Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Question: lots of different-but-related topics have been combined in V3
(like Feminism).  Should we consider ourselves discouraged from started
new topics but similar, but not identical, themes?

I just ask because I think topics like Feminism or Relationships or Sexism
might be too broad, and will either *explode* into chaos, or no one will
know what to talk about, and it will die.  Now that there is a discussion
on Feminism, would a discussion on Feminism in Nepal be inappropriate?

Jus' wonderin',
D!

    D!
    
    What I would hope is that people will start up in the seed topics
    as they see fit and will spin off sub topics as they come up.
    
    Bonnie

    
    If anyone would like to somehow restart the misogyn topic
    I'd be grateful. Before it deteriorated as it did, I was trying
    to learn something from it.
    
    I'd also be interested in some dialogue about "debate" that
    was raised in the last day or so, I think by Mr. Nichols.
    
    						Thanks
    
    							Hank

    
    Re: Misogyny topic...
    Herb, maybe my choice of words were inappropriate.
    And I didn't want to point to any notes or people.
    I found a lot of valuable notes in that topic, but at least,
    to me, somewhere it seemed to go off and lose me.
    Thats all I meant.
    
    						Hank

    You can copy others, Mike.  Copying from mail or from a closed file is
    forbidden under policy; copying from an open file is perfectly legit.
    
    Particularly when they're virtually the same file.
    
    					   	=maggie		

Referencing 22.10:

   I didn't get "finger pointing" or "scolding" from your entry 22.4, but 
what do I know? My reactions probably don't count.

   My probably inconsequential opinion is that the word "deteriorated" is a 
fair and accurate description of what happened in WOMANNOTES V2 topic 996.

                                                         -Robert Brown III

    
    
       The following reply is being entered by a member of our community
       who wishes to remain anonymous.
      
    
       Bonnie J
       =wn= comod
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
           
          I come to =wn=V3 with high hopes of hearing and learning from
          wommyn's voices.
          
          So far, it seems as though the majority of replies in the topics
          under discussion here are men's voices.
          
          (where "topic under discussion" are _topics being discussed_ -
          this does not include moderator entries of repeated basenotes,
          replies "as moderators", intros, etc...)  An approximate count
          this weekend of replies showed 50something womyn's replies to
          70something men's replies.
          
          I find that disappointing.  As a womyn surrounded by men almost
          _all_ of the time, I would love it if this place would be a forum
          where mostly womyn's voices could be heard.
          

    re: .13
    
    maybe people are not tense behind the scenes - maybe people are polite
    behind the scenes.  I think this is a good thing - to consider the
    reactions of others to an action of your own - call it compassion or
    consideration or empathy perhaps....
    
    -Jody

    
    Dont measure yourself by what you have accomplished, but what you
    should have accomplished with your ability.
    
    Its difficult to inspire others to accomplish what you havent been
    willing to try.
    
    It is simply remarkable how the apostle Paul covered so much territory
    and accomplished so much without a car.
    
    It is not only what you do, but also what you dont do, for which you
    are accountable.
    
    The only thing in life achieved without effort is failure.
    
    
    
    
                                 Ray

    This makes the third file in which I have found Ray Moore entering
    aphorisms which he seems to be copying out of a book, sorted by
    subject.  I wish he would at least give the author and title of
    the book, and attibute the unattributable aphorisms to the popular
    and ever-busy anonymous.
    
    							Ann B.

    Ann
    
    as I recall Ray almost never answers comments made on his notes.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Could we possibly move note 6.1 from the note on "Our Milestones and
    Accomplisments" to another note (Quotable Gender-Neutral) ?
    
    It's totally out of the subject.
    
    Thank you.
    Joana

    Joana
    
    It's already been taken care of thanks.
    
    It is helpful if requests like yours are sent directly to the mods
    in mail, we are more apt to notice them in a timely fashion.
    
    Thankyou
    
    Bonnie J
    

    And Bonnie, as I recall, Ray's notes have been discussed in the context
    of the trashnotes policy also.  The current crop isn't inflammatory,
    but I don't mind offering the reminder just in case they become so.
    
    DougO

    Doug, I can't say I agree with most things Ray writes.
    
    However, I find your public finger-pointing at his notes in
    another conference - in a not-so-subtle attempt to embarass him - 
    to be rather offensive.
    
    A favorite closing line of some contributors here is "It's beneath
    you."
    
    Well, maybe it isn't.
    
      Alan                                         

    	One suggestion I'd like to make about the new conference...
    
    	It would be great if we could attempt to confine "processing"
    	discussions to this topic ("The Processing Topic") rather than
    	starting mini-processing discussions all over the conference
    	(in topics about other subjects and in new basenotes that attempt
    	to raise individual processing points as entire discussions unto
    	themselves.)
    
    	The Processing Topic was originally started with Version 2 of the
    	file (after some serious problems with Version 1 being plagued
    	with processing discussions nearly *everywhere* in the file.)
    
    	The processing discussions had such a crippling effect on Version 1
    	at one point that a 90 day ban had to be imposed on the file (such
    	that *all* processing points were summarily deleted for this period
    	so that the conference could conduct normal operations.)
    
    	As fascinating as some people think it is to discuss the file on a
    	non-stop basis (along with sprinkling comments about whether or not
    	they like a certain noters' "tone" in the middle of a discussion,)
    	there is nothing very appealing about a conference whose main focus
    	(ALL OVER THE CONFERENCE) is "talking about the way we want to talk."
    
    	It reminds me of business meetings where they spend so much time
    	trying to decide "what to discuss and decide" that they never get 
    	down to actually "discussing and deciding" anything of relevence.
    
    	Let's keep the processing discussions here, at least.  OK?  Some
    	conferences don't even *allow* processing to be discussed, after
    	all, so it's no great loss to try to keep our process points in
    	one topic.
    
    	Thanks much.

    Thank you Suzanne for your suggestion. I heartily concur.
    
    Bonnie J
    
    =wn= comod

    Um, Alan, that was a public finger pointing at MY note,
    specifically the one where I discussed trashnotes policy
    as in, the topic at hand.  Sorry you didn't find it to
    be appropriate; my intent was not to attempt to embarrass
    Ray.  It was to back up my claim that trashnote policy had
    been raised with reference to this noter before.  But I'm
    a little surprised that you think a reference to a publicly
    posted note could embarass the person who wrote it.  If it
    were to be found embarassing, that's the writer's problem,
    not that of the referral agent.  You can't make *me* feel
    guilty for remembering the last time one of his notes caused
    a firestorm and moderator action.
    
    DougO

    
    
    Mike,
    
    I believe that Maggie's 1.0 covers the issue of staying on topic and 
    starting new basenotes for new issues that come up in a discussion.  
    
    Justine

    
    1) Watch out for bait, folks.  It sometimes comes from unexpected
       sources.
    
    2) IF a woman feels that her topic may be/is being railroaded by men
       (as some feel about the male violence string), why not make it FWO/FGD
    	-- or SRO/FGD if you don't want people excluded based on gender?
    
    These may not be terrific suggestions, but that string is getting
    awfully close to frustrating and losing its value.

    
    re:.31
    oh, puhleese!
    

    re .31, I think that reply really exposes why you're writing and
    reading in womannotes.  I really don't think you're here to understand
    how women feel about things, and share and learn.  Your attitude
    seems too hostile for that.
    
    I know!  How *dare* I attack your motives?
    
    Lorna
    

    re .35, "formal notice" of what?
    
    I hope I haven't placed my life in danger.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: 36  you too????   ;-)   ;-)   ;-)
    
    Anyone else out there???
    
    Just be careful, Lorna and you should be ok.  ;-)  ;-)

me too!!

(Hi Sandy, Hi Lorna)

    	RE: .43  Mike Z.
    
    	You have no figures on it, either, pal, so any statements you
    	make about the consensus of a "large number of people" carries
    	no more weight than you gave to my claim about a small minority.
    
    	> Considering all that, why don't you also consider that the fault
    	> could be in the transmission of the message?
    
    	If as many people misunderstand Womannotes as you claim, then I
    	do wonder why people get such a distorted view of this conference.
    
    	Of course, when I see the few people here who spend time paraphrasing
    	what we say for us (claiming that their versions are what we are
    	*REALLY* saying,) it doesn't surprise to me to discover that some of
    	our messages are being drowned out by this noise.
    
    	Our transmitter frequencies are being jammed, in other words.

    
    	RE: .45  Mike Z.
    
    	> No.    You're (general, plural) miscommunicating.
       
    	  No.  Our frequencies are being jammed.
    

    re .46

    With suggestions like this, you really should get a job with the
    government. Especially in Massachusetts. You'd be a natural.

    With regard to the two suggestions at hand, a few comments:
    
    > I request that the moderators collect statistics on how often the rules
    > are applied to men and how often they are applied to women.
    
    I do not see the purpose of this collection of statistics.  Please
    explain what value you see in this additional workload.  Let me explain
    further: if the rules are found to be applied to women above and beyond
    their proportional participation in the conference, that has at least
    two possible interpretations- 1, that the moderators indiscriminately
    apply the rules more to women than to men, or 2, that women break the
    rules more often than men.  (Vice versa, genderwise, the argument
    holds, of course.)  
    
    > I request that the moderators establish procedures by which to review
    > sexism in this conference and, if found, to reduce it.
    
    I beleive current moderator practice already accomplishes this,
    and wholeheartedly commend their current efforts.  What specific
    recommendations do you have for changes in their practice?  I do
    NOT AT ALL accept that the burden for improvement must fall upon 
    their initiative.  You'll have to spell out what you want, or how 
    you see this proposal of yours being implemented, because otherwise
    it amounts to an unspecific charge of negligence against their current
    moderation efforts, which charge in my eyes is not justifiable.  Get
    specific.
    
    DougO

    Dear Moderators and Members of the Community,
    
    At this time, I'd like to respectfully request that we end the policies
    of allowing voluntary participation in FWO/FGD and SRO/FGD topics.
    
    As much as I know that these voluntary policies are not discriminatory,
    it appears to me that we are being asked to pay too great a price for
    the 1% of our topics that fall under these guidelines.  
    
    The pounding we have taken in retaliation for these very few topics has 
    continued nearly non-stop since the voluntary policies' inception, and 
    there is little hope that those in opposition to the courtesies requested 
    for these topics will let up on us anytime soon about them.
    
    I'm not asking for another debate about the rightness/wrongness of this
    issue.  We've had two many of these already, and neither side has budged
    at all in the past two years about it.
    
    Let's just agree to give the policies up.  We aren't using them very
    much anyway, and they only make us targets for abuse.  Enough is enough.
    
    Again, I'd like to respectfully request that we don't debate this whole
    thing again, but rather just discuss whether or not giving the topics up
    would be a wise move at this point (for self-preservation, if nothing
    else.)
    
    As for me, I'm leaving for a week in the Womannotes Flotation Tank (call
    it  R & R!) if anyone's looking for me. ;^)  
    
    I'll be the one doing the backstroke (near my buddies.)  ;^)  
    
    - Suzanne

    I think that topic #96 should be deleted. The title is wholly inap-
    propriate for this forum. 
    
    Regards,
    Kate
    

    re:Ad
    
    I'm not reading or responding to any topics especially designed to
    antagonize. Maybe if you, and everyone else who feels the same way
    we do retaliates in this way, the harassment will stop.
    
    Kate
     

    Stop harassing this conference.
    
    Ad

    Yes. Why not?
    
    But leave this conference alone. Participate as a true participant
    and stop plaing policeman. There is NO DISCRIMINATION in this
    conference against males.
    
    Ad (MALE)

    It's likely to make the insults stop, at least until the next incident
    of what is IMO harassment starts.
    
    If "discrimination" is another word for many of us not "Valuing
    Differences" traceable to what is IMHO *incredible* arrogance, I doubt
    that it will stop discrimination.
    
    Keep on truckin, sisters & brothers...  :-)

    I agree with .71.  I have been thinking the same thing myself.

edp,

I just can't understand why it's so difficult for you to accept that in =wn=
there might be some discussions that are "women's issues", and that the noters
in this conference might want to discuss how these issues affect WOMEN.

The underlying theme of this conference is WOMEN.  Hence the topics discussed
here reflect how different issues affect WOMEN, they explore topics that 
may be of interest to WOMEN, they give insight on how WOMEN have handled 
different situations.  It's very similar to how CARBUFFS discusses issues about
cars, and how PHOTO discusses different aspects of photography.

I get the impressions that many of the men who participate here do so to get
a better understanding of how women think, how different things affect them,
the problems that we face.  I like to hear opinions from both sexes, because
it gives insight to situations from all sides.  There is no reason why men can't
note here to discuss women.

This is not a conference for bashing.  If you want to debate a topic where
both sides get "equal" time, then go back to SOAPBOX.  Because this is =wn=,
and this is a place where the bias is decidedly toward women.  If it wasn't,
then why bother to have WOMENnotes, why not just have plain notes.

If you note here, you should realize that most of the topics will be slanted
towards women's issues.  And it really bothers me how so many of the topics here
are getting trashed.  If you don't like the way things are handled here, then
just leave.  Please don't try to get us to conform to your dream of the ultimate
notes file.  It hasn't worked elsewhere, and it won't work here.

Lisa

    Let's not lump testosterone into one big poison pot -- in all honesty,
    it's not fair because there are plenty of men in this notesfile
    who are not disruptive.
    
    (brief qualifier:  I'm sure that those who have read V2 will note
    that I am far from a man-basher in this notesfile.  I support and
    encourage participation from everyone, be they men or women.)
    
    However, when a man or women becomes disruptive to the point of
    severely jarring this notesfile's content, flow, and particpation,
    I would hope that both the noting community and the moderators would
    see fit to take appropriate action.  As most of us are not moderators,
    might I suggest ignorance of particularly disruptive behavior. 
    While it is annoying to next unseen past umpteen "trash" notes,
    it is also prudent not to acknowledge, further or assist the
    introduction of umpteen more trash notes by replying.  This is a
    fair method of handling any continued disruption by any member.
    
    I would also hope that edp, while obviously quite upset with certain
    issues, would step back for a moment and take a look at what he
    is doing.  Directly to edp:  Please consider that your method of
    execution is doing nothing to alleviate the problem, rather than
    make all of us bear the brunt for trangressions committed by only
    a few.  I understand and will agree with some points of your arguments,
    but am afraid my empathy is wearing off by the extreme manner in
    which you are attempting to present them.  Please take pause and
    entertain the thought that by disrupting all of us for what some
    of us have done, you are lumping us (us=wommanotes READERS, not
    just women) in the same unfair category as I would be doing by assuming
    that all men are as bad as some men, which, as we know, is definitely
    not the case.  
    
    Can we all please (PLEASE?) learn by the mistakes and accomplishments
    made in V2 rather than rehash the battles here?  If not, can some
    action be taken that will encourage/enforce a modicum of consistency
    and decorum within this notesfile?  We need not, and cannot be all
    pleasantness and cheer, but this is a forum for discussion, not
    verbal warfare.  Already the tit for tat has begun, and it's only
    the 1st week of this newest incarnation.  :/
                   
    Thank you.

    re .76 -
    
    Trouble is, it is a no-win situation, certainly for an infrequent
    reader and even more infrequent writer like me. If I take your advice,
    then a possible constituency of opinion will not be reflected. If I
    email someone with my concerns, I run the risks, quite remote no doubt
    of being told that I am harassing. If I reply then that in itself will
    generate more debate on notes processing issues, instead of the very real
    issues that exist outside the noting world. 
    
    So its a no-win situation. 
                 
    -Shantanu
    

    
    Any chance of starting a general throw-away topic
    like the 1-900-chat in soapbox?
    I ask because sometimes I'd like to respond to note/noters
    but my response may not be appropriate or valuable to the
    topic at hand. 
    
    								Hank

    We're discussing it now, Hank (based on your request).  
    
    							=maggie

22.80>

>	Unfortunately, correcting them and pointing out the error does
>    precious little to solve the problem.

What's the problem?  (I mean, it makes no difference to me if he was
the first or the nth; the significance of his action is not diminished
by my knowing that he was not the first and only.)

CQ

          re: 95.11 (Holly Wright)

          > re: .10 You weren't even addressing him, merely "giggling"
          > behind his back).

          Right, Holly.  I wasn't addressing Ken directly.  I was
          describing the reactions I had when initially reading what he
          wrote in 95.5.  I take it you don't think that is appropriate?
          (nit:  giggling is something I do in reaction to something
          genuinely funny.  I did not "giggle".)

          > You may not agree with him but he was stating the way he sees
          > (has seen) things.

          Yes, and I was stating the way I see things (that I also cringed
          at one of his comments which reminded me of how some men justify
          rape).

          > It worries me too but instead of the tone of your reply (sorry
          > if I misread) surely you could have pointed out to him that it
          > is not always the case (try a little education).

          I wasn't under the impression he thought his experiences (seeing
          women provoking violence) was _always_ the case.  You did?

                                                       nancy b.



          re: .15 (Dana Charbonneau)

          >  WADR, some folks here are trying to deal with their own
          >  non-reasonable viewpoints. Some people can reason themselves
          >  numb, and do so.
          >  (It's a great way to avoid overwhelming emotions.)
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

          Dana, that's so true for me it stings.  (and I just thought that
          was my trick ;-)

          >  Ultimately you have to feel what you feel, and express those
          >  feelings, however reasonable or unreasonable those feelings
          >  may seem.  And sometimes you can only express those feelings
          >  in humor.

          It's an easy way out ;-).

          > This conference is not devoted solely to reason, the
          >  reasonable, and reasoning. It can be a place of healing *if
          >  people can express their feelings without being nit-picked
          >  every time they do so.*

          Thanks for saying that, Dana.  (I think it's a good point)

                                                            nancy b.



Nancy, I *liked* the way that you related the story about this guy in
another notesfile.  I liked that you said that you laughed.  The reason
I like this is because it addressed my fear.  Fear can be crippling,
even in those of us who are used to addressing the prejudice and/or
hatred in people.  Your words may have seemed unnecessary to some, but
they *helped* me.

         Carol

	This is taken from 1.7. It has apparently been repealed. When
	did this happen?

>    3) Don't make insulting comments about other people in our community. 
>    Personal shots are discourteous, unbecoming, and they violate both
>    corporate policy and ours.  
    
	I believed that when notes in this conference were complained about
	(ie for violating rule 3 given above) that they were to be hidden
	until the issue was resolved. As I have complained about two notes
	here and they have not been hidden and the issues has not been
	resolved either rule 3 or the policy on hiding protested notes
	has been repealed. How does the community feel about these,
	apparently, unannounced rule changes?

			Alfred

	PS: Only posted because I've given up waiting for a reply from
	the moderators (after over a week) on this and other issues.

    REF 22.88 by CVG::THOMPSON
    
    I received mail from Alfred 3 minutes ago complaining about my note
    22.53. I took time to extract it in case of future need, and have now
    deleted it. 
    
    Alfred, consider yourself answered.
    
    Joana

    RE: .89 Thank you. I had complained to the mods quite some time
    ago. If they did not let you know at that time that the note had
    been complained about they owe you an apology IMHO. I only sent you
    mail today after giving up on the mods. That leaves only one of the
    notes I complained about still here and unhidden. The author of that
    note has refused a request to remove it as a reply here from someone
    else and by mail from me. 

    			Alfred

    For the record, I had exchanged mail with Alfred on this at the
    time of his first complaint and was under the impression that
    the problem had been settled.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .91 I went to the mods because a previous and public complaint had been
    made (by someone else) and ignored. I should have sent mail to the
    authors at that time and I apologize. I agree that the mods should
    also have directed me to them.

    RE: .92 You are not the only mod I exchanged mail with on that issue.
    In mail I sent one of your co-mods after the last mail you and I
    exchanged I made it clear that "the protest has not been worked out."

    		Alfred

    Yup - baiting is largely a matter of perception.  And a guy predisposed
    to violence will *perceive* a bait where one not so predisposed, won't.
    So that substantiates our points, (mine, Pam Smith's, Anne's too?).
    
    There would be no "war".  There would only be people who want to 
    continue to discuss the subject, examining their own and others' beliefs,
    and people who don't want to continue.  Those who don't, can and 
    obviously sometimes do feel that people trying to get them to continue, 
    (rather than just accepting their words and asking nothing more about 
    them), are attacking their their original viewpoints rather than 
    attempting to get them to think about those viewpoints and try to
    openly examine themselves and the thought processes that led them to 
    those viewpoints.  It's usually just a question of, "Why do you think
    that?  Here's why I think this."
    
    I pick myself and my attitudes apart constantly, that's why I'm so 
    confident in what I write, (and so verbose!), and so willing to say why 
    I think what I think and how I got there.  I know why, and I know how.  
    But not all people do that.  Some just don't examine themselves and 
    their beliefs but rather select a few and accept them at face value, 
    (wherever they came from), and when asked, can't really come up with 
    why they think the way they do.  So, requests to do that can seem to 
    sound like, "Oh, yeah?  Where'd you get THAT hairbrained idea?", when no 
    such attitude is intended.  I can understand how it must seem to be 
    more of a "vicious interrogation" when one has to struggle to answer 
    the questions presented.  The questions can seem designed just to make 
    the questionee squirm, (when only a straight answer was expected).  It 
    can make one feel exposed.  To that, I can only say that ideally, we 
    should be examining our attitudes constantly to make sure we are 
    justified in holding them.  And at the very least, not just parrot 
    things in notes because as has been proven, you will most likely be 
    challenged openly to defend NOT your viewpoints, but your reasons for 
    holding them.  And that's done ONLY as a matter of interest and
    education and NOT as a fun game of exposing someone as an idiot or a
    lightweight or an inarticulate rube. 

    To follow Sandy...
    
    Back in the nineteen-twenties, my [paternal] grandfather was
    animadverting against the local politicians.  He said that he
    could do better than any of them.  MY grandmother said, "Prove
    it."
    
    So he did.
    
    Was my grandmother baiting him?  No.  She was very intelligent;
    he was very intelligent.  She thought that he could do it.  But
    he did need that push to get started.
    
    So if I request proof, it is done to produce fruitful action,
    and not simply to annoy.
    
    						Ann B.

        If a moderator states that a particular topic should not
        be discussed here, and a noter disagrees with the
        moderator's decision, then should the noter:
        
        	o  ignore the moderator and discuss the topic anyway?
        
        	o  come here to the processing topic and ask why
        	   not and give reasons why it should be okay to
        	   discuss it?
        
        Dan

    If the moderator's reason for not discussing a particular topic, or not
    discussing something in a particular way, is founded in the guidelines
    of the conference (1.*), then further discussion of the topic may be
    dealt with as deemed appropriate by the moderator.
    
    If it is a matter of opinion or taste, and is not grounded in the
    conference guidelines, discussion will probably occur about whether or
    not to continue talking about the topic, and why, and some
    consensus will probably reached at some point.
    
    Those are the two ways it can go, as far as I can see....
    
    -Jody
    

	And I believe it should be taken to MAIL rather than slugging it
out in the conference.  In the past, when I've had trouble with folks in 
conferences I moderate, I deal with it in mail, and have occaisionally had
to delete notes that attempted to bring the disagreement back into the 
conference.

[Note: The conferences I moderate do not have a "processing" topic.]

						--D

    On the other hand, Doug, this string is indeed dedicated to talking
    about how the file is/was/will be/should be administered, so it's not
    unreasonable that policy fights come here.  Of course, it is a bit
    grandstanding-looking for someone to bring a complaint here *first*,
    unless it's something where the community as a whole must be involved
    ab initio.
             
    Speaking as an individual mod, Dan, I think following the "ignore"
    course would likely get you some novel and unwelcome attention.  In
    your place, I'd follow the "justify" one, it's much more likely to be
    fruitful.
    
    As Jody says, if we think we're following 1.* then the first question
    has got to be whether the particular policy is being cited
    appropriately.  If we are applying it appropriately, then the next
    question is whether the community wants to make an exception or perhaps
    dispose of the policy altogether.

    I also think it depends on whether the co-mod's note clearly indicates
    that she is writing as a co-mod -- otherwise, I assume she is writing
    as a noter!
    
    If she is *clearly* writing as a co-mod, then I would respectfully
    refrain from discussing the topic until the disagreement was addressed
    either in this topic or by mail.
    
    However, *if she doesn't specify* that she is wearing her "co-mod hat," I
    would feel free to continue discussing the topic.
    
    In the recent chain-of-events, I felt the "hat" was sort of tossed in the
    air...
    
    :)
    Nancy

    Nancy

    in re 'hat tossed in the air'..
    agreed to a point...I obviously (as has been mentioned before)
    blew it badly in re any suggestion of a suit..

    however, each of us has been developing a style that indicates
    we are speaking as a comod - my personal one is to use my middle
    initial and (usually) put comod beneath my name..

    I'll leave it up to the rest of the comods to indicate anything
    that they feel they do in particular (other than titling something
    comods response or signing comod to indicate they are speaking
    'ex cathedra'

    :-)

    Bonnie the person describing Bonnie J the comod

    Bonnie et al,
    
    That's helpful -- I had no idea you made such a distinction via your
    signature!!  I always look for the *word* "co-mod" to tell me which
    hat a person is wearing, and I saw it in only two of that batch of
    notes.  (And I've been in =wn= for how long now???)
    
    Maybe I'm just dense, but it sure would help if y'all would come up
    with *one* way that we could apply to *each* of you so we could quickly
    and unmistakeably know!  Especially since a new noter may not even know
    the *names* of all the co-mods...
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    One way we generally do it is using the above flagging style, with the
    text "co-mod nudge", "co-moderator request", "ogress insistance", etc. 
    
    -Jody
    

    That's what I look for -- but if you (plural) aren't consistent with 
    that approach, we need to know what *else* = co-mod/ogress, etc.
    
    I would further *suggest* that the term/terms be put somewhere into 1.*
    for the sake of new noters.

          I find it interesting how the following comment, made a while ago
          in the Male Violence II: (still) The Rape of Our Liberty  topic,

          (Fred Haddock)
          95.139>     -< a few things about men >-
          95.139>     Are men inheriently violent?
          95.139>     Yes.

          is undoubtedly the biggest slam against men made in either that
          topic or topic 78 (the original topic).  And yet the author is
          the _same_ person who accused women in the same topic of:

          "male-bashing" (.83), "hate-orgy" and "hypocrisy" (.93), "hate-
          orgy" again (.109)

          Not to mention the fact that in .102, we were told we should

          (Fred Haddock)
          95.102> ...I think we should dispense with *all* generalizations.

          (recall 95.93 where *we* were accused of hypocrisy)
          (what was that saying... if you point one finger at someone else,
          you have three fingers pointing back)

          More incredible (to me) is the fact that none of the men  who
          complained about an alleged "male-bad" thesis or those who made
          it clear by their defensive posturing that they felt _personally_
          affronted by discussion of male-violence and those men *who
          commit violence*  have responded to Fred's generalization about
          men and violence.

                                                            nancy b.



    re .107
    
    I think you need to go back and read the entry again.  I was making
    the distinction between ARE MEN INHERENTLY VIOLENT and ARE MEN
    INHERENTLY ABUSIVE.  Violence or at least the capability for violence
    was (and regretfully still is) necessary for survival.  Abusiveness
    is the use of violence for *bad* purposes.  I think most who read
    the note were able to make that connection.  Therefore the lack of
    complaints.
    
    fred();

      re: 22.108 (Fred Haddock)

    > I think you need to go back and read the entry again.  

      I think you need to go back and read topics 78 and 95 again.

      And if you are going to ask us to refrain from / acuse us of
      further "hypocrisy", "temper-tantrums", "male-bashing", and 
      "hate-orgy", please do the same yourself.
 
						   nancy b.

    I don't see as I was bashing or slamming anybody.  I went back to
    generalities because there was such a hue and cry about using
    specifics about this topic.
    
    fred();

    fred
    
    and a lot of women don't think that their notes are bashing or
    slamming anybody
    
    is this an example of 'the eye�of the beholder?'
    
    Bonnie

    	RE: .111  Fred
    
    	> I don't see as I was bashing or slamming anybody. 
    
    	Check the basenote of the topic (95.0) - I re-entered Nancy's original
    	note with disclaimers (including one about how violence is NOT linked
    	to the Y chromosome, eg. men are NOT inherently violent) because of
    	some exceptionally heated protests that were made when some men inferred
    	this very thing in topic 78.  (I guess it's ok if you say it, though.)
    
    	> I went back to generalities because there was such a hue and cry 
    	> about using specifics about this topic.
    
    	The "specifics" that were objected to were the analyses of identifiable
    	individuals lives (via the modeling of the victims of abuse in a forum
    	where a number of people have identified themselves as such.)
    
    	When it came to allowing this, you screamed and cried about having
    	your life analyzed, if you recall - so don't use it as an excuse to
    	make generalizations about the inherent nature of men as a group.

    re last few.
    
    Lincoln was wrong (or was it Shakespeer)  Some people you can't please
    no matter what you do.  Sigh.
    
    fred();

    re 113
    
    
    *	When it came to allowing this, you screamed and cried about having
    *	your life analyzed, if you recall - so don't use it as an excuse to
    *	make generalizations about the inherent nature of men as a group.
    
    My objection was to making myself cannon fodder for another hate orgy
    ( ie last few ) whech seems to happen whenever anyone makes a non-pc
    entry in WN.
    
    I have no objection to trying to hold a serious conversation about
    a serious subject, which I was trying to do after it looked like
    the note had settled down to a point that I could.
    
    fred();

    	RE: .117  Fred
    
    	>> When it came to allowing this, you screamed and cried about having
    	>> your life analyzed, if you recall - so don't use it as an excuse to
    	>> make generalizations about the inherent nature of men as a group.
    
    	> My objection was to making myself cannon fodder for another hate orgy
    	> ( ie last few ) whech seems to happen whenever anyone makes a non-pc
    	> entry in WN.
    
    	What you did was to scream and cry about why no one should dare to 
    	put YOUR life on the table, but meanwhile, if we refused to put OUR 
    	lives on the table, we weren't "facing reality" and/or we weren't 
    	willing to engage in a serious discussion of this issue.
    
    	In other words, you waged a hate orgy against us for refusing to do
    	the same thing YOU refused to do yourself!

    The following mail was sent to edp by Justine for the commoderators
    when he sent us mail about the fwo note.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod
    
From:	COGITO::SULLIVAN "Justine Sullivan CTC1-1/J3 DTN 287-3247  24-May-1990 1409" 24-MAY-1990 14:12:00.00
To:	JARETH::EDP
CC:	@COMODS,SULLIVAN
Subj:	RE: Notefile WOMANNOTES-V3 Note 154.0


Eric,

We believe that For Women Only strings do provide some value to women.
And given that the company-sponsored Stone Center Project has gotten
approval to form women-only discussion groups, we also believe that
the corporation sees value in women sharing their experience together,
as well.  

Maggie has checked with corporate personnel about the FWO strings, and
we've been told that they are acceptable as long as they are courtesy only.
So we've checked it out, and we believe there's support for FWO strings
both in the Womannotes community and in the corporation.

Justine

    Let me try to explain.
    
    Let's suppose there were some easy way to identify, on sight, lesbian
    women, gay men, and bisexual people qualifying as Kinsey 3..5.  Okay?
    
    I'd guess they constitute about 25-30% of the population.
    
    Supposing they decided one day that this discrimination b*llsh*t had
    gone on far enough, and they were going to get guns and shoot all the
    straights, take over the country.  Okay? 
    
    What would happen?  The l/g/b folks would get wiped out, right?
    
    Now, supposing the heterosexuals decided one day to get rid of the
    qu**rs once and for all by getting guns and shooting them. 
    
    What would happen?  The l/g/b folks would get wiped out, right?
    
    
    
    Members of minority groups get cut more slack because they have a
    bigger stake in not letting things get out of hand.
    
    						=maggie

    �Responding as a woman and not a moderator. I personally chose
     not to respond to or acknowledge any notes written by a man 
     in an FWO string, although I'll  be more than glad to respond to
     any man who is courteous enough to respond in the FGD string.
    
     Bonnie

    154.2, since deleted, was entered in the then FWO string as a
    self-titled "sit-in" protest.  155.2 by the same author seems to 
    have taken its place, in the current FWO string.
    
    >                  -< Notes Sit-In -- End Sexism Now! >-
    >-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > FWO topics are offensive and sexist.  No person who supports human
    > rights should participate in an FWO topic.
    
    As FWO strings are a 'courtesy' request only, and as this community 
    has supported their existence for 2 years, and as the moderators have
    repeatedly requested that discussions about the file be carried on here
    in the processing topic, I find the writing of these notes to be a
    calculated insult.  The author has previously failed to persuade us 
    to his viewpoint.  His declaration that no person "should" participate 
    remains unconvincing.
    
    And his insistence upon defiance of this community is contemptibly
    rude, the action of one who has failed to enforce his will upon the
    rest of us and resorts now to harassment.  I am disgusted.
    
    DougO

    ANd just what is that supposed to mean Bonnie?
    
    That discrimination ..er I mean notes specially requesting males to go
    elsewhere is sanctioned by personnel?
    
    In my opinion, sounds the same as requesting that black people go to a
    spacific part of a restaurant or vehicle..... Of course, I am sure that
    you disagree with that.....
    

    re: .138
    
    It seems to me that a courteous request, which is how Personnel
    says FWOs should be handled, is significantly different from a 
    forceful prohibition which is how racial segregation was done.
    
    Steve

    Come on guys. Racial segregation has caused an underclass. It has
    caused people to be undereducated and hungry. It has hurt people
    of color for hundreds of years.
    
    What harm has an FWO note done to you lately, Steve, Mike, Al etc?
    
    As a friend of mine once said and I quote, "An ocean is water. A drop
    is water. Can you drown in a drop of water?" Doubt it. But let's prove
    a point here, right. Lets go in and harass the women. Kind of like an
    electronic panty raid.
    
    Kate
        

    re: .140 (Kate)
    
    � What harm has an FWO note done to you lately, Steve. . .?
    
    Perhaps I was unclear in my reply to Al.  What I was trying 
    to indicate was that I believe that FWOs are not "discrimination"
    in the sense that Al suggests.  For the record, I support FWOs
    and similar conventions and disagree heartily with the contention
    that they are "sexist".
    
    Steve

    Personally, I like it the way it is. I have been politely asked to
    honor a system where women can discuss among themselves, issues of
    concern to them. I think it is the best of both worlds. I can gain by
    being privy to their conversations among themselves and can, by just
    going to the next NOTE, voice my own oppinion. I think that I gain by
    this. People will often say things to their own gender that they
    wouldn't dream of saying to opposite sex. Even in an open forum such as
    is provided here. I will continue to do as requested an honor their
    simple request. I don't know about the rest of the guys but I just
    think of it as part of my own personal growth. Thank you.
    
    Phil

    RE: 140
    
    WELL!  I guess you jes told me...didnt you!
    
    For YOUR info, I somewhat support the damn things!  that is to say, I
    NEVER intentionally (I accidently did yesterday and bonnie assisted me
    in correcting that) enter in FWO strings!  I do NOT AGREE WITH THEM,
    BUT I HONOR THEM!  SO BEFORE YOU GO AND JUMP ON THE OLE BASH THE NON PC
    MALE, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!!!
    
    If I sound steamed, I FREAKIN AM!  I DO NOT like being labeled nor
    accused of things that I DO NOT DO!
    
    Seriouslt miffed!
    

    I am glad that some men (recently, Phil and Steve) support FWO strings. 
    Thank you; I'm glad you feel you get something out of them.
    
    I am glad that some men (recently, Al) respect FWO strings, even though
    they don't really agree about them.  Thank you.
    
    I am sorry that some men interpret being told that they are not woman
    as being told that they are not human beings.  I am sorry that you feel
    that way, edp, and I mean that sincerely.  We look at this issue in
    very different ways.
    
    Pam

    Note 22.127 has now been set /nohidden.  I had hidden it myself
    immediately after writing because the offending notes in question
    had been deleted.  Sadly, they've returned.
    
    DougO

    	Well, it's interesting to see how often women are screamed at
    	in this conference for "making too much" out of the widespread
    	devaluing of women that we see in our culture on a daily basis,
    	but God forbid, if women make a request for a miniscule amount
    	of space on the basis of COURTESY, then we might as well have
    	launched nuclear war heads at the cubicles of some men in this
    	file.
    
    	It's also interesting how some men scream at us about not being
    	blamed for the things other men have done, yet our small request
    	for courtesy is now being held up as being accountable for EVERY
    	OUNCE OF PAIN THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL MAN HAS EVER BEEN SUBJECTED TO
    	IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE (FROM THE DAY HE WAS BORN.)
    
    	Of course, he is entitled to his anger for his pain (and it's ok
    	for him to take a lifetime of pain out on the women here,) but
    	God forbid if we ever do anything that reflects the anger we've
    	felt (in even the tiniest, most minute way.)  If any side-product
    	of OUR anger manages to affect him in any way whatsoever, then 
    	we've declared him to be a NON-HUMAN (although we're ALL fair game
    	for his anger about his entire life.)
    
    	Well, the only solution, it seems, is for women to walk on eggs
    	in this conference.  Men can rail and scream at women in any
    	conference they want (and I see it on the net every day,) but
    	God forbid that women ever say a word that could be considered
    	less than totally flattering to men in any way (or risk being
    	accused of depriving some men of their RIGHT TO BE HUMAN.)
    
    	This is one of the clearest demonstrations I've ever seen of
    	how women are treated in our society (in general.)
    
    	Women's status is so low in our society that even the tiniest request 
    	for courtesy is considered the HEIGHT OF INSULT to some men, whose 
    	boots we don't even deserve to lick, evidently.

FWO is a reasonable request to make about creating gender-specific space.
As long as it requested out of politeness, we should respect the request
out of politeness and courtesy.  I do not view FWO, for the majority of 
the =wn= community, as male-bashing, but rather woman-confirming. I can 
dig it.  Have at it.  That's my vote.

Mark [male] Metcalfe

    re: 155.10 (-- edp)
    
    � This topic hurts people.
    
    I believe you're stating that incorrectly.  Or, to use the
    words you chose (in 22.125), 
    
      "Wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG."
    
    If you'd said "This topic hurts me", I'd be willing accept that
    even though I cannot understand your point of view.  However, I 
    reject the idea that you speak for "people".
    
    Steve

    I'm sorry that I included Steve Mallett in my blasting in note 22.140.
    I misread him. Stupid me. I should read before I flame.
    
    AL, When you make reference to racial segregation and FWO strings in
    the same sentence you insult all people of color IMO. That's why you
    were flamed.
    
    Kate

    Thanks, Kate.  Incidentally, I took no offense; misunder-
    standings happen from time to time.
    
    Steve
    
    Btw, I consider it a mark of honor and courage when a person 
    is willing to make an apology in a public medium like NOTES.
    To you, Kate, and all those who've been willing to honestly
    share your humanity that way, I tip my hat.

           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 140.13               Stephen Pierce Anti-gay Bill                  13 of 15
SAFETY::TOOHEY                                        9 lines  24-MAY-1990 16:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
      I realize this is becoming a rathole, but I have a question about
      1.7.4.  It says 'Don't make insulting comments about minority ethnic
      groups, even in jest or irony.' Why 'minority ethnic groups' instead
      of just 'ethnic groups'? The way it is phrased implys that it is O.K.
      to make insulting comments about majority groups.
    
    

    Mike, it was I who moved your note...after moving Bonnie's, to which it
    was a reply.  I moved them both here, since they were both "processing";
    why Bonnie's isn't still here I don't know, but the one I moved didn't 
    have a mod flag on it.  I suspect that they were both in 154, and that
    the explanation is simple, but right now I feel pretty upset myself
    about all this because I acted in good faith but now look like I did
    something sleazy.
    
    		       					=maggie			

    	RE: .155  Maggie
    
    	> Mike, it was I who moved your note...after moving Bonnie's, to which 
    	> it was a reply.  I moved them both here, since they were both 
    	> "processing";
    
    	This was obvious to me as soon as Mike Z. made his accusation.  Your
    	action was consistent with other cases of moving "processing" notes
    	to this topic (to keep from having "processing discussions" breaking
    	out all over the conference.)
    
    	> ...right now I feel pretty upset myself about all this because I 
    	> acted in good faith but now look like I did something sleazy.
    
    	Not to worry, Maggie.  My guess is that only a very small minority
    	of people were fooled by the way he worded his diatribe.
    
    	The fairness and infinite patience of the Womannotes moderators
    	is well known to those of us who care!
    

    
    	RE: .158  Mike Z.
    
    	As I stated in my note, my criticism involved the way you worded
    	your diatribe (which ended up making some rather sleazy implications
    	of other people's motives.)
    
    	> Contrary to popular belief, I can not read minds.
    
    	In that case, perhaps you should refrain from writing notes implying
    	that you can.
    

    I have been a "read only" follower of -WN- for over a year and have
    found this conference to extremely valuable in helping me identify &
    understand issues that affect women differently than men.  I beleive
    that the FWO topics are important and should be respected by the male
    participants.  The reason I have chosen to remain read=only untill
    today is that I personally feel that this conference should be a forum
    for discussions by Women only, unless they specifically request male
    input, by way of a "FGD" heading.  I realize that there are some
    members of the male -WN- contributer that would probably go beserk if
    this were the case, but then they already become crazed at "FWO"s and
    who cares if they do?  Women-notes can be a great idea sharing &
    support group forum for women and a conference where men can begin to
    understand the issue that affect women.  If someone becomes offended by
    the remarks made in this conference, and feel that as a male they are
    being unjustly bashed, I would suggest that they utilize the "delete
    entry" function.  I view one of the purposes of this notes file is to
    understand the differences in others, not to try to mold others into my
    image of "what should be".
    

    Ref. -1: I apologize for the grammatical errors in my previous note. 
    Guess I need to figure out how to edit in VAXNOTES!
    
    Frank Reams
    

    
    	RE: .162  Mike Z.
    
    	The sleazy implications of your note were spelled out about as
    	clearly as you could make them.
    
    	However, I do accept the apology for your words (as written.)
    

.162

Hey, isn't there a flag somewhere when someone apologizes for someone
else's flaw?  The old, "Say you're sorry."  "I'm sorry you feel that way."
not, "I'm sorry I made you feel that way."

- just causing trouble!  ;-)

Mark

There appears to be a premise currently extant among some of those posting
notes here that one of the purposes of this conference is to provide a 
space which is free of sexism.

I submit that such a purpose is not, in fact, what this file is or has been 
about.  It is, for me at least, instead a place where I, as a woman, can be,
for a brief moment out of my day, in the majority.  A place where my views
carry significant weight, where I am heard instead of ignored or interrupted.
A place where I can explore, with others of my background, how the world has
worked for us, so that when we re-enter that world we do so with renewed 
energy and knowledge that much of the garbage encountered daily is not meant
personally.  (I can imagine this purpose to be met in Blacknotes and Bagels
for those of other, minority backgrounds.  I don't know, because I don't
read those files.)  A place to imagine what a non-sexist (or invertly sexist)
world would/could be like.  =wn= can be, although it hasn't been for a couple 
of months now, a place for compassionate support when encountering problems 
where women are the primary victims.

In order to meet the goals which I have for the file, it will, of necessity,
be sexist.  (Imagining non-sexism is different from *being* non-sexist.)  
Out of the thousands of files active within Digital, this is the only one 
where the default sexism is the inverse of societal norms.  Quite frankly, 
I don't understand why this is such a problem.  It does seem to be very 
threatening to some percentage of those involved with the file.

When an individual feels threatened, there are 3 courses of action that can
be taken.  The first is to attack (or strike back, depending on your view-
point).  The second is to flee, leaving the scene.  The third is to attempt
to stay, but listen and learn - trying to identify *why* one is threatened,
and determine if the threat is real or simply misperception.  (I submit that
in a notes file, most threat is misperception.)  For those who are among the 
threatened, please, try the third way, and if that doesn't work, use the 
second.  I suffer enough attacks in the outside world, I don't need them here.

Alison 

    Mark,
    
    To *really* make trouble, you should note that that form is
    traditionally used by children and politicians.
    
    						Ann B.

Re: .166  Ann, I hope you meant some other Mark because I do not understand
your context.

Re: .165  Alison, I think =wn= should be predominantly female contributions.
But I can say that if I continued in a read-only fashion rather than to
pariticipate in the exchange of ideas, I would think that all feminists
are "glass chewers" instead of the spectrum of feminism I have encountered,
and there are many other notions that the exchange of ideas can clarify.
IMO, topics of interest to women can be also discussed by the male population.
Supportive of women - definitely; non-sexist - would be very nice; 
inverted sexism - can only be destructive.  It's not my file; I'm a guest
and I view it that way, but stifling (inverted sexism) only perpetuates
a bad system in a different flavor.  I choose the fourth alternative and
participate (hopefully in a positive manner).

Mark [male] Metcalfe

    
    	Is it just my misperception, or are there relatively few
    	women writing in =wn= these days ?
    
    	Where did all the women go?
    
    						nancy b.
    

    I think when the "noise-to-signal" ratio gets too high, we quiet down
    for a while until the dust settles.  It's hard to speak gently when no
    one can hear, and I prefer not to scream if at all possible.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    I have been mostly read only because I am here to share and interact
    with women not to argue with men. 
    
    +pat+

    I agree with Alison 100%.
    
    Womannotes exists for me as a place to talk about issues I am
    interested in as a woman.  Men are free to listen, and add *some*
    comments -- and I do try to help them understand women because it will
    help us all -- but I *really* am more interested in hearing what women
    have to say here.  More men write in womannotes than in mennotes, from
    my observation of the two files.  I find that truly odd.
    
    Womannotes is not designed to portray the perfect nonsexist society. 
    In some ways, it is a place to point out where sexism exists in our
    current society; and as women we tend to notice the sexism that affects
    us.  So sue us, our attention is skewed toward ourselves!  Why is that
    so hard to take?  Mennotes is the place where sexism that affects men
    can be written about.  
    
    Perhaps those people who want a completely nonsexist notesfile should
    begin their own, with that as their charter:  Peoplenotes.  But please,
    do not criticize this notesfile for not being what you expected it to
    be, or try to force it into your own image...everybody loses.
    
    Mark, regarding Alison's comment about imagining an inversely sexist
    society, she did not necessarily mean a negative "putting down men"
    kind of society.  What I imagined when I read "inversely sexist" was a
    woman-centered society -- how would this society run, what would be
    important to people, what would interactions between people be like,
    how would women be respected, what would be done differently than in
    our current man-centered society?  So, thinking about how women would
    run things rather than concentrating on how to make men suffer.  The
    word "sexist" is a loaded one, unfortunately.
    
    Nancy, I know what you mean.  
    
    Pam

>    Mark, regarding Alison's comment about imagining an inversely sexist
>    society, she did not necessarily mean a negative "putting down men"
>    kind of society.  What I imagined when I read "inversely sexist" was a
>    woman-centered society -- how would this society run, what would be
>    important to people, what would interactions between people be like,
>    how would women be respected, what would be done differently than in
>    our current man-centered society?  So, thinking about how women would
>    run things rather than concentrating on how to make men suffer.  The
>    word "sexist" is a loaded one, unfortunately.
    
I am all for this type of "inverted sexism" in this conference.  Make it 
woman-centered, woman dominated, that's fine and I'd even encourage it.
In the "current man-centered society," women have a minority voice and 
not a few women make very positive impacts on that society.  All I want to
add as a [positive] minority voice in *this* society (the word community 
is more often used), which would make it inverted (and thereby learn, perhaps).
Negative-putting-men-out is exclusive and *counterproductive*.  Education
is productive, and the best education is participative (hands-on).

I'm not here to steal space, to argue (negative connotation) but rather
discuss different perspectives (in some cases only; in others, just to
add something positive).

Mark M (MM might be sufficient to distinguish Marks?)

    We are not concerned with only one-half the problem.
    
    Why is it so hard to let women have a place to share with one another? 
    Men have mennotes to share with one another.  And they complain plenty
    about the way they are being mistreated and the problems they have and
    how difficult it is to be men and how things are unfair.  I don't tread
    on their right or space to do that - I value their need for their space
    to discuss and vent and explore and respond to one another and I may
    share in their space if I feel I have something to add to their
    conversation.  But I don't deny them their right to do it there.
    
    Why not give women the same rights here, in womannotes, a notesfile
    dedicated to topics of interest to women?
    
    -Jody
    

    And why do we have to defend our space here?
    
    Why did I just go and write a whole explanation defending why we're
    doing what we're doing?
    
    Why do I believe that if I try hard enough to explain that those who
    don't already understand will COME TO UNDERSTAND?
    
    -Jody
    

re: .175

Now _those_ are good questions Jody! I think it is hard to shake the
belief/desire that if I explain just one more time, in better, kinder, more
intuitive, words, that I will create a bond with someone who will pull with me
towards the stated goals.

But sometimes, you've just gotta pick and choose your potential mates.
	Mez

Nancy,

Some of us are just way too busy, advancing our careers so that we can someday
mentor the next generation of technical women.  :-)

And I haven't found most of the V3 topics particularly inspiring.

D!

    re: .179

>	Tell me again how your actions must be defended.
    
    Aha!  I begin to see the light!  See!  I'm learning!
    
    The answer is:
    
    THEY DON'T!
    
    -Jody
    
    

    Maybe this needs to be said explicitly.
    
    Womannotes does not exist for the purpose of educating men.  It exists
    for WOMEN.  Women sharing thoughts, perceptions, experiences, insights,
    ideas.  If men learn something from all this, that is a plus.  But it
    is not the main goal.  Explaining and defending ourselves to you
    constantly is not a lot of fun.
    
    Men are not "unwelcome."  Men's notes are not always unwelcome.  Your
    educational needs are *not* at the forefront, though.  Sometimes
    education is best hands-on; sometimes it is best to sit back and listen
    and observe to discover the subtleties for yourself.  
    
    Pam

    re: .182  mike z
    
    Thank you for sharing, Mike.
    
    Pam

And to defend myself, education is a byproduct of intercourse.  It isn't
the primary goal by it can be a byproduct.  To refresh memories, here's
a portion of note 22.173 which doesn't see my main goal as being educated
either, but it certainly has been a learning experience nonetheless.

.173> I'm not here to steal space, to argue (negative connotation) but rather
.173> discuss different perspectives (in some cases only; in others, just to
.173> add something positive).

Mark

    re Alison's .165 & nancy's musings on where we all went
    
    I originally used =wn= as a woman-space.  There was no strong
    woman-space in my old job, so I *needed* =wn=.  When I *need*
    something, I am willing to cope with a lot of horse-hockey to get it. 
    
    Now that I am in a much more woman-centered job, my *need* is much
    less.  I no longer need tolerate what I consider to be excessive and
    abusive from certain angry/unhappy/insecure/disturbed individuals who
    seem attracted to this file.
    
    I come to ask questions of some of the wise crones, glass chewing
    lesbian radical commie pinko feminists, and exceptionally wonderful
    people I have come to know.  I enjoy socializing with them.  But I stop
    participating when the, er, less admirable folks drown out their
    replies.
    
    lt

    I'm here to learn and as was stated elsewhere, that is a good biproduct
    of this file. I'm still mostly read. Every so often I will make a
    statement and probably be properly rebuked of kindly corrected. All
    well and good. I'll never be so old that I can't learn and I'm
    certainly no longer so young that I think I know everything. I don't
    participate as much as I'd like to because generally I don't know
    enough about a given topic to not look dumb in the context of the
    statement. I will ask a lot of questions on those things that interest
    me and I hope that these will always be welcome. I do see this as a
    file for women to get together and discuss the issues and even the
    personal problems and everyday happenings that affect them as women and
    as people. Hopefully by listening and being receptive to these thoughts
    and feelings expressed here, I'll be better prepared to insert myself
    into any given situation in the "outside world". Thank you for allowing
    to be part and privy to your discussions.
    
    Phil

    
    Mike, you are being a bad sport. 
    
    Its like hitting a girl - reprehensible no matter what the
    provocation.
    
    Let the crones chew their glass in private...

The major underlying attitude I notice with all the objections to the
way the file operates seems to be that if women are the ones who are
"so concerned" with equality, they'd better demonstrate it in every
single aspect of their lives if they want to be heard.  The error in
this thinking lies in the assumption that women who write in this file
want *men* to hear them - that even the file, like life, is or should 
be, men centered.  Sure, it's women talking, but some seem to think that
men should be the whole point of it whether it's talk about how to get 
them to marry us or how to get them to listen to us.  One reply by a man
here said that he wrote in womannotes because if he didn't, he would think 
women were all glass-chewers or something like that.  Think about it.  Do 
we become transformed in their eyes if no man is in our midst?  Is this
really an admission of a belief that men give women "legitimacy"?

We get threatened with what goes on in life, ("You want equality?"),
by men who want to control what goes on in notes, ("...then speak this way,
say this or don't say that").  But the truth is out that what goes on
in life isn't affected by a Digital notesfile, for heaven's sake.  We'll 
have equality not a minute sooner or later because of this notesfile so 
that argument is now exposed for the manipulative ploy it really is.  

The assumption we're expected to accept is that this file itself is THE 
platform from which women can institute change and therefore that's what 
they *should* be doing here and nothing else.  Is it a function of men's 
action-oriented upbringing that they simply don't value conversation for 
conversation's sake, believing that it's useless unless it results in an 
action?  Even if that's what they think, why do they feel they have the right 
to insist that we look at it that way, too?  Or is it basically an underlying 
fear of what might result if women are allowed to talk at length, uncensored,
among themselves?  A little of both? 

Right from the get-go, a male plea in this file of "do this or I won't 
listen to you", is really a pretty empty threat.  So what if they don't
listen to the words written in womannotes!  There's a sign-out note where
they can slam the door on the way out if it makes them feel better.  Do
they really think they can make us believe that they can and will take away 
women's gains if we don't acquiesce in notes?  Unfortunately, the unspoken 
assumption is that any threat from a male to a female, even a silly empty 
one, should be heeded.  Are they just trying to bully the weakest kids in 
the schoolyard?   Heck, it's not even their school!

I can't for a minute believe that young, healthy, presumably educated
males would feel even the slightest twinge of serious sexism coming from
a notesfile.  Let's get real, here.  This is not the Harvard Club or the 
"Digital" Club where policy is being made that will affect YOUR jobs or 
YOUR lives in any way.  I wonder if notesfiles in general have such
global implications to these people or is it just the one(s) in which women
are talking?

In this file, women are *discussing* the issues that affect all of our 
lives but the file itself is not such an issue nor are the discussions 
themselves issues.   The finger pointing at the moon is not the moon.  
Nothing written in this file will prevent any man from getting the job he 
deserves.  Nothing in here will ever affect his pay, his promotions, his 
sex life or anything else.

Given that fact, the motivations for the objections put forth here by some 
of the male readership are rather interesting.  Women have a real issue with 
sexism and the multitude of side issues it creates.  As a group we work 
harder, earn less and are charged more for goods and services.  We are ex-
pected to be under male control all of our lives.  Do you men, (not all of 
you, but you know who you are), really expect us to believe that your 
objections to "FWO" strings for instance, (and I'm not going to debate the 
rightness or wrongness of them, I'm just using them as an example), should 
be considered by the members and the moderators to be on par with the real 
issues women face - the issues this file was created to explore?  If so,
then you really do have an awfully inflated sense of yourselves in the
grand scheme of things.  Isn't it the accepted stereotype that men discuss
the real issues and women discuss the trivial?  There's one good one shot
down!

Can I assume that the most rabid objectors in womannotes are also patrolling
blacknotes for racism, gaynotes for discrimination agaginst heteros and
the spelunking file for not giving equal time to city folks who've never
seen a cave but want to "understand" all about them?  Or is their fervor
pretty much limited to just womannotes and women's issues in the related 
files?  If so, the motives are pretty transparent.

So the bottom line is - you wanna play here?  Welcome.  Here's the field, 
here are the rules.  Rule number one is women are going to give *themselves*
equal time.  And given how long women have been silenced by everything from 
merely ignoring us to killing us, we've got quite a few years of uninter-
rupted discourse ahead before we even get near to having equal time.  
Yes, we want equality.  And we *also* want a place to talk among ourselves 
about that and other things.  And I promise it won't hurt any men when it 
happens.  Your day-to-day lives won't change a bit but ours will be richer.
We'll be better able to handle the outer world where men patrol with real
threats and real consequences and we'll be better able to make sense of it,
better equipped to face it and institute change and better able to find
a little happiness and maybe even some success in it.  Unless of course 
that's exactly the reason for the disproportionate and totally inappropriate
amount of male anger unleashed here...
    

    
    What makes you think all men take all what's said in notes seriously?
     

    What makes you think I think that?

.188

>The major underlying attitude I notice with all the objections to the
>way the file operates seems to be that if women are the ones who are
>"so concerned" with equality, they'd better demonstrate it in every
>single aspect of their lives if they want to be heard.  The error in
>this thinking lies in the assumption that women who write in this file
>want *men* to hear them - that even the file, like life, is or should 
>be, men centered.  Sure, it's women talking, but some seem to think that
>men should be the whole point of it whether it's talk about how to get 
>them to marry us or how to get them to listen to us.  One reply by a man
>here said that he wrote in womannotes because if he didn't, he would think 
>women were all glass-chewers or something like that.  Think about it.  Do 
>we become transformed in their eyes if no man is in our midst?  Is this
>really an admission of a belief that men give women "legitimacy"?

Sandy, 

1.  The major underlying attitude you *perceive* ...
2.  What I said (yep, it was me) was that if i didn't... I might think all
    feminists were "glass-chewers" (a new term I learned here, by the way).
    
I preceive your underlying attitude to be that you, and those who share your
opinion, don't want to hear from men.  I do not perceive all women sharing your
attitude, if I perceive it correctly.  I think your assumptions are pretentious
and off-base throughout your 93-line diatribe. (Oh and that's just my opinion).

I have only seen one, maybe two [male] noters that would constitute angry
notes.

Am I a "rabid objector?"  In what way?

Mark Metcalfe

    Sorry, I'm not going to point fingers at anyone - just the moon. ;-)
    
    I wasn't "diatribing" at anyone in particular.  Jes' speaking my
    piece like you are.  Thanks for your reply.

    re .182, it was obvious.  
    
    Lorna
    

Re: .192

Well, I am a little less alarmed than I was in .191 but the moon had some of
my [mis]quotations on it, hence I couldn't help but feel included (not to 
mention being part of the male group here) in the finger pointing.  

If being included in the finger pointing was intentional, I'd much rather be 
told than have to infer it through my thick skull.

(On a side note: Is there something about the phrase "pointing
at the moon?" This canbe handles in Language, if there is.)

Mark Metcalfe

    I have a problem with using the term "pro-life" for describing a per-
    son who does not believe that abortion should be legalized because:
    
    1) To me, pro-choice IS pro-life.
    2) It makes me feel as though I am not pro-life.
    3) Anti-abortion is not an insult. That's a proper and accurate term.
    
    Kate

    Kate,
    
    We've been around this issue several times in earlier versions
    of the file and concluded that the best way to avoid offense
    and keep the peace was to stay with 'pro-choice and 'pro-life'
    i.e. the terms each group applies to themselves.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod

  I too believe that "PRO LIFE" is an incorrect term for several reasons,
  including both who the term excludes and what the term connotes about
  both the "PRO LIFERS" and the opposition.

  I had a fairly lengthy exchange yesterday with one of the moderators
  and, of course, no minds were changed.  I still think "the words"
  are one of the most important issues in the entire abortion debate,
  but it appears to be one which most of the participants in this
  file are not willing to face (again).  And if that's the case, I
  suppose I'm forced (by moderator coercion, if necessary) to honor
  the majority's objections to discussing this yet again.

                                   Atlant

    re: .197 (Atlant)
    
    � I still think "the words" are one of the most important issues 
    � in the entire abortion debate, but it appears to be one which 
    � most of the participants in this file are not willing to face (again).

    I'm uncomfortable with your choice of the phrase "not willing to
    face" because it seems to suggest some form of cowardice.  The
    way I see it, the issue of what labels to apply to each group
    has been discussed repeatedly and at length and the policy
    of refraining from "anti" labels amounts to a sensible and
    constructive truce. 
    
    Those who call themselves "pro-lifers" object to labels applied 
    by the opposition (e.g. "anti-choice").  In like fashion, 
    "pro-choice" advocates resent their opponents' use of phrases
    such as "anti-life".  It seems to me that the use of "anti"
    labels serves little purpose other than to antagonize the opposition.
    More importantly, I can't see that either side has, objectively, a 
    more valid argument for using "anti" labels about the opposition
    (i.e. each side can present valid arguments for using phrases
    it's opponents consider pejorative).
    
    Far from being "not willing" to confront this issue, I think the
    moderators' policy here reflects the opposite.  It seems to me
    that they've confronted the language question repeatedly over the 
    last couple of years and chosen the most constructive policy  
    possible.  Each camp could (and did) go back and forth with the
    "anti-" labels yielding, in the end, little more than increased
    hostility.
    
    Steve

    Thank you Steve
    
    your response is indeed a close reading of the moderators understanding
    of this issue.
    
    Bonnie J

    In addition, since it is a highly polarized topic, it reduces some of
    the friction by at least having each group called the name it generally
    chooses to give itself, which reduces pejoratives and name-calling and
    moral slurring via mis-naming that is against the groundrules for
    discussion of abortion posted in 49.0.  
    
    -Jody
    

           <<< RANGER::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 22.198                   The Processing Topic                    198 of 200
    
    
RE: 197 FRSBEE::MALLETT--
    
   > Those who call themselves "pro-lifers" object to labels applied 
   > by the opposition (e.g. "anti-choice").  In like fashion, 
   > "pro-choice" advocates resent their opponents' use of phrases
   > such as "anti-life
      
   >   Each camp could (and did) go back and forth with the
   > "anti-" labels yielding, in the end, little more than increased
   > hostility.
    
    
    Steve,
    
    I see a big difference between "anti-abortion" and "anti-choice." I
    would think that one who does not believe in abortion would not mind
    the term "anti-abortion." I do not feel safe with neuclear energy. I
    would not mind at all being called "anti-nuclear". But my neice and ne-
    phews call me Anti Kate.:^).
    
    But seriously folks. I am a Democrat. If members of the Republican
    Party asked me to refer to them as "The Saviors of Western Civil-
    ization", I would have a problem with that also. It would seem to ap-
    pear a superiority. I think the term "pro-life" has that connotation."
    
    I won't write anymore on this topic. I will honor the decisions of the
    moderators. Sorry to be so contrary but it's really the way I feel.
    
    Kate
    
    Steve
    

    re .195, .197, .201, I feel the same way.  I figure if I ever need
    to I could get around it by referring to - the people who think that
    abortion should be illegal.  (I, personally, have no intention of
    using the term "pro-life.")
    
    Lorna
    

          re: .170 (Pat Jeffries)

          One way I was able to share thoughts and feelings of importance
          to me on a certain issue with other women (and _without_ watching
          the subject get redirected by the same few  boys  making the same
          predictable arguments that redirect every topic here)  was via
          mail.  On an issue I'd been thinking about for a while, I sent 2
          others mail about it, and an interesting discussion developed.

                                                       nancy b.



    Hmm so obviously you have no problem with the term girl then right
    Nancy?
    
    

    Only if she had been behaving like an irresponsible child, Al.
    
    							Ann B.

    Actually, Al, Nancy is not the only female noter in this Conference
    to use the word "boy".
    
    Dawn Evans and Sandy Ciccolini tend to use it when they're trying
    to score a few putdown points.
    
    Most of the time, though, most of the males in -WN- *don't* react,
    negatively or positively.
    
    Hell, I don't mind being called a boy. And I suspect, many men here
    don't care.  
    
    But still they try to get us to react.
    
      Alan

    Alan,
    
    How clever of you to be able to know the motivations of women so
    surely and completely.  Do you think there are any people capable
    of being so certain of *your* motives?
    
    						Ann B.

    My dear Ann. I'm sure there are people who are capable of discerning
    my motives.
    
    You, however, are not one of them, nor have you ever been.
    
      Alan

    If you have questions about the course itself, they should go in the
    note itself.  Questions about the appropriateness of the note for the
    conference should be sent to the co-moderators first (and yes we are
    working on it), and then brought to the Processing Topic.
    
    Thank you for asking
    
    -Jody Bobbitt
    co-moderator
    

    Oh, wow!  A prophet!  When do your words get put into the Bible?
    
    							Ann B.

    Mr. Ross,
    
    I am glad you understand my motives. It is a real burden to be
    misunderstood, and since we now know that you understand the motives
    of the women in this file, we can all rest more easily.
    
    That you do not react to the obvious attempts to get a rise out of
    you is a tribute to your "personhood". And surely proves that you
    do indeed understand why and when women object to being called "girl".
    
    Thank you for your support and understanding.
    
    --DE
    

    Understood Ann.  Ya see, the problem is though, as I see it, is that I
    give total respect UNTIL shown disrespect.  I have made it a personal
    policy NOT to use spacific words that have been noted to be offensive,
    yet the male version of these such offensive words are readily used
    with ease.  How can a new aged kinda guy, such as meself, show respect
    (by not using words like 'girl') when said respect is absent?
    
    I mean, taint no big thang, but I honestly want to know....
    
    RE: Whomever
    
    So, using that metality, it is acceptable for a male to use the word
    'girl' when searchin for a "rise"?  it it acceptable to use said term
    when a woman is "behaving like an irresponsible child"?
    
    

    Ann and Dawn, go to your rooms!  I'll go to mine right after I control
    Z here.  ;-)
    
    Sorry to disappoint, Alan, but I take no special delight in trying to 
    upset male noters with the use of the word boy so don't flatter yourself.
    I'd have to feel awfully powerless to get my jollies by riling up the 
    males in a notesfile and frankly, I don't.  This is JUST a notesfile!
    
    As for me being called girl, I couldn't care less unless done by my boss,
    potential boss or co-worker, none of which you are.  You're just
    another noter, Alan, and you're no big deal to me.  No threat, no icon
    I need to topple, no superior I need to cut down to size. 
    
    So please don't go assuming that I'm begging and pleading with you nice 
    men in womannotes for a public display of respect, (even an empty one) 
    by asking that you refrain from calling me a girl, and by calling you a 
    boy in retaliation.  How childish.  Grow up.  Sometimes I think some of 
    you guys really lose perspective here.  And I'm not sure it's perspective
    on the file or on yourselves.               

    RE: Sandy
    
    No TV and no dinner?
    
    RE: Al
    
    Are you saying that it's common practice for the women in this file
    to call men  'boys'? That it happens all the time?  I would say that
    it happens very ocassionally (statistics? Well, maybe an average of 
    once every 6 months or so?) and usually only to demonstrate a point.
    
    Have I missed something? 
    
    --DE
    

    RE: last few... why the hell bother... teaching you all is too
    much of a pain.....

    You're trying to "teach" us something?  No wonder it's so much of a
    pain for you.  I think you've got the wrong conference.  This is
    womannotes - topics of interest to women.  We get plenty of "teaching"
    from men in every other area of our lives, thanx.

re:                    <<< Note 22.218 by GEMVAX::CICCOLINI >>>
                           -< Please, don't bother! >-

�    You're trying to "teach" us something?  No wonder it's so much of a
�    pain for you.  I think you've got the wrong conference.  This is
�    womannotes - topics of interest to women.  We get plenty of "teaching"
�    from men in every other area of our lives, thanx.

    I think I understand the first part of this, I'm not sure about the
    last sentence.
    
    Does this mean that you believe that you have nothing to learn from any
    man, the men in this conference, or something else entirely?  Or am I
    totally missing the point?
    
    Bob

	
	re: .217 and his others (Al Martin)

	Al, dontcha see the diferunce betwen the way I used "boy"
	to deskribe a few of the men here, and the way women are
	refered  to as "girls"?   gues not....

> ... why the hell bother... teaching you all is too much of a pain.....

	Actually, I was recently enlightened to the fact that 
	the (few)  boys  of this file who proudly wear their 
	MCP badges and act as thought there's something wrong with 
	_us_ are probably some of the best "teachers" to the readers 
	here out of all of us as to why a struggle for equality exists
	in the first place.

						nancy b.

    re .220
    
    Bob, there's a difference between 'learning from' and 'being
    taught'. When I was in grade school I was 'taught' whether I wanted
    to learn or not. Now I learn because I *want* to learn.
    Some folks here equate 'teaching' with 'beating it into the
    students' thick skulls', an approach to education which generally
    stinks.

    I can honestly say I have been taught nothing by some of the boys
    in this file, but gosh, am I learning!
    Maia
    

    re .221, your last paragraph, Nancy, no kidding.
    
    Lorna
    

    re: .222
    
    I could have read that into what was written as well as other things. 
    I was just looking for the author's meaning.
    
    Thanks,
    	Bob

    Do you not realise that it would be a violation of 1.7 to do so, Mike?

    I am concerned that the continued level of VAXnotes activity within our
    company may be having an adverse affect on the balance of forces
    operating within the Cosmos.  Specifically, I fear that there may be a
    finite supply of the ">" character in the universe, and it frequent use
    in notes may eventually cause us to run out of them.  This could have
    disastrous effects on noting ecology, and could in turn lead to the
    extinction of other characters in the alphabet.

    I would therefore like to propose that we establish ">" (also known
    scientifically as the species Quotus Backus Whattheotherpersonsaidus) as
    an endangered character.  I would also like to propose a recycling and
    conservation program.  With effort, I believe we can preserve the ">"
    from extinction, and thus save the universe from a potential cataclysmic
    disaster.

    I think we are still at an early stage of this problem, and so we
    should be able to promote ">" conservation without taking drastic
    measures (such as rationing.)  I say this because, as science has
    established, the loss of the ability to enter ">" into a note could
    lead to mass despair among the noting population.  The worst noting
    nightmare, as we all know, is the scenario where the ">" key is
    disabled from the noter's keyboard.  Many a noter has been awakened
    from their beds in a cold sweat over this fear. The scenario is so
    understandably terrifying because, without the ability to enter the ">"
    character into a note, the individual would be helpless, and completely
    unable to enter the note at all.  However, this nightmare is actually
    based on a completely unfounded fear, since the EDT keypad includes a
    "special insert" function which would allow the user to enter ">" even
    if the ">" key itself were disabled.  In any case, this archetypal
    noting fear should serve to remind us not to sound unnecessary alarms
    as we proceed towards ">" conservation.

    In the spirit of ">" conservation, I have begun my own collection drive.
    So far, I have a collected about a box full:

    	   ____________
    	  /   >   >   /|
    	 /   >  >    / |
    	+-----------+ >|
    	|>  >   >   |  +
    	|  >  >   > |>/
    	| >    > >  |/
    	+-----------+

    -- Mike

    thankyou mikev
    
    please accept my warm appreciation for your humor in tense times
    and shake the bells on your jester's cap.
    
    bj

    Two nits:
    
    1) You sure you got the right topic?  I woulda thought Rathole.
    
    2) Your latin is lousy:  it should be 
    
    	Quotus Backus Whattheotherpersonsaidtous
                                            ^^
       (or either your grammer, one)
       
    						=maggie

    >If the mention of the actual names is a violation, then why
    >is the vague accusation, "a few", when there are only 3 or so men
    >who she could possibly be talking about, not a violation?

    Ahem - how "vague" can it be if you say there ARE only 3 or so?  Sounds
    like you have a pretty concrete idea, as do most of us.
    
    What you call "vagueness" is really the wise refusal to play your 
    little game and get suckered into violating policy.
    
    >If Nancy would mention names, then those men could ask for the 
    >note(s) to be deleted, since the target of the insult is known.
    
    Perhaps "those men" would be nice and just back off once their names
    are named but I think we both know better.  You're coming right out and
    asking a noter to violate policy and you're trying to convince us of
    the good that can come of it.  Do you really take us for such fools?
    You say the men know who they are.  Well they haven't backed off yet,
    have they?  Seems to me they're spoiling for a fight that will let them
    "win" once and for all.  Fortunately, the women in womannotes aren't as
    easily manipulated as you seem to think!
	
    >Their only course of action seems to be to join in the game
    >and sling mud right back, but they would rather not.

    First, how do you propose to know what these men are thinking?  ;-)
    Second, I could have sworn it was you who's often said words to the
    effect that "turnabout is not fair play" and who has conveyed the 
    attitude that saying "how does it feel?" gets one nowhere closer to 
    understanding.  But now we have these poor men whose only course of
    action seems to be to "sling mud right back" even thought they don't 
    want to. What women can drive men to, huh?  Is that how you justify it
    in this case?  'Cuz women drove men to do it?  You forgot one other 
    course of action that these men who don't want to sling mud can take- 
    the signout note.  
    
    >ps: "they", "those men", etc do not refer to "all of the men", I am
    >  speaking only for 1 of the men.
    
    Uh-huh.

    Mike,
    
    Did you know that a statement like "Vague insults, innuendo,
    a little mud here and there is a game they could choose to play."
    is a self-referential statement?
    
    						Ann B.

These notes about men "teaching" women in womennotes are funny. Whatcha
tryin' to teach us fellas?

Kathy

    Sounds like you're playing your own game.  Most of the rest of us are
    just discussing topics of interest to women - and will probably
    continue to do so.  But go ahead and have fun - I mean, "interact".  
    Knock yourself out.

re:            <<< Note 83.4 by MPGS::HAMBURGER "Take Back America" >>>

>But isn't a request to go to washington for a rally lending support to
>a political campaign? 

Since we have had a clear vision of how to moderate the soliciting policy, we
have tried to make sure that _requests_ do not appear. It's the fine line
between stating that we're going and willing to help others going, vs. saying
"please come and support this".

>or even a notice that there will be an operation-
>rescue rally in Boston?

Nope. Information presentation, not solicitation (unless, of course, the notice
itself solicits).
	Mez

    I think in general a man who believes himself to be in a contest with a
    woman will more likely than not be damned before he backs down.  Given
    that, as long as women don't back down, things will escalate.  I've
    really been waiting for some kind of note, public or private,
    requesting that *I* cool it, since only a woman backing down will stop 
    the escalation.  Thankfully, that hasn't happened.  The only "contest"
    I see here is in who gets the last word in.  I just find it funny that
    a man would simply expect to have the last word in womannotes.  But
    some do, even if it's just something like "ya' can't teach 'em
    anything" or "I can play the game as well".  Pretty soon, I expect 
    we'll have a note from one of them simply saying, "Oh yeah?  Well up 
    yours!".  ;-)  Give it up, guys, and discuss topics of interest to women, 
    like the majority of men seem able to do with little problem, or go stir 
    things up elsewhere.  The macho bluster is wearing a little thin.

    RE: The macho bull
    
    Oh, so now we resort to calling each other petty names eh?  
    
    "wearing thin" ?  as in how???  I am quite surprised that you dont fall
    down from dizzyness... I mean, you do so many 180's that it is
    astounding......
    
    "Oh yeah?, well stuff it", or whatever it was.....
    
    Hmmm, if thats what it takes to help you with your blinders, then hey, 
    Ill say it to ya....:-) does the presence of smilies make the comments
    any less condenscending?  I dont think so, but I guess you do.....
    
    Ya see, I am a firm believer of "give what you get".....
    if I get ignorant, as in totally blind, comments, I shall in return
    the same.....
    
    so, as promised...
    
    
    OH YEAH??? WELL STUFF IT!
     

    re: .242
    
>    Ya see, I am a firm believer of "give what you get".....
>    if I get ignorant, as in totally blind, comments, I shall in return
>    the same.....
    
    A lot of what I get in this file, and what many people get, is cogent,
    sensitive conversation.  Yes, there are negative things here - but when
    given warmth, or sensitivity, or intelligent discussion, do you return
    the same there too?  I'm hoping people will give equal time to the
    positive aspects of the file.
    
    -Jody
    
 

    Why yes Jody, sinse you've asked... I do.....
    
    do you?
    
    But sinse they are so far and few, it is difficult to really see
    them... isnt it...

    Two random thoughts:
    
    Why is it that "you" or "they" are always the ones to be wearing
    blinders, almost never "I" or "me"?  
    
    Some think caring and support are a rare commodity in this conference 
    while others think it's a staple.  Interesting phenomenon. . .
    
    Steve

Right, Steve!  'As ye sow, so shall ye reap!'
    
AMARTIN-
    
>    Oh, so now we resort to calling each other petty names eh?  

Maybe you are.  I didn't call anyone a name.

>    "wearing thin" ?  as in how???  

As in getting boring.

>    Hmmm, if thats what it takes to help you with your blinders, then hey, 
>    Ill say it to ya....:-) 

You want to "help" me?  I'm touched.  And your method is impressive.
But what blinders do you think I have if what I predicted came true?  

Why're you so riled up?  How did you and I come to be talking between 
ourselves?  Are you representing the "3 or so" guys Mike Z, (and I), 
referred to?  Now why would you be personalizing my words?

>    Ya see, I am a firm believer of "give what you get".....

Then you should be one of the ones who has no problem with reverse
discrimination or with the media negatively stereotyping males and so on.
Is that true?  Just how "firm" is that belief?

>    OH YEAH??? WELL STUFF IT!

;-)  I'm cut to the quick.

    

>As in getting boring.

    ditto, fer sure.....
    

>You want to "help" me?  I'm touched.  And your method is impressive.
>But what blinders do you think I have if what I predicted came true?  

    The blinders I refer to are those types that only see straight ahead.
    You see all the evils that MY WHITE MALE FOREFATHERS have committed and 
    constantly accuse me (the gender) of continuing that ill.....
    
    yes, there are people out there that do indeed continue to act as such, 
    But to continuously accuse a complete gender is absurd.
    
    I myself, yes, even I unintentionally act sexist at times, but I try to
    identify it and correct it.  I am not as stupid as the white male
    gender has so been labeled.
    
>Why're you so riled up?  How did you and I come to be talking between 
>ourselves?  
    
    You made reference to my words, although, I am sure that it was indeed
    a total accident, right?
    
    forget that fast?? allow me to refresh you memory.....
    
>Note 22.240                   The Processing Topic                    240 of 246
>GEMVAX::CICCOLINI                                    14 lines   6-JUN-1990 15:18
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   > I just find it funny that
   > a man would simply expect to have the last word in womannotes.  But
   > some do, even if it's just something like "ya' can't teach 'em
   > anything" 
    
    
    Hmmm, now who be the mat� to earn such references?  Hmmm?
    
    
  >  Are you representing the "3 or so" guys Mike Z, (and I), 
>referred to?  Now why would you be personalizing my words?

    see above....
    
    
>    Ya see, I am a firm believer of "give what you get".....

Then you should be one of the ones who has no problem with reverse
discrimination or with the media negatively stereotyping males and so on.
Is that true?  
    
    WRONG!  I DO Have a problem with it.  Obviouslt you know of its
    factuality also, we're half way there then.....
    
    If, lets just say, you were to be, say, an alcoholic, lets just say....
    now, my wife is killed by a drunken driver, are you with me here? OK,
    anyhow, she is killed..... should I blame all AA type people? or that
    one spacific person?
    
    
    >Just how "firm" is that belief?

    
    see above please... thank you....
    
>>    OH YEAH??? WELL STUFF IT!

>;-)  I'm cut to the quick.
    
    DARN!, just to the quick???? Awww, Bummer!
    
    

    
    Is all this hate really genuine or just being entered for our
    entertainment? I can't believe that intelligent, professional people
    would treat each other this way in public if they were really serious.
    
    I hope it's all in fun, life is too short...
    
    wes  (-:
    

   This entry was originally going to address two things, and was going to
be placed in Topic 170.

   However, under the strange protocols of this conference, I decided that it
would be best to "split" my entry, placing part of it in 170 and the other
part here. Below, seperated and edited, is Part 1:

                        *                   *                  *


Referencing 170.16 (Suzanne):

   Though I do not condone Mike Z's use of a personal attack (which he
succinctly directed at you in 170.19), I must say that my initial emotional
reaction was similar to his (though tinged with a great deal more amusement).
This describes my INITIAL EMOTIONAL reaction; not my current feelings.

   In fact, this whole discussion is becoming more and more amusing for a
number of reasons.

   The reaction of males to the women in this conference has very little to 
do with Topic 170, but since you brought it up (and since I am always willing
do discuss male/female dynamics within this Notesfile), I will point out some 
very HUMAN patterns that I have noticed in that discussion.

   There have been a number of discussions in WOMANNOTES where a few of the
women (including you, Suzanne) have pointed out that the men in this conference
should learn to LISTEN; that they should recognize and acknowledge the 
experience and perspective of the women in this conference since, after all,
it is primarily a woman's space.

   Upon thinking about it, I found that you and the others have a point which I 
had to agree with. This is one reason why my entries have, since the
"Uncomfortable Noting" Topic in Version 2 ended,  come in cycles (another 
reason, of course, is that I have other conferences which I read and, of 
course, real work to do). During the "down cycles", I listen and watch 
intensely. My reactions to much of what I see here is still the same; the 
only difference between a "down cycle" and an "up cycle" is that during an
"up cycle" I make my reactions known.

   One reaction I've had about those who are telling men to LISTEN and to THINK
in this Notesfile is to convey the fact that an "unwillingness to listen" or
"think" is not necessarily a sexist reaction or even a reaction confined to the
men of this conference. I have attempted to convey this in some of my earliest
entries to this conference, but for various reasons I failed to do so. 

   But what amuses me about Topic 170 is that it, in microcosm, demonstrates
what I was trying to convey. The Topic begins with a woman asking the men in
this conference a sincere question. The men, in turn, have given sincere 
answers. Then other women enter the discussion (170.13 and 170.16) and question
the validity of the answers given. And in 170.16, the answers are completely
denegrated and used as a platform to discuss a completely different agenda!

   This kind of thing is done all over this Notesfile, by members of both sexes
speaking on all issues. But usually it is certain "disagreeable" men who are
called to task for even appearing to do so.

   But my main reason, Suzanne, for entering these comments on 170 is to convey
a message to you: sure, I'll acknowledge and respect your experience and
viewpoints -- but I expect you to acknowledge and respect mine, especially if
I've been ASKED for them!

                                                         -Robert Brown III

    	RE: .250  Robert
    
    	Believe me, this situation is every bit as amusing to me as it is
    	to you (but for different reasons.)
    
    	> But what amuses me about Topic 170 is that it, in microcosm, 
    	> demonstrates what I was trying to convey. The Topic begins with a 
    	> woman asking the men in this conference a sincere question. The men, 
    	> in turn, have given sincere answers. 
    
    	As I recall, your "sincere" response was something along the lines of:
    
    	     "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA"
    
    	Is this about as sincere as you get, or what?
    
    	> But my main reason, Suzanne, for entering these comments on 170 
    	> is to convey a message to you: sure, I'll acknowledge and respect 
    	> your experience and viewpoints -- but I expect you to acknowledge 
    	> and respect mine, especially if I've been ASKED for them!
    
    	Meanwhile, in the course of explaining your viewpoint, you'll laugh
    	at us - yeah, that sounds quite respectful, Robert.
    
    	Remind us to return the favor to you.

    
    	P.S.  The "us" in my note was in reference to "me plus at least
    	one other person in Womannotes."
    
    	Just to save those who might have asked from having to go to the
    	trouble.
    

Suzanne:

   Your entry 22.251 is an example of the kind of disrespect I was, by 
implication, talking about.

   Instead of taking my statements in context, you choose to use them out 
of context in order to make insulting accusations.

   Explanation: Yes, my "HAHAHA... (etc) " was a sincere answer. It 
conveyed, most graphically, that I am indeed amused by the idea of allowing 
negative images to bother me. In later entries to Topic 170, I tried to 
convey that (a) I DO take the problems caused by the stereotypes in movies 
seriously, (b) that I almost HAVE to be amused by the concept of allowing 
them to bother me, because there really isn't much I can do to stop them so 
(c) worrying about them would probably drive me insane.

   In fact, I specifically addressed the idea that I was "scoffing", in 
order to convey that I was laughing at the IDEA, not the people who have 
it.

   Yet you somehow miss all of this, choosing instead to accuse me of 
laughing at "us" (and however you define "Us" makes no difference. The 
moment you include "you" you are wrong since the entry you are referring to 
wasn't directed at you), accuse me of being incincere (in effect calling me 
a liar), and trivialize everything I have said up to this point.

   Your entry 22.251 is insulting, misses the point, and is generally 
unfair.

   I reiterate my previous message: I expect you to respect my viewpoints 
and experience -- especially when I am ASKED for them. I also state, 
publically, that I am tired of the public and MAIL attacks that you have been
making on me. I will not tolerate them anymore.

                                                          -Robert Brown III

                 "-Cause my color's Death
                   Though we all want peace
                   But our war won't end
                   'Till all wars cease!"

                                 -From the theme song of "Colors"

                                                      

    	RE: .253  Robert
    
    	> Your entry 22.251 is an example of the kind of disrespect I was, by 
	> implication, talking about.
    
    	Your entry that prompted my reply is an example of the disrespect
    	you often show to others here, even if you aren't aware of it!
    
    	> Explanation: Yes, my "HAHAHA... (etc) " was a sincere answer. It 
	> conveyed, most graphically, that I am indeed amused by the idea of 
    	> allowing negative images to bother me.
    
    	Well, I'd call "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA"
    	more than just "amused" - it's more along the lines of hysterical.
    	If you can't see the implications given by laughing hysterically 
    	when someone asks you a serious question, I doubt that I could
    	explain it to you.  It's hardly respectful, Robert.
    
    	> In fact, I specifically addressed the idea that I was "scoffing", 
    	> in order to convey that I was laughing at the IDEA, not the people 
    	> who have it.
    
    	Oh.  So you were laughing hysterically WITH the people who ask this
    	as a serious question, not AT them.  I see.
    
    	> Your entry 22.251 is insulting, misses the point, and is generally 
	> unfair.
    
    	On the contrary, I think I received your "message" quite clearly,
    	whether you delivered it deliberately and consciously or not.
    
    	> I reiterate my previous message: I expect you to respect my 
    	> viewpoints and experience -- especially when I am ASKED for them. 
    
    	If your viewpoint happens to be to laugh hysterically when someone
    	asks you a serious question (out of concern for your feelings,)
    	then don't be surprised when some people regard this behavior as
    	inappropriate.
    
    	> I also state, publically, that I am tired of the public and MAIL 
    	> attacks that you have been making on me. 
    
    	How many months has it been now since you and I voluntarily tried
    	to debate our positions through mail.  The last time it happened,
    	you copied all the moderators when you started it, as I recall.
    	
    	It's hardly fair of you to make it sound as if you've gotten mail
    	from me in this current debate (because YOU HAVEN'T!!)
    
    	> I will not tolerate them anymore.
    
  	So, what's the deal then?  You're allowed to protest here when you
    	perceive that someone has failed to show you respect, but I'm not
    	allowed to point out the same thing when you do it?
    
    	Do you feel you should have more rights in this regard than I do,
    	Robert?  If so, why?

    	RE: .257  Robert
    
    	A great many of the things you've said in Womannotes over the past
    	year or so amount to personal attacks (and now threats of official
    	involvement from the Corporation) as well.
    
    	Perhaps you don't see your notes as being insulting or attacking
    	to some people in this conference, but I differ with your opinion
    	about it!
    
    	If women are not going to be allowed to respond to attacks against
    	our conference, I'd like the Corporation to come and tell us this
    	personally (and to explain to us that we don't have as many rights
    	in this company as men are allowed to have.)
    
    	If only women are going to be suppressed in notes, then I want to
    	know why.  I seriously doubt this is the Corporation's intention.

    
    	RE: .259  Robert
    
    	The point I would like to make to you is that you should STOP attacking
    	me!  I'd also appreciate it if you would stop launching public threats
    	against me involving our employer.
    
    	If you will stop attacking me when I disagree with your viewpoints in
    	Notes, we will have no furthur need to discuss this situation between
    	us.
    
    	Stop it now!
    
    	Thanks very much for your cooperation.
    

    	RE: .261  Robert

    	When you attack Womannotes, it is often phrased as being an
    	attack against the women of the file (as if we're all part
    	of a single entity with one mindset.)

    	While I don't equate myself with the file, I do take it quite
    	personally when you attack the women here (or when you write
    	notes that are belittling or condescending to women.)  Your
    	attacks against women have prompted ALL my disagreements with
    	you, in fact.  Go back and look for yourself!

    	> It is only implied in our earlier communications, but my earlier 
	> clarifications stopped the attacks so it wasn't necessary then to 
    	> complain too much about them.

    	As I recall, our communications ended when you attacked me viciously
    	in mail by repeatedly telling me off, then ordering me not to bother
    	to reply back to you (as a sort of private exercise in getting the
    	last word with me.)  As I recall, I finally allowed you to have it.

    	> If you feel attacked, why don't you tell me so without putting a 
    	> bunch of accusations of sexist attitudes...

    	It's not my style to complain that I've been attacked each time someone
    	writes something that attempts to refute my position (even when they
    	do it with rather strong language and insult me in the process.)

    	I'd rather stand up for my viewpoint with a strong argument, even if
    	my writing style does tend to be rather outspoken at times.

     	> ...or choosing to interpret sincere attempts at clarification in the 
    	> context of some image you have of me and my attitudes (which to this 
    	> day I don't understand!) that you insist upon throwing at me? 

    	Well, I'm sure there are plenty of whites who insult minorities every
    	day of the week with condescending attitudes that they (the whites)
    	don't fully comprehend, either.  Obviously, you aren't aware of the 
    	insulting nature of some of the things you say here about women.

    	> ...I've tried to do that with you, but your attacks only get more 
    	> viscious! So now I strike back, which wastes both our time and 
	> effort.

    	Perhaps you simply don't realize how vicious your attacks against
    	women have been at times.  If you hadn't made some remarks that
    	I regarded as seriously insulting and/or condescending to women,
    	I never would have responded to you at all, most likely.

    	> Sure, I'll cooperate -- when you start cooperating as well!

    	Your insulting and/or disrespectful notes always start these frays
    	between us, so your cooperation in this is going to be essential
    	to solve the problem between us.

    	I'd appreciate it if you would get to work on it.

Wow!!! Wait till the Moderators see this string!!!!

   I wonder how much they'll delete?

                                                    -Robert Brown III

    	RE: .263  Robert
    
    	First off, you replied to an earlier version of my last entry,
    	which I significantly changed - so, much of what you wrote is
    	not applicable to my note.  (Just wanted to make this clear.)
    
    	> We have a difference of opinion here. I stand by what I said: YOU 
	> started the attacks. You may have felt that you were defending 
    	> "women", but the first personal attacks were always begun by YOU.
    
    	Wrong!  I was responding to vicious comments you made that amounted
    	to attacks against Womannotes or women. 
    
    	> The end of our MAIL conflict occurred with two messages that I 
    	> sent to you...
    
    	Both of which were highly vicious personal attacks against me, ending
    	with ORDERING me not to address your attacks in a subsequent reply.
    
    	> The second one was intended to convey that I was unwilling to 
    	> continue the negotiations because they were getting nowhere.
    
    	Yes, this is the one where you attacked me, then ORDERED me not
    	to respond about it.
    
    	> Though I'm glad that you decided to "let" me end the battle, I 
    	> really don't see how you could have done otherwise.
    
    	Well, I didn't really see it as a battle at all.  You attacked me
    	viciously, and I responded to you about it (then you attacked some
    	more, until I allowed you to have the last word.)  Hardly a real
    	battle.
    
    	> I simply ask that you change your "style" enough so that you ceace 
    	> attacking me.
    
    	I ask the same of you, along with ceasing your attacks against women
    	and this conference.
    
    	> There is much I can say about what you said here, but I will only say 
	> two things: (a) you are not qualified to speak to me about my 
    	> interactions with whites...
    
    	In no way did I attempt to do this.  I merely drew a parallel with
    	the way some whites insult minorities without realizing it as being
    	the same way that you insult women without realizing it.  (I do
    	have the right to comment on the actions of white people, after all.)
    
    	> The entries that we have been making are "trashnotes". It is 
	> unfortunate. We probably should be sending MAIL to each other at 
    	> this point, but I am leery of doing so because in our current state 
    	> we will only "attack each other".
    
    	Don't bother ever sending mail to me again now that I know you forward
    	it to Digital authorities.  It will be a cold day in hell before I
    	ever trust you enough to exchange anything with you offline.  (And
    	you can consider this a permanent decision on my part.)
    
    	> A proposal: I am willing to resume negotiations with you, and am 
    	> willing to promise to be extra careful about saying anything that 
    	> will "attack" you. However, I must ask you NOT to send attacks at 
    	> me and to at least try to show understanding when I point out when 
    	> you are. I shall do the same with you.
    
    	If you're talking about mail, you can forget it.  The days of mail
    	exchanges with you are gone forever.
    
    	All I'm asking of you is that you realize how insulting some of your
    	notes are to women, and to refrain from jumping all over me for
    	pointing this out to you in a file that is predominantly women.
    
    	In other files, I'm used to seeing women insulted constantly, and
    	I don't fight it as hard.  (There simply aren't enough hours in
    	the day to address all the vicious things people say about women
    	in Digital notesfiles every day.)
    
    	But here, understand that you will be called on it (and that I'm
    	not your "Notes Mommy" - I'm not going to tell you how nice it
    	was that you shared your viewpoint and offer you a cookie if
    	what you said was insulting and/or condescending to women.)
    
    	Stop and think before you write your notes, and stop attacking
    	women (and then attacking me for reacting to your original attacks.)
    
    	If you can do this, we won't need to negotiate anything else.
    
    							Peace,
    							  Suzanne

Those actually are not choices.

 They are two sides of a single "coin".

 I shall continue to say what I wish to say, within reason as I've always 
tried to do.

   And when she chooses to attack me again, I'll sort of do both.

                                                         -Robert Brown III

    	RE: .268  Robert
    
    	> I shall continue to say what I wish to say, within reason as I've 
    	> always tried to do.

    	If you continue to insult women, you'll most likely get away with
    	it more than you have before (now that we all know that you have
    	contacted Digital authorities about it.)  Obviously, none of us
    	are anxious to be fired at your request, even when your charges
    	are highly unfair.
    
   	> And when she chooses to attack me again, I'll sort of do both.
    
    	Don't worry - I have as little interest as anyone else here in
    	being fired because of you.  Most likely, I'll walk on eggs
    	whenever you enter into a discussion.
    
    	Your threat of official action from our employer has been received
    	and duly noted.  
    

    
    	RE: .270  Mike Z.
    
    	All I can say is that it's a good thing he isn't gunning for you,
    	Mike.  You wouldn't last 10 minutes.
    

    And we now return to our regularly scheduled program in this topic: 
    Management Of The File.
    
    Management of each other should probably go to The Rathole.

    re: .272
    I agree -- so how come it took so long?

    
    Mike and Robert ... 
    
    tsk..
    

    I must say I found most of the preceeding quite distasteful.
    
    I did, however, find myself offended when I first read the HAHAHAH
    HAHAHAHAHAHA Note.  It was very jarring, and to be able to stop and
    think about what you were trying to say to a lot of effort on my part.

    
    In previous versions there existed a topic about the
    artists of womannotes where folks talked about their hobbies
    and artistic inclinations. I enjoyed reading it. 
    Being that there appear to be some new participants to womannotes,
    would anyone be interested in another similiar topic?
    
    							Hank

    Go for it!
    
    -Jody
    

    
    	Historians will recall that the "Artists of Womannotes" was one
    	of my rare topics...  ;^)
    
    	Perhaps I should be the one to start it up again.
    

    I deleted my answer to the "Can men fake orgasm?" question since it
    appeared to be turning into a rathole requiring more time than I have
    available for the next few days/nights.  I'll try to reorganize it into
    the Rathole topic sometime soon. 
    
    My apologies to those women who found it a topic of interest.  (: >,)
    
    Ray

    
    re Note 246 (Women's success Stories opened by Mark Levesque) and
    the issues that Herb Nichols raised there.
    
    It seems to me that one of the reasons men note in Womannotes is to
    get women's reactions to their ideas.  Unfortunately (or fortunately),
    the feedback may not always come in the requested format.  That is
    to say sometimes women question the question before or as they
    answer it.  I think this is a positive thing.  I see women as the experts 
    on women's experience (the subject of this notesfile).  Sometimes when you 
    ask a technical expert a question, s/he asks *you* a question which may 
    add to your frustration but which if you're open to the information, will 
    undoubtedly increase your knowledge of the subject.
    
    As I read Herb's note in 246, it struck me that he may have uncovered
    one of the communication problems that I see between men and women in this
    file.  It has occurred to me that women here see the whole package
    (that is, the content *and* the form) of men's and women's notes here
    as available for analysis and feedback -- whereas some men might be
    expecting that only the content (that is, the question they're asking
    or the point they're making) will be reacted to, and they then see
    comments on their form as personal attacks.  Does anyone else see
    this kind of thing?  
    
    Justine                    

    Justine,
    
    Yes, I think that's one way to describe it.  (And how could anyone
    be upset rather than intrigued to find that there's more than one
    way to describe something?  :-)
    
    It is as if the writer had shaped the question with his body and
    the reply-ers were using knives to separate out (a) the question,
    (b) the interesting bits, (c) the mistaken bits, (d) ....
    
    Perhaps it's just an unconsidered response to our firm insistance
    one `coloring outside the lines', but yeesh!
    
    						Ann B.

Actually, I began thinking about how politicians respond to questions when they
don't like the frame. They answer the question they like instead. I wonder what
a notes conversation like that would be.

	Mez

    Justine, speaking for myself, I react badly to a note that states the
    suggested topic in the title, and simply has one word, "Discuss" as the
    text for the basenote.  
    
    I don't like being directed to "discuss".  
    I don't like it when people open up a topic for discussion and do not
    disclose their own feelings on the topic. 
    My reaction is to pass the note by, even if I have an opinion on the
    subject.
    
    Yes, form is important IMHO.
    
    regards,
    Marge 

  
    re 251.102  on Animal Rights by AERIE::THOMPSON
                                    
    >>And I find the idea of Politically Correct views for feminists to hold 
    >>to be the greatest barrier between most women and most men in working 
    >>out differences.  When a few more women do choose to enjoy some of the 
    >>things men have historically done to get a day or a weekend or a few 
    >>weeks "away" ... we will all be closer to sharing this planet and 
    >>non-sexist lives together.  But let the feminist viewpoint be strongly 
    >>represented as opposed to males doing what they find satisfying for 
    >>whatever reasons or emotions and you are building a polarized reality 
    >>where sexism will remain rooted.
    
    Are you suggesting that unless women do all the shifting toward what
    men "find satisfying for whatever reasons or emotions" that our
    society will be doomed to a "polarized reality" that's rooted in
    sexism?  Sounds to me like quite a deal: men get to keep on as
    they have been, and if women don't change their ways, men get to
    blame them for the distance between them.
    
    Steve, I don't think it's fair for you to talk about Lorna's 
    outspokenness on the topic of animal rights as an example of
    feminist, PC, party-line whatever.  It seems to me that one
    way to work toward a society that is not polarized around gender
    issues is to try to avoid polarizing issues in that way.
    It is you who has painted Lorna's views on animal rights as feminist 
    (and I take it from the tone of your note, therefore divisive and bad).  
    Why not just respond to the content of her note with facts and/or feelings
    instead of spending so much energy labelling her?
    
    Justine as member of womannotes
    
    

    re: .286  eagles
    
    So, Steve, anyone who spends a long time writing a reply never has to
    apologize for anything in it?!  :-)  (joke)
    
    I wish you would go back and re-read Justine's .285.  She is *not*
    saying you should not disagree with Lorna.  She is saying that if you
    disagree, it would be more effective to explain your viewpoint. To talk
    about how you feel and think about things differently.  What you
    actually did (and you did it to me, too, when you responded to my note)
    is talk about her and her attitude.  You called me closed-minded (big
    surprise to me!); you called her over-emotional.  
    
    Furthermore, by calling her a feminist who wants to cut off opportunities  
    for men to do things they like to do together, you were ignoring the
    fact that several feminists in this file support your position on
    hunting and some even hunt themselves.  You continue to ignore it, even
    though it has been pointed out.  Lorna didn't make this into a "male
    hunter vs. PC female feminist non-hunter" issue:  YOU DID.  And this
    polarization of views really has nothing to do with why Lorna believes
    what she does, or why I believe what I believe.
    
    I said "I don't understand how hunting can be fun."
    You said "Well, that's because you're closed-minded."
    
    This interchange teaches me nothing.  
    
    I think the key for all of us is to respond to WHAT PEOPLE WRITE, not
    to read keywords and deliver a knee-jerk response.  Only then can we
    avoid "hostile fragmentation of the community."  Only then can we come
    to appreciate views that differ from our own.
    
    Pam

    Eagle,
    
    Please read what Justine actually wrote.
    
    What she pointed out was that you suggested that more women should
    change to have interests like men.  She pointed out that while this
    is convenient for the men, it is not so for the women.
    
    Notice that her statements have NOTHING to do with the NATURE of
    the interest in question.  You are responding as if they did.
    
    Then she pointed out that you had labelled an individual's views
    as being archtypically representative of a group.  She explained
    that it is a bad practice to label anyone, and then to react to the
    label.  (She did not explain that it is an error-prone practice,
    but I will.)
    
    Notice that her explanation had NOTHING to do with the NATURE of
    the activity in question.  You are responding as if it did.
    
    If you end up expressing your anger because you are responding
    solely to your own misunderstandings, then you will look like a
    bird attacking the bird in the mirror.  (Wow!  Ann has managed
    an image that could apply to an Eagle.  How very pertinent!  Is
    any of the rest of her reply pertinent?  We'll find out.)
    
    						Ann B.

    re .286, eagle, I agree with everything Pam said in .287.  I find it
    mind boggling that you would take any and every opinion I offer as
    being the PC position of all feminists everywhere!  I really do not
    presume to speak for all feminists.  (afterall, I'm not Gloria Steinem
    or Betty Friedan or Ti-Grace Atchinson, or somebody, am I?) :-)
    
    There are feminists who hunt, and feminists who don't hunt but don't
    care if other people do, and there are feminists who think hunting is
    morally wrong.  I realize that most of my views on animal rights are
    more extreme than most people's whether they are feminists or not.
    
    There are also many men who feel very strongly against hunting and for
    animal rights.  Who was it who wrote "Man Kind?" - Cleveland Amory
    I think, for example.  Then there is that guy (Bob Barker?) who
    wouldn't host the Miss America pagent if the contestants wore real fur. 
    I, myself, got many of my ideas about animal rights from my own father
    who never knew much about feminists.  So, I really don't consider it an
    issue that can be completely divided by gender.
    
    I, also, had the same feelings as Justine had, when I read your
    assertion that women are going to have to be willing to do the things
    men enjoy - like hunting - if the sexes are ever going to be able to
    get along without fighting.  Like her, I can't imagine why you think
    that women should be the only ones who have to learn to enjoy something
    new.  Afterall, it seems only fair that if I'm expected to spend a few
    days in the woods killing animals, that you also put in a little effort
    and learn to enjoy a day of clothes shopping in Boston with me!!
    
    Lorna
    

    re .290, Steve, my views on animal rights are not a result of my being
    a feminist.  I hated both hunting and guns long before I ever even knew
    what a feminist was.  
    
    Lorna
    

    Lorna, I have no problem with you hating guns and hunting. What
    does bother me is when I give you a large list of reasons why
    I enjoy hunting, and you dismiss them out of hand, saying "I
    don't believe you, I think you just like to kill for fun."
    That tells me your thinking on the subject is not open to facts 
    or reason, which is a good definition of prejudice. 
    
    Dana

    While it is not a part of the NOW platform or any other feminist
    group's stated goals that I have read, I would bet that there is
    a larger than the general population percent of feminists who are
    opposed to hunting.  Eagle, if you feel like you are being treated
    in a way that would be intolerable were the tables turned, have
    you asked the moderators to do anything about it?  Not infrequently
    in notesfiles, minority opinioned people say that there is an
    inconsistancy on how justice is applied, but usually the people
    who feel that way assume that the action is condoned when my
    understanding is the offended individual has to complain to the 
    moderators.  It is miserable to have things that one enjoys taken 
    away; unfortunately our society does this all the time.  
    		Linda

~--e--~

Just what is it you want Lorna to do? You like hunting, she doesn't.
So what?

Kathy

    re .292, I'm sorry, Dana, I shouldn't have said that I don't believe
    you.  I should have said that I don't *understand* how anyone who kills
    animals for sport, isn't in effect killing for the fun of it.
    
    There's a difference between not understanding and not believing, and I
    don't understand.  I didn't mean to imply that I consider you to be a
    deliberate liar!  (because I don't)
    
    Lorna
    

    re .295 by Lorna vs earlier replies- (Thank you Lorna)-
    
    I think what was being said by Eagles and Dana was that their feelings
    were being invalidated, if I may resurrect a phrase.  THAT was a 'bad'
    thing in this notesfile, and Lorna's most recent makes clear that it
    still is and she did it by accident.  Eagle getting analyzed for
    emoting in response is NOT the way we used to react to this sort of 
    thing happening, which, I would guess, is why he started analyzing this
    conference and 'feminists' in general.  That was just as inaccurate
    about feminists in my opinion, but I'll stop here, having stepped on
    everybody's toes precisely once.
    
    DougO

    No, Doug, what I said was that my reasons were not being listened
    to. 'Inadmissable evidence'.
    
    Dana

So, how come nodenames of people writing notes now appear as addresses/
numbers instead of strings?  Does MOMCAT not know about the names of the 
rest of the world?  Is it going to stay that way?

(I realize that is low priority and that you are overworked with the move
so don't sweat on it, but it is nice to have nodenames because they are
much easier to remember and to type when sending people mail than the
addresses.)

Thanks
D!

    I think MOMCAT has been having a nervous breakdown
    
    
    daniel

    I thought she was having kittens, myself.

    When nodenames show up as numbers it means that the network database
    does not know them. This is generally not a problem. Except in
    members only conferences or if you are a mod and the node doesn't
    know your system. I'm guessing that MOMCAT is a workstation. If so
    Maggie may not want all the overhead that a full database means.
    
    Or else she just hasn't started NETUPDATE yet.
    
    		Alfred

    purrrfect time to have Momcat fixed, fur christsake...

but, =maggie, just keep pawing at it.

    but will she come back the very next day?

    No matter what the problem, you just know that she'll land on all
    fours.
    
    Phil

yep, and if not she has eight more lives to go, right?

-Hamp

    I want to find out what number my node is.
    
    Lisa

    Those puns were the fur-st funny things all day, thanks. :-)
    
    One of the reasons MomCat hangs, I think, is that I still haven't got
    the parms right that are associated with managing that huge netnode
    database.  I'm experimenting with it, and this time things appear to
    have gone more smoothly.  Anyway, it takes forbloodyever to copy all
    the (roughly) 60,000 nodes into the database ("volatile") that's
    actually used for the lookup, so even at the best the choice is between
    not coming up until they're loaded or not having names associated with
    nodes until they're loaded.  I've opted for the latter, but I'm willing
    to do it the other way if there's a sense of the community in favor.
    
    						=maggie

    Definitely run AUTOGEN with feedback. You might ask for advice in the
    Moderator's conference (there's one around somewhere, I believe).

    A suggestion for the node database as an as-time-allows project:

    1. Dump a directory of the file (or partial) into a text file, and edit
    it to isolate all the node names.

    2. Create an auxiliary permanent node database comprising these nodes.
    This is fairly easy to do - here's a thumbnail approach:

    a. Edit the text file so each line becomes
	$ @getnode NODNAM:: ! where NODNAM is the extracted node name

       and call the file Load_Nodes.com
       
    b. $ DEFINE NETNODE_REMOTE SYS$MANAGER:NETNODE_REMOTE_STARTUP.DAT
       $ @Load_Nodes

       This creates or updates a separate file by the above name.

    c. In your SYSTARTUP_V5, do the above DEFINE before running STARTNET
       This will start the network quickly, with only the nodes of common
       participants. (Newcomers noting early would have numbers.)

    d. After starting the network, DEASSIGN the logical and
	$ NCP SET KNOWN NODES ALL to load the full database

    The procedure GETNODE.COM referenced looks like this (it's a quick edit
    of a working procedure that hasn't been tested in this form, caveat
    emptor and all that):

$!
$! Procedure to define the address of node 'P1' in the current permanent
$! database NETNODE_REMOTE.DAT or the file pointed to by logical NETNODE_REMOTE.
$! If 'P2' is provided, it's the node we're asking for the information.
$!
$ NCP := $NCP
$ IF P1 .EQS. "" THEN INQUIRE P1 "Enter node"
$ USING_NAME = 1
$ IF F$TYPE(P1) .NES. "INTEGER" THEN GOTO GOT_NAME
$ USING_NAME = 0
$ AREA = P1/1024
$ ADDRESS = P1 - (AREA*1024)
$ P1 = "''AREA'.''ADDRESS'"
$GOT_NAME:
$ IF P2 .EQS. "" THEN P2 = "ANCHOR"
$ NCP TELL 'P2' SHOW NODE 'P1' TO SYS$SCRATCH:GETNODE.TMP
$ OPEN/READ FILE SYS$SCRATCH:GETNODE.TMP
$ READ/END_OF_FILE=QUIT FILE LINE	! Read past header info
$ READ/END_OF_FILE=QUIT FILE LINE
$ READ/END_OF_FILE=QUIT FILE LINE
$LOOP:
$ READ/END_OF_FILE=QUIT FILE LINE
$ IF F$LENGTH(LINE) .EQ. 0 THEN GOTO LOOP
$ IF F$LOCATE(".",LINE) .EQ. F$LENGTH(LINE) THEN GOTO LOOP
$ IF F$LOCATE(P1,LINE) .EQ. F$LENGTH(LINE) THEN GOTO LOOP
$ ADDRESS = F$EXTRACT(0,F$LOCATE("(",LINE),LINE)
$ L = F$LOCATE(")",LINE) - F$LOCATE("(",LINE) - 1
$ OFF = F$LOCATE("(",LINE) + 1
$ NAME = F$EXTRACT(OFF,L,LINE)
$ NCP DEFINE NODE 'NAME' ADDRESS 'ADDRESS'
$QUIT:
$ CLOSE FILE
$ DELETE SYS$SCRATCH:GETNODE.TMP;*
$ EXIT

    p.s. In case it's not clear, the advantage of the approach in .-1 is
    that it loads the node name/address information for conference
    participants *first*, minimizing the time after a boot during which
    numbers would appear for node names from these nodes. Far fewer than
    60,000 nodes actually access the conference, I'd guess. The full
    database is then loaded in the background (batch job, for example).

    Obviously, if MOMCAT isn't going to be rebooted often, this may not be
    an optimization worth considering.

  Re: 22.310 by 6276::GASSAWAY 

  >    I want to find out what number my node is.

  $ MCR NCP SHOW NODE 0

   or

  $ MCR NCP SHOW NODE <nodename>

  This returns the area and node number, separated by a dot.  E.g.,
  MYCRFT is 2.682.  To find the "address," you multiply the area by
  1024 and add the node number.  Thus MYCRFT is 2 * 1024 + 682 or
  2730.  The node database essentially matches up node names with these
  addresses.  If a node is unaware of MYCRFT's name, it will use 2730::
  on an incoming piece of e-mail or a notes entry.

  You can use this number on outgoing e-mail, too.  Let's say you see
  a notes reply from FOO::BARRY and want to reply by mail but you get
  a "remote node unknown" message out of MAIL.  (This might happen 
  because the system manager hasn't gotten around to loading up the
  latest node database, or because the full node database is just too
  big for use on a disk-poor workstation.)

  You can do a

  $ MCR NCP TELL <some_other_node> SHOW NODE FOO

  <some_other_node> may return the area.node_number (or it may not,
  depending on the characteristics set and the state of _its_ node
  database).  You apply the same formula and use the result to send
  mail to nnnnn::BARRY.

  Perhaps Paul Beck can comment on the number of things I've gotten wrong
  here as well as how things will change for Phase V.

  JP

If a co-mod can re-direct tangents to The Rathole, can she re-direct topical
discussions to their topic? I'm really interested if anyone has an opinion on
this.
	Mez

    Please do. And while you're at it, how 'bout starting a 'puns' 
    topic ?

    re .317:
    
    Better yet, Mez, could you try to redirect the puns out of this
    notesfile entirely and into 'joy-of-lex' or some more appropriate
    notesfile?  If that's not possible, *please* do move them all to
    once place where I will not have to bear the agony of ever looking
    at them ever again, except to 'next unseen' the entire topic once
    a day.
    
    You have my utmost gratitude if you (the moderators) can manage
    this.
    
    Please accept my most sincere thanks for trying,
    Ellen
    

    .318
    
    Well gee, you know, it seeemed to me that quite a lot of people were
    having quite a lot of fun with 'em.  Do we have to go to the Fun
    notes file for that?
    
    Dorian

    at lunch today, Witt came up with a suggestion for a new Notes command:
    
    Notes> avoid <note-range>
    
    Its effect would be to permanently avoid further perusal of the
    specified topic, unless you specifically request to look at one.
    
    It might make the new notes count wrong for your particular instance,
    but since it seems that Update reports the number of times the file has
    been written since your notebook says you last looked at it, the avoid
    command would not make things worse.

    Re: .-1  This is a very good suggstion.  Also, Unix notes can do this.

    Mez,
    
    In re referring people to the 'proper topic' for their
    note,  I've been doing it for years! 
    
    :-)
    
    Bonnie

    No wonder when I replied to liesl's .278 Bonnie's .278 appeared in the
    upper portion of my screen!

I noticed that too, but couldn't replicate it.

>	This conference may be partially corrupted.

I love it... :-)
	Mez

    If it doesn't get worse meanwhile, I'll try to look into it over the
    weekend, folks. I'm God's Own busy right now.
    
                                                 =m

    re .326, I think it's scary!
    
    Lorna
    

Here we have an average group of womannoters.  They think they have just
opened up the file for a quick scan of new messages, but in fact...

they have just entered...the twilight zone...

D!

    You know...I just entered a note about this in the Rathole...
    then I read this....maybe I should just go home.
    
    Now I am more confused....
    
    Lisa

	re 1.20:

>>    I just disconnected several links to the file that had been left in
>>    place overnight.

	Get in touch with the Human_Relations moderator,
	Steven QUARK::Lionel.  He mentions a "link monitor"
	batch job that disconnects Notes links held too long
	by a person.  It even runs more often around lunch
	time on weekdays, and less often on weekends.  It
	is mentioned in QUARK::MenNotes 1.15 (and I think
	earlier in 1.* as well).  It could probably be
	adapted for here.

	Dan

    
    I was talking to a friend last night about Womannotes: where we've 
    been, where we are now, and she reminded me of this note that I'd 
    posted back in V1.  I don't know how much of it feels relevant or true 
    to the women who are noting here now, but I was struck by how many of 
    the same issues are still with us.  One thing that excited me is that
    lots of women replied to this note right away.  Sadly, though, a lot
    of those women are no longer in the file or are very quiet.
    So, I thought this might be a marker for us, a sanity check.  I 
    encourage those of you who are interested to go to V1 and read some 
    of the replies to this note.  Maybe some of the authors would like to
    repost their replies here?

Feeling nostalgic...

Justine

    
          <<< RANGER::$2$DUA31:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V1.NOTE;1 >>>
         -< ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 1 --ARCHIVE >-
================================================================================
Note 673.0             FWO:  WOMEN: What do WE Want to do?            41 replies
PNEUMA::SULLIVAN "No State should foster hate"       87 lines  26-JAN-1988 12:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    	I'm requesting that only women reply to this note.
    	Thank you.
    
    
    	I've seen a disturbing (to me) trend in this file and elsewhere,
	and I'd like to discuss it with the other women in this file.
	What I've been seeing are accusations of reverse sexism in order
	to make women include men in all their thoughts, words, and deeds.
	For example, a woman will say something like, "I really admire women 
	who can stand up and assert themselves in oppressive environments."
	You might think that a statement like this would lead to discussions
	among women about how they've learned to assert themselves
	in uncomfortable situations, like all-male meetings, for example.  
	But what happens is that some man (or men) attack the statement and 
	say, "Don't you mean that you admire PEOPLE who assert themselves..."
	And before you know it, we're off on some fight again with women
	trying to defend themselves and men fighting with women and
	with each other. 

	I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been finding lately
	that the value Womannotes adds to my life has really been tarnished 
	by this latest version of the ongoing battle.  It seems to me that 
	we only have about 4 choices.  I'd like to hear from others of you 
	that have been thinking about this and see what choices you see for us.

	These are the choices that I see:

	1) Leave the file.
	   This feels really bad to me.  I value the contacts I've
	   made with women in this file, and I don't want men to
	   feel like they can come and claim whatever space they want 
	   simply by clubbing the current occupants until they surrender.

	2) Leave this file and start (or help start) a woman-only file.
	   I see this as a possible (though not perfect) alternative.
	   I have enjoyed the diversity of women in this file, and
	   I fear that some women might be afraid to join a woman-only
	   file.

	3) Stay but avoid all conflict with belligerent men.
	   This seems like an excellent idea but hard to pull off.
	   It's hard for me to remain silent when overtly sexist,
	   woman_hating remarks go unchallenged.. but I'm trying.
	   I've found myself wanting to create FWO notes for topics
	   that already exist because the level of male participation
	   in the other notes seems to prevent us from talking about
	   the important things.. like how does a woman who has been
	   battered find (or reclaim) her self-esteem....? but we never
	   get to that because some man starts going off on some
           tangent about how men are battered, too...
	 
	4) Stay and fight.
	   This feels as much like giving in as choice #1.  This
	   file could be peaceful and also encourage lively discussion.
	   I've been willing to accept men's presence in this file, but
	   I wish they would leave their "issues" someplace else when
	   they note here.  We women generally do a good job of helping
	   men with their issues.. Hell, I do it in meetings.  I strongly
	   believe that this is one space where we shouldn't have to
	   be men's therapists... or teachers.  My sense is that many of
	   us feel that way, and it is that general refusal to "make nice"
	   that has led to many of the conflicts.  I think it's not just
	   the one or two apparently-troubled people who cause problems
	   in this file; I think there are many men whom most of us
	   would really like in other settings that behave defensively
	   here and piss us off because they feel threatened by the
	   "non-traditional" treatment they receive here, i.e., we don't
	   hide the fact that we sometimes get pissed off.


	I guess I've been operating under the assumption that most
	of the women in this file feel (at least partly) as I do.
	That males ought to be welcome here but that their level
	of participation in the file is inappropriate and disruptive.
	Does anyone have any sense of what to do about it, or am I
	really in such a small minority here that I ought to go 
	elsewhere?

        I'd be happy to post replies for anyone who wishes to remain anonymous.
	We may not settle anything here, but at least this note could be
	a safe place to discuss our concerns without being attacked.
		

	In Sisterhood,

	Justine

    ref.335
    
    Justine, you couldn't have said it any better....I have basically
    been read only in WN, and have followed it quite closely.  You
    have put into words the feelings that I have had for quite some
    time.  The conference is named "Womannotes", issues of interest
    to woman.  I do not have a problem with men members, BUT, as you
    say, the majority of conferences do get turned around and a male
    issue erupts, and personally, I would rather remain "read only".
    
    Thank you for bringing your feelings to light....you're not alone.
    
    Nancy

I have some of the same feelings too. I try to encourage what I want. I try to
continue the discussion I'm interested in. But I'm afraid more people take your
option Nancy.

	Mez

    
    
    I feel this is why I, and many women, enjoy and respect
    "woman only space".  It's not the same flowing experience and
    seems almost inhibiting....
    
    

    Although I used to contribute occasionally to this file, I now am
    pretty much read-only.  I still enjoy it, but I find that the
    frustration level is generally too high for me when I engage in
    discussion (or even sometimes just when I read.)  Some of my
    frustration is caused my the difficulties inherent in notes as a medium
    for discussion, but a big part is connected to what it's like to
    discuss things here.  Here's why:
    
    I think Justine and others have explained very clearly in other notes
    that there's a different experience for women in women-only
    discussions.  It meets very important needs for us in feeling
    validated, sharing a perspective, and providing a safety in exploring
    some issues.  Usually, there's also value in having these discussions
    in mixed company, too - but there are some things I can never get from
    the mixed discussion.  I need what I get from women-only discussions.
    
    Many times there have been discussions here about things I would *love*
    to discuss in a women-only group.  And then I feel "teased" in a way. 
    Tantalized.  There's this carrot on the stick out there, and I've
    learned that it's always (in here) going to be just out of reach. 
    Skinner was right.  Without even intermittent reinforcement of that
    need, I've given up.
    
    For those of you who are assuming things about my interest
    in/appreciation of men, I'd like to say that I think dialogue between
    men and women about these kinds of issues is important.  Lately I've been 
    thinking alot about what I have to learn from men.  I enjoy the men in
    my life.  So my feelings about this aren't a discounting of men.  It's sad 
    to me that I feel I have to clarify this so explicitly.  But I feel that 
    if I don't, some people will read this and dismiss my input 
    as the ramblings of some "man-hating, feminist, separatist" (which 
    some seem to think is one word!)
    
    I still read this file occasionally, and I appreciate those of you who
    have the energy to participate.  But for me, I've found it best to meet
    my needs in discussing some of these issues elsewhere.
    
    Susan

    
    .339 ::
    
    And that is *really* unfortunate.  Afterall, we, as woman, should
    be the most comfortable in a WN conference.
    
    I am, in no way, a man-hater, etc., but, as Susan said, there are
    needs that don't get fulfilled in co-ed discussions...I sometimes
    get really involved in discussions about women's issues, with men,
    BUT, it usually ends up with the ultimate "nothingness"...
    
    

    Kind of ironic to put in two notes in one day on why I don't say much,
    don't ya think?  :^)
    
    Writing .339 pushed me to think about this some more, and I now
    realize there's a different reason why I tend to listen without jumping in
    here.  I don't think my participation level is because I'm frustrated that
    this is not a women-only discussion.  That would be like being
    frustrated at a tire store for not selling shoes.  This is, after all,
    a notesfile that is open to all employees for the discussion of issues 
    important to women.  And there are some womens' issues that I really
    want to discuss with men.  So even though I'd like to have *some* 
    discussions in a "shared-understandings" space with other women, this 
    isn't the place for it.  
    
    I think what does make me tend to listen only is knowing that for many of
    these issues, it's too much work, and it's frustrating to feel that
    success is so out of reach sometimes.  By success, I mean knowing that the
    validity of womens' perceptions of their own experience won't be
    challenged/discounted.  That doesn't at all mean that everyone has to 
    agree.  It just means not having to spend inordinate amounts of energy 
    defending women's needs, perspectives and experiences.   
    
    Thanks for listening.  I thought about deleting what I'd written
    in .339 when I realized that my view on this was different.  But I hate
    the swiss-cheese effect in notes, since it leaves people wondering, so
    decided to leave it and clarify here.
    
    Susan

    "I personally strongly object to this note and the premises  
    there in, but inspite of our correspondance with the author 
    on the subject the author insists on entering the note in its 
    present form. As a moderator I am willing to allow this note 
    to be entered despite my personal distaste for the contents."

    However, given that the note has been entered, against my personal
    judgement due to the request of the author, I wish to say that I
    refuse to countenance the obscentity of the premise and the lack
    of understanding of the pain of women's lives by answering more
    than this disclaimer.
    
    Bonnie
Bonnie

>    "I personally strongly object to this note and the premises  
>   there in, but inspite of our correspondance with the author 
>    on the subject the author insists on entering the note in its 
>    present form. As a moderator I am willing to allow this note 
>    to be entered despite my personal distaste for the contents."
>
>    However, given that the note has been entered, against my personal
>    judgement due to the request of the author, I wish to say that I
>    refuse to countenance the obscentity of the premise and the lack
>    of understanding of the pain of women's lives by answering more
>    than this disclaimer.
>
>
>     Bonnie

    
    I think this note goes against Digital policy. It also violates the
    policy of this file. It is racist and should be deleted. If this noting
    trend is allowed to continue I will delete this conference from my
    notebook. 
    
    Thanks,
    
    Kate
    
    
    

    the note is in violation.  I am sure personnel would be quite
    interested.
    
    vivian

    I am continually amazed at how dumb some very intelligent people
    can be.
    
    Bruce

	As I stated in *288, the real purposes of this notes file was
just starting to get through to me. It is more a 'safe haven' for women
then a medium to pursue truth (if you will) within the context of women's
issues.

	I really did misunderstand this for some time.

	In part because I couldn't quite determine what the real consensus
was. I didn't know if those women complaining about the more rigorous male
directed discussions reflected the consensus. I've since determined that
they are.I wonder how many other male noters have this confusion.

	I apologize if I offended anyone due to my confusion.

	I will pursue these issues in other conferences and respect this 
space. It certainly is justified and of great value.

MAC

>I didn't know if those women complaining about the more rigorous male
>directed discussions reflected the consensus. 

I haven't noticed that the male-directed discussion in =wn= are more
rigorous than the female-directed ones.  Different, yet, but not more
rigorous.  What gave you that idea?

I get the feeling from your note that you feel that a space being
"safe" for women is somehow contrary to the pursuit for truth.  I don't
understand - why can't =wn= because a forum for the pursuit of truth
in a way that is safe for women?

D!

	I don't understand why sexism is being supported by women in this
	conference. And an attack on EDP's 288.0 is clearly supportive of
	sexism.

			Alfred

    Alfred, it is my opinion that to expect emotional exploration and
    catharsis of frightening realities like male violence to occur in
    ordinary, fallible human beings, without allowing any room for
    vehemence or mistaken opinion or anger, is to expect the impossible.
    If one sees the value in such exploration, one recognizes that humans
    aren't going to find great truth or great beauty without also seeing
    and or experiencing the opposite numbers.  And some of that sexism-in-
    expression Eric decries is so intimately tied with the great truths
    also expressed, that limiting one is limiting the other.
    
    DougO

    Note 288 is against Womannotes policies as set up in note 1:
    
    1.4 3) Contribute to the discussion and not harass by extracting and 
           republishing material in an offensive way.
    
    1.7 4) Don't make insulting comments about minority and ethnic groups.
    
    Kate
    
    
    

Kate:

> Note 288 is against Womannotes policies as set up in note 1:
    
  So are lots of other notes that no one ever complains about.
  What's your point?

                                   Atlant

    
    re Kate:
    
    Yes, it *should* have been deleted under the policy you state and
    under our 'trashnote' policy.  But nah, let's leave it in.  It's
    less hassle having this file trashed in a few plcaes than having
    Eric take it to ersonnel.
    
    Hi Eric,
    Remember me?
    

  And you will, of course, be equally vigilant every time, for example,
  a note turns up that trashes overweight people, or people who's 
  appearance is less than fantastic, or ...

                                   Atlant

re: .356

	Come on Atlant.  Everything is offensive to someone.  If someone
complains, based upon either the P&P or the conference guidelines, the
moderators have to do *something*.  If Kate finds 288 sufficiently offensive
to make her complain, that's her call.  If she doesn't find note about
"overweight people, or people who's appearance is less than fantastic"
offensive, then she shouldn't complain for other people.  If you find them
offensive, then it's your decision on registering a complaint.

	The few times I have ever spoken to the moderators about the contents
of any note (including one policy statement), the situation has been handled 
immediately.  The process does work, but if we all become wolf-cryers the
least little time our feelings are bruised, then perhaps we should be noting
in BASKET_WEAVING rather than =wn=.

	Maybe I'm thick skinned.  I personally think edp is making a mountain
out of a molehill, and trying to offend as many people as he can in the
process.  It is, however, still his right to be offended, just as it is Kate's
right to be offended by presentation -- just as it's your right to be offended
by something else.


						--Doug

    re .356
    >>And you will, of course, be equally vigilant every time, for example,
    >>a note turns up that trashes overweight people, or people who's 
    >>appearance is less than fantastic, or ...
      
    You sure you're talking about Womannotes here?  I mean, if people
    wrote notes like that, I would cry....  I think everyone has to take
    responsibility (as Doug pointed out) for saying what offends her/him.
    As Comods of the file, it is our responsibility to see to it that 
    Digital policy is respected and followed.  And we have developed 
    guidelines that help us uphold Digital policy and that speak to the kind 
    of environment that we members of Womannotes want to have.  If something 
    is in clear violation of Digital policy and/or of the Womannotes 
    guidelines, we act.  In situations that are less clear, we listen to what 
    members of this community tell us they need, and we do our best to mediate 
    conflicts so that everyone can get as much of what they need as possible.
    Sounds simple, right :-)?  
    
    Justine

Of course, you _could_ moderate the whole conference with the same sort of
vigilence the abortion topic has gotten in the past...
	Mez

  .357 and .358 actually make my point.  LOTS AND LOTS OF FOLKS
  *DON'T* COMPLAIN about every little thing they find offensive.
  Instead, we all bite our tongues.  288.* probably isn't any
  more offensive than the notes from another noter who routinely
  gets away with cracks about overweight or unattractive people,
  and 288.* deserves the same fate applied to that noter's notes.

                                   Atlant

    Atlant, I suspect Kate was responding to .348 when she listed explicit
    policies she sees violated.  "What's her point" is, the answer to the
    challenge.
    
    DougO

re: .360  Atlant

�					288.* probably isn't any
�  more offensive than the notes from another noter who routinely
�  gets away with cracks about overweight or unattractive people,
�  and 288.* deserves the same fate applied to that noter's notes.

	Nope.  If someone finds it sufficiently offensive, it deserves the
treatment it will get.  Perhaps the "overweight or unattractive people"
simply aren't as touchy, but that doesn't mean that every offense should
be overlooked.


						--D

    
    i believe that the change of context distorted *my* original
    remarks beyond recognition.
    

    I'm not sure whether this belongs here, in The Rathole, or in a topic
    of its own.  I'll move it or one of the mods can move it if desired.
    
    I've moderated and enjoyed membership in =WomanNotes= for about 13 of
    the last 15 years now, first on the Plato system and now here.  I think
    I've grown because of it, as an adult, a woman, a feminist, and a
    manager.  I hope I have, anyway.
    
    One of the things that has struck me repeatedly is how intractable
    certain problems seem to be, particularly the ones rooted in individual
    personalities.  Naturally that came a big surprise to me, because
    although I had it pounded into my head in every clinical course I took,
    I was raised to believe that women, with our hardwired Mommy powers,
    can always kiss it and make it all better.  Right?  Abuse both sexual
    and non, alcoholism, bone laziness, infidelity...didn't matter, if we
    just work a little harder we can Fix It.  And when we notice that it's
    still broken, well, it's we who failed.
    
    A few months ago, after rather a lot of soul-searching, I decided that
    I'm going to work more on following my clinical training and less on
    following my cultural training.  I decided to start out here, since
    this community and this space is an important part of my life and work.
    
    My first decision was that I'm going to completely (except ex officio)
    ignore any man who chooses not to respect requests for FWO space.  And
    I'm not just going to do that in the penetrated FWO space, I'm going to
    do it *everywhere*.  As long as there's evidence of penetration, that
    guy is invisible and inaudible to me.  I've gotten caught by my
    ignorance once and by my anger a couple more times, but mostly I've
    gotten it right and I'll get better at it as time goes on.
    
    My second decision, and I'm just taking it now, is that I will no
    longer give more that two or three replies to people who seem closed. 
    After it seems clear to me that I'm not getting anywhere, I'll take my
    energy elsewhere and they'll have to work out their salvation without
    me, unless they want to consult me professionally after hours for a
    fee.
    
    I cannot change anyone else's behavior, but I can change my own,
    sometimes.  And sometimes that's enough.
        
    					in Sisterhood,
    					=maggie

    This is the first time, to my best recollection, that I have ever
    deleted all my responses to a topic.  But I felt 288.* deserved it.
    
    						=maggie

    I certainly can't argue with that.  Thanks for courage, Maggie.
    My personal decision regarding closed individuals matches yours.  
    Not the first time I've made that decision.  My notes in 288.* 
    (and a few here in processing) are deleted.  Other folks will
    get to make up their minds on that topic without further input 
    from me.  Somehow, this is liberating.
    
    DougO

    In resonse to =maggie's note. I had already made a decision that
    except in so far as it relates to my duties as a moderator that
    I can chose, and have so chosen, not to read or respond to notes
    or mail by particular noters, and further that I can choose not
    to read such notes or mail.
    
    Bonnie

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
================================================================================
Note 22.374                   The Processing Topic                    374 of 375
MSBVLS::MARCOTTE                                      3 lines  15-AUG-1990 20:23
                             -< IT'S NOT WORTH IT >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I had stopped reading wommanotes for a while and just got back into
  it....I wont be around long.....I see XXXism is still going on in
  this conference.

    
    add me to the list of clothes-minded
    

    Maggie, DougO, Bonnie, I'm with you. 
    
    In Unity There is Strength,
    
    Kate 

    	My participation in 288.* has finished, too.  As far as I'm
    	concerned, the basenote author can argue with himself.
    
    	A political conference with a female majority is bound to
    	look attractive to some as a target (especially if the women
    	speak even half-way as openly as Newsweek and other main-
    	stream publications do about the situation of violence that
    	faces women in our society.)
    
    	It's quite telling to see someone launch a major campaign
    	over a couple of words in a topic - it certainly shows the
    	power of language when the speakers have a cultural history
    	such as ours.
    
    	If we can turn the world upside down with a couple of words,
    	it's time for women to speak up more often.

    
    	Maggie, DougO, Bonnie, Joe, Kate, I'm with you, too.
    
    	Here's to Unity and Strength.
    

Gee, I made the decision not to interact with people i felt were
damaging the file last March.  And so far, I have not broken that
resolution.

Welcome, sisters (including honorary sisters, like you, Joe. :-)

D!, trend-setter as always ;-) ;-)

    If it weren't that sad I'd say the last couple of responses are Hall of
    Fame material. It took some time for me to have things fall into place
    but I'm glad now it has happened to see that I'm not the only one. 
    
    Can I join the club?
    
    Ad

  I also would like to join the club.
  
  
  PEM

    Feeling a bit sorry for yourself?
    
    Charles

You know, I've always thought the phenomena in notes of announcing what you're
doing is interesting. Announcing leaving the file, not interacting with men
(see V2 I believe), one's opinion of the file (particularly when derogatory
:-), and so on. It's been a point of pride with me that I don't announce
things; I just do them. But I understand why other folks do, and I find the
effects, um, interesting.
	Mez

re: .372
    
    
>    
>    Why didn't you answer my questions?  If you won't understand me, how do
>    you expect me to understand you if you will not explain what I am
>    puzzled about?
    
    
    What makes you expect we must answer your questions?  Because we are
    women?  Because you have chosen to focus your microscope on our small
    corner of reality and set to your-version-of-right everything that does
    not meet with your approval?  It is obvious that you are not listening
    to me, as you keep claiming nobody sees you *feel* you have been hurt -
    for I acknowledged that I realize it in 40.29.  I do not expect you to
    understand me.  And perhaps I will never understand you.  But I refuse
    to feel guilty for not making sure everybody understands everything
    about me, or about anyone else I know.  There is no guarantee, implied
    or explicit, that anybody gets everything they feel they want or need
    in this world, or in this notesfile.
    
    -Jody

New "processing" thread...

>================================================================================
>Note 296.7                   I'm so sick of ........                      7 of 8
>FACVAX::WALKER "BIENVENU CHEZ MOI"                    5 lines  16-AUG-1990 09:03
>                         -< Our topics/your opinions >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    We're interested in your opinion, REK, as long as you want to talk
>    about what we want to talk about -- about OUR issues.  Take yours to
>    Mennotes.
>    
>    Briana

Briana:

  Could you please clarify for me what you mean by "OUR"?  I can think
  of at least three plausable alternatives, so I need your help.

                                   Atlant

	My my......what I see are a lot of arrogant self-centered attitudes.


	I, personally, haven't read beyond 288.0.  Not because I don't
	agree with it, and not because I do agree with it.  Mainly
	because I think it's the wrong way of going about a topic
	that very much needs to be discussed in here.


	However, my question for the arrogant attitudes I've seen in this
	topic is......WHY do you feel it's necessary to act so
	condescending toward note 288.* and it's participants?  If you
	don't want to note in the topic, then don't!  But I'll thank you to
	not rub the faces of those people in the dirt and act like you're
	"BETTER" than someone else.  Let me tell you, you're NOT
	better, you're just different.


	Take a look at at how silly you look.....my respect for most of
	you have dropped at least a point in the last few minutes.


	Why do people always have to be so "ME" focused,

	Disgusted.....

	kathy

    
    	Kath, if you ever had respect for most of the people in this
    	conference, it's been a well-kept secret.
    
    	More than anything, you make sure everyone knows the contempt
    	you have for this community (yes, I've seen your notes about
    	Womannotes in Soapbox.)
    
    	So, now you don't see the problem when 288.0 attacks blacks to
    	make a point (even though a number of black noters have expressed
    	how offended they are by it.)
    
    	Myself, I'm amazed (and disgusted) every time I see someone approve
    	of this.  (Luckily, the number of people who have done so has
    	been very small.)  
    
    	Strange world we live in.

    Kathy
    
    This may seem silly, but maybe - just maybe, you understand - if you
    *read* the topic before replying to it, you might have understood
    people's frustration.  This is just a thought.  Somehow, I think that
    the world would be in better shape if people would just "look before
    they leap".  IMOO (and no, I'm not a cow)
    
    Also, I must admit, it is hard to take criticism about being "ME"
    focused from somone who uses the personal pronoun 11 times in 16 lines.
    
    E Grace

    
>	The FWO label is now more than just a request. A male reply in
>    an FWO note carries consequences which are not specified in the
>    conference guidelines for FWO/FGD policy.
    
    Oooops I'm sorry I wasn't aware that decisions on the personal level
    were supposed to be announced in note 1.11. Since I think I would like
    to make the same sort of decision, can one of the moderators please
    grant me write access to topic 1 so I can comply with this?
    
    Ad

    	RE: .395  Mike Z.

    	> Can you imagine if these open-minded people were our world leaders?

	> If Bush stuck his thumbs in his ears at a troop reduction meeting
    	> because Gorbachev would not listen to and agree with him?

    	Mike, if you were a world leader and negotiated the way you note,
    	the planet would have been leveled with the full arsenal of nuclear
    	weapons long ago.

    RE:22.369 
    	
    	I'm with =maggie on this one.  I don't have the energy to engage
    	some people.  In the past I have backed away, now I hit next/unseen.
    	It's unfortunate that the noise level gets so high, it obscures
    	the valuable information available here.  So I won't change
    	others but, I can change me.  I'll have an open mind becasue
   	of that, not because I've been beat over the head.
    	
    	For those that ignore, argue, or abuse, hurt me once shame on
    	you, hurt me twice, shame on me.  There will not be a third time
    	
    Peace,
    A-
    
    

.395>	Can you imagine if these open-minded people were our world leaders?

    Easily.  The leader of country X cuts off diplomatic relations with 
    country Y, because the leader of country Y's acted in a way that
    the leader of country X deemed unacceptable.  It happens all the
    time.

	Sharon

>   <<< Note 22.393 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

    
>    	Kath, if you ever had respect for most of the people in this
>    	conference, it's been a well-kept secret.

    I have a lot of respect for certain individuals in this conference,
    in fact, I even have some respect for you, but that vacillates when you
    misrepresent me all the time.  In fact, I even agree with you on a
    lot of things.....surprise, surprise.
   
>    	More than anything, you make sure everyone knows the contempt
>    	you have for this community (yes, I've seen your notes about
>    	Womannotes in Soapbox.)

    That's funny.....I don't, nor have I ever said that I had any contempt
    at all for this community.  My beef is with CERTAIN MEMBERS of this
    community.

    And I would ask you to point out where in SOAPBOX I've ever made such
    comments about =wn=, because, to my knowledge, I have never.  I don't
    go fluanting my opinions where they aren't warranted nor needed.  I
    bring my problems with certain people's attitudes to THIS community
    because this community is where those people are part of.

   So, basically I ask you to prove it, or not....after all, you make the
   statement, it's up to you to back it up.
   
>    	So, now you don't see the problem when 288.0 attacks blacks to
>    	make a point (even though a number of black noters have expressed
>    	how offended they are by it.)

    Excuse me, Suzanne, but if you're read the note before this I NEVER
    said ANYTHING about how I felt about note 288.0.  In fact, I was
    very blatent about the fact that I had not made a DECISION on that
    note.
  
>    	Myself, I'm amazed (and disgusted) every time I see someone approve
>    	of this.  (Luckily, the number of people who have done so has
>    	been very small.)  

    Well, then I suppose you aren't disgusted with me, because I never
    said I approved of anything.  Maybe you ought to read beyond your
    disgust for me and read what I WROTE?

	kathy
   

re: .394 (Mike Z.)

	Mike, 1.11 doesn't say that some noters will consider you a rude,
mannerless, slob for not observing FWO requests, but it might very well happen.
If you think all the disclaimers need to be present, then you're just the
sort of person for whom the paragraph on the sides of disposable butane 
lighters were designed.

	As a friend of mine (a native German who spent 4 years in the States)
once said.  "I have a great idea for making money.  I'm going to go buy some
lighter fluid, poor it over my head, and set it on fire.  Then I'm going to
sue, because it doesn't say `Danger: Do not pour over your head and light on
fire' on the side of the can."  He used to wonder if there was any common sense
left in the American public that we needed such warnings.


					--Doug

    
    	RE: .407  Mike Z.
    
    	> That's a lie.
    
    	No, it wasn't.  It was a response to your suggestion that we 
    	speculate about what others here would be like as world leaders.
    
    	I chose to speculate about you, instead.  It was more fun.  ;^)
    
    	Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you (if that's what happened.)
    

    Mike,
    
    On the contrary.  When a moderator is acting as an individual, and
    *not* as a moderator, the actions of the individual should *not*
    be recorded in note 1.*.
    
    						Ann B.

    re 22.412 -- Eagle, next time you start afresh, please don't delete
    that note; i like it very much.
    
    lee

    re .413 Seconded. Eagles, mon ami, it is very difficult to
    respond to notes that disappear so soon. Also pointless.
    It feels as if you are ignoring *yourself*. Which is a
    mistake IMO. 
    
    Dana
    

    I, also, agree, Eagles, and you know that *I* don't think you're a bad
    person either.  (I also don't think Dana's a bad person but he won't be
    reading this anyway, so it doesn't matter.) :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    bad to the bone :-)

    re .418  How about substituting 'Martians' for 'blacks' ?
    
    (Might offend a few Heinlein fans but whatttheheck)

	I am going to completely ignore man who chooses to ignore FWO space.
	I will ignore him everywhere. As long as there is evidence of that
	penetration, he is invisible, inaudible to me.

	I will no longer give more than two or three replies to someone who
	seems closed on a subject. After it is clear that I am not getting
	anywhere, I will take my energy elsewhere.

	-- Charles

    
    re: .418

>    I'm asking for some understanding and acknowledgement of my humanity.
    
    
    I understand you are human.  I accept you are human.  I embrace your
    humanity - with all its crests and troughs and thoughts and dreams and
    wishes.  But you must understand that even if I would admire, respect,
    accept, and hear you - I may not be willing to grant you your every
    wish - I may not answer your questions, and I may not do what you wish,
    nor what you expect.  I owe myself the debt of being true to myself,
    and that is what you may encounter when I respond to a note.  I
    anticipate you will do the same.  Occasionally, the results may not
    please either of us.  But that in no way reflects on my opinion of you
    as a person, or as a noter....
    
    -Jody
    
 

    Peer pressure is a valued and time honored group communication
    technique. Back in the million or so years that hunter/gatherers were
    the main human social unit it was the primary "law" of the land. There
    were no police and no government, the group delt with it's own. From
    the anthroplogy class I had I learned that these groups did not usually
    resort to violence to exert this peer pressure. They rewarded or
    punished the violator by group approval or disapproval. A bad system
    for those not of the mainline thinking but effective in keeping the
    group as a surviving unit. Sometimes survival is the only point. 

    Closer to our time is the southwest Native American culture. The
    pueblos are generally made of peacefull groups/clans living in close
    proximity in a harsh environment. Those who do not fit (by their nature
    or whatever) usually end up leaving with no force involved. Again, the
    group has to survive and persons who make this more difficult are not
    welcome.

    My point is this, women (at least many of us) are trying to survive and
    grow in a culture that, if not directly hostile, is hostile by inertia.
    When we gather together a sense of community is vital and important.
    Those who threaten that are threatening our survival in a somewhat
    hostile environment. We are not violent so the main means at our
    disposal is group approval. We will not club someone over the head or
    try to ruin their life. We will and do retain the right to speak to
    those we choose and to grant our attention to those who we care about
    or are interested in.

    And in a purely practical vein, we might be taken to personel over
    something we said in a moment of anger but it's very hard to drag us
    there with the charge that 'they won't talk to me'. liesl

    

    I'm not sure about that - since we have certainly had over 1000 active
    noters in the history of womannotes, and may have upwards of 10,000
    readers (maybe I'm dreaming, but I can dream, can't I?)....
    
    let's see.  10 out of 1000.  that's .1%, if I can still do math.
    
    Is that supposed to be a majority?
    
    -Jody
    

    in re .431
    
    actually Jody, the percentage is wrong, becaue the response to
    the 'boycott' wasn't to replies to men who write in fwo notes,
    bu to individuals of any gender who refuse to listen to altenate
    points of view
    so to count all those who responded as refusing to reply to
    men who writ in fwos as contributing to the even .1% is still
    in erro.
    
    I do not believe that is what most of those who 'signed the pledge'
    here were abstaining from..
    
    tho I dont object to the idea that men who reply in fw notes
    should be 'shunned' i.e. if they refuse to abide by theroles
    and rules of common courtesy, I don't see that there is any other
    response..
    
    but that wasn't what I personally wasobjecting to.
    
    Bonnie
    
    p.s. as a moderator of this conference I do feel Ishould
    and thus do, read all the note written here. My stance on
    not responing is only as an individual and should not in any
    way be taken as a moderator stance or in anyway be taken
    as sing my 'status' as a moderator to in any way influence
    other file members.

    sorry for themultiple errors in the last, they are do to
    line noise and I have no easy fix for that (other than moving)
    
    B

>	As of last count, we have 10 people, 2 of them moderators,
>    who have stated their intention to completely ignore any man
>    who replies in an FWO topic.

		22.383 TLE::D_CARROLL

Mike, go reread the note.

What I said was that I would not interact in the conference with
any *person* I felt was *damaging to the conference*.  Period.  i
said nothing about men.  i said nothing about FWO topics.  I did
not name any names.  

Don't put words in my mouth.

D!

    
    	Geesh!!!
    
    	Mike Z., you're putting words in all our mouths with your
    	misrepresentation of what we meant by bonding with other
    	noters when it comes to ignoring certain kinds of negative
    	situations.
    
    	Remind me to have 20 lawyers check it if you ever draw up
    	a contract based on a verbal agreement with me.
    

    Another interesting statistic about those 10 people (so far) is that 3
    of them are men. In fact I could say the same as D! but if you insist
    on talking about FWO notes - if someone can't have the decency to
    honour a reasonable request, well as far as I'm concerned that just
    about puts them in their place for me.
    
    Ad

>	Will you interact in this conference with men who reply in
>    FWO topics?
    
    From now on, no. This is not limited to this conference.
    
    Ad

    
    	RE: .439  Mike Z.
    
    	> Will you interact in this conference with men who reply in
    	> FWO topics?
    
    	This wasn't the foundation of the agreement to avoid certain
    	negative situations.  It was mentioned, that's all.
    
    	Myself, I have no strict rules about who I will respond to,
    	but rather I'm attempting to avoid certain kinds of negative
    	situations.
    
    	There's a hell of a difference between the two.
    

Mike,

I might or I might not continue to discuss with a man who posted in FWO
notes.  It depends on whether I percieved his action (and perhaps his
intent) as damaging to =wn=.  That is the only criteria, and each instance
must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account what a
particular person has done and said, and what I percieve hir motives to
be.

i doubt that one posting in one FWO topic would warrant my conclusion
that the person is "damaging to the community."

Forget your list though, it's silly and inflammatory.  Leave me on it, if
you wish, it's a crowd I'd be honored to be with.

D!

    
    	Forget it, Mike.
    
    	If you're going to maintain LISTS of people to accuse and/or
    	cross-examine, then you might as well keep me on it (no matter
    	what any of us really said or what we think.)
    
    	You might as well persecute us all together if you're going to
    	do it to any of us.
    

RE:22:443

>>  But it is clear (to me) that some violations have to do with
    "screw-you-I-am-going-to-do-things-my-way" or
    "I-WANT-to-be-offensive or 
    "you-have-no-RIGHT-to-such-a-courtesy-and-I-chose-to-violate-it" or
    "I'll-show-you-what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it
    kinds of mentality. <<
    
Ahhhhh.....XXXism in all it's glory.

    
    	RE: .445 D!
    
    	Great minds think alike.  ;^)
    

    
    Hey Mike,  add my name to your list too.  I think I'd like
    to be on it.  :-)
    

I'd like to be on the list if Suzanne is on it. OK, now what do I get
for being on Suzanne's team?

Team Glass-Chewers?

;-)

john

    
    	Hey - if Glass Chewing ever becomes an event at the Olympics,
    	we'll have a World Class Team!  ;^)
    

    
    Yes, perhaps we should change the policy note to say something about
    how if people behave rudely, they might be in for a shock.  Instead of
    looking inward to find what it is we women might have done to cause
    such rude behavior to be done to us, we might, {gasp}  Next unseen
    for the squeamish....
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    pay no attention to the person who is rude.  Gosh, I hope that the
    folks who run prisons don't find out about this secret weapon.  
      - Tell us everything you know or else we're gonna bring a bunch of 
        women in here and they're going to ignore you.  
    
      - No, no, not that... I'll tell you whatever you want to know.  Just
        don't let those women igNORE me....    
    
    Justine
    
    More seriously... it does my heart good to see folks joining together
    to protect this community.  We better have another party soon, 'cause
    there are lots of people I want to hug!

Well, I'm really at a loss here. There is one male who put responses in FWO
that were there last I knew (haven't checked lately), he's Mike Z, he's asked
people if they'll interact with men who put notes in FWO (and they had been
interacting with him), and they responded to him. And, to top it all off, I
can't ask Mike Z to be on the list... :-)
	Mez

    So far I've been silent on this issue, in part because I've been
    practicing what many of you are now vowing to do.  Please add my name
    to the list.
    
    And, if it's necessary to take a vow, I plan to limit my interactions
    with ANYONE, male or female, who appears to be in this conference, in
    any string, only to cause disruption.
    
    Proud to join.
    Karen
    

    I have also been silent on this issue because it relates back to a note
    that I hadn't contributed to or had time to read all the replies to.
    I think that some of the people that are accusing others of being
    sexist are totally wrong and it's an unfounded accusation. Just because
    they don't wish to interact with certain people is not sexism. It's
    just common sense that you avoid people who offend you or insult you or
    just cut you down. Some people just seem to come here to start heavily
    inflammatory arguments and while I enjoy a lively discussion, when it
    breaks down into name calling, it becomes not only offensive, but also
    falls into my definition of obscenity.
    
    Put me on the list also. From my few dealings with the people on the
    list, I'd be honored to join them.
    
    Phil

A separate list note has been started.
	Mez

    I have long thought that shunning is an very effective interpersonal
    tool. I do not share my energy with those who destroy it. I am
    atonomous and while willing to explain, have no desire to harm myself
    to try to make another see what they will not see. 
    
    Thank you Maggie.
    
    Tamzen

re: .461:
    
    Is that the "Rathole" note?  Why _must_ we have lists?  Are we that
    bored with real communication that we want to maintain lists instead?
    
Bravo.

Good grief, Me and Eagles agreeing on something.  Next thing you know,
I'll go skeet shooting...

re: .431:

I must respectfully disagree with Jody in her (and other's) distinction
between moderators writing as moderators and moderators writing as
individuals.  My own feeling is that, to a great extent, the moderators
of a notesfile such as Womannotes act as community leaders and, by the
manner of their contribution, set the tone of the file.   I would like
to see Womannotes as a model for supportive communication and am afraid
that to achieve this goal may mean that the "leaders" (not only the
moderators, and not specifically women) must occasionally refrain from
writing what they feel.

No, I'm not telling uppity women to shut-up, but asking everyone to
think about the long-term effects of their anger -- especially and
specifically their anger about "process issues."

You don't want to respond to men, fine.  You don't want to respond
to anyone who you feel is trashing womannotes, fine.  But, when
you shout your convictions, it sounds -- to me -- much like the
anti-communist mania of the 1950's.

Martin.

ps: I wrote the above before reading D!'s rewrite of the Queer Nation
article -- which takes a directly opposite view to the above.  Had I
read D!'s posting first, I might have written the above differently;
then again, I might not have.

Again, I am not asking anyone to swallow their anger; I am asking
the you/we treat people with respect, even if they do not choose
to reply in kind.

    	RE: .465  Martin

    	Why _must_ we have Lists, indeed, Martin.

    	You don't get it, do you?  Some of us were gathered in List Form
    	(NODENAME::Username) as a handy way to label and accuse us of
    	whatever the handy sin of the day was, so others of us who were
    	NOT designated on The List decided we liked the company there
    	- so many of us VOLUNTEERED to sit on The List with those already
    	designated.

    	Myself, of course, I started out ON The List, then the designer
    	took me OFF (but I figured that whether I can be accused of
    	the sins of the day or not, I'd rather be ON The List than OFF)
    	- so I volunteered to go back ON.

    	While I think nearly everyone who volunteered (or was drafted)
    	for The List is trying exceptionally hard to avoid negative
    	situations, there is no clear consensus that all male anybody
    	will be summarily ignored under all certain conditions.

    	Now that the majority of people on The List are volunteers, do
    	us the courtesy of allowing us to define our Listhood in our
    	own way.  

    	Understand now?

<manner of their contribution, set the tone of the file.   I would like
<to see Womannotes as a model for supportive communication and am afraid
<that to achieve this goal may mean that the "leaders" (not only the
<moderators, and not specifically women) must occasionally refrain from
<writing what they feel.

    Well, Martin certainly brings up an interesting issue. One of the H_R
    moderators once told me that they often refrained from stating their
    opinion for exactly that reason.

    I'm torn two ways on this. On the one hand he is right, a totally
    supportive group might do well to avoid certain responses to "make
    nice" and keep everybody happy.

    On the other hand, women have been told to do this for centuries. When
    is it our turn to be the ones that get a little slack? Are we to be
    forever branded as the ones who's job it is to keep everyone happy?

    And more important, how are we to respond to a threat to our community?
    The only acceptable answer to the maurader was total surrender to his
    point of view. Many of us did not feel that was right. Now there can be
    no agreement, both sides have stated their piece and nothing remained
    to be said. Why continue to engage in battle (and it sure looked like
    battle to me) when there is no win for either side.

    I agree that the list note was perhaps in poor taste. (especially if it
    turns out to be Mike V's and we didn't realise it :*)) But don't we
    have a right to choose whom we speak to? If we didn't post our opinions
    and just did it would that open us up to the charge of the feminist
    conspiracy again? What is our recourse? liesl

    
    	By the way, someone in Soapbox called all this ("The List") a 
    	lynch mob mentality.  I got a huge chuckle out of that.  
    
    	"What do people on The List do to people who are being annoying?"
    
    	"We take 'em to the nearest tree and..."
    
    
         		"...IGNORE 'EM!!!"
    
    	
    
    		       That'll teach 'em!  ;^)
    

    <--(.465)
    
�I must respectfully disagree with Jody in her (and other's) distinction
�between moderators writing as moderators and moderators writing as
�individuals.
    
    Martin, I must disagree with *you* (but of course you know that).
    I'm not all that sure we do act as "community leaders" more than
    occasionally, for one thing, and for another I strongly disagree with
    your view of our obligations.
    
    In my vew, there is nothing unethical being a mod sometimes and a
    member other times...as long as other people can tell for sure which is
    which. and as long as when we are mods we are careful not to abuse our
    powers by using them in the service of personal agendas.
    
    When you argue that "leaders" "must occasionally refrain from writing"
    (which is what it amounts to, unless you urge lying), you fail I think
    to consider the logical consequence:  if someone is "a leader", she (or
    he) is so only because she crystalises and expresses the thoughts of
    many.  If leaders are obliged to be silent on important controversial
    issues, then a large portion of the community is deprived of a voice,
    and any vocal opposition will win by default.  That doesn't seem to me
    to be a good way to preserve the health of the community, and if we
    have no other duty we certainly have that one.
    
    						=maggie

re: .469:
    Martin, I must disagree with *you* (but of course you know that).

No problem.  In fact (as my postscript might have made clearer), I'm
not all that certain how much I agree with my note.

    I'm not all that sure we do act as "community leaders" more than
    occasionally,

No, I think you -- specifically -- along with the other moderators, a number
of other women (Nancy Bittle and Lisel come to mind) and a few men, such
as Charles Haynes and Dave Wittenberg, do act as community leaders.  My
two cents: take it as a complement since it was intended as such.

    
    When you argue that "leaders" "must occasionally refrain from writing"
    (which is what it amounts to, unless you urge lying), you fail I think
    to consider the logical consequence:  if someone is "a leader", she (or
    he) is so only because she crystalises and expresses the thoughts of
    many.  If leaders are obliged to be silent on important controversial
    issues, then a large portion of the community is deprived of a voice,
    and any vocal opposition will win by default.  That doesn't seem to me
    to be a good way to preserve the health of the community, and if we
    have no other duty we certainly have that one.
    
Agreed. However, you may note that we are able to disagree on issues central
to Womannotes by communicating rationally -- and without the "feuding" and
"baiting" that seems to characterize a few of the other disagreements in this
file.  I'm pretty sure that any of these shouting matches could have been
developed in such a way as to allow disagreeing views to be articulated
without demeaning the opposing viewpoints; and with both sides learning
and growing in the process.

Again: I'm not asking for silence -- or lies -- but restraint and leadership;
and I'm not asking it specifically of women, but of all members of this
community, men and women, even the pariahs.

Martin.

    Okay, I can certainly sign up for that, Martin.
    
    I think that we do a pretty decent job here, most times.  Better than
    in the outside world, anyway, though sometimes it'd be hard not to. 
    The only serious problem, here as there, is in dealing with aggression;
    unfortunately the array of choices is limited, here as there. 
    
    						=maggie

    
    
    	re: .470 (Martin Minow)
    
    	Geez, Martin, I just organize a few get-togethers every
    	now and then :-).
    
    	Now what was that you were saying about skeet shooting :-)?
    	(There _is_ a summer biathlon event in these parts, you
    	 know...  I'll let you do the running, and I'll do the 
    	 shooting, OK?)
    						nancy b.
    

    	RE: .472  Mike Z.
    
    	Well, I'm not going to argue with you about this.  If you think
    	your original list didn't come across as your usual "NAMING NAMES"
    	(in order to cite the accused,) then you aren't very perceptive.
    
    	> You were initially on the list because your reply in 22.381
    	> led me to believe that you could be expected to act in accord
    	> with Maggie, who stated she would ignore any man who replied in
    	> an FWO note.

    	My note was a show of support for Maggie's decision - I'm allowed
    	to do that, you know (whether or not I intend to follow her lead
    	down to the letter.)
    
	> You then clarified, I offered to remove you, then you
    	> decided you wanted back on the list of people who planned to
    	> act as Maggie stated in 22.369.
    
    	As I've stated clearly (more than once!!), I wanted back on the
    	list as a show of support for those you'd "listed" here (and
    	not as a definitive statement of any actions I intend to take.)
    
    	"Listing" people is a gesture that can be regarded as an attempt
    	to intimidate others (by specifying their formal nodenames and
    	exact usernames, to make it easier for monitoring by the authorities.)
    
    	If you're going to take this action, then I will engage in an act
    	of Notes Civil Disobedience by volunteering to join "Whatever List"
    	you next decide to create (as a show of support for those whom you
    	are singling out in this conference.)

    
    	A list of people to whom this note is addressed:
    
    			HEYYOU::ZARLENGA
    
    
    	Mike!  In case you haven't gotten the message clearly (in the last
    	couple of days) - STOP WITH THE FORMAL LISTS OF NAMES!  PLEASE!
    
    	This behavior is similar to using all caps or pissing in someone's
    	house plant!  It is both rude and intimidating, and I request that
    	you stop doing it.  Okay?
    

    	Please state your intent, Mike Zarlenga.

    	Do you intend to create formal lists of NODENAMES::Usernames
    	even though you have been asked to stop doing it?

    	Do you plan to ignore requests that you cease and desist engaging
    	in this behavior?

    	Whether or not you allow yourself to be on lists is irrelevant.
    	Do you intend to continue NAMING NAMES with your own text about
    	what you regard as their positions in this conference?

    	Let me tell you right now that I regard your lists as harassment.

Note 22.446  
    
    CONLON:
    
    	>Forget it, Mike.
    
    	>If you're going to maintain LISTS of people to accuse and/or
    	>cross-examine, then you might as well keep me on it (no matter
    	>what any of us really said or what we think.)
    
    	
    
    Um... Suzanne?  I don't beleive Personnel would consider  it
    harrassment when you have, IN PRINT I MIGHT ADD, stated that you wish
    to remain on this so called "list"....
    
    Nice threat though....

    RE: FWO
    
                First let me say that I will and have, honored the FWO idea.
    My personal opinion is, I don't talk to people who don't want to talk to
    me!   Lord, I won't even *read* those topics.  But I wonder.....How
    many women are not noting in this file because they dissagree with the
    "women only" idea?  I know of at least two.  Yes it is a small number,
    but thats just me.  PLEASE....don't get me wrong...I'm not trying to 
    "change" this enviornment, but I think it a question that should be
    given *some* thought.  Wouldn't it be interesting IF,  FWO chased
    more women OUT of the conference than it kept?
    
    Dave
    

   
        RE: .478 Mike Z.
    
    	Fine.  Now we both know where we stand with regard to your practice
    	of NAMING NAMES in this conference in a formal list.
    
    	While I certainly don't intend to make a formal complaint about it,
    	it's good to know that you are refusing this simple request.
    
    	Just for the record.
    

    .463, .464
    
>	Since 22.369 was posted, I have not replied in any FWO topics.
     
    True, the last time was(were) notes 155.10, .11 and .12 written at May
    29th 1990. 
    
    Does 22.369 make a difference for you, then?
    
    Ad

	Although the original saying is "make peace, not war", judging from
	this battleground in here, I'd venture to say that ya'll are
	having a fine time rewriting that script.


	We're just so full of valuing each other today, aren't we?  Congrats,
	this file has just surpassed SOAPBOX in nastiness.

	This is most DEFINITELY not a loving, supportive place by any
	means.

	kathy

    RE: .483  Kath

    > Although the original saying is "make peace, not war", judging from
    > this battleground in here, I'd venture to say that ya'll are
    > having a fine time rewriting that script.

    You've done some rewriting yourself, it seems.  As far as I remember,
    the original saying was "make love, not war" - a physical relation
    that's a bit difficult to accomplish over the net.  ;^)

    > We're just so full of valuing each other today, aren't we?  Congrats,
    > this file has just surpassed SOAPBOX in nastiness.

    Kath, you have a far better sense of humor than I realized.  That's
    genuinely amusing.

    Last I checked, Soapbox was on another (in a series) of runs on "bagger"
    jokes about women - and in the new incarnation of the 'Box, they opened
    up yet another new Molly Yard topic where the first non-basenote reply
    was about the nature of her breasts.

    Well, since women's voices are the worst threat to life in the Universe
    as we know it, I suppose that women talking about ignoring confrontations
    sounds worse to some people than almost any insult a male-dominated group
    could ever devise.

    > This is most DEFINITELY not a loving, supportive place by any
    > means.

    You're just blind to it, that's all.  

    Considering that this file is almost ALWAYS under attack in one way
    or another (including from you - with all your digs and insults to
    the entire community,) there's a wonderful sense of bonding between
    a great many people here (women and men.)

    If you ever let up on the attacks against Womannotes yourself someday,
    perhaps it will be possible for you to experience it.

    By the way, about the crack you made about Womannotes in the previous
    incarnation of Soapbox - I'm not going to bother searching for it, but
    I do recall that it was a reassurance to everyone that you don't like
    Womannotes and/or spend much time here.  It was part of a reply where
    you commented on a couple of conferences, not just Womannotes.

    Honestly, you shouldn't worry.  I'm sure that most people who know you
    are aware of your contempt for this community, even though you very
    rarely do write replies here that fail to allude to this contempt.

    re;-2
    
    Kathy,
    	I'm sorry that you don't feel support here in -wn-. I do. If you
    decided to reach out I don't think you'd get your hand bitten off or
    anything. 
    
    Kate

>    <<< Note 22.485 by USCTR2::DONOVAN "cutsie phrase or words of wisdom" >>>
                          -< Support AND Friendship >-

>    	I'm sorry that you don't feel support here in -wn-. I do. If you
>    decided to reach out I don't think you'd get your hand bitten off or
>    anything. 

	Well, I'm glad of you....but, yes, I have attempted to reach out
	to this community before and to attempt to discuss what I think
	is a major stumbling block to the feminist movement and every single
	time I've tried to discuss it I was met with a huge blockade of
	venom, insults and twisting of my words (as evidenced by the
	reply directly before this one).


	As you can see, Suzanne loves to discredit me at every turn.  She
	accuses me of hating this community, which I don't.  She accuses
	me of making nasty comments about this conference (where the
	note she was referring to was actually simply a note about what
	conferences I read and how frequently....this conference being one
	of the ones that I don't read all the time due to job
	responsibilities). Etc.

	I cannot feel love and support in a community where certain very
	vocal members of that community refuse to allow alternate perspectives
	to be heard...where they ridicule and attempt to viciously
	discredit the person holding that perspective, instead of
	addressing that perspective directly.

	I'm glad that you feel support in this conference......I wish
	I could say the same for others who choose to be a little different.
	I wish I could say the same for those of us that feel that men and
	women should live in harmony together.  I wish I could say the
	same for those of us that feel that the best way to equality
	with men is thru working WITH men to achieve it.


	kathy

re: Dave

Believe me, as a mod, you hear it all. There are a million reasons why some
women (and men) don't note here. And they all contradict each other (well, not
nxn, but you get my drift). You can't please all of the people all of the time.
	Mez

    	RE: .486  Kath

    	> ...but, yes, I have attempted to reach out to this community before 
    	> and to attempt to discuss what I think is a major stumbling block 
    	> to the feminist movement and every single time I've tried to discuss 
    	> it I was met with a huge blockade of venom, insults and twisting of 
    	> my words (as evidenced by the reply directly before this one).

    	Most people don't reach out with a baseball bat, Kath.  When you
    	"discuss" these things, you blast the whole community in one sweep
    	(as if each note any of us writes should bring down criticism for 
    	the whole bunch of us.)

    	> As you can see, Suzanne loves to discredit me at every turn.  She
	> accuses me of hating this community, which I don't.

    	Don't put words in my mouth, Kath.  I respond to what I think are
    	blatantly unfair attacks upon this whole community, which is my
    	right.

    	As for accusing you of hating this community, that's not accurate.
    	I've pointed out that your notes display contempt for the conference
    	(and if you disagree, then I think you should read your notes more
    	carefully.)

    	> I cannot feel love and support in a community where certain very
	> vocal members of that community refuse to allow alternate
    	> perspectives to be heard...where they ridicule and attempt to 
    	> viciously discredit the person holding that perspective, instead of
	> addressing that perspective directly.

    	Kath, if you didn't address this whole conference as one entity
    	(blasting the whole bunch of us every time one of us makes you mad,)
    	you might see the community differently.  As long as you blame all
    	of us for each individual note, we'll never have any control over what
    	it would take to make you feel loved here.

    	> I wish I could say the same for those of us that feel that men and
	> women should live in harmony together.  I wish I could say the
	> same for those of us that feel that the best way to equality
	> with men is thru working WITH men to achieve it.

    	It would be great to live in harmony together, but not at the cost
    	of being able to say what I really think.  I wouldn't feel very
    	free if I could only make peace by saying what others want to hear.

>   <<< Note 22.488 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

	Suzanne...do you want me to be BLUNTLY honest?  Well, I'm very
	good at it, so I will.

	YOU and maybe 2-3 other people in conference (on a much lesser
	degree) are the only ones that I have a "supposed" problem with.

	Basically because when *I* start trying to discuss issues, *YOU*
	slam me in a very personal way.

	Until you can start discussing ISSUES with me, instead of attributing
	lies to me, it's not worth it for me to attempt to discuss
	anything with you.

	My perception is that you don't like me, personally, and you just
	wish to start a notes-war because that's all *I* perceive that you
	are able to do when it comes to my notes. At such time as you
	are able to have a rational discussion with me, not about *ME*
	but rather about ISSUES, I will not acknowledge your notes.


	I will NOT get into a war with you.  My participation in this file
	to to create peace between the genders, not war.  Warring with
	you is not conducive to my goal.

	kathy
	

    	RE: .490  Kath

    	> Suzanne...do you want me to be BLUNTLY honest?  Well, I'm very
	> good at it, so I will.

    	You've been nothing BUT blunt about this conference for a long
    	time.  Why stop now?

    	> YOU and maybe 2-3 other people in conference (on a much lesser
	> degree) are the only ones that I have a "supposed" problem with.

    	Why on EARTH do you launch your attacks on Womannotes as an entity
    	if you only have a problem with mainly one or a few people?  It makes
    	no sense whatsoever!

    	> Basically because when *I* start trying to discuss issues, *YOU*
	> slam me in a very personal way.

    	Your issues are "What's wrong with Womannotes THIS time" and "Why
    	I'm always on the verge of deleting it from my notebook and make
    	sure EVERYBODY knows it."

    	If you're going to generalize about the file and slam it across
    	the board at every available opportunity, it's PERSONAL against
    	many of us here.  You're kidding yourself if you think it isn't.
    	
	> Until you can start discussing ISSUES with me, instead of attributing
	> lies to me, it's not worth it for me to attempt to discuss
	> anything with you.

    	If the only thing you wish to discuss is why you have to express
    	so much contempt for Womannotes, I've heard it enough from you
    	already.  As for other issues, what I recall more than anything
    	about your notes is definitions of corporate policy.

    	> My perception is that you don't like me, personally, and you just
	> wish to start a notes-war because that's all *I* perceive that you
	> are able to do when it comes to my notes. 

    	It's not personal.  I dislike all unfair slams against Womannotes
    	as an "entity" (including the use of negative stereotypes about
    	the conference, etc.)  If you didn't do this, I would respond to
    	you quite a bit less often.

    	> At such time as you are able to have a rational discussion with 
    	> me, not about *ME* but rather about ISSUES, I will not acknowledge 
    	> your notes.

    	It was never about you.  It was about your unfair slams against the
    	conference.  I really wish you would stop doing it, and would try
    	addressing any concerns you have to individual issues as they come
    	up.

    	> I will NOT get into a war with you.  My participation in this file
	> to to create peace between the genders, not war.  Warring with
	> you is not conducive to my goal.

    	Kath, do you really see yourself as a peacemaker with all the attacks
    	you launch against the community here?

    	Do you think things would be quieter if women were beaten into
    	submission with the help of your baseball bat?  Is that it?

    Will you two please take this discussion to mail.
    
    Thankyou
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod

    Suzanne,
    
             FWIW.....I now have recieved (4) mail messages confirming
    these woman's belief that this conference is for a "select" few. 
    I believe this IS a misperception but never the less, there ARE
    some women out there (I assume read-only) that don't feel "safe"
    relating their beliefs here.  I wonder if maybe a new note, allowing
    the "frequent" noters to state their ideas on this conference in there 
    own words, might not be a good idea.  Stating (in their own words)
    their idea on the purpose of this conference and the kinds of help
    for "ALL" women, could clear up any missunderstandings.  I have found
    this helpful in my own life when the world gets kinda twisted up.
    
    Dave

Question:  Do we *have* to be sure that *everyone* is comfortable here?
Corollary #1:  That all *women* are comfortable here?
	  #2:  THat all *feminists* (m or f) are comfortable here?
	  #3:  That all *female* feminists are comfrotable here?


Serious question, folks.  What is our responsibility here?

My take is to let the file live and grow naturally.  If folks are un-comfortable
about sharing here, they will either delete this conference from their notebook,
 be 'read-only' and put in annomous entries, or read only & their voice
is never heard.

Or they will take a chance, enter notes, and then state their feelings when
they feel 'threatened' or 'un-comfortable'.  (course that leaves the rest
of the community the choice of whether to modify their behavior or not.)

So either the population of the community will fade away to insignificant
numbers (and notes), or their will be lots of members stating that they
feel uncomfortable.  

(So far, I can count about 8 members who've stated that their uncomfortable,
including the '4' who've sent mail to a non-moderator member....perfectly
legitimate action to take.... not very effective, in my opinion, but
legitimate.... compared to some number MUCH greater than 8 who've expressed
support of this file, with all it's frailities, and who've voted on each
of the policies as they've come around.)

    Dave,
    
    I'd like to encourage the women who wrote to you to write to me
    or to any of the other moderators depending on which of us they
    feel most comfortable with. Unfortunately, writing to you or other
    noters won't do much about what ever makes a particular noter feel 
    that the file is for a 'select' few or that writing here is not safe.
    Writing in the file or to a moderator or moderators can and does bring
    about changes.
    
    Inspite of the common misperception, the only 'select' few are those
    women and men who choose to write a lot. We moderators have not
    'annointed' particular people to be the 'chosen' of the file, nor
    have we decided on a particular point of view that is the 'official'
    file point of view. It is quite easy to become one of the 'select'.
    All that is required is a willingness to write a lot and to discuss
    issues with people who are going to both agree and disagree with you
    without letting the disagreements discourage you. (This is assuming
    here that we are talking about a person whose opinions go against
    those generally expressed by vocal members of this file.)
    
    We are always willing to enter notes anonymously. We underwent an
    extensive process over a year ago where Jody solicted mail from
    noters on the state and the 'safety' of the file which she shared,
    with names removed, with the other moderators.
    
    Believe me, this is an issue that is very near to our hearts as
    moderators, and we are always willing to listen and respond to
    people who write to us on this and other issues. 
    
    I get very frustrated and a bit sad, as a matter of fact when I get 
    mail (and it is often from men) or see notes telling me that x or y 
    numbers of women have written to them about some negative aspect of 
    womannotes. I have seldom found that those same women are willing to 
    have their mail forwarded to the moderators even without headers, much 
    less be willing to write to the moderators directly. 
    
    All of us comdos are reasonable women, probably far more 'normal and
    ordinary' than many folks think, and none of us bites (at least that 
    I am aware of! :-) )
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod

    As always, I am open to responses to my survey note.  Please send your
    opinions to me, and I remove your name and reshuffle the information
    into categories of feedback on various portions/aspects of the file and
    how it operates.  Feedback can be positive or negative, and is handed
    over to the other moderators only after I have picked clean all
    identifying information.
    
    Please read topic 23 if you're interested in giving me your feedback. 
    The file is what we make it - all of us - and if we don't know what you
    want, there's far less of a chance the file will become any closer to
    your ideal of what it should be.  Hey - there are probably 100 people
    out there with the same thoughts as you......so what can you lose by
    sending them along?
    
    -Jody
    

    Eagles,
    
    What a lovely note (in re .500) if you delete your notes later on
    from the file would you leave that one?
    
    Thankyou
    
    Bonnie
    
    and 
    
    to the women who wrote to Dave Dawson and those who feel the same
    way about the file, but feel reluctant to write
    to a moderator or write in the file, I'd like to make a few
    suggestions.�
    
    1. Write to a moderator and ask her to put in an anonymous note.
       Not only do we moderators not share authorship of anonymous notes
       with each other, we file the notes away, and don't pay any special
       attention to the information there in, in re anything else the
       noter says. I tend to forget who has sent me the anonymous notes
       that I've entered unless I have to look a note up to send a 
       mail reply.
    
    2. Write to the moderator and ask for a "Sensitive Replies Only" note
       be entered in the file. This is a two string note like an FWO note
       but any replies that are not sensitive in the opinions of the
       moderators will be moved to the FGD string. (Of course a note that
       is itself incendiary or insulting wouldn't be acceptable as SRO,
       at least in my opinion.)
    
    3. Write and request an anonymous/SRO note. Even ask the mods not
       to send non sensitive mail in response that gets sent to them.
       You can't get much 'safer' than that.
    
    4. Write to Jody in re topic 23.
    
    Bonnie
    
    =wn= comod

    
     
Kathy, 
    
 >SELECT::GALLUP        -< Support AND Friendship
 >
 >	I'm glad that you feel support in this conference......I wish
 >	I could say the same for others who choose to be a little different.
 >	I wish I could say the same for those of us that feel that men and
 >	women should live in harmony together.  I wish I could say the
 >	same for those of us that feel that the best way to equality
 >***** with men is thru working WITH men to achieve it.
 >
 >	kathy    
    
    
     ***** Do you mean that those who believe in working WITH men to
    acheive equality do not feel support here? Your note sort of reads
    that way. If this was your perception it is incorrect in my case.
    None of my -wn- friends are Seperatists. How Radical! After all, we
    all work for a man (K.O.) ;^).
    
    Kate

I lied earlier. I actually haven't seen it all as a co-mod. I was thinking
about this last night. I've never heard a man complain that the file isn't
angry or radical or feminist enough, nor have I heard a man say that he has
heard a woman make such a complaint confidentially to him. And I know women
make that complaint :-). To contrast and clarify the above, I _have_ heard men
indicate they appreciate the women space provided here as a place to learn, and
wish it were safer for women.
	Mez

re . Note 22.503                   
    ULTRA::ZURKO "Book 'em Dan-o!"                        
             -< There's still something left in life for me to experience >-

>I've never heard a man complain that the file isn't
>angry or radical or feminist enough, 	Mez

    OK, MEZ, this one's for you :-)  This file is too tame, there's
    too much make-nice, don't-rock-the-boat here. Maybe I'm partially
    to blame. Maybe the women here would benefit from the attitude
    that most men learn as boys - "If you don't like it, lump it."
    Too much mollycoddling of a few precious egos, too much 'are we
    generalizing too much?' processing. I sometimes think the women
    here would benefit from tossing the men out on their butts and
    letting their hair down for real. (Which would personally take away
    *my* learning experience, but I know that's not the purpose of
    this conference. A paradox for me.) This place is like a volcano,
    lots of anger and hurt and frustration under the surface, but the
    volcano doesn't *dare* erupt. Maybe there's simply *no* perfect
    solution in the Notes format - company equipment, company rules.
    Wish it were otherwise.
    
    Dana

re: .1

    I think my biases and stereotypes are showing, Dana; I'm having
    a hard time taking your note seriously, although there is nothing
    actually written in it that should lead to such a response.

	Sigh...

	Sharon

    Is it the content or the style ? 

Oh dear, and I took it seriously (and still do). But, I haven't really formed a
very concrete impression of Dana along that dimension.
	Mez

    
    
    I think Dana's reply really hit on what I see as a (general) difference
    between men and women.  I suspect that many of the men who fight and
    holler a lot in here really don't mean women (or men) any harm by it.
    It is how men are taught to discuss things -- in an adversarial
    way.  I have had countless arguments with my brother where we never
    reached agreement.  As I looked at the pattern later, it seemed
    that I was constantly working to reach consensus, and he was constantly
    working to differentiate himself from me and to disprove my claims.
    (He would actually move away from ideas he said he supported if I
    tried to use that as a place to build common ground.)
    
    I can see that men might think the women who complain about the male
    style of discussing things here (and/or who might wish to read/write
    in FWO notes from time to time) are oversensitive -- "I wasn't being
    mean; I was just trying to make a point."  There is certainly an
    opportunity from men and women in this file to learn some things from
    each other.  I would love, for example, to be able to take some things
    a little less personally, and I feel that I can learn how to do that
    better from my brothers.  Men who want to explore different ways of
    being in the world can learn some things from women, too -- about
    listening, about supporting, and I think, about understanding.  I think
    it's very hard to hear a new idea when you are loudly defending your
    own.
    
    But the learning can only happen to the extent that each of us can and
    wants to let it happen.  And this is further complicated by the
    historical unevenness of things -- women who want to "get ahead" have
    been expected to learn to be like men, and many of us have learned a
    lot of those skills that were once considered only male.  Some women
    get tired of learning to be different from their true selves with no
    acknowledgement that who they are is ok, that what comes naturally to
    women is also valuable.  Some of us sometimes need a place where who we
    are is enough.  I'm sure some men need that, too.  And the lovely thing
    is that now... there is room for all of it.  Men can reach out to other
    men for companionship and support.  Women can have space where they
    support each other.  And women and men can talk to each other more
    honestly than ever before.  I intend to keep working to protect all
    three of these kinds of communication.  
    
    Justine as a woman in womannotes
                                              

    
    Justine,
    	
    Your note .508 is exactly my observations.  The point about saying
    what you mean and not saying it in a mean way is difficult for some
    and significant. I'll add some of mine to yours.
    	
    Your comment of "in an adverserial way." was a different one from
    mine which would have been "in a way that establishes hierachy". 
    I'm agreeing it's adverserial. I also see another perspective.
    It's the idea that there is apparent "status" to the "winner" of
    the discussion rather than merits ot the topic at times, or so it
    would seem.  Men's speech patterns do contain(a generality, sorry)
    more components that are posturing in nature.  It's a function of
    socialization I believe. 
    	
    Allison

    >Men's speech patterns do contain(a generality, sorry)
    >more components that are posturing in nature.  
    
    Yes, absolutely. *Sometimes* it helps to act out a posture 
    outside your normal tendencies. We men have the advantage
    in this. When threatened, we put on an "oh yeah?" attitude
    that may cause our attacker to back off, even if we don't
    feel confident of prevailing. 
    
    >a function of socialization
    
    Yep, we've been the warriors for most of history. Our language,
    our games, our acts and attitudes show it. I'm not saying that
    women should abandon their unique ways of relating, just that
    ours (mens) ways work better in some instances. We more easily 
    express the unpleasant emotions that women would more likely 
    supress. (apologies for the generalizations)

    Dana    

RE:  .508 (Justine)

Wonderful note.  Thank you.  Your inclusiveness and clear commitment
to work the best you can for positive change shines through...

john

    oh wait, you brought up a vital point:
    
    .510
    
>    Yep, we've been the warriors for most of history. Our language,
>    our games, our acts and attitudes show it. I'm not saying that
>    women should abandon their unique ways of relating, just that
>    ours (mens) ways work better in some instances. We more easily 
>    express the unpleasant emotions that women would more likely 
>    supress. (apologies for the generalizations)

    Yours may work better in some instances but by the very NATURE of this
    notesfile they generally do not work better here, nor should they.  We
    express unpleasant emotions in various ways - I often express anger by
    crying - maybe that is a way of submerging it and re-expressing it
    elsewhere, but it is an expression.  And I am under the impression that
    men express unpleasant emotions before THINKING about the results of
    that expression, whereas women will look at what they are expressing,
    and with some sort of empathy will realize what the general response
    will be (and will sometimes change the venting according to the
    perceived potential response).  Like - I'm upset with somebody and want
    to tell them what they did was stupid.  No, wait a minute, it wasn't
    stupid - and they'll definitely blow up at that.  What they did was not
    acceptable in the way I deal with things and it gave me an emotion -
    what they did made me angry.  Could they please explain why they did
    it?  If not - why not?  
    
    Defusing frustration and havoc before it starts is a GOOD thing.
    But only if both sides practice it.  Less hurt.  More communication.  I
    need to learn, frinstance, that I can exhibit anger when I feel it -
    I'm not a bad person because I'm angry, but to spit out explitives and
    insults based on that anger is not a constructive response.  I need to
    voice and channel that anger where it will bring about the most
    positive result - I need to explain that anger if necessary to get the
    situation resolved (BUT NOT TO JUSTIFY IT - emotions should not need
    justification).....
    
    -Jody
    

    Well, if I may interject something here.
    
    >insert sound of clearing throat<
    
    I am probably one of those noters who feels *very* uncomfortable noting
    here.  Interestingly enough, I am female, pro-choice, etc....all the 
    "right" things for this file.  But I am almost exclusively read only. 
    And I will stay that way.  Part of it is a feeling that because I
    cannot express myself as eloquently as some of the other noters here, I
    will be the subject of abuse.  Also, the "core" noters in this file
    have a tendency to drown out others.  To be fair, this isn't a
    phenomenon known only to =wn's, it happens other places as well. 
    
    To be honest, there are some noters here who I respect and admire
    greatly.  But I am afraid of getting into a pissing contest with
    the folks here.  
    
    This file is often supportive of specific noters, and it *has* helped me
    in the past.  I am not afraid of hostility, or confrontation.  I just
    wish this was a place where I didn't have to deal with it.  
    
    
    No such luck.

    Ask us mods and we will be sure you get all the support you need.
    
    Bonnie
    
    =wn= comod

\

RE: .514 


	<sigh>


	I know.  Unfortunately I'm not the type to keep my mouth shut.
	Which I should.

	I rarely read this conference anymore, which is good.  Most times
	I HATE the way I'm treated her.

	kath

    kath, 
    
    my friend,
    
    I wish you'd stay and contribute and try not to yell, when you
    don't yell you are a super lady
    
    Bonnie

>    I wish you'd stay and contribute and try not to yell, when you
>    don't yell you are a super lady


	Bonnie, my dear.

	I only yell when I'm yelled at.

	Or when something REALLY upsets me (like the "I won't sink to
	HIS level" bit).

	Rule#1.  I don't like being yelled at.

	Rule#2.  I don't like being lied about.

	Rule#3.  I don't like people with superiority complexes.


	The goal is equality, not "I'm better than you."

	kath

    	RE: .518  Kath

    	Something quick here (I don't intend to debate with you about
    	this.)

    	> Rule#3.  I don't like people with superiority complexes.

	> The goal is equality, not "I'm better than you."

    	It's funny to see you say this right after reading a note you
    	wrote where you described women-only space as "silly" after
    	many, many notes where other women have opened up about how
    	much they love it.  [Note:  Women-only space is described in
    	the topic as being something out of the ordinary, and not a
    	total way of life as if men had been blasted off the planet.]

    	When people say they love a certain environment and you call
    	it "silly," it implies a feeling of superiority on your part.

    	If this isn't what you meant, then perhaps you don't realize
    	how hostile and unloving (i.e., unsupportive, unvaluing of
    	differences) that you bring across in many of your notes here.

    	Aside from that, do you realize how seldom you write notes in =wn=
    	without reminding us all that you don't read here much or intend
    	to leave (or have left, or are considering leaving)?  While many
    	of us do bring it up from time to time, you almost never stop.

    	This isn't meant to be angry or extremely critical of you.  I'm
    	just wondering why you expect the conference to be more loving
    	towards you while you continue to show such utter contempt for
    	it?  (By the way, I think some people - especially the moderators
    	- have tried to be very supportive of you.)  It's not always easy.
    
    	Not to worry, though.  I'm not the easiest person to love and
    	support, either.

    							Peace,
    							  Suzanne

>   <<< Note 22.519 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>


	Suzanne, don't make implications and inferences from what I
	write.  What I write is what I mean to say.  Nothing more.

	
>    	When people say they love a certain environment and you call
>    	it "silly," it implies a feeling of superiority on your part.

	It *implies* nothing.  I *says* that I feel they are "silly"
	TO ME.  It in no way implies that I don't value that other
	people find them enlightening, envigorating, supportive.

	If any implication is there at all, it's simply that I would feel
	silly in an educational woman-only space, so I don't participate
	in them.

	I've stated many times that I encourage other people to feel and
	think what they want to.  To have their own opinions, to have
	their own thoughts on things, to do what they want to do.

	Just because my opinion, and how I feel in a given situation is not
	the same as another person's does not *imply* that I feel their
	opinions and the way the feel in a given situation is "lesser"
	than mine.  It's just different.  Just because I don't agree
	with a majority does not mean that either of us are better than
	the other.

	I've maintained all along that differences are good.  That difference
	does not imply superiority....that differences should be
	respected in other people.

	So, please.  Suzanne.....quit looking for implications in
	what I write please, because 9 times out of 10 you've been wrong.


>    	If this isn't what you meant, then perhaps you don't realize
>    	how hostile and unloving (i.e., unsupportive, unvaluing of
>    	differences) that you bring across in many of your notes here.

	How can saying "I feel silly in these types of situations" be
	considered unsupportive and unvaluing?  Perhaps if I said "I feel
	they are silly so I don't think you should have them", but that's
	not what I said.  I fully support FWO discussions for those that
	choose to participate in them....and I've said that.

	Isn't your telling me that I shouldn't say what I feel about FWO
	discussions also unvaluing and unsupportive of MY difference? Are
	opinions to the contrary of the norm not supposed to be expressed
	because if you imply projection of them onto other people they don't
	support the norm?

	Basically, Suzanne, I speak for myself.  I don't speak for you, or
	any other noters in this conference.  Please, STOP saying that I
	do.  My opinions are my OWN, they are not yours or anyone elses,
	nor where they ever intended to be yours or anyone elses.  That's
	why they come out of my mouth (fingers?).

	Implications of other people's notes are worthless, because you'll
	never be able to speak for me and I'll never be able to speak for
	you, so it's better if we just take things at face value, don't
	you think?



	to steal a line from jacqui....

	just me....kathy

Well, I'm glad you put that note in Kath, because I reacted the same way
Suzanne did. I went back and read your two notes, and I see where I got that
impression. 

>	How can saying "I feel silly in these types of situations" be
>	considered unsupportive and unvaluing?  

You're right; that would have been clearer. I heard you way you believe and
think they are silly; not that you feel silly, or you believe they are silly
for you. I hope you see the difference; it sounded to me like you did want to
understand why some people react to your notes in a manner not in congress with
your intentions. It was the lack of... my grammar evades me. What's the grammar
term for the object an action refers to? Object?

	Mez

    .521
    
    
    !!!!
    
    In regard to your statement, that you would feel "silly" in an
    educational woman-only space, or something like that.
    
    The *best* and *most rewarding* experience of my life so far took
    place at Clark University last winter where I took a Women's
    Autobiography course in which 26 women participated.  Believe me,
    it was many things, but it was not "silly."  I cannot stress
    enough the rewards I gained from this course, personally,
    professionally, emotionally.
    
    Maia
    

    	RE: .521  Kath

    	Well, now I'm curious as to why you're allowed to describe
    	attitudes here as being "superior" but no one is allowed to
    	make this remark about your attitude.  Do you have special
    	privileges (to characterize people's notes) that the rest of
    	us don't have?

    	> It *implies* nothing.  I *says* that I feel they are "silly"
	> TO ME.  It in no way implies that I don't value that other
	> people find them enlightening, envigorating, supportive.

    	You didn't say it was "silly to you" until just now.  You declared
    	it "silly" ("stupid" at first, I believe.)  These are not the same
    	thing as "silly to you" or making you "feel silly."  

    	> Just because I don't agree with a majority does not mean that 
    	> either of us are better than the other.

    	When you call something "silly" in the face of others who value it
    	very much, it comes across as an air of superiority.  

    	> So, please.  Suzanne.....quit looking for implications in
	> what I write please, because 9 times out of 10 you've been wrong.

    	Are you willing to extend the same courtesy to others here, though?
    	YOUR implications about all of us have been just as wrong, yet you
    	don't seem the least bit willing to acknowledge this.  Are you?

    	> How can saying "I feel silly in these types of situations" be
	> considered unsupportive and unvaluing? 

    	That isn't what you said, though.  You said they were silly, period.
    	There's a difference, whether you want to accept it or not.

    	> Isn't your telling me that I shouldn't say what I feel about FWO
	> discussions also unvaluing and unsupportive of MY difference?

    	When did I do this?  Here's another of your FALSE implications.
    	What I said was that your attitude was superior (and I brought it
    	up because you stated that you found attitudes of others here
    	superior, and I found it ironic.)

    	> Are opinions to the contrary of the norm not supposed to be expressed
	> because if you imply projection of them onto other people they don't
	> support the norm?

    	More implications.  It's so curious to see you do this immediately
    	after telling me that I shouldn't.

    	The point is that you keep accusing people of not supporting you
    	here, and don't seem to realize the insulting, nonsupportive 
    	attitude you extend to others here yourself.

    	> Basically, Suzanne, I speak for myself.  I don't speak for you, or
	> any other noters in this conference.  Please, STOP saying that I
	> do. 

    	Nowhere did I say that you speak for me or anyone else.  It's just
    	another implication of yours.

    	> Implications of other people's notes are worthless, because you'll
	> never be able to speak for me and I'll never be able to speak for
	> you, so it's better if we just take things at face value, don't
	> you think?

    	You say this, but then proceed to do the opposite (by making many,
    	many implications about what people here think and what our words
    	REALLY mean.)

    	Why is it that you can't see what you're doing, I wonder.

    
    I think the points have been made on both sides here.
    
    Kath has claimed her opinion as her own (it's always useful to say "I
    feel" or "I think" or "it makes me feel"  or "I react by" - owning one's
    stuff is always a help to clearer communication) - where it might have
    seemed a judgement before rather than an opinion.
    
    Others have spoken to their own opinions of FWO space and the like. 
    
    Please folks, different opinions can coexist without anyone being
    superior, inferior, anterior, or posterior.  Can't they?
    
    -Jody
    

    
    
    Yes, I agree.  One challenged, and the other clarified, so I think we
    can move on now.
    
    
    Justine

    
Bonnie>    I wish you'd stay and contribute and try not to yell, when you
Reinke>    don't yell you are a super lady


	But when I do yell, I'm not.

	I read EVERYWHERE in this conference that yelling is good
	therapy.  That women SHOULD get angry.  That do let out our
	anger is good, instead of hiding it inside.


	Now I'm told I'm not a super lady when I yell.


	Interesting.

	Why don't you just tell me to shut up?  Wouldn't it be just
	as effective?

	kathy

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 22.528                   The Processing Topic                    528 of 528
LYRIC::BOBBITT "water, wind, and stone"              41 lines  23-AUG-1990 13:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .527

>	I read EVERYWHERE in this conference that yelling is good
>	therapy.  That women SHOULD get angry.  That do let out our
>	anger is good, instead of hiding it inside.

    I don't believe it says anywhere that yelling is good to do in
    womannotes.  To claim your anger, your emotions, and your right to have
    them is vital.  Women should only get angry if that anger is something
    they feel - to get angry in general and at everyone is not recommended
    anywhere in this universe that I have seen (and PLEASE don't interpret
    that is what I feel you are doing, I'm saying no such thing, I am
    merely clarifying what I have read about anger here and other places). 
    Letting out anger is good, as long as you OWN your anger, and are
    willing to not only look at what made you angry in the light of your
    perception, but also see it form the object-of-your-anger's point of
    view (be it animal, vegetable, mineral, or NOTE-orious....)
    

>	Now I'm told I'm not a super lady when I yell.

    Well, when that yelling has certain results that even you have found
    unpleasant, and when the release of your emotion might have found a
    different channel that resulted in fewer hurt feelings on ALL sides
    (AND NO I'm not saying make nice!) - then yelling may be an
    inappropriate solution IN SOME CASES.
    
>	Why don't you just tell me to shut up?  Wouldn't it be just
>	as effective?
    
    Getting you to shut up is not the goal.  Working towards more
    productive communication, where something can be said once, questioned
    once, explained once, and accepted on ALL sides is (what I perceive to
    be) the goal.  Understanding that we all come in here with hot buttons,
    and some people push certain buttons than other, and accepting that
    nobody is a perfect communicator, and allowing for that is VITAL to the
    continuation of the community.  That is PART and PARCEL of the
    communication in this notesfile.  And please note I am NOT saying you
    do not do this, I am merely responding to your comment.
    
    And if you look REALLY close in this reply you will notice I am trying
    to put in LOTS of disclaimers so I don't get misread.  PLEASE don't
    jump on me for saying things I'm not trying to say - and please try to
    understand that the typed language has many shortcomings....
    
    -Jody
    

    
    
    Kath,
    
    Speaking as one woman in womannotes, it's just fine with me if you yell
    and get angry.  I don't think Bonnie meant in anyway to tell you to
    shut up, but if that's what it sounded like to you, I'm glad that you
    decided to holler (as it were) about that.  I appreciate hearing all
    different viewpoints.  I also enjoy evaluating them, talking about
    them, and hearing what other folks think about them.  Our ideas and how
    we express them have an impact on people.  If you write that you think
    woman-only space is "silly," for example, I can't really *know* what
    you mean by that.  I can't know if you mean that you think I'm silly to
    want it or, as you later explained, that it would make you feel silly
    to explore non-gender-specific topics in the company of only women.
    It might feel like nit-picking to you, but if I said something that
    some folks found insulting, I *might appreciate the opportunity to
    clarify.  Perhaps we would all do well to give each other the benefit
    of the doubt more (at least at first) and be a little less accusing
    when we ask for clarifications.  
    
    Justine
    
    *I said might instead of would here because there are certainly days
     when people call me on stuff, and I get defensive or angry, and I
     didn't want to deny that by saying that I'm always loving and open
     when people challenge me.  It's a goal, and some days it feels more
     attainable than others.  

Referencing: 22.369 (Maggie):

   I have read and reread your reply.

   It is a good idea. If everyone follows this properly, the possibility
of major conflicts in this Notesfile will be drasticly reduced.

   With certain modifications, I will adapt this policy for my own
future behavior here.

                                                   -Robert Brown III

Referencing 22.508:

   I liked your entry. It was very perceptive.

                                           -Robert Brown III

    Suzanne, Kath. . .
    
    I think you two are going to inflict each other throughout all the
    worlds of God.  Surely you have been mother & daughter (and daughter &
    mother) many times before.

I thought some more about my understanding of kath's perception of the mixed
signals in this conference, and here's what I came up with. It might not be
what happened to kath, but it made sense to me. I am working anger as an issue, 
and have been fond of pushing the radical envelope in several interests in my
life, feminism included. Of course that comes out in my notes. Bonnie is, I
believe, fondest of calm, friendly interaction. We are both relatively vocal
members of this conference, and, when acting ex officio, co-mods. So, in fact,
if we each represent the community, the community is indeed sending mixed
signals. Which is great by me.
	Mez

    I'm not signing up for any list, or non-list, or anti-list.
    
    I'm gonna read each note string that is interesting, for as long as I
    find it interesting.
    
    Generally I stop finding a note string interesting when and whenever it
    turns into a shootout.  It is true that certain noters here tend to get
    into altercations that kill my interest more often than others. (That's
    their right; it's my right to ignore or not ignore at my own
    discretion.)  That's not censorship, that's selection by the reader. 
    If nothing else, I have too much WORK to do to waste my time on more
    than a very few notes that contain lots of ">" characters.
    
    So, fire away!  it's a free country!  and a somewhat free company! but
    don't expect that everybody has to play.

    I have a question.  An honest, sincere, not-meant-to-be-flip,
    non-aggressive, question.
    
    When ever (okay, *most* of the time) I object to a man's comments
    about "...Women drivers...", I get the "Oh.  You're not one of those
    FEMINISTS, are you?  Give it a rest!"
    
    Does this mean that when men object to any generalization we might
    make, they are being one of those MASCULISTS?
    
    It's not nice not having the upper hand and final say, is it?
    
    E Grace

RE: .530 (Justine)

>If you write that you think
>    woman-only space is "silly," for example, I can't really *know* what
>    you mean by that.

	There is a simple solution to that.  *Ask* for clarification.

	I was never asked for clarification, I only had people jump down
	my throat.

	*I* know what I mean, no one else can be sure of what I mean.  They
	cannot imply what they think I mean and be correct.


	To ask a simple question will go far.......I cannot clarify if
	I do not know the question you are asking.  And I cannot clarify
	when people assume that I mean something else, and when I say
	otherwise, I'm ignored.



	kathy

    
    
    Kath,
    
    I agree that we should all try to ask for clarification before we
    pounce.  But sometimes someone says something that touches an old
    wound, and it's hard to be so generous.  And then we do the best we
    can to fix it.  I know that I'm working to improve my communication
    skills (both my sending and receiving skills), but I'm not ready to
    let my ability to apologize when I misspeak or misunderstand get rusty,
    because I know I'm going to need it from time to time.
    
    Justine

	One thing I try to remember, is that EVERYTHING I write is 
	filtered by EACH reader's experiences, emotions, and backgrounds.
	That is why disclaimers, painful as they are, are needed.

	That is also why the inclusion or exclusion of a few simple words,
	can make MAJOR differneces in how a note is perceived.  An example,
	with apologies to Kathy, is "that is silly" vs "that makes me
	feel silly".

	I guess I try to remember that it is what my note is PERCEIVED
	to have said, not what I really MEANT TO CONVEY, that is
	important.

	'course, some days I am just to b*tchy to care.
	
	m

    
    	It would nice, Kath, if you were nearly as generous towards us
    	as you jump down our throats for not being towards you.
    

    Suggestions:
    
    Everybody writing notes include disclaimers which "own" their stuff - I
    feel - I think - I see - I note that.....
    
    Everybody read everybody else's notes as if there were more disclaimers
    than were actually put in.....
    
    We're all human, we all have hot buttons, we all get misunderstood
    because language cannot begin to communicate a majority of our
    impressions and feelings anywhere near as well as we'd like it to...
    
    -Jody

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 325.6                      Why I love women                          6 of 7
JARETH::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."          7 lines  27-AUG-1990 14:43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Re .5:
    
    If this conference is to be judged by, and I hope it is not, that would
    be the Goddess of Prejudice, Hatred, and Discrimination.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .544
    
    > What gets said
    > for mass consumption is almost certain to offend some few unless
    > it is so devoid of meaning as to offend nobody.
    
    More than a grain of truth here I think, and I'm not sure it's
    possible to offend nobody.
    
    I'm imagining some of the recent notes read aloud, and find that the 
    [imagined] tone of voice varies.  Puzzled, hurt, angry, aggressive, 
    passive, polite, serene, sarcastic, cutting, laughing.  Interesting 
    mind exercise (which reminds me of Kliban's cartoon-ad for Existential 
    Mind Jelly:  "Hmmmm," remarks the user applying the goo to his head, 
    "I see...")
    
    aq
    

i counted to ten.  not enough.
i counted to a hundred.  i'm still peeved.

menmenmenmenmenmenmenmenmenmen.  that's all i hear, day in day out.

i hear it in the news.  i read it in history.  i hear it in religion.  
i hear it at work.  i hear it in philosophy.  everywhere, everywhere, 
even in WOMANNOTES!!!  ag!  overdose!!

when i was weaned from the bottle, my mother was into this diet some 
magazine pushed: banana eggnogs.  eggs, milk, nutmeg, vanilla, 
bananas.  i went from baby's formula to banana eggnogs and had that 
plus multivitamins (and fluoride supplements) for a several years.

the thought of eating a banana makes me ill.  nutmeg is one of my most 
despised spices.  i can't drink milk.  luckily, eggs and vanilla still 
exist for me.  

i NEEEEEEED womanspace.  why can't i read a book or ten that don't 
REVOLVE around men?  why can't i have a conversation with my 
grandmother that doesn't CENTER on men and whether or not i will 
[marry, sleep with, have children with, in whatever order she prefers] 
men?  why can't i find a book about women's psychology which NEVER 
compares our behavior to that of men?  and how come if i read about 
general psychology, 90% of it is about men?!?!

you know, it's gotten to the point where i'd rather have a 
conversation with my stepmother than my father because she and i talk 
about things which have nothing to do with men.  and my mother... 
well, when i talk to her, all i hear about is her husband harry - 
she's either comparing him to my father (and finding my dad wasn't so 
bad after all), or recounting all his woes, or beefing about him in 
general.

recent basenotes leave me seething.  no, the current, relatively 
simplistic, routine, wholescale attack on the members of this file by 
some [i can't find a descriptive which won't get me deleted] isn't it. 
we've been there before and we will again.  sickening, but true.

no, it's the ones: "why i [] men".  WHO CARES???  go to mennotes or 
humanrelations!

it's when someone starts a basenote about how to deal with a daughter 
who's just had her first period, and the FIRST REPLIES are from MEN!  
excuuuuuse me, but WHAT on EARTH do YOU know about BLEEDING INTO YOUR 
UNDERWEAR ON A ROUTINE BASIS FOR DECADES???  i might as well advise a 
young man on ejaculation!  

it's when replies to "why i [] women" seem to talk more about men than 
anything else.

it's when some parent gets lost in notes$land and ends up here on his 
way to the SINGLES file; what does "topics of interest to women" have 
to do with "single dad wants to meet single mom, have some laughs"?

it's when some [expletive deleted] mistakes lechery after XX legs for 
woman-worship.  [that was my own final straw]

it's when =wn=ers have to alter their behavior for men_as_a_class, 
defended by individual_men [the =wn= cops, here to monitor our 
behavior and ensure that it meets *their* standards of acceptable 
behavior, thanks daddies; we'll be good girls now...].

go away!

okay.  i can't make you leave.  i'll just go find me another 
womanspace, 'cause THIS sure ain't for women.  might as well change 
the statement "topics of interest to women" to "topics of interest to 
MEN [and you gals, too, though we KNOW you'd rather be MEN like US and 
run the #$#$%^ world], as long as MEN is always the FIRST, MOST
IMPORTANT, EARTH ENDING topic that MEN want to discuss." 
    
    lt

    
    Lee,
    
    Are you fed up or something?

    .549
    
    Great note. Thanks for writing it.  
    Maia
    

    RE: .549 Lee, I for one agree with you totally.  All I seem to
    be reading lately is accusations by men in this notesfile.  It seems 
    as if there are very few notes where women can talk about women then
    all of a sudden its men's needs, men's fears, men's this and that.
    If I want to know about men I can read almost any other notesfile,
    periodical, turn on the tv or radio or stand up and walk out of
    my cubicle.  Women are more than half the population but we can't seem
    to utter even one sentence before being told we are wrong, not of value
    accusatory etc.
    Can we have ONE DAY of peace in this notesfile?
    
    sigh...

    
    
    Lee,
    
    Thanks for the honest, from the heart reply.  I hope you really won't
    go away in search of more woman-oriented space.  Let's build some here.
    I really do think there's room for all of us.  No matter how good
    some men are at framing the question so women will feel like they're
    being asked to slit their boyfriends' throats while they sleep, it
    seems that lots of women in this file can see through it.  Women who
    love men also value some woman-space in their lives.  So let's do it.
    Let's talk about the things we want to talk about, and ignore
    the interruptions.  
    
    I have learned largely through my participation in this community
    that there are some men that I would like to spend time with and
    discuss things with (and yes, I'm mad at myself for feeling like
    I have to say this when what I really want to talk about (right now) is how
    I feel about women in this file), but sometimes when I'm talking to
    women, I don't want to talk to men.  Just like I don't want to ride my 
    bike while I'm swimming or swim while I'm playing my guitar, even
    though I enjoy all three activities.
    
    Justine who is thinking more and more that a lot of this has more to do
    with our own empowerment than anyone's nastiness.  
                   

	Yup,  seems to me Lee is fed up,
	and she gave some pretty concise & definitive reasons why, too.
	and ya know what?  reading it, I think I am too.

	So Hey you turkey!  Yup, you know who you are.


		G O    A W A Y !!!


	No I can't MAKE you, but I CAN TELL you I DON'T want you here,
	and I wish you would leave.	

	And I wish -wn- has the space to go back to the supportive place it
	once was.  

	No, *I* won't leave, 'cause this place was created for ME & people
	like ME.  If you can't handle that *fact*, GO  AWAY.


	mary

    Yes, Lee, great note.  Thanks.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .549
    
    Like a breath of fresh air--thanks, Lee.
    
    Barb

    Put a sock in it Eric... nobody said anything discriminatory....they
    just said how they were feeling.
    
    *sigh*
    Marge_getting_tired

    Erick, clearly you're reading a lot more into the previous few replies
    than I did.  And if a friend/associate/longtime noter can't tell you
    when to shaddup in a friendly way, then who can?
    
    *sigh*
    Marge

    Yes, I'm sorry... I thought you were responding to this notestring...
    I will retract my request as I haven't read 78.*
    
    sorry,
    Marge

    
    
    Eric,
    
    Here is something I would like you to know.  Your writing here has
    made me more sensitive to the pain I might cause to men when I write
    here.  I have tried to be more careful in my speculations.  Even
    though I don't think the word "men" means "all men," I really try
    to use qualifying words like "some" "ones that I know" etc.  This is
    mainly because I believe that notes about anger at "men" hurt you. 
    
    Your style of writing has made me angry, though.  I hardly ever hear
    you saying, "this hurts me."  I hear you saying, "this hurts men."
    For some reason, that's harder for me to take.  As a moderator, Eric,
    I have to use my best judgement to balance the needs of this community
    in the way that seems fairest to me.  I honestly don't see anything
    in the replies you've complained about in 78.* that constitutes
    harrassment or a blanket attack against you or against men.  That is
    my judgement, and in this conference I'm one of the ones who gets to
    (or has to) make that judgement.  You are, of course, free to appeal to
    higher courts, and you are also free to bring it up in here time after
    time.  But I wish you wouldn't.  I can see, Eric, that some of what
    folks have written here (and perhaps some of what I have written here)
    has hurt you, and I am truly sorry about that.  I don't know how I
    can fix that hurt and still hold true to my own principles, just as
    you are committed to holding true to yours.  
    
    No one is writing in 78 right now, Eric, and I think it's been weeks
    since the replies that hurt you were written.  You could keep at this
    quest to have old notes deleted, or you could consider this.  Keep
    talking about what it is that hurts you in my and other's replies that we
    write now.  I think that you can influence the way I frame male/female
    issues and the way other men and women here frame those issues if
    you talk about current replies in this file, and most importantly, talk
    about them in terms of yourself whenever possible.
    
    Justine as a comod 
    

thanks for the support all.  yes ren, i was/am fed up.  comes from 
setting my expectations too high, i suppose.

in a way, justine, this *is* about empowerment, for me at least.  my 
group at work used to have five women, and a second one left two weeks 
ago so we're down to three.  as some may remember, i left =wn= a while 
ago because i was getting my womanspace_needs met at work.  i miss 
that comfort...

re .555, mary
.555>	So Hey you turkey!  Yup, you know who you are.

um, i hope that by "you turkey" you don't mean eric, eric_only, or
eric_specifically, because eric's stuff was not what *i* meant.  i'm 
at least as peeved (unjustifiably more so, actually) at the WOMEN who 
talk about men all the time.  men talk about men, women talk about 
men, can't i beam up to a planet where i can spend a small fraction of 
my time talking with and about women?

eric, if your reference to "previous notes" (in .558) is to *my* 
previous note (.549), please be aware that i don't CARE about topic 
78.  someone close to me has asked me to think about it again, and i 
will.

i cared about the fact that you had been hurt when you entered 
that note$equivalent of a scream of anguish so long ago, but then you 
left right away (did you delete that reply?).  THEN i was willing to 
stop and listen to your whys.  but they never came.  you say some 
people gloated at you in mail for that reply: youch!  THAT stinks.  i
care about that. 

but this is WOMANNOTES.  i don't come here to talk about men, even 
men's pain.  if you want to talk about it with me, sure!  but not in 
womannotes; i need to talk with and about women when i'm here.  mail
is cool though... 

lee

    re: 571
    
    "should"?  SHOULD?  Well, gosh, just what do you think we girls SHOULD
    be saying?  And just how SHOULD we say it?  
    
    Maybe I'm just so goddamn radical that I don't even BOTHER replying to 
    what I consider drivel posted here!  Maybe it's just not worth my
    energy--I'd rather use it more constructively most of the time. 
    
    Often I'm not interested in a topic.  And I'm never interested in
    giving advice.  So I read and reply when I have information to share or
    when someone hasn't already voiced my view.
    
    But one thing I NEVER have stood for is ANYONE telling me what and how I 
    SHOULD feel,  HOW I should sound, what it means to be a woman, what I
    SHOULD do ever...
    
    If you equate radical with reactionary, then this must be what you're
    looking for.
    
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
    I've reread Brian's .571 twice and I don't see anything akin to
    what you've taken from it. 
    
    I don't see that he was telling anyone what they 'should' be doing
    only regretting that some points of view were not represented.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    I'm a little uncomfortable with use of the word, "should" too, but
    looking beyond that (rather minor, in this case and in my opinion)
    style issue, I heard a lot of truth in what Brian wrote.  I think a lot
    of the less moderate voices (and by that, I mean, voices on both sides
    of center) do get silenced.  I think that what happens sometimes is
    that we women tend to go off and think about what is fair and
    reasonable on our own and then come to the table to "negotiate" with
    what already feels like a compromise position.  It has struck me that
    men seem more likely to come to the table with everything they could 
    possibly want and then deal from there.  So the woman's voice is
    already watered down because she (being tuned in to her impact on
    others) has already edited herself.  I often laugh when I or other
    women are labelled as radical, because you should hear us when we're
    not editing ourselves -- would that it were possible to have more of
    that here.    
    
    Justine -- not as radical as you might think but much more radical than
               I seem 
                      

    re .575, Brian-
    
    > 	  Sorry.  I won't do it again.
    
    Gads, no pleasing some men.  Gets what he asks for (radical
    outspokenness) and then threatens to hold his breath 'til
    he turns blue on account of it!  Brian, we're out here for
    the whole schmeer!  Listening, rejoicing, hearing, and if
    needed, commiserating for sure; but also to contribute, and
    to take our lumps when we earn 'em!  So, you've had a reminder
    about the s-word; good for ya besides helping ya.  Bear up,
    mate, we ain't all down on yer.
    
    "Do it again" when the word moves you; I'll be listening.
    
    DougO  

    re: .575
    
    Brian,
    
    Thanks for your acknowledgement of the "s" word.  I did not have that 
    reaction (in .572) because of your gender.  Ok, it is possible that had 
    the note been written by a woman, or by certain regular male or female 
    contributors about whom I've formed strong unfavorable opinions, that 
    I would not have bothered replying.  But that's Monday morning
    quarterbacking.  
    
    I try to keep this behavior--reacting to the name on the note--in check, 
    even if I still have the thoughts and impulses.  I'll pay more diligent 
    attention to this. 
    
    I claim to not be a separatist, although I have been caught in the act. 
    It's insidious with me in that it feels more like a bigotry I've
    contagioned (?) from the environment rather than something I've created
    for myself.  
    
    As for the =wn= community, I do not see anyone as a squatter.  Except
    maybe for the occasional person who seems to come in, drop some kind of
    sexist bullshit bomb and leave before it explodes.  And that's an
    example of what I mean when I say there's drivel here that doesn't rate 
    expending my energy on.  I have stated that I am in favor of FWO notes 
    as a suggestion only and that men's replies ought to be allowed to 
    remain there.  I do not reply to FWO, only to FGD notes.  In V2 I did 
    not introduce myself in the women's note, but in the generic "members 
    of the community" note.
    
    This is a very artificial means of communication, without so much as
    the sound of a voice to indicate the more subtle meanings of the words
    we use.  But communication is made impossible in jumping to
    conclusions. 
    
    Nancy

    re -1:
    
    Well, the moderator (Maggie it was, I think) who entered the 316
    base note knows who the author is.  If anyone has been acting
    outrageously, I assume that she'd be pursuing it offline.
    
    I know that moderators never give away the identify of an anonymous
    noter.  However, I'm puzzled.  The moderator, I assume, is able to
    say if someone did *not* enter an anonymous.  It's curious that
    the moderator hasn't stepped forward to say that the base note
    *wasn't* written by Robert!
    

    Moderators are given anonymous notes to post.  They keep who the
    authors are (and who they aren't) anonymous.  Isn't that fair?
    Or should it be a guessing game sometimes....?
    
    -Jody

    No, it's not curious.  It's as it should be, and it's just how
    the U.S. government responds to charges that someone is a spy.
    (Although I'm a moderator now, this `policy' has never been
    mentioned.  This is my own take, and I would be surprised if I
    were wrong -- but I could be.)
    
    						Ann B.
    						Individual

    Actaully Ann B. we didn't have a policy on that, per se, I think
    you just made it.
    
    :-)
    
    Bonnie J

    Robert says he is "not the person who sent Maggie the basenote."
    
    This is not the same as saying he didn't write it, and have it sent on.
    I don't know if the loophole in his disclaimer is intentional or not.
    Were I Maggie, I might directly ask the anonymous basenoter if the
    fable's origins were influenced by others, and if Robert was among
    those others.
    
    DougO

    I don't mean to be dense but
    
    1.  why does it matter WHO wrote the basenote?
    2.  what does it matter what the original intent of the basenote
    	was, particularly since we all filter it through our own
    	experience and formulate our own opinions anyways?
    3.  who's to say that whoever claimed responsibility for it
    	would reveal their initial intent anyway, now that the
    	water is so muddied with a variety of interpretations?
    
    -Jody
    

    re .585, well, I think it certainly matters if Robert wrote it.
    
    Lorna
    

	Who the hell is Robert and what the @$%! does is matter if
	he entered it?


	Perhaps the reason the note was entered anonymously was so that
	it WASN'T read with bias.....am I correct in assuming that some of
	you are suggesting that you would read it differently if this
	so-called "Robert" entered it?

	I guess I don't understand the desire by some to WANT to
	actually read a note WITH bias.....


	kath
	

    
    I'm uncomfortable with this speculating about who wrote the story.
    I think it's very important for every woman and man in this file to
    feel safe asking a comod to post an anonymous reply, and in the case
    of the story, I don't think it really matters who wrote it, anyway.
    It seems to me that either the "insults" that Robert pointed out to us
    were not intended as such by the author, or they were designed to
    get a rise out of some folks.  In either case, it strikes me that the
    best course of action is to ignore it and move on.
    
    Justine
                                                     

    
    	Agreed - it doesn't matter who wrote the "story" in 316.0.
    
    	Even if Robert did write it, I wouldn't view it any differently.
    	It's still a parable (with Ancient Egyptian references) that can
    	be interpreted in a variety of ways.
    
    	I choose to see it the way I want to - others are free to do the
    	same.  
    
    	So what?  (I agree we should drop it now.)
    

    re .592, Steve, I think it was D! who asked Robert if *he* had written
    it, I think, because *he* was the only person (just about) who seemed
    to have taken any interest in it at all, and I had wondered the same
    thing myself.  I don't see why it is a crime to wonder who wrote
    something?  Doesn't anybody else ever *wonder* who enters the anonymous
    notes.  Maybe I'm the only noter with such a slimy mind!  Maybe it's a
    sign of a low IQ that I'm not interested in parables with references
    I've never heard of before.  Who knows, Steve?  I never said I wasn't a
    dummy?  Maybe I really do have a very low IQ, but if so, it's not *my*
    fault.  I was born this with whatever level of intelligence I have, and
    I really think that you should have compassion, not scorn, for my
    inability to appreciate some things - such as "the (boring, stupid :-)
    ) story that you are referring to.   :-)   
    
    Lorna
    

RE: 1.25
>                     -< Please use "*" to soften language >-
>    The number of notes that violate the "language" provision of 1.7 seems
>    to be increasing.  It would be good to reduce it again


	How does an "*" soften language????  It's my impression that if
	people are using astericks in words then they are using words that
	they KNOW they shouldn't be using.

	Isn't an asterick just a "cover-up"?  I mean, everyone KNOWS what
	they are writing, how does it soften it in any way?

	Basically, if I feel the "need" to write an obscenity to support
	my writing then I'm going to do it (ie, if it's pertinent to the
	topic).  If I feel the "need" to hide what I write, then I shouldn't
	be writing it to begin with.


	JMO

	kath


	

    on the one hand, I feel that (a) it would be better to be civil in
    general, and (b) a civil reply, that does not include swears, can be and
    often is far more cutting and vicious than a long string of oaths (go
    watch WmFBuckleyJr sometime; nevermind that sometimes he's the only one
    who gets the point!)
    
    on the other hand, I've been told that I can wither stone when I'm mad,
    which usually includes colorful use of curses. (I believe it's the
    intense and focused eye contact that does it though.)
    
    even when I was maddest at Pascal, I managed a veneer of civility.

    There was a dicussion at one point in V2 where the majority decided
    that it was more polite to not only use less vulgar language, but when
    you did use it to soften it with asterisks and other non-letter
    characters.  It seemed, to many, to reduce the impact.  I can't seem to
    find exactly where it was discussed though.....partly in topic 788
    though.
    
    -Jody
    
    

    I strongly agree with Kath on this...
    
    I don't understand how somebody can be "less offended" just
    because an "obscenity" is masked with asterisks.
    
    D! entered a great note on f yoo c k   (949.16, V2).
    
    /bruce

    re .599 Herb, sometimes the _best_ that communication can 
    achieve is that both sides state their position clearly,
    state their opposition to the others viewpoint, agree
    to disagree, and get on with life. Agreement isn't always 
    possible. 
    
    Dana

    
    S'OK by me Herb - this is a place to "be real" in. I prefer real
    people, moods an' all. :-}
    
    Hope whatever was making you glum has passed....
    'gail
    

    re: .601.
    
    Y'know......hugs help.....
    
    here's one....
    
    ************( hug )*************
    
    -Jody
    

    Note 440.0 was started as a request for "women's graffitti" this
    morning.  It has since been deleted.  Perhaps its time for policy
    1.10 to be exercised.
    
    DougO

    DougO
    
    as far as I can tell it was deleted by mistake, I'm checking on 
    it right now.
    
    Thanks
    
    Bonniee

    Oh, look, here Ann has gone and fixed 440.0.  Thanks.  Never mind ;-).
    
    DougO

    RE: 601
    
    Herb, I don't know what you're apologising for as I haven't been
    keeping up too well lately, but I just want to say that I love
    a person who can apologise. Displacing feelings happens to us
    all, and I hope you are talking about what's bothering you 
    as much as you need to. That's what works for me.
    
    Eileen 

    Re: Herb_
    
    You forget, I'm a memeber of the NEXT/UNSEEN Club;)
    
    Barb

    Weird things are happening in here today.  I'm pressing next
    unseen and getting notes that were written a couple of days ago,
    with no apparent changes or anything (and most of them silly
    innocuous notes, too) and new notes sometimes don't show up
    (though I get later notes in the same string) without the usual
    "note x.x is set hidden".
    
    Of course it could be my system, which just upgraded to V5.4 . . .
    but does anybody know what's happening?
    
    --bonnie

    Nothing to do with VMS V5.4.
    My machine is running V5.3 and I'm having the same problems today.
    
    Maybe someone is playing silly games????
    
    Charles

    This is strange. I'm getting the same thing as Bonnie. I'll read all
    the new replies to a string and then when I want to go to the next
    uneseen reply, the string I just went through will start over. 
    
    Maybe because Halloween is approaching. 2 weeks from today.
    
    Phil

    
    	One thing you might want to watch for - the date and time of the
    	entries you're seeing again.  It's possible to remove a note, edit
    	it, and put the new version back where the old one was (even if
    	replies have been written after it.)  You see it again because the
    	new version isn't marked "seen" yet - then you'll end up seeing all
    	the subsequent entries (even the ones marked "seen") if you use the
    	buttons for "next" (either carriage return or KPEnter.)
    
    	If you want to avoid going through the ones you've seen later in
    	the topic without missing new ones at the end that you haven't
    	seen yet, it helps if you do a "DIR" of the conference at that
    	point, then do a "next unseen" (KP,) - someone please jump in
    	here if there's a better way than this.
    
    	Also, there may be some corruption in the file causing some of
    	these symptoms.

    
    	One thing that may have added to all this...
    
    	There are two notes with similar titles - after reading a note
    	from one topic, my "next unseen" jumped to an earlier number
    	in a different topic with a similar name.  It really gave me a
    	start - until I realized that there were two topics involved.
    

    re: .616
    
    Yes, that was disconcerting . . . and I'm used to the deleted
    notes and the  edit-and-replace confusion.  But this didn't appear
    to be either of those -- one of the notes I got back was my own,
    which I *know* I didn't change!  It seemed pretty random.  
    
    And it seems to have stopped. 
    
    --bonnie

    
    	RE: .617  Bonnie
    
    	Yes, the symptoms do seem to have subsided.  I don't think any
    	actual file corruption has taken place.  
    

    
    	Can I post the mail I got from you after the last crisis (where
    	you described the nice mail you got from Lorna and explained
    	how she helped resolve the situation last time?)
    
    	Who will help you the next time (and the times after that?)
    

    
    	Finally found a sense of humor, I see.  ;^)
    
    	We know what you model your notes after (and you're far more
    	successful at it.)
    

    I guess these interractions allow me be delete my in vain or maybe just
    vain attempt to keep things in tow.
    Go get her big fella
    Scratch his eyes out tiger

    re 456.32:
    
    > What I'd like to know is how come I get more understanding mail when I
    > make a big fuss than at any other time, even than when I entered the
    > Splashes topic?  
    
    i wrote because i did not understand what i thought was a leap in
    logic, which i think is unusual for you.
    
    i have replied to you only once in the file because i did not want to
    get caught up in a debate.  i am bad at debates and i don't like them
    (which caused which is anyone's guess). 
    
    i used mail, despite the fact that i have never interacted with you
    much, because my reply to the topic was deleted.  i do not often contact
    people in mail if they have no reason to know me, because it makes me
    uneasy when i am contacted by strangers so i assume others may not like
    it either.
    
    i have stayed out of this controversy (until recently) because i come
    to this file to interact with women.

    What really bothers me about this hate men/dead men/abuse men business,
    and I don't know if this belongs in the rathole or here, but I know
    that if somebody were to go through all the notes I've ever posted they
    would find far more positive statements I've made about men than
    negative.  However, it is one of the few times that I've ever said
    anything negative about a man that gets pointed out.
    
    For example, just last week in the 5th anniversary party topic, when a
    lot of women were posting replies about fWO activities I went in and
    said that since Mike V., jwhite, DougO, and Charles Haynes were all
    planning to travel a long way to attend this party, it didn't seem fair
    to me to plan a lot of FWO events that they wouldn't be able to attend. 
    NOT ONE MAN acknowledged this entry.  I also said, in reply to Mike V.,
    that i didn't think that all of the women would be attending the FWO
    events.  Mike V. made no acknowledgement of this reply, instead he came
    back in to the topic still complaining about all the FWO events being
    planned.  It made me feel like I was invisible and didn't matter to the
    men of this conference.  It made me feel as though Mike V. didn't give
    a damn if I was at a party or not, it was other, presumably more
    interesting women he was looking to meet.  I didn't make a difference. 
    So, I deleted my reply.  
    
    It doesn't matter what I say.  Nobody cares what I say.  I'm nobody
    special.  That's the message I got.
    
    Yet, just let me make a statement in a moment of anger, against men,
    and my note is sent to Corporate Personnel with a major complaint.
    Suddenly my every word is utmost importance.
    
    edp, what do you care what I say anyway?  I'm only a 41 yr. old
    secretary.  Nobody cares what I say or think.  What a joke.
    
    Lorna
    

    I care what you think, Lorna, and your experience with living and
    loving is one of the things I come to this file for.
    
    I come for the insight and support and understanding of the
    majority of the members of this conference.
    
    I don't come for the anger and the abuse and shouting.  If I
    wanted that, I'd do soapbox.  I wish people who do do soapbox
    would leave their debate tactics there -- what's effective in one
    environment isn't always appropriate in another.  I ignore it as
    best I can -- the most effective way I've found is to skip notes
    by certain people, and to skip entire strings when I find more
    than two responses from either of them.
    
    Sigh.
    
    --bonnie

    
    Bonnie, your last paragraph in .629 says it all for me ...
    
    Peace,
    
    Carla
    

    re .628 Lorna, I care, and I listen. I love your honesty and up-front 
    style (even if I think you're wrong 51% of the time :-) )

    Dana

    
    re 462.*
    I guess what I am groping at is 

    1) an understanding of how: once a specific occurence of abuse HAS
       happened it sometimes seems to be in the interest of 'both
       parties' to respond to the 'abuse' with abuse. And even to respond
       with inappropriate intensity to some 'abuse' if one has been subjected
       to more intense abuse at some earlier time. And that this becomes
       even more understandable when the current abuser(s) have traits
       that remind the target of earlier abusers.*

    2) a possible metaphor for understanding the dynamics of the
       relationship of the conference to dsome of the indivicuals in the
       conference and/or 
       the dynamics of the relationship between some individuals in this
       conference and some other individuals in the conferences

    It also seems useful to think about RELATIVE power. That is to say the
    power relationships are not always constant. As an example let's accept
    the statement that a woman is less powerful than a man. Given that, we
    would talk about one set of dynamics if they are -say- husband and
    wife; but it seems to me the dynamics might be quite different if the
    woman is a supported member of a much larger community and the man
    isn't.
    
    e.g. I have heard many tales of an Indian raping a white woman, but I
    have never heard of one Indian successfully attacking a woman while she
    was protected by an encirclement of wagon trains.



    *   (That certainly is true of me. Of course in my case since I was
       abused by members of both sexes (as a child), member of both sexes
       sometimes see me as being 'PRICKLY'). It also perhaps helps ME
       understand why/how I could characterize some people's behavior as
       RAPING the conference.)

    	RE: .632  Herb
    
    	The dynamics of power aren't simple enough to trade maleness for
    	the location of an encounter.  Other factors come into play.
    
    	As other illustrations, how does the tiny minority in South Africa
    	hold power over the black majority?  How does the drill sargeant
    	in an army unit hold power over a group of men who spend much of
    	their off-duty time together (and have already formed strong social
    	bonds)?  How does a guard hold power over a large section of a
    	prison population?
    
    	By virtue of an authority higher than the subjugated group.
    
    	By intimidation.
    
    	By custom.
    
    	Add a healthy dose of determination (or, in some cases, obsession
    	with gaining and/or maintaining power over the target group.)

    	RE: .632  Herb

    	Your comment about a person being mistaken about abuse because
    	another person reminds them of the abuser...

    	You mentioned multiple experiences of abuse yourself (as others
    	here have shared.)  Wouldn't it have been awful if the people
    	with whom you've shared this were to tell you that the subsequent
    	episodes (after the first) weren't real - but were only a mistake
    	you made because they reminded you of the original abuser?

    
    	RE: .635  Herb
    
    	> But there are also some WONDERFUL caring people of both sexes who
    	> are trying to grope toward a better sense of what is going on in 
    	> the world.  We make mistakes. 
    
    	Yes, we do sometimes.  All of us wonderful people.
    

    re .34
    <Wouldn't it have been awful if the people with whom you've
    <shared this were to tell you that the subsequent episodes (after the
    <first) weren't real - but were only a mistake you made because
    <they reminded you of the original abuser?

    No it wouldn't be awful, it would however be misinformed. 
    
    On the other hand if these same people were to say to me that
    it sometimes seems to be in my interest to respond to the 'abuse' with
    abuse. And even to respond with inappropriate intensity to some 'abuse'
    because I had been subjected to more intense abuse at some earlier
    time. And that this becomes even more understandable when the current
    abuser(s) have traits that remind the target of earlier abusers.
     
    in THAT case I would acknowledge that they are indeed correct, that I
    recognize it as a problem I have.  I would state that that is something
    I am working on and getting better at. I would also state that I know
    it concerns people who care about me. 
    
    Finally, I DO state -unasked- that it is the recognition of those
    dynamics in others that has been part of my motivation for withdrawing
    from the conference. It is just too unpleasant for me to watch people
    hurt each other. It is also too unpleasant for me to feel the anger I
    feel when watching people abuse each other, knowing that I am helpless
    to do anything about it. Knowing that I am left with the options of either 
    a) stand by silently and watch and by my silence implicitly condone it
    b) try to stop it 
    c) acknowledge that my attempts to stop it have failed, and depart
    
    I have chose the third option.
    
    I am not available for any further questions.
    Suzanne, please do not communicate with me by mail.
    
    
    				goodbye and goodluck
    				kermit (herb on good days)
    
    

    
    	RE: .637  Herb
    
    	> No it wouldn't be awful, it would however be misinformed. 
    
    	You'd know that, of course, but there's no guarantee others
    	would believe it.
    
    	It's always possible for others to deny that you were abused,
    	due to their own lack of insight or sensitivity.
    
    	Unfortunately.

    I think it would be entirely appropriate for the moderators to
    summarily delete any note that consists entirely of a comment on
    another specific noter's personality, no matter who started it. 
    
    Such notes are in clear violation of our policy in 1.15.
    
    Gentle pleas to take controversy to MAIL are fine for ordinary 
    arguments that grown heated, but allowing this kind of entirely
    personal sniping to stand allows everyone who later comes in to be
    exposed again and again to the petty nastiness.  Leaving a note
    permanently set hidden is almost worse -- if you read through the
    string, you see them like scars on the pyche of our community. 
    
    --bonnie 

    re .640:
    
    How about starting with your own about Suzanne?
    

    Hm, maybe it's not a good idea after all . . .
    
    --bonnie

    Now whos in need of a break!  GESH!
    

    Okay, I give up.  What does "C/2" mean?

    I don't know either!

    I'd guess it's an encrypted number....but that's just me.  I didn't
    enter it.
    
    -Jody
    

    ord('d')div2 ???
    
    Okay, so who's playing mind games with the Womannotes community?  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    Oh, I just figured it out.  The ascii value of 'd' is 100, just as the
    Roman numeral C stands for 100.  And 100/2 is 50.  Could this be our
    esteemed moderator's 50th birthday??????
    
    -- Mike

    yes :-) and you got it before I did f'er sure
    
    BJ

    Lorna, Everyone can say something they don't really mean when angry
    or upset. I don't criticize that at all. But in general this is not
    a humerous thing to say (or write). My opinion.
    Carol (It has also been blown out of proportion)

    I agree with both women in .639 and .652.
    
    Christine

    re .644
    
    I thought that is what the 'Splash' topic was supposed to be all about.
    
    Some people prefer to fight fire with fire, instead of trying to douse
    it.  We end up with a nice, big and beautiful forest fire.
    
    jonathan
    

    Lately there have been a number of notes moved to The Rathole
    presumably by a moderator without informing the authors.
    I would like the moderators to please be sensitive to certain issues
    regarding moving replys.
    
    I would prefer to be told if my note is going to be moved and why.
    
    I felt that the intended meaning of my note was changed by moving
    it to another topic.
    
    It messes up pointers to the note, made before it was moved.
    
    Mary

    Mary
    
    The moderators are confering to try and figure out what happened.
    
    'please stand by'
    
    Bonnie

    I'm the guilty party in the move.  I did it in a hurry cuz I didn't
    have much time, and if something got screwed up I really do apologise,
    that wasn't at all my intention.   I was flying on instruments this
    morning early, trying to catch up with the file, make sure nothing
    horrid had happened overnight, and ran into a bunch of conversation in
    the "I hate" note (13).  1.16 says that 13.* is a tow zone, so I towed
    those notes.  
    
    If the community wants us to do it differently, tell us, but please
    don't beat on us for doing what we said we'd do!  :-)
    
    						=maggie

    How about if when you have to be doing a lot of towing, you [mods
    collectively] post a note here saying that we might run into
    weirdness?
    
    I don't mind the mods doing their jobs and I don't mind flipping
    through extra stuff as long as I know what's going on.
    
    --bonnie

    Re .658 -- I think that's an excellent idea, Bonnie, and I'm sure
    we comods can let folks know when we do any housecleaning.  If 
    something of yours moves mysteriously, and you don't know why, please 
    send us mail, and we'll track it down.  

    More generally, things have been rather hectic in the file lately and for 
    many of us comods, outside the file.  We apologize to those of you who feel 
    that we have not been quick enough to act on your requests and concerns.  
    We ask for all the extra patience you can muster.  But if we do something 
    that confuses you or ticks you off, please send us mail and tell us
    about it.  We hardly ever do something just to be mean :-), and
    we'd appreciate it if you'd give us a chance to fix something with you
    off-line before you filet us in the file.

    Justine                                                           

    Mike
    
    That has been my practice and the practice of the mods as long
    as I've been a moderator. As Justine mentioned, we've all been
    under extra stress lately both as a result of events in our job
    life and in the file. We are simply explaining what is going on,
    promising to do our  best to continue in the practice that we've
    always been guided by, and asking the file to be patient and ask
    us what is happening if we slip.
    
    We are not, and have not, acting or acted, out of malice. Only
    simple occasional human error.
    
    Bonnie

    Some conferences have had a "moderator action" topic in which
    actions like "moved notes 42.17-42.19 to topic 99" can be
    chronicled. This could be done with a simple edit to a template
    file (minimizing the time required) and would serve to notify not
    only the affected authors but any readers who might have gotten
    confused (which mail to the authors does not do). The Processing
    topic could be used for this purpose as well, I suppose.

    Think of it as an audit history.

    A second reading of that policy note should answer your question.

>                       -< <*** Moderator Response ***> >-
>
>    A second reading of that policy note should answer your question.


	Is it appropriate for me to read intense sarcasm into this
	"moderator response"?  (If it isn't, it certainly comes across
	that way).


	If so, is it appropriate for a moderator to act in such a way?

	Aren't ACTIONS supposed to be moderated, not PEOPLE?


	If any of the other more "accepted" members of this community
	had asked the question, would it have illicited the same
	response?


	The SOAPBOX moderators are accused quite often of "biased"
	moderation.  We try very hard not to be biased by reading every
	note for it's CONTENT, not for WHO wrote it.  

	FWIW.....

	kathy	

	

>	A direct answer would not have been mistaken for sarcasm.

	That was my thoughts.

	I always feel that if someone actually takes the time to
	post a question after they have stated they have read the
	policy, that it at least warrants a little better answer than
	"read it again."


	People deserve respect......and it's my opinion that no
	matter what a moderator's personal opinion of a person is,
	I think they should have the same reactions to anyone's request.


	Then again, perhaps that's the standard answer to a policy
	question, I don't know....  I just happened upon it in this
	topic (without knowing who had asked the question) and it really
	got under my skin.

	I guess being a moderator myself in another conference, I'm beginning
	to see how both sides work.....how a noter can view a moderator
	as being biased, and how a moderator can seem to be biased, even
	though perhaps that was never the intent.

	kathy

    The moderator in queston is in a very time consuming job. My assumption
    was that she felt obliged to answer the question but didn't have a lot
    of time to do it in.
    
    Some times being short of time can give the wrong impression.
    
    Bonnie

    I apologise to anyone I may have offended by my reply.  I was pressed
    for time (as Bonnie surmised) and felt that I could not explain that
    policy note better than it explained itself.

re: .672:
    The moderator in queston is in a very time consuming job.

Sorry, Bonnie, that's no excuse.  Either the moderator in question does
the job 100% or he/she passes the grunt-work on to others, becoming "senior
moderator in charge of policy" or some-such.

Flip, sarcastic, answers do not help either the moderators or the participants.

Martin.

That said, would it be possible to move the SAT discussion from "Blowing
the Horn" to its own topic so that those of us who want to blow our horns
can do so in peace and quiet?

I wasn't aware that moderating a notes conference was a 100% job, Martin.
It is my belief that most people moderating non-work-related conferences
are doing it in addition to the job that they get paid for, or at best as
a "semi-recognized" miscellaneous activity. Now there may be groups in DEC
that have fully-funded full-time notesfile moderators -- sounds like a great 
way to get the deadwood out of the way to me!

Given the current state of the company, I'm GLAD that the moderator in 
question is in a very time-consuming job; it increases my confidence in 
the Salary Continuation Plan!!!  

						Nigel

>Sorry, Bonnie, that's no excuse.  Either the moderator in question does
>the job 100% or he/she passes the grunt-work on to others, becoming "senior
>moderator in charge of policy" or some-such.


	I have to agree with Martin, sorry Bonnie.  All moderators on the
	net have jobs, many of them VERY time consuming....we are not
	paid to be moderators, we volunteer.

	If, as a moderator, you don't feel you have the time to adequate
	devote to the job, then you shouldn't take it on....


	With the job of moderation comes responsibility.....if that
	responsibility can't be fulfilled at a certain time due to
	constraints, the other moderators should be alerted of that...

	and perhaps decisions should be passed to other moderators instead
	of just making a quick, insufficient attempt at doing the job.


	JMO....................kath


	

    
    I don't think any of us deserve a moderator sitting down and typing
    a lengthy policy twice, when, IMHO, it's just a easy to suggest to
    read said policy again.
    
    What's the problem???  Is someone resisting authority again?
    Puhhhhlleeeaaasssseeee!
    
    
    Nancy

    
    Oh come on!  A mistake was/may have been made.  Maybe *I'M* mistaken but
    I didn't realise a moderator had to be perfect.
    
    I can understand mike's frustration, I felt it myself but an
    explanation has been given and accepted.  Everyone is entitled to be
    human sometimes even if they are moderators!  Give them a break.
    
    		Holly 

    Just for future information, would I also have been criticised if I had
    simply extracted the relevant portion of the policy note and reposted
    it without comment?  

    Well, Maggie, I can't think of a more awful response than to extract:
    
        Certain topics, particularly "Primal Scream", "Hot Buttons",
    	and "I really hate" seem to attract a lot of dialog even
    	though they're meant to be strictly vehicles for one-way
    	communication.  (et cetera)
    
    and then carefully explain that Note 79 is entitled "Data", which means
    that it is not one of the notes specifically called out, and *that*
    means that moderators feel no overwhelming urge to move responses
    around and perhaps destroy their meaning.
    
    						Ann B.

    I sometimes feel that so much pressure is being brought upon 
    all the people I know in and out of DEC that allowing myself the 
    time to dispute some issues with people who believe thier issues
    are valid is really a waste of my time and thiers.
    
    I have started to attempt to ask these people to help me accomplich
    a common goal (I usually can find one we can agree on) or find a nice
    place to be out of my way so I can do what I think I need to do.
    I realise that the people I deal with in my everyday life are
    mostly parents who have little time to spare for intence sparing
    so we can usually come to an agreement/compromise and get on about our
    goals of 1. Trying to improve teaching methods and envionment to
    enhance the learning capabilities of all the children in the school.
    I usually enhance my childrens schooling with topics I chose  and cover
    them in my own way. 2. To finish planning the Girl Scout Activity/ies
    on the calander/in the alloted time frame/with all the 'what ifs'
    covered.
    
    With all the personal and business 'stuff' going on my only method
    of maintaining sanity is stearing around the obticals that I cannot
    change and focusing in on the stuff I can make a difference in. I 
    know I am not successful all the time but I am still plugging away.
    In my own little way. 
    
    My own interest as a woman is what can I do better to make it through
    one more day and be the same or better for the struggle. When I feel
    that I have helped someone even in a small way I feel better about
    myself and the world in general.
    
    This particular method of communicating is greatly appriciated. In my
    hectic life (outside work) I am not able to listen as well as I have 
    learned to by reading this file. Here I see others struggle with the
    same feelings and ideas and failures and wins and what they have done
    to make themselfes better. I concentrate on these things. They make
    my attitude and life better than before.
    janet
    

 
re: .690 -

Ok edp, I'll bite.

Name the other Policies and Procedures that this conference violates.

grins,

clark.

ps - yes, this is a challenge.  I am curious as to what parts of P&P this 
conference violates.  I'm also curious to see if there really is any substance
to your accusations against the moderators and active participants of this 
conference.

In other words - "put up or shut up"

And one other thing, EDP -

For every violation of P&P, please give the number of a note that violates
that specific Policy or Procedure...

Proof, my dear boy, is what justice is based upon. Provide it, either here
or via e-mail.

grins,

clark.

	Clark.

	Am I correct in reading intense condescension into your previous
	two notes?


	If so, why? 


	kathy
	

Kathy -

Condescending?? Not intentionaly anyway.

Since posting my first notes to =wn= last week, I have gotten a lot of
information from various people about the history of edp and the moderators 
of this file, and how this file has been moderated.  Very little of it,
in fact only yours before today, supported edp's side of the story.

So I thought I would ask edp for some factual backup of his claims.

The interesting is, I have entered similar notes in different notes files,
and you are the only person who has thought they were condescending...

grins,

clark.

ps - Edp, Robert, I am still waiting for some facts, not just opinions...

Hi mike,

Its been awhile.

Maybe it does show off my attitude, I was just chagrined that i had to keep
going back to kathy's note for how to spell condescending, and I found that 
rather amuseing, so I put it in as a title.

grins,

clark.

ps - there is a reason I use "grins," as a sign off.  Its my usual state of 
existance, and that more than anything betrays my "attitude" in my mind.

pps - anyone out there who knows me care to refute/backup the above statement??

:-)

    Condescending replies come in all shapes and forms....including
    genders...

re: 697:

throwing the age old saying of "open your mouth and remove all doubt..." to the 
wind, here goes:

huh?  Now I am tottally confused.  Does that mean that I now have 2+ 
condescending replies with out meaning to, or am I missing something?

Grins,

clark.

    Actually, I was nodding.....  IT probably happened whilst you were
    composing your entry, I wrote mine, and you entered yours, so yours
    slipped in before mine did....
    

RE: .694 Clark

>Very little of it, in fact only yours before today, supported edp's side
>of the story.

Where the hell did you get the idea that I supported "edp's side" of the
story?  (You know what happens when you ass-u-me, right?)




>you are the only person who has thought they were condescending...

No I'm not....I'm just the most "vocal."



kathy

    
    re .700:
    
    So send him mail if you think your note might be deleted,
    and BTW, Eric, over half of the notes you listed in 58.898
    have been set hidden.
    

re: .7.139:
    FWO topics are sexist.  There
    is nothing wrong with disrupting a sexist atmosphere.

While I would agree with the claim that FWO topics (even when expressed
as "courtesy") are sexist, I would have to disagree with the statement
that "there is nothing wrong with disrupting" such a topic.

If FWO is improper, the correct way to change this policy is to
ask the moderators to change it (i.e. to drop FWO in favor of the
non-sexist "SRO").  If this doesn't work -- and it hasn't in the past --
the Digital Open Door policy should be followed.  If that fails, you
should consider contacting an outside agency, such as the Mass
Commission Against Discrimination.  Intentional disruption is also
contrary to Dec policy.  Hurting others because your cause is just,
where other non-confrontational remedies exist, is inappropriate.

    Baloney, the moderators have deleted or hidden notes written by me
    which contain solely ideas and not insults.

Me too.  In fact, a note they admitted was not contrary to Womannotes
policy, but was deleted "so they could think about it" is still deleted
after almost two years.

Martin.

Kathy -

Sorry about implying that you supported edp's side.  Up intill I recieved some
mail from Robert Brown III you were the only (now watch me have you confused 
with someone else :-) one who made any noise at all in the direction of 
suggesting edp might be right, or not alone in his complaints.

And yes I do know what happens when you assume.  The question is, did I assume,
or did I go on the basis of a reply you had written? (see note 58.928)
grins,

clark.

    -mike,
     
    that was not the reason that the note was set hidden.
    
    Bonnie J  

Bonnie -

Then what was the reason??  

grins.

clark.

    The note alleged that a person's notes violated corporate policy. That is
    defamatory within the meaning of P&P 6.54.

    
    Bonnie

    
    
    Well, speaking as one longtime noter in Womannotes, I have had it.
    I have had it with women leaving because they feel intimidated
    and oppressed by the bullying tactics of a few vocal members of this file.
    I do not agree with the suggestion that FWO topics are sexist, that
    they discriminate against men.  In fact, I find it shocking and
    disheartening that it is necessary to create a FWO topic so that
    women can discuss something like menstruation or pregnancy or
    lesbianism without rude, unsupportive disruption.  Add to this the
    fact that there are only 3 (certainly fewer than 5) such notes in this
    whole freaking conference of 700+ notes, and I can barely keep myself
    from spitting in disgust and outrage.
    
    I will not be baited into taking my limited time and energy to explain
    or defend my right to speak with whom I choose.  I think it speaks
    to my general goodness and fairness that my anger at the behavior of a
    few has *not* spilled over into my relationships with all men (would that 
    some men were able to be as selectively angry as I).  In spite of the 
    noise and the verbal abuse and threats, I have come to respect, like, and 
    admire a great many men and women in this file, and I have grown and
    learned from their presence here.  And while I feel protective
    of those relationships and of this space that allowed them to flourish,
    even I feel the effects of battle fatigue.  I think our only hope for
    the continued existence and usefulness of this file is for the women
    and men who are intersted in preserving this community to talk to each
    other about "topics of interest to women."  
    
    Someone once said that if you wrestle with a pig in the mud, you'll both 
    get dirty, and the pig will like it.  I see wisdom and relevance in this 
    saying, and I am no longer going to allow myself to be soiled by wrestling 
    with those who do not care about me, about this file, or about what they
    destroy in their attempt to command attention.  I encourage everyone
    to take a long, cleansing shower and avoid the mud-wrestling from now
    on.
    
    Justine
         

    
    Just a comment...
    I was interested to see, in this string, how quickly Clark was jumped
    on for *how* he said what he said (condescension etc.) rather than
    *what* he said.
    
    I.e. He issued a challenge.
    I assume that still stands.
    I hope it will be answered.
    'gail         

    
    Well, when I first read your posting in 58, I went back
    to see what was so awful in the replies you cited, and found,
    in frustration, that most of them had been hidden (at that time).
    

    
    i'm with you justine.
    

re: .710:

I'm afraid that I must -- from my own point of view -- disagree with
a few things in Steve's note:

    that says "Womannotes discriminates against men in violation of the
    corporate P&P regarding notes conferences"

What I have said is that I believe that Womannotes discriminates against
men.  It is unclear whether this discrimination is in violation of
corporate policies: since corporate personnel is well aware of
Womannotes policies, you can assume that they do not believe that
the discrimination has reached a level of "violation."

    	Two things must not change here or the whole conference will have
    lost its value as a forum for women ... (1) Women must remain in
    control of moderation style to allow the experiment of how Feminine
    Consensus methods can work in control of a forum ... and (2) Women
    must remain the predominant participants here or by sheer volume of
    replies and topic initiation men will re-direct the energy of women
    into a male-oriented pattern.

I must respectfully disagree with both "must's" -- neither is necessary
for a notesfile that discusses "Topics of Interest to Women" and both
"must's" -- by making gender-specific distinctions -- seem to me to be
incompatible with Digital's corporate philosophy.

    ~--e--~  eagles prefer to next past all contentious discussion of how
             WOMANnotes is imperfect while we discover what INTERESTS women

Steve, you may find this hard to believe, but your goal of "discovering
what INTERESTS women" is specifically discouraged by the Womamnotes
policy statement (note 1.2):

    While we also generally encourage and support participation by men in
    this space, this file does not exist to meet men's needs for education
    or sport.

I.e. if I understand this policy correctly, because you are a man, the
Womanotes moderators expect you to discover what interests women elsewhere.

re: .711:
    
    I do not agree with the suggestion that FWO topics are sexist, that
    they discriminate against men.  In fact, I find it shocking and
    disheartening that it is necessary to create a FWO topic so that
    women can discuss something like menstruation or pregnancy or
    lesbianism without rude, unsupportive disruption.

Why couldn't those topics be discussed in SRO/FGD notes?  What, specifically,
was gained by FWO as opposed to SRO?  What was lost?

Martin.

ps: in a previous note today, I mentioned a note I had posted about two
years ago that was deleted -- even though the moderator who deleted
it did not claim, then or now, that it violated womannotes policies.
That moderator has now pointed out that she has given me permission
to re-post that note, and that I had subsequently posted much the
same ideas in this file.  My apoligies for any confusion I might have
caused.

Referencing 22.711 (Justine):

   A lot of people keep making a fundamental mistake in their beliefs about
the people who they see as "disruptions" to this Notesfile.

   This mistake is, quite simply, that such people are trying to "get
attention", or that they are somehow "hostile" to a woman- run conference.
This idea is useful if one is a propagandist attempting to rally support
against "outsiders", but in an atmosphere where real communication is 
supposed to be encouraged, it creates serious misunderstandings which
act as a hinderance to any conflict resolution that may be possible.

   Since I do not believe that you or most of the individuals here are
"propagandists", then I shall explain here that the "pigs" you are 
"wrestling with" are people, like you, who simply disagree with certain
things that they see are going on here. I further state (as I have told you
before) that much of the conflict here stems from the frustration certain
individuals have been feeling.

   You may not choose to believe this, but your desires and mine are in
accord. You and I have been in communication and I hope that my messages
to you have adequately expressed this.

   If they haven't, then I am sorry. Speaking for myself and some others,
I have great respect for you and this Conference. There are those who
hate WOMANNOTES. At this time I am not one of them. And to be honest, I
don't need or desire attention from anyone; those in my Circle of Friends
know me to be a very private person who would rather blend into the woodwork
than be in any kind of spotlight.

    There are no "pigs" here. If there were then I would join you in the 
mud -- and my "wrestling" methods would be swift and VERY effective. 

   If I did not respect you, as a person or a Moderator, and if I didn't
respect the others here, or WOMANNOTES, then I would not have wasted my time
communicating with you (speaking of which, you will be hearing from me soon
on the matter we discussed) and I would not be wasting my time writing this
entry. But the situation is, simply, that I simply do not agree with some of
the policies as implemented here, and for the past two years that I have been
noting in this conference I have felt singled out and discriminated against
because of this disagreement. And I am not alone in this feeling, as I am 
sure that I (and others) have by now made clear to you.

   We want the same things you do. We simply have different views on what
constitutes the attainment of these things. That is the only conflict here.
If anyone chooses to believe otherwise, that is their prerogative. But as
long as people who protest here are characterized as "disruptors", "noise- 
makers", "trouble- makers", and "attention- seekers", then members of
this community will continue to "miss the point", and the misunderstandings
will continue to cause conflict.

   And as long as there is conflict here, EVERYBODY loses something valuable.

                                                      -Robert Brown III

Referencing 22.712 ("'gail"):

   First: the challenge has been answered, both here and in MAIL.

   Second: Your comments on how Clark was "jumped" on for "how" he said
           what he said is interesting when you consider, for example, how
           often I was "jumped on" for the way I have presented things that
           I've said in this file, and how seldom "what" I was saying was
           given any consideration. I'm sure EDP and others can make the
           same observation.

   Third: Frankly, I, too, found Clark's entries condescending, but that
          did not stop me from answering him in a civilized manner (in MAIL).
          I can state with assuredness, however, that certain others here
          cannot say the same thing when they encountered notes which they
          found condescending.

          And I'm sure you agree that it is unfair to apply one set of 
          standards to one group, while applying another to another.

Or am I wrong?

                                                  -Robert Brown III

    
    
    RE: .711 Justine
    
    >In fact, I find it shocking and
    >    disheartening that it is necessary to create a FWO topic so that
    >    women can discuss something like menstruation or pregnancy or
    >    lesbianism without rude, unsupportive disruption.
    
    
    	FWO topics in no way guarentee kind, supportive responses.  They
    	simply dictate that the people that reply there should be women.
    	Any female could write in that topic and be justified in doing so.
    
        If the intent of the label is for supportive replies, then why 
        doesn't the label reflect that?
    
    	kath

>    While we also generally encourage and support participation by men in
>    this space, this file does not exist to meet men's needs for education
>    or sport.

> I.e. if I understand this policy correctly, because you are a man, the
> Womanotes moderators expect you to discover what interests women elsewhere.

I think you misunderstand Martin. You are free to use Womannotes to discover
the interestes of Women, but you should not expect that that is its *purpose*.
That is, if Womannotes is not helping you in your process of discovery, that is
*your* problem and you shouldn't expect Womannotes to change to help you.

Clearer?

	-- Charles

    
    Kath, I think you're right; the FWO designation doesn't ensure that
    the replies will be kind or supportive, but I feel very good about how
    FWO notes have been here (I'm especially pleased with 47!), and it's
    my opinion that talking about an issue that only affects woman with
    only women is a useful thing, and the success of 47 further confirms
    that to me.  I know that some women don't agree with the idea of
    FWO notes, just like some women don't see the need for a woman
    therapist, but there's a choice in both cases, and I want to
    preserve that choice.
    
    Robert, I appreciate hearing that you have respect for me and for this
    conference.  I think we do agree on what it is we disagree about,
    but to the list of disagreements I would add your statement that
    conflict is bad for Womannotes.  I think the pain and turmoil currently
    accompanying the conflict are bad, but I think discussion of
    disagreements and conflicts is good for any community if it's done
    constructively.
    
    Also, regarding your 22.718 where you say:
    
     >>Your comments on how Clark was "jumped" on for "how" he said
     >>what he said is interesting when you consider, for example, how
     >>often I was "jumped on" for the way I have presented things that
     >>I've said in this file, and how seldom "what" I was saying was
     >>given any consideration. 
    
    Robert, is that what you mean when you say that you are being
    "singled out?"  I ask this because I am one of the ones who challenged
    the way in which you presented your ideas in the "The Story" note.
    I truly felt then and now that how you presented your opinion made
    it nearly impossible for me to hear the "what" of your ideas, because
    I was so offended by the tone.  Do you feel it is discriminatory for me
    to point that out to you or to anyone? 
    
    Justine
                                 

    Okay, I have to put this in, mainly because Justine's note (22.711)
    reminded me of something that might put a little lightness in this
    discussion...
    
    One of the brightest people I know once told me the following:
    
    "Don't try to teach a pig to sing...
     You'll annoy youself...
     And piss off the pig"
    
    Now wait, I'm not saying that anyone here is a pig...please don't jump
    on the saying because of that...It could be a chicken, or a fish, or a
    llama...it doesn't matter.
    
    What it is saying is that we all have our differences...we all have set
    ways and set ideas and set values for things, and it doesn't seem to
    make any sense trying to change what the other person is doing/saying.
    We all know that change is something that only happens when the
    concerned party (ies) want to change, and then there is always a
    teacher around to help out.
    
    Please try to remember that just as you can't teach a pig to sing, you
    can't change the way folks will be...we just have to be happy that pigs
    are pigs and people are people...and different opinions aren't bad...
    
    THEY ARE JUST DIFFERENT!
    
    
    Jill
    

    >"Don't try to teach a pig to sing...
    >     You'll annoy youself...
    >     And piss off the pig"
     
    Actually, it was Heinlein (in the form of Lazarus Long) who said
    "Don't try to teach a pig to sing...it wastes your time and annoys the
    pig."
    
    We went through this in the last version.  I got accused of calling
    someone a pig.
    
    D!     

    Thanks for clearing up the misquote D!...I tried to make sure that no
    one took the statement out of context....with all the
    sensitivities/arguements/slinging going on here, I hope I made that
    point clear....I wouldn't want to make anyone mad.
    
    Jill
    

    
    oh, you mean 522 was a *test*?
    

    Well.  I don't believe Justine said the word "policy" even once in her
    statement.  Nor did she say FMO discussions could never exist here. 
    Please read the second paragraph of 523.4 again.
    
    -Jody
    

Re 523.4

>    We encourage men who wish 
>    to have men-only discussions to propose that idea in Mennotes where the 
>    focus is on male issues.

You are aware that the Mennotes moderators have made it absolutely clear that
FMO or FWO topics in Mennotes will not be tolerated? While your suggestion is
reasonable on the face of it, it is at the heart misguided. (They do support 
SRO topics however.)

	-- Charles

    
    No -d You just got that backwards... we decided that even tho
    there were personal reservations, problems etc. as individuals
    with the idea of FMO notes (that it seemed rather illogical
    for this file) that as moderators we felt that men had every
    right to enter them. 
     
    The whole point of that response was to try and be as fair and
    even handed and nondiscriminatory as possible. Even if we personally
    weren't in favor of the idea, that it was and is for the *community*
    to judge. Not, the moderators. Please reread Justine's note, she
    put the issue squarely in the lap of the community of womannotes
    readers.
    
    I find it rather amazing that you have interpreted what we spent
    a lot of time talking about, in the exact opposite fashion of
    what we tried to convey.
    
    Just as FWO notes are courtesy� only and we do not move men's
    notes that were entered in them, we will also not move the women's
    notes from your FMO.
    
    It is possible that the women who answered in the FMO note are
    deliberately ignoring it. It is also possible that they didn't
    realize that the note was FMO and made a mistake entering it.
    So for the one note that was entered after we made a policy descision
    I wrote to the author and asked her if she realized that she had
    entered a note in an FMO. 
    
    -d have you written to the women who put their  notes in and asked
    them if they'd mind moving their notes to the FGD topic?
    
    In all the time I've been doing that I've only found two people
    who wouldn't move their note when first asked and one of them moved
    it after a period of time. In general most people are willing to
    accomodate a request for courtesy.
    
    Bonnie

    A couple of things come to mind.

    It's not surprising that the first "FMO" note would collect some
    negative commentary from women, in light of the negative
    commentary on "FWO" from some men. If nothing else, there's the
    shock value effect, which appears to have been (at least
    partially) the intent of the note, rather than a sincere attempt
    at a topic of interest to women.

    Also - I would disagree with the statement that FMO notes are "by
    definition" not of interest to women, since evidence shows that a
    lot of women are interested in what men think about various
    topics. One could envision a FMO topic initiated by a woman asking
    "what do men think about argyle socks for Christmas?", or
    whatever. By its definition, the topic seeks input soley from men.
    It's not clear to me that a FMO topic would be required to be
    initiated by a man. (I never quite understood the reason why the
    definition of FWO topics specified that they were created by a
    woman, either. The only trick is that with a F*O entry, if the
    initiator is not a "*", then the initiator should not enter any
    replies beyond the basenote in the "F*O" topic.)

    I'm not suggesting that FMO topic have particular value here one
    way or the other, I'm just doubting the "by definition" assertion.
    On the whole, this little controversy strikes me as just more
    process for process' sake. Which leads me to the topic of this
    reply... 

    This topic has come up a couple times before, though its last
    appearance was awhile enough ago that its reappearance now caught us
    flatfooted.  
    
    We never did really resolve the question in an emotionally-satisfactory
    way.  On the one hand, there's no theoretical reason why FMO/FGD notes
    shouldn't be fine.  On the other hand, they don't *feel* right.  Not in
    here, anyway.  Or maybe they do; I've flip-flopped back and forth on
    the question enough times that I get dizzy just thinking about it. 
    
    Same thing on whether FWOs can be started by men.  No logical reason
    why not, but it doesn't feel appropriate.  Maybe it's because of why
    they got started:  so that *women* could hear other women.
    
    I understand why FMO sounds as though it's ipso facto not a "Topic of
    Interest to Women": that's my first reaction too!  As Dick and Paul
    point out, though, that snap judgement is defective:  one can't really
    tell up front whether it will or won't be, the only thing certain is
    that women [mods qua mods are not women, contrary opinions notwith-
    standing] would be asked to write in the FGD string.
    
    Historically, our litmus test is to see whether there are women
    contributing to some string.  If there are, it is ipso facto a ToItW.
    If there are not, then we've typically put in a note and asked.  So
    far, all strings have qualified.
    
    Whence Justine's note:  it doesn't feel really right to any of us, but
    we'll certainly support it if it feels right to the community.  How
    much support for the idea is there? 
    
    						=maggie

    re:.705
    
    	� 22.700 refutes the claim that men are allowed to talk
    	freely in WomanNotes.
    
    	� 22.700 has been set hidden.
    
    	� Draw your own conclusions. �
    
    And if a note written by a woman is set hidden (as has happened
    on any number of occasions), are we then to conclude that women
    are not allowed to talk freely in =wn=?
    
    --- jerry

    	If people are supposed to have the freedom in Digital to express
    	ideas (including the idea that what others are doing is sexist,)
    	then I wonder why so much energy is being spent to prevent women
    	from criticizing our culture (and some men) for having sexist 
    	attitudes and practices towards us.

    	It seems as though the only freedom in this regard is to call
    	the women here sexist.  If women try to discuss sexism as it
    	is inflicted on us (with our accompanying anger about it,) it's
    	characterized as "discrimination towards men."

    	As many notes as there are in this conference that accuse women
    	here of being sexist, it's obvious that men's notes aren't being
    	deleted strictly for this reason (or else we wouldn't still have
    	so very, very, very many accusations still visible here.)

    	Digital Equipment Corporation is an equal opportunity employer -
    	there is no possible way that they are going to allow women to be
    	refused the same rights men have on the network to express ideas.
    	And they won't condemn us without hearing our side of this situation.  
    	
    	We can count on Digital to be fair to women in this corporation.
    	They will not allow us to be forsaken no matter how long and hard
    	someone calls for it.

It is interesting to re-read .742, substituting "women" for "men"
and "men" for "women" -- it makes sense either way.

Martin.

    
    	RE: .743  Martin
    
    	It only makes sense to make the substitutions if you haven't read
    	the conference lately with any sense at all of who is doing most
    	of the accusing (and who is taking these issues to Corporate Personnel
    	with requests that the conference be shut down if a resolution can
    	not be found.)
    
    	Otherwise, the substitutions are a pathetic joke.
    

    
    	.744>  Otherwise, the substitutions are a pathetic joke.
    
    	By the way, in case anyone doesn't realize it, this remark 
    	will be reported to Corporate Personnel as "Suzanne Conlon
    	said all men are pathetic jokes."  It won't matter that I
    	was referring to the ACT of making word substitutions to
    	the note I'd written earlier.
    
    	Or else, the quote in this reply will be taken out of context
    	and reported as a serious statement of my beliefs.
    

    
    
    	Suzanne.
    
    
    	Settle down.  Comments like the one in .745 do nothing but incite
    further conflict.  If you don't want to see further conflict, then
    perhaps you might do YOUR part to not incite it.
    
    
    kathy

    EDP -
    
    If you manage to have Womannotes closed, will that make you happy?
    
    Joana
    
    P.S.: I have been away from the file for some time and cannot catch-up 
    on everything that was written lately. However, I have read through 
    this topic, which gives me a fair idea of what has been happening.
    I mention this in case anybody thinks I am jumping in a bit late.
    
    

    
    	RE: .746  Kath
    
    	Kath, most of us here (including me) have spent the past few weeks
    	doing everything we can to ignore the daily assaults against this
    	conference.  It hasn't been easy (nor 100% possible.)  But we've
    	managed to ignore a lot more than I ever dreamed possible.
    
    	Perhaps it would help if you suggested to the persistent critics
    	of this forum that they should do *their* part to avoid inciting
    	further conflict.
    
    	I'd like very much to see you do this, in fact.

    Re .739:

    > The note alleged that a person's notes violated corporate policy. That is
    > defamatory within the meaning of P&P 6.54.

    Your note alleges that a person's note violated corporate policy.  That
    is defamatory within the meaning of P&P 6.54.

    
     Re. 739 

   > As a moderator, you have duties.  I am now pursuing a project to bring
   > noters and moderators from all valuing differences conferences together
   > to set up a resolution process.  Maggie Tarbet has been asked if she
   > would be interested in participating but has not responded at all.

   > If the choice of the Womannotes moderators is not to spend their time
   > and energy performing their duties, I will show that to Digital to show
   > that you are not working to solve the problems.  And I will ask Digital
   > to close the conference.

   Wow....lucky us...DEC has an in house version of Jesse Helms. 

   I must really be terrible to have nothing to do at work except attack
   women for wanting to have their own space to discuss the issues that
   are important to them.

   My mother once told me that ther are three types of people in the world,
   men, women and men who wish they could be women. It sure makes sense to
   me now.

   pem	     
   	

    We are all probably recapitulating history here (I seem to remember at
    least one similar "signup sheet" in the past year or so...?) but
    perhaps it bears repetition in the context of this recent overt threat
    to have Corporate shut down =wn=.
    
    Perhaps a "show of hands" might provide useful feedback to anyone not a
    member of the =wn= community as to the explicit feelings of the
    membership?
    
    (Yeah I know this is "typical macho data-oriented number-crunching" but
    (a) I'm male, I can't help it :-) and (b) there may be other males
    asked to "look in" on =wn= and pass on any allegations, so perhaps
    consider indulging me.)  Anyway if consensus-building is a feminist
    style, I'm suggesting we build it explicitly here, if only in
    self-defense...  And I *know* that the consensus exists, folks...
    
    This is =>one<= feminist man who rejects and resents the attacks on
    this community.  Threatening to "go to Corporate" on this "issue" is
    IMHO silly.  Even if the allegation (whatEVER it is, don't bother to
    reReRE*REEE*capitulate it pleeeze) could somehow be proven true --
    which I do not believe it could --, we're dealing with what are IMHO
    trivialities here.  
    
    So What Big Deal Gimme A Break if there are FWO comments or FMO or FFMO
    (for feminist men only :-) topics!  The custom here is to *always*
    provide a parallel topic right next door for those who don't fit the
    requested VOLUNTARY restriction or for those who disagree with the
    concepts of restricted-entry topics.  I believe that there is slim to
    no difference in being read in the same or the next-door string.  The
    "audiences" are 99.44% the same.  It is my further opinion that in at
    least the case of one participant in this conference, this issue is a
    red herring.
    
    If the issue is general "discrimination against men" in =wn= then IMHO
    the "discrimination" is for the most part against those with IMHO
    "attitude problems."  I don't mind the criticisms of this community
    that, e.g., Martin Minow or other IMHO sensible folks occasionally
    post; while I occasionally disagree with what they say, I appreciate
    the sensitivity with which they say it.  I'm tired of another's voice
    but however much I (for =>one<=) wish it would Go Away, I guess that
    can't be legislated, only devoutly wished for.  And the attempt by the
    owner of that voice to silence all the other voices here is in my view
    as reprehensible as it is pathetic. 
    
    That's my vote. 
    
    Dan Kalikow
               

    
    
    
    RE: .748
    
    I have.  They already know that I don't agree with their tactics.
    Considerable discussion has gone on off-line.
    
    It doesn't make it right....for ANYONE.
    
    kathy

    .750 seconded, my thoughts entirely, 100% word for word.
    
    Thanks Dan,
    
    Ad
    

    > Perhaps a "show of hands" might provide useful feedback to anyone not
    > a member of the =wn= community as to the explicit feelings of the
    > membership?


    Speaking of a show of hands.  I was at a get-together the other night.
    The people there were ALL from diverse backgrounds--the only thing they 
    had in common was that they liked to socialize and they liked a social
    drink after a long hard week at work.

    At most, 5% of the people there were NOTERS.  A noter mentioned =wn=
    to me.  I wasn't particularly in the mood to discuss it, but the people
    around me wanted to know what was up.  All I said was that there's some
    people claiming sexism in the conference and it's really not a happy 
    place to be noting right now. (that's all I said, I promise! 8-) )

    I was FLABBERGASTED to hear 100% of the people around me say that they
    could easily see that sort of thing...that they had read =wn= for a
    little while but left because they didn't agree/didn't like the
    atmosphere.    

    These people were your everyday DECcies....male and female.  Nothing
    special about them.  They were all very valuing of others, very kind
    people....

    I guess my comment is that you can't "get a show of hands" about =wn=
    from the community because it would be biased.  A large percentage of
    the dissatisfied people no longer have this conference in their 
    Notebook.



    I was so shocked, I didn't even know what to say. 8-(  I don't feel 
    people should EVER be driven away from women's topics....especially 
    the people that care and could benefit!
    
    
    A comment just made by someone (I forget who).  I would like to think
    that I "just don't understand", but is that understanding MY fault,
    or perhaps the combined fault of myself AND the participants in this
    conference?  Is the purpose of this conference to benefit all?  What is
    our goal? 
    
    Confused and saddened.
    
    kath

    	RE: .751  Kath

    	If you are making suggestions of avoiding conflict to those
    	individuals offline, then you could have afforded me the same
    	courtesy.

    	If your suggestion to me was necessary to air in public, then
    	it would have been more consistent and fair if you'd aired the
    	suggestions to those other individuals in public, too.

    	RE: .754  Kath

    	It's funny, but when I meet people who read Womannotes, they
    	invariably tell me how unfair they think the attacks against
    	the file are - and they urge me to keep the faith (the most
    	common expression I am told is, "Don't let the bastards get
    	you down!")

    	Never once have I bumped into anyone who thought the file
    	was as terrible as the persistent critics here describe it
    	(day after day after day after day, ad nauseam.)

    	It's too bad that you haven't been fortunate enough to meet
    	the people who have approached me about Womannotes.  You
    	would get an entirely different picture from them.

    An important point to note is that no ONE notesfile can cater to
    EVERYONE's taste, needs, likes, dislikes, or wellbeing.  There are some
    notesfiles that actually *hurt* me to read (soapbox being the main one)
    so I *don't read them*.  I don't feel threatened by their existence,
    but if I don't LIKE to read them, I don't read them.  I never read
    notesfiles I don't enjoy, unless they're work-related and I need
    information from them (and even these I don't actively dislike although
    at times they are tedious).  Also, women's issues don't interest all
    people - and the people who ARE interested are often interested in
    different aspects of women's issues, and for different reasons.
    
    If everyone had to wear bluejeans and some people didn't like that,
    wouldn't they decide they wanted to wear something else?  If some
    people went to a restaurant that only served dinners and decided they
    wanted breakfast, wouldn't they find a way to get what they needed?  If
    you're not getting what you need here, that's not specifically a reason
    for the file to totally change.  The file is providing many people with
    things they want and need.  The file, in my opinion, is fulfilling its
    charter to be a discussion of topics of interest to women.
    
    If you are seeking a file that is more inclusive of men but has the
    same flavor, EURO_WOMAN is an option.  IF you are seeking a file that
    is specifically catering to "Topics pertaining to men" (and you'll note
    MENNOTES has as its conference banner "TOPICS PERTAINING TO MEN" rather
    than "topics of interest to men" - whereas it's "topics of interest to
    women" here in womannotes, a small but noticeable difference in the
    charters)...
    
    In addition, if enough people have the same vision of what they would
    like they could go start their own notesfile with their own
    foundations, building their groundrules and make a place that feels
    right to them.  There is PLENTY of room in the corporation for what
    each group wants.  
    
    Please note I am not ordering or policy-making or expelling anyone or
    anything anyhow.  The above are just calm thoughts I happened to
    stumble across as I was sitting here....
    
    -Jody
    

    
    
    RE: .755
    
    Suzanne. I think you misunderstood.  If I'm carrying on a discussion
    off-line, I'll leave it there....  However, you and I are not 
    carrying on an off-line discussion at the moment...and I don't
    necessarily want to start one.  Your angry confrontations are NOT 
    the major issue here...other people's are on BOTH sides of the issues.
    
    I'm sorry if I offended you, it wasn't my intent.  My intent is just to 
    point out that fueling a raging fire won't help the unfortunate 
    situation.  
    
    I'm not against you, Suzanne.
    
    kathy

    
    
    
    >It's too bad that you haven't been fortunate enough to meet
    >the people who have approached me about Womannotes.  You
    >would get an entirely different picture from them.
    
    
    Suzanne...that's not unfortunately.  I already SEE that sort of 
    support for =wn= and I fully understand it and sympathize with it.
    
    What is "unfortunate" is that BOTH sides of this issue are not having
    their concerns valued.
    
    Would you be willing to sit down and discuss this with people who 
    ARE dissatisfied with the conference?
    
    Life is a two way street, Suzanne.  I was shocked to see the support
    in that sort of setting.....but it sort of helped me validate my 
    complaints knowing that I am not such a "small" subset of people.
    That there ARE others.........
    
    fwiw
    
    kath
                       

Is there some way we can give Dale Spender special access to this 
conference, so she can see the living proof of everything she's been
writing about concerning what happens when women try to talk to each other?

D.
    

    
    if only she could!
    
    C.
    

    <--(.739 et al.)
    
�    As a moderator, you have duties.  I am now pursuing a project to bring
�    noters and moderators from all valuing differences conferences together
�    to set up a resolution process.  Maggie Tarbet has been asked if she
�    would be interested in participating but has not responded at all.


    Eric, the moderators of WomanNotes do indeed have duties, some set by
    DEC but most by the *thousands* of members of this community.  I have
    not responded to you because as far as we are concerned, we are
    performing those duties to the satisfaction of both those groups.  As
    Jody points out, we cannot please everyone at all times and I for one
    am too old to have any smallest intention of trying.  The only problems
    we have right now are those of your devising, and they can be most
    easily made to go away by your recognition that we are already meeting
    the needs of 98% of our very diverse international membership.
    
    We have a process for giving us feedback, and we have a process for
    rule change.  If you believe you represent a large enough constituency,
    give us that feedback and call for a vote to change our policies. 
    
    
�    If the choice of the Womannotes moderators is not to spend their time
�    and energy performing their duties, I will show that to Digital to show
�    that you are not working to solve the problems.  And I will ask Digital
�    to close the conference.
    
    Eric, until you follow our rules you have no standing to make such a
    request and will not be taken seriously.
    
    						Margaret

    	RE: .758  Kath

    	If you have a problem with angry confrontations in Womannotes
    	and you are in the process of suggesting to the critics of this
    	forum that they stop writing these, I'm most happy to see you 
    	bring this to light.

    	However, in the interest of fairness and consistency, it would
    	have been nice if you'd made it clear that this is what you are
    	doing (instead of making similar suggestions public to selected
    	individuals only.)

    	I'm asking for equitable treatment from you.

re: .764:
    
    We have a process for giving us feedback, and we have a process for
    rule change.  If you believe you represent a large enough constituency,
    give us that feedback and call for a vote to change our policies. 

Maggie, if I understand Eric's concerns correctly, it is that Womannotes'
gender-specific policies discriminate against him as a member of a class.
Thus, the fact that 98% of the Womannotes community thinks that
this discrimination is a good idea seems totally irrelvant to me.

Consider the recent news from Saudi Arabia that women are no longer
allowed to drive.  This decision was supported by the majority of
the citizens; and we may certainly assume that a vote would not
change that policy.  However, that does not thereby make it "right" from
the Saudi Arabian women's point of view.

During the 1950's, votes for "separate but equal" public facilities
(schools, swimming pools, water fountains, rest rooms) were upheld
by significant majorities.  If I may put words in Eric's mouth, he
seems to be arguing that "separate but equal" policies are inappropriate
here, too, and that the propriety of such policies are not subject to
majority vote.

Martin.

    re .754:
    
>    All I said was that there's some
>    people claiming sexism in the conference and it's really not a happy 
>    place to be noting right now. (that's all I said, I promise! 8-) )

    
    Kath, if that's *all* you said, then how would the folks responding
    know whether you meant sexism directed at females, or sexism directed
    at males, or both?  (Because they're not reading it.)  I mean, I
    *agree* with your statement!  That's there's sexism directed at females.
    But hey!  I'm not about to whine to the P-people!
    

    Suzanne,
    
    If it's any consolation, I didn't take Kath's comment as
    singling you out in a request to have ALL parties refrain
    from inciting the argument further.  I thought she was 
    responding to your statement regarding such and was gently
    reminding you that the "dissenters" are not the only ones
    hollering.  First, something that the majority doesn't seem
    to agree with is brought up, members who don't agree then
    say, hey this isn't what we are here for, then the others 
    say nobody's being fair, listen to me, the others come back
    and say, NO, YOU listen to ME and it goes on from there.
    
    IMO-yes, there are things I don't like about this file, there
    are things I do like about it. Sometimes (more and more recently)
    the things that bother me are overshadowing the things that 
    don't.  It's unfortunate and partly due to earlier responses
    I have had when I've made an unpopular comment, I do not feel
    comfortable coming into this file and expressing a disagreement.
    So, with few exceptions (like this note) I've attempted to keep
    my responses only to be agreeable.  That is, if I agree with 
    something, I'll respond (a majority something, that is).  If I
    don't, I keep my mouth shut, because I feel that the majority
    doesn't want to hear it and doesn't give a damn.  FWIW.
    
    Christine

    <--(.766)
    
    Martin, as other people have pointed out, the legal objection to
    "separate but equal" is that in fact the facilities were *not* equal,
    and that factual inequality had a very heavy socioeconomic impact on
    the members of the minority groups involved.  AT NO TIME was the issue
    of separate-but-truly-equal facilities EVER in question.
    
    And while we may --and I do-- consider the position of women in Saudi
    society disgusting,  there is absolutely NO VALID COMPARISON with FWO
    issues here.  Saudi women are being prevented from living independ-
    ently, nobody is saying "yes you can drive what you like to whatever
    destinations you wish, you just have to occasionally stay off certain
    non-critical streets".
    
    						=maggie

    	RE: .768  Christine

    	> If it's any consolation, I didn't take Kath's comment as
   	> singling you out in a request to have ALL parties refrain
    	> from inciting the argument further. 

    	Oh, I agree.  She wasn't asking all parties to refrain from
    	inciting argument.  Only me - (after I'd stayed completely 
    	out of the process debates for days/weeks while the dissenters
    	wrote angry confrontational notes filled with accusations
    	about this conference every single day.)

    	> It's unfortunate and partly due to earlier responses I have 
    	> had when I've made an unpopular comment, I do not feel
    	> comfortable coming into this file and expressing a disagreement.

    	Well, you feel a lot more comfortable about it than I do - I'm
    	being reported to management for saying things like "Think" and
    	"You misunderstood."  Thank God Digital's managers are intelligent
    	or I'd be out on the street.

    	> If I don't, I keep my mouth shut, because I feel that the majority
    	> doesn't want to hear it and doesn't give a damn.  FWIW.

    	Take my word for it - disagreeing with women/feminists is 1000 times
    	safer and more acceptable in our society than disagreeing with the
    	people in control.

    	Sometimes I wish I'd taken the safer road myself.

re: .769:
    
    Martin, as other people have pointed out, the legal objection to
    "separate but equal" is that in fact the facilities were *not* equal,

Actually, in many cases, they *were* factually equal: one water fountain
looked just like another, one row in the movie theater had just as good a view
of the picture as another; the bus went along the same route.  The laws
banning separate-but-equal were held unconstitutional even where there
was no socioeconomic impact.

    And while we may --and I do-- consider the position of women in Saudi
    society disgusting,  there is absolutely NO VALID COMPARISON with FWO
    issues here.

The only comparison I was making is that the limitations on women in
Saudi society are supported by the vast majority of Saudi citizens;
just as the limitations of men in Womennotes are supported by the
vast majority of Womannotes participants.  You are, of course, free
to disagree with me that the gender-specific rules are "limitations.
I am not suggesting that men occupy the same social position in
Womannotes as women do in Saudi Arabia.

-----

In some previous replies, people were worrying about "being taken
to personnel" about notesfile policies.  As someone who has been
"taken to personnel" several times over policies in the "political"
notesfiles I help moderate (specifically, Soapbox and/or Bagels),
there isn't much to worry about.  The personnel people I've spoken
to are genuinely interested in preserving channels for free and open
discussion of sensitive issues, believing that the corporation supports
discussion of "offensive ideas" but not "offensive behavior."

If personnel should "shut down Womannotes" (something I find extremely
unlikely), it would be because Womannotes does not support the corporations
goals and policies, not merely because someone complains.

Martin.

    FWO notes  are prima facia sexist. (So are FMO notes.) Since there
    is  a  suggestion  for Supportive Responses only notes which would
    accomplish  the stated goals of FWO notes, it seems clearly sexist
    to continue FWO notes without trying SRO notes.

--David

    
    fwo notes are not sexist, either on the first facie or any 
    subsequent facie. besides, the goal of fwo, as i understand it,
    is to allow only women to repsond; nothing to do with supportiveness
    except coincidentally.
    
    i keep thinking all we have to do is come up with the right
    analogy or the right metaphor and people will see that not only
    is =wn= not sexist in general, but the fwo/fgd system is actually
    incredibly un-sexist and a wonderful tool for promoting understanding
    between the sexes (and, in fact, within the sexes).
    
    
    

    YEa, right and those pigs do indeed sing too!
    Basing a law (in this instance a noting policy per ce) solely upon ones
    gender isnt sexist eh? Metaphor away pal, in any light, itll always be
    sexist with one exception......
    
    when women or other protected groups are on the recieving end...

    
    Well, I'm back, and amazingly nothing seems to have changed...
    
    eric (edp) - you're style is till pedantic to the point of being
    soporiphic. Much as it pains me to agree with you, however, I do see
    that you have a glimmer of a point.
    
    Allowing a "FGD" topic to reply to an "FWO" topic is a bit like a
    newspaper that allows a rebuttal to an editorial, but prints it in 8
    point type on the letters page. However, this is a forum for the women
    of our comunity, and what I see in the notes here is a heartfelt,
    passionate primal scream. Yes it has sometimes strayed into an area of
    'male-phobia", but it is a validly felt emotion. Conversely of course I
    can appreciate your view that "seperate but equal" is no more
    acceptable here than in apartheid ridden South Africa.
    
    It is true that to a certain extent I left this file because I felt I
    was being shouted down by some of the more strident voices here but in
    the end I felt on reflection that I was the interloper, and the decent
    thing to do was for me to revise my attitude.
    
    Have you ever heard the story of the parents of the cadet who viewing
    the ceremonial march past said "look at that - our boy is the only one
    in step!"
    
    So: my single entry in this stream - I believe that something needs to
    be done about the "right to reply" when an identifiable individual is
    referenced but not when a gender is referenced - I no longer feel the
    need to be a spokesman for the male race: British law does not allow
    the concept of class action - you cannot slander a gender, only
    specific members of the gender. I have listened and learned: what I
    have learned is that members of my gender (sometimes including myself)
    have commited injustices against the fairer sex.
    
    In the name of the Goddess I appeal to you: stop, listen, learn, and
    primally don't take all indictments of the male gender as personal
    insults. We all need this space - perhaps it isn't perfect, but
    invoking PP&P sledge-hammer tactics is not the way to resolve the
    issue. You may remove an imperfect vehicle, but you will not heal the
    wound. Under the band-aid of your liberal-conscience inspired
    egalitarian attitude the problem will remain and fester. One far
    greater than I once said "let he that is without sin cast the first
    stone" - I ask you: are you, or am I without sin? can we truly claim to
    have never contributed to the anguish and anger felt by some? does it
    harm us to hear their anguish? No it doesn't! We can learn and improve,
    or we can shut our hearts and minds and hear only the negatives. If you
    hear only the male-phobic anguish without discerning the reasons for
    it, then it is you that is failing, it is you who are lacking in
    intellectual capacity.
    
    So, stop, reflect, then reflect again, and finally perhaps consider
    that if you can't stand the heat you should stay out of the kitchen.
    
    /. Ian .\

    re: .771
    
     
>    FWO notes  are prima facia sexist. (So are FMO notes.) Since there
>    is  a  suggestion  for Supportive Responses only notes which would
>    accomplish  the stated goals of FWO notes, it seems clearly sexist
>    to continue FWO notes without trying SRO notes.
    
    
    Look.  SRO notes have been an option for many months. perhaps a year. 
    People who WANT to open an SRO/FGD pair ARE WELCOME TO!  The people who
    CHOOSE to open FWO/FGD topics are FULLY aware of the SRO/FGD option
    (it's right there in 1.*) and they STILL often do not choose it.  I
    guess they must feel that there is SOMEthing they can get out of
    FWO/FGD that they CANNOT get out of SRO/FGD.  There have BEEN some
    SRO/FGD topics in V2, the experiment has works.  Some people will
    choose it as an option, some people will not. The people who post the
    basenotes are the ones who choose. The moderators do not choose how
    they open their basenotes.  The community does not decide how to label
    their basenotes.  The basenoters choose what they wish to gain the
    response they feel they most need from the community.
    
    -Jody
    

    RE: .786
    Nice try, but the Spit Brook mens forum was created AFTER they saw that
    there was a gap in support networks... mainly MALES.  Men HAD NOTHING
    from digital as far as a supprot network, discussions group etal.  that
    is why ONLY RECENTLY they created this core group.

re: single-sex support groups...

While I don't know any details about such groups, I would be very
suprised if they would be permitted to post job-openings and similar
work-related opportunities.  I.e., I would imagine single-sex support
groups to deal with personal/social issues, and not have a work-related agenda.

To my knowledge, Womannotes is the only notesfile that requests awareness
of one of the personal-identity categories described in P&P 6.24
"race, sex, age, religion or ethnic background."  I.e. Bagels does
not ask specific behavior of Christians or Palestinians; BlackNotes
does not ask for specific behavior of Whites;  Christian does not
ask Jews to refrain from discussion -- though all of these notesfiles
expect the participants to behave themselves.

There are very few places in Digital where the corportion ought to be aware of
"categories" (age/sex/religion).  In all of those that I know of, Digital
has made a significant effort to be inclusive.  I wish that that
effort would extend to Womannotes.

Martin.

    I'm really confused here.  As much as some (read, not all) things
    in here make me uncomfortable, I do not recall (perhaps I missed
    something?) women telling men they CAN'T participate in the file.
    I think sometimes, *some* men and *some* women feel that the 
    "majority" isn't giving them a fair shake and angry disputes tend
    to follow (as will happen whenever two strong/opposing factions
    collide).  Is the disputing itself (ie, offering other viewpoints)
    wrong?  No, I don't think so, but I think what makes *some* people
    uncomfortable (particularly myself) is that these disputes always
    tend to denigrate to a "you don't belong here if you don't like it
    leave" arguement.  I think that's where some folks feel their rights have
    been stepped on.  I really don't think anything is solved when 
    people are told they should leave anymore that telling a certain
    group how they *should* run things does.  
    
    RE: this being a topic for women.  This is a tuff one.  Kath and
    Suzanne, in regards to .154 and I think .156 in the Hot button
    note:  I think the basic premise is yes, these should be about
    women's issues.  The line IMO gets blurry when one says it's for
    women.  I think one may consider that this file would be beneficial
    more for women than men, but that doesn't mean there aren't men 
    around who aren't interested in women's issues.  This may be the
    key to the whole problem.  Could it be some men want to discuss
    something that some women just aren't interested in, therefore,
    the men get ignored and feel that this is unjust?  Does personal
    noting style affect the ways in which *some* noters respond to
    others?  Can anyone offer any suggestions of how we ALL can try
    to avoid these tense discussions?  I may not agree with the "ignore"
    policy, but isn't it sometimes better to turn the other cheek until
    one can state their point with less hostility.  And yes, I know, I
    have to start learning too...
    
    Christine 

    	RE: 7.155  Kath Gallup

    	Well, I'm sorry if the concept offends you, but the person who
    	created Womannotes had WOMEN in mind - =wn= is a specific forum 
    	devised so women could talk with other women (although NO ONE ELSE	
    	is excluded.)

    	P&P does NOT prohibit a Digital employee from wanting to start a
    	notesfile meant for the use and benefit of a specific group of 
    	people (as long as no one else is excluded.)

    	This notesfile was started for women.  No one else is excluded.

    	You can deny this all you want, but it's the truth (and it is NOT
    	against Corporate Policy in any way.)

    	This notesfile was not created by divine intervention - a Digital
    	employee started it for a reason she has stated many times over
    	the years.

    	It is absolutely preposterous to keep saying that this file is
    	not "for" women (when the creator has stated otherwise many, many
    	times.)

    	Digital policy ONLY demands that all employees be allowed access
    	(although there are a number of files in the company that don't
    	follow this particular requirement, either.)  =wn= does follow
    	it, however.

    
    seems pretty clear to me suzanne!
    but you know what? i've made a wonderful discovery. there is no way
    the '=wn= is sexist' crowd is going to be convinced. i realised this
    because i noticed that there was no way they were going to convince
    me. normally, when i run into this kind of thing in real life, we
    agree to disagree and change the topic for a number of reasons
    that won't happen here. fortunately, most of this beating of heads 
    against walls remains in such places as the 'process' note. which,
    also fortunately, makes it easy to hit next/unseen.
    

    
    	Agreed!  ;^)
    

    
    
    
    
            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 1.0                            Welcome!                          24 replies
VIKING::TARBET "Margaret Mairhi"                     18 lines  18-APR-1986 09:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Welcome to =WOMANNOTES=, the notefile dedicated to topics of interest
  to women.
  
  The only groundrules are those that good sense would suggest anyway:

     o   Discussions will inevitably become very lively.  Please 
         try to reserve heated words for the topics, not the people.
     o   Try hard to avoid sexism, you'll feel silly and embarrassed
         otherwise.
     o   Try to keep responses pointed at the original note; tangents
         deserve notes of their own.
     o   Try to indicate your state of mind when you say something
         that might be misunderstood.  There are many good ways
         of doing that.
                                       
    Enjoy!
                                            =maggie

    	RE: .795  Kath

    	Yes, I've read this before.

    	Why would you assume that the focus is on "topics that interest
    	women" and not the women ourselves?

    	It's like saying that the file is meant as a way to dissect us
    	(eg, a debate on "what interests women.")  Not so!

    	It's FOR WOMEN - composed of TOPICS OF INTEREST TO US (so we can
    	discuss them, without excluding anyone else!!)

    	The notesfile is not dedicated to inanimate "TOPICS"!  It's
    	dedicated to human beings who happen to be WOMEN (although no
    	one is excluded from participating.)

    	I wonder why this is such a difficult concept for some people.

    re 526.27
    
    <What kind of society do we have, that forces a young girl to struggle
    <with such a monstrous crime in isolation and nonsupportiveness, for
    <years?  We  have a society that monstrously devalues the women in it.
    
    What kind of society do we have, that forces a young boy to struggle
    with such a monstrous crime in isolation and nonsupportiveness, for
    years?  We  have a society that monstrously devalues the children in it.
    
    

    Not that anyone asked, but when did that ever stop me?  ;)  I dislike
    hidden notes, I also dislike deleted notes.
    
    aq
    

	edp -

	Do you constantly pursue *all* discrimination (regardless of target)
	with equal vigor as you do in this conference?

						--Doug
				

Re: -  discussion of attack/sexist/related heat-producing words	

		Take a hike.  Crow hill is nice if you're in western 
        Mass.  Else, pick a hill, peak, mountain ...  anywhere up high.
                Maybe youse can get your head above the clouds and breathe
        some fresh air.   I note here because I marvel at the different
        perspectives people have in their attitudes towards life. 
	It is not here for your approval.  Do not try to fit others to 
	your mold!
                I can <NEXT UNSEEN> past the dribble you put in here, 
	but that gets tiring after a while.  So why don't you do everyone 
	a favour,  next time you feel like entering a contentious 
	(i.e. nyah nyah) note here go to a Patriots game instead....  
	those people need a life too!


				Kbear

P.S.  this note is hypocritical   ;-)