Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Well, I suppose all here are already familiar with my bias of 'if the shoe
is not your size, it can only cause you pain and discomfort to try and wear
it.'

I agree that some use stereotypes to unleash anger and catharsis. How much
more useful and less hurtful it is to direct ones anger against a construct
than to direct it at flesh and blood human beings.

To get down to a flesh and blood, real-life example:  When I was younger, I was
raped by a man that I thought I could trust with my life and my heart. [this
comes as no surprise to most of you].  I was angry. I was hurt. I wanted to
hurt in return [actually I had an obsessive _hunger_ to bomb Houston, where he
lived -- no lie, I fantasised about it].  A Man did this to me; Men could not
be trusted; Men laughed at and ridiculed me -- called me silly; Men shunned me
for a whore; you get my drift.  'Man' was a hurtful creature.  How I hated and
despised this Man-creature ... how I daily hurt him.

Yet, how important and vital were many flesh and blood men to my healing.  Each
man who didn't ressemble the Man-creature was a stone in my bridge back to
sanity. Even those who were not supportive couldn't quite match the malevolence
of the object of my hatred.  There is no doubt that He shadowed my interactions
with men -- sometimes He still does.  But I do not see Him in the face and heart
of men in general.  I see them as themselves.


Why waste time in forcing someone to re-build the Cruel Shoes that were never 
meant to be worn in the first place?

  Annie

[yes, there _are_ other uses of stereotypes ... bvut that's not what the
basenote asked]

    Disclaimer: The "voices" I paraphrase in this reply are not directed 
                at the basenoter or at any other individual.
    
    I just don't buy the assumption that I think is implicit in the
    basenote:  that women who have been injured by one or some men come
    here to discharge their anger at all men and so regularly engage in
    harmful stereotyping that hurts the good men who are hear "just to
    learn more" about women.  

    This seems like a pretty good tactic to me.  First, restate and restate 
    and restate your claim that men are "abused" in womannotes.  It's very 
    important to use loaded words like "abused" so that women and men will 
    see you as "just like" other "victims" of abuse: survivors of rape, 
    incest, battering, for example.  Then, once the notion of 
    -man-as-victim-in-Womannotes- is firmly in place, raise the issue of 
    whether or not it is a good idea to let it continue.  Let's discuss it 
    and take a vote: should the women who have had a tough time with one or 
    a few bad men be allowed to abuse the fine men of womannotes who are here 
    to lend a hand, a shoulder, a friendly ear and who really want to 
    understand just what it is that's got these girls so upset?  All in favor?  
    What's this -- no votes in favor?  Well, gee, maybe we should have a 
    drink together and talk about that.  Now, folks, let's not attack these 
    poor, man-hating feminists who can't get a date -- I know they hate me 
    because I happen to be male, but I bear them no ill will, for I know 
    only too well how they've suffered.  Gee, if they'd just come to the next 
    FGD gathering, I'd even be willing to ask them to dance.

    This file is not for men.  It is for women.  Men have a corporate
    and a constitutional right to be here, but UNlike everything else on
    the planet, Womannotes was not designed to enhance men's lives.

    I think there are a few men here who truly love women and want to learn
    and grow by talking about women's issues with women.  I think the 
    largest group of men here have ambivalent feelings toward women
    (perfectly understandable to me -- women are supposed to be the objects
    of men's desire and love but not their respect -- men are supposed to
    be the objects of their respect but not of their love or desire -- 
    tough rules to follow without feeling somewhat threatened, resentful,
    and mistrustful).  I think these men are open to learning but are
    quite likely to support men over women in case of conflict.  I think 
    there's a lot of positioning going on here:  Men trying to gain favor
    with women and with men (but it looks to me like men often use their 
    status with women to gain status with men -- isn't that kind of what
    the joke about being PC to get laid is about?  See, it's ok -- I don't
    mean it.  Of course, I also enjoyed that joke because I think the men 
    it was directed at really do mean it, but humor can tell us a lot about
    cultural and subcultural (if you can look at Womannotes as a 
    subculture) values.)  These goals are not entirely incompatible with
    what I see as the primary goal among the women here -- to share
    experiences with each other.  If men are motivated to listen and learn
    because they want women to like them, that's fine. I mean, isn't that the 
    primary motivation for most kinds of (at least social) learning?

    I think there is also a small number of men here who are here because
    they can be more powerful here than in a mixed, male-dominated forum.  
    Participants in other valuing differences conferences don't get 
    harrassed and have their motives for gathering constantly questioned 
    because there are men there.  In fact, I think some of the more sensitive 
    men here stay and fight for women's rights because they know that where 
    some men see an absense of men, they see a power vacuum, a place to find 
    higher status.  But I bet these same (sensitive) men would be read-only 
    or read-mostly if the women here were not constantly under attack.  So 
    we women and women-loving men in Womannotes spend a lot of our time 
    finding shelter and dodging bulletss.  That doesn't leave us a lot of time 
    to find food, build a fire and then get down to the storytelling that 
    can only happen after the dishes are washed.  

    Do I think men are abused or mistreated or victimized in Womannotes?  
    No, I don't.  Sometimes the anger I and other women and men feel leaks 
    out.  But men who want to learn about women are willing to hear the anger, 
    too.  They can avoid taking it in, because they realize that the angry 
    feelings aren't about *them*, they're about the women, and they (the 
    feelings) belong to the woman who is expressing them.  I think that men 
    who are not interested in hearing all about whatever women want to share 
    of themselves -- unedited for their (male's) listening pleasure -- have 
    no business being here.  And I do my best not to let myself be influenced 
    by men who are here for themselves and not for women.  I respect men's 
    rights always, but I am here for women.  When men write to me and tell 
    me that they have grown because of this file, I see it as a fringe 
    benefit, a gift, but it is not, frankly, a goal of my participation here.  
    Some might consider what I've written here to be abusive.  I suggest that 
    folks are just not used to seeing a woman name and explain her anger.
    
    Justine

    Some thoughts for the basenoter:
    
    1.  This notesfiles does not have the power to devalue *anyone* who has
    not previously been devalued by other situations/people.  It *does*
    have the power to remind people that they come to this notesfile
    already feeling value-less.
    
    2.  I wouldn't want to be on the committee that attempted to define
    what "powerful" emotional expression is--if our goal was in fact to
    allow only *powerless* emotional expression which we could guarantee
    would remind no other persons of their already devalued state.
    
    Briana

    
    re .4 -
    
    Justine - that was wonderfully stated, right on the mark. I couldn't
    agree more!
    
    Dorian

    Mark, do we read a different version of =wn=? I disagree, that a
    prevalent theme here is the use of stereotypes to unleash anger.
    I think women come here to talk with each other and not to heal
    their wounds. Some anger does leak out at times and probably there's
    some healing but I don't see that as a common theme here.
    
    If some men think that they're being stereotyped negatively, that's
    because they're used to being flattered most of the time. But that
    belongs in another note.
    
    Bottom line: if anyone feels they're being abused here, they're free
    to leave the file. I'd like to remind everyone that your job does not
    depend on this file and if you feel abused and victimised here, you
    don't have to come here

    
    Actually, this whole string of man vs wmn is a learning thing for
    me.  It's proving AGAIN, why I enjoy woman-space-*only*.  Just
    look what is happening all over this file.  The interuptions
    to a conversations, the changing of attitudes created by this in
    the woman, the anger in everyone's words instead of a calming
    atmosphere where some good work could be done.
                            
    My applause to the men who *are* trying to make their comrades
    understand some part of what the wmn are saying.....
    
    
    
    
    

>                        <<< Note 295.7 by CADSE::KHER >>>
    
>    Bottom line: if anyone feels they're being abused here, they're free
>    to leave the file. I'd like to remind everyone that your job does not
>    depend on this file and if you feel abused and victimised here, you
>    don't have to come here


	That's 100% wrong.  Digital policy states otherwise.  Digital
	policy is written to ensure that we as employees of this
	company do not have to receive verbal abuse.  The burden of
	rsponsibility lies with the OFFENDER, not the OFFENDEE.

	kathy

    
    re:.10
    what if the things said are not unfair or not untrue?
    

re: .13

>    Hey, if it is true and fair, go ahead and say it.  But you'd better be
>    prepared to prove it. 
    
    In this life there is precious little proof.  There is our perception,
    which we filter through our experience.  There is emotion - hot and
    cold and wondrous and terrible.  There is humanity.  There is no proof. 
    I love, I hate, I feel, I need, I want - I cannot prove any of these
    things.....I hurt, I care, I seek, I fear - I cannot prove any of these
    other than with my words.  I say what I feel - I feel what I say I feel
    - and if I am to believe others when they tell me of themselves and
    their experiences - of their expressions of humanness - then I believe
    they need to take me in the same vein - with a dash of compassion and a
    grain of salt.  EVERYTHING I say comes from MY impressions of what goes
    on - comes through MY training, dances across MY hot-buttons, and
    settles where MY words live - in my heart.
    
    There is no proof.  There is no formula.  There is no complete, entire,
    utter, universal calculus that can help us arrive at the absolute
    truth.
    
    Life isn't fair, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling
    something....
    
    -Jody
    

re: .12:

    what if the things said are not unfair or not untrue?

Interesting question.  However, you can say things that are "fair" and
"true," but say them in a context and manner that is offensive.

For example, when I lived in Europe in the 1970's, the evening tv news
gave extensive coverage to the South Boston desegregation riots.  This
was "news" and hence its coverage is "fair" but by presenting blow-by-blow
descriptions (for 15 minutes of a half-hour news program), the tv station
was also sending a covert message about America and American racial attitudes.

Another example: An American reporter interviewed a Yugoslavian during
the Winter Olympics.  "How can you live in a country where you don't have
a free press?"  She replied, "How can you live in a country where you
can't walk in the city safely at night."

Both "true" and "fair" statements, but both in a context where the
meaning of the message is not the meaning of the sentence.

Martin.

Doesn't a lot of the recent conflicts in here and elsewhere
(everywhere!) have to do with the nature of feeling and thinking?
Perhaps the difference and relationship between thought and feeling
not being clear?

For example, Eric says he is hurt and anger.  But then seeks to (as I
see it) disprove the validity of the words that he percieves as
hurting him.  I also think of some of the writing of the group Queer
Nation I recently read.  Actually in many oppressed groups one can see
the same pattern.   Now it seems that white males may be feeling some
of the same things in here.  Myself, I don't feel this in here so much
although I used to when I was first exposed to feminism and some of
the anger that can go along with it.  Now, it takes a lot.  I was
reading something called, All Men Are Scum and They Should Be Shot or
something like that a while back - I'm not sure how serious it was.
Now that got under my skin a bit!  ;-)

What I see happening in my own experience with anger sometimes is
this.  First there is anger.  If I can quiet down and just be with
this anger, it really is just a physical sensation in my body.  The
other thing I have noticed is that is seems to be preceded by a
feeling a hurt.  Usually, there is the hurt and then the anger.

In my experience, thoughts about these feelings come later (after the
fact).  Something I have tried is to just be with these feeling and
not analyze or think about them or get carried away (in thought) by
them.  For example, let's say that someone I am in love with (whatever
that means) terminates our relationship.  When a feeling of hurt arise
and likely some anger later.

What happens with me with the anger is that typically very soon
endless cycles of thoughts start occuring.  Clearly, I am very
uncomfortable with the anger or hurt and want to "try and figure it
out" the pain or justify my anger.  So I might spend countless thought
cycles (sorry for the geek terminology) wondering why person X broke
up with me.  I have found that I can really make up some fantastic
theories about X which usually have little to do with X's reality.
It's funny in a way how far the mind will go with these things.

Another favorite game my mind like to play is justifing anger.  Anger
makes me really uncomfortable.  I don't like it at all.  So,  I like
to project it as being something that was caused by an outside agent.
She did that to me.  I am angry because she did this...  Now when I
hear these kind of thoughts, a flag goes off saying, be careful.

Now I don't think that it's not OK to be angry or anything of the
kind.  I think anger is fine.  Hopefully, it's a flash and it
disappears as fast as it appears.  I think it can be a good warning
sign that some action may be necessary.  But most of the time it turns
into hostility, grudges, revenge, endless justification, and negative
behavior that personnally I'm not that interested in acting out.

So I find it interesting and helpful in hear when people take
responsabilty for their feelins and say I'm hurt or I'm angry.  It's
so easy though, to skip this step, and go right to the thoughts that
say, X caused me feel this way or You shouldn't have done or said
that, or I am going to prove you wrong,...

My philosophy (which I don't live up too a lot of time) is to just say
what I am feeling clearly and concisely without a lot of revenge,
justification, and thinking layed on top of it.  My experience is that
if this happens (notice that if you do this, you don't make a lot of
statements (YOU statements) about the other person), it leaves the
other person a chance to respond human being to human being.

For example, let's say someone breaks up with me, I could say, "I am
feeling very hurt and angry that you broke up with me.  I wanted us to
last forever and I thought that there was a committment here".  The
other way to say this is, "You are a complete and total slimebucket
for breaking up with me!  How could you do such a thing?  What a
compete and total loser you are.  I hope you burn in hell for ten
thousand years."

Now, which one is more to result in genuine human communication?
Myself, I would find it hard to respond to the later without going to
the insulting back level.

Something else I have found it that this doesn't always work like I
might like.  I might like for all conflict to be resolved, to be
friends again, an apology, whatever.  The way I look at it (again in
the ideal case which doesn't always correspond to what I actually do)
is that I have taken responsability for my own feelings and have
communicated them.  It is the other person's responsabilty to respond
or not; I don't own that responsabilty so I don't get to invested in
any specific outcome.

Now, the question arises of what to do if one is continually angered
and perhaps justifying so?  (I am thinking of oppression specifically
here).  This is a very good question.  In my view, you can respond
without hatred and with compassion but that does not mean you can't be
strong either.  And this I think is one way of looking at
non-violence.  When I start seeing the person on the other side from
my position as an enemy, as someone I hate, when my mind is making
that person into a non-person, when I am attributing all kinds of
motives and evil into that person, that's when I hopefully step back
and re-asses my own feelings and position.

Anyways, we here seem very, very, far from an environment where people
can communicate their feelings.  Most of time, there seems to a lot of
bludgeoning each other with their thoughts that arise about their
feelings or trying to invalidate or disprove other people's feelings.

In my veiw, feelings are.  They are not to be proved or disproved.  To
believe such a thing is to misunderstand the very nature of feelings.

So, I hope that we can create a space where each other feelings can
just be and we can look at them together if we are interested and
maybe help us to understand each other and make our feelings
instruments of positive change and not weapons.

john

The following is an essay extracted from a publication by Queer Nation,
a gay rights activist group.  It was originally titled "I Hate Straights"
in a paper entitled "Queers - Read This."  I was very moved by reading it
(in another notes conference) from the perspective of someone who has led
a basically straight life, and who *has* in the past been emotionally hurt
by gays saying anti-straight things.

And then I thought about it from the perspective of women.  A lot of
the things said in this article are similar to things said by some women
in this conference.  The anger, the hurt, the frustration at men who 
don't realize that their anger is directed at the concept Men, not 
individual men.

So, as an experiment, I reworded the article, replacing "queer" with
"woman" and "straight" with man.  Some of it sounds a little weird with
the context change, and some of it couldn't be applied at all (these
passages I left as is, in [] brackets.)  But even so, the new, rewritten
essay also affected me profoundly.  I *identified*.  I shared in the
anger with the (hypothetical) woman who wrote it.  Even though it was
rather contrived (by myself, even) I found reading it invigorating,
and yes, a catharsis of sorts.

Here 'tis.  What do you think?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   I HATE MEN

   I have friends. Some of them are men.

   Year after year, I see my male friends. I want to see them, to see
   how they are doing, to add newness to our long and complicated
   histories, to experience some continuity.

   Year after year I continue to realize that the facts of my life are
   irrelevant to them and that I am only half listened to, that I am an
   appendage to the doings of a greater world, a world of power and
   privilege, of the laws of installation, a world of exclusion. "That's
   not true," argue my male friends. There is the one certainty in the
   politics of power: those left out of it beg for inclusion, while the
   insiders claim that they already are. Straights do it to gays, whites do it
   to blacks, and men do it to women.

[   The main dividing line, both conscious and unconscious, is
   procreation...and that magic word---Family. Frequently, the ones we are
   born into disown us when they find out who we really are, and to make
   matters worse, we are prevented from having our own. We are punished,
   insulted, cut off, and treated like seditionaries in terms of child
   rearing, both damned if we try and damned if we abstain. It's as if the
   propagation of the species is such a fragile directive that without
   enforcing it as if it were an agenda, humankind would melt back into the
   primeval ooze. ]

   I hate having to convince men that women live in
   a war zone, that we're surrounded by bomb blasts only we seem to hear,
   that our bodies and souls are heaped high, dead from fright or abused or
   raped, stripped of our personhood.

   I hate men who can't listen to women's anger without saying
   "hey, all men aren't like that. I'm a man too, you know,"
   as if their egos don't get enough stroking or protection in this
   arrogant, patriarchal world. Why must we take care of them, in the midst
   of our just anger brought on by their fucked up society?! Why add the
   reassurance of "Of course, I don't mean you. You don't act that way." Let
   them figure out for themselves whether they deserve to be included in
   our anger.

   But of course that would mean listening to our anger, which they almost
   never do. They deflect it, by saying "I'm not like that" or "now look
   who's generalizing" or "You'll catch more flies with honey..." or "If
   you focus on the negative you just give out more power" or "you're not
   the only one in the world who's suffering." They say "Don't yell at me,
   I'm on your side" or "I think you're overreacting" or "BOY, YOU'RE
   BITTER."

   They've taught us that good girls don't get mad. They've taught us so
   well that we not only hide our anger from them, we hide it from each
   other. WE EVEN HIDE IT FROM OURSELVES. We hide it with substance abuse
   and suicide and overachieving in the hope of proving our worth. They
   abuse us and stab us and shoot us and kill us in ever increasing numbers
   and still we freak out when angry women carry banners or signs that say
   FIGHT BACK. [ For the last decade they let us die in droves and still we
   thank President Bush for planting a fucking tree, applaud him for
   likening PWAs to car accident victims who refuse to wear seatbelts. ] LET
   YOURSELF BE ANGRY. Let yourself be angry that the price for visibility is
   the constant threat of violence, misogynistic violence to which
   practically every segment of this society contributes. Let yourself feel
   angry that THERE IS NO PLACE IN THIS COUNTRY WHERE WE ARE SAFE, no place
   where we are not targeted for misogyny and attack, the self-hatred, the
   suicide---of the closet. The next time some man comes down
   on you for being angry, tell them that until things change, you don't
   need any more evidence that the world turns at your expense. [  You don't
   need to see only hetero couple grocery shopping on your TV...You don't
   want any more baby pictures shoved in your face until you can have or
   keep your own. No more weddings, showers, anniversaries, please, unless
   they are our own brothers and sisters celebrating. ]  And tell them not to
   dismiss you by saying "You have rights," "You have privileges," "You are
   overreacting," or "You have a victim's mentality." Tell them "GO AWAY
   FROM ME, until YOU change." Go away and try on a world without the brave,
   strong women that are its backbone, that are its guts and brains and
   souls. Go tell them go away until they have spent a month walking on the
   streets as a woman. After they survive that,
   then you'll hear what they have to say about female anger. Otherwise,
   tell them to shut up and listen.

    I'd like to believe (but I could be wrong) that when anyone talks to me
    about suffering and anger that they feel as part of a disadvantaged
    group, whether or not its one I belong to, that it is not my place to
    ask to be counted as an exception, and I try not to do it.
    
    If someone ranted and raved at me about being straight, I'd listen. I
    might be tempted to say "You're preaching to the choir", but I wouldn't
    try to squelch their anger. As an appropriate choir member, I might
    even throw in a few Amens. 
    
    The reason why I wouldn't take it personally is because I would have to
    acknowledge the truth in it. When you're in the majority, you do a lot
    of thoughtless things because you assume that you're in the company of
    those like you. Its very human. If you're part of a disadvantaged
    minority of any kind, and you enter a situation in which you are, all
    of a sudden, the majority, its so LIBERATING that you'll often enact
    some of the same things. That's normal. And, if all of a sudden, the
    shoe is on the other foot for me, I am silent. Because I know how
    important that feeling of liberation is, I know that I have no business
    squelching it, and I know that I can ALWAYS leave that place and regain
    my "majority" status.
    
    So, when I am a minority among minorities who have created a majority
    situation, I feel privileged, I try to keep my mouth shut, and I remind
    myself NOT to take things personally. I figure anyone who can't do this
    shouldn't walk into such a situation... or, if finding themselves in
    such, should leave quietly.

    re: .17
    
    Oh, my.  You are right.
    
    E Grace
    
    
    What is a PWA, please?

>    What is a PWA, please?

A Person With Aids.  (This didn't seem particularly relevent to the 
feminist slant on the article, so I left it in []'s.

D!

PS: If anyone wants to see the original text, send me mail. I changed
very little, though, so I think you can get an idea what it said.

    re.18 'preaching to the choir' may not do the choir much good
    but it can do *wonders* for the preacher. (which is the whole 
    point of catharsis)

Thanks D! for typing that in here. I recently read that, and I also
thought that how appropriate the word changes would be.

Kathy

	I did not get to read the basenote - but my take on the discussion
	is as follows:

		someone entered a note describing and experience of
		not being in the majority

		that someone than complained that even though they
		are not part of the majority in a particular setting
		their interests should be of primary interest to the
		others in that particular setting

		AND if it so happens that that someone's feelings are
		hurt because the others will not attend to the issues
		set by that someone then the others are all exhibiting
		anger at this someone

	Did I get the gist of the base note?

	Well even if I didn't I am going to respond to my understanding
	that I have just explained.

	The few times in my life when I have had the priviledge to be
	part of a group where I was not part of the majority,  (BTW - 
	this does include all male group with me as the only female) I
	have tried to not be always reminding the others that I am there
	and that I am not like them.  And yes some to the things said
	hurt me but unless I am willing to admit to the others that I do
	indeed do some of the things being said, I don't complain about
	the comments of others.  Especially since I do not know their
	reality first hand and maybe they are speaking the truth from
	their reality.  Who am I to judge what is real to them and what
	is not?  I am not ominiscient.

	Now some will say that I do not practice this "attitude" when it
	is all males except myself.  My response is "I know my reality
	and I know how BAD I could get, and I know how often I need to
	exercise restraint.  No one else does, no one else is with me
	twenty-four hours of the day."  I am the only one to call a fault
	on my "attitude" ever.  Someone else does have the right to 
	question me about my "attitude" BUT they do not have the right
	to pass judgement on it.  And since I am not "more than human"
	sometimes I mess up and flame at individuals who don't deserve it.
	If those individuals take it personally and don't give me the
	benefit of the doubt, the pound of sand we all need from time to
	time, then maybe, JUST MAYBE, it is because THEY feel that they
	do deserve it and more.  That I can not do anything about.

	I can only make sure that the baggage I pick up and carry around
	has my name on it in big clear letters.  I own no responsiblity 
	for the actions/reactions of others to innocent statements I may
	make (the key word is innocent - remember that) they own them,
	it is their hot buttons, their life experiences that are involved
	not mine.  It is up to them to let me know if I have blundered
	and it is up to them to not remain in my sphere if I continue to
	hurt them.  (Please remember that all of this is based on situation
	where one has a choice about being there and about one not being
	purposfully hurtful to another individual, specifically.)

	Having said all of this, I want to remind individuals who read
	this conference that we who write are not here to make nice to
	anyone - though from time to time that happens.  We who write
	do so to share our (get that me, I, myself) feelings, experiences
	and ideas.  Sometimes our words are angry, sometimes playful, 
	sometimes you won't get what ever we are trying to say.  We who
	write only own our honesty and openness we are not here to "teach"
	anyone about anything, that costs extra.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The Goddess is in everyone
			and she will shine through you
			if you just allow it.