 
	<.35>deficiencies in logical and abstract thought that are often 
    	<.35>demonstrated by males in our society.
    
    	>  -< .35 must be satire, 'cause it's not logic >-
    
    	> Someone should mail this to Webster's as an example of irony.
    
    	Nah.  I doubt that Webster's would find it ironic that a man
	such as yourself would respond to .35 by providing an additional
    	example of the very deficiencies mentioned in that note.
    
    	Perhaps you could submit the exchange as an example of 
    	'inevitable' ...

    
    	   Hey, I have an idea.  Let's get all the male members of
    	this conference to protest by boycotting it.  That'll show
    	them!  Then we can boycott all conferences that allow women.
    	(I'm afraid that means a complete boycotting of Notes.)  Then
    	we can boycott all software used by women.  (Oh no, there goes
    	my Bliss compiler! *Tragedy*)
    
    	   Hmmm... maybe I better think this idea over a bit more.
    
    	- Greg

>>>Oh no, there goes my Bliss compiler!

	Blissfully so....


	8^)

    <--(.46)
    
    Steve, you're being perverse, and I can't understand whether it's your
    own perception that's warped or whether you are cynically counting on
    the defective perception of others.  Can you really not see how
    painfully ludicrous it is of you to assert something that contradicts
    fact and try to prove your assertion by citing the very evidence that
    refutes it?!?  Is your need to find fault with women so great that you
    actually cannot see what you're doing?? 
    
    This is really sick-making.
    
    						=maggie
     

    Let me try to couch this in rational terms.
    
    The people-in-general who I feel disrupt this conference (derail,
    harangue, misdirect, over-amplify, over-attenuate) the most are
    those who seem to be "stuck" on a certain issue.  These people arrive
    with a pre-formed set of judgements, and refuse to entertain
    alternative viewpoints or even allow them to exist without lengthy
    and exhaustive (often unconvincing, after a time) discourse, and
    insist on grinding their axe in often unrelated discussions,
    thus redirecting the flow of conversation towards their own ends
    and cutting off rational and thoughtful discussion in the intended
    direction of the original topic.  A goodly percentage of the people
    in this file who do this are men.  And a good deal of the volume
    (both quantity and loudness) in this conference is due to these
    people.  I refuse to be baited by these people, as nearly any response
    I could make would yield no positive growth anywhere in this universe,
    even if the response was well-thought-out and well-worded and
    well-intended.  THAT is why I am about 50% less vocal than I was
    about 6 months ago here, when I felt things were far less heated
    and far more enlightening.
    
    -Jody
    

    re .54:
    
    I don't think it is perverse to point out that there is a viscious
    cycle occurring here.
    
    It is notes like .35 that convince some men that the women here
    are indeed demanding seperatism. I did not say that .35 was wrong
    and .32 was right. I did not declare any fault with .35 I do think
    it was rather strongly worded, but I do not understand how you got
    from what I said to your conclusions about me.
    
    Bah Humbug
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re: .34
    
    I've never seen anything to indicate that Martin wants a FMO project.
    
    Re: logic
    
    What has remained unsaid (but probably ought to be acknowledged
    to avoid exacerbating the situation) is that women are also prone
    to lapses of logic.  Since we're all liable to be 'guilty' at one
    time or another, perhaps we should concentrate on constructive
    criticism and education.  Any participant in a discussion has an
    opportunity to set the tone or tenor of the conversation.  If the
    point of the discussion is communication and understanding, then
    a non-confrontational, community-building tone is more appropriate.
    If the goal of the discussion is to score points off the other side,
    then obviously an 'us vs them' tone is more suitable.  It remains
    for the participants (both women and men) to decide what their goals
    are and to choose the most appropriate way to acheive their goals.

    <--(.56)
    
    Note 342.36         Male Participation in this Conference     36 of 57
    TFH::MARSHALL "hunting the snark"            7 lines 19-DEC-1988 11:55
    
                 -< It is notes like .35 that produce notes like .32
    >-
    
    
    
                      /
                     (  ___
                      ) ///
                     /
    
     End of note
    
    
    ==================================================================
    
    Steve, .32 was written by Martin *BEFORE* Catherine wrote .35!
    Catherine wrote .35 *IN RESPONSE TO* .32!   How in reason's name can
    you possibly argue the causal relationship you do?  Is reality
    meaningless to you? 
    
    						=maggie

    Re: .32
    
    There are, in fact, a few differences.
    
    Employee interest noting is more analogous to a social activity
    than a business activity.  As has been pointed out in the discussion
    on exclusive clubs, a desire for a single-gender atmosphere is not
    unreasonable for social situations.  (I doubt many people want their
    entire social life to be exclusively single-gender, but I can see
    that it might be attractive from time to time.)
    
    Then there's the fact that women *can* have an FWO notesfile, as
    long as it isn't advertised.  I suppose someone could have an FMO
    project as long as he didn't advertise it, but that hardly seems
    productive.
    
    I sincerely doubt that this notesfile will ever become FWO.  The
    problem is that there are times when FWO or FMO is desirable,
    regardless of whether it's just.  Thwarted desires lead to bad
    feelings.
    
    In some (probably most) cases, the desire for FWO discussion in
    no way reflects a rejection of men or a belittlement of their abilities
    and insights.  Rather, it reflects a desire for a particular social
    environment for the particular discussion.  Courtesy requires men
    to respect that desire.  Since courtesy is a consideration for the
    feelings of others, it also requires that women not use FWO for
    the purpose of making men feel rejected.  So as long as all
    participants exercise courtesy, I don't think FWO discussions would
    be a problem.

    Re: .58
    
    >Catherine wrote .35 *IN RESPONSE TO* .32!   How in reason's name
    >can you possibly argue the causal relationship you do?
    
    Because he's arguing a causal relationship between *types* of notes.
    He's not saying that .35 caused .32 which caused .35, from what
    I can tell.  Rather, the argument seems to be "notes with the same
    tone as .35 cause notes with the same tone as .32, which cause notes
    with the same tone as .35, etc."

<    The point that was made was that the ATTITUDE of inherent superiority
<    displayed by Ms. Iannuzzo causes the kind of behavior (in this case
<    a reply) exhibited in .32. I'm surprised that this even needed to
<    be said.
    

       This attitude you refer to is one that women OFTEN get from men
       (in a general sense). It just seems more offensive to males when
       it is turned on them because unlike women they don't have to live
       with it as a daily factor in their lives. liesl

       P.S. I'm also sure it was being sarcastic

re: .60 (and others)

After 30 notes, someone finally took up the question -- does the
sexism/intolerance/bigotry/discrimination of FWO notes excuse the
sexism/intolerence/bigotry/discrimination of an FMO project?

Chelsea replies, in part,

    There are, in fact, a few differences.
    
    Employee interest noting is more analogous to a social activity
    than a business activity.

In the specific case of Womannotes, I would have to disagree: I believe
that real work-related issues are being discussed here -- and *should*
be discussed here.   Although not project-related, Womannotes is work-related.
Consequently, I feel that anything that tends to make *any* Dec employee
feel unwelcome because of what he/she is (as opposed to what he/she says),
is both counter-productive for Dec, and improper under Dec's guidelines
for employee behavior.

This includes both overt signs of discrimination such as FWO notes,
courtesy or not, as well as devaluing comments about participants who
do not feel comfortable writing in English.
    
    I sincerely doubt that this notesfile will ever become FWO.  The
    problem is that there are times when FWO or FMO is desirable,
    regardless of whether it's just.  Thwarted desires lead to bad
    feelings.

One could certainly say the same thing about other real-world situations,
and other "for ... only's", such as race or religion.  But, this is not the
outside world, it's a business.  Business considerations, Dec's stated
policies, and the law prevent me from forming a men-only project (it's
a dumb idea, too).  They also bar enforcement of FWO notes.  Changing it
from a policy to a "courtesy" is, I feel, both disengenuous and discourteous.

Martin.

    Re: .64
    
    >I believe that real work-related issues are being discussed here --
    >and *should* be discussed here.   Although not project-related,
    >Womannotes is work-related.
    
    I still find it primarily social, for even work can be discussed
    in social situations.  But yes, I do recognize that parts of it
    are relevant to the work environment.
    
    >Changing it from a policy to a "courtesy" is, I feel, both
    >disengenuous and discourteous.
    
    If you're viewing F*O notes as exclusionary, then yes, I can see
    why you'd feel that way.  I don't think F*O notes should have, as
    their primary purpose, the goal of excluding others.  I think they
    should have the goal of creating a comfortable social environment
    for discussion.  True, the net result is the same:  non-* are not
    welcome in certain discussions.  However, the purpose and the message
    are different.  An exclusionary F*O note says to non-*, "We don't
    like you, we don't want you around."  An environment-building F*O
    says, "We'd like to have this discussion among ourselves."  It does
    not say, "We don't like you."  It doesn't even say, "We don't think
    you have anything to contribute."  Perhaps non-* do not, in fact,
    have anything relevant to contribute to the particular discussion.
    This happens sometimes.  Regardless of the ability of non-* to
    contribute, the * would find the discussion more comfortable without
    their presence.  For instance, non-moderators would probably have
    something to contribute to moderator discussions, but most moderators
    seem to feel more comfortable holding their discussions away from
    the public eye.

re: .57
    
>    perhaps we should concentrate on constructive criticism and education.
>    Any participant in a discussion has an opportunity to set the tone or
>    tenor of the conversation.  If the point of the discussion is
>    communication and understanding, then a non-confrontational,
>    community-building tone is more appropriate. 
 
    That is a lovely sentiment.  It's such a shame it's so hard to put
    into use.  It seems that constructive criticism and education in
    and of itself is becoming rarer in this conference.  Rather, when
    criticism seems constructive, and phrases seem educative, they are
    often spiked with irony and sarcasm.  This is a nasty turn of events.
    However, it seems that those who try to set a  more moderate tenor
    to a given flamage-ful conversation are very easy to overlook
    and are often ignored.  Yes, a community-building tone is
    often more appropriate, but it is seldom the note that gets the
    replies and gets everyone's attention.  By the time the discussion
    has gone down another rathole, the calm, constructive,
    community-building notes (be they written by *women* or *men* -
    just figured (unfortunately) that had to be said), are long-forgotten.
        
>    If the goal of the discussion is to score points off the other side,
>    then obviously an 'us vs them' tone is more suitable.  It remains for
>    the participants (both women and men) to decide what their goals are
>    and to choose the most appropriate way to acheive their goals. 

    I feel that "us vs. them" is often a very polarized way of discussing
    something, as it often leaves both sides feeling attacked and in need 
    of defense.  It seldom remains for the participants to decide what
    their goals are, because in the heated discussion it sometimes becomes
    necessary to alter their goals from "explaining where I stand and
    leaving it at that" to "fighting tooth and nail to force as many
    people as possible to concede my point is right by whatever tactics
    are necessary because that is what the opposition is doing".  
    
    -Jody
    
    what would happen if they  held a war and nobody came?
    what happened if they held a heated debate and nobody flamed?

    	peace, friends...
    

    There are some subjects that men have little to contribute and usually
    have the sense recognize this fact. I'm sure that few male participants
    in this file could add any first hand knowledge about... vaginal
    infections, etc. Hence there is little need to state categorically
    that it is a FWO note. 
    
    Other notes are somewhat more nebulous in nature. A note about what
    women find sexy in men would best be responded to at least mostly
    by women. I don't think it should be labeled FWO, because a man
    may have some valuable input (points of contention, etc). If, however,
    the subject matter deteriorates into a rathole, then it is up to
    the Goderators to contact the responsibler parties and admonish
    them to move the rathole offline. Write locking a subject for a
    short time may need to occur in order to get the combatants to use
    the email format for a nonconstructive argument.
    
    Please note that the above formula does not work when one of the
    combatants refuses to answer mail. Refusal to respond to mail, aside
    from its obvious lack of consideration, leaves one party with no
    ther recourse than to continue the discussion in notes. Since such
    a continuation of the discussion is not always in the best interest
    of the noting community at large, it behooves rathole participants
    to use the mail utility. If you have time to write a rathole note,
    you have time to reply in mail...
    
    re- not having to live with condescending attitudes on a regular
    basis
    
     While it may be true that the majority of men don't have to deal
    with a superior attitude from women on an every day basis, the fact
    remains that there are many attitude problems to contend with. Just
    because men may seem to you to only have attitudes to women, they
    don't stop having attitudes to other men. Different interest groups,
    divisions, ethnic groups, races etc all do exactly the same thing.
    It is simply not true that men don't have to deal with attitudes.
    
     I'm not so sure it was sarcastic, anyway.(re Iannuzzo's attitude)
    
    Mark

    Re: .66
    
    >It's such a shame it's so hard to put into use.
    
    I've found that there can be a bridge leading from the negative
    approach to a more positive approach.  As I've learned from --edp,
    one of the best ways to 'win points' is to examine carefully what
    the other 'side' said and remain analytical.  (Careless errors due
    to not paying attention are a classic way to 'lose face.')  But
    this means keeping the emotional reactions more under control. 
    When that happens, it's easier to recognize the non-productiveness
    of the 'win points' approach.

    During services in Orthodox synagogues (I am told) the women
    and men are separated by a screen or curtain.
    
    Is this because the women are "bad" people in this context?  No.
    Is this because the men are "bad" people in this context?  No.
    The division is for the purpose of keeping *everyone* from being
    distracted by members of the opposite sex, so that they can
    keep their attention on the important stuff.
    
    I see the FWO/FGD separation as being like that screen:  Everyone
    can see and hear everything of importance going on, but they know
    that they're not supposed to disturb the People of the Other Side.
    "Disturb" seems to be the operative word.  Mark (?) in reply .67
    (?) (I shouldn't reply so hastily.) uses the word "contention" in
    his example of a man replying in an [implicitly] FWO note.  I found
    the term singularly appropriate, perhaps more so than the author
    intended.
    
    Should FWO be changed to FWOWNC -- For When One Wishes No Contention?
    
    							Ann B.

    <--(.61)
    
�     Because he's arguing a causal relationship between *types* of notes.
�     He's not saying that .35 caused .32 which caused .35, from what I can
�     tell.  Rather, the argument seems to be "notes with the same tone as
�     .35 cause notes with the same tone as .32, which cause notes with the
�     same tone as .35, etc." 

    Chelsea, to argue it in the way Steve did implies that .35 came first
    when in fact it did not; chronology cannot be ignored in talking of
    Aristotelian causality.  I doubt I actually have to supply any analogy
    for you, but I will pro forma:  "It's things like the N�rnberg War
    Crimes trials that cause Holocausts".  We can argue that yes, perhaps
    that might be the case...but how do we account for what the world
    actually experienced?
    
    Why did he not say "notes like .32 cause responses like .35", since
    that would account for our experience of what actually happened?
    
                         
    
    <--(.62)                                                        
    
�     The point that was made was that the ATTITUDE of inherent superiority
�     displayed by Ms. Iannuzzo causes the kind of behavior (in this case
�     a reply) exhibited in .32. I'm surprised that this even needed to
�     be said.

    Mark, your response suffers from the same objection I made above:  why
    did Steve's point not reflect the reality that we all experienced?

    						=maggie

     re: .70:
    
    Maggie, note 260.205 by the same author as .35 makes many of the same
    points and in that sense is a "note like .35".  It precedes .32.
    
    Do not read this as an endorsement of either .32 or .35.
    
    Marge

    Maggie- are you deliberately trying not to understand?
    
    Why do the rest of us understand?
    
    Your analogy is inappropriate. While there were no analogues to
    the Nuremburg war trials before the holocaust, there have most
    certainly been examples of Ms. Iannuzzo's type of attitude before
    .32. Therefor your analogy breaks down. Perhaps had he worded his
    note "It is attitudes like that exhibited in note .35 that lead to
    behaviors like than shown in .32" there would have been no
    misunderstanding and this rathole could have been avoided altogether.
    Certainly the "reality" of the chronology of the notes has not been
    disputed here.
    
    Mark
    

re: .67
    
>       the Goderators to contact the responsibler parties and admonish
    

    I'd sincerely appreciate it if you would not use the term "Goderators".
    I feel it is an implied insult (whether intentional or unintentional).  
    
    Thank you
    
    -Jody

How 'bout 'godesserators'? 

Sounds like a new household appliance.

Oh, it wasn't the gender part that was offensive...? :-)
	Mez

    <--(.71)
    
    Marge, yours is the first mention made of that note.  How far afield
    should a search be carried out in order to find justification when
    there is something very defective about the example immediately to
    hand?                                              
    
    						=maggie 

    <--(.72)
    
    No, Mark, I am not.
    
    I will argue that you "understand" because you share the world-view
    that automatically assigns the responsibility for any problem to the
    woman where the alternative is to assign it to a man.
    
    You say "there have most certainly been examples of Ms. Iannuzzo's type
    of attitude before .32".  Do you mean that there have been no examples
    of Martin's "type of attitude" before .32?  Why do you assign the
    "original sin" to women, even when the example immediately to hand is
    very clearly one in which a man fired the first shot? 
    
    						=maggie

    It didn't take much of a search, Maggie... the .35 note rang very
    familiar to me and I just looked where I thought I had seen a similar
    note.  I don't understand what's very defective but you're certainly
    entitled to feel that way.
    
    peace,
    Marge

    A) I am not assigning "original sin" to anyone.
    
    B) The "world view that automatically assigns the responsibility
    for any problem to the woman where the alternative is to assign
    it to the man" is neither shared by me nor recognized by me as even
    existing.
    
    C) The words starting the "world view" sentence in your note seem to
    be quite indicative of your position.
    
    D) I never claimed that there were no predecessors of Martin's type
    of behavior. I only claimed that your analogy was invalid and that
    we all understood what he meant.
    
    E) I think we'd best leave this rathole before the RAT returns!!:-)
    
    MArk

    Martin- 
    
    .32>    -< Anti-penultimate comment on the topic that won't die >- 
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    I hope this doesn't mean you *knew* this kind of war would result...
    
    (*sigh*)
    
    DougO

    re 79:  I think this rathole has gone on for so long we've forgotten
    what the discussion is about.  It's about *.36* (re: .32/.35).  

    Marge
    

re: .80.

And, of course, you all noticed that I also used "irony, sarcasm, and
exaggeration" in making my point; right?

Martin.

    Well, what I am seeing here is that Catherine used irony, sarcasm,
    and exaggeration, to paint a picture of how many women feel that
    many men react towards them all the time. In both cases, I felt,
    that she responded to situations where a calmer more teacherish
    response had failed to make the point. In return the responses sounded
    more than a little like 'you women cause all the problems by
    writing/acting that way!' In turn the response to that was, "what do
    you mean *we* act that way.....and so it goes.
    
    With Jody and Mez I also object very strongly to the use of the
    term 'Goderators', that implies a degree of arbitraryness and
    inflexiblity as to who is allowed in the file and what they are
    allowed to say that as far as *I* am concerned is not true of
    Womannotes.
    
    Bonnie
    
    Bonnie
    

Hmm, my .81 was in reference to a .80 that doesn't seem to be there
any more (it wasn't written by Marge Davis.)  Kind of ruins the whole
effect.  If it reappears, I'll post another clarification.  If not,
well, nevermind.

Martin.

    <--(.77)
    
    Fair enough, Marge.  You've a better memory than I have! 
    
    I'm using the term "defective" to refer to the implied causality in
    Steve's original note (whose number I no longer remember):  by the
    particular juxtaposition he uses, he implies that somehow .35 caused
    .32 and that is a defective in fact.  Had he said (e.g.) "it's notes
    like .32 that cause reactions like .35 and thus start vicious circles"
    or even ".32 and .35 are examples of how vicious circles start" I would
    have had no quarrel with it. 
    
    For someone to say (as Chelsea and Mark have attempted) "well he wasn't
    really talking about those responses particularly" simply broadens the
    causal tree:  now it is not one woman who made one comment that somehow
    in defiance of logic irritated one man "pre facto" but rather that this
    woman's comment is an example of what men have to deal with in here
    generally (but the same is not true, mutatis mutandis, of this man's
    comment).  Martin's comment is seen as being justified by a history of
    provocation, while hers is seen as entirely gratuitous. 

    						=maggie

    <--(.78)
    
    Mark, you're very good at assertion.

    
    Personally, i think note .7 came before note .10, but both were
    caused by note .45, and that note was in response to note .85,
    which i am going to think of tonight.  Of course, this is based
    on the fact that the attitude in note 541.13 was so offensive
    that it couldn't be ignored.
    
    

    re .85:
    
    Maggie, you read a lot more into .36 than I did... I'll let Steve
    defend his own note.
    
    :^)
    Marge

    in re .87
    
    and I expect at least two replies to be entered before the
    answer I intend to write when I get on net at home tonite :-)
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .87
    
    
    Uh uh, Leave me out of this. I wouldn't have even entered .7 if
    I knew this topic was going to evolve as it has.
    
    							Hank

    re .58:
    
    >>>>> It is notes like .35 that produce notes like .32
                      ^^^^                        ^^^^
    
    Maggie, perhaps if you translate "like" into "similar to".
    Yes, I am perfectly aware that .32 could not be a response to .35,
    do you really think me an idiot? This is why I included the "like".
    
    Do you really have such a low opinion of men that you refuse to
    actually _read_ (and try to understand) what they've written?
    {BTW this last comment is a response to your "Are really so eager
    to find fault with women that you refuse to see reality?" comment}
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    How come this kind of discussions never happen where men are Goderators
    (insult to those Goderators is _intended_)?

    - Vikas

    
    Maggie,
    
    I very carefully worded that phrase because I really do believe that
    the attitude Martin expressed in .32 is not his own attitude but a
    sarcastic response to attitudes expressed in this notesfile previously,
    specifically the suggestion of seperatism. .35 then came along to
    present a perfect example of the _kind_ of note he was probably
    responding to.
                                                      
    Now maggie, in the history of this notesfile, which came first;
    notes calling for seperatism or notes protesting seperatism?
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    	RE: .93
    
	> Now maggie, in the history of this notesfile, which came first;
    	> notes calling for separatism or notes protesting separatism?
    
    	What came first were the kinds of replies that made so many women 
    	*WANT* to have a few occasional topics where women could be
    	the primary focus of the discussion at hand.
    
    	I don't call that separatism, so your phrase about "notes calling
    	for separatism" has no relevance to me.
    
    	Catherine's note was a humorous protest of the way women have
    	been treated in our culture for thousands of years, so obviously,
    	her note came *after* that to which she was referring.

    Re: .85
    
    >Martin's comment is seen as being justified by a history of
    >provocation, while hers is seen as entirely gratuitous.
    
    I didn't see it as being "entirely gratuitous" but then, that's
    not the way I think.  When you're embroiled in a vicious cycle,
    it's fairly irrelevant which side 'started it' since both were in
    a position to stop it.
    
    Re: .95
    
    Humor, especially that which expresses a negative opinion about
    a group of people, is in the eye of the beholder.  Perhaps Catherine
    would consider tossing in a few smiley-faces or something (I use
    ellipses myself) to signal her intentions a little more clearly.
    When tempers or sensitivities are running on the high side, subtley
    is easily overlooked or misinterpreted.

    <--(.93)
    
    Steve, from what I know of Martin, I think he was expressing his own
    views in .32...largely because he's never been hesitant about saying
    that he thinks FWO notes are terrible, and in my experience of him
    he's not at all averse to a wee bit of pot-stirring for the sensation.
    
    To whom was Martin responding?  Nobody that I could detect.  Why didn't
    you say "It's pot-stirring like .32 that causes flames like .35"? 
    Serious question, Steve.
    
    You ask which came first in the history of the file, advocacy of or
    protests against "separatism" (I use the quotes because of the
    different meanings I suspect that term has for you and me).  I haven't
    looked, but I'll bet you a good lunch at the Chez Thai in Marlboro
    (you're in SHR, right?) that if we investigate we'll find that it
    went something very like:
    
    		W:  I feel mumble
    		M:  You shouldn't feel mumble; feel fratz instead.
                W:  I wasn't talking to you.
    		M:  Separatist!
    
    Would you like to bet?
    
    						=maggie 

    <--(.96)
        
�     When you're embroiled in a vicious cycle,
�     it's fairly irrelevant which side 'started it' since both were in
�     a position to stop it.    
            
    Chelsea, I would argue that it's only irrelevant in a perfect world. I
    wish [oy! do I wish] that we could simply ignore provocation...but here
    as in the Real World, provocation is frequently harmful of itself and
    ignoring it results in a net loss for the ignorer.  Not always, but
    fear and hope are why skinnerian reinforcement works. 
    
    					      =maggie	

    <--(.87)
    
    And I'd like a dozen of those with seeds, please.
    
    						=maggie

    in re .97
    
    My memory is the same as Maggie's. The file existed for a long time
    without any need or desire for FWO notes. About a year ago we
    first started getting men in the file who intentionally were
    out to trash the file, or who were so angry at women or had what
    ever other reasons that they disrupted conversations and drove
    people to distraction.
    
    To go back and reread V-1 is to miss a lot of this, since many
    of the worst notes have long been deleted.
    
    Bonnie Jeanne
    co-moderator

re 100:
    
    My memory is the same as Maggie's. The file existed for a long time
    without any need or desire for FWO notes. About a year ago we
    first started getting men in the file who intentionally were
    out to trash the file, or who were so angry at women or had what
    ever other reasons that they disrupted conversations and drove
    people to distraction.

That's my memory, too.  Where I differ from my collegues is that I
don't see it as a "men who disrupt" issue but "people who..." and have
been pleading for problems to dealt with on an individual basis,
not on a class basis.  I.e., the moderators should hold all participants
to the same standard of behavior.  I feel that they are failing their
overall responsibilities to the community whenever they base any of
their decisions on *any* characteristic of a note's author, other than
the content of the note itself.


Martin.

    re: .101 (Martin)
    
    	   Martin, surely you are aware that different people moderate
    	differently.  Personalitites do come into play here.  That is
    	unavoidable, and in my opinion desirable.  
    
    	   Of course, you can always point to the fact that some have
    	labeled me an 'immoderator', but I see that mainly as a
    	difference of opinion as to how THEY feel THEY would respond
    	if they were in MY shoes (which, of course, they are not).
    
    	   To expect the moderators to completely control the
    	attitudes and opinions of the noting community is
    	laughable, and indeed borders on goderation.  The best
    	any moderator can hope to do is support those for whom
    	the conference is intended (especially since they 
    	usually compose the majority of the readership).
    
    	- Greg

    Well, if we're talking about V1, the worst offender was canned from
    DEC for his noting.  How about we do a "reset"?
    
    Marge

    A reset?  

    yup, a reset... everybody agrees that anything that happened prior
    to the reset is "water under the bridge" and we'll start fresh...
    
    

    aha.  Marge, can you frame a clear proposal to that effect?

    re .105
    
    isn't that like asking a jury to "ignore all remarks made from point
    a to point b"? 
    
    <grin>
    liz

    I really don't think a reset would work that well (i.e., let bygones
    be bygones, water under the bridge, start with a fresh outlook,
    etc).  The reason there is an archivist to V1 at all is that there
    was SO MUCH that went on there, some of the discussions were rehashed
    several times (sometimes with rewarding enlightenment, but often
    with a clearly reproducible outcome to any given discussion).  When
    people, particularly people who are unfamiliar with V1, or have
    forgotten it, begin a topic or discussion which has been discussed
    over a number of topics and responses (sometimes up in the thousands
    of responses on several closely related topics), I feel that it
    is important for them to see that many sides of the discussion have
    already been presented - debates have been debated - facts have
    been stated - and flamage has been fed or doused as people shored
    up their statements or even (gasp - this is a rare one) changed
    their minds!
    
    I *truly* wish there were a way of separating the wheat from the
    chaff neatly - of keeping discussions here productive and positive
    and encouraging rather than destructive and negative and discouraging.
    I can't imagine that by reintroducing a whole new batch of wheat
    we'd come up with any less chaff than the previous batch of wheat.
    What we need is a better way of winnowing - THAT is what I'd like
    to see.
    
    -Jody
    

    Go ahead. Do a "reset".
    
    The issues will not go away. Nor will the individuals whose
    behaviour makes it clear why those issues are important.
    
    I've been in this file for a while. They come and go. The names
    and faces are different, but the actions and rhetoric are the same.
    
    --DE
    

re: .109

Nice John.
	Mez

    re .97:
    
    > Would you like to bet? 
    
    No, because I don't dispute that that came first. My statement was
    simply that Martin's note did not just come "out of the blue", that
    it comes from a history of discussion about whether or not men should
    be participants in this file.
    
    > To whom was Martin responding?  Nobody that I could detect.  Why didn't
    > you say "It's pot-stirring like .32 that causes flames like .35"? 
    > Serious question, Steve.
      
    I didn't say that because I do not usually like to state the obvious. I
    think it was clear .32 caused .35, my point was that I see a loop
    operating here. 
    
    >	W:  I feel mumble
    >	M:  You shouldn't feel mumble; feel fratz instead.
    >	W:  I wasn't talking to you.
    >	M:  Separatist!
        
    It is not those notes to which I refer, but to those that flat-out
    state that the file would be better off with no male participation.
                    
    > Steve, from what I know of Martin, I think he was expressing his own
    > views in .32.
    
    What I meant was that I do not think that Martin desires a "FMO"
    project.
                                                       
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

    Steve,
    
    I have frequently stated that I prefer the file with men participating.
    Other members of the file do not entirely agree with me or disagree
    with me. Should I delete their notes when they say so? My opinion
    is that they have the right to express their opinions. Allowing
    women to express such opinions doesn't change either my opinion
    or the nature of the file.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    
    I do not understand how you can interpret any of my notes to be
    saying that someone does not have the right to express their opinion,
    or that I am advocating deletion of any notes.
    
    Did I say, or even imply, that *any* note should be deleted?
    Did I say, or even imply, that *anyone* does not have a right to
    express their opinion?"
    
    Please, feel free to cite specific instances (I can think of at least
    one, in V1, which I still stand behind, but there could be more).  
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

    <--(.112)
    
�     simply that Martin's note did not just come "out of the blue", that

    It came out of the blue in this string, Steve.  Very much so.
    
�     I didn't say that because I do not usually like to state the obvious. I
�     think it was clear .32 caused .35, my point was that I see a loop
�     operating here. 

    Which was started, in this instance, by Martin not Catherine.
                                   
    My whole point, Steve, is that there is a cultural tendency to blame
    women for any problem.  To my knowledge, we have never seen the
    sample scenario play out like this:
    
    		W:  I feel mumble.
    		M:  You shouldn't feel mumble, feel fratz instead.
    		W:  I wasn't talking to you.
    		M:  Separatist!
    		M2: She's not being a separatist, she was just talking
    		    to someone else.  Ease up.
    		M3: Yeah.
    
    What _does_ happen is:
    
    		W:  I feel mumble.
    		M:  You shouldn't feel mumble, feel fratz instead.
    		W:  I wasn't talking to you.
    		M:  Separatist!
		W2: She's not being a separatist, she was just talking
    		    to someone else.  Ease up.
    		M2: Wait a minute, he has the right to give his opinion
    		    too.  
    		W3: That's not the point, the point is that she wasn't
    		    talking to him.  
    		M3: Separatists! This is a DEC file! Let him talk! 
                M4: Yeah, aren't men welcome here?
    

    That's the problem we have faced since V1.
        
    						=maggie

    Steve,
    
    You appear to be very upset that some women state publically
    in the file that they would be happier with less or no male
    contributions in the file. Yet other women (such as myself)
    state the opposite. That was what I was reacting to. Why is
    it such a big deal that some women say that? Every time I
    read a note by a man commenting on such statements I feel
    uncomfortable. Perhaps I am wrong, but I catch an undercurrent
    of thoughts that read to me like...
    
    'if one woman says this and it is not challenged then *obviously*
    men aren't wanted'
    
    'if men are wanted, then women should keep saying so every time
    a woman says she doesn't want to talk to men'
    
    I keep wondering what the point is. Why the occasional remarks of
    a few file members gets so much attention. Especially when other
    file members say the reverse.
    
    Myself, I am committeed to trying to keep this file a place where
    women from all sides of the political spectrum can come and talk
    and read about things that important to them. That is my first
    priority. This isn't Human_Relations or Soapbox or Homo_Sapiens,
    it is Womannotes. I also enjoy and welcome the contributions and
    insights of men in the file. 
    
    For all of the moderators, balancing the needs, desires, etc
    of the wide variety of people who contribute to the file can
    be an exhausting and difficult, and sometimes nearly impossible
    job. 
    
    
    
    Bonnie

re: .115:
>�     simply that Martin's note did not just come "out of the blue", that

>    It came out of the blue in this string, Steve.  Very much so.

Umm, if I may put a word in edgewise, it was in reaction to some
earlier reply in this topic, which one I don't recall, and don't see
as either relevant or interesting.  It did not come out of the blue,
even it certainly looked that way.   If it simplifies matters, just
see it as a reaction to the title of this note.  If nothing else, my
note was just a sharper way of stating what I have been stating for
well over a year now.

>    		M3: Separatists! This is a DEC file! Let him talk! 
>               M4: Yeah, aren't men welcome here?
>
>    That's the problem we have faced since V1.

I would have worded this.

		M3: This is a Dec file! Let everyone talk!

But, you all knew that already.  I think the conversation would be diminished
if the strong feminist voices were silenced.  I think it would be diminished
if the anti-feminists were excluded.  I think it loses most when someone
peeks in, then disappears never to be heard from again.

Somewhere in the introductory note (perhaps to -V1), someone (Bonnie
Reinke?) said "all the voices are needed in the chorus."  Indeed, and
there should be solo roles for both soprano and basso.

Martin.

ps: for those who still haven't figured it out, I want FMO projects just
as badly as I want FWO notes. I.e., not at all.  I don't think FMO projects
are good for the project (or for the company), and I won't bore you with
my thoughts on FWO notes.

    <--(.117)
            
    Martin, I appreciate where you're trying to go (honest!) but I think
    you inadvertently made my point:
    
    
    		W:  I feel mumble.
    		M:  You shouldn't feel mumble, feel fratz instead.
    		W:  I wasn't talking to you.
    		M:  Separatist!
		W2: She's not being a separatist, she was just talking
    		    to someone else.  Ease up.
    		M2: Wait a minute, he has the right to give his opinion
    		    too.  
    		W3: That's not the point, the point is that she wasn't
    		    talking to him.  
    		M3: Separatists! This is a DEC file! Let everyone talk! 
                M4: Yeah, aren't men welcome here?
                                                                      
    
    You'll notice that the interaction is not materially improved by your
    change. The problem is the way that certain men ("not all men but
    always men") appear to regard any communication in which they're not
    at least _a_ focus as superfluous at best and misanthropic at worst.
    "Individualised" enforcement by the moderators would have no different
    effect to what's happening now; the problem occurs on a different
    level. 
        
    						=maggie

re: .106

>    aha.  Marge, can you frame a clear proposal to that effect?

    
    Well, Maggie... I'll make a stab at a proposal, but in order for
    it to carry any weight, I'd hope for others to improve/embellish
    it further.
    
    Let's say that we have the rest of 1988 to get in our jabs at other
    noters based on notes written this year (or prior years).  Then,
    as of 1 January, at 12:01 a.m. a "reset" takes place.  As of that
    point, if you're going to debate with a noter, you may only call
    into question those notes written from that point on.  I expect
    that, within a few hours or days, there will be plenty of new material
    to be called into question. The purpose of the reset is to eliminate
    chicken-and-egg finger pointing which references old, often forgotten, 
    notes.  
    
    Marge

re: .118:    

Oops, you caught me there.  Teach me not to study the note carefully
before replying to it.  You're right, there's no way to improve things
once some idiot yells
    		M:  Separatist!
in a crowded notesfile.
    		M3: Separatists! This is a DEC file! Let everyone talk! 
just confuses things as it is really a reply to the general "I don't
want to hear from <>."

    "Individualised" enforcement by the moderators would have no different
    effect to what's happening now; the problem occurs on a different
    level. 

Indeed.  I just glanced through EURO_WOMAN to see a few interesting
things:

-- a discussion about FWO notes that stayed reasonably on-track, with one
   notable rathole that didn't end up as a bar-fight.

-- some provocative statements about feminism that, again, were either
   ignored or responded to, but without the heat and anger we seem to
   find here.

-- an interesting approach to FWO (in their 1.1) that seems to have
   defused the discussion.

Now, if the problem is indeed on a "different level" how do we solve
that problem?

Martin.

    <--(.120)
    
    What I meant by "a different level" is that the problem itself is
    sex-linked in some sense: the disruption has invariably been caused
    by a male, but as I pointed out in my sample scenarios, defence
    against the disruption has always [I truly hope I'm wrong in this
    assertion, but I don't think so] been mounted first by a female.
    
    If men who support community goals would be as quick to help defend
    against the "predators" as some of them sometimes are to criticise the
    women who defend, I feel pretty sure we'd see a lot of this us-against-
    them feeling go away naturally.  I think maybe we're seeing the first
    signs of that happening, but it's still early days yet so it's hard
    to tell.                                           
    
    Apropos of =euro_woman=, I think you're not taking into account the
    difference in the two social environments, Martin.  Europe and the UK
    are very different places to the US (though you as a male might not be
    aware of that). 
    
    						=maggie 
                   

    
    I've only read 28 of the 121 replies to this string, so I apologize
    in advance if someone has already said what I'm about to say, but..
    
    It strikes me that whenever this issue comes up (which is pretty
    often), we immediately go from the issue of men-not-overpowering
    the voices of women in WOMANnotes to how awful it would be if
    this file only allowed women.  Saying that you don't like your food
    drowned in salt doesn't mean that you wouldn't put a salt shaker
    on your table!
    
    Geesh!
    
    Justine

    
    Here I was going through Numbers to see what there was about women
    being subjugated by men (yes I was waaaaaay back in July in Feminism
    vs Religion) when I get a note from a woman saying things are out
    of hand up here in 342.
    
    Well 122 notes later the dust has settled and here's what I see.
    
    Now before anybody says so what I think we really ought to look
    at these 122 notes objectivley.
    
    It started when a male said and I quote "Recently *some* of the
    non-constructive (my opinion) replies made me wonder about this:
    Oddly he didn't give any examples.  The first notion that came to
    me was  Why is he saying this?  I mean to me it would be the same
    as if I went to the White House and said "Mr. President, how do
    you feel about deporting all the Hispanics?  Now interestingly 
    enough if you look under his "My Opinion"  he says "I would say
    that when a male reader of this conference feels he has something
    positive to contribute he should."  Now as someone later mentioned
    this is a conference of woman's issues and topics that are important
    to THEM.  So I don't really see how this fits the bill... but
    
    we move on to Chelsea's response 342.9 where she states that she
    has noticed large amounts of response ( perhaps like so many empty
    barrels - my words not hers) from males and that "there are some
    topics to which men simply can't contribute merely by nature of
    not being female" and furthermore "On the other hand, just as
    women can provide insight into the behavior of men, so can men
    provide insight into the behavior of women."  
    
    Now this seems to me to be the perfect response to the base note
    and not just because it was by a woman!  But perhaps some of us
    males were writing while she was talking.
    
    So we come next to Catherine T. - the infamous .35.  Now in light
    of all that followed that note did anyone mention how well it was
    written.  Might I?  Catherine you're a genious.  Your writing is
    at once dynamic, clear and concise.  (One would almost venture to
    provoke an issue -certainly not me! - just for the pleasure of 
    reading your response - indeed, from the ignorance displayed by some
    men it would seem I am not alone in this appreciation) May I also
    add that I sincerely hope that your talent at writing is being put
    to use beyond the confines of our company.  Now in light of the
    base note Catherine not only has defined the cause and effect but
    she has unveiled the needlessnes of it.
    
    And yet the responses keep coming. And the sausage from Chicago
    can't figure it out ( " 'cause it's not logic") because he's eaten
    to many sausages (not brain food I reckon). And ::CONLON has to
    straighten him out (which does quite adequately!) Which brings us
    to Jody's *fine* contribution in 342.55 where she points that many
    of these notes are just "bait" and that "a goodly percentage of
    people in this file who do this are men.
    
    But no that wasn't a deterrent either .  Still the replies kept
    on coming.  And Maggie had to respond at least a half dozen times.
    And come on - the woman *is* well spoken and its nice to read her
    notes too but I'm sure she doesn't have the time to break out the
    hand puppets (you know.. Kukla and Ollie) just to get a point accross
    to those who refuse to see the light.  
    
    And by this time I'm not even reading the notes any more just 
    pushing  the return button hoping to get to the end of all this
    or maybe get something out of it that I can say to myself at the
    end of the day - Hey you know that was really stimulating. But 
    I guess not and I suppose that by now everyone else is just pushing
    the return button and no-one is reading this anyway.  So I
    just may as well wish all WOMANNOTES-v2 (both sinless and sinners)
    alike a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS and HAPPY NEW YEAR and hope that 
    everybody returns to their respective corners and doesn't come
    out fight untill 1989.   
    
    Please, if I may, and, as unworthy as I am , officially close this
    note.  Don't worry you won't even know why you read it this far
    next year.  Honest!
    
       

Thats
    I'd like to stay but will understand if we no longer can be tolerated!

    re: .123
    
     Yeah- Cathy, Suzanne and Maggie (and sometimes Jody :-)) collectively
    form what we mortals refer to as
    
    GOD!
    
    Mark

re: .125

	ahem... That's GODDESS!

and there's no one here that goes by the name "Cathy" that I know of...

Catherine T. Iannuzzo

    OK- I stand corrected on the use of Cathy (sorry). "God" implies
    a superhuman being; the most powerful. A god or a goddess means
    (to me at least) a lesser diety such as those created by the Greeks
    and Romans. That's why I said God (meaning the most powerful of
    all such superhuman deities).
    
    Mark
    
    ps- you were mighty quick in responding to my note :-)

    Jeez, Mez. You responded to my note before I had a chance to delete
    it. As soon as I sent it to be written, I saw that it might 
    somehow :-) be misunderstood. So I deleted immediately. You're quick
    on the draw, McGraw!                                          
    
    Mark

    So I'm a demigoddess, eh, Mark?  Does this mean I'm getting
    Frankincense and Myrrh from you this Christmas?
    
    ;)
    -Jody

    Re:134 OH NO, Like in Ghostbusters!!!!!!
    
              REK
    

    If:
    
    Anna Hyatt Huntington is a Sculptor, not a sculptRESS
    
    &
     
    Kathrine Hepburn is an Actor, not an actRESS
    
    &
    
    Nancy Kassabaum is/was a Senator, not a senatorESS
    
    etc.
    
    Then:
    
    Why cannot God be God, and not GodESS?
    
    IMHO:
    
    If all the 'ess' and 'ette' and 'ienne' endings constitute diminitive
    and demeaning modifiers to perfectly valid nouns; I do not relish
    tacking one onto the word used to describe an all-creative,
    all-encompassing deity.
    
    
      Ann
    

re: .121:
    
    Apropos of =euro_woman=, I think you're not taking into account the
    difference in the two social environments, Martin.  Europe and the UK
    are very different places to the US (though you as a male might not be
    aware of that). 

Maggie, if you were to say that, as an American (and, hence, somewhat naive)
I wasn't aware of differences between Europe and America, I might be willing
to agree with you.

However, as a *male* who lived in Europe for ten years, I can assure you
from the bottom of my heart that I am quite aware of the differences.

Martin.

                   

    ooops, I forgot about you living in Sweden, Martin, sorry about that.
    And yet withal I would still argue that when you compare and contrast
    the two files, you are not accounting for the environmental
    differences; it feels clear to me that they adequately explain the
    differences in the files themselves. 
    
    I would postulate that you experienced the two social environments as
    less different (along these particular lines) than a woman would have
    because of a sort of "parallax effect"...the same kind of thing that
    makes a $10K rise in salary much more significant to a person making
    $20K than to someone making $50K.  Does that make any sense to you?
    
                                         	=maggie                

    I would postulate that you experienced the two social environments as
    less different (along these particular lines) than a woman would have
    because of a sort of "parallax effect"...the same kind of thing that
    makes a $10K rise in salary much more significant to a person making
    $20K than to someone making $50K.  Does that make any sense to you?
    
Yes.  But, not being a woman, I can't really speak for those differences.
While this diversion into rationality from the topic is welcome, perhaps
we could start a separate note on cultural differences: your experiences
in Germany are probably quite different from mine in Swedish Academia.

I know of few American women who have lived abroad.  One that I knew
in Sweden was desperately unhappy, but I don't know whether that was
because of the cultural differences, or because of something in her
own background.  Under no circumstances would I generalize my impression
of her feelings to "women" or "American women" in general.  On the other
hand, a running-buddy who had worked in Saudia Arabia and Egypt before
moving back to Boston has just left to be a plant manager in France.
She certainly enjoyed her stay abroad.

You may recall that there was an interesting conversation in Womannotes
not so long ago among women who had had military careers: another
place in which the "culture" is quite different and the experiences of
women possibly unlike those of men.

Martin.

    re .137   Ann, are you worried She'll call you on the carpet for
    it ?
    
    
    
    Dana

    In my earlier rx (.121) to Martin, I argued that the polarisation
    problem we all face here is in part caused by the fact that [not all
    men but always] men disrupt but other men don't defend us from the
    disruptions.  I asked that I be corrected if I were wrong about this
    and sure enough, I was wrong. 

    As one of the members of our community pointed out to me in a mail
    message, the men who are most likely to spring to the defence of the
    community (and of women) are precisely those who rightly feel that
    women don't _need_ protection; as intelligent feminists, they are
    well-aware that we can defend ourselves with fang, claw, and laser-
    scalpel wit...and indeed we can and do! (And, as my correspondent
    pointed out, sometimes these men do come to our defence anyway, in
    sheer outraged reflex when something particularly disgusting is said or
    done...but typically everyone else is so outraged too that nobody
    notices their supportive behavior) 
                                       
    Thus the dilemma.  If the men who are motivated to defend the community
    do so, they risk (a) "effeminating" the women and/or (b) getting
    blasted by women (I'm sorry to admit that I might be one of them) who
    object to being "protected" by men.  But if they DON'T defend the
    community, the absence of their voices creates the impression of
    polarisation and causes many women to not-unreasonably [but still
    incorrectly] suspect that even the most feminist men fall short of real
    brotherhood with us. 

    Catch 22 for them, general pain for our community as a whole.

    What can we do about that?  

    						=maggie

    re .142   Seems you and Laura share that 'not all men but always
              men' chant.  
    
              It strikes me as very revealing that you should seek
              support 'for the Community' (sounds Socialistic/Communistic)
              from a sex that feminists have long tortured, stereotyped,
              and objectified to hide their own insecurities, angers,
              and other serious problems.
    
              Why should I defend you and other 'intelligent feminists'
              when Michael Levin and Nicholas Davidson have proven beyond
              doubt with definitive analysis, that what you believe
              is bogus as hell, and as anti-male and female as any ideology
              in history is ever likely to get.
    
              Feminists here have created severe sexual tension, unlike
              the Europeans who know better.
    
              I'll be in Euro_notes this winter healing, and thanks
              again for not allowing MY TOPIC to hold what should be
              truly held "up to the light" to be heard.
    
              It's called lying and I'm on to it.
    
    
                                                      Russ P.

    
    Hi,
    
    My name is Renee and have just discovered this conference. I've spent
    intervals over the period of the last week scanning many of the
    topics. Being a lesbian I gravitated to the lesbian topics first
    so it took a while to get here.
    
    Im not listed in the intros because within the next month I'll be
    going to a new position in Nashua, and my context will change considerably.
    I look forward to being an active participant in this conference.
    
    I spent some time looking at the social interactions in this conference
    prior to ever seeing this topic. As I read some of the discussions 
    this topic seemed a natural one to have evolved.
    
    I'd like to do something somewhat un-natural. I'd like to address the
    base note.

    First of all on separatism. It is neither good nor bad, it just is.....
    There is a time and place for everything. It is hard to believe
    that places where only women get together, are by their very nature
    unjust. There are times that I get really tired of men and an all woman
    environment feels so exillarating. Last week after reading the conference
    I was really charged up and excited in finding that it existed.
    
    A recurrent theme can be seen over and over in this conference.
    Select a topic such as "Hot-buttons" for example.  I perceived this
    to be a fun opportunity for many of the women to get to know each
    other. One of the styles that stood out however was that the men
    kept bantering back and forth among themselves. This is a perfect
    mirror of what happens "out there" in real life. Women will be 
    interacting and over time when men are present, they start chewing
    up bandwidth. Whats worse is that it is between themselves, about
    themselves, for themselves. In this conference, the central topic;
    women has not just shifted, it has been ripped away.
    
    As a woman I would hope that in this notesfile that wouldn't happen.
    I would hope to hear from other women more than I would the men.
    Sometimes the women come through and sometimes there is just so
    much NOISE that its hard to them.
    
    It's most amusing to hear one man say that a mans opinion is a necessity
    in this file. Why is that so ?
    
    It is difficult to understand why men are so incensed over FWO
    topics. To me an FWO topics says: I would only like to hear from
    other women on this. Ok. So what's wrong with that ? Somehow it 
    seems to be like waving a red flag in front of a bull ( if the
    metaphor fits - wear it). I have no desire to go over and insert
    my comments in FMO topics. The converse is not true and I find that
    both sad and frustrating.
    
    In short to answer the base note. Men have some value here. As one
    man said earlier he can learn about women in here. I've seen where women 
    have strayed and a man has asked a probing question, inducing
    reflection and the outcome was constructive. But there is so much
    teeth-gnashing, right-wrong and "I've just got to have the last word"
    stuff in here that it is disheartening.

    Male participation in this file is in no way a necessity as some of the
    respondents think.

    My experience is that much more can be learned when listening rather
    than talking.
    
    Renee Culver
    
    

    
    typedef union {
        struct God;
        struct Goddess;
    } Diety ;
    
    for men:   diety = (God *) Diety;
    
    for women: diety = (Goddess *) Diety;
    
    for atheists: diety = NULL;

    re:.137
    
    I agree totally....er, except for one:
    
    Grace of Monaco is a PrincESS, not a Prince. :-)
    
    --- jerry

    re: 146
    
    "Grace of Monaco is a Princess"
    
    Actually, she's dead.

    I've been away from this for a while, and though I don't have a lot
    of new thoughts to add, I can clear up one MASSIVE source of confusion
    that has fanned a lot of flames here.
    
    Maggie and others wondered about the context for Martin's comment
    about FWO conferences.  And Martin says that he can't quite figure
    it out either.  But I know...
    
    He was replying to a note written by a man (whose name I recall but
    don't find relevant here) that supported the concept of an FWO
    conference as a possible solution to the problems women have in
    participating here amidst male contributors.  That reply was deleted
    shortly thereafter.  I had seen it before it was deleted, and so,
    obviously, had Martin.
    
    Someone looking at my reply .12 might be puzzled as to whom I was
    talking - again, the note I was replying to was soon deleted.  There
    are several other instances of deleted replies in this topic, adding
    greatly to the confusion.
    
    Given the ability to delete notes, I think that it would be reasonable
    for people, when they would like to ask "who are you talking to?",
    to consider that the note in question may be a response to a note since 
    deleted.   This might avoid an AWFUL lot of noise...
    
    
    As for FWO/FGD topics, I've expressed my opinions of them at length
    in WOMANNOTES-V1, and don't feel it necessary to repeat the details
    here.  In short, I consider them discriminatory and exclusionary,
    not to mention self-defeating, though I now accept them as an
    unpleasant fact of life in this conference.  Bowing to the wishes of
    the authors who designate their topics FWO, I do not read FWO notes.
    
    However, this is largely irrelevant to the initial questions.
    
    I observe that whenever someone starts a note on who ought or ought not
    to participate in this conference, that the ratio of useful discussion
    to useless thrashing quickly reaches near zero.  At times like these, I
    find myself wondering how valuable such discussions are, and reflect on
    the conferences I co-moderate where such discussions are quickly
    directed towards MAIL conversations with the moderators.  I'd like to
    offer the suggestion that the moderators of this conference try
    something similar, basically not permitting discussions of how the
    conference ought to be run to be started indiscriminately by
    participants.   I do understand that this notion may seem unpleasant to
    some, but I really do think it would be positive in the long run.
    
    I think that the value of this conference would be greatly increased
    for everyone if we weren't always arguing about assigning different
    values to a participant's contribution solely on the basis of
    whether or not the author has a Y chromosome.
    
    					Steve

    Because this is a "processing" topic, it should have been carried on in
    the string reserved to that purpose (15.*), and I apologise to everyone
    in the community for not realising until now that it was out of place. 
    
    This string is now permanently locked.  Please direct any continuation
    to 15.*  
    
    Thank you.
    
    						=maggie