Conference turris::womannotes-v2

>1.  Not understand and demand explanation when I perhaps cannot offer one
>2.  Think I'm silly for saying what I just said
>3.  Take just one phrase from my response and pick it apart at the cost
>	of the whole - by perhaps seemingly invalidating my sharing by
>	choosing to focus on one lesser part and costing the comprehension
>	of the whole
>4.  Questioning my right to say what I said, even if I stated it was
>	only an opinion

 It's very interesting that you chose to begin this subject, as I have often
thought about the nature of notes and how people get intimidated by expected
reactions.

 All of the four scenarios listed above happen to me on a regular basis.
With the current system, there is little that can be done to change this, I'm
afraid.

 For one thing, when you enter a note (by and large) you are identifying
yourself as the source. When you do this, the note becomes inextricably a  
part of you. You said it and everyone can read it. Then, people will remember
what YOU said. If it turns out to be wrong or unpopular, you bear the weight
of having people correct or chastise you.

 How do people cope with this situation? Some cope by being read only. It is
a safe approach. Nobody knows who you are. The down side of this is that
people stand to lose anything you could have contributed. Others cope by
developing a thick skin. This is partially effective. It is somewhat difficult
to do, though. Some consideration must be given to one's audience, but you
can't (or at least, shouldn't) totally water down your opinion to please
your audience. Then it's not your opinion anymore.

 On a personal level, many people who read my notes seem to think (some have
come right out and said it) that I am unaffected by my audience and popular
opinion, etc. I can believe it would seem that way. It isn't true though.
I am quite affected by how people react to me, as difficult as that may be
to believe. 

 I guess that we should probably all endeavor to refrain from writing scathing
notes to each other. Human nature being what it is, that's a tall order. But
I really can't see any other way to encourage the contributions from our
more reticent noters.

 The Doctah

    I'd expand on Mark's observation regarding thick skins.
    
    Sure, noting is personally risky; one exposes oneself by writing.
    I find the risk survivable and worthwhile in several senses.  First,
    the potential rewards are immense...one may discover that other people
    feel similarly, understand, or can even help you understand your own
    confusion; it is a high reward, when your words unlock kindred spirits.  
    Secondly, those who disagree are just individuals, too; their opinions
    may disagree, but they can't invalidate my perspective merely by
    uttering their own.
    
    And sometimes, I am silly. ;-).  Helps when people point it out.
    
    DougO

    I certainly  stay  out  of  some  topics  that  I find interesting
    because I think what I have to say would be controversial, and I'm
    somewhat  reticent  about  being  too loud in =wn=, I think out of
    some concern that this space not be male dominated. There are also
    times  when  I  just  don't  have the energy to deal with expected
    flames,  so I bite my tongue. This is particularly true when there
    are  one  or two people who are entering long dissertations in one
    topic, seemingly every 10 minutes.  When that happens, I withdraw. 

--David

	This conference intimidated me at one time (I expressed my feelings
in a note in V1) because of the impression that there was a large faction who
didn't want males present at all.  Those voices calmed down some, and I got up
the intestinal fortitude to attend my first =wn= party, and I started writing
more.

	I find myself starting to reply in some cases, (not only in this file,
but others I'm active in as well) then canceling the entry. Part of it is the
effort required to state your position clearly, with little chance of be 
misunderstood.  I don't mind being blasted for my beliefs, but I do mind being
misunderstood. (I view being misunderstood as a communication failure on my 
part - at least initially.  Some people will read only what they want to see.)

	There are confrontational Noters as much as there are people who are
confrontational face-to-face.  Notes is unique in that, while you have some
opportunity to select the people to whom you speak, in Notes, you must write
and let all those who choose to answer do so.

	I don't think it's so much a matter of needing to develop a thick skin
as it is the need to learn to suffer fools gracefully. (Not implying by any
means that anyone who disagrees is a fool.)  I "next-unseen" over the topics
I don't wish to see, and there are several noters who's notes either have 
something useful to say to me in the first few lines, or I skip them as "not
worth my time."  There are many people, in this file and others, who's opinions
I respect, though I may disagree with them completely.

	In V1, I stated that I didn't feel like part of the "community".  That's
no longer true.  I've learned a lot here, both from reading, and writing, and
having people question my words and the beliefs they express.  Learning isn't
a free ride - there should always be a challange.

								--D

    From .0:
    
> "people need to be aware of how seemingly innocuous actions impair the 
>confidence and self esteem of those we live and work with."  -Irene Hensley
    
    For me, the one "seemingly innocuous" action that will quash my desire
    to participate in a topic more than anything is to have the topic
    segregated into FWO and FGD.  There's nothing like being told right
    up front that my opinions aren't as good as any woman's.
    
    And though I had promised myself that I would not participate in such
    topics, I'm going to overcome my general hesitation to write here,
    because I feel it is important.
    
    
    My feelings generally echo Doug's - I often find myself wanting
    to write something, even going as far as to enter it, only to quit
    at the last moment or delete it just after entering.  (Will I go
    through with this one?  If you see this, then I guess I did.)  Why?
    I'm not usually one to hold back on making my opinion known, but
    something stops me here - much more than in any other forum.
    
    If I were to try to pin it down to a single concept, something
    difficult to do, I'd explain it as the feeling that this conference
    is a battlezone, and I find myself unwilling to "risk my neck" anymore
    in high-profile notes.  There are so many factions here, each with
    their own antagonisms towards the others, that it's a bit scary.  The
    very real and "officially sanctioned" antagonism of women against men
    is hard to deal with, even when I understand that it's only a vocal
    minority that creates this atmosphere.
    
    There are some topics where I might still engage in discussion, but
    I find that they have been "hijacked" by a few noters who have taken
    things far beyond what I consider rational.  Again, a battlezone.
    Not being one who "loves a good fight", I prefer not to make things
    worse by entering the fray.
    
    I suppose it all boils down to the thought, as I go to press the ^Z
    key...  "Is it worth it?"  It saddens me that it comes to this.
    
    
    				Steve

    I have learned a lot from the interchange here. I do not necessarily
    agree with the seeming majority here, but at least I understand
    where they are coming from. I hope the same goes for me. 
    
    I too feel reluctant to enter notes/replys (especially on controversial
    issues) because some days, I do not need the flames. Some thing
    that I have said RE. 705  are very personal for me. Additional parts
    ('the rest of the story') to 705, I am reluctant to enter because;
    
    1. It is somewhat painful for me.
    2. It will probably be misunderstood by some and denounced.
    3. I do not have the time to explain things absolutely clearly.
    Have you ever had the network timeout while writing? GRRR.

    I will say, that this is one of my favorite notes files, although
    I absolutely  reject and think HIDDEN notes should be banned!
    I have no problems with FWO notes IF they are accompanied by another
    note FGD.

    
    My .02    Steve

    re: .7
    
>I am reluctant to enter because;
>        ...........    
>    2. It will probably be misunderstood by some and denounced.
>    3. I do not have the time to explain things absolutely clearly.

    Slowly, it begins to dawn on me that there is an "out" in this case.
    One CAN choose NOT to respond to people who insist on "baiting"
    or "grilling" you, or denouncing you.  There are some issues that
    people will not change their mind on - and you can tell in a discussion
    when they become "set", if they weren't already when the conversation
    began.  It never really occurred to me that I could do this before
    - simply explain my view and then be silent.  
    
    But, methinks, to some this silence will seem that "I yielded" or
    "I lost" when I didn't respond to another's question.  I'd hate
    to seem weak, but I'd rather not repeat when I have said, when I
    have nothing else to add.  
    
    Does silence in light of probing questions (particularly pointed
    questions) mean "losing face" in the notes community?  It has on
    occasion in the past.  Maybe I will learn to voice my opinions,
    and leave it at that if I can explain or add no more.  Maybe my
    opinions can stand on their own, and people can read them, and roll
    them over in their minds, and find something useful - or not - and
    we can leave it at that.  Maybe I do not have to defend my thoughts
    against those who think otherwise - there should be no war - there
    should only be a sharing and listening, in turn.....
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

    re .8:
    
    That's called "giving a note the attention it deserves".
    

    Re. .8:
    
    >  Does silence in light of probing questions (particularly pointed
    >  questions) mean "losing face" in the notes community?
    
    Lord, I hope not!  I've been a noter of the type you're considering
    becoming -- I enter my replies when I'm moved by the direction
    of the developing conversation.  Sometimes I censor myself, not
    because of fear of others' flaming at me (I developed a thick skin
    long ago), but because there are others who could suffer from my
    public meanderings.  I try to remain aware of those others and to
    avoid causing hurt, if at all possible, while holding true to myself
    and my beliefs.
    
    While I have seldom entered notes that generated a wild response, I 
    do follow my own rule of (1) say it once; (2) reply if the original 
    posting was obviously misunderstood or incomplete; then (3) shut up.  
    If anyone wants to pursue the discussion further, we take it to mail.  
    If this retreat from the public forum is viewed as "losing face" or
    "losing the argument," I guess I lose -- but only in the eyes of
    the people who WANT to see it that way.
    
    As previously pointed out, this medium is similar to, yet different
    from, a conversation.  People taking part in a verbal conversation
    also censor what they say, depending on the make-up of the group
    and the comfort-level the individual feels.  The difference is that
    in a conversation sensitive participants can draw out the quiet
    ones in their midst.  In Notes we can't tell who's being quiet, because
    we don't know who the read-only noters are.
    
    While I understand that the rough-and-tumble tone this conference
    generates could be intimidating to some, I also see it as ultimately
    fair and worthwhile.  My opinions on some important issues have
    been changed by the persistence of certain noters to state and restate
    their positions, and I have applauded at times when a particularly
    obnoxious reply received the comeuppance it deserved.  Because of
    this "feeling" on my part, I continue to note, and encourage others
    to overcome their inhibitions if the topic inspires them to add
    their insights and experiences.  I've seldom seen (well actually,
    I can't recall ever seeing) someone attacked unfairly without other
    noters jumping to their defense.
    
    This forum remains the single best source I have for exposure to
    new ideas, today's happenings (sometimes even before they hit the 
    newspapers), and informed (OK, sometimes uninformed, but that's
    the reality of our society) opinions on issues we will be facing
    for the foreseeable future.  It's better than the editorial pages
    of any of the newspapers I see, and certainly tackles issues from
    a slant we're all unlikely to see in the commercial press.
    
    Reluctant to enter here?  Not me!      BUT
    Censor myself here?  You bet, and I'll continue to do so.  But then,
    where is there a forum where any person can be completely open?
    
    Karen
                                                                 

    In line with what Steve said about segragated responses FWO/FGD...
    I am purposly entering my response in FGD because I do not like the
    segregation, are we pretending that everyone is not reading both
    topics? Or does this function as a means for skipping men's opinions?
    I think this has been hashed out somewhere before.
    
    In response to the base note
    
    I am an occasional contributor. Giving some thought to why I don't
    express my opinions more often there are a couple of issues for me.
    Sometimes after reading double digits of replys and not seeing my
    opinion expressed I wonder if I'm really out of touch with the subject
    because I can't relate to the available replys. I do feel selfconsious
    about entering an "off the wall" reply. If I feel strongly enough about
    the topic I'll enter the reply. There are less of those topics for me
    that there are for other contributors.
    
    Sometimes the opposite is true and my opinion has been satifactorily
    expressed by another member. I usually avoid being a "me too" responder
    as I do not feel that it is value added (unless it were a survey), I also
    question people that do that, do they really think like? Or just
    talking to hear themselves talk.
    
    Gail

    An anonymous response:
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    	  I, too, censor myself in WOMANNOTES.  There have been many times
     that I have extracted a sequence of notes, spent some amount of time
     and effort in researching and composing a reply -- in some cases,
     spending several evenings in the library finding sources and
     documenting facts -- and then decided not to enter a reply after all.
     Sometimes I fear that I will expose thoughts and values that are too
     deep, too personal for general consumption;  sometimes I fear that
     even the most respectful and diffident disagreement with a woman's
     statement will cause some woman pain;  but usually I fear the attacks
     I anticipate from women who are conditioned to see me as a threat
     because of my sex (male).

	  I agree with Steve in .5 that the conference is a battle zone,
     battle zone with many factions.  I do not believe that there is any
     substantive issue on which all the vocal members of all the factions
     agree.  Any substantive issue will have intelligent, articulate voices
     on all sides;  and it is difficult to duck an intelligent, articulate
     voice asking pointed questions and explaining the contradictions of
     one's beliefs.  And all beliefs have inherent contradictions;  this is
     part of being human.

	  In my opinion, this does not make the conference a bad thing.
     But, if the goal of the conference is to provide a "safe haven" for
     women needing a haven, this may mean the conference has failed.  The
     conference is not a safe haven.  I suspect that no conference without
     a very restricted membership would provide such a haven.  I believe
     that simply excluding men from the conference, a suggestion which
     seemed to be more popular in V1 of the conference than presently,
     would not suffice:  although in V1 of the conference, the most heated
     topics split along male/female lines, in this conference, several
     recent heated topics have found both men and women on both sides.  The
     most ignorant of men, such as myself, have been educated, at least to
     some extent;  the most ill-willed of men have been driven away, or
     gotten bored and gone to play elsewhere.  What remains is not, I
     believe, male oppression:  what remains is difference among reasonable
     people with different life experiences.  The sides in each discussion
     are no longer almost exclusively male on one side and female on the
     other;  as in the society in which the conference exists, strong
     differences now exist along a multitude of axes.  These differences
     would remain even were men excluded.

	  Any discussion in which different, strongly held, viewpoints are
     present will be contentious.  I am not one of those who value battle
     for its own sake, who see the fight as glory.  So I tend to stay out
     of the high visibility, high interest, high velocity topics:  when one
     is visible on a battle field, one gets shot at.  Because the other
     topics are low interest, this means I tend to not post to the
     conference at all.  But I write a great deal more than I post.

	  As a noter in WOMANNOTES, I too feel it unsafe to post.  As a man
     in WOMANNOTES, I face the additional danger of women too blinded by my
     maleness to listen to what I'm saying before attacking me.  This
     causes me much distress, and some frustration, but not more than
     passing anger:  for I realize that, to some women, any man is a
     threat, and I grieve for these women.  I know that I am not a danger
     to these women, but I am indeed a threat:  for while danger may be
     external, threat is a _perception_.

	  I personally value WOMANNOTES.  I have grown and changed as a
     person as a result of WOMANNOTES, and private mail exchanges spawned
     by WOMANNOTES.  I believe WOMANNOTES to be a force for the good:  I
     have seen others, too, grow, both more radical and less radical, both
     more liberal and more conservative, but almost always more feminist
     and more realist.

	  But, WOMANNOTES is indeed a battle field.  I do not think that
     anyone, man or woman, can post a note, on any topic, and expect
     anything other than to get shot at.  There are too many factions for
     that, too many factions each convinced that it alone has all the
     answers.  WOMANNOTES will become more of a battle ground as more
     people become feminist, or curious as to what feminism is;  for these
     factions in WOMANNOTES mirror the factions in our society, where the
     male/female division is just one of many.

	  Any conference will have confrontation.....WOMANNOTES has more
     confrontation than most because it has more conflict than most.  It
     has more conflict than most because the basic topic matter --
     womanhood, or perhaps personhood for women -- is a current issue of
     social change, social contention, and social unrest.  

	  What can you, as a noter, do to survive in this environment?  I
     can think of only three alternatives:  grow a thicker skin;  use
     anonymous notes;  leave.  It's not going to get any better.

	  I've tried each.  They all sort of work.

As a newly read/write member of =wn=, I guess I qualify as one who is 
uncomfortable sharing in the conference.  This can be attributed to many 
things:

    - my thoughts/opinions have already been expressed by someone else.

    - although I have a unique opinion, I'm not sure I can back it up
      with enough reasons and facts to satisfy others.

    - in general, I find it uncomfortable talking/noting about very
      personal subjects with people I don't know.

    - many of the topics I have opinions about, I don't have experience
      with.  It seems impossible to try to anticipate what my feelings
      would be if I *had* had the experience.  Therefore, I'll leave it
      to others who have first-hand knowledge of the topic.

Since this is the first topic I've replied to (besides the intro -- that was
pretty easy!), hopefully it will break that write-only barrier and you'll be
hearing more from me.

Sue

       Similar to Sue (.-1) I have a list of reasons not to reply 
       to most topics.

       - I'm too late, the opinion I had on a certain point doesn't fit
       into the discussion now.

       - Someone else has already said it, mostly in much better words
       than I could ever find.

       - It takes me much too long to find a compromise between what I
       want to express and what I can (technically) say in English.

       - With many topics I don't have either the informational
       background (I seldom read U.S. newspapers), the personal
       experience or the cultural context to be more than an interested
       reader.

       - Some topics are too hot for me personally, and after some hard
       experiences (not here) I decided to choose my nerves over the
       publication of my political believes.

       - That's probably the worst excuse, but sometimes I think 'who
       should be interested in my opinion'. 

       But the few times I have written here it has always been a 
       positive experience, with some good mail exchange afterwards
       from both female and male readers.

       Gr��e,                              
               Christine

    I guess it seems appropriate to expand my original thought (or provide
    more context for those of you who don't have access to my entire
    original note): 
    
    the innocuous actions I mentioned are not always in notes (in fact
    I was thinking more along the lines of how we interact with people
    person-to-person as i wrote).  The value of this conference for
    me has been a vehicle to work through those shoals.  
    
    the direction the discussion has taken has given me a different
    perspective as well - my own self censorship, concern of whether
    i am 'politically correct' and general lack of certainty about my
    own opinions clearly has its roots in my personal history, but has
    also been subtly guided by the notes environment. 
    
    this notefile still remains a safe haven of fairly open communication
    between women and men for me.   
    
    enjoy it in good health, 
    irene

I find I censor very heavily, I am quit opinionated and very often speak my 
mind whether my "audience" likes it or not. I find in notes that no matter
how many times you include the phrase "(IMHO)" there are those who jump on
you with comments such as "the only morally correct person in the world"
and then shred your note from their opinion. very often it isn't worth 
fighting in a forum such as this when you cannot change the minds of the
morally-bankrupt, or the totally-misguided. (note smiley face here :-})

to be serious again, I have beliefs in a set of morals and values that mean
a lot to me, many of the things I believe in I would, and may have-to, fight
and even die for. Those principles I will present as my view but when
attacked in a personal ad-hominum way I back out. *NOT* because I have
given up that belief or changed my mind, but because the resulting bloodshed
would alienate readers on all sides of the issues.

So to keep from insulting people I work with I take a lot of my politics
to the outside and try to keep it lighter in Notes.

REASON#2:
It is sometimes Damn painfull to share certain feelings or life-events
with "strangers" some have written me encouraging notes(mail) when I have said
something personal, and I appreciate those notes. (one person I jumped on
because I didn't understand her meaning at first glance[it was early morning]
and I humbly apologise for that) there are times when a response has generated
some rather intense hate-mail, the kind that makes me wish that duelling
was still legal :-}.

sometimes it is difficult to say something if it involves another "deccie"
no matter how you phrase it the other person will/may recognise themselves
and, *WORSE*, someone else may recognise them.

I am not sure I would like to see this file FWO but it would be nice to have
a place to express feelings safely(we can't all go to counseling)(and may
not need that much help:-}) for both men and women. I do not enjoy seeing
someone say "I HURT" and the next reply is "your an *ssh*l*" that is not fair
and it certainly is not conducive to open expressions.
There are topics that I believe there should be notes on
but due to their sensitive nature (or possibility of creating pain) they will
not be started.
Loneliness both in and out of relationships,
Sex without love,
Love without sex,

all three of these topics are of interest to many people as most folks 
experience all three at one time or another, yet I don't believe that
discussions could take place either here or in HR without hurt being given
or taken or people jumping on the content of the idea without considering
the feeling behind it.

if I said "I believe prostitution should be legal and would be a good
    thing" the replies would rathole into the "feminist or religious" view
on Prostitution and my "reasons" would be ignored no matter how personal.

So I will contribute when I can't stand it any longer and have to give an 
opinion, :-} or when it is light-discussion, or I will post informational
facts that support one side of a discussion(or refute one, whichever way you 
look at that :-})
Amos

    	I've become pretty much 'read only' lately. I used to think
    that =wn= was a place where men and women could openly express thoughts
    and feelings and opinions without being personally attacked. If
    that doesn't do it, then attack me because I'm a man and I don't
    understand, never understood, can't understand, never will be able
    to understand what women suffer. After a few personal nasty notes
    about the "A" subject, I found that it just wasn't worth the effort
    to constantly reclarify, re-explain, defend, my beliefs, opinions,
    and words.
    
    	 I agree with others of you that the dissection of my replies
    just leaves me weary. Sometimes I'm hurt (because I'm male, doesn't
    mean my feeling can't be hurt), angered, mostly frustrated that
    someone has to pull out Webster's and tell me that I chose the wrong
    verb, noun, or that I left my particple dangling and it skewered
    the entire image of my response.
    
    	It seems that the rah,rah has somewhat quieted in =wn=. That
    will make it much easier for me to re-enter.
    
    Ken

    *ON MY SOAPBOX*
    
    I have been doing a bit of thinking about this FGD note even though
    I put a reply into 745.7.
    
    I think it is unfortunate that we all do not see the notesfile as
    an opportunity to say what we think/feel/believe about any subject,
    confident that those who read our replies will make every effort
    to give the benefit of the doubt to notes that may be less than
    clear.
    
    It is quite difficult for many of us who hold strong opinions [read:
    carved in stone sometimes] to sit patiently and read the diametrical
    opinions of others.
    
    I am speaking from a very personal level in the next few sentences.
     Please understand this and try to refrain from getting hot under
    the fingertips.
    
    I was raised in a southern household where the man was "head of
    the household" in more ways than one.  "An uppity woman and a crowing
    hen always come to some bad end" was a saying I think I was born
    knowing.
    
    I quickly recognized when I married, and later in a relationship
    of some length, that even less macho men did not fully understand
    what difficulties are particular to women, no matter how much I
    attempted to enlighten them.
    
    HOWEVER: In the attempts to be understood, I was required to listen
    to their side of the story, and came to accept that they also have
    their specific problems wrought both by gender and by environment.
    
    And what I have learned most in this and other notesfiles, is that
    men bleed, are in pain, lose and gain lovers, have deep sorrows,
    sublime joys, are opinionated and broadminded, and in general reflect
    what women do-----the human condition.
    
    Perhaps that is our difficulty as noters.  We haven't *LISTENED*
    carefully enough to each other.  We read the words and we instantly
    start composing our response.  We don't stop to wonder why and what
    might just lie behind what the writer has written.  We fail to take
    into consideration the fact that many of us haven't the empirical
    knowledge that will help put us into that writer's shoes.  We cannot
    ever fully share identically their experience; but we owe it to
    them to want to understand it, not judge it.
    
    And to attack someone for their feelings is utterly base behavior.
     *Feelings are not facts* but they are vitally important to the
    owner of them, and would *never* be treated with contempt by well-bred
    people.
    
    Life is too short, often difficult at best, and too precious by
    far not to give each other room to be ourselves.  If we cannot do
    it here in notes, how in hell can we expect the world outside to
    do any better?
    
    *OFF MY SOAPBOX*        Marilyn

   
   I've entered some very personal things in this file -- probably more
   so than in any other Notes file -- because, as a human being and
   a man, I thought they were relevant to the goals and guidelines of 
   WOMANNOTES. I've never felt attacked or under fire here, primarily
   because what I entered were personal narratives that were 
   non-arguable. People could take them or leave them, but there wasn't 
   much in there to debate.

   On the other hand, I've avoided entering personal opinions, and
   when I do enter one, I try to be especially careful as to what I
   write -- probably more so than in any other Notes file. 

   Why is this? 

   For one thing, even as a read-only participant, I find this file
   extremely enjoyable and informative. I've learned a lot -- about
   women, about men, about myself. It's been fantastic and fun. I
   don't have to be an active participant to enjoy and benefit.

   For another, the file is extremely active. The sheer volume of
   noting can be threatening. It is not unusual to find 20 replies or
   more in a  day to a topic. Authors of controversial issues need
   plenty of time to answer, refute, expand, and explain. At times I
   have felt like replying or entering a new topic, but I don't
   have enough time to maintain the needed follow-up.

   This file is essentially by and for women. They set the rules and
   parameters. It's their show. As a man, my views are tolerated here.
   I have to be careful about what I say. My ideas may be listened to,
   but they are not as important (to some participants) as the views
   of the real noters here, the women. 

   In WOMMANNOTES I sometimes feel like the little kid whose parents
   let him sit in and watch the adult's party: I know it's not my
   party, and I better keep my mouth shut as much as possible and not
   upset the "real" guests. If I say anything out of turn I'll get 
   sent to my room. Maybe this feeling is not realistic (and you can't
   argue with feelings), but I think there is some truth in it, and
   maybe it turns off some possible men contributors. 

   Bruce

Many of the notes files, both work-related and non-work-related, have too much
belligerence for my taste. Some of the noters seem to enjoy being smug and
putting down their fellow employees. For example, the MASSACHUSETTS notes file
has just gone through a tacky little spell of nastiness, with the moderator
pleading for decency.

It has not escaped my attention that most of the belligerent noters are men.

I don't mind terribly when I see the men calling each other names in these
notes files. Actually, I do mind it, but I don't get upset.

But I find I have less patience with belligerence in notes files pertaining to
social issues, especially social issues about men and women and how they relate
to each other in the world today. And I'm bothered when I see men attack points
made by women about these issues.

Not only do I censor my replies in this file (I don't write any), but I also
skim-read it and hit NEXT UNSEEN when I start reading belligerent notes.

Vicki Meagher

    
    re -.1                                          
    
    I honestly don't know how a dialog can be conducted with any meaningfulness
    unless positions taken on social issues can be attacked.
    
    If a man attacks a woman's particular viewpoint on an issue, what usually
    happens is that an articulate woman noter will probably counter attack.
    
    I don't think women are so fragile that they can't take a little 
    disagreement (my ex is deadly at 1000 meters!!).
    
    This is life in the big city (maybe small towns are friendlier but they
    aren't as honest).

    re _.1
    How many small towns have you lived in?  Everyone I ever lived in was
    friendly, supportive, and honest til it hurt.  But there was a basic
    understanding that everyone has to give because we're all in it
    together.  Discussion is different from attack.  
    
    Dondi

    	It would be great if more people really understood the difference
    	between a so-called "personal attack" and a vehement disagreement
    	with another's opinions.
    
    	Many/most of the replies in this conference that I've seen labeled
    	as "personal attacks" were actually just strong disagreements with 
    	a person's opinions.
    
    	"Attacking" an argument is not the same thing as attacking a
    	person, is it?
    
    	Most of the time, it appears that some/many people are unable to
    	make that distinction.
    

    re. last several:
    
    My personal problem with attacks, whether aimed at the person or
    the opinion, is that they leave no room for discussion.  The attitude
    that comes across is one of "that's the way it IS, so there!  Pfffft!"
    
    But life has taught me that VERY SELDOM is there a black or white,
    a right or wrong.  Most things, especially complex things, involve 
    many shades of gray.
    
    My reason for participating in this conference is to discover the
    shades of gray and learn from them.  Too often, however, the discussion
    breaks down into attacks that insist either black or white is the
    only way to go, and anyone espousing a shade of gray silently departs
    for more congenial topics.
         
    All IMHO, of course.
    
    Karen
    

    couldn't agree more, Suzanne... I recall one very uncomfortable
    situation where I was charged with harassment by comparing the plight
    of one segment of the population (current) with another segment of the
    population (historical)... a purely theoretical argument was dragged
    down to a very personal level, with charges leveled against me that I
    had no way to defend against...
    
    "personal" isn't always intended as such... 
    
    grins,
    Marge 

    	RE: .26
    
    	Marge, you're talking about something that's slightly different
    	than what I was trying to say.
    
    	What would you think if I compared an argument between you and I
    	to an argument between a devil and an angel (and characterized
    	your side as being that of the devil, while my side was that of
    	the angel.)
    
    	Would you take that personally or not?  :^)
    	

    Are you suggesting, Suzanne, that "personal" is often in the eye of the
    beholder??
    
    Marge

                       <*** Moderator Response ***>
    
    um, I hope this really isn't going in the direction it looks like,
    gyns.  :-}
    
    						=maggie

    	RE: .28
    
    	> Are you suggesting, Suzanne, that "personal" is often in the eye 
    	> of the beholder??
    
    	What I'm trying to say is that when someone says "X is Y," it is
    	*not* a personal attack when another comes along to say (in a
    	passionate way) that s/he strongly disagrees that X is Y (and is
    	prepared to list a dozen or so strong reasons why s/he holds this
    	particular opinion.)
    
    	Stating dozens of reasons why a person does *not* think that "X is
    	Y" is not the same thing as saying, "You are a slime."
    
    	However, saying that the practice of "X *not* being equal to Y" is
    	equivalent to mass murder (or some such) is not merely a re-assertion
    	of "X is Y."  
    
    	When you tie one side of an argument to a horrendous act (that
    	people on *both* sides would agree is ultimately evil,) it goes
    	beyond merely "disagreeing" (and moves on to characterizing one's
    	opponents as people whose beliefs are equivalent to the afore-
    	mentioned horrendous acts, which isn't really a fair debating 
    	technique.)
    
    	Since there are so many other ways to debate issues, it doesn't
    	really seem wise or necessary to use analogies that suggest negative
    	characterizations of one's opponents, does it?  

I second Maggie's statement. Take any discussion not related to this topic
ELSEWHERE.
	Mez

    	RE: .31
    
    	Since the basenote specifically introduced the idea of "stumbling 
    	block[s] for communication in notesfiles, and particularly perhaps 
    	in womannotes," it strikes me that the difficulty in knowing what
    	does or does not constitute a "personal attack" can be a pretty
    	significant stumbling block, indeed.
    
    	Thanks for the suggestion, though.
    

I suggest discussing what is or is not a personal attack in processing, or
elsewhere. I think it's far enough off the track, particularly in this case,
where we're soliciting views, and any challenge to a view could stifle them, at
least in this particular case.
	Mez

    	RE: .33
    
    	> I suggest discussing what is or is not a personal attack in 
    	> [the] processing [topic]...
    
    	Whether anyone likes it or not, notes 745 and 746 are "processing"
    	topics in and of themselves (especially 746.)
    
    	> we're soliciting views, and any challenge to a view could stifle 
    	> them
    
    	My initial statement in .24 was my "view," so I guess you're saying 
    	that my view should not have been challenged.    ;^)
    
    	Just kidding. 
    
    	I'll keep my views to myself, then.

    
     Suzanne, no need to keep your views to yourself, just please put
    them in a different place. To focus on personal attacks in this
    topic is to derail it from the intent of the note. Either the
    processing topic (preferred) or a separate note on the subject
    of what how we perceive responses to our notes, and what makes us
    think that something is a personal attack would be perfectly
    reasonable and welcome.
    
    Bonnie

    	RE: .35
    
    	Bonnie, the subject of "personal attacks" is only being discussed
    	in *this* particular "processing topic" (and not in either of the
    	others, right now,) so it was more appropriate for me to bring
    	up my initial "view" on the subject *here* (where it was already
    	under discussion.)
    
    	Nothing else would have made much sense.
    
    	However, like I said, it doesn't matter.  I'll keep it to myself.

    Back to the original topic:
    
    Being male, I do feel a bit of an outsider here.  Because of this, I am
    more likely to respond by mail than posting a note publicly. I do not
    so much fear attack as feel that not everything I have to say might be
    of interest to the general population. 
    
    I am still becoming comfortable here, I am but new.
    
    Robbie

Just one comment - Suzanne's note and the resultant moderator pressure strikes
me as very relevant to this topic - as an excellent *example* of the kind of 
thing which causes people *not* to enter their views here.

which was motivated by the concern that people wouldn't enter their views here
if it went down a rathole, into a known sensitive topic, or challenged others
views.

yup; I noticed that...
	Mez

    I dunno, Mez, maybe we could have let it develop into a two-person
    firefight, since this is "only" the FGD string and the "real" focus is
    on FWO non-confrontative sharing.
    
    And now, removing my tongue from my cheek:  it just didn't feel like
    the right thing to do given the particular situation, Paul.
                                                       
    						=maggie

But the trade-off is real. And the sort of trade-off we make all the time,
_usually_ by standing as far back as possible for as long as possible.

And at first, I thought you were serious Maggie!
	Mez

    For what it's worth *I* feel that sometimes an analogy or a comparison
    is drawn that SEEMS to judge one side as better than the other,
    either directly or indirectly.  I often *perceive* such judgements
    as attacks on the person yielding the opinion, since it is difficult
    to assign a postive/negative anthropomorphic characterization to
    an opinion, and leave the person voicing the opinion out of it.
    
    When an opinion of mine is adjudged what *feels to me* like foolish,
    immaterial, wrong, stupid, or misguided, *I* sometimes wind up feeling
    as if *I* had been judged.  I presented an opinion, and it sprang
    from me.  If it is incorrect, that is fine, I will amend it based
    on straightforward responses from others.  But when the language
    gets loaded against my opinion, and it is adjudged somehow foolish
    or immaterial or wrong or stupid - I feel that I, too, have been
    labeled.
    
    This is hard for me to say, because it feels like a weakness here.
     It is for this very reason that I have never noted, and will never
    note, in more confrontational conferences.
    
    -Jody
    

    	RE: .39
    
    	Paul, it's also worth noting that the mods and I were able to
    	discuss our disagreement openly here.
    
    	As Mez (I think) said, sometimes there are tradeoffs, and I
    	do understand where the mods were coming from on this one.
    	
    	People don't always need to agree with each other in order to
    	communicate in ways that are fair (and in ways that leave some
    	level of dignity for all concerned.)
    

    re .45

    My comment in .39 was not intended to state that the moderator
    action was wrong, merely that it was an example of the kind of
    interaction which intimidates some people. As another example,
    the first version of this reply was 55 lines long...

	Paul

I am replying here because of this topic's importance.

   Like many who have replied in this topic, my feeling is that the WOMANNOTES
file is not as conducive to open discussion and real exchange of ideas that
some would desire it to be. My feeling is based on my observations of the
various discussions as well as my (admittedly limited) experiences. I do not
intend to participate in any of the discussions here, since I am certain that
any opinions or information I may have would be unwanted here. Consequently,
it would be inappropriate for me to enter them in this notesfile.

   The paragraphs following this one describes how I arrived at the conclusions
stated above. It is somewhat detailed. Those who are not interested, or who
don't like long notes should stop here and skip to the next reply.

                        *                 *              *

   When I started reading WOMANNOTES, my primary intention was to use it as a
"learning tool". Since my college years I had been keeping track of women's
issues, and have been fascinated by what I like to call the "feminine
principle" of humanity. For many years I have been aware that the fact that I
am male means that there are a whole range of physical, social, and
psychological experiences that were beyond the scope of my everyday experience.
To understand experiences that are alien to mine is an important part of my
philosophical and "religious" beliefs.

   I saw this file as an opportunity to learn more about the experiences of
women, and to gain a greater understanding of what it means to be a woman in
this world. I entered it and began to assimilate everything I could.

   What I found was like a diamond mine. I found a "woman's perspective" on
everything from Guns to Sex in Advertising to information on nail polish. I saw
people -- not just women -- supporting each other in a number of areas. And the
range of perspectives! Of course, there were men in the file (I would have been
surprised, in view of DEC's policies against discrimmination, if WOMANNOTES had
been restricted to women), and some of them added "spice" to the discussions
that they were allowed to participate in.

   Despite the many facets I saw in the diamond mine, I was reluctant to
participate in any of the discussions for a number of reasons: (1) I have a
natural reluctance for expressing opinions or giving information that others
have already given, and (2) some of the discussions covered areas so outside my
experience (like the effects of being raped, for example) that I felt that
since I couldn't possibly have anything appropriate to say, it would be best to
"listen" to what was being "said" and learn what I could. My primary reason for
refraining,however, was that I noticed an unfortunate pattern in some of the
discussions. I noticed that (a) some of the discussions of topics I was
particularly interested in were dominated by a vocal minority that seemed less
than open to hearing and understanding views that went against their own, (b)
that this vocal minority often behaved in a judgemental, condescending, and
sometimes even viscious manner towards any man (and some women) who expressed
opinions that weren't strictly in line with their own. I also noticed that some
people (men AND women) often became so polarized that communications would
break down, ratholes would form, and a discussion would degenerate into polite
(and sometimes not- so- polite) finger pointing and name calling.

   While I was learning a great deal from this notesfile, I was not interested
in expending my energies on unnecessary battles. I kept my opinions -- as well
as any information I had concerning the subjects discussed -- to myself.

   When I made my first open entry, it was done after a great deal of careful
consideration. I had seen an entry which described some beliefs which struck me
as being blatently sexist. In fact, I had a great deal of knowledge on the
subject matter (from the patriarchal and FEMINIST points of view), and based on
that knowledge I was appalled at what was being said. I waited for a week,
hoping that someone else would point out the flaws I saw. When no one did so, I
wrote a reply which was designed to be non- argumentative and non- judgemental.
It pointed out specifically what I disagreed with without attacking or
rejecting anything else. I thought I had made my points in a manner that was
non- confrontational and would facilitate communication with anyone who may not
agree with what I was saying. Many WOMANNOTERS, particularly women, had
demanded such replies in the past (in fact, one woman replying to this topic
complained about a tendency among the male noters to be "confrontational" and
"abusive"). I expected that someone would disagree with what I was saying, but
I hoped for a reasonably friendly discussion and an exchange of ideas.

   Unfortunately, I soon found myself in a discussion with people who made a 
number of incorrect (and unfair) assumptions about my own beliefs based loosely 
on misinterpretations and distortions of what I was saying. It seemed that if I
would not accept the sexist statements I was replying against, then I was
somehow an "unenlightened" man who was "rejecting" a "new" perspective. The
"discussion" degenerated into an attempt on my part to clarify what I said in
my initial entry, and an attempt by the others to "make me aware" of things
that I had been long aware of.

   When I was given information designed to "inform" me -- even when some of
the information was distorted, presented out of context, or incomplete -- I
continued to attempt to clarify my position. When statements were made about my
belief structure despite the fact that I really didn't give anyone any
indication of what my belief structure really was, then I grew somewhat angry
and frustrated. When I expressed my feelings about the discussion -- and again
attempted to clarify my position -- I decided at that time to terminate the
discussion. I had realized that the people I was "talking" to already had a
picture of me, my belief system, and what I was trying to say in their minds
and there was nothing I could do to correct that picture. One of them proved me
right in her next entry: she suggested that the discussion could continue if
she argued from the opposite side of the discussion. A good idea -- except that
the "opposite" point of view that she suggested she take was not mine at all!

   I am not afraid of being challenged. I am not even afraid of being "flamed".
I never really felt defensive at any time during the "discussion" I had. In
fact, compared with the way others were sometimes treated here, I was treated
rather gently!

   I have fought verbal battles in the past that would make the battles which
occurred in the Abortion topic look like pleasent chatter. Some of my other
wars were fought against people who could (and did) hurt my career, my economic
status, or (in quite a few cases) threatened my life. There is no one in this
file who scares or intimidates me.  I've been scared by experts -- and no one
here really qualifies as an expert. It does, however, take energy to fight --
whether it is to defend yourself against evil people or to fight against the
prejudices of those who are unwilling to really listen to what you are saying
in a NOTES entry.  The question to ask is: is it worth the effort? In the case
of this notesfile, I asked that question. My answer was no.

   My answer was the result of observing other people's opinions being
openly trivialized by some male noters. My answer was the result of observing
other noters' statements being picked apart, distorted, and further trivialized
because they are male (everyone knows, of course, that men are naturally
unable to be sensitive to or have any real real understanding of women's
issues. Right?). My answer was also the result of observing a pattern of 
assumptions about my belief systems projected into a discussion I engaged 
in -- despite the fact that I made a conscious effort to present specific views
in a non- confrontational, honest, and sensitive manner. 

   If expressing a differing opinion in this notesfile means that a person will
have to contend with women who act as opinionated and chauvanistic as the
sexist men they are against, then I feel that the person's energies are best
directed elsewhere. If a person's perspective is to be attacked even when the
attackers don't know what that perspective really is, then how can this
notesfile be conducive to real communication, real discussion, or real
learning? I have seen places here where I have learned a great deal. I have
also seen places where differing opinions were shouted down by a few and no
real discussion was made. One of those places was in the one "discussion" I
had.

   People evolve. Groups evolve. This notesfile has also evolved. Despite all
that I have said above, I have seen some changes here which have improved
things. I believe that there will come a time when all WOMANNOTErs will be able
and willing to listen to ALL perspectives without filtering them or getting
defensive about their own. I also believe that disagreements between noters
here will eventually be expressed in ways that are more mature than the way
some of them have been expressed up until now.

   When that time comes, I will willingly contribute my views, information that
some MAY find useful, and (when appropriate) my experiences. Then I will learn
more of what I came here to learn through real discussion and communication
(even with those who violently disagree with my ideas). In the meantime I
can still accomplish part of my original purpose by remaining a read- only
noter. Until I see the changes I hope for, I shall observe and assimilate --
but not contribute.

                *                 *                *

   The above was submitted for your information only. I entered it despite my
"read- only" policy because I think this  topic is too important for me to
withhold my perspective, observations, and experiences. I expect that some will
disagree; in fact, I may even be "flamed" for some of the things I've "said"
here. 

   I have tried to present a "snapshot" that people can examine and think
about. I sincerely hope that I've succeeded.

   For those who've gotten this far: thanks for "listening".

                                                          -Robert Brown III

Oh, FYI: Mez makes a good point in .33 when she mentions how the direction
         this topic seemed to be taking could discourage others from 
         replying. It is bad enough that this topic is divided into
         FWO/FGD (which is, quite simply, sexist and unfair), but when
         I saw a rathole forming around "personal attacks", I seriously
         considered not entering my reply because I was unsure if the 
         original intent of this topic would be adhered to. It was the
         fact that this topic is a very crucial one that caused be to
         suspend, briefly, these doubts.

         Mez: you are an insightful person. I think many people here, 
        myself included, can learn much from you.
 

    	RE: .46
    
    	> My comment in .39 was not intended to state that the moderator
    	> action was wrong, merely that it was an example of the kind of
    	> interaction which intimidates some people.
    
    	Their interaction was so kind, compassionate, and reasonable compared
    	to many of the other critical replies in this topic -- it's downright 
    	amazing to see the contrast.
    
    	If anything, the mods' ceaseless attempts at fairness and community
    	spirit serve to encourage people to continue to participate in this
    	conference.
    
    	Their patience and understanding in the midst of this particular
    	topic is especially appreciated.

    This notesfile, more than any of the others that I read, forces
    me to THINK.  Many of the discussions are deep.  The willingness
    to explore a topic in depth, even in the face of disagreement, is
    wonderful.  Knee-jerk reactions frequently seem inappropriate. 
    Sometimes my thinking on a topic is altered or expanded because
    of the discussion.  Sometimes I am forced to examine more closely
    the ingrained reasons behind my stands on different topics.  Often
    I wind up a few degrees 'off-center' from either 'side' of a
    discussion, but almost always I come away with new insight.  This
    level of discourse sometimes makes it difficult to respond - but
    it is why I value this file.
    
    Alison

A remarkable phenomenon!  Some people are afraid to participate here because
feminism is unsupported, suppressed, harassed, etc.; and some people are
afraid to participate because any deviation from the "feminist party line"
is not tolerated.

Somehow it seems more likely that there are a few people, of all persuasions,
who KNOW the ultimate truth, and will not let any deviation from it go 
uncorrected.  The perception of discrimination has more to do with whose
ox is being gored.

	-Neil

    That sounds a useful and interesting observation, Neil.  Could you
    expand on it a bit?
    
    						=maggie

    	RE: .50
    
    	> and some people are afraid to participate because any deviation 
    	> from the "feminist party line" is not tolerated.
    
    	Actually, Neil, that's what people *used* to complain about in
    	Womannotes in years past (until we drove it home to everyone that
    	the women in this file *don't* all think alike.)
    
    	So *now* the big complaint (as explained in previous replies to
    	this topic) is that we consist of "so many different factions"!!
    
    	While I was delighted to notice that the same old complaints about
    	the non-existent "party line" had stopped this go 'round, I was
    	rather surprised to find that some people *now* complain just as 
    	strongly about the fact that all the women in this conference do 
    	*not* agree on everything!    *SIGH*

    I take breaks.  I find that I learn more that way. Per this file
    that is... :-)
    
    I feel that due to a spacific few, males (and some females) stand
    clear of this file, or writing because of the abuse that is brought
    upon for an opinion, question, or even political stance.
    
    Although there have been some changes in this file, it still (in
    MY OPINION) needs a few changes... this particular topic and its
    counterpart for example.
    
    I understand the "need" for space.  I can handle that, but segregating
    male and female responses is hipocracy.
    
    Picture if you will (Nice rod Serling voice eh:-)) Telling black
    people that they must sit in the rear of a bus because of their
    color, but as a white man, I can sit any where I damn well please.
    
    Picture if you will (ditto)Telling men that they must write in another
    note, but as a female, I can write anywhere I damn well please.
    
    See the resemblance?
    
    I understand that the FWO FGD is UNenforcable, but what man in his
    right mind would go where he isnt wanted?
    
    

    Picture, Al, whites being told to sit in the back of the bus,
    while blacks sit whereever they like.
    
    Now picture the setup being framed with the announcement that this
    is a learning experience.
    
    						Ann B.

    learning smerning Ann.  I was in the NAvy... do you know what the
    ratio of white versus black in the US Navy???
    
    I know the feeling all too well thank you.
    
    But I do have to ask, Ann... what is it that you are trying to say?
    
    Not another what?  Male ???
    I have been here a long time. IF, in fact that is what your refering
    to...
    
    that last part is a serious tongue en cheek reply Ann...
    

If we feel the need to discuss woman-space, in general, or specificially here,
I am _sure_ there's another topic. If not, I'll be glad to make one.

"Not another learning experience", Al.
	Mez

    	RE: .55 AMARTIN
    
    	.54> Oh, no!  Not another one!
    	
    	> Not another what?  Male ???
  
    	Her note was about a "learning experience," so her reference was
    	to the expression, "Oh no!  Not another learning experience!"
    

    Reread my last line Suzanne....
    
    I spacifically stated that "the last part was severe tongue en cheek"
    I am sure that thats what I wrote....
    
    I knew what she ment...sort of... 

    	RE: .58 AMARTIN
    
    	> I spacifically stated that "the last part was severe tongue 
    	> en cheek"
    
    	That didn't demonstrate to me that you understood what she
    	meant by her title.  
    
    	> I knew what she ment...sort of... 
    
    	Sort of, huh?  If you say so.
    
    	Hey, I was only trying to avert a possible misunderstanding.
    	Don't take it so hard.
    

    can we sorta meander back to the general area of the base note?
    huh? maybe? please?
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .52 (Suzanne)
    
>	So *now* the big complaint (as explained in previous replies to
>    	this topic) is that we consist of "so many different factions"!!
    
    Oh?  What makes you think so?  I don't recall anyone complaining that
    there were "so many different factions".  Observing, yes.  Actually,
    it's not clear to me that people here (except yourself, perhaps)
    have been complaining at all.  We were asked to state our feelings
    about why we might feel reluctant to voice our opinions in this
    forum.  And I'm glad to see that many have done so - it would be so
    easy (and safe) to remain silent, and no one would know otherwise.
    Please don't contribute to the problem by attacking those who
    have clearly and non-confrontationally expressed their feelings.
    
    I'm also glad to see some women recognize the benefit in having 
    "all the voices in the chorus".  I think that FWO notes scare away
    more women than they attract.
    
    				Steve

    	RE: .61  Steve Lionel
    
    	>> So *now* the big complaint (as explained in previous replies to
	>> this topic) is that we consist of "so many different factions"!!
    
    	> Oh?  What makes you think so?  I don't recall anyone complaining that
    	> there were "so many different factions".  Observing, yes.
    
    	Well, actually, in your note .5, you said:
    
    		"There are so many factions here, each with their own 
    		antagonisms towards the others, that it's a bit scary."
    
    	I guess that saying something is "scary" is not necessarily a
    	complaint.  Perhaps you consider this a *good* kind of scary. :-)
    
      	> Actually, it's not clear to me that people here (except yourself, 
    	> perhaps) have been complaining at all.
    
    	Hey, *I* wasn't complaining either.  I was just "observing," too.
    
    	> We were asked to state our feelings about why we might feel 
    	> reluctant to voice our opinions in this forum.
    
    	I was asked to relay *my* feelings, too, about why I am reluctant
    	to voice my opinions in this forum.  That's what I've been trying
    	to explain.
    
    	> Please don't contribute to the problem by attacking those who
    	> have clearly and non-confrontationally expressed their feelings.
    
    	My observation that people did not complain about the "party line"
    	in this topic was not an attack.	
    
    	The title of your note ("Setting up straw horses once again?"),
    	however, *does* qualify as both confrontational and a personal
    	attack.
    
    	Again, that's not a complaint.  Just an observation.

    RE: suzanne... I you were asked to voice your feelings then why
    didnt you do it in the spacifically designated women only note?
    
    Why come in this particular (one that allows males to enter) and
    attempt to discount all males feelings???
    
    If you have felings to state, then state them.... please leave our
    feelings or "fear of entering notes for reasons showed in the last
    few replies" alone.  
    
    Bonnie, I think I am still sticking to the topic, no?  :-)
    
    The word feelings is in there.....:-)

                                       
    Well, I think we're being treated to a live-and-in-technicolor
    display of why people are shy of expressing themselves in here:  
    
                               No freebies.
                                No slack.
                               No quarter.
    
               Feet to the fire all the way. On both sides.
    
    
    I'm glad we're seeing this, and in some sense I hope it continues
    because of its instructional value.
    
    						=maggie

    	RE: .63  AMARTIN
    
    	Oh, give it a REST, will you???
    
    	Look, I didn't mean to hurt your feelings by explaining that
    	note title to you yesterday (I'm sorry if it is still upsetting
    	you so much today!)  I wasn't trying to talk down to you, honest!
    
    	If you guys want to go on talking about all your fears, please be
    	my guest!
    
    	Just please do *NOT* address any more notes to me.  Enough is
    	enough!
    

    Good observation, Maggie.  AND, I hope the parties involved note
    how frequently the contributions of others stop once this "expression"
    begins.  Anyone care to do a scientific study of how many notes
    died abruptly once confrontation begins?
    
    Karen

ooooh! That's a good one Karen! Of course, there's defining confrontation. But,
as a first approximation, it could be a string of notes between two people (so
this one might not make it).
	Mez

    Re: .66 
    >>contributions of others stop once this "expression" begins  
    
    I not only loose any desire to reply, but also normally exit the 
    conference. I've always been *read only* in this conference, for
    several reasons, but I _do_ read. The support and caring expressed
    by so many of the noters, to any/everyone that needs it, is great
    to see, especially when I'm having a rough week myself. This feeling
    usually disappears though when the "expression" starts.
    
    ll 

    Expression HAULT!
    
    I am happy, yer happy (suzanne).... lets leave it at that, agreed.

    THe end has come people.  I shall find my rock and reenter...
    :-)

    Al, is there really no middle ground then?

    Middle Ground where, Maggie?
    
    I dont quite understand....
    

    I've been giving some thought to my feelings as far as comfort
    level in writing in wn, and all in all, I have the same comfort
    level here as I do in other notesfiles (BOOKS, JAZZ, MENNOTES, etc.).
    If I censor myself, it's most often due to a knowledge that my
    feelings and ideas on a subject aren't fully formed enough to
    make sense.
    
    Being a writer by trade, I'm used to putting my
    words on the line, and constructively using criticism.  And although
    I'm not confrontational by nature, I've found that I've learned
    something more often than not from the confrontations read here.
    
    When I do write in wn, I do my best to write what I know - my
    feelings, my opinions, my experiences.  I'm not here to win a
    contest, I'm here to learn and share.  And when writing, I apply
    the same rules of including or excluding information as I would
    with any public where I know some people and don't know others.
    
    As the people I work with can tell you, I'm a storyteller at
    heart, and with my stories come a lot of my own hopes and fears --
    that's all part of being a communicative human being.  So, here's
    a story to end this reply.  WN has replaced something I had at a 
    previous job; I worked in a group that was mostly women, and my
    closest friends in the group were women.  As time went on, people
    changed jobs and changed careers (and the company's bottom line
    looked very bleak).  We all work in different companies now, but
    still get together about once every six weeks.  Very quickly,
    I found that I missed the day to day interaction with my friend's
    ideas and feelings.  WN is an ongoing conversation on a lot of
    topics that I'm interested in.  Also, WN helps me understand and
    empathise with the experiences of my best friend of all.
    

    I'm a recent noter in WOMANNOTES.  I don't exercise any more restraint
    or feel any more restrained than I do in other notesfiles (as a matter
    of fact, less so than in technical notesfiles, where I'm almost
    exclusively read-only).
    
    In general, I feel that people express themselves clearly and
    sensitively.  Some of those people who express themselves the most
    carefully have been men -- I appreciate the care taken by *anyone* who
    writes carefully.
    
    Recently in another note there was a stinging series of remarks that I
    guess is an example of the flames people fear.  I found it profitless
    to read.  I don't like to see men flamed; I don't like to see women
    flamed.  People should count to 100 before entering an angry note.
    
    We can all benefit from seeing this happen and vowing not to do it
    ourselves.  One thing to do, if *you* are frequently involved in flame
    wars (attacking or receiving) is to think carefully and edit what you
    say before you enter it.  *You* may be the problem!!  Contrary to some
    beliefs, gentle wording is not a female trait that should be dispensed
    with:  it is a basic courtesy that both sexes should follow.  Don't go
    for the throat!  It guarantees that the person you're attacking will
    close their mind to what you are *saying*.  And isn't the point here to
    share views...?
    
    Finally, I disagree with the position that this notesfile should by
    rights be "woman only" and that men are interlopers.  I feel it's a
    place to discuss issues interesting to women and related to women, not
    exclusively a place for women to discuss issues.  
    
    Reading notes 1.* is a worthwhile exercise for all.
    
    Pam

    re: .73 "Eagle"
    
    �	And the women - for whom this forum exists - really don't need to
    � hear _anything_ men have to say.  
    
    That's not the way I hear it.  I believe, both from what I've read
    here and from conversations with a number of the participants that
    this conference exists for DEC employees interested in "Topics of
    Interest to Women".  On the notion of "need", it's not unheard of 
    for a woman here to thank a male noter for a particular observation 
    or comment.  Did that woman "need" to hear the comment?  Maybe yes,
    maybe no.  Did she appreciate the fact that the man entered it?
    Apparently so.
    
    �	Many of you male-types just don't "get it" do you ?  FWO is a tool
    � to keep males from disturbing serious discussions.  FGD is equivalent
    � to "women-lite" in the sense of existing primarily for comic relief
    � from the more serious sharing going on 
    
    Perhaps I'm just not "getting it", but I don't see FGDs as "comic
    relief" and I'd be surprised if the great majority of women in this
    conference would describe them as such.  There are times that I want 
    to discuss prison experiences in the company of other ex-cons, but 
    this doesn't mean that my conversations with "free-worlders" are less 
    serious or less meaningful.  I think that FWO/FGDs offer a wonderful
    opportunity for growth, support, and learning, more so because they
    are unenforceable - they allow us to practice respect for one another.
    
    � 	Apparently it amuses some women to give men back a little taste
    � of their own medicine 
    
    I don't get that feeling.  I do get the impression that most
    female participants in this conference work pretty hard at
    trying to make their thoughts and feelings as clear as possible
    to all who read them.  And sometimes I sense that this is 
    wearying work, particularly when a male begins to take issue
    with a woman's feelings on a particular subject (I've noticed 
    that women almost never tell other women they "shouldn't" feel
    the way they do).  But I can't recall the last time I came away 
    from a note with a sense of women trying "dish it out" for the
    sake of vindictively "getting even".
    
    My general feeling is that of a welcome guest in this conference.  
    Come to think of it, that's pretty much my feeling in all the 
    conferences in which I participate.  Now, there're things I choose
    not to share in this conference (or any others, for that matter); for 
    me, DEC NOTES conferences aren't the appropriate forums for my every 
    thought.  When I do enter a reply, I try to be careful about how I 
    express my thoughts and feelings, primarily because written words 
    are a good deal trickier for me than face-to-face conversation and 
    I feel the first burden of clear communication lies with the writer.
    When replying, I usually re-read the source material to make sure
    I've read (and understood) what I thought I did.  When I'm not sure
    of the meaning of what I've read, I try to remember to ask the 
    writer for clarification (vs. assuming a particular meaning).  
    
    And, like any welcome guest at a gathering, I sometimes put my
    foot in it.  When I do, I try to remember that the most graceful
    thing one can do is to have the strength and humility to acknowledge
    the faux-pas and apologize.
    
    Steve (usually HANDY::MALLETT)

    Read the freakin header will ya bird brain?
    
    This note is to discuss the feelings that people have when enter
    (reading)notes and why they do and do not.... at least thats the
    impression I got.  NOT lets attack any and all persons that look
    like good targets.  Get off your donkey will ya?
    
    Hmmm should I even bother entering this note???  Not sure...
    
    questions I ask myself....
    
    Should I bother?  all it will do is clutter the note with garbage.
    
    SHould I bother?  Bird brain will just delete his entry in a day
    or two anyhow....
    
    Should I say what I feel?? YES I WILL!
    
    You know, if I were one of the women in this file... I would find
    YOUR particular entries offensive, but I am not so I wont.
    
    Why you ask?  Because if I were to get into a heated debate with
    a male such as myself, hey he and I might learn something...
    
    but If I were to get into a heated topic with you, I would be po'd.
    You say exactly what YOU THINK that the women want to hear....
    you apear (IMHO that is) to be a mastercard pal... as plastic as
    they come.
    
    Plastic melts pal...
    
    this is all in my most humbly opinion, of course.....

    Ditto Eagles.. endo of entries...

    Thank you.
    
    Dondi

    Bravo Pam and Steve. replies 74 and 75 were a pleasure to read.

--David

	The word "sarcasm" has its origins in Greek. Translated, the Greek
	word means "tearing of the skin".

	The biggest problem I have with this, and (to varying degrees) most 
	other notesfiles I come into contact with is:

		There is no safety for the ludicrous.

	The person who makes the ludicrous statement does you a service 
	beyond measure. If that statement is made, the process of 
	learning is begun BY that person, and others as well. 

	Lots of people in this notesfile talk about safety, in the context 
	of feeling safe in the notesfile. I feel that unless there is 
	safety for all, no one is safe. 

	I believe that people have the right to be wrong. And that they
	ought to be able to voice a wrong opinion in complete safety. I
	find that in this notesfile, other notesfiles, and lots of life in
	general, this belief is not shared by others. 

	More's the pity. No one has the corner on wisdom, and everyone has 
	some to offer. To many human beings have been squelched and quieted
	by the fear of being wrong. But the real tragedy is that THAT fear 
	has a good reason for existence.

	For example, if I were to write in this notesfile, "Woman do not
	have the capacity and ability to do the same jobs as men." I would
	be deluged with replies, and I suspect that most would not be 
	pleasant. I suspect that there would be anger, invective, and personal 
	attacks. 

	But look at what has happened. I bet that in this world, there
	exist women and men who were taught just the sentence I wrote 
	above, and who still believe it. It wouldn't suprise me if some
	of those people read this notesfile. Some may be getting that first 
	inkling that what they were taught is wrong - fence-sitters, so to
	speak.

	Angry attacks breed angry counterattacks. Invective hides or
	destroys discussion and enlightenment. Not only aren't the members
	of each side of the fight not listening - the sideliners can't
	hear over the din. That male who was brought up to believe that 
	women are incapable are not convinced any differently by raging
	battle. The fog of war hides the clarity of truth. 

	How will you teach? Will you tear the skin, or will you lead? 

	I find clarity, charity, and probity refreshing, enlightening,
	warming and hospitable. I find nitpicking, sarcasm, invective,
	punching/counterpunching, nastiness, and reflected anger tiresome,
	and destructive to the process of learning and healing.

	Since the above happens in so many notes files, I have chosen the
	following set of rules for myself:

		If anyone replies to a note of mine with anger, sarcasm,
		innuendo, invective, etc. I will ignore it entirely.

		I will ignore any orders given to me by anyone. I've seen
		this happen a lot in this notes file, "Cut out the crap!"
		"Cut out the patronizing!" I give no one here authority
		over me, nor do I have authority over them.

		If anyone replies to one of my notes with the statement,
		"Your statement made me angry." I will happily respond. 
		Though sometimes this is better handled offline, sometimes
		it is pertinent online. It will be my goal to work it out
		to everybody's satisfaction.

		I will agree to disagree.

		At all times I will attempt to be gracious. Especially
		in the face of statements I may think are ludicrous.

		I will reserve the right to be wrong.

	I think anger is a great thing. I really do. It gives us so many 
	capabilites. But it is wasted if anger is merely used as a 
	projectile. Anger turned inward is depression. Anger used properly
	is strength, energy and power. Anger used to beat and supress beats 
	and supresses in two directions. Anger used to energize, focus and
	act (in a constructive way) is, in my opinion, anger best used.

	If I allow my anger, at being torn down by someone, to cause me to
	tear down someone, we are both sinking.

	Lincoln said it best, "With malice toward none, with charity for 
				all."

	Gregg

    re: .82
    
    hear! hear!
    
    -Jody
    
    

    .75, .82:  Steve and Gregg, I agree completely!
    For an example, look at what happened in .77 and .78.
    
    Al, I know you're trying hard to write notes that are written and
    edited more carefully -- when you do, you get your point across more 
    clearly.  However, in note .77 you made derogatory personal remarks and
    called another noter names ("ya freakin bird brain").  THAT'S something
    I object to!  You are making a mistake if you think that courtesy
    should only be extended to women here or elsewhere.  
    
    I agreed with what you said but not how you said it.  Remember your
    comment about "catching more flies with honey than with vinegar"?
    Keep trying to practice what you preach!
    
    "eagle", you assume that the interchange between you and Al was 
    objectionable to women because it was between two men.  I'm not sure
    why you think that.  
    
    For what it's worth, I didn't agree with your first note (it seemed to
    me to indicate that women being rude to men was OK in your book, given
    the history of male/female relations).  You are making assumptions
    about what women think and what we are trying to achieve.  I am not
    here to ridicule men.  I am not here to oppress men.  (To mix
    metaphors, giving tit-for-tat is childishly rewarding, but two wrongs
    don't make a right.)  I'm here to discuss things and share ideas.  So
    far I haven't been disappointed!
    
    Anyway, this is probably getting off the track.  My main point related
    to the topic is:  if we *all* adhere to basic rules such as in 1.* and
    refrain from entering angry notes immediately, I feel that more people
    will feel comfortable about entering notes in general.  Like Steve
    said, re-read the person's note before writing to make sure you know
    what they are trying to say; if you're unsure, ASK for clarification!
    
    Pam

Re: .84

Thanks, Pam, for the words of wisdom about not being so hasty to attack
in anger.  I wish more people would keep this in mind.


I just had a vivid reminder of why it's been uncomfortable for me to
share in this conference.  I entered a note that was intended to be
supportive and caring of someone I liked, but what happened was that the
women who responded instantly assumed the worst possible motives and tore
me apart, including the one I was trying to show support for.  Not one of
these women stopped to consider that perhaps they might not understand what
I was saying, given that they ascribed such terrible intent to my words.
The only noter who paused to analyze, to read what I had really written,
and to consider what I might have meant, was a man.

The irony of this is that this was the first time in months that I had
dared to speak from the heart in this conference.  It's likely to be quite
a while before I make that mistake again.

					Steve

    Regarding people lashing out at others, I think this is one of the
    biggest hindrances with the Notes format of communication. We pay for the
    luxury of being able to express ourselves in ways we'd never use in
    person. I wish people would use a general rule of thumb: "Would I say
    this to the persons face?" I suspect that many times the answer is no,
    in fact the answer might be, that you may have said it behind their
    back. Why can't common courtesy be used? It's ok to disagree with people
    but why not debate the subject rather than continually lashing out?
    
    and Steve... please continue to speak from the heart, the message still
    effects many in the community. I say this for the read only people many
    of whom benefit from your's and other's responses. Responses that are 
    constructive and presented sensitively.
    
    Gail
    

    	RE: .85  Steve Lionel
    
    	Please don't take this as a negative response to your note, but
    	I think that you missed a vital key to why *women* find it
    	uncomfortable to speak from our hearts (and I would be remiss if
    	I didn't point it out as a way to help illuminate the fact that
    	it takes people on *both sides* of an issue to make communication
    	work.)
    
    	> I just had a vivid reminder of why it's been uncomfortable for 
    	> me to share in this conference.  I entered a note that was 
    	> intended to be supportive and caring of someone I liked, but what 
    	> happened was that the women who responded instantly assumed the 
    	> worst possible motives and tore me apart, including the one I was 
    	> trying to show support for. 
    
    	Steve, to be honest, the particular note of yours (to which you
    	refer in this paragraph) was a vivid reminder to *me* of why many
    	*women* find it uncomfortable to share in this conference about
    	our personal experiences.
    
    	In the note in question, don't you realize that *you* made some
    	erroneous assumptions about the woman's emotions (and/or motives,)
    	and that using words like "obsession" and "affliction" succeeded
    	in tearing *her* apart as far as she and others were concerned?
    
    	When a woman talks about having been the victim of a serious crime,
    	why is it necessary to comment on the frequency or tone of her
    	notes by announcing your perceptions of her emotional state?
    
    	Why should "speaking from the heart" include "sharing my impressions
    	of the emotional state of someone else"?  If we all made a practice
    	of commenting on the emotional states of everyone who shared a
    	personal experience here, how long do you think it would be before
    	*no one* ever wanted to share an experience here ever again?
    
    	You can only speak from your heart about your **own** feelings and
    	experiences.  If you "speak from the heart" about *other* people's
    	feelings or emotions, you're in danger of causing that person more
    	pain or distress than they came here with (and I doubt if *anyone*
    	here really wants to make other people's feelings about their
    	experiences *worse*.)
    
    	> Not one of these women stopped to consider that perhaps they 
    	> might not understand what I was saying, given that they ascribed 
    	> such terrible intent to my words.

    	Have you stopped to consider that perhaps YOU might not have understood 
    	what the original woman was saying about her experiences (and that 
    	*you* were the one who ascribed enough terrible intent to her words 
    	that several people felt the need to come to the woman's defense?)
    
    	In your note in question, you ascribed the intent of the original
    	woman's note to be the implication that men have little or no
    	worth (which was *not* what she said, and came from an erroneous
    	assumption on your part about what she had *really* said.)
    
    	> The irony of this is that this was the first time in months that 
    	> I had dared to speak from the heart in this conference.  It's 
    	> likely to be quite a while before I make that mistake again.
    
    	Speaking from the heart about your *own* experiences is one thing,
    	but speaking from the heart about the emotional states of others
    	who talk about *their* experiences is something different.
    
    	Again, please don't take this as a condemnation, because I am only
    	trying to clear up *why* people objected so strenuously to the things
    	you said to the woman who wrote about her experiences as the victim
    	of a violent crime. It happened because of assumptions *you* made,too.
    
    	When dealing with what other people say about their *own* life's
    	experiences, it is best to listen (and to be there for them without
    	judging their emotional health.)  Personal impressions about what
    	the *other* person is feeling are not always appropriate and/or 
    	appreciated (especially if those impressions involve the use of 
    	negative words.)

    I don't write many notes here for the same reasons that I don't write
    that many notes in general, although I probably participate in this
    conference somewhat less than in many of the others that I follow.

    I don't post very many notes in general for several reasons.  For one
    thing, though notes conversations resemble oral conversations, they
    really aren't the same thing.  Notes provide so much opportunity for
    misunderstanding; the time delay between notes and the lack of visual
    and aural queues may have a lot to do with it, although that is just a
    guess.  Also, the sense of anonymity, the fact that you don't see an
    immediate reaction from another person when you say something, seems to
    make it easy to write things you might not say in person.

    Whatever the causes, I just don't have any use for that kind of
    aggressive posturing.  I don't participate in Soapbox at all, for that
    very reason.  In some other conferences, I may participate, but I may
    eschew most of the serious discussions.  In still others, which don't
    seem to be victimized so much by this phenomenon, I do engage in more
    serious discussions.

    Furthermore, when I do write a serious note, I generally compose what I
    write very carefully, for fear of avoiding misunderstanding and in
    anticipation of possible responses.  Not only is this time consuming,
    but energy consuming as well, and it is too tiring to write many notes
    that way.

    In this conference, there are additional reasons for not writing much.
    I don't always agree with things that are said here, but, not being a
    woman, I often uncomfortable saying anything in response.  In addition,
    I am aware that many women of the community would prefer that men did
    not participate here at all.

    I have also deleted several notes after posting them.  I may have
    realized that that I really didn't contribute anything to the
    discussion, a suspicion which may become confirmed when the other
    participants address each other but ignore what I wrote. There are
    often other reasons for not being responded to, of course, and I
    suspect that one of them is that people are less likely to respond to
    you if they don't know who you are.  The participants who write several
    notes a day become, over time, recognizable personalities; they are
    known to each other, and perhaps even see each other at noters parties,
    and as a result form a sort of elite group within the conference.  I
    really do believe that the rest of us, who are generally unknown, are
    less likely to be responded to when we do post a note.

    So anyway, those are the reasons why I don't write many notes here.  I
    censor a large percentage of my notes before they ever get posted (much
    to the relief, I'm sure, of those who don't care for my notes), and a
    good number get deleted after I post them.  Why I even bother to follow
    notes at all is a mystery to me.  I must be addicted.
    
    -- Mike
    

    
    One side effect of noting here is that one becomes aware of
    a need for a more complete understanding of other people's 
    emotional context. 
    
    One can use more interesting puctuation to inflect the notes
    a little; unfortunately the current toolkit manages to handle
    sarcasm and irony best of all. "Real Truth" doesn't seem as
    apparent in notes,  unlike real life. You can't see where
    their tongue is or whether they're smirking or where their 
    eyes are pointed...
    
    It seems that there is a list of "Words Guaranteed To Annoy Women"
    somewhere. I know there must be because theer have been times in my 
    life where I used a word in conversation quite innocently only to
    find frowns and silence... 
    
    Finally, I'm shocked, shocked to learn that not everybody expresses 
    themself "from the heart". Really. It's not as if you could die from
    (or can you?)..   

    Maggie,
    
    re .50 & .51,  I'll have to back off a little.  I had the impression
    of having seen both those viewpoints expressed in this string, but
    after going back and reviewing the string, I may well have been
    carrying over my perceptions from comments elsewhere in the file.
    
    None the less, I believe that both of these attitudes have been
    expressed by various people at various times in this file:  that
    =wn=, for all its virtues, is not "a safe place" to express feminist
    views; and that anyone expressing non- or anti- feminist views here
    is likely to be subject to intimidation. 
    
    To try to expand a little on that observation, per your request: 
    
        [Disclaimer:  the remainder of this note is based on my personal
        perceptions of the nature of noting in =wn=.  I, of course,
        believe them to be reasonably valid; but I haven't gone back to
        count notes -- I'm writing from impressions, not from
        statistics.  And since I've deliberately refrained from giving
        examples, readers are welcome to conclude that I'm totally off
        the mark, if their impressions differ from mine.]
        
    Let's begin with the assumption that those who complain do so in
    reasonably good faith.  The immediate conclusion is that this is not
    a "safe place" for anyone to express *any* controversial opinion
    with respect to feminism.  A depressing conclusion, if it be true. 
    
    However, it seems to me that a couple of 90/10 rules apply here: 
    90% of the harshness, intimidation, confrontationalism, etc. comes
    from 10% of the noters; and 90% of it is directed towards 10% of the
    noters.  Furthermore, I would venture that the 10% on the receiving
    end are, by and large, not among the most prolific of the noters
    here.
    
    In fact, there are *many* noters here (the moderators come to mind
    as examples) who write passionately and thoughtfully on a variety of
    highly controversial subjects, and yet who not only do not stoop to
    sarcasm, personal attacks, and the like, BUT ARE RARELY SUBJECTED TO
    THEM, EITHER.  [In notes, anyways; I don't know what your mail files
    are like.]
    
    My own interpretation is that when I see someone "beaten up" in
    =wn=, more often than not I can see how the "victim" has contributed
    to the situation.  I don't condone the various verbal offenses that
    take place here -- the conference would be much pleasanter without
    them -- but they don't appear to be the inevitable lot of anyone who
    dares to write a note.
    
    True, I don't feel free to say whatever I feel like, however I like,
    on any subject here.  But that isn't repression.  It's a mixture of
    common sense and courtesy.
    
    	-Neil

    Re: .87
    
    Suzanne, you have just now made some erroneous assumptions about my own
    motives, so I'm at a loss as how to respond to your questions. 
    
    I understand that I made a bad choice of words.  I can think of several
    ways that I could have expressed my idea better so that it would be
    less misunderstood.  I guess I don't understand why I couldn't at least
    have been given a LITTLE slack, given my stated intention to be
    supportive.  Most women here seem to get that courtesy - when an
    ill-chosen phrase gets a "did you really mean that?" instead of instant
    flames.  Nobody wrote me to ask me to clarify what I meant or to
    confirm my intentions.  And, unlike some, I generally only look in here
    in the evening, so I had little idea of what had happened until a full
    day later.
    
    Communicating in this mode is so very difficult.  Those of you who know
    me understood I meant no offense.  Those of you who don't know me may
    not have the context to make that determination.  None of us express
    ourselves perfectly all of the time.  Maybe next time people will not
    be so quick to respond in anger.
    
    
    Re: Neil (sorry, don't have the reply number)
    
    The way it reads to me, you're saying that the noters who get in
    trouble are, by definition, troublemakers.  I have a hard time
    swallowing this.  It also seems to me that you're making an association
    between frequency of contribution and (inversely) likelihood of
    "causing trouble".  I especially can't buy this, given what I've seen
    in this conference since its inception.
    
    I prefer to view each noter as an individual, with real feelings and
    emotions, and attitudes that can change over time.  I judge each
    contribution on its own merits, despite any opinions I may have
    formed previously about the author.  I've had some really pleasant
    surprises this way.
    
    					Steve

    	RE: .91  Steve Lionel
    
    	Again, please don't take this as being confrontational or negative
    	towards you.  I think there is still the potential for a learning
    	experience here, or I wouldn't be pursuing this.
    
    	> Suzanne, you have just now made some erroneous assumptions about 
    	> my own motives, so I'm at a loss as how to respond to your questions. 
    
    	Steve, I can't recall commenting on your motives at all in my note,
    	so perhaps *some* of our difficulties in communication include some
    	differences in definitions of commonly-used terms here.
    
    	> I understand that I made a bad choice of words.  I can think of 
    	> several ways that I could have expressed my idea better so that it 
    	> would be less misunderstood.  I guess I don't understand why I 
    	> couldn't at least have been given a LITTLE slack, given my stated 
    	> intention to be supportive. 
    
    	At this point, Steve, all I can suggest is that you go back and
    	*read* your own note again (and perhaps you'll be able to see why
    	your note was not *perceived* by some people as being supportive.)
    
    	Your note started out with the words, "What I find disturbing about
    	<comments in the original woman's note> is the notion that <...gross
    	erroneous assumption was made by you here.>  Sadly, I know that some
    	women feel this way [the way you incorrectly characterized the
    	original woman as feeling], but I know that most do not."
    
    	In the second paragraph, you commented on the frequency of a
    	certain theme in the original woman's note (saying, "which runs
    	like an obsession through her notes.")  That word has some pretty
    	negative connotations, Steve.  In the next sentence you claim to
    	"do what [you] can to help," but it doesn't come across as very
    	supportive (coming immediately after using such a negative word
    	to describe what you claim is the main theme of this person's
    	notes.)
    
    	In the last paragraph, you characterize what you consider the
    	woman's main emotion in her notes as being "an affliction."  That's
    	another pretty negative word to use when talking about someone's
    	feelings.  You then close by making suggestions about the "keys
    	to enjoying life" (*as if* you might be assuming that the woman in 
    	question does *not* enjoy life now, which comes across as **very** 
    	presumptuous on your part.)
    	
    	Remember, you didn't even address the original woman *directly*.
    	Your entire note referred to her by her first name and by 3rd person
    	pronouns. Your note was *about* her note, *about* the erroneous ways 
    	in which you interpreted what she said, *about* the erroneous ways 
    	in which you characterized her feelings, *about* how you understand her
    	"fear of men" as best as you are able, and *about* how [to quote
    	you directly] "I do what I can to help her heal, even if by nothing
    	else than by being supportive and caring."
    
    	Talking *about* being supportive is not the same thing as *being*
    	supportive.
    
    	> Most women here seem to get that courtesy [a little slack] - when an
    	> ill-chosen phrase gets a "did you really mean that?" instead of 
    	> instant flames.  Nobody wrote me to ask me to clarify what I meant 
    	> or to confirm my intentions. 
    
    	Steve, perhaps it would have helped if you had given the original
    	woman some slack (instead of writing a note that called her words
    	"disturbing" and using words like "obsession" and "affliction" to
    	describe what you *assumed* to be her feelings.)
    
    	Perhaps it would have helped if you had asked her "did you really
    	mean such and such" (instead of telling the rest of us what she
    	meant, and why you found it "disturbing.")
    
    	Perhaps it would *also* have helped if you had given the women who
    	objected to your note some slack, too, and had asked those women
    	"did you really mean such and such" (instead of moving over to this
    	string to make accusations about how you were treated.)
    
    	> Maybe next time people will not be so quick to respond in anger.
    
    	Well, hopefully, next time *you* will not be so quick to respond in
    	anger, either.  It's a common problem in notes.
    
    	One suggestion I'd like to make to you is that you re-read your
    	notes (when you are talking about, or talking to, someone who has
    	been the victim of a difficult experience and ask yourself, "How 
    	would it make *me* feel if someone used these words [like, in this 
    	case, the words "obsession" and "affliction"] to describe my words 
    	when I talk about *my* experiences?")
    
    	Or, if you're *still* not sure if what you are saying will be taken
    	as being somewhat "less than helpful," write to the moderators and
    	*ask* them for help or advice sometimes.
    
    	It *is* difficult to communicate at times, and it's also difficult
    	to know what to say to someone who has gone through certain kinds
    	of experiences.  I think most of us realize that it's *easy* to say
    	the wrong things sometimes (and that it's more than just a matter
    	of phrasing things badly.)
    
    	Hopefully, we can all learn something from all this.
    
    	Take care, and thanks for being willing to try to iron this out.

    <--(.92)
    
�    	Steve, perhaps it would have helped if you had given the original
�    	woman some slack (instead of writing a note that called her words
�    	"disturbing" and using words like "obsession" and "affliction" to
�    	describe what you *assumed* to be her feelings.)
                                                  
    Suzanne, do you mean to say that only those who are perceived as giving
    others slack are likely to get it in return?  And if that's so, is that
    because they "get what they deserve" or because one seemingly-
    intolerant attitude will usually produce a correspondingly-intolerant
    response, or what?  
    
    It sounds as though you're touching on something particularly important
    here.
    
    						=maggie

    	RE: .93  Maggie
    
    	> Suzanne, do you mean to say that only those who are perceived 
    	> as giving others slack are likely to get it in return? 
    
    	While I'm sure that it would considered more charitable to give
    	slack to others regardless of whether or not they have given slack
    	to you -- based on a Golden Rule of Slack, as it were ("Give
    	slack unto others as you would have them give slack unto you")...
    
    	When Steve spoke of wondering why people hadn't given him slack
    	in this situation, it occurred to me that he may not have realized
    	that there had been some opportunities (in the course of the very
    	exchange under discussion) where *he* could have offered some slack 
    	to others himself.
    
    	No one is ever *required* to give anyone else slack, of course, but
    	as long as he brought it up in the course of wondering about it,
    	I thought I'd mention a couple of opportunities for slack-giving
    	that he *may* have over-looked himself.
    
    	(My Logic professors would, of course, roll over in their classrooms
    	if they could see me trying to form a logical argument out of the
    	use of an expression of "American slang"...)   :-)

    
    re: .94
    
    I'd like to know  more about this "informal organization", Gregg.
    
    am

    	RE: .96  
    
    	> I'd like to know  more about this "informal organization", Gregg.
    
    	Yeah, so would I!!
    
    	It sounds to me like it's so informal that many/most of the
    	alleged participants in it probably don't even know of its
    	existence.
    

    Well, I'm afraid I told you all I know. What I wrote is what I was
    told. I didn't pursue it when I was told about it in the first place
    because, at that time, I was beyond caring. 
    
     I guess the only other glimmer of info I can give was that it
    consisted of a group of people who, via E-mail and telephone, decided
    that they would do this. 
    
     Whether the "group" as it were, still exists or not, I have no
    idea.
    
    	Gregg

    I'll confirm what Gregg said, regarding the informal network of
    male noters to be "hit" (although no moderators told me of it - only
    some still-current -WN- participants).
    
      Alan

	As a woman noter in this conference I am appalled and shocked
	at the assertion that there is a group of women who note in
	this conference who have an informal agreement to "hit" on
	new or otherwise unrulely men noters in this file.

	How come I don't know about this???  I feel slighted by not
	being included in this group, is this because I am to easy
	going and friendly???

	Does the term Bull's Tales mean anything to you????


	_peggy
	
		(-)
		 |
			But then, Great minds will think
			alike, especially Goddess inspired ones.

    	RE: .100
    
    	> How come I don't know about this???  I feel slighted by not
	> being included in this group, is this because I am to easy
	> going and friendly???
    
    	Yeah!!  Me, too!  I feel very slighted, indeed!
    
    	Now I *dare* someone to tell me that I was not included in this
    	group for being too "easy going and friendly," too!  >;^)
    
    	But seriously, folks...
    
    	Somebody's been pulling a few people's legs around here, I think.
    
    	Either that or else some people in this forum take "euphamisms"
    	about "group dynamics" a bit too literally.
    
    	Hate to bust up another promising "urban legend," but this is
    	ridiculous.

   One of the reasons why I was initially reluctant to participate
in this notesfile (that I did not mention in 946.47) was that I, too,
learned of the "organization" that was described in the past few
replies.

   It is not, to my knowledge, a real organization; it appears to
be more of a loose association. From what I have learned, the women
involved have taken it upon themselves to "test" and "screen" men who
enter replies in this conference, and to "protect" women from male
noters who become too "offensive" or who disagree too strongly on
certain issues discussed here. The women involved cooperate with each
other when necessary, but they don't seem to have become a real
group -- at least not yet.

   I discovered the existance of these people when I observed certain
disturbing patterns in some of the discussions here. I contacted 
various women who have read/replied to WOMANNOTES and asked what was
going on.

   I wish that I could say more about this, but to do so would be
to violate confidences of some women I've communicated with (mostly
through MAIL).

   To those who I am talking about:

   While I don't think I've been targeted by any of you (yet), I wish
you to know that I am saddened by the role that you've chosen to take in
WOMANNOTES. Not only is this role repressive and insulting to male 
noters, but it also invalidates the strength and intelligence of
female noters. Your actions make things difficult for ALL noters in
this conference; I ask you openly to stop.

   Those who want to flame me for this entry, please do so through
MAIL. I don't want to be responsible for a rathole of hostility --
especially since I've begun to see some real improvements in the way
people are communicating here.

                                                 -Robert Brown III

I think it is a mistake to say things like that about the file when the co-mods
don't know about it. I request that anyone with knowledge contact a co-mod (or
more), and share it. Otherwise, you are doing a disservice to the community.
	Mez

	I think that this rathole is a dangerous one to ignore.

	If someone is telling individuals that there is a group
	of women in =wn= who are "protecting" the other women
	in the conference from the "unwary" man noter in this file
	then I think that that person is doing a disservice to 
	the women of this file.  It is a patriarchal assumption
	that "women need to be protected" and I truly believe
	that this is a condensending and insulting point of view.

	Women need to learn to protect themselves - that is if
	they haven't already done so.  Women need help in protecting
	themselves - through interdependence.  Women in general
	do not need to be "protected" from the "great unknown".

	The difference is in being an active part of the actions 
	to protect, that is, not to be passive.

	IMHO there are very few if any passive women who write in
	this file.

	_peggy


		(-)
		 |

			This is a most unfortunate turn of events.

    	The insidious thing about an allegation like this one is that
    	it is one of those rumors that can neither be confirmed nor
    	denied by facts (which is the most important element in any 
    	effective smear campaign.)
    
    	It doesn't matter how many people claim that they heard this
    	particular urban legend.  Falsehoods don't attain increased
    	measures of truth merely by the number of times they are 
    	repeated or believed.
    
    	If falsehoods *could* attain truth that way, the National Enquirer
    	would be writing Encyclopedias instead of supermarket tabloids.
    

(I'll regret this.)

Did I read the same notes as the recent responders did?

What I read could easily have been the result of a minor misunderstanding.
Mr. New Noter enters a note in which is refers to women as "girls", for
example. Ms. =wn=er sends him mail suggesting that this is inappropriate.
Something in her note implies (or can be inferred to imply) that she and
others warn new noters of this kind of mistake, in the interest of harmony
(i.e. if he keeps doing it, he's likely to get flamed). Mr. New Noter reports
this in terms of a "loose association" (don't remember the precise terms).

This was the scenario which presented itself to me when I read the note which
started all this.

Nowhere did I see anything warranting the kind of reaction I've seen,
alleging a smear campaign, setting woman against woman, and precipitating the
end of civilization as we know it.

Not that I'd dream of invalidating your interpretations. That wouldn't do.
But I think a few deep breaths and some reality injections might be in order.

	Paul

   Mez: Your point is well taken.

   Based on 746.103 and other responses, I apologize for my
entry .102, since it was inflammatory and was not true to the
spirit of real communication that I speak so often about.

   While I believe all that I said in .102, it was ill- considered.
Proper action should have been for me to discuss what I'd heard
with the moderators before entering it.

   If the moderators desire, I will delete it.

                                              -Robert Brown III

    I love this...
    
    With words like "smear campaign", "falshoods", etal... you apear
    to know for a fact that this doesnt exist... do you?
    
    I have heard rumors also, althoug I find them humorous, and dont
    believe a word of them, does that make them false?
    
    
    On a personal note, I think that someone having to "screen" an entry
    through the mods prior to entering it is rediculous.
    
    It may indeed be a disservice, but true or not, it deems discussion...
    does it not?
    
    BTW:  the "you" above is not dirrected at anyone spacific.

                       <*** Moderator Response ***>
    
    We're actively trying to determine what's going on here.  We'll be
    grateful for any patience and restraint you can muster meanwhile.
    
    						=maggie

 Has anyone else noticed that this particular string is a prime example of why
some people are intimidated about writing to this file? Classic.

 The Doctah

        But what's wrong with such an 'organisation', should one happen
        to  exist  in here?  If some women have the self-confidence  to
        take  on  a  disruptive  noter head to head to protect the less
        assertive in  the  community  by forcing the man to examine his
        beliefs or reconsider his position, then the end result must be
        an improved space for women.  If it takes working in harness to
        achieve this, so what?   I've been zapped in here, (as I'm sure
        many others have) and the experience  has  shown  me some of my
        blind spots. Not a bad thing, but that's just my opinion.
        
        Andy
        (Heading back into the undergrowth)
        

                     <*** Moderator Response ***>
   
   Clearly there are a lot of people in here who are worried about
   what's going on, and who suspect the worst.  The mods are working
   very hard right now to get to the bottom of all this, and while I
   suspect that the truth is closer to Paul's interpretation than to
   some others, I can only ask for patience and forebearance from
   everyone while we sort it all out.
   
   <--(.116)
   
�   In one case, a male was terminated and the proximate cause as stated
�   during the termination interview was an inflamatory reply written in
�   this conference and taken out of context.
                           
   Steve, this is rubbish.  You're at least no longer stating it as
   uncontestable fact as you used to do, but it's still a crock, it
   still does you no credit to continue asserting it, and it still does
   harm all around by getting people nervous and suspicious without
   actual cause.
   
   						=maggie

I'd like to add to Maggie's responses by saying _information_ (bits and bytes,
or paper [ha!] are best, but all information, nonetheless) is the best service
anyone can do to help the co-mods right now.

Personally, I do not think the removal or reduction of information is a
service. I work in a group where all coding and designs have full public
review. It's a difficult, ego-bruising process, but it produces the best
results.
	Mez

    As Mez has already said, one thing that is lacking in this discussion
    is hard evidence. Various people have written or said that they
    feel they have been harassed for their views. However, the moderators
    cannot act without definite evidence. If anyone reading this feels
    that they have been harassed by someone in relation to womannotes,
    or if you know someone who feels they have, contact a moderator,
    tell them what happened and give them what ever proof of the
    incidents that you can.
    
    Bonnie

                       <*** Moderator Response ***>
    
    I have also been told anecdotally of such harassment (in connection
    with the allegations in this string), but have had no serious evidence
    offered to me despite my requests.  
    
    Please understand that it would simply not be responsible of us to act
    on the basis of allegations that may represent nothing more than honest
    misinterpretation of whatever actually happened.  If you feel you have
    been the target of harassment, please send us as much detailed evidence
    as you have, as otherwise we can do nothing but sympathise with you.
    
    						=maggie

    Please, PLEASE, dont take this wrong... but the question is (in
    my meager opinion) will simpathy be given?  will action be taken?
    
    I HONESTLY think not.  Can you say politics?  sure.. I knew you
    could...
    
    I know Ill probably get slammed for this but hey, someones gottah
    say it, why not a male (XX)....

    Al,
    
    The answer to both of your questions is yes, and yes.
    
    Bonnie

Dammit, why is there so much fucking cynicism around here?
	Mez

    
    Yeah, I'm with you, Mez. 
    
    Speaking as a former mod I couldn't help but notice the ex-mod
    implication.
    
    I think this whole mess is a bunch of hogwash.
    am

        
    >  I think this whole mess is a bunch of hogwash.
    
    Wishful thinking.
    
    It isn't.
    
      Alan

I do apologize for the use of language some find offensive (I was called to
task). 
	Mez

    
    re: .126
    
    oh, ok, it's not hogwash, it's a subtle form of harassment.
    
    Ann Marie

I'm at a loss to understand why the moderators are taking this seriously.
Myself, I find the notion of a "conspiracy of women" to be just as
ridiculous as the "conspiracy of men" theory that surfaces in this
conference from time to time.

To some, the reactions here, which seem self-righteous to me, are only
making the perception worse.

Certainly there are individuals who seem to delight in putting the screws
to any contributor whose notes they disapprove of.  But I don't believe that
there is any organization to the harassment.  (The moderators have been made
aware of past abuses.)  These individuals can be dealt with accordingly, which
for me is to simply ignore them.

					Steve

    
    Re: .128
    
    >  it's a subtle form of harassment.
    
    I'm sorry, I don't understand. What exactly are you saying is a subtle 
    form of harassment?

    It is funny, though, that you mention harassment.

    From what I was told, one of the favorite tricks of the "hitters
    club" was either to threaten the offending dissident with charges of 
    harassment or actually institute a charge of harassment.

    Tricky Dick Nixon would've been proud.

      Alan

    I don't believe in the conspiracy theory, but I do know that certain
    noters tend to stick together, whether by plan or not.  I recently
    posted a note and received VAXmail from another noter who said she
    agreed with me but wouldn't be the first to say so in the file since
    (paraphrased), "The last time I disagreed with <name> in public, she
    was furious with me."  Is that a conspiracy?  Certainly not.  But it is
    peer pressure which, to me, is silly.  We do not need cliques in this,
    or any, file.  We are each individuals entitled to express our own
    opinions.
    
    Marge

                Amen, Marge. To EVERYTHING you said.


                                                -Robert Brown III

Eagles, I found your suggestion interesting.

Maybe, instead of combat, captains, and mock battles, that games of
cooperation and group consensus might be used.  

I wonder if concepts like captains and combat and competition are part of
the problem.

Just a thought,
john

PS:

That's why I like things like New Games and Club Passing (for jugglers).  No
competition.  You "win" when the you have fun and you function together 
as a group.  No winners, no losers.

re: Why the co-mods are taking this seriously:

It's our job to deal with this sort of thing. It's our job to research any
forms of harassment that are brought to our attention. Harassment goes hard on
notesfiles, and I don't want to be the one who blew it off when it turned out
to be real. It's our job to find all the facts we can, even if at first blush
there don't appear to be any.

It's what they [don't] pay us for.

But, I do agree that more discussion of the range of possibilities won't help
the co-mods come to a conclusion. We've heard 'em (and thought of 'em) all.
Feel free to share anything with the co-mods, but think three times before
bogging down the file with it until we can come up with a definitive statement.
	Mez

    <-(.138)
    
    Wowf!  That was powerful, Brian.
    
    						=maggie

    in re .139
    
    what she said
    
    Bonnie

    It is "common sense" to assert that that execution is appropriate for
    rapists, or any other criminal, only if one's conscience does not find
    barbaric and medieval forms of punishment (such as the death penalty)
    repugnant.

    Similarly, one's conscience concerning violence and the value of human
    life would determine whether one could ever conceive of violence as
    being "valuable" for the achievement of an important social goal.

    -- Mike

    Regarding the allegations that a "feminist hit squad" exists:
    
    After carefully examining all available evidence we can only conclude
    that if there are women in this community who actually consider
    themselves "a group" organized for the purpose of reacting to and/or
    controlling the behavior of men in the file, then they have managed to
    maintain such a low profile that there is no evidence of their
    existence.  As far as we are able to determine, the stories about such
    a group are nothing more than rumors, hearsay, and misunderstanding.

    Now, there _are_ women who are strong, outspoken feminists and who,
    seen collectively from the outside, can easily _look like_ "a group".
    However, all evidence indicates that they're not; they are acting
    independently and in an uncoordinated way.  It is their intellectual,
    verbal, and political similarities that give the impression of
    coordination.  

    At least one of the men who believed in the existence of an organized
    group of women was simply --and honestly-- confused:  he misinterpreted
    two correlated (but not causally related) events a number of months
    ago. This sort of muddled memory and misinterpretation happens to all
    of us; fortunately there was an archival record to give clues to what
    actually happened in this particular case. 

    The very strongest evidence we have is a second-hand report of a
    group of women at a single site who talked with one another about
    taking some sort of concerted action, but we have no evidence to
    suggest that anything untoward occurred or that the talk was even
    really meant to be more purposeful that the "You know, we should
    really get together and do x" in which everyone wishfully engages
    from time to time.
    
    
    We STRONGLY URGE ANYONE who believes that she or he has been the target
    of harassment or attempted intimidation to keep FULL RECORDS of the
    experience(s) (dates, times, copies of mail, transcriptions of
    telephone contacts) and make copies of them available to us along with
    your request for action.  IN NO OTHER WAY will we be able to take any
    effective steps to correct such abuses.

    						Jody Bobbitt                  
                                                Bonnie Reinke
                                                Margaret Tarbet
                                                Mary Ellen Zurko

    
    These are some excerpts from Sandy's 911.39, which I really felt should
    be included here....these are some really interesting revelations,
    to me (go back to the basenote 745.0/746.0 to see why this is pertinent to
    me...and some other people)...
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    "Perhaps I'm one of the few who truly *does* believe "to each 
    his own" because I take it as a given that no one would *really* 
    be bothered by what some unknown stranger doesn't like about 
    their clothes!"
    
    "Different strokes.  How come so few other people in notes seem 
    to really accept that?  I get the impression I have no right to 
    say what I don't like because someone, somewhere, may not agree 
    with me.  Good heavens." 
    
    "So now I know where all my notes go wrong, not just this one.  I'm too 
    "live and let live" for most people.  I'm too much, "here's mine,
    what's  yours?".  Because too often the response is, "Whaddya mean,
    that's yours?   How DARE you!  Explain yourself!  You have no right to
    say that", and so on, when the response I generally expect is, "Hm,
    well here's mine".  

    "I don't make the pronouncements of absolute right and wrong and I'm
    really  surprised that many people react to me as though I had.  Why
    give me that  power or assume I have it?  I'm no different than you
    except I'm more open about what I think.  And maybe that's because I'm
    satisfied with it and  not so vulnerable to the negative thoughts of
    strangers that I need to  believe there are none or at least expect to
    always be shielded from them."
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    The very reason why I am sometimes uncomfortable with people saying
    "What, you like lace?  (or chocolate, or porn flicks, or whatever) -
    Yuck-o, I'd never in a million years be caught dead (in lace, eating
    chocolate, watching porn flicks, whatever) - is that I *do* give others
    power to veto my inner feelings and thoughts sometimes.  It is a trait I am
    trying to fix, because not having enough self-esteem to stand by your
    own opinions just doesn't get you very far in this world.  Until then,
    Sandy (and others like you), there is one way to gentle your opinions
    in notes (if you want to, and there's nothing that says you have to
    want to or anything like that).  Rather than saying "Ew, lace is so
    passive" or "Boy, lace-up boots are too much trouble, they're for the
    finicky" or whatever - try maybe saying "I don't think lace is for me" "I
    find that lace-up boots take up too much time and wear zip-ups or
    pull-ons instead".  In other words, make it obvious it's your opinion
    rather than a global all-applying statement.
    
    Until the weenies like me get enough backbone to deal ;)....
    
    -Jody
    

    Jody, I'm glad you zeroed in on this.  I was planning to create a new
    basenote out of it because it hooked some stuff of mine too.  I'm not
    sure how to express what I want to say, though, so it'll take me some
    time to work it out.
    
    The main thing is that sometimes I take a comment as it was meant to be
    taken and sometimes I don't, and I can't figure out what triggers which
    reaction.  The problem is compounded, of course, because sometimes the
    comment will be, as Sandy's, a simple personal statement, while other
    times the person making it will in fact actually be trying to devalue
    my choices!  It's a hard problem!
    
    						=maggie

    Well, I _do_ know what prompted my response to the Great Lace Debate
    [which was subsequently interpreted as defensive [?!] which suprised
    the hell out of me considering the tone...]
    
    The whole discussion tickled my funny-bone, that lace was assuming
    Proportion as an indicator of such complex things as sexual tastes and
    over-arching personality traits as passivity and fastidiousness in
    personal hygiene. 'My', says I, 'and here I've been thinking it was
    pretty and soft ... gotta get with the program here.  It means _people_
    are pretty and soft? Hmm... maybe ... Naaaah...'
    
    But on another level stating strong negative reactions to the tastes
    and choices of others rather inhibits the free flow of ideas.  'Each to
    her own' is not equivalent to 'Do what you like even if I _do_ find it
    disgusting' [no, I'm not thinking of anyone in particular, so
    inferrences to that effect are the responsibility of the one doing the
    inferring] although that is certainly a small part of it.
    
    I could just as easily state that women who wear leather are hiding
    themselves behind a tough armour and, hence, are insecure.  But I do
    not believe that.  Certainly I have known men and women, both, that fit
    that statement; but it doesn't reflect any ultimate Truth.  If I were
    to make such a statement, or even a milder one that 'I do not wear
    leather because I am _not_ insecure', I would expect a flurry of
    explicatory responses from women who are _not_ insecure who _love_ to
    wear leather.  I would expect some to be silly, some defensive, some
    angry, and that some would hand me my ass in tiny pieces.
    
    Strong statements get strong responses.  This is not bad. It just is.
    
      Ann

	And then, what about the ones who like lace on their leather???

	This is not junior high school or even high school, there is 
	no reason anyone needs to come down on the inner vision of
	anyone else.

	There is enough outer actions that need to be addressed.

	Communication occurs when we listen to one another and hear
	what they are saying (meaning) not when we jump down their
	throat as soon as they stop to breathe.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			It is not what we wear that defines us
			it is how we treat the rest of the world.

    As regards Anne's possible interpretation of wearing leather - maybe
    I *am* insecure and hiding behind tough fabrics and images.  I truly
    don't mind if a) that's true, b) if someone notices, c) if they
    say so in notes.  Insecurity, (and passivity for that matter) are *not*
    sins!  I didn't see that my negatives are any more nasty than anyone
    else's negatives.  And you all do have negatives, you know.  I'm
    wondering if the 'requirement to be nice' may be at work here and that 
    the real issue is not that I have dislikes, (is it?), but that I have
    the audacity to state them.  
    
    When I was 6 years old at summer camp, I caught another girl going
    through my stuff.  I smacked her.  She went wailing to the counselor
    who, because I had hurt her feelings, (*she* was crying and pouting
    and I wasn't), demanded I apologize to her.  I refused, stating she 
    should apologize to ME for what she had done and we had a standoff
    for awhile.  I eventually got my apology but I learned then that
    no matter what, I had committed the bigger sin by hurting someone's
    feelings; that there was no justification in the world for it.
    
    Sorry, but I'm not all sweetness and light.  I'm just like everyone
    else.  Some people's clothing choices DO personally disgust me.  And
    some disgust you.  I could gag watching someone eat liver and you'd 
    probably die if you saw me diving into a nice fresh hunk o' tofu.  So 
    what??  These are *superficial* things!  My self esteem is just
    not tied up with such trivialities.  I don't require my friends,
    (or co-workers, or fellow noters), to "echo" me.  Heck, I even go out 
    dressed to the nines with my sweetie in his usual jeans and sneakers.  I
    couldn't care less.  Really.  There are bigger, deeper and much
    more compelling things in life than who's wearing what and why.
    
    The negative differences are just as interesting, (and fun),
    as the positive ones.  Please, please don't reinforce that old idea
    that above all, women are desperate to be liked and abhor the thought
    that they may be unwittingly causing someone to dislike them.  I
    have plenty of friends who like wispy underwear.  What a stupid
    criteria that would be for friendship!  And you know what?  They
    can call me insecure any day!  Cuz we like each other.  In spite
    of the superficial differences.                                

    re: .148
    
    
>    Insecurity, (and passivity for that matter) are *not*
>    sins!  
    
    Thank you. That's important for me to know.
    
>    I'm
>    wondering if the 'requirement to be nice' may be at work here and that 
>    the real issue is not that I have dislikes, (is it?), but that I have
>    the audacity to state them.  
 
    The thing with me is not what you said, but how you said it.  It
    sounded like a judgement, or a global truth, rather than an "I feel" or
    "I think". 

>    Please, please don't reinforce that old idea
>    that above all, women are desperate to be liked and abhor the thought
>    that they may be unwittingly causing someone to dislike them.  
    
    I wasn't talking about *women* or an *old idea*, I was talking about
    *me*, *now*.  I may also represent some other people's feelings in the
    file, but in truth I only speak from myself, for myself.  I *did* used
    to be desperate to be liked, and some of this carries over to who I am
    today.  When people's opinions which pertain to me are phrased as
    global negatives (a few mythical examples would be "needing reassurance is
    silly", "writing love poems is dumb and idealistic", "straight hair is
    ugly" - you get my drift), I sometimes take it personally.  I cannot 
    change what you say, and if you are only comfortable saying it the way
    you have, and that is the way you will continue to say it, that is your
    choice.  I do not wish to make you uncomfortable.  I do not demand
    anything.  I am not here to  change anyone, I'm really here to share
    and learn.  I just wanted to respond to what you said.
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

    I don't *have* any global truths.  I am not Nostradamus and don't
    claim to be.
    
    Jody, just a case in point, you said, "Thank you.  That's important
    for me to know", in response to my comment that insecurity and passivity
    are not sins.  Why now is your knowledge more "complete"  because
    of what *I* said?  This is really the heart of what I don't understand.
    Insecurity and passivity are what *you* think them to be.  I don't
    happen to think they're sins but plenty of people do.  Does that
    make another difference now?
    
    To hell with what other people think.  If you don't kill, you don't
    lie, you don't cheat and you don't steal, what the heck does it
    matter if you're passive, insecure, eat tofu or wear lace?  That's
    the *beauty* of people!  This passionate attachment to these really 
    ridiculous trivialities, (and I don't mean you, specifically, Jody, 
    I mean in general), clearly has me stumped.  I don't hang my
    self-esteem on my choice of underwear or dinner and I guess I just
    have a hard time noting 'carefully' with the assumption that many
    people do.  I apologize to anyone who was stung though I remain
    amazed at my power to do it.
    

    I'm working on being able to say "to hell with what other people
    think".  Really.  It's an enviable trait.  I'm just not quite there
    yet.  Thanks for understanding where I'm coming from.
    
    -Jody
    

    re.148
    
    Well, I must say I agree with you completely.  People must be
    themselves.
    
    Where we seem to disagree:
    
      I _know_ that my name is not 'Anne'.  That is Truth.
      I parroted a common textbook explanation of why _people_ wear
    	leather. [one that I personally think is bunk...]
      It's perfectly alright to gag, but I'd rather people didn't do it
        upon my shoes, my lunch or my screen [textbooks tell me that that
        makes my anal retentive or compulsive or something, but what the
        hey?]  Yes, we do disgree on the subject of manners, but that is a
        small thing, as you say.
    
    If you hurt me or I hurt you [or either of us hurts anyone else], we
    must accept that we have done so.  From what you've written in =wn= I
    would say we are strongly in agreement that such acceptance does not
    concede that a wrong has been done, merely that our actions produced an
    effect that we may not have wished.
    
      Ann
    

    re -.150 (Ciccolini)
    This reply isn't as articulate as I would like it to be; but I've been
    seething internally for the last several days about the topic at hand,
    and it's difficult to be articulate when you're seething.
    
    
    "I don't hang my self-esteem on my choice of underwear or dinner, and
     I guess I just have a hard time noting 'carefully' with the
     assumption many people do." (Ciccolini in .150)
    
    Yes, I guess you do.  As one of apparently several people who have
    taken exception to your noting style, I'd just like to explain that my
    lack of self esteem, which you so lightly brush aside, stems from the
    fact that since I was an infant, people I know and love have been 
    telling me I'm not OK unless I agree with them in all things.  Today I 
    KNOW they're wrong, I am OK; but it's still a constant battle with the 
    hurt child inside me to keep holding my head high and BELIEVE that I'm
    OK.  
    
    Then along comes a perfect stranger who thinks it's her right (and
    it is) to tell me I'm dressing wrong.  OK, it's her right, and OK, it's
    my right to feel hurt by such outspoken "rights."  And it's just as
    much my right to let her know that her words have hurt me (that's part
    of the new, somewhat more self-confident me who's trying to hold her
    head high).
    
    Now, if you're so confident in yourself, why do you have to get so
    defensive when someone takes exception to your approach?  Is it perhaps
    that you, too, are hurt when someone doesn't agree with you?
    
    Maybe that's why "society" has adopted rules of etiquette that say it's
    rude to criticize someone.  Not to try to force all of us into nice
    little conformist boxes, but to prevent all of us from being
    unnecessarily hurt by the outspoken and uncensored thoughts of people
    we don't even know.
    
    Karen
    
    PS  I know it's the noting style of some participants in this file to
    argue back and forth, extracting lines from the text of the note
    they're taking exception to.  That's your style.  Fine.  It isn't my
    style.  If you wish to pursue this discussion with me (as opposed to
    airing it in public), I'd suggest you revert to mail.  I'll not be
    baited into any further public defensiveness on this topic. 

I find this discussion of how to say what one likes and dislikes
interesting.

I have found that there seems to many different ways to say the same
thing.  Let's suppose that I find that I really dislike people that
wear boxer shorts because I think that it represents WASPY-ness and
conservative values.  (This is a made-up example.)

I could state this at least two different ways.

1)  I really don't like to wear boxer shorts.  To me, boxer shorts
conjure up an image of a conservative fatherly republican.  As a
progressive, I find that they don't match my self-image so I
prefer jockey shorts.

2)  How can people wear boxer shorts?  Only WASPY Republicans wear
boxer shorts.  They're so conservative and fuddy-duddy.

My experience has been that when people make statements of form 1 that
I listen to what they are saying and it doesn't offend me becuase that
person is only speaking about their own dislikes.  When people make
statements of form 2, I have seen myself react defensively because
this statement is a generalized value judgement from the person.  In
general, statements of form 2 are likely to turn me off.  I'm not
interested so much in other people's value judgements.  I do find
people likes and dislikes somewhat interesting as long as they don't
make the claim that what they like is universally good and what they
dislike is universally bad.

I find that statements of form 1 have the feel  of a peer to peer
conversation while statements of form 2 tend to polarize the
discussion (it seems like since they are universal statements there is
no room for two different opinions and one or both persons must put
themselves in the position of judger or arbiter of taste).  

I find feelings, statements and convictions from the heart grab my
interest much more than opinions from the head anyway.  We all have
so many opinions!  It seems like they get in the way of our hearts
much of the time.

john