Conference turris::womannotes-v2

	I think that men and women do deal with the issue of "justice"
	differently.  Carol Gilligan's _In_a_Different_Voice_ really
	opened my eyes to that, and right now I'm reading a new
	book that she edited.  It's called _Making_Connections_,
	and in it Gilligan and a number of other psychologists
	summarize their year-long study at the Emma Willard school
	for girls.  The topic of the study was moral development
	in young women -- fascinating stuff.

	Anyway, in the first instance you described, Peggy, I
	think you suggested that by responding to the needs of 
	a group instead of the needs of an individual you
	were following what one might consider the male model
	of justice instead of the female model.  I don't
	think I agree with that assessment.  You framed the
	moral dilemma as a choice between two things: you could
	attend to the needs of the individual or to the needs of
	the group.  In both of those choices you are talking
	about "justice" as a way of attending to people's needs.
	
        I think that the standard male-culture definition of 
        justice involves following an abstract rule correctly.  
        The rules were designed (we hope) with preserving the 
        public good in mind, but it seems that in the male-culture 
        model of justice, the rule is what's important.  Stepping 
        away from the rule in order to meet group or individual 
        needs is seen as immoral.  The choice you made may or may 
        not have "broken" some "rule" of "justice," but what's 
        interesting to me is the fact that you didn't talk about 
        rules at all; you only talked about whose needs you should 
        attend to.

	Justine

	ps An Aside: it makes me mad when we feminists accuse each 
           other of "following the male model" when we don't like how
	   something is handled.  I suppose that sometimes the criticism
	   is justified, but it seems to silence people (at least it 
           silences me).  I think that accusation is so loaded that 
           we would do well to use longhand and explain exactly what 
           we mean instead of using the shorthand, "that's how 
           <the dominant group> does things."  This is something I
	   have done myself, but I'm starting to wonder if there might
	   be a more effective way of making my point.

	

    
    	I don't see "justice" as being perceived differently
    	by women than men. I think that it is more an individual
    	issue. Justice (to me) is relative to where I have been,
    	what I have experienced and it is a fully integrated part
    	of what I have become. I am sure it will be modified
    	more before I am done. If I need to make a decision that
    	ultimately affects someone (myself included), I try real
    	hard to get myself "into the shoes" of everyone involved
    	in the possible outcomes. I quiz myself to see if I have any
    	personal biases that might sway the decision. I weigh it 
    	all out and then try for the best balance I can get.
    
    	I still remember reading a book written by Don DeDera (a
    	newspaper columnist a long time ago in Phoenix) called
    	"A Mile in His Moccasins". That title came from the philosophy
    	used by an Indian tribe regarding judgements. I think the
    	whole thing read something like "Never judge a man until
    	you have walked a mile in his moccasins".  
    
    	Anyhow, others may disagree with me but I think "justice"
    	is a pretty individual issue and is not related to what
    	sex we are.
    
    		Kim_who_thinks_a_lot_about_this_topic
    
    

Stepping very carefully here, because I (obviously) don't have anything
personal to offer about woman's conception of justice... but I would like
to suggest a slightly different slant on Justine's representation of the
"standard male-culture definition of justice" as being centered around
rules rather than people.

Of course, that may well be the way that it plays out; and I don't doubt
that to many people, the rule really is the important thing.  But I think
that the origin of the rule approach to justice is not love of rules per se,
but a conviction that justice won't be done *to people* if you don't have
rules to make sure that justice is done objectively.

That is, this attitude is rooted in a certain pessimism about human nature:
a belief that however hard someone tries to be objective, they cannot help
having their decisions and choices colored by personal attitudes, preferences,
biases, etc.  Rules provide a touchstone -- if I sincerely attempt to conform
to the rules, it will be much harder to fool myself about my motivations in
making a decision.

If I am right about this, then the distinction that Justine suggests might be
recast as a suggestion that women are more inclined to optimism than to
pessimism with regard to human nature (at least in this aspect), or perhaps
that they are willing to grant greater credence to the possibility of a
person being able to objectively consider a situation without using a system
of rules to force it into an abstraction.

Does this seem plausible?

	-Neil

This reminds me of an issue we discussed in one of my psych classes.  They
were discussing differences in men and women's opinions on ethics.  One issue
was equality.  On theory discussed was that men tend to think of *equal* as
right, where as women tend to think of *equitable* as right...

That is, take Civil Rights.  A typical Man response (according to said theory)
is that the Right thing to do is give everyone, black white and purple, an
equal chance at whatever.  Judge them purely on merits, not on color, etc,
etc.  Standard stuff.  A typical Female response is that that isn't *fair*
(fairness being tied directly to equitableness, but not necessarily to
equality) because black, purple and green people, might not have had the
same advantages as white, orange and blue poeple.  That it wasn't equitable
(although it was equal) to say "alright, everyone start the race NOW" when
certain classes of people were trained from an early age to be track stars,
when someone people didn't know where the start-line was, when somepeople had
starting positions behind others.

I thought it was an interesting theory, that Male ethics is based on Justice
and Female ethics is based on Fairness...

re: Male Justice being rule-centered, not people centered...
It is interesting that in some of the philosphy courses I have taken (a very
male-dominated field) the basic tactic of studying ethics is to develop
an ethical system (set of rules that apply universally) and try to "disprove"
the system by giving life-example where apply the rules yields a (hopefully)
obviously unethical result (or at least "iffy".)  The whole goal is to set
up a system of rules that yields correct results for all possible situations.

D!

 "Rules are for people who are too <expletive suppressed> stupid to do the
right thing without them."

 I think I've felt this way since I was a young boy, and discovered that people
would actually follow absolutely ridiculous rules _because they were the rules._
I was amazed. The right thing to do was so clear cut- but it was against the
rules. Ain't that a peach?

 I don't believe that we can attain real justice in this world. The best we can
hope for is to make things as reasonable as humanly possible, and hope it
gets sorted out in a different realm.

 In a perfect world, there would be no need for rules, no use for laws- because
everyone would make a practice of doing the right thing. And when someone did
manage to not do the right thing, those in charge of determining what to do 
about it would be able to objectively examine the situation and render the
correct and definitive judgement. Sadly, this is unrealistic.

 So we institute a general set of laws which attempt to make a linear 
approximation to markedly non-linear events. The degree of their applicability 
in any given case relates to the degree the non-linear event diverges from
the linear. Sometimes we get a good approximation for justice; other times,
even _calling_ it an approximation of justice is inaccurate.

 Harking back to the basenote, I think that the needs of the individual and the
needs of the group must both be addressed, but the issue of whose needs take
precedence at any particular time is an ever changing function inextricably
bound to the initial conditions. Each case must be examined on its own merits,
and to attempt to make a rule or set of rules which could accurately and
justly deal with all the possibilities is an exercise in futility.

 If you are in a position to mete out justice, it is most important that you
personally feel that you are doing the right thing. There are even cases when
doing the right thing can mean that you must do something you don't want to
do and it may even be the wrong thing, in your mind. (Now I imagine that may 
have raised an eyebrow or two. :-) I can explain that further if there is 
interest.

 As for the problem of dealing with peer pressure when you are attempting to
be just, it's a tough one. But in the end, you must be true to yourself, because
you are the one that has to live with yourself- not they. So resist the 
temptation to allow your actions to be dictated by the group.

>	And who determines what is "just" anyway?

 No one in this world. But each of us can determine what s/he feels about what
is just; indeed, we are supposed to.

 The Doctah

    I think women (or at least some of them - I hate to generalize on
    this one) might seen justice a bit differently than men based on
    some issues that affect women more.  Most women aren't arrested
    or brought to trial as a plaintiff or defense for some kind of serious
    crime other than crimes against women (battery, rape, etc).  What
    I mean by that is women might generally see the inside of a courtroom
    or experience the justice system for things which we've discussed
    in length in this file.  I'd suspect that women who are exposed
    to, or have read about the way a rape case is handled, might think
    of the justice system as heavily biased against the plaintiff, or
    in the "man's favor".  
    
    I imagine that a lot of people's opinions of just what justice is,
    or how the system works is based on whatever experience they have
    with it.  
    
    ---kim

	On my way into work this morning I saw two hawks about 5 miles
	apart hunting.  When I saw the second one (understand it is rare
	to see one much less two this close together) I said to myself
	what is it about hawks that is so appealing.  The answer I reached
	by time I got to LKG was that "they just are hawks."  They don't
	try to figure out what animal they should hunt they just do (this
	is very simplistic answer).

	I think that we can not have "justice" while we are in the social
	system that we are in.  It is just not possible, the system does
	not allow for it to happen.  Someone always is devauled or short
	changed because we are functioning in a system based on win/lose
	outcomes.

	I also think that a lot of my personal agony about "justice" is
	closely related to the fact that within this system (the one we
	live in the United States) justice requires a looser and not
	necessarily a winner.  This makes "life unfair" and we all live
	with this concept.  BUT does life have to be "unfair" or is it
	just that we have to see beyond the present unfairness to a 
	way of fairness and justice for all?  And how do we get there,
	considering that the system we are in does not honor any attempt
	at getting out of it.

	I guess what I am saying is that I am really tired of saying and
	believing that "life sucks" there is not reason it should - does
	the hawk feel that life sucks?  I doubt it they are just to busy
	living, be-ing alive to have such a negative attitude.

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			Mud, mud and more mud in the puddle

    
    re:.4
    interesting. i have recently been feeling that 'justice' is a
    'male' term, hence, not sufficient to deal with the complexity
    of human reality.
    

>Someone always is devauled or short
>	changed because we are functioning in a system based on win/lose
>	outcomes.

 Are you aware of a system that is based on a different set of outcomes that
could be substituted for the current system?

>	I also think that a lot of my personal agony about "justice" is
>	closely related to the fact that within this system (the one we
>	live in the United States) justice requires a looser and not
>	necessarily a winner.

 Is there a better way? 

>This makes "life unfair" and we all live
>	with this concept. 

 What is it about this system that makes life unfair? Do you think it is 
possible for life to be fair, when there is no virtual mother?

>	I guess what I am saying is that I am really tired of saying and
>	believing that "life sucks" there is not reason it should - does
>	the hawk feel that life sucks? 

 Tha hawk is not subject to socialization like humans are. The hawk responds to
the forces of nature. We are held to a different set of standards. We are
no longer allowed to live according the the rules of the jungle. We have
instituted rules ostensibly to make life _more_ fair, when indeed it often
fails to do so. What to do about that?

What do you think could be done to improve things?

 The Doctah

    
    re Neil's note...  I think the idea that man-made rules are an attempt
    to use objective measures of justice makes sense.  I think that over
    time, however, the rules themselves have taken on a greater importance
    than the actual goal of being just.  I think that women (maybe because
    they were not involved very much in making the rules) have a slightly
    different focus.  I think women have less belief, for example, in the
    possibility of objectivity.  Having rules and enforcing them in a
    uniform way might be a way of ensuring that "justice" be meted out
    "objectively."  But most judges (whether in a formal court or in
    an informal, non-legal setting where one of us is acting in the role 
    of "judge," e.g., a parent, boss, project leader, notesconference
    member) judge situations individually.  Most of us would argue that this is
    necessary.  A man stealing drugs to save his dying wife is different
    from a man stealing drugs to feed his drug habit.  But when you
    introduce case-by-case judgement, you introduce subjectivity.
    
    I am interested in what influences those subjective judgements.  In
    the male model, I think the focus is on the rules and trying to make
    the rules fit the situation.  Women, on the other hand, tend to focus
    on people and relationships.  The goal of being just may be the
    same for both groups, but I think they approach the problem
    differently.  
    
    For example, I think Martin's note 1025.102 is an excellent example 
    of rule-centered justice.  It's not my intention to bring the content 
    of his message into this discussion, but the focus of that note really 
    exemplifies what I think of when I talk about the male model.  This style 
    contrasts sharply with Peggy's basenote in which she talks about whether 
    she should attend to the needs of an individual or of a group.  Now
    Peggy might have talked about what policies might apply to the decision
    she had to make in an attempt to find a precedent. But she talked about
    what seemed to be a desire to stay connected, both to an individual and
    to a group, and that it didn't seem possible to do both, and that
    for her was the moral dilemma.  In 1025.102, Martin might have
    talked about his opposition to the FWO/FGD convention in terms of pain 
    it caused him or other men or disharmony he might think (I don't know 
    if this reflects his views; I'm just trying to give an example of a 
    different way to frame the problem) it could cause, but he structured 
    the moral dilemma as a case in which he thinks rules are being broken.
    That's the kind of difference I see between the way in which men
    and women approach moral decisions.  And because I see it that way, I
    also see that it can be hard for men and women to discuss a moral issue
    because even when they're talking about the same event or set of facts,
    if they don't frame the problem in the same way, it seems difficult if
    not impossible to reach a solution that feels good to both.
    
    An analogy:
    A man and woman are in a room together.
    Man: It's cold in here
    Woman: It's stuffy in here
    Man: Well, turn on the heat, then.
    Woman: I want to open a window.
    
    Now unless the source of both the cold and the stuffiness is an air
    conditioner that the man and woman can turn off, at least one person is
    not going to be able to change the environment to his or her liking.
    They both value comfort, but they see what's causing the discomfort
    differently.
    
    Justine
      

re: .10:
    For example, I think Martin's note 1025.102 is an excellent example 
    of rule-centered justice. ...  In 1025.102, Martin might have
    talked about his opposition to the FWO/FGD convention in terms of pain 
    it caused him or other men or disharmony he might think ...
    but he structured 
    the moral dilemma as a case in which he thinks rules are being broken.
    That's the kind of difference I see between the way in which men
    and women approach moral decisions.

Interesting comment, thanks.

Yes, the FWO/FGD policy does cause me distress because I feel excluded
from a community because of an irrelevant distinction.  I suspect that
this is similar to the frustration many women feel about the "glass ceiling."

But I framed my argument according to rules because, when it's framed
on the basis of feeling (and, I'm sure, you can find many such instances
in the long history of this policy), it's been discounted by both
ill-willed and well-wishing folk who say, "you're just being subjective"
or "your feelings aren't important because this is the woman's conference."

There's an old Dick Gregory bit where he talks about how he sat in at
a lunch counter for a couple of years and, when they finally had to serve
him, he discovered he didn't like the food.

That's a bit of how I feel about womannotes.  If what I write here is
foolish, or ill-willed, or offensive, then deal with this.  But if what
I am is offensive, than I would ask you to look at your own prejudices.

Martin.

	I was not going to answer this but changed my mind.

	Mark,

	These are your questions:

> Are you aware of a system that is based on a different set of outcomes that
>could be substituted for the current system?

> Is there a better way? 

> What is it about this system that makes life unfair? Do you think it is 
>possible for life to be fair, when there is no virtual mother?

> Tha hawk is not subject to socialization like humans are. The hawk responds to
>the forces of nature. We are held to a different set of standards. We are
>no longer allowed to live according the the rules of the jungle. We have
>instituted rules ostensibly to make life _more_ fair, when indeed it often
>fails to do so. What to do about that?

>What do you think could be done to improve things?

	Have you ever been in outer space?

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			Am I a hawk dreaming I am a human
			or a human dreaming I am a hawk 

    
    
    Martin,
    
    I'd be surprised if you actually heard the words, "You're just being
    subjective" or "Your feelings aren't important .." from a woman here.
    The point I wanted to make was that when you wanted to make a
    persuasive argument, you talked about rules.  If I wanted to make a
    persuasive argument, I might not think about rules first.  And
    I think that style difference has to do with gender -- not an
    irrelevant distinction to me.  It's true that from here I cannot
    discern many physical characteristics about you, but I am certain
    that I could tell you are a man (even if you signed your notes
    Martina -- like on April Fools day ;-).
    
    Justine

Some more thoughts...

I think about the many and varied rape discussions that have gone on in
this files.  Some of the talk is about rape *laws*, and howthe judicial
system handles rape, etc... (Things like the Model Code, why marital rape
isn't illegal in all places, whehther the judicial system is biased toward
the innoncence of the alleged rapist, what the *legal* definition of rape
is and should be.)  Other talk is about the *ethics* of it (whether some
acts that aren't rape are motivated by the same mindset as rape, how 
societal attitudes towards women affect violence, whether revenge is an
appropriate desire, etc.)  Obviously these two overlap, but it seems (I
don't have evidence to back this up) that some people tend to concentrate
more on the "justice" (for lack of a better word) of it, ie: laws, etc;
other people tend to concentrate more on the "fairness" (again, English
fails)...  I think some people are just more comfortable attacking the
problem from one angle or another.   Does this divide along gender lines?
I haven't found it so, but we dont have a good statistical sample here.  :-)

Also, have you noticed how many times in this file things are said along the
lines of "I don't think that is right but I don't think it should be 
illegal".  What does that say about the connection between "rightness" and
rule structures?  Maybe that is because sometimes things are right, but
a rule designed around that rightness could be too often misapplied, and in
this culture, "right" is less important than "following the rules"?  I know
that I am always hesitant to suggest that a certain thing I consider a
wrongness to be illegalized (or a rightness to be enforced) because I think
the *rule* would be too all-encompassing and wouldn't fit in every situation
it would apply to.

(I find that I like talking about ethics more than laws.  I am more concerned
with whether an act is unethical than whether it is illegal - witness the
recent discussion on "power imbalances" in sexual relationships.)

D!

    <--(.11)
    
    Martin, forgive me but your comment comparing FWO to the glass ceiling
    (or more particularly the respective feelings about them) causes me to
    seriously doubt --for the very first time--your perceptive abilities.
    
    The glass ceiling keeps women from money, professional opportunities,
    prestige, and power.  FWO topics keep you from writing notes in a
    particular logical place.  How can you possibly compare them on any but
    the most abstract level?  I'm baffled.
    
    						=maggie

re: .15:
    
    Martin, forgive me but your comment comparing FWO to the glass ceiling
    (or more particularly the respective feelings about them) causes me to
    seriously doubt --for the very first time--your perceptive abilities.

It's old age fast approaching, Maggie.  :-)

The "glass ceiling" expresses the reality of a company (not necessarily
Dec) that has written policies of equality, that aren't actually followed.
Perhaps equating FWO to "glass ceiling" was pushing the analogy too far
-- how about the expectation (i.e., not "requirement" but "courtesy")
that the woman engineer makes coffee for the staff meeting?

Martin.

	Martin,

	I think that you are still missing the point.

	It is more like the young male engineers playing basketball
	at lunch and not including the young female engineers in the
	game.

	_peggy

    Yes, Martin, Peggy's analogy is much more apt.  Yours talks of a
    career-limiting expectation that's enforced by the tacit threat of
    further career limitation!
    
    						=maggie
    
    ( And speak for yourself, buster!  :-)

    This is a subject I think about often. I believe Neil was on the right
    track with the idea that rules are used to protect us against those who
    won't "do the right thing". We can't trust anybody to be fair on a
    societal basis. Unfortuately, rules can never cover all the bases and
    they themselves become unfair in specific instances.

    2 million years ago our ancestors lived as hunter/gathers in small
    bands. As far as anthropologists can tell from studying current day
    hunter/gathers peace and harmony were kept by peer pressure. These
    groups do not tend towards rules and laws. As society developed and
    larger groups came into being individual knowledge of everyone in the
    society wasn't possible. It became easier to do something antisocial or
    wrong when people became somewhat anonymous. And, of course, this
    assumes that everyone agreed on what was right. liesl

    This is my (un-scientific) perception:
    
    Men *tend* to think of justice (ie, making things right)
    in terms of revenge (getting even).
    
    Women *tend* to think of justice in terms of reconciliation
    (working things out equitably).

re: .17:
	It is more like the young male engineers playing basketball
	at lunch and not including the young female engineers in the
	game.

This would be true if you see Womannotes as purely a social gathering
that just happens to take place on Dec property; i.e., analogous to the
young male engineers eating lunch apart from the young female engineers.

For better or for worse, I see Womannotes as "business related" -- and
if you dig into the archives you will see notes claiming that the
Corporation also sees it in exactly that fashion.

Perhaps, then, a better analogy would be if the Dec Running Club sent
young male runners to the Corporate Marathon, but didn't send female
runners.  (But, the running club actually sent both men and women, and
both old (me) and young runners: we were chosen on ability, not on gender/age.)

But, of course, there are shades of business relatedness and I'm not
claiming that Womannotes is as business-related as, say, JOBS.

However, why would anyone in this "community" take any action that makes
some other member of this "community" feel excluded?

Martin.

    <--(.21)
    
    Martin, this is a good sub-topic; I think it illustrates that, women
    *do* see justice differently to men, and that the difference is neither
    uniform nor universal.  Self-interest colors the reasoning of both
    sides.
    
    You ask (I presume non-rhetorically) why would anyone take an action 
    [eg, putting FWO/FGD in place] that would make someone else feel
    excluded.
    
    For me the answer is pretty simple:  some women were feeling excluded
    without it.  The needs of a group of women and a group of men were in
    irremediable conflict; we resolved it in favor of the women.  That's
    the principal reason this file exists: to meet the needs of women
    employees.
    
    We consulted need and [supposedly] ignored rule; you would have us
    consult rule and ignore need.
    
    That's an instant illustration of the putative difference (probably
    more than putative; as I think someone pointed out earlier, there's a
    lot of support in the literature for its existance).
    
    But to me there's a much more interesting question:  why do so many men
    support FWO?  And why do more than a few women refuse to write in the
    FWO paths?  What's going on there?  Care to take a hack at the answers?
    
    						=maggie
                                                            

re: .22:
    
    But to me there's a much more interesting question:  why do so many men
    support FWO?  And why do more than a few women refuse to write in the
    FWO paths?  What's going on there?  Care to take a hack at the answers?
    
I suspect that one reason is that the policy, to some extent, selects
the participants in the file.  I don't doubt for a moment that people
sincerely believe that FWO is both the "right" thing to do, and fully
supported by Dec policy.  I would suggest, though, that some people feel
uncomfortable with the policies of Womannotes (and, more importantly,
the tone of voice of many of the participants in Womannotes).  These
people have taken the understandable step of dropping Womannotes (or
not writing).

As I've suggested several times before, I wish that you would drop
the FWO policy (even expressed as "courtesy") in favor of SRO which
clearly expresses the goal of FWO without excluding any "voices
in the chorus."

Martin.

                                                            

    Martin, I'm puzzled:  what persuades you that SRO and FWO address the
    same issue(s)?  To me they seem very differently focused.
    
    							=maggie

    I'm confused.  If =wn= had FWO strings WITHOUT an accompanying FGD
    string, I could understand how some men might feel excluded.  But
    =wn= policy is to run the two strings side-by-side.  Everyone - men
    included - can read both strings if they desire.  Everyone - men
    included - can respond to entries in both strings if they desire.  The
    only "exclusion" is that men are asked to respond in the FGD string
    rather than the FWO string.
    
    How is this discriminatory?  Against PP&P?
    
    As for SRO being an adequate replacement for FWO, that suggests that
    the FWO strings are 100% supportive of the base note.  I don't see that!
    
    Sincerely confused,
    Karen

re: .22 (=maggie)

>I think it illustrates that, women
>    *do* see justice differently to men, and that the difference is neither
>    uniform nor universal.  Self-interest colors the reasoning of both
>    sides.

 I agree. Self-interest doping the lines of reasoning is an almost universally 
human trait.

>    We consulted need and [supposedly] ignored rule; you would have us
>    consult rule and ignore need.

 This is an interesting thought. Perhaps men are more conditioned to accept
a set of rules and live by them than women are. It seems that because the rule
does not provide an acceptable level of justice in this instance, the rule
may be disregarded under the higher law of "doing the right thing" from the
female point of view. And the male point of view seems to be something along
the lines of "we have been held to the letter of the law before, so everybody
else will too," and/or "the penalties for be found in violation of the rule are
not worth taking the chance that 'doing the right thing' will be found to be
the same by both us and higher authority."

>    But to me there's a much more interesting question:  why do so many men
>    support FWO?

 I think there are a number of reasons that accumulate to point in that 
direction. For one, I think that =wn= attracts a certain type of man. I think
that the majority of men who note are here supportive of women in general. So
if women say they want something, they are inclined to go along with it unless
a compelling reason exists to oppose it. (Obviously, a few exceptions to this
exist). Next, the terms in which FWO is couched is clever; not only is FWO
a request (as opposed to a hard and fast rule), there is also an outlet for
men who wish to respond to notes in the FWO string. Thus it is not as cut and
dried discrimination as it would be if no outlet existed and/or FWO were 
enforced by Gestapo-like tactics. In addition, men who try to hold women to the
same standards as men are held w/r/t discrimination are generally looked down
upon (my opinion).

 I personally doubt very seriously that an identical policy in mennotes would be
capable of withstanding corporate scrutiny should a woman choose to push back
on such a policy. I believe that the fear the exists w/r/t discrimination
lawsuits would quickly cause a termination of such a policy from "up above."

 It appears that when a woman decides to fight the system and push back on a
rule of this nature, the majority of men think she's being an "uppity female,"
and oppose her efforts. However, a minority of men, often sizeable, will support
her. I also tend to believe that the vast majority of women would tend to 
support her. If a man were to do the same thing, I think that the majority
of both sexes would consider him to be a jerk. (This is just my opinion; the
accuracy of which has been called into question before, and undoubtedly
will be again.)

 And finally, while FWO is not a de juro rule, it is a de facto one. There is
considerable peer pressure placed upon those who violate the rule, even if
by mistake. Unless one has the energy to deal with significant negative 
reinforcement, and live through what would undoubtedly become a major rathole/
battleground, one learns to just go with the flow.

>And why do more than a few women refuse to write in the
>    FWO paths? 

 I think that women who don't write in the FWO paths would be best qualified to
answer this question (though I have my opinions).

.24 (=maggie)

>    Martin, I'm puzzled:  what persuades you that SRO and FWO address the
>    same issue(s)?  To me they seem very differently focused.

 I initially agreed with Martin on this, but now I think you're right on this.
It's not so much a matter of not disagreeing as it is a matter of getting only
women's opinions (pro or con).

 The Doctah

    Onto the FWO questions asked by Maggie....
    
    How can glass ceilings and FWO strings be comparable?
    
    Certainly they are not 100% comparable, however, I certainly can
    appreciate the singular point that makes me think both are wrong
    - the exclusionary nature.  Some things are less exclusionary than
    others, some will have less/more effect on the world as a whole,
    and some exclusionary behaviors are, I suppose, to be commended
    (tho damned if I can think of any off hand where excluding a group
    is really good).  It may have not been the perfect analogy, but
    adequate enough to draw the point for me that as a group that opposes
    gender-bias in the "real" world, we practice it here.
    
    There are those who might say, "Well, it's not such a big deal.
     There is also a FGD string so the men CAN reply happily in that
    one without fear of repercussion.  What's the problem?"
    
    I might use my own, real life, big-deal-to-me analogy for that one.
    :)
    
    When I moved to the East Coast, my boyfriend was involved in a game
    with his friends, a role playing game (you know, Adv. Dungeons and
    Dragons, etc).  One of the things that made Eric and I so compatable
    is that we happen to share the same hobbies, this included.  Eric
    saw no reason why he shouldn't ask him Monday night group if I could
    join the game, since other friends had been indoctrinated without
    much ado.  
    
    He asked.  The answer was No.  The reasoning was, basically, that
    I was a girl.  These men wanted the game to remain men-only because
    they felt that a girl in the game might muck up things (well, hell,
    we girls don't know how to role play anyway.  I might have fought
    an ogre with a rolling pin, or maybe not fought at all for fear
    of breaking a nail ;).  These other friends who had dropped in before
    had all conveniently been men.  Thus, the lack of ado.  A female
    was a different matter altogether!  
    
    Needless to say, I felt excluded.  If I had been male (and Eric
    confirmed this), he would have had little problem of bringing me
    in and the others accepting me.  Now I felt *damned* excluded and
    pissed off.  It bugged me.  I couldn't play because I was a *girl*!
    And the game was F(M)O.  
    
    Oh, I suppose Eric could have brought me along anyway.  But the
    peer pressure effect would have been most interesting, the disapproval
    felt throughout the entire state of CT.  So while I was never
    specifically banned from ever attending the game, I was most unwelcome
    there because I did not fit the gender specifics.  
    
    Naturally, someone might say, "well it's just a GAME, fer crying
    out loud!"  True.  But, it could have been "just a job", "just a 
    club membership", just a "loan", just a "you name it".  We like
    to put things in levels of importance, and I imagine that many might
    not think a simple game is not as important as being biased against
    for a job.  But exclusion based on gender is pretty much exclusion
    based on gender.  Without a really good reason to back it up, it's
    just out and out sexism.
    
    To tie this into the FGD-string rationale:
    
    Eric left that group (No, I did not ask him to) because he also
    did not care for the behavior of his friends, and he knew it had
    upset me. Recently, one of those players who had suspected the reason
    Eric begged off continuing to play started his own game, girls-allowed,
    and invited us to play.  We could BOTH play in this game, while
    only Eric could have played in the other one.  Bingo.  You're role
    playing equivalent of an FGD string.
    
    So now I am playing a game in a FGD-sense.  I do get to participate.
    But does that make me feel somehow better that I was excluded from
    exactly the same thing because of my gender?  No.  It was still
    a sexist attitude.  It was exclusionary behavior.  Giving me a "game
    of my own, there aren't you happy?" didn't make me forget the insult,
    the almost - embarassment ("Gosh, I AM a woman, huh?  Gee, guess
    I *can't* play.....), the *anger* of having faced exclusionary
    behavior. 
    
    
    So, granted, this may be "just a game", and FWO/FGD may be "just
    notes", but I think the analogy is fair.  No, there wasn't any
    job-threatening issue at hand, just plain old, bias based on sex
    attitudes, the very attitudes I think that most of us in this file
    would like to see go away.  What the ganders do doesn't mean the
    geese should do in return.  You can't fight sexism with sexism,
    or you just end up with a hell of a lot of sexism, and little equality.
    
    And since =wn= is a bastion against prejudice based on sex, I think
    we should make a conscious effort to practice what we preach.
    
    And that's this little black duck's two cents.  ::quack::
    
    :)   ---kim

    Back to the basketballs.
    
    Picture a Digital parking lot with (at least) two hoops set up next
    to each other, and all the basketballs anyone would ever need.
    
    At the start of playtime, someone picks up a ball and shouts, "C'mon!
    Let's practice shooting baskets at this hoop, and leave the other
    hoop(s) for anyone who wants to really play (implying that quasi-
    competitive way that people play when they don't really want to
    organize)."  So the people who want to work on getting the ball
    through the basket line up at one hoop.
    
    Other people do indeed start playing at the other hoop(s), but one
    (or more) of them says, "But we really want to play at *that* hoop.
    It's not fair to keep us from playing there with you."  Now, some of
    the people practicing at the first hoop have also been playing at the
    second hoop, so they don't see that "with you" part as making much
    sense.
    
    Anyhow, someone replies, "But we're just shooting baskets here.
    We're not really playing, and if you come play here, you'll interfere
    with our practice."
    
    ...  You can see it going on from there.
    
    							Ann B.

    Nice redux, Ann.
    
    The FWO/FGD thing is a good case to use as an example in this string,
    but if we're really going to talk about whether it's a good or bad idea
    then we should move somewhere else.  
    
    							=maggie

Speaking very personally,

. I thought that the question that started this string was an interesting one

. It seems that the FWO/FGD debate has been done to death in this conference
  (not just once, but many times:  overkill!), and is a "processing" topic in
  any case

. FWO/FGD got into this discussion because one person's opinions on the
  subject were used as an *example* of "do Women see Justice differently 
  than men?" -- to me, FWO/FGD in and of itself doesn't seem to have much
  to do with Peggy's original question

. But FWO/FGD is apparently a more popular discussion topic than conceptions
  of justice, so it looks like yet another potentially interesting discussion
  will go chasing off down the processing rathole.

Well, I suppose people have the right to write whatever they want, wherever
they want... but I, personally, will regret the loss of the discussion that
*might* have happened here.

	-Neil

    Neil,
    
    I understand your frustration.  (That's only fair, since I've added to
    it.)
    
    But I can't really think what to talk about.  Yes, there have been
    times when I've looked at the outcome of a trial/situation and
    thought "THAT'S justice!?  I'd never do it that way!" but I don't
    know if that was a personal response or a woman's response.  And
    I don't remember any of the cases so I can't lay out the circumstances
    for other people to judge.
    
    However.  Pontius Pilate asked "What is Truth?" and walked away.
    My ex-husband used to claim that perfect justice was impossible.
    My emotional reaction to them both is the same:  Grab them by
    the throat and scream, "That's no <add vivid adjective here> excuse
    for your spineless <add multiple, colorful terms here> refusal to
    make any ATTEMPT at producing justice.  Now just SIT DOWN AND TRY!"
    
    Is this an idiosyncratic response, or a feminine one?
    
    							Ann B.

While I can speak of one woman's view of justice [my own], I cannot begin to
speak with authority on _the_ Women's View.

If justice is 'the right thing' and this right thing is the optimal outcome
from a series of givens, one [or more] required outcome[s] and a prioritised
listing of desire outcomes; justice is _not_ fairness.

An example, from work:

  There is a tracking system used within my organisation that many functions
use in forcasting, buying decisions, and planning.  There are seventy people 
who use it regularly.  When enhancements were made to the system, one particular
enhancement meant that 40 people would benefit greatly, 29 people would not be
affected, and one of the monthly tasks that I perform would go from a 20 minute
job to a 2 hour job.  It is not fair to ask me to sign off on something that
adversely affects me, yet it is just to proceed with something that so happily
affects the common welfare.

A more personal example:

  I believe that killing is wrong, hence I do not believe that capital 
punishment is just.  I do not believe that it is 'the right thing.'  I have
heard many arguments in favour of capital punishment and, quite honestly, I
can conceive of circumstances [have lived though a few] where I thought it
seemed perfectly reasonable and equitable -- but not justified.

Interestingly, in reading Peggy's .0, I was surprised that finding in favour of
the needs of the many was considered 'not the Women's View'.  Perhaps it is
because the needs of the many is viewed as a "Team Play" concept by the speaker
and the current wisdom is that women need to learn to be team players.  Yet on
many levels, women will default to the needs of the many as being best course.

  Ann

    I've been giving this question quite a bit of thought since the
    base note was posted.  (And it's interesting to see the direction
    the discussion has taken.)  And I take a slightly different cut
    at the issue.
    
    Sometimes we say 'justice' and we are referring to the formal system
    which exists for defining and enforcing law.  This includes the
    criminal justice system and formal policies and procedures for
    activities with fairly severe consequences (like DEC's termination
    policies).  In those circumstances, a system of clear rules, with
    implementation that is applied as even-handedly as possible to all, 
    is the closest that we can get to 'justice'.
    
    Other times we say 'justice' and we are referring to less draconian
    events and consequences.  We are searching for what is 'fair', what
    is 'right'.  This is where we try to balance needs, desires, wants
    and rights of the individual and the group.  This is where I see
    a gender-based difference.  Women tend to be more concerned about
    this type of 'justice'.  We tend to be the ones, because of social
    conditioning and/or innate bias, who struggle with the implications
    of a given decision for everyone.  And so, as women, we agonize over 
    decisions which come more easily to men, because we want to be as 
    fair as possible to as many as possible, to find and implement 
    compromises which take as many needs as possible into account.  This 
    is where the search is for shades of grey, rather than a decision 
    between black and white.             
    
    It is interesting in this context that the most familiar symbol
    of justice is a *woman*, blind-folded, with a scale and sword.
    
    Alison

	In her book "Beloved" Toni Morrison has the following:

	"But nothing.  What's fair ain't necessarily right."

	To me this really sums up what I have been thinking about.
	Now what do I do with this concept?

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			Fair is an "outside" concept
			Right is an "inside" feeling