Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    
    	The master strikes again...
    

    
    	Boy, did you get a wrong number...
    

    <--(.1)
    
    Mike, this is one where I can't tell if you're just once again
    exhibiting your mastery or whether you really can't see the
    distinction.  
    
    These women are choosing to limit _their_own_ behavior.  The KKK seeks
    to limit the behavior _of_others_.
    
    It's a pretty fundamental difference and since I see you as smart, I
    tend to think you're probably just being a master again.
    
    						=maggie

    Plus, the racists who make up the KKK have not banded together against 
    a lifelong oppression by blacks.  They are not working for someone's 
    freedom, but rather for someone's oppression.  And that's very dis-
    tasteful no matter who does it.  Lesbian separatists do not lynch men 
    nor do they attempt to limit their freedoms.  The KKK could take a 
    lesson from them and that is, "If you don't like things, go somewhere 
    else".  Live and let live.  It's a noble goal.

    
    	RE: .8  Mike Z.
    
    	> Take .0, replace "women" with "whites", "men" wity=h "blacks".
	> What do you think of that idea?
    	
    	Consider what Maggie said:
    
    	.6> These women are choosing to limit _their_own_ behavior.  The KKK 
    	.6> seeks to limit the behavior _of_others_.
    
    	The difference is far from insignificant.  As Maggie said, it is
    	a fundamental difference.
    

    
    	With regard to what David Dukes says...
    
    	He would like to make it legal to refuse to serve blacks in
    	restaurants and to refuse to sell houses to blacks.
    
    	Separatists aren't refusing to serve or sell real estate to
    	anyone.  They simply control their *own* behavior by confining
    	*themselves* to places where there are very few men.
    
    	The difference between these two behaviors is quite substantial.
    

    Mike, the difference is clear:
    
    The KKK tells blacks to go elsewhere.
    The feminist separatists go elsewhere themselves -- they
      don't tell _men_ to go elsewhere.
    
    There's a difference between a subordinate group choosing to take
    action and a dominant group telling (pressuring) a subordinate group 
    to take action.  
    
    
    I think that the Amish of Pennsylvania -- who voluntarily choose to
    operate without using modern technology and society -- are a far better
    parallel to the separatists.  
    
    Pam

    
    	That's a *much* better analogy, Pam.  Thanks!
    
    	As an example of "feminist separatists go[ing] elsewhere
    	themselves," the basenote mentions that they try to work in
    	places like gynecologist offices.
    

    re .0 The notion strikes me as being akin to South African
    Blacks proposing apartheid as a solution to the white-imposed
    apartheid they've suffered. Granted, the current system
    is abusive, but I don't think *any* variation of apartness is 
    an appropriate solution. Only educating the ignorant to at
    least live-and-let-live will ultimately work. (Then we can
    work on getting them to *value* differences.)

    I heard most about separatism in the late '70s and haven't run into it
    since the mid-'80s.  This could mean that the movement declined, or
    that it became more expert at avoiding men, or that it's easier to run
    into in an academic environment.
    
    For obvious reasons, most separatists seemed to be lesbian.  Note that
    an occasional need for a "woman-only" space is different from
    separatism, and easier to manage.  But I can easily imagine women
    living in a separatist community for some time and then moving back out
    again, having gained some otherwise hard-to-gain experience.  In fact,
    a women's school with a strong faculty commitment to feminism could be
    a tame example of the idea.
    
    As for how evil it is, it seems pretty much the same idea as when any
    other group-not-in-charge decides to band together _voluntarily_ as
    opposed to the usual choices of "stay put where you're placed" or "be
    one of the only * among the group-in-charge".  I sometimes get the
    creepy feeling up here that I've involuntarily wandered into a
    separatist community of white men.  I'd imagine that the feeling could
    be even more oppressive if I wasn't a white man and that it would be
    nice to occasionally not STAND OUT.
    
    Separatism can be a tough issue for men - maybe I'll leave it at that
    for now.  (: >,)
    
    Ray
    
    P.S. plug - Joanna Russ wrote "The Female Man" before she'd heard of
    separatism, but the novel is still a great introduction to the ideas
    behind it.  Later "separatist" books are likely to assume a common base
    of experience and philosophy and leave out the early steps that Russ so
    painstakingly explains.

    re: .14  Dana
    I disagree with your analogy.
    
    I agree with you that in my view it's better to work out differences
    than to choose apartness, but that's the way I live my life.  If others
    feel that they are happiest with apartness, that's OK.
    
    Regarding the analogy, the action described in .0 is "akin to South
    African Blacks" choosing not to live in neighborhoods where whites do,
    NOT to them making it ILLEGAL for blacks and whites to live in the same
    neighborhoods.  The separatists are not proposing that the entire world
    be changed to suit their tastes, just making sure that their personal
    worlds are run to suit their tastes.  What's wrong with that?
    
    If I want to live on a farm rather than in the city, is that OK?
      yes.
    
    If I want to make it illegal for anyone to live anywhere but 
    on a farm, is that OK?
      no.
    
    Pam

    I think that evyone here has a little "sepratistic attidudes" within
    themselves.
    
    A good example of this is when women here write asking for references
    to women gyns, hair stylists, women real estate brokers etal.
    
    I also think that men have these feeling too.  When a man goes into a
    garage, or better yet, how about sears auto center.  Do you go upto the
    male at the desk or to the woman?
    
    Personally, when Montgomery wards hire a female autocare manager, I was
    somewhat reluctant.  After seeing her knowledgability of vehicles, my
    attitude changed right quick.  
    
    Why did I feel "reluctannt"  I donno.  Like I said, maybe we all have a
    tad or separatism in us.  Of course, some of you migth accuse me of
    being sexist instead, but I beg to differ.
    
    Oh, and for the record, Lisa IS STILL one of my mechanics.

    OOPS, there IS NO underlying meaning in my typo "Attidudes"
    It, again, is a careless typo.
    
    Al

    
    	If a small group of whites decided to move themselves to a place
    	where there were very few African Americans, thus controlling
    	their *own* behavior (and no one else's)...
    
    	And they weren't trying to pass laws forcing other whites to do 
    	the same thing...
    
    	And they weren't trying to force African Americans to go anywhere 
    	special or do anything different than what they were already doing 
    	or *wanted* to be doing...
    
    	I wouldn't have a problem with it.
    

    re:  .20
    
    Do you think the Amish and the KKK are "nearly identical in principle"?
    
    They have been around for almost the same amount of time.
    
    Pam

    re: .23
    OK, then we will never agree.
    
    I don't think the Amish and the KKK are nearly identical in principle.
    One group seeks to live as they see fit; one group seeks to force
    others to live as they see fit.  Completely different principle,
    completely different method.  The only similarity is the concept that 
    apartness has some value.
    
    For that matter, I don't think the separatists in .0 and the separatists
    Bonnie described are necessarily nearly identical in principle, either.
    
    Pam

    re: .25
    Try switching black and white in your example and it will be a closer
    approximation.  You're still getting the power thing reversed.
    
    I would not choose to live forever in such a society myself, but as a
    woman I can certainly understand the wish to live in a society where I
    felt that I and MY group were the powerful majority for once.
    
    I went to a women's college, after all!  And it was a great and
    liberating experience.  I am stronger for it.  Women from women's
    colleges are more likely to go on to graduate school, etc., than women
    from co-ed colleges.  
    
    Pam

�   <<< Note 1033.21 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>
�    
�    	If a small group of whites decided to move themselves to a place
�    	where there were very few African Americans, thus controlling
�    	their *own* behavior (and no one else's)...
    
    Nahhh, too far-fetched...  (: >,)
    
    Ray

    
    	Mike, you changed "women's pubs" to be "white-only pubs."
    	
    	Aside from that, I don't see a big problem with the situation
    	the way you've phrased it (assuming that the group you're
    	talking about is as small as the "separatist movement" is,
    	too.)
    
    	The additional conditions I added were to make my position on
    	this a bit more clear.  
    
    	I still stand by it as my answer.
    

    
    	RE: .26  Pam
    
    	> [To Mike Z.] Try switching black and white in your example and it 
    	> will be a closer approximation.  You're still getting the power 
    	> thing reversed.
    
    	Agreed.
    

 A serious question:

 In one of these "separatist" communities, what happens in an emergency? 
 Specifically, if someone was real sick, would the women only allow a female 
ambulance crew to come to the rescue? If a building caught fire, would the women
only allow female firefighters to come to their aid?

 I guess what I'm getting to is how "evangelical/fanatical/committed" are these
separatists to their belief?  Does it get in the way of common sense? Does it
get in the way of good neighbourliness?  The community which Bonnie described
("go out and tell your father he's a sexist pig", "throw paint on local men") 
would make me very uncomfortable.  I think that I (like  maggie) would arm 
myself against 'em.

 I think I see a separatist community as more like a convent (although not
necessarily religious!), where everything possible is done by and for women.
Men (might be) welcomed as guests, as visitors or as students.  And neighbours
would be respected.

					Nigel

     <<< Note 1033.25 by MILKWY::ZARLENGA "you're runnin' much too fast" >>>

>	Recently, a white told me about a group of whites in America
>    called The Separatists.  He lived with these white people for 6
>    months.  This sect of American's white community does all it can
>    to seperate itself from the blacks in their society.

>[...]

>	So when their faucets leak, they call plumbers who are white.
>    When they need bread, they go to a bakery staffed by white people.
>    They work in environments dominated by white people, such as white-
>    only pubs and white-staffed doctor's offices. Their lovers are white.
>    They have a few black friends, but strive to have as infrequent contact
>    with black people as possible.


Yup, sounds familiar. Isn't this the way most white people
in the United States live already (without breaking any laws)?
Only thing is they don't give themselves a name.

    <--(.25)
    
    I would have no problem with it as stated, Mike.  I probably wouldn't
    even notice, and considering how rarely whites trade at black-owned
    businesses, live in black neighborhoods, and so forth...I rather doubt
    blacks would even notice either.
    
    						=maggie

     Seems to me like the separatists as described by Bonnie are the ones
    that people think of when the term separatists comes to mind. I wonder
    what role the media plays in this association.
    
     The Doctah

    Mike,
    
    It is very common for minority not in power people to feel that their
    experiences are invalidated by the dominant community. Separatism for
    such people gives them a chance to bond and share stories and support
    each other. It is assumed here that the majority in power people don't
    have such a need since the dominant community reflects their experience
    and validates them.
    
    Bonnie

    Also, I'd like to add here that I feel that the really radical groups
    like the one --bonnie described really are no different from other
    radical separatist groups such as the Neo-Nazis or Aryan nation. 
    
    Bonnie

    	RE: .37  Bonnie
    
    	> It is very common for minority not in power people to feel that 
    	> their experiences are invalidated by the dominant community.
    
    	This is where the power equation comes in (and it does make a
    	difference.)
    
    	> Separatism for such people gives them a chance to bond and share 
    	> stories and support each other. 
    
    	For some, this can be quite a healing experience.
    
    	> It is assumed here that the majority in power people don't have 
    	> such a need since the dominant community reflects their experience
    	> and validates them.
    
    	True.  (Let's not book the Met for this one, though.  My bet is
    	that we'd have better luck getting the would-be singer to fly.)
    

    re: .35 
    Mike, you did NOT leave power out of the scenario you supplied.
    You did not say "whites in the world," you said "whites in America."
    
    In America, whites are the majority; society is predominantly run by
    white expectations and white rules.  So your scenario DOES have an
    implicit power imbalance:  whites and blacks IN AMERICA.  The group
    described in .0 has the opposite power imbalance than your scenario
    had.  
    
    I think it's OK for individual people-not-in-power and people-in-power
    to seek to live their lives separately from the others.  Furthermore, I
    think it's MORE OK for people-not-in-power to seek separateness from a
    society that oppresses them than the converse.  Seeking equal treatment
    is different in my mind than seeking to continue unequal treatment.
    
    I wish you would think about what people are saying about how CRUCIAL
    the power imbalance is in understanding the difference between the
    situation in .0 and your scenario.
    
    Pam

    "... but I don't recognize who's-in-power as a major factor."
    
    That's hilarious, Mike.
    
    						Ann B.

    re: 1032.6
    
     Wow- now that's taking things to an extreme.
    
     The Doctah

    
    	Again, David Dukes advocates making it legal for whites to refuse
    	to serve blacks in restaurants (and legal for whites to refuse to
    	sell homes to blacks.)  Such laws would limit what blacks are
    	allowed to do.
    
    	It would be a far different thing if David Dukes decided to leave
    	the law alone (and let African Americans live in peace) while HE
    	went off to a quiet area of America where there were few or no
    	blacks, and removed himself from these issues completely.  (If
    	he were willing to do this, I would be pleasantly surprised.)
    
    	> I see white-only [whatever] as just as bad as black-only 
    	> [whatever] as just as bad as male-only [whatever] as just as bad 
    	> as female-only [whatever].
    
    	Separatism isn't inherently bad (in and of itself.)  Some instances 
    	of it have harmful consequences due to the appalling imbalance of 
    	power in our culture (among the groups mentioned above.)

    
    	How is it discrimination to define limitations to one's *own*
    	behavior (while *refraining* from changing/limiting the behavior
    	and/or freedom of others?)
    
    	Is it discrimination to date people of one particular sex (instead
    	of dating people of both sexes?)
    
    	If a man refuses to date other men, is he changing the behavior
    	(or limiting the cultural opportunities) of other men, or is he
    	only confining *himself* to the behavior of exclusively dating
    	people of the opposite sex?
    

    
    	David Dukes appeared on CNN shortly after his election (a couple
    	of years back,) and I heard him volunteer the following in his
    	own words (only slightly paraphrased):
    
    		When asked whether he favored segregation/discrimination
    		against blacks, he replied:
    
    		"I wouldn't mind eating next to a black person in a
    		restaurant.  However, I think that if *someone else*
    		doesn't want to serve blacks in their restaurant, 
    		they should have the legal right to refuse to do it."
    
    		When asked about selling homes to blacks, he made pretty
    		much the same remark:
    
    		"I wouldn't mind living next to blacks myself, but if
    		my neighbor wanted to refuse to sell his house to blacks,
    		I think he should have the legal right to do so."

    
    	It's a calm discussion (with most of us going out of our way
    	to avoid the you-said-no-I-said-no-you-said quotes back and
    	forth.)
    
    	As long as no one is arguing, what's the point of trying
    	to shut people up (if that is, indeed, what you're trying to
    	do again)?
    

    
    
    	RE: .49
    
    	Come on, if you're imply you are quoting the man, atleast
    	supply ALL the information.  Yes, he did state he feels
    	a white has a right to deny a black in both housing and
    	restuarants, BUT he also said (in the speech I heard him
    	give) that blacks be allowed to make the same choices.
    
    	G_B
    
    

    
    	George, he didn't supply that information in the interview
    	I saw on CNN.
    
    	Given the appalling differences in power/opportunities between
    	blacks and whites in our society, offering blacks the chance
    	to refuse to serve whites (and to refuse to sell their houses
    	to whites) is a pretty empty gesture, don't you think?
    

    And yes, she casts caution to the wind and jumps in with probably
    an unpopular opinion to jot down:
    
    first a quickie re. Herb's Mike n Suzanne count.  What's that supposed
    to mean?  Egad, man, they are being quite civil.  Let a sleeping
    dog lie.
    
    Now, onto the topic:
    
    I tend to agree with Mike.  (I can see the clenching of the teeth,
    the sad shaking of the head, the deep sighs of "But she almost ALWAYS
    agrees with Mike! What ARE they?  Twins????" ;) ;)  ;)  **
    
    ** I might take this opportunity, in all good humor, to let it be
    known that Mike_Z and I do NOT know each other, we have never met,
    and I accepted no bribes.   :)   :)   ;)  (not that any were made)
    
                                             
      The separtism, while not terribly or inherently * BAD *,
    seems like something we (we = the general consensus of this topic)
    might not be so comfortable or supportive of it another group were
    put in place for women and another group put in place for men. 
    It makes me uncomfortable, for the reason I stated in many of my
    previous entries in =wn= and in specific, for the same reason I
    put in the FWO topic (shoulda waited, I'd have been more relevant
    here).   
    
    While whites segregating themselves from blacks (or pick your minority)
    happens in the real world, if a topic were opened regarding a group
    that really works at it (ie, the KKK), my gut feel tells me the
    noting community wouldn't be so "So What?" about it.  *even* if
    we put, say, a minority excluding a perceived majority, I don't
    think so many would be quick to "So What?" that either -- in fact,
    my gut feel tells me that we'd think that was somewhat, vaguely,
    somehow "wrong".
    
    And while I understand the frustration that must have driven these
    women to isolate themselves (a majority separating from a minority,
    how interesting/distressing), I can't condone it with good conscience,
    not when it's such a direct, conscious effort to absolve a problem
    without finding a solution for it.  And, while probably not in my
    lifetime, I'm quite sure a solution will come about.  But not from
    us segregating into camps.  Support is one thing.  An -ism is another.
    
    ---kim

    
    	Hi, Kim.
    
    	Question:  If a group of gay men tended to live a separatist
    	existence (in the sense that they lived with other males, had
    	other males as their lovers, and tended to work in places that
    	were male-dominated) - do you think anyone here would have a
    	strong objection to it?
    
    	I seriously doubt it.
    
    	All the analogies about race aside, when it involves whom one
    	lives with (and whom one sleeps with) and the atmosphere one
    	chooses for social interaction - notice I said "chooses"
    	rather than "creates by denying opportunities to certain
    	groups" - why is that an -ism?
    
    	In the basenote, it was mentioned that members of separatist
    	groups chose other women to be their lovers.  If someone
    	chooses to spend most of their time with potential lovers,
    	how can that be an -ism (if no one else's behavior is changed
    	or limited in any way?)
    
    	Surely we don't owe everyone equal opportunity to our hearts
    	and bodies...

    Hello Suzanne.
    
    I would see something wrong with it -- not the fact that these men
    were gay, or lived among men, but the fact that they so actively
    (as these women are) are working to avoid exposure to any other
    outside group/factor.  It's isolationistic, and doesn't feel "right"
    in a sense I guess I either am not, or cannot, convey correctly.
    
    As for consensus about such activities - no, I do not think we would
    have a problem with that.  Gay people are oppressed and prejudiced
    against.  We (again, we = general consensus) support, at least in
    rhetoric, oppressed groups, at least the conscientous and
    striving-to-be-non-biased usually do.   So, no, if this basenote
    had to do with gays living among gays only and patronizing gay-owned
    businesses, we'd cheer for them, even though that isolationism doesn't
    help the much bigger, very important problem of how society treats
    individual with same-sex preferences.
    
    Am I any clearer, or am I talking in tongues?  I don't generally
    like to extract others notes, so I trust I addressed your first
    question in its context.
    
    As for us owing everyone else our hearts and minds (loosely
    paraphrasing), I suppose not.  However, when we exclude ourselves
    entirely from society because we don't like it, we will never make
    it a society we do like.  I'd hate to see this attitude become wide
    spread, and believe, that for the most part, such segregationlistic
    behavior would be met with disapproval.
                                                          
    Please DO understand I am very aware of the oppression of women
    in this society (I do not personally feel oppressed as much as I
    feel restricted).  However, setting myself totally apart from those
    would would restrict me will not serve to remove those restrictions.
    I've only made myself even more restricted.
    
    ---kim
    

    Kim,
    
    Of course it is all right for you to feel uncomfortable about the
    idea.  You may feel uncomfortable about Whatzername Mumble Prophet's
    group hiding in underground shelters somewhere in our great northern
    wilderness, if you like.  You'd be entitled to feel uncomfortable
    even if they weren't heavily armed.
    
    Different is weird.  Weird makes people uncomfortable.  I know;
    I'm weird.
    
    I think of these separatists as being like asthmatics who are trying
    to escape the effects of the Los Angeles smog basin.  For now, they
    feel healthier without it.  Perhaps, someday, their `lungs' will be
    sturdier for the rest from the strain, or perhaps someday, there will
    be less smog to go back to.
    
    							Ann B.

    	Another way to look at it...
    
    	My uncle spent his adult life in a monastery.  Until his recent
    	death, he was a Carmelite Brother (and his main work was as a
    	writer of religious reference books, and a bookbinder.)  In his
    	life, he also did other work related to his order (such as the
    	acquisition of books for distant Catholic missions around the
    	world.)
    
    	His life was apart from women, except for his female relatives.
    	He was also away from the mainstream of society, by choice.
    
    	One of his older sisters, my aunt, spent her life in a convent.
    	At the time of her death some years ago, she'd been a nun for
    	around 60 years.  She was very well-educated, and a writer of
    	books as well.  She entered the convent at the age of 16.
    
    	They each spent their lives in a predominantly single-sex
    	environment, away from material wealth, etc.
    
    	Living in a monastery or a convent is not for everyone - but
    	my aunt and uncle were extremely happy and fulfilled with the
    	lives they chose for themselves (even though their social
    	access to the opposite sex was extremely limited.)
    
    	Most people wouldn't make the same choices they made, but would
    	anyone here regard their lives as sexist?  Does anyone here feel
    	that their choices need to be condoned by anyone else?
    
    	If the whole world moved into monastaries and convents, it
    	would be a problem.  As it happens, only relatively few choose 
    	to do it.  Who are the rest of us to say whether or not this choice
    	is valid, though.  
    
    	It's a personal decision.
    
    	I see separatists in the same way.  No, it's not for everyone,
    	but who says that *any* of us have an obligation to be part of
    	the mainstream of society?  
    
    	It isn't necessary for any of us to agree with choices like
    	monasteries, convents or separatism (at least not in the sense
    	of wanting to do it ourselves,) but neither is it appropriate
    	to consider any of these lifestyles as being sexist or wrong.

    <--(.59)
    
    Yes, because the employer is not acting an individual in that case, but
    rather the representative of an organisation under law.
    
    							=maggie

    Yeh, if the story is true then the behavior is ineffectual in a
    childish way.  But so what?
    
    						=maggie

    <--(.64)
    
    Mike, I would argue that _at_worst_ this is a grey area in ethics.  
    
    If there is a social requirement for members of this community to hire
    only women, then I agree with you because the group has then taken on
    the character of an organisation and the members are no longer free to
    act as their individual needs dictate.
    
    If their custom represents a nontrivial fraction of the total business
    opportunities in their catchment area, so that male craftsmen have a
    noticably harder time getting work, then I agree with you.
    
    If they're just a group of women whose group membership is predicated
    on their individual behavior rather than a determiner of it, then I
    disagree with you.  
    
    Quite frankly, I can't tell from the information given, but from
    whatever I know [can someone help me out here?] separatists generally
    live at a subsistence level for political and ethical reasons so it's
    very unlikely that 300 women in a population of what, 8M people in
    London?, represent a non-trivial economic force.  It's more likely that
    if they're "a group" that there are social restrictions, but without
    knowing more about their "groupness" I'm unwilling to presume the worst
    particularly in light of the information we have that they do maintain
    ties with some men and that they only "strive" to reduce mundane
    contact with men generally.
    
    						=maggie
    

    in re .65
    
    Mike it is my observation that all of us do things that could be
    labelled as childish..
    
    fortunately we don't have to expose that side of ourselves to public
    scrutiny.
    
    Bonnie

        re talking through intermediaries ... when countries do
        it, it is called "diplomatic" not "childish".
        
        Dan

    Nice point, Dan.

    re diplomacy and language barriers:  I believe that the allusion was
    not to the use of translators, but to countries which refuse to
    speak to each other ("don't have diplomatic relations"), and which
    therefore have to communicate through intermediaries (third
    countries which they both have relations with).
    
    	-Neil

.71>	.68>        re talking through intermediaries ... when countries do
.71>	.68>        it, it is called "diplomatic" not "childish".
.71>
.71>		You don't suppose language barriers are a factor?
        
        When, for example, the Swiss were intermediaries in what
        otherwise would have been direct contact between the U.S.
        and the PLO, that wasn't because of language barriers. 
        The same can be said about the Algerian role in exchanges
        between the U.S. and Iran during the hostage situation in
        1980.  To have talked directly to either would have been
        an admission that it was worthy of being talked to (i.e.
        a civilized (Iran wasn't) nation or country (PLO wasn't)).
        [This is all rather simplified.]
        
        I don't want to claim either case as an analogy to why
        separatists would use a "translator" to talk with men, so
        perhaps my reply .68 was a rathole that we could have done
        without.  (.68 was a cynical comment about governments
        behaving childishly, too.)  A better analogy to the
        separatist case would be when a couple going through an
        unfriendly divorce communicate only through contact
        between their attorneys.  Avoiding situations that in the
        past have proven uncomfortable is not childish.
        
        Dan

    I was pretty closely involved with some women in separatist communities
    in western Mass. back in the mid-1970s.  I never fully identified as a
    separatist, but I hung around with them and learned a lot from them.
    
    This is one person's experience, and not necessarily generalizable to
    other situations.
    
    As I look back, this turned out to be an important developmental
    experience for many of the women involved, but not a permanent way of
    life (although I think this community was begun with long term
    intentions).   The idea of creating an all-women society was very
    thought provoking.  We read lots of 'theory' - feminist theory - and
    also some of the male utopians, believe it or not.   We argued a lot
    about work and money and childcare and relationships and monogamy and
    therapy and spirituality, the standard political fare of the mid-70s. 
    Many of us had met in CR groups.
    
    There was a heady excitement, as is often typical of idealists.  It was
    extremely stimulating to dream of a very different world than the one
    we knew in 1974.  Lots of us with college degrees were having a hard
    time getting 'real' jobs that year, and that may have made such an
    alternative seem even more exciting.  
    
    A few women actually bought some land and tried to live out the dream
    after a while.  During the planning and theory stages there were many
    political and philosophical splits ('no male children', 'everyone
    should work with their hands', 'vegetarian vs. non', 'students
    allowed/not allowed', 'group spiritual practice required/not required',
    'pets are bourgeois', and so forth).  These conflicts brought out lots
    of personality clashes, and realizations that some of us had some
    pretty core values on which we might have to compromise.
    
    I think the idea was most beneficial in terms of fantasizing about it.
    In reality, it foundered for lack of resources after a while.  A bunch
    of exhausted women living in a cold cabin working menial jobs for
    minimum wage with several small children is not the best setting for
    harmony, sisterhood, and joyful oneness!  A lot of women who were drawn
    to separatism were very angry women, and I think that trying this
    lifestyle gave them an outlet for their anger.  It gave them something
    to pour their energy into and learn from.  I think the important thing
    is not whether it worked or didn't work, but that people tried to live
    out a dream and learned from their efforts.  Many went back to the
    larger society with a greater appreciation of what goes into providing
    the services we take for granted.  A number realized that they could
    create strong woman-centered support networks within the larger society.
    
    I never got as far as living with them.  I realized early on that I
    *liked* having a warm room in a feminist household where it was ok to be
    a student and ok to have some money of my own and ok not to always feel
    like sharing my car.  I realized that the physical work involved in a
    separatist community was going to be enormous, and would preclude
    having much leisure.  
    
    I realized that I could create a community of women around me on a part
    time basis and continue to use the nearby universities as stimulating
    places where I went to learn and interact with both men and women.   I
    also realized that I didn't want to argue about theory all the time and
    take everything in life quite that seriously, even though I believe it
    is serious.  Many of the women I knew had no sense of humor about any
    of these topics, and that was a statement of their passionate
    commitment to try to make this happen.  That was ok, and it clearly 
    wasn't for me full time.
    
    Now I go to places like Michigan women's music festival for a week in
    the summer.  I love being there.  I hear women say "don't you wish it
    could be like this all the time?", and I think to myself "not really". 
    I love going away for a week in the summer to be with all women in a
    place where lesbian identities are the dominant culture, but I also
    love my life at home and my work here at DEC.  The reason something
    like Michigan is possible is that we all create the resources somewhere
    else to allow us to live playfully and not have to solve most of the usual
    real world problems for a week.   I think that experiences like this
    give us hope and a vision for relating to other women and a kind of
    bonding that we grew up not knowing about.  I also think part of the
    pleasure is that it's not the real world and we don't have to struggle
    with one another to allocate scarce resources.
    
    I was thinking about the last things I heard about some of the women I
    knew who were separatists 15 years ago.  One is a CPA now.  A couple
    are professors or otherwise involved in the universities.  A couple are
    therapists.  Some have blue collar jobs.  I think one owns and manages
    a restaurant.  Some work for big companies like I do, and bring their
    experiences to feminist organizations there.  Some have small
    alternative businesses.  Many are lesbians, but not all.  
    
    If I met a group of women who wanted to do this now, I would watch with
    great interest.  I think there is room for women to try to live by
    their own hands in small communities.  I would probably be somewhat
    cynical about the long term potential of such an arrangement based on
    my own experience, but I would be delighted to be wrong, and to hear
    how a group of women were making it work.  
    
    In the same way, if a group of white men or black people or any other
    group felt drawn to create a private self sufficient community, I would
    watch with respect.  I think there are ways to do it that involve
    fairly allocating the resources involved in a way that reflects the
    choice of the people involved, and ways to do it that involve a fair
    amount of exploitation of others.
    
    Holly
    

    People are free to like or dislike whoever they wish, and there is no
    reason why people shouldn't also be free to restrict their associations
    to just one class of people.  In fact, if you don't like someone, it is
    potentially a very good thing that you avoid them.  Given the sort of
    economic deprivation that seems to go hand in hand with withdrawing
    from the mainstream of society, though, a separatist would definitely
    have to be committed to their Cause, whatever that might be.  In the
    case of sexual separatism, for example, women who dislike men enough
    that they choose not to associate with them at all have to deal with
    the fact that men are ubiquitously distributed throughout the human
    population; so choosing to avoid interaction with them involves a
    virtually complete severing of ties with the rest of society, which
    would include society's massive economic machinery.

    All of this is fine, though, because people should be free to make that
    choice.  I say that in principle, although for purely selfish reasons I
    have an interest in the choices that are made.  The fact that there
    seems to be such broad sympathy among the women here for sexual
    separatism indicates to me that if there were not such economic
    hardship associated with it, a large chunk of the female population
    would join in en masse; this would, of course, seriously diminish my
    romantic possibilities.  So I must admit that I am happy there is this
    economic pressure against separatism, since I do have a stake in how
    many women would make that choice; I do not wish to separate from
    women. 

    On the other hand, the fact that women and men seem to be at such
    spiritual odds most of the time suggests that separatism might have its
    advantages after all.  Perhaps the only fair way to do this is to divvy
    up the Earth's continents.  We could draw lots, for example; the loser
    would be stuck with living in New England, for example, while the
    winner would get to live in Colorado.  Once the sexes stop interacting,
    certain aspects of our life would drastically improve; for example, the
    vast majority of the world's insipid song lyrics have to do with sex
    and romance, and with that topic eliminated as a subject, popular music
    might improve drastically.

    Actually, it seems to me that there are two possible reasons for
    separatism--one political, the other personal.  The political reason I
    disagree with; the personal reason is probably one I would never
    choose, although I can respect the decision of others to engage on that
    course for their own personal reasons.

    The political reason would be to foment a sort of revolution from
    below, in the hopes that people will desert the existing system in
    droves and thus bring it down in favor of a new utopia.  I don't accept
    that rationale.  The problems outlined elsewhere with political
    separatism immediately illustrate one problem:  in political isolation,
    there is a self-reinforcing tendency to become pathologically
    ideological over every aspect of life, to extremes.  This translates
    into constant agonizing over ideologically proper lifestyle decisions,
    self-criticism, groupthink, and other manifestations of a stifling
    group psychology; individuality is discouraged, because individual
    lifestyle decisions might not be ideologically proper.

    However, more importantly, I reject separatism as a political act
    because it simply does not solve the problem.  If you oppose something
    about the existing social system, I believe that the solution is to
    resist it, not withdraw from it.  In fact, I tend to feel that working
    to eliminate the corruption in society is more compassionate than
    setting up a private utopia while leaving others behind to rot. 
    Certainly there are other kinds of separatism besides sexual
    separatism; I definitely find many of the values in our society
    offensive and morally assaulting, for example, but I nevertheless would
    not choose to separate from it.

    However, there is not only a political basis for separatism; the other
    argument for it is personal.  The idea is that there is a "healing"
    process involved in withdrawing from a corrupt society.  This has to be
    an individual choice, because many people might very well get healing
    from it, while others would not.  Of course, I am not a woman, so I
    can't judge how well women would heal through separatism; all I can do
    is imagine how I would feel about living in a society without women. 
    Frankly, I find it utterly unpleasant; I would be separating myself
    from a group of people I like very much and who are important to me,
    and thus would be making myself very unhappy--would which not
    facilitate any sort of healing within me.

    However, because I am a man, it is probably impossible for me to fully
    understand the perfectly legitimate personal reasons women might have
    for wanting to separate from men.  The broad sympathy for separatism
    among women indicates that women in general don't have an emotional
    need for men in their personal lives, and can in fact get along fine
    without them.  While that is something I cannot relate to, since I do
    strongly desire to have women in my own life, I have to accept that
    others make that decision for their own personal healing, and leave it
    at that.  If it does heal them, more power to them.

    -- Mike

>A lot of women who were drawn
>    to separatism were very angry women

 I think this is the general impression I get from the separatist movement.
It seems to me that many women who are drawn towards separatism have alot of
anger, and turn to separatism as a way of channeling that anger into useful 
energy.

 I personally don't see any reason to get bent out of shape over separatism.
If that's the way they want to live their lives, why should we care? If
separatism doesn't "solve anything," what difference should that make to us?
If they are simply ignoring us, there's nothing to keep us from ignoring them.

 As for the more militant groups, ignore them too, up until the point where they
break the law. Then prosecute them exactly the same way you'd prosecute anyone
else who broke the same law. They don't need any special treatment.

 Live and let live; live and let die. Noninterference in the private lives of
others is a cornerstone of the American way- the cornerstone of a crumbling
building. 

 The Doctah

    
RE: Note 1033.53  by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..."
    
    >>	George, he didn't supply that information in the interview
    >>	I saw on CNN.
    
    	Can't say about that one broadcast, I was simply pointing
    	out what his full stance was. I don't either agree or dis-agree
    	with it. To me, it's each their own, I keep my nose in my own
    	business.
    
    
    >>	Given the appalling differences in power/opportunities between
    >>	blacks and whites in our society, offering blacks the chance
    >>	to refuse to serve whites (and to refuse to sell their houses
    >>	to whites) is a pretty empty gesture, don't you think?
    
    	I don't think I really feel comfortable with restricting the
    	sale of anything to any group. However, on the other hand, I
    	feel if I am the owner of something, I have the right to say
    	who I will or will not serve. Same as I don't feel anyone should
    	have a say except me in who I allow into my home or not.
    
    	In reference to the basenote, I don't see a thing wrong with
    	separatist. Live and let live. If that is what's makes them
    	happy (or anyone else for that matter) then they are harming
    	no one and should be left alone.
    
    	G_B

    	I'd like to pose a hypothetical situation:
    
    	Let's assume that all men and women agree to separate from each
    other for a period of one year. A huge inpeneratable wall is built
    and could not be violated. Both sides have equal everything. Fish,
    foul, forest, handtools. Each side is given a foundry for forging
    metal................
    
    A year later the wall disappears............ 
    
    
    Still like the idea of separatism?? 
    
    Ken

    
    I'd hazard a guess that within 6 months, alternative sex would become
    the norm. I think your scenario is better if you DON'T know that the
    wall is coming down. Then, you have to deal with your gender, rather
    than waiting out the year.
    
    I think the men would have fun, would learn to bond, would learn to
    take care of each other as people, an evolution from the "buddy"
    relationship, and would do pretty well. 
    
    I think women as well would be FORCED to learn to get along, would stop
    competing for male attention, would learn team cooperativeness, would
    develop incredible resourcefulness and would do pretty well.
    
    The only problem might come when the wall came down, if each group had
    learned to prefer the positive attributes of their own gender.
    Relearning to accept: women's lesser physical strength, men's
    aggressive behavior, would be tough. Especially since both would be
    accomodated and accepted in the single gender environments, at least
    more readily than in the mixed sex environments.
    
    Take it a step further: if test tubes of sperm were the only things
    exchanged, and male babies were sent to the men folk, I'll bet men
    would learn to be d***** good mothers...
    
    As for the women, I think there would develop a wonderful celebration
    of the female cycle. Obviously, every pregnancy would be planned.
    Probably celebrated. The real funny thing would be to see what happened
    to women if they didn't have to deal with advertiser's and men's
    standards of beauty.
    

    RE: .81
    
    Now. Why can't that all happen *without* a wall?
    
    (If we need a wall, maybe we could put in a door for nocturnal <ahem>
    visitation, for those who are so inclined.) ;-)
    
    --DE
    

    I have not read the majority of replies to this note.  I only wish
    to note the extreme irony that a note on Separatists was started
    as FWO (which I had thought was not being permitted any more, but
    it would seem otherwise...)
    
    					Steve

    
    	Well, I can certainly see how one might struggle with a decision
    	about which is the more dramatic way to characterize a topic
    	one hasn't even read:
    
    		Should I laugh at them all, or just tell them how
    		sad it makes me...?  Hmmm..
    
    	Guess you decided to do both (for good measure.)
    
    	I'm so, um, sad that you felt the need to do the characterization
    	without having read most of the material.
    
    	As such, it doesn't amount to much as an opinion of the contents 
    	of the topic, although it does say quite a bit about your regard 
    	for the conference as a whole.
    
    	Not that you haven't expressed this regard (or the lack thereof)
    	a number of times before, of course.  Oh well.

    re .83 (Steve)
    
    Ditto.

    re .83 Steve, .85 Kim
    
    What's interesting to me, though, is that the separate strings show a
    different way of discussing the base note.  Women-only discussion is
    DIFFERENT than men-women discussion.
    
    Try reading through the two strings from beginning to end and compare 
    how women discuss ideas with each other vs. how women and men discuss
    things together. I thought this FWO/FGD pair was particularly striking
    in that respect (ironic AND appropriate!).  
    
    Perhaps instead of focusing on how "odd" and "unfair" it is to separate
    discussions, it would be valuable to focus on what one can learn by
    doing so.  So many men say that they're here to learn -- I'm surprised
    by how negatively some men react to the presence of FWO strings. To me,
    it would seem to be a rare opportunity to see how women interact when
    men are not there; a chance to be a fly on the wall.  
    
    Pam

    
    re:.86
    re: the value of fwo strings
    exactly!
    

    re: 86
    Although I tend to agree with you, and I also respect the FWO notes, I
    would like to attempt to shed a little light on the why comes.....
    
    I *PERSONALLY* see the FWO strings as a "do what I want, no matter what
    you want" sorta concept.  To be more spacific, Women are constantly
    arguing if not screaming sometimes ( somtimes it IS neccessary to
    scream) that men only type places (be they clubs, bars, or any other
    gender spacific functions) are discriminatory towards women. 
    Furthermore, these said functions are illegal.  If they are not, "we"
    will make them change their rules by pouncing them (for lack of better
    wordage) through the media and courts.
    
    
    with that said, having a "place" FOR WOMEN ONLY sorta defeats the
    purpose, dontcha think?  Fighting inequality through this spacific
    avenue is, in my personal opinion only, probably the only way to change
    the so called "old boys network".  But, allowing that same policy, just
    reversing the genders, is ALSO wrong.....isnt it?
    
    Again, I must state for all you yahoo types out there, I HAVE NO
    PROBLEM WITH FWO STRINGS....  I RESPECT THEM, AND LISTEN TO WHAT IS
    BEING SAID IN THEM.  I may not agree with them, but I still respect
    their premise.
    
    And anotherthing, the above is HOW I FEEL SOMETIMES about this sort of
    policy.  IT may OR MAY NOT reflect the opinions of the WHOLE MALE
    GENDER.
    
    

    
    re:.88
    i don't really think the purpose of fwo notes is to 'fight
    inequality' per se. 
    

    Al
    
    I have no problem with mens clubs that are purely social or which
    have a valid gender related reason for existing. I respect notes
    in mennotes where the author requests input from men. My personal
    complaint is with clubs that have a business or professional
    purpose that exclude women and minorities and as a result prevent
    or hinder them from advancing. It is my impression that most
    main stream feminists agree with this position and those that want
    to force the local men's 'shootin' and card playin' and male bondin'
    clubs are very much in a minority. I think everyone deserves a space
    to connect with and 'bond' with (a much over used word) and have
    fun with people who are like them. I draw the line where it causes
    harm to others.
    
    'mom'

    	RE: .86  Pam
    
    	> What's interesting to me, though, is that the separate strings show a
    	> different way of discussing the base note.  Women-only discussion is
    	> DIFFERENT than men-women discussion.
    
    	Amen!  One would had to have read both the strings to see this, of
    	course, but there is a *striking* difference between the two types
    	of discussions!
    
    	When the FWO/FGD policy was first being proposed, one noter arguing
    	against the idea claimed that FWO notes would have *AS MANY* fights
    	as FGD (and un-designated) notes would have, since some women are 
    	involved in much of the fighting that goes on in this file.  It's 
    	turned out *not* to be the case, though (in all the FWO topics I can 
    	recall over the years.)
    
    	Even when women disagree with each other, it's different in a woman-
    	only discussion.
    
    	That's not saying anything necessarily bad about men!!  It just means
    	that men have an effect on how women interact with each other.
    
    	Part of the reason for this "effect" (good or bad) is the cultural
    	differences between the way each sex is conditioned to "interact"
    	with others in our society.  Men are conditioned to behave differently
    	than women are (although there are certainly a good number of people
    	who cross the boundaries between the two types of overall conditioning.)
    
    	What makes separatism appealling and almost *necessary* for some women 
    	(in some circumstances) is the fact that our conditioning lends itself
    	to the situation of having our voices drowned out by the aggressiveness
    	that men have been conditioned to use during debates/arguments. 
    
    	Sure, women are capable of becoming every bit as aggressive as men
    	during debates - but even the *most aggressive women in notes* tend
    	to be far less aggressive in women-only notes.  Even among those of
    	us who can be called "the more aggressive women noters," the presence
    	of men has an effect on us.  We are less aggressive in their absence.
    
    	>Perhaps instead of focusing on how "odd" and "unfair" it is to separate
    	>discussions, it would be valuable to focus on what one can learn by
    	>doing so.  
    
    	Absolutely!!
    
    	The arguments against FWO/FGD remind me of the attitude of shoving
    	equality down our throats - "Ok, you wanted equality - you forced
    	us to let women into men-only clubs, so don't you DARE ever ask
    	to be ANYWHERE without men present!  You're just as stuck with us
    	as we are with you now!"  (That's about how hostile some of the
    	objections sound to me.)
    
    	If men want men-only space to deal with each other in ways that
    	do *not* form barriers between women and education/employment
    	opportunities, more power to 'em!  They can have all the men-only
    	space they want (if it doesn't interfere with women's ability to
    	share in the responsibilities and opportunities of adults in our
    	culture.)
    
    	It's not in the *LEAST* hypocritical to want women-only space that
    	does not interfere with men's access to education/employment
    	opportunities (any more than it is hypocritical to want women-only
    	space in department store dressing rooms.)

    um, Mike?
    
    were those replies in the file or by mail?
    
    and if by mail and you had problem with same did you
    contact a moderator?
    
    where do you find that the =wn= mods have encouraged or 
    sanctioned or whatever harassing anyone who was male who
    wrote in a fwo note?
    
    even before it became a courtesy not a file rule I always
    forwared notes to people whose notes where 'out of place'
    at that time, with a msg saying to the effect that "I think
    you put this note in the wrong place"
    
    when have =wn= mods trashed you?
    
    and may I reminde you that we are not mothers/dictators/ etc
    
    in =wn= we have always felt that the file members are adults who
    can complain to us if they have a problem, but if not, we assume
    that they have chosen to engage in the discussion(s) they are in
    and that if controversy occurs, our responsibility is to 
    1. encourage them to cool it
    2. encourage them to take it to mail
    3. encourage them to make a formal complaint
    4. encourage them to read more carefully what people are saying
    
    it is *not* our job to make judgeents ad hoch that 'x' might
    hurt 'u' and delete or censor notes by our judgment.
    
    As I have said before........
    
    Don't expect us to read minds..or to intuitively *know* that
    you have a problem if you have trouble with what someone says
    in this file.
    
    We assume that if the arguement/discussion appears to be among
    equals that the particpants 'own' the 'fight' .
    
    
    Bonnie
    
    speaking as a comod but on my own nickle right now

    Re.: FWO (actually just another rathole in this topic but it isn't too
    far from the basenote I'd say)
    
    I must say I do see the advantage of FWO/FGD notes once more here, most
    specifically because the FWO string continues right from the basenote
    with a couple of thoughts that are in my view much more related to the
    subject than the question whether separatism is discrimination as was
    posed in the FGD string. Would this have been a single string we would
    still not have come to discussion of the actual topic, which hardly
    took place in the FGD string. At least now there are some replies that
    discuss the topic in the FWO string. 
    
    I'm happy with the advantages of the FWO/FGD scheme, but actually
    disappointed with the fact it seems necessary sometimes to keep to such
    a scheme to warrant some sensible discussion without ratholing. In it's
    own small-scale separatism it may be a good illustration of the reasons
    behind the larger scale separatism that is discussed in the basenote.
    Which actually gives me the feeling of a missed opportunity too.
    
    Ad 

    RE: .89
    
    I never said IT WAS.  I was merely stating how I felt about them at one
    time.  I thought I had made that very clear?  I guess not.
    
    RE: 91 'mom'
    
    I also agree.  again, I was trying to show how some men MIGHT feel
    about them and why their interaction in FGO notes are different.  thats
    all.  
    
    Sorry for the 'rathole'...

    Interesting how people can get so self-righteous (this isn't directed
    at anyone or group in particular) about noting conventions in
    non-development notesfiles.  In the technical conferences there is
    nothing seen as wrong when certain parties jump on participants telling
    them "this isn't the right conference (analogy: response) for your note" or
    for the moderators to take the liberty and automatically relocate
    notes.

 re: .97

 Interesting comment, but it belongs in the processing topic. ;-)/2

 The Doctah

Are "processing" discussions no longer to be confined to the "processing"
topic?

Is yet *another* "discussion" of FWO/FGD useful here?

.......

As for the specific relevance of an FWO topic for the discussion of
separatism, I found it neither sad nor ironic.  Somehow it seemed
utterly appropriate to me.

	-Neil

    Well, I'm *fascinated* by the parallel between what Ad calls the
    "small-scale separatism" here in =wn= and the large-scale separatism
    described in the base note.  Thanks for pointing it out, Steve!
    
    FWO topics are not designed to "shut men out", even if that's what it
    feels like.  The purpose is not focused on men, the purpose is focused
    on women's needs.  They are designed to provide a forum for women to
    speak about what they consider important, without interruption.  Please
    don't take offense at this; read the next paragraph first...
    
    Dale Spender's MAN MADE LANGUAGE, which I've mentioned before,
    discusses studies done to show that men and women in our society have
    evolved different speaking styles.  Men-only groups tend to establish a
    pecking order of who "allows" who to speak, and this is achieved by
    interrupting and speaking over other people.  Women-only groups tend to
    establish a round-robin type approach where everyone gets a chance to
    have their say.  (Sorry for all the bird analogies...!)  Each style has
    it's plusses and minuses, but they are DIFFERENT styles.  Men compete,
    women cooperate (in general).  So when you put men and women together,
    women tend to "lose" speaking time because while they are trying to
    cooperate (share speaking time and ideas), men are competing and
    winning.  
    
    FWO strings are a mechanism for allowing women to express themselves
    more in a woman's style of communicating, without having to "deal" with
    the competitive model as much.  Suzanne commented that the more openly
    aggressive, competitive-style women in NOTES tend to be less so in FWO
    strings.  I've noticed the same thing.  
    
    I think a case can be made for this spilling over into society.  And
    the women who seek large-scale separatism may be women who want a
    breather from having to compete and fight all the time to be heard, to
    be important, to be the center, to be the norm.  Or they may be women
    who are permanently angry about this and choose to avoid being in a
    constant state of irritation.  Whatever the reason, I think the
    separatists are trying to preserve and nurture what they perceive as
    women's culture, a culture which is demonstrably DIFFERENT from men's
    culture (based on how men and women have been socialized to interact).
    Again, the focus is not on men, but on women's needs.
    
    Pam

    re:-1 (women being heard)
    
    Pam, women are being heard alright. Watch tv in the AM some weekday.
    Oprah, or Sally Jesse will do their thing. Even Geraldo and Phil do
    it. Male bashing. Favorite pastime of half the population.
    
    While men are out competing and women round-robining lots of damage 
    is being done to all of us.
    
    FWO- not such a big deal, I guess..but...when you put it on top of
    everything else that society bombards us with, it may just be the 
    traw that breaks the backs of some of the camels around here.
    
    Kate
    
    

    	RE: .102  Kate
    
    	> Pam, women are being heard alright. Watch tv in the AM some weekday.
    	> Oprah, or Sally Jesse will do their thing. Even Geraldo and Phil do
    	> it. Male bashing. Favorite pastime of half the population.
    
    	Another popular pastime (I've seen this on Oprah's show) is for males
    	to tell "Why we are mad at women" (which is basically, "We're mad at
    	women because they are mad at us," according to one show I saw on
    	the subject.)
    
    	So, not only do we have to contend with the original problems with
    	the way women are treated in our society, we also have to deal with
    	the "backlash" resulting from our having spoken openly about it.
    
    	What it comes down to is that women are expected to be the ones who
    	"make peace" in all this (by reassuring men that we still like them
    	and by putting our own needs aside to keep from having some men feel
    	"excluded" from our conversations.)
    
    	Sounds like it would have been better if we'd never brought up any
    	of our concerns (about the way women are treated) in the first place,
    	if all we end up accomplishing is to make our jobs as "peace keepers"
    	more difficult.  :-}
    
    	- Suzanne

    <--(.102)
    
    Kate, what do you think would be better, then?  Your point sounds an
    important one.  
    
    						=maggie

    In re: .101
    
    Yes, I've seen this before, Pam, from you and probably others, too.
    And it sounded roughly right to me.  But now I'm less sure that I'm
    comfortable with the generalization.  In two quite different ways.
    
    First, while I'm pretty sure that maximum competitiveness is usually
    displayed by males, and the other end of the spectrum is dominated by
    females, and while there are doubtless parallel differences in average
    style/behavior between the sexes, I am quite uncomfortable that that
    might be the basis of policy formation.  Just as I would be
    uncomfortable with the proposal that women shouldn't be police
    officers, or fire fighters, or mail carriers because we all know they
    are on average small and weak, compared to men.  While I would
    very much love to have a few people in this file stop inserting their
    "contributions," I think it is clearly inappropriate to discriminate
    against one sex on the basis of the characteristics of _some_ of its
    members.
    
    My second concern is quite different.  I still do think that the trend
    you point to is generally accurate in the "business" world (work).  But
    I think the matter is far less clear in home/personal life.  I have
    experinced "family circles" that were almost completely dominated by
    women, even though the men in these families played a traditional
    "masculine" role at work.  I also have known families where the husband
    stayed home and raised the children, while the wife pursued her careeer.
    
    In short, it is somewhat more complex.
    

    Re:   <<< Note 1033.101 by CADSYS::PSMITH "foop-shootin', flip city!" >>>
    
    >Men compete, women cooperate (in general).  So when you put men and
    >women together, women tend to "lose" speaking time because while they
    >are trying to cooperate (share speaking time and ideas), men are
    >competing and winning.  
    
    Hmmm.  I'm fairly certain that the context of the book would help
    relieve some of the emotions this brings out in me.  But basically,
    this upsets me.  I don't know why, but as an ENTP I tend to "think out
    loud" to figure things out, so please bear with me.
    
    Valuing differences is an important aspect of "human" relations.  I
    support it.  But I resent when valuing differences appears to justify
    reinforcement of attitudes based on stereotypes.
    
    The natural assumption is that all manner of research went into the
    book under discussion.  And, without questioning the quality of the
    studies that arrived at such conclusions, it seems reasonable to accept
    this book as appearing to substantiate a common stereotype: men are
    competitive (i.e., aggressive?) and women are cooperative.
    
    Suppose we are prepared to accept this generality as having some
    validity.  Don't we still have a responsibility for valuing differences
    at a micro level as well as macro?  At a personal as well as generic
    level?
    
    Personally, although I am quite competitive in some aspects of my life,
    in many others, especially when pursuing understanding, I think of
    myself as very easy-going and easy to communicate with/around. 
    Ignoring myself as a necessarily small database, I think its possible
    to find MANY examples JUST IN THIS NOTESFILE that contradict the
    generic findings of the book mentioned.  I think there are men in this
    conference that are very cooperative discussionwise, and women that are
    very adversarial, both to men and women.  There are certainly examples
    that would support the books findings.
    
    As a slight digression, I guess this highlights my overall complaint
    with the "valuing differences" process that appears to be taking place
    in Digital (and elsewhere).  To me, the need for "valuing differences"
    is to recognize the individual.  Too often I see people using
    stereotypes and generalities to justify behaviors and actions and they
    label these actions as "valuing differences".  I resent that, as I resent
    classifying discussions as FWO on the basis of stereotypes (whether
    confirmed through research, or arrived at in the normal fashion,
    through outright prejudice).
    
    Frankly, I have no complaint with having FWO, FMO, FBO, or FSO!  I get
    upset when people tell me that because there are men, maybe even a
    majority, that conduct their behavior in a certain way, that I must be
    judged as if *I* conduct myself that way, REGARDLESS of the manner the
    I am DIFFERENT from them.
    
    Maybe I suffer from other stereotypical male problems, but I can't
    distinguish well between:
    
    	MEN GENERALLY COMPETE, AND THEREFORE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO
    	PARTICIPATE IN CERTAIN DISCUSSIONS WITH WOMEN
    
    and
    
    	WOMEN GENERALLY ARE WEAK AND THEREFORE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO PERFORM
    	CERTAIN JOBS THAT REQUIRE PHYSICAL STRENGTH
    
    I have met many women more athletic, muscular and stronger than myself,
    and I can't understand why they should be prohibited from certain
    professions because of sex, when they are capable of doing the job.
    
    I can't understand why I should be left out of a discussion because
    generally, men compete in discussions (still not accepted as
    empirical).
    
    And, of course it hasn't been demonstrated to my satisfaction that
    competition in a discussion is necssarily either (a) a BAD thing, or as
    a seperate issue, (b) reason for exclusion from discussions.  I don't
    accept the argument that speaking time is lost on a sexual basis.
    
    To repeat, however, I am saying I disagree with the logic, not the end
    result.  I feel there may be needs for FWO discussions, FWO groups,
    maybe even FWO nightclubs.  I just resent it being conducted under the
    banner of "valuing differences" when it seems more like "valuing
    stereotypes and old prejudices".
    
    Jim