Conference turris::womannotes-v2

This feels like processing.

I disagree. I don't think every woman, or every feminist, or every anything,
needs womannotes. I'm sure my [voluntary] time away from womannotes contributes
greatly to my view.

Personally, I would like to hear from feminists who are more radical than me. I
go to WITCH lectures for some of that. 

Do men continue to belong to organizations that don't suit their personal life
goals at that moment? Is there any community can can satisfy those goals for
half (_any_ half) of the population?

	Mez

    Yeah, it is processing.  But it seemed as though it needs its own
    string, I just forgot to say that.
    
    So you think there is no problem, huh?  Maybe that's true...but it
    worries me because so many of those who have left have been women I
    really admire/like/respect/alloftheabove.  Women who really think hard
    about stuff, and who tend not to be candy-asses.
    
    						=maggie

    This is not meant to be snotty or simplistic.
    
    I figure if you are equally offending (not a good word - but for lack 
    of a better) those more radical and those less radical, I figure you're 
    doing about the best you can in a forum like this.
    
    This is NOT Radical Women for Feminist Change.
    This is NOT Homemakers for Women in the Kitchen.
    
    This is WOMANNOTES. IT exists in a company and under guidelines that 
    severly outline what it can do, what it can be, and who it can serve.
    Some of us would like to see it be more radical. Some would like to see
    it be *less* radical. That we can all come together in this network is
    marvelous - and about as good as we can do right now.
    
    You want the Eastern Star? Join the Eastern Star.
    You want radical? Go to a W.I.T.C.H. lecture.
    You want to communicate with a lot of women in a forum that (at least
    in theory) encourages communication with women?  Well, WOMANNOTES is
    it.
    
    It's impossible for this file to cover the spectrum. It might be nice
    for it to be able to cover more colors, as it were, but we exist in a
    place that is very much mainstream, and must do the best we can within
    that place. For sheer *numbers* of women communicating, this is an
    unbelievable forum. For less mainstream definitions of feminism? Not
    possible here. 
    
    --DE
    

    It seems to me that it is impossible to please everybody.  We all stand
    in different places on the feminist continuum.
    
    It's been said that if you've angered both extreme sides on an issue,
    you're probably about right -- in the middle.  I happen to be a
    VIOLENTLY committed middle-of-the-road person, so that perspective
    suits me just fine.  :-)  The listed reasons for leaving this notesfile
    seem to be widely spaced apart, so it doesn't look to me like there's a
    consistently slighted viewpoint.
    
    I don't think this forum can ever express everybody's views equally. 
    What it *can* do is expose us all to the variety of viewpoints that
    exist about issues relating to women.  Perhaps it serves more of an
    educational than a revolutionary/activist role.  That may not be what
    the person quoted in .0 was looking for in this notesfile, particularly
    since she has spent her life fighting for women's rights.  
    
    Those who choose to leave have learned as much as they want to learn. 
    They may be disappointed/disgusted by what they have learned and they
    may be burned out on trying to teach -- but I don't think there's any
    way to control that.  We cannot require that all who note in here have
    the same opinions about feminism.
    
    Pam

    Personally, I'm sorry the noter in .0 decided to bow out.  No one
    woman is like any other in every way.  I'm sure I'd agree with .0
    on some issues and disagree on others.  Isn't give and take what
    it's all about?  How can I learn about other ways of seeing and
    experiencing if the people with the experiences don't share?  How
    can I ever change my mind on an issue if there's no one with a
    differing opinion?  How can anyone ever grow without interaction
    with other people, whether we agree with them all or not, whether
    we choose them as friends or not, whether we share a common background
    or not?
    
    It is possible to disagree with someone without offending or being
    offended.  It's possible to try to educate someone, or change their
    minds on a issue - but not by silence and withdrawl.
    
    I will miss .0's input.  I'm sure the community was the better for
    it.
    
    

it seems to me that this is what triggers arguments about
what is "politically correct:"   an inability to tolerate
dissent from the "official" viewpoint...

/bruce

	 I hate having to say this because I know some people are
	 going to take this wrong...

	 But, I feel that in order to be a well-rounded, solid
	 individual, you must learn to deal with people on a
	 day-to-day basis that are not like you, that do not value the
	 same things you do, that have differing opinions than you do.

	 Feminists should value the opinions and desires and feelings
	 of women following the old tradional roles for women, and
	 vice versa.  Gay activists must value the desires and
	 feelings and value of closeted gays that have no desire or
	 are fearful of coming out, and vice versa.  Etc, etc, etc.

	 You MUST learn to deal with different people on a day to day
	 basis...if you are to function efficiently in society you
	 must realize that there ARE prejudice people, there ARE
	 caustic people, there ARE people that are different in every
	 way from you.

	 =WN= is full of all sorts of individuals which sparks
	 discussion and, yes, even disagreement.  But that is how life
	 outside the walls of Digital is.  There is no written law
	 that if you are a feminist, everyone else must be persuaded
	 to believe in feminist issues.  That is a BIG fallacy.  All
	 women will NEVER believe in all the feminist issues, nor
	 should they, and that fact must be accepted...they should
	 believe in what they WANT to believe in...in what they feel
	 to be right.  And you must learn to DEAL with those people
	 instead of feeling you must convert them.


	 I couldn't even begin to count the number of times where I
	 was an underdog in a notesfile or a discussion and how I felt
	 that my wants and desires were just as important as anyone
	 elses.  And, that since I was the minority, did NOT mean that
	 I had to be converted to the majority's way of thinking,
	 unless I thought it was beneficial to me to re-evaluate my
	 ideas.

	 I view .0 as running away because this forum is not
	 supportive of his/her ideals. (Sorry, but that's how I view
	 it..................................)

	 No one can EVER hope to change anyone else's mind, only to
	 plant the seed there and hope it grows.

	 kath

    [When I sketch out my perceptions of alienation below, and discuss
    my thought that it comes from within the person who feels alienated,
    people might draw the conclusion that I am invalidating the person's
    feeling...I'm not...the feeling is real.  What I'm addressing below
    is what I think is the misperception that leads to alienation, with
    an eye to exploring, understanding, and correcting this misperception.
    I may well be wrong; and/or this may not help us deal with real
    issues.  In my recognition that I may be wrong, then, I hope not
    to invalidate any feelings of alienation that arise from sources
    other than as I conjecture below.]
    
    re .0, Maggie-
    
    > How can we solve this problem?  Is it fundamental to women or our
    > socialisation?  How can we overcome it?  I have the nagging suspicion
    > that this problem is a metaphor for many others we face both as women
    > and as humans.
                                                    
    Alienation, when one drops from this =wn= community, as a metaphor 
    for many others [problems] we face...yes, I can see that.  Perhaps
    recognition that alienation (or, feeling separated) from what is
    perceived as the main value structure of the rest of the community,
    may come more from an individual's projection than from fact.
                            
    If I were to feel that a big chunk of the community was of hugely
    different views than I, and I felt belittled or diminished or just
    simply too weary to work upon their re-education...I could feel
    alienated here.  But this would be based on my projection that the 
    community really does have this monolithic antithetical position,
    and that I were devalued in opposition.  Even if I closet my
    opposition, and keep my minority opinion to myself, I can still
    feel diminished, that, if my differences were known, I would be
    less appreciated by "the community".
    
    I am granting this community the power to diminish me, when I make
    this projection.  I am ignoring that the community is not a groupmind;
    that it is composed of a big bunch of individuals all just as insecure
    as I am, all just as subject in this society to fear and weariness
    and diminishment and aloneness...and that we are banded here together,
    most of us, to support each other as we explore our differences.
    Not to tear our minority opinions apart, but to explore them and
    permit each of them to contribute those descant 'voices in this
    chorus' that have the power to enrich us all, if we but give them
    the space to speak.  When I feel alienated, I give this community
    a motive and a power it never truly had.  I'd be wrong.  
    
    That is, this community does *not* exist to establish a dominant voice
    or to tear down our minority voices; none of us are here for that!  And
    since we aren't here to do that, when someone perceives the 'community'
    as doing that, they are projecting their own fears and insecurities
    upon us.  Certain individuals among us neglect to listen often enough
    or well enough, and sometimes the lesser voices do get drowned out...
    we're human and have human failings, here in this place.  We argue
    and dispute and the more vocal voices will often appear to be the
    voice of the community.  But...thats an incorrect projection.  I
    don't think *anybody* would dare presume to "speak for womannotes".
    
    What I think we can do to address this alienation is work on people's
    perceptions of what this community *is*.  It is not a place for
    any one view or any specific voice.  It is a place for all of us
    to witness different views, empowering themselves by learning to
    give voice to their thoughts.  
                                      
    Simply, then:  to avoid having our unique individuals (that's every
    single one of you, Read-onlys included) of this community fall victim
    to alienation, make sure that we all understand this space is about
    hearing each other's different voices.  That our community's existence
    is simply, plainly, about exploring differences.  Not being right;
    not winning arguments; but about being a place to hear new voices,
    share new thoughts, and to grow stronger as unique individuals...
    listening to others finding their voices.              
    
    DougO

>	 No one can EVER hope to change anyone else's mind, only to
>	 plant the seed there and hope it grows.

I _really_ like that kath. Is it an original?
	Mez

 I have noticed a gradual decline in the noting activities of some of the
more outspoken individuals of this file. The majority of these are women who
I hold in great esteem; and certainly not because I agree with what they say
on a regular basis. I have great respect for some of the more radical members
of the file who unfortunately have decided to focus their energy elsewhere.
That we disagreed often was obvious. That they were important forces in that
they forced me to examine my own thoughts and beliefs is an understatement.
I can think of one particular woman who I see from time to time that was
particularly potent; she had a great impact on me. And she has fairly recently
dropped her efforts in here to a mere trickle. And this bothers me...

 I used to think that the file was comprised of a group of women who were 99%
of a like mind- nearly interchangeable in that I could consistently expect to
get the same answer to any given question out of any of them. I was under the
mistaken inpression that there was some official party line that they all had
to toe. It was only after sticking it out that I found that there is indeed
significant disagreement and individuality in the community. And that feminism
means different things to different feminists.

 I feel a personal loss from the virtual disappearance of the various women
who's differences from me have lead me to reexamine some of my beliefs. While 
it is difficult to deal with some of them (particularly those that feel that
men aren't worth responding to and those who will be annoyed by the very fact
that I chose to respond to this note), it remains a significant loss to me.
I am very sorry to see them go.

 The Doctah

*sigh*  I am always disappointed and saddened when I hear that someone leaves
a space because they are being exposed to views that don't agree with their
own.  I agree with Doug) that the alienation someone feels is a product of
their misconception about the uniformity of everyone else.

I know that many, many of my views are *radically* different from the majority
of those in this file.  Probably from most people in the world.  Sometimes
it seems like there is no one in all of DEC that shares my basic world outlook.
Some of the views I discuss, some I don't because I am not yet readdy to face 
up to the hordes of people demanding I defend my ideas.  Give that, I could 
easily feel alienated.  But I *don't*, because I feel that the people here
*listen*, even if they don't agree.

Sure, being so different does make me feel somewhat isolated from the
mainstream ("On the outside, looking in") but I feel the way to overcome
the feeling of isolation is to share with the people from whom you are 
isolated.  Talk, explain, listen.  Not withdraw.

I guess I also feel sympathy to .0 - for years and years I withdrew myself
from those groups I didn't "fit in with".  Which meant I never found a 
"group".  Now I align myself with groups, not with those that share my
views, but with those that have tha ability to listen to them with an open
ear.

D!

    I agree with .0.

    Sometimes being the sole minority to consistently go against the
    "grain" of opinions is not worth the time, the energy, the effort, and
    the aggravation.  For me it's not a matter of being unable to cope with
    opinions which are different from mine.  I agree with .0, some things
    are acceptable even if they are disagreeable.  On these issues there
    can and should be debate.  Some things are not agreeable and there is
    no middle ground. 

    To say that this is not accommodating of others' opinions is too easy. 
    At the risk of being redundant, somethings are acceptable and some are
    not.  It has little to do with being radical or traditional.
    Wife-beating, for example, is not acceptable under any circumstances.
    Defending wife-beating is not acceptable.  The same goes for child abuse
    and a host of other issues. I don't think that this position has a
    whole lot to do with being a radical feminist or being a "traditional"
    woman. 

    From another angle, if I put a lot of time and effort into building a
    house, I can't stand idly by while someone tears my house down.  I
    would try to stop the person from tearing my house down.  If I can't do
    that, then I would walk away from the scene. I don't want to get
    ulcers.  .0 probably feels the same way. She seems to have tried to
    prevent people from tearing her house down, but apparently she has had
    little luck.  Rather than spend all of her noting life in a state of
    constant aggravation, she chose to move on. 

    Has she run away? I don't think so.  Life is full of battles.  The
    trick is to choose one's battles wisely. .0 has done just that. 

    While she'll be missed, I support her decision to move on. In fact, I
    would have acted similarly if I had felt the way she did. 

    re .12 -
    Who is it that has the right of define acceptable discussions or
    opinions.  Personally, I don't like to play god.
    
    re: others
    Sometimes it only makes sense to fight those battles which one has
    a chance of winning.  Those which require too much energy should
    either be abandoned in favor of other struggles, or to pospone the
    stuggle until a better time. 
    
    I believe this is a community of very diverse women gathered together
    to discuss their differences as much as their commonality. We are not a 
    group formed to work towards a focused goal.  If that diversity
    interferes with a woman's life work, then she is better off in another
    community.
    
    -maureen
   
    

    I have heard that some people have left the file because it is too
    difficult to stay and stay quietly, and even more difficult to give
    energy and time to a file that doesn't seem to listen and seems to suck
    strength and energy sometimes without end, and with very little yield
    in return.  I have found the file totally draining on occasion, too.
    
    Many people have many focuses (focii?) - and for some this is but one. 
    For some this is one that does not pay off sometimes because it either
    doesn't meet their needs, or so constantly goes against their grain or
    hits a hot button buried so deep in their foundation or their value
    system that they cannot afford the energy to stay.
    
    I know a few people who have left because they didn't like people
    disagreeing with them.  I agree with previous opinions about people who
    leave for that reason.  I don't feel that's why this person
    (particularly if they were a strong voice in the file) left.  
    
    -Jody
    
    

>>	 No one can EVER hope to change anyone else's mind, only to
>>	 plant the seed there and hope it grows.
>
>I _really_ like that kath. Is it an original?
>	Mez


	 Well, uhm....actually, yes.  ;-)


	 kath

    The following response is from a member of our community who wishes
    to remain anonymous at this time.

    						=maggie

    ===================================================================

    Regarding the note from the woman who dropped out -- I feel
    similarly skeptical about =wn= as an appropriate forum for
    expressing my views. But I sympathize too with your concern when
    women drop out. If I can make just a few points: 

    1. I "blew away" =wn= too, for several weeks, when I felt something
    I said had been unfairly set hidden by a moderator, so absurdly so
    -- I felt -- that it seemed pointless to try to argue with her. I
    recently reinstated the conference in my directory but have been
    reading only. 

    2. There's a particular topic that I'd like to bring up in =wn=, but
    past experience has so intimidated me that I hesitate, for fear of
    being set hidden again. I recently "discovered" the 19th-century
    feminist Matilda Joslyn Gage, whose 1893 work Woman, Church and
    State is a monument of feminist scholarship, very thorough and
    detailed accounts of women's oppression in various forms as she saw
    them -- canon law, witch persecutions, traffic in women, legalized
    rape, etc. What is frightening is that much feminist scholarship
    carried out in recent years was already done by Gage almost a
    hundred years ago! 

    I had never heard of Gage until I came across a reference to her in
    one of Mary Daly's works. Gage is truly the "forgotten" feminist.
    She was one of the triumvirate of women, the others being Stanton
    and Anthony, who started the feminist movement in 1848 and were
    active in it for many years. I suspect the reason why Gage has
    become virtually unknown is that she saw the root cause of women's
    oppression in the church, the Judeo-Christian tradition with its
    built-in view of women as inferior beings. One quotation will give
    you an idea of where she was coming from:

    "The most stupendous system of organized robbery known has been that
    of the  church towards woman, a robbery that has not only taken her
    self-respect  but all rights of person; the fruits of her own
    industry; her opportunities  of education; the exercise of her own
    judgment, her own conscience, her  own will." -- Matilda Joslyn
    Gage, from her book Woman, Church and State,  1893.

    Now, can you see me putting this quote in =wn= without bringing down
    the  house? The reason I felt euphoric when I came across this book
    is that  I've long shared Gage's conviction that organized religion
    *is* the root cause, or perhaps more accurately carrier, of women's
    oppression. I believe that sexism is institutionalized in the
    dominant religions, and thereby validated throughout society, as
    nowhere else. At least this has been true historically, and another
    of my convictions is that women who are truly interested in feminism
    *must* understand their own history, severely eroded though it is,
    if they are ever going to be successful in changing sexist 
    attitudes.

    But there is a built-in problem here: if discussing the history of
    women's  oppression involves criticizing religion, someone is sure
    to be offended.  Women, effectively defined as offensive by the
    Founding Fathers of  Religion, are obviously going to offend even
    more by taking issue with the  religions that so defined them. So
    I'm left feeling that if I want to discuss something like
    hair-curling or nipple-piercing or clothes-sizing, I can enter the
    forum, but if I want to talk about what I personally consider the
    *real* women's issues, I'll go elsewhere (one of the elsewheres
    being individual women I work with; to be perfectly honest, we often
    read =wn= and snicker). 

    3. This is just one example of why someone with perhaps more
    "radical" views might think twice about trying to bring them up in
    =wn=. No doubt there are many other reasons why someone might. For
    one thing, the fact that men write into the file is an enormously
    intimidating factor, as I'm sure you realize, though I guess
    "legally" there's no preventing it. Leaving aside the fact that most
    of their contributions are patronizing at best and hostile and
    diminishing at worst, that fact that they write *at all* makes a
    huge difference to how "free" women feel to speak their minds. For
    the life of me, I can't think how any man would have the chutzpah to
    write into a file that is by definition devoted to issues of concern
    to women. I'd think simple courtesy would dictate otherwise. Reading
    I can understand, but writing? I read the Black notes file and the
    Bagels notes file and the Native American notes file, but not being
    Black or Jewish or Native American myself, I would never enter
    anything in them. I feel those are "their" files and I'd be out of
    place doing so. I mean, what do I know about what it's like to be a
    member of one of those groups? But then, (another of my convictions
    -- sorry about that!) I think men have always felt just too
    threatened when women want to go off and discuss things by
    themselves, to allow it to happen. 

    4. Finally, a suggestion. As one or two of the replies to #864
    mentioned, it's  probably impossible for =wn= to be all things to
    all women. Why pretend it's a "feminist" file at all? Why not start
    a new file for feminist issues? As the woman who dropped out
    indicated, feminism is something she [and *many* others] feel too
    strongly about to see trivialized. If =wn= merely reflects the
    sexist society we all live in, then who, from a feminist standpoint,
    needs it? 
              

>For
>    one thing, the fact that men write into the file is an enormously
>    intimidating factor, as I'm sure you realize, though I guess
>    "legally" there's no preventing it. 

 Why is having men write here so intimidating. (Serious question. MAIL if you
prefer).

>Leaving aside the fact that most
>    of their contributions are patronizing at best and hostile and
>    diminishing at worst, 

 :-(

>that fact that they write *at all* makes a
>    huge difference to how "free" women feel to speak their minds. For
>    the life of me, I can't think how any man would have the chutzpah to
>    write into a file that is by definition devoted to issues of concern
>    to women.

 I guess you can't see how any man could possibly contribute to anything a woman
would care about. :-(

 The Doctah

    I'm having a tough time with the idea that =wn= isn't a "feminist
    file".  Maybe it's because I think that there are a lot of feminists
    in the file (do I flatter myself in thinking I'm one of them?) and
    that therefore, ipso facto, the file is a feminist one. 
    
    Maybe it's because the definition of "feminist" that I'm using isn't
    the same one that other women are using.  A recent letter to the
    editor of Soj (by Ruth Hubbard, in July I think) put it better than
    I could:  being a feminist means that she (and I) must support the
    right of other women to hold positions we may personally disagree
    with, strongly argue against, and perhaps even work against in the
    outside world.  That, to me at least, is the real litmus test.
    
    						=maggie

    re .16 (I think)
    
    Why do I have this vision of the feminist elite sitting back and
    snickering at the "less enlightened" women in this file? And why
    do I feel more violated by this vision than all the male participation
    put together?
    
    As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong please, this is
    a forum for women's issues.  Since when did feminism become the
    the only valid and useful aspect of being a woman?  The "trivial"
    topics you've listed are important to the women who participate.
    If it so important to only be have to discuss only proper feminst 
    topics, maybe somebody needs to take some of the energy they feel
    they are wasting in this file, and start a new and improved version
    of womannotes. 
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    re .17
    
    I don't play god (or actually goddess) for anyone but myself. And
    I don't appreciate other folks even implying that they can determine
    what is an acceptable or unacceptable topic for discussion  (It
    must just be the anarchist in me). I  believe that this decision making
    for the moral benefit of our community is commonly refered to as censorship.
    Lot's of cultures have tried to regulate thought through censorship-
    it's not too effective, and open discussion/education seems to work
    much better.
    

> Why is having men write here so intimidating. (Serious question. MAIL if you
>prefer).

Mark, are you asking any comers, or just the anonymous poster?

I think we've had _lots_ of postings on that (Jody; any topics jump to mind?).
For instance, I bet the FWO debates in V1 would be a great source of
information. And I know the studies where men actually dominate conversations,
but claim that women did all the talking, have been cited in some version of
this file. That seems to cover both the experiential and experimental aspects
of that question.
	Mez

    Yeah, I think I'd agree with Mez, Mark...it's not so much any
    individual posting by any individual writer, but rather our "racial
    memory", so to say, of how easily some discussion can be completely
    derailed because of the differential way that women and men have
    been socialised.  Sorta like waiting for the other shoe to drop,
    y'know?  Even the FWO/FGD solution is, as currently available, only
    a partial relief.  
    
    It's pretty saddening.
    
    						=maggie

Re: .18

    "Doctah", instead of immediately attacking, why don't you try and understand
    WHY she said what she did. Yes, it hurts to hear it, but she's speaking
    from the heart. This isn't some empty intellectual exercise. Part of the
    reason that some women feel diffident about writing is the fact that
    there is more agression and antagonism in response to controversy than
    there is acceptance and attempts to understand. I feel it too, =WN= is
    not as supportive, not as safe as it used to be.

    It may be sexist to characterize this by saying that =WN= is more
    "masculine", or to blame it on male influence, but it feels that way
    to me too.

    Some people liked =WN= as a place to relax, to recharge, to know that
    they, and their voices, would be valued. This doesn't mean that they
    are afraid of conflict, or that they are weaker for not wanting to
    participate, just that they have chosen other places to fight, and
    they regret the changing of =WN= from "safe space" to a "a place to
    fight".

    It's not at all clear to me that =WN= was EVER a completely "safe" and
    "supportive" place. There have ALWAYS been conflicts and even conflict
    about the "safeness" of =WN= and the appropriateness of =WN= as "safe"
    space. The feeling of change may well be all in my head. But I'll miss
    the voices, and I can sympathize with why they left.


	-- Charles

P.S. I get tired too, and occasionally leave notes, and WN for months at a
time. I think that's natural, and healthy. It just would be nice if when I was
feeling like that, I could leave =WN= in my notebook, knowing that it would
help recharge me, rather than be something I had to put energy into.

P.P.S. THIS IS IN NO WAY A REFLECTION ON THE MODERATORS! YOU'RE DOING A
FINE JOB AND I LOVE YOU!

	 RE: .16; not writing in notesfiles pertaining to groups that
	 you are not a part of



	 How to you expect to gain support for feminism if you are not
	 willing to discuss feminist issues with nonfeminists?


	 Womennotes' charter is to discuss women's issues, not for
	 WOMEN to discuss women's issues.  I participate in many of
	 the gay notesfiles.  I am not gay.  I do that so I can
	 interact with them and better understand them and their
	 positions.  The same goes for non-feminists/men noting in
	 here about feminist issues.

	 To learn, to grow, and to understand is the basis of this
	 notesfile and others.  To not give people the chance to do
	 that would be a shame indeed.

	 kath              

    The following response is from a member of our community who wishes to
    remain anonymous at this time.
    
    						=maggie
    
    ===================================================================
    
    I share your feelings Maggie. In reading .16 I'm troubled that some
    feel that "real" women's issues aren't discussed here. Yes, there are
    surely topics here which appear to have less political and social
    impact than others, but there are also lengthy discussions about
    "weightier" topics, including sexism in organized religion.
 
    I feel that whatever "feminism" is (and there's been a good deal of
    discussion about that here as well), it's somehow a polar opposite of
    elitism. I've always felt that one of the core principals of feminism
    was the changing of the patriarchal society - a society in which men
    are the elite - in favor of one in which men and women stand as social,
    political, and sexual equals.

    I'm entering this reply anonymously to try to make a point to the
    author of .16 about the participation of men. If what I've said here
    seems valid, it's because of the content of the ideas, not the sex of
    the speaker. In reading your reply, I had the uncomfortable feeling
    that if I signed my name "Jane", these ideas might be more acceptable
    than if I signed my name "John" and I don't think feminism is about
    being more accepting of a person's ideas because they were born a
    woman. 
    
    To be sure, there have been many exchanges involving men here which
    I've considered to be petty, argumentative, and amounting to little
    more than some men debating points simply to be contrary or to protect
    what they felt was "their turf". But I've also heard men here
    expressing support, listening to responses to their ideas, and going
    about the painfully slow process of trying their best to learn and
    grow. 
    
    It's true that whites can't know what it is to be black, nor 
    Christians what it is to be Jewish, nor a man what it is to be a 
    woman. But, ultimately, no person can know what it is to be another.
    What I think we can do is try to exchange, compare, and, yes, sometimes
    argue our views of the world so that we may all learn and grow
    together.

    RE: .16,.19
    
    But that's the whole point, isn't it?
    
    This is NOT a feminist notes file. It may be a file in which many of
    the participants are feminist, but it is not a feminist notes file.
    
    This is not a feminist company.
    This is not a feminist country.
    This is not a feminist planet.
    
    I grant you, most women who are interested in "Issues concerning women"
    will be feminist to some degree, but even the very use of the word is
    iffy. How many times do you hear, "Well, I'm for equal pay, and all
    that, but  ---> I'm not a feminist <----."
    
    --DE
    

    RE: .26 (My god, I'm replying to my own notes)
    
    BTW - I don't think it would be a bad thing at all for the company,
    the country, the planet, and this notesfile to be feminist. Some of
    us look to that as the ideal.
    
    It just ain't the facts, ma'am.
    
    --DE
    

    Based on my reading in the past, here's a prediction: if a new
    conference whose charter was "Feminist Issues and Concerns" were
    created, there would be a similar range of opinion and dissent as we
    find here.

    There seems to be no single point on the curve which defines a
    feminist. Life, and opinion, form a continuum. I'd guess the best that
    could be achieved with a more focused conference would be to shift the
    cusp of the bell curve a bit.

        in re .16


    >1. I "blew away" =wn= too, for several weeks, when I felt something
    >I said had been unfairly set hidden by a moderator, so absurdly so
    >-- I felt -- that it seemed pointless to try to argue with her. I
    >recently reinstated the conference in my directory but have been
    >reading only. 

    This particular response hit me because about a month ago I set
    a note hidden because someone complained about it and problems
    ensuing caused the author to delete her note without writing back
    to me. I have no idea if that was your note, since we comods don't 
    share the authorships of anon notes with each other without pressing 
    need or permission of the writer.

    But I'd like to again state our guidelines, worked out with a
    lot of effort over time. *If* someone complains about a note we
    set it hidden whether we agree with the complaint or not. That is
    SOP in this file. We encourage people who have a problem to work
    things out with the author of the particular note, we offer to
    mediate, but we first off set hidden if we feel that the compliant
    is a serious one (i.e. not just to harrass - the latter kind have
    mercifully been seldom.) If resolution is not forth coming then
    we have to make a judgement on the hidden note, and this is done
    with input from all moderators. A lack of resolution has been
    seldom, people either modify their notes or withdraw, (the later
    by the way I am saddened by) but we have been known to unhide
    notes!

    When someone decides that it is 'pointless' to try and argue
    with one of us I get very discouraged, esp since I've tried
    as a moderator for 2 1/2 years to listen to and try to understand
    so many points of view. I know I fail, but I do my very best.

   > 2. There's a particular topic that I'd like to bring up in =wn=, but
   > past experience has so intimidated me that I hesitate, for fear of
   > being set hidden again. 

>    "The most stupendous system of organized robbery known has been that
>    of the  church towards woman, a robbery that has not only taken her
>    self-respect  but all rights of person; the fruits of her own
>    industry; her opportunities  of education; the exercise of her own
>    judgment, her own conscience, her  own will." -- Matilda Joslyn
>    Gage, from her book Woman, Church and State,  1893.

 >   Now, can you see me putting this quote in =wn= without bringing down
 >   the  house? The reason I felt euphoric when I came across this book
 >   is that  I've long shared Gage's conviction that organized religion
 >
  >   But there is a built-in problem here: if discussing the history of
  >  women's  oppression involves criticizing religion, someone is sure
  >  to be offended.  


    oh for heavens sake put your topic in! Does the fact that everyone
    won't agree with you and some people will be offended mean that
    you aren't willing to put forward an idea for discussion? Yes that
    is a terribly strong idea, and one that many willl agree and disagree
    with. I personally am Christian so I'd probably argue against that
    point of view. So *WHAT*....!!!!!!!


 >   if I want to talk about what I personally consider the
 >   *real* women's issues, I'll go elsewhere (one of the elsewheres
 >   being individual women I work with; to be perfectly honest, we often
 >   read =wn= and snicker). 

     Do you know what this makes me think of? The 'in crowd' of girls
     in high school who used to sit around and laugh at anyone different
     from them. They were self styled arbitrators of what was and was
     not okay, and they made life miserable for those of us that were
     'not okay' that didn't fit *their* definitions of what was okay.
     This business of women/girls gathering in groups and mocking the 
     dreams and personal interests of other women/girls really personally 
     makes me sick. It is one of the absolute worst things that females
     do in my opnion. I personally find it so distasteful that I really 
     can't write about it further because if I really said what I think, 
     I'd offend you and as a moderator I feel that I should try to be 
     careful not to do that. Also as a person I don't want to cut off 
     communications with you.

     Bonnie

re: Mez

>Mark, are you asking any comers, or just the anonymous poster?

 I had mostly been interested in the anonymous poster, but I would be happy
to hear from anyone. And I'd also be interested in any pointers one might have.

re: Maggie

>    It's pretty saddening.

 From both sides.

re: Charles

>    "Doctah", instead of immediately attacking, why don't you try and understand
>    WHY she said what she did.

 Frankly, I did not feel it was an attack in any sense, otherwise I would have
spared the community from posting it. It was an expression of hurt, and a
request for more information, so I could find out why she said what she did.
If there is agreement that my reply constituted an attack, I will cheerfully
remove it. 

 The Doctah

I think an alternative =wn= that really was restricted to women only would 
be a valuable thing to have.  However, that isn't what this conference is.

The discussions about whether men should be participants in this conference
go back, in my memory, to the earliest days of _V1.  I have participated in 
some of those discussions, quietly observed others.  And my recollection is
that, while there have always been some discussants who have believed that
men either should be excluded from the conference or should voluntarily
refrain from participation, the dominant attitude -- among women as well
as men -- and the conclusion of each such discussion has been that the =wn=
community does not desire to exclude men:  not just because of "company
policy", but because this was honestly believed to be the "right thing".

Therefore, while I am not bothered that some participants believe that this
should be a women-only community, I am bothered when the participation of
men is characterized, for example, as "chutzpah".  I believe that for me to
withdraw from participation in this conference not only would be uncalled
for, but would be a slap in the face of the women who have made it clear,
time and time again, that men *are* welcome here.

	-Neil

    First, back to the base note.  It is not my impression that .0 'ran
    away' because her world-view was not shared. I also _know_ that she did
    not leave flying any flag of righteous condescension.  All evidence
    substantiates the fact that she left quietly without a whimper or
    recrimination.
    
    I believe [from what I've read here] that all of us have at _least_ one
    area of our lives where Truth seems very clear indeed.  All of us have
    our absolutes -- or near-absolutes, even if they are that there are
    _no_ absolutes [I do so love recursion...]
    
    If what .0 found here caused her pain -- as it did -- and this did not
    appear to be the place to work her issues in safety or with a chance of
    effecting change for [her subjective] Good -- as it did not -- then
    leaving was a sane and reasoned act, not a petty one.
    
    To say that she has lost out in some way is not true.  =wn= is not the
    only forum for exchange of ideas. To say that she has now foregone any
    chance of success in changing our minds takes a narrow view, as she
    continues to be strong and active in the greater world in pursuing her
    agenda -- if she is successful in meeting them, the people who come to
    =wn= will be changed as well.
    
    I also feel sure that most of us have found at least one inhospitable
    place that we choose to avoid.  Do we also condemn ourselves for doing
    so?
    
    That .0 found =wn= an inhospitable place may seem disheartening to
    those who remain.  However, it cannot be all things to all women at all
    the times of their lives.  The community itself is not static, and as
    the dynamic changes so do all of our levels of comfort to some degree
    or another.
    
    Finally, if we do lose a valued 'voice', we need to own some of that
    loss.  Given that the world does not begin and end here, if we miss
    someone, we certainly have other avenues of communication to explore.
    
      Ann

    The -predominantly- negative response to anonymous .16's note is
    probably the kind of reaction the person quoted in .0 was talking
    about.  I'm sorry for that.  Yet I, too, disagree with a number of the
    assumptions made in .16, and am offended by the undercurrent of "my
    feminism is better than your feminism" attitudes that were displayed.  
    
    To me, feminism is more like humanism -- I see the goal as "encouraging
    people to do what they are best at or enjoy most and valuing the
    contributions they make, without regard to gender."  Yes, you must
    engage in feminism understanding that cultures throughout the world
    have systematically denied women rights throughout the centuries.  But
    I do not personally find my inner power strengthened by focusing on that.
    
    I read and agree with a lot in Betty Friedan's THE SECOND STAGE -- her
    main point was that the first stage of the women's movement was anger
    and rejection of male-dominated societal values.  The second stage, she
    felt, was an acknowledgement that some men agree things must change and
    that they are a valuable resource and support for the ongoing struggle. 
    Men I see as being like that in my own life are friends like Carlos,
    Dave, Ray, Paul, Eric -- people who, in everything they do and say,
    perceive others as people with a right to live their lives without
    oppression.  
    
    The problem I see is that some women feel we are still in the first
    stage and that the second stage is a myth.  Others, like myself, feel
    that the second stage is here and that we must all learn to work
    together.  I don't think it's clear that either side is entirely right. 
    What I hope from this notesfile is acknowledgement that different
    angles into "reality" can be equally valid.  
    
    
    As a sidebar, "reality" to me is more than just feminism.  I took a
    three week cross-country trip in February, driving from Boston to
    Phoenix and back with a friend, Lisa.  Setting out on that trip we had
    high expectations for what the trip would be; what we would see; how we
    would be changed by the experience; what exciting adventures we would
    have.  That trip was disappointing.  We hardly met anyone else.  We
    spent 6-10 hours a day driving, through Virginia, Tennessee, Alabama,
    Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma...  We
    tried side roads rather than highway and found that there was very
    little to be seen.  Little that is, compared to what we were expecting
    to see.  It is only looking back on that trip that I realize how much
    it enriched me -- through all of the mundane, trivial details of
    finding food and gas and shelter; the moments of driving terror; the
    glimpses of beautiful red rocks or vast plains or dark tree swamps or
    glorious sunsets; the country music we learned to appreciate; the
    depression of unfulfilled hopes; the fun of observing behavior and
    trying out new accents; and the incredibly strong trust and respect
    that was forged between us from spending 21 days within arm's distance
    of each other.
    
    The =wn= notesfile can be like that.  Frustrating at times.  Beautiful
    at  times.  Mundane at times.  But that to me is REALITY.  I don't want
    to have to live up to some feminist ideal.  I am a person, not bag of
    feminist raw nerves.  
    
    Pam

    re .32
    
    Ann, I very strongly agree with you when you say that we all have our
    absolutes.  It's natural to have our absolutes.  I think that the
    notion of "playing god" is another way of deny the truth, we have our
    absolutes, or disagreeing with those absolutes, "who are you to play
    god." 
    
    I also agree very strongly that its not a losing position to put one's
    energy elsewhere.  To decide to focus one's energy elsewhere is not to
    run away.  No one is under any obligation to try to change other
    people's minds or to share views with others.  In my opinion, is it
    "defeating the purpose" or "admiting defeat" to take one's ideas where
    one thinks that they'll be most welcomed.  

    
    	Nothing lasts forever, not even noting in WOMANNOTES.  I've left
    	and re-joined this conference many times for many reasons.  I've
    	never thought of this file as a feminist file, but as a file for
    	women about women.  And the times I haven't felt right about the
    	things that were transpiring in here, I took a leave until I was
    	healed, because if there's a problem that _I_ have, then it's MY
    	problem and up to me to resolve.
    
    	I guess I'm confused why so many people are saddened if someone 
    	moves on to other things.  We all make changes in our lives and
    	we all leave certain aspects of what used to be important to us
    	at one time behind.  And that's got to be accepted by others.
    
    	Carla
    

    I'm one of those once-active members of the file who has just 
    about dropped out in recent months. I left thinking that I might 
    come back, but so far the need for a break has been greater than 
    the pull to return.

    But I'm sad about it.  I once felt a great sense of connection to 
    the women in this file -- to all the women: straight, gay, 
    conservative, liberal.  I have also found in this file women who do 
    share much of my world view, and that's been nice.  In fact, two of 
    the most serious friendships in my life right now developed because 
    of my participation in this file.  But I grew tired of the bickering 
    with men.  I have felt that many of the men who note here are not 
    respectful of women.  And it often feels to me that whenever women try 
    to discuss an issue of importance to them, men interrupt -- either
    with angry, accusatory words, or sometimes with cute or flirtatious 
    replies -- whatever it takes to get the attention back where they 
    think it belongs ... on them.

    For me at least, the problem has not been that people disagree 
    with me.  And I don't feel a burning desire to convert women to 
    my way of thinking.  It's always amused me to think that a lot of 
    women who never really identified themselves as feminst before have 
    begun to do so mainly because they get to see first hand - in many 
    of the replies of the men here- what it is we (so-called feminists) 
    are talking about.  (So if my agenda were "conversion," I wouldn't
    want to change a thing.)  

    To paraphrase the words of a woman whose writings in this file have 
    really touched me, I believe that all women are survivors of a world 
    in which they are devalued, feared, and hated.  I think that as women, 
    we do what we must to survive.  Some of us fight back.  Some of us 
    retreat.  Some of us manage to carve out a nice, safe place for 
    ourselves and our loved ones, and some of us do not.  
    
    I try hard not to judge women harshly for what they do to survive in 
    this world that would have them disappear, and I hope that they 
    understand my need to remove myself from the conflicts sometimes and 
    take care of myself.  I think that feminism is really just a way of 
    describing what we see in the world and a way of naming the causes.  
    But all women are in the same world, sharing that experience of
    being women in the world.  And it's that shared experience that
    makes me feel connected to women -- not the different words we might
    use to describe it.  For me the connection I feel to every woman goes 
    way beyond what she chooses to articulate about the world or what 
    she calls herself.
    
    I hope that at some point I'll be able to reconnect with the women 
    in this community, but right now I feel the need to withdraw.
        
    Justine

    <--(.35)
    
�    I've never thought of this file as a feminist file, but as a file for
�    women about women.
    
    
    Carla, what do you see as being the difference?
    
    							=maggie

    <--(.36)
    
    Justine, you and Catherine always write such *splendid* notes.  I
    cannot remember ever reading one from which I didn't get something to
    think hard about.
    
    						=maggie

>�    I've never thought of this file as a feminist file, but as a file for
>�    women about women.
>    
>    
>    Carla, what do you see as being the difference?

	 
	 Maggie, I'm not Carla (could have fooled you, eh?), but I
	 just wanted to throw in my 2� on this one.

         I think of a feminist as someone fighting for a cause of
         equality and choice thru demonstrations, forced legislation,
         speeches, etc.

	 I find myself agreeing with a lot of the feminist movements
	 goals, but I find that there are other ways, more conducive
	 to me and my lifestyle, to reach these goals.  I do not
	 consider myself a feminist, nor would I want anyone else to
	 consider me to be one. I attain my goals in a way that is
	 beneficial to me.  Others should do what they feel to be
	 right for them.

	 A feminist file would discuss issues pertinent to the
	 feminist movement (equality, choice, etc).  Yet, this file
	 addresses so much more than that!  We talk about health,
	 beauty, money, feelings and emotions, etc, etc.  These things
	 are above and beyond the feminist movement.  I don't feel
	 that feminism can and ever should be a total part of a
	 person's life, yet only a subset of that person's goals.

         I don't live my life worried about what is politically
         incorrect or politically correct.  I live my life for what
         *I* feel is correct/incorrect.


	 I must live in a world of feminists (and gays, and gay
	 haters, and blacks, and whites, and physically challenged,
	 and male chauvenists, and....), and part of that living means
	 dealing with and accepting all these factions.  Accepting
	 that they exist and living in harmony with them. Not
	 isolating myself (by making this a file for "feminists" or
	 for "women only" or for.....) from them.


	 kath
	 
	 

	   

    
.37>	Carla, what do you see as being the difference?
    
    	Sorry =maggie, I haven't been able to access the file before this
    	morning.
    
    	The difference between a feminist file and a file for women about
    	women can be a fine line, and without going into a 100-line note, 
    	which I abhor both writing and reading, the best way I can put my 
    	feelings is like this:
    
    	When I'm communicating with (most) women, I feel an intimate and
    	bonding connection.  If I feel I'm in the midst of feminists, I
    	feel I'm among harsh and judgemental women who like to fight and
    	chew glass.  And I suppose the bottom line is that I'm afraid I
    	might get chewed up and judged (not necessarily in that order) if
    	I don't also label myself as a feminist.  But I can comfortably
    	label myself as a woman.
    
    	It's my own flares being set off by the word Feminist and all of
    	the mean connotations that are packaged within that word for me.
    
    	We're not all feminists in here nor are we all women.  I never 
    	lament the former, but I do sometimes lament the latter.
    
    	Carla
    

re .40:
        
>    	We're not all feminists in here nor are we all women.  I never 
>    	lament the former, but I do sometimes lament the latter.
    
    Funny thing - I lament the former, but not the latter which
    is what feminism is about (hint - equal rights for men and women).
    
    

    <--(.40)
    
    Thanks, Carla...I have to admit you surprise me, because I would have
    made book that you'd claim a feminist label yourself.  I'd be
    interested in knowing whether you see the self-identified feminists in
    here are also being "glass-chewers"...mostly because I don't,
    particularly.  (By which I mean that the self-identified non-feminists
    seem to me to be just as vocal, feisty, and argumentative)
    
    						=maggie

    
    	Maybe someday I will.  It's only been recently that I've learned
    	just how deeply my support of equality for women runs, and it's
    	occurred due to sexist comments made by men that have absolutely
    	floored me and even caused me to contemplate punching someone in
    	the face.  (But since it was on Digital property, I refrained.)
    
    	Why can't I call myself a Feminist right now?
    
    	Is it because when I think of the word Feminist I think of tall
    	women in plaid shirts shoving petitions and issues-I-have-to-
    	support in my face?  I honestly don't know but I do know that I
    	am totally irrational about this and this note has brought that
    	to light.
    
    	Carla
    

    So what brand of glass is good to chew these days? ;-)

    
    	Why, champagne glasses, of course!
    
    	(I actually know of a woman who did this in a bar once.)
    
    	Carla
    

>    So what brand of glass is good to chew these days? ;-)

Well, Pyrex is my staple (it's *challenging*) but for a special treat
when I can afford it, fine Lenox Crystal is wonderful.  If you are on
a diet, go for shatterproof windshield glass.  And McWendyking Burger
cartoon-character classes make a tasty and filling midday snack.

D! (a glass-chewing, middle-of-the-road radical, and damn proud of it!)

    
.43>	Why can't I call myself a Feminist right now?
.43>
.43>	Is it because when I think of the word Feminist I think of tall
.43>	women in plaid shirts shoving petitions and issues-I-have-to-
.43>	support in my face?

    So that's it.  For years I wondered why every time I wore plaid,
    people avoided me like the plague.

    
    I like that the people who communicate in this file transcend the
    pure discussion of feminism.  You are all very dedicated thinkers.
    One of you is destined for greatness.  May I suggest a little light
    reading?  M. Scott Peck, PhD. has written another timeless classic
    called "Different Drum - Community Making and Peace".  I like his
    priorities, especially in the title.  HE hasn't put the cart before
    the horse.  This book might open some significant avenues of discovery 
    for all of us on the planet.
    
    				(.)
    				---
    				 |
    

>    One of you is destined for greatness.  

Who?  WHO?  Don't keep us in suspense! :-)

D!

    This is a story about a "Gift".  I did not make the story up, and
    I cannot say it is true or false.
    
    There was, in the dark country, a village whose occupants had fallen
    on bad times.  Once a great and populous village, as a result of
    war among their Rulerdom and the neighboring Rulerdoms, it's finery
    was diminished and all but a handful of people had fled.  They were
    the seven oldest persons in the village, who found that the thought
    of leaving the site of their most cherished memories was worse than
    staying in the ruined village.
    
    In the emerald forest that surrounded the village was a little cottage
    that belonged to a wizened hermit who was rarely seen by the villagers.
    Having lived there for many years, the villagers would occasionally
    visit the hermit to trade for special medicines made from the herbs
    he gathered in the forest.  
    
    The eldest villager was especially saddened one day by the loss
    of his people and the waste of his once beautiful village.  He decided
    to visit the hermit to see if he could be treated for his melancholy.
    The hermit welcomed the elder into his cottage and bade him sit
    by the warmth of the hearth.
    
    When the elder told the hermit of his sorrow, the hermit could only
    empathize with him.  "I, too, am saddened by the loss of the people,"
    he said.  "Although I am a hermit, and reclusive in my ways, I enjoyed
    the sweet sounds of the children's laughter and the lovers' whispers
    in this enchanted forest.  Now, they are gone, and I have only the
    melody of the birds to awaken me each morn'."  The elder and the
    hermit held each other and wept.
    
    The elder, having wiped his tears asked the hermit if he knew how
    to get the people to return.  The hermit shook his head and said
    "No, I do not know how to bring your people back."  The elder, having
    a great respect for the hermit's reputed charms, asked if there
    were no magic the hermit could perform.  Again, the hermit slowly
    shook his head.  As he was stroking his long beard, he said, "I
    know of no magic to help you, but I do know that one of the seven
    left in your village is the true ruler of this dark country.  Go, 
    now, I must rest."
    
    The elder returned to the decimated village and the other six old
    villagers surrounded him.  "Did you find a way to renew our village?"
    they cried.  "No," the elder replied, "but the hermit did say that
    one of us is the true Ruler."  Puzzled, all of the old villagers
    went about their business.
    
    The old villagers thought about what the hermit said for the next
    few weeks.  Could it be Villager Janop?  Even though we find him
    a little nosy, he is forever watchful and reminds us of the laws. 
    Could it be Marcin, who is always scolding, but is generous with
    the richness of her cooking and provisions?  Maybe it is Palom,
    who is an unbearable grouch, but he is nearly always quick to see
    the truth.  Tamaya could be ruler, even though her shyness seems
    like conciet, because she is so regal and gentle with us all.  Fareth
    couldn't possibly be ruler, could he?  He's a little slow witted.
    No, It couldn't be him.  But the hermit said it could be any one
    of us, didn't he?  Yes, maybe it is Fareth, for he is brave and defends
    us from the great beasts in the forest.  It could be Fareth,
    after all.  Halob might be the ruler, for he knows of the stars
    and the earth and the power of maths, and I might be ruler as well.  Not
    me, I can't be, can I?  It would be too great and difficult to rule
    the whole dark country.  No, it's not me.  Is it?
    
    And, so, this thought went on for some time.  As time passed, each
    villager began to treat themselves and the others with extraordinary 
    respect, on the chance that they might be addressing the true ruler 
    of the land.
    
    Since the village was in a beautiful forest, others from neighboring
    kingdoms occasionally picnicked in the forest.  Slowly, over a time,
    the visitors began to return more and more frequently.  They sensed
    the great kindness the old villagers visited upon each other.  They
    began to feel wonderful about being near the village and they began
    to bring their friends.  The sweet laughter rang in the forest once
    more and the village began to grow.  In time, the village began
    to be rebuilt, children played near the hermit's hut and lovers
    whispers could be heard echoing through the forest.
    
    				  (.)
    			      	  ---
    				   |
     

    Reading all these replies about feminism and about alienation and 
    community has left me feeling sad.  In one of Marge Davis' replies 
    in the note about the massacre of the women in Montreal, she said 
    something like, it's ok with me if you're anti-feminism, but it's 
    not ok to be anti-feminist.  (paraphrase mine.  If I got your intent
    wrong, Marge, please correct me.)  Anyway, as I read those words, I 
    started to get in touch with what's been bothering me.

    It certainly bothers me to see younger women throwing away the word 
    feminist, because I think there's a lot of power in that word.  The 
    dictionary definitions  talk about feminism as advocacy for equal
    rights, and it certainly is that.  As a feminist I do not deny men 
    their humanity in order to claim my own.  But the reason that I 
    think the word feminist is so powerful, more powerful, for example,
    than the word humanist, is that it implies a recognition of the fact
    that women have been devalued and mistreated throughout recorded
    history and that one must ACT *FOR* WOMEN in order to right those 
    wrongs -- Egalitarianism, applied to a culture where things have never 
    been equal, will not (in my opinion) suffice.  

    But in thinking about the distinction that Marge made between hatred
    of feminism and hatred of feminists, I realized that I have a more
    personal reaction.  As I've read some of the latest replies where
    women "poke fun at" (I put that in quotation marks because I think 
    the comments were meant to be humorous, but I did not find them so) 
    at ~big, plaid_shirt-wearing, glass_chewing *feminists*~ (and I think 
    that many of these comments were meant to imply lesbians, not
    feminists), I found myself feeling personally wounded.  

    My feelings were hurt.  Interestingly (to me), it brought up some of my
    own internalized misogyny; I found myself (for just a second or two) 
    wanting to find something in those images that would *not* look like me
    so that I, too, could reject the images.  "They don't mean me," I
    thought.  "I mean I'm not...," and when all I could come up with was 
    "tall," :-) I knew that I needed to look at my feelings a little more 
    deeply.  My second reaction was to claim all of those adjectives
    (although I don't understand this glass-chewing stuff) and feel
    proud.  ("I'm an old crone, too!") 

    I think that when a woman lets herself be silenced by angry words that 
    question her true-woman-hood (whatever that means), we all lose.

    I don't know what else to do with these feelings except to name them as
    I have done and to say that just as I think my own (although
    momentary) desire to deny my identity as "one of those radical
    feminists" comes from what I believe to be my own internalized
    misogyny; I think that some women claim that feminism has no place in 
    their lives (even when they agree with everything that feminism
    *stands for*) because it's scary to claim membership in a group that is
    so devalued.  Of course, I cannot know what motivates others, but I
    can describe the opinions that I've formed as I've looked at my own 
    experience and thought about how it might apply to the women that I meet.
                                                           
    Justine
           

re .51

What a great note ... I admire your honesty. I think it would be hard for 
anyone living in this society, woman or man or (heaven help us) feminist, 
to *not* internalize some of the misogynistic (?) attitudes we see all
around us, present and past, in the media, the laws, the proverbs, the
religions, etc. I've certainly done that too and in fact for most of my life
was doing it to a degree that is now abhorrent to me. 

I too feel sad that people (especially women) who espouse most or all of 
what feminism stands for, still don't want to call themselves feminists. I
believe it's the result of their own internalized misogyny. After all
though, the word is based on the Latin word for woman, right -- and we all
know how bad we've been taught woman is, ever since Eve! 

If more women who believe in feminist causes (you know, equality, the right 
to be treated as a fully human being, etc.) would adopt the name feminist,
we'd all be better off I think... 

Dorian

    re .51:
    Justine, you give dignity to my poor words.  Thank you.
    
    Marge

re: .51

Thanks, Justine, for naming much of what I feel.

	MKV

	Over the past month or so I have become a little distant to 
	some of the topics in this file - except when ever the term
	feminist is maligned.  Early this week I was talking to another
	women about the happening.  She pointed out to me that when
	we were young and starting out in the world the blatant
	anti-femaleness of society was in our way, now some women do
	not see it or be personally affected by it until they are out
	of school and have been on their own for a few years.  Then
	all of a sudden - WHAP - what hit me  happens.

	What some of us experienced in our teens and early twenties
	many women don't until they are in their late twenties and
	early thirties.

	THIS IS PROGRESS.

	To many, though, with out the personal experience the full
	impact of how society treats women, there is no need to wear
	the banner that doesn't quite fit.  They also do not fully
	understand that every woman is a target of this treatment and
	that just because she got to go to a good college and major
	in engineering (that she wanted) and that she got a good job
	in a good company like DEC right out of college that she is
	not also a traget.  She may just get futher before it hits her.

	Until all women are treated as full human being no woman is
	a full human being.

		A tall woman who wears plaid shirts and
		is overly agressive about somethings -
		and who has been know to chew glass.
		Is there any other label I have missed?
		Oh yes, man-hater - maybe I am - but I
		like/love individuals male and female.
		Woman-centered - means exactly that - I
		center my life around women - especially
		since I am a woman.  This does not keep
		me from caring for the men in my life at
		all - in fact it enhances my caring for
		them by caring about my self.  Does that 
		make me selfish - probably - does that
		make me shallow - I doubt it.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			A woman by birth, a human by
			growth.

    re .55 -
    
    I think it was Maxine Kumin who said,
    
    "When Sleeping Beauty wakes up she is almost fifty."

    re: .51
    
    Hang in there with us as much and as long as you can, Justine!  We need
    you and your clear ways of expressing things.
    
    Thank you!
    
    Nancy