Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    The purpose of 1.11 is to standardise the method for requesting FWO
    space, and to make clear that, at present, the moderators cannot
    enforce any such request.  And that is what it does.

    As we've said several times now, one of our primary purposes when
    drafting the policy was to make sure that men also had space in which
    to discuss the same topic motivating the FWO.  Our goal was to get
    space for women who feel they need it, while disrupting the free flow
    of discussion as little as possible.  Had our focus been on
    subordinating, humiliating, or frustrating men we could easily have
    done so by not having the FGD requirement at all.

    In most of the few (18?) instances of FWO requests to date, the
    parallel strings have worked so well that the majority of discussion
    has taken place not in the FWO string but in the FGD with both women
    and men participating.  Fortunately, of all the men who didn't and
    don't see the need for FWO strings, there are very few who felt a need
    to actually ignore the wishes of women.  In each case, that was a
    choice freely made by the man concerned, and he must bear any social
    consequences. 

    There is no reason to amend 1.11; file policy has not changed.

    The strictures in 1.7 are enforced by the mods.  An FWO request is not,
    though the requirement for parallel strings and clear labelling is.

>                     <<< Note 307.2 by MOMCAT::MODERATOR >>>

	Are we to assume that any statement posted from this account
	is an "official" statement from all the moderators of this
	conference and that all the moderators support it 100%?

	Just asking, because the note wasn't signed (and is therefore
	not attributable to any person).

	Thanks for clarifying, please.

	kathy

    hmmm, good question Kath.  No, unless all of our names are on
    something, or some phrase that suggests unanimity (e.g., "for the
    moderators") you shouldn't presume that anyone except the author
    necessarily supports the statement (and maybe even she doesn't, but is
    saying whatever it is out of duty rather than conviction).

    
    If a man writes in a FWO string, we comods usually assume it is a
    mistake (as I would if someone lit a cigarette in my home - I don't
    have signs).  We send mail to the man saying did you know that this is
    a FWO string and that men are requested (but not required) to put their
    responses in the FGD string?  The man can then decide to comply with
    the request or not.  I think that takes care of any lack of clarity
    that might result from someone not reading the policy string or not
    understanding it.  I think there is no reason to change the wording of
    the policy.  
    
    Justine

    
    in case anyone is curious *i* had inadvertently put something in
    a fwo topic once and about 6 months later i happened to notice it
    was still there and moved it myself. 
    
    so much for the womannotes police-state ;^)
    

    re: .10
    >willingness to move the note to the FWO string.
    
    Did you mean the FGD string?  If so, are you implying that moving the
    reply is the *expected* behavior?  Why assume it's a mistake?  The
    policy clearly states FWO as a *suggestion*, not a *rule*.  If, god 
    forbid, a male's reply should appear in FWO, it *may* stay.  That's the
    only way I could live with it. 
    
    Nancy_who_only_replies_FGD

    In re sending mail when a man writes in an FWO string. I have, in
    all but one case, where I so sent mail, received an appology back
    from the man in question and an expressed willingness to move the
    note from the FWO string to the FGD string.
    
    Bonnie
    
    another comod response
    
    p.s. and thanks to .12 for catching my typo.
    
    p.p.s. and in re mistake, well in every case where I wrote to some
    one and said something to the effect of 'were you aware that your
    reply was entered in the FWO string' the person replied that
    they had done so by mistake.

    If (as the topic would suggest) this is a serious proposal that 1.*
    should be amended in some way, could someone let the rest of us in on
    what the proposed amendment is supposed to be (as is required by 1.6)?
    If it's not about amending 1.*, could the note title be changed to
    something more descriptive (like FWO/FGD discussion)?

    PS from 1.6:
>    If you need
>    advice or help with writing the proposal, please send mail to the
>    moderators.

>    <<< Note 307.8 by MOMCAT::TARBET "For the arms of the Devilish Mary" >>>

>    hmmm, good question Kath.  No, unless all of our names are on
>    something, or some phrase that suggests unanimity (e.g., "for the
>    moderators") you shouldn't presume that anyone except the author
>    necessarily supports the statement (and maybe even she doesn't, but is
>    saying whatever it is out of duty rather than conviction).

	Who owns the moderator account and who are notes written from
	that account attributable to?

	Thank you.

	kathy

    The moderator account is used by the moderators.
    
    I know of at least two other notesfiles who use accounts for the
    moderators, sometimes without their signing.  I can imagine at least
    one reason why a moderator would choose to use such an account for a
    response:  It is an "official" type response and they know it will
    generate heat, but it was something that had to, within the
    responsibilities of the office of moderator, be said, and they want
    responses to be TO THE POSTING, and not to the person who posted it.
    
    -Jody

>         <<< Note 307.17 by LYRIC::BOBBITT "water, wind, and stone" >>>

	
>    The moderator account is used by the moderators.

    Wait a minute, Jody.

    First I'm told that the Moderator account does not mean that the
    opinions stated by someone in that account are the opinions of the
    moderators as a whole.

    Then I'm told that this account is used by the moderators (implying
    it "doesn't matter").

    There's a big difference in using a generic account to state policy,
    and using a generic account to state opinion.

    What's the big deal, why can't ya'll just answer the question?!?!
    Is there some reason the author of the note needs to hide?

    I suppose the default assumption would be the owner of MOMCAT::.
    Without a satisfactory answer, I'm just assume that person is the
    author (I forgot which one of you that is, sorry!)

	kathy

     

Dec policy 6.54 states that

  Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are the
  responsibility of the original author.

I would interpret this as requiring all messages to have an identifiable
author.  Perhaps, in the future, notes posted by a "moderator's" account
ought to be signed by all of the moderators.

Martin.

    While I can certainly understand the desire to avoid being shot when
    you are just the messenger I too feel that all notes from the 'group'
    account should be signed. Perhaps they could carry the disclaimer "the
    devil made me do it". :*) At any rate, I don't think the moderators
    would abuse this account, it's just that they are now in the situation
    of being forced to be above suspicion. Why can't anything ever be easy?
    liesl

    Sorry, folks, MikeZ knew who had written it, and he even addressed me
    in his reply.  It didn't occur to me that the authorship would be in
    doubt.  I wrote it from that account because that's where I was logged
    in.  I didn't sign it because sometimes I don't.

    Good question Liesl.  Why can't it ever be easy?  In particular, why
    hasn't the use of generic 'moderator' accounts ever been questioned in
    those 'other' notesfiles?   I'm referring specifically to mennotes and
    Human_relations if it isn't clear.
    
    Anybody who wanted an example of Suzanne's claim that this file gets
    much tighter scrutiny than anyplace else on the net, here's your
    example.  Something smells here, and it isn't =wn= moderator
    practices (which in this case are the SAME as in those other files,
    yet when used here, require justification.)
    
    DougO

    Having a 'moderator' account is fairly new for womannotes, tho
    has been pointed out in -.2 such accounts have been in existance
    for a year or more in human_relations and mennotes. There they
    are generally used to enter anonymous notes so that the author
    is not confused with the person asking�the question. I've not
    as yet used the moderator account in =wn=, but I think that it
    would be useful to use it for entering anon. mail.
    
    Bonnie

re: .22:
    In particular, why
    hasn't the use of generic 'moderator' accounts ever been questioned in
    those 'other' notesfiles?

This practice has been questioned in Soapbox (where a generic account was
used to seed initial topics) and, I believe, in Digital.

I think it's perfectly reasonable that notesfiles that discuss controversial
issues (Digital, Soapbox, Womannotes) receive closer scrutiny than, say,
Chocolate or Birdwatching.

Martin.

    re .19

>Dec policy 6.54 states that
>
>  Messages mailed or posted over the Digital network are the
>  responsibility of the original author.
>
>I would interpret this as requiring all messages to have an identifiable
>author.  Perhaps, in the future, notes posted by a "moderator's" account
>ought to be signed by all of the moderators.

    I don't see how you derive that "requirement" from the policy. If Fred
    Mertz writes a note as Moderator, Fred owns full responsibility for
    that note, whether I know who wrote it or not.

    Are we going to need a Supreme Digital Court to provide interpretations
    du jour of DEC policies? Or should we take the policies as written and
    amend them when they are imprecise?

    Martin, perhaps my statement was poorly phrased.  yes, the usage of
    generic accounts like SEED in soapbox was questioned, but not as a
    point of challenging execution of file policy!  [my impression was
    that participants felt patronized by the extensive list of generated
    empty topics, as if they couldn't figure out for themselves what they
    wanted to discuss, and how to start such basenotes.]  
    
    > I think it's perfectly reasonable that notesfiles that discuss 
    > controversial issues (Digital, Soapbox, Womannotes) receive closer 
    > scrutiny than, say, Chocolate or Birdwatching.
    
    You removed the qualifier I included, namely, that I was referring to 
    mennotes and H-R anyway, so go away with you; your counterexample isn't 
    what I was talking about and we both know it.  Why doesn't the use of a
    generic account in mennotes get as much scrutiny as it does in womannotes?
    
    DougO

    Dave,
    
    But we women have always been expected to use 'quiet logic'. One
    of the reasons people are getting upset here, is that when one
    of us doesn't, everyone acts like she just killed the Pope.
    
    Why on earth *must* women use 'quiet logic' and not men? or did
    you mean to include men in that also, if so, then I'd support
    your statement..
    
    
    It would be very nice if everyone in this file would use 'quiet logic'.
    
    Unfortunately only one sex gets blamed, in general, for not using it..
    and it is the sex that this file is created for. This file is intended
    for women to be able to express their feelings on topics of interest
    to them. If they have to use 'quiet logic' or 'make nice' can they
    truely talk from their hearts? No, they can only give the edited
    versions of themselves that men have always seen.
    
    My vision of womannotes is that women shall be able to talk in this
    file be they conservative, middle of the road or liberal without
    having to 'make nice' or use 'quiet logic' or in any way act in
    the 'lady like' fashion that we have been expected to express ourselves
    for generations.
    
    I'd like to hear women talk in honest voices, about what matters
    to them.
    
    Bonnie
    
    
    p.s. Dave,
    
    It's not 'FUN' it never was 'FUN' and  the purpose of this file
    isn't 'FUN'. We don't need men to say 'have FUN' we need men to
    say "I listen" as you (women) listened to (us) men and to each
    other, we men will listen to you.
    
    IT HURTS other wise
    
    pax

RE: .27 (DougO)

>    Why doesn't the use of a
>    generic account in mennotes get as much scrutiny as it does in womannotes?


	Wait a minute Doug.  I'm the one that asked the initial question.
	And the reason I asked it is quite simple.

	A moderator interpretation of policy is much different than a
	statement of policy.  I viewed the note in question to be, quite
	possibly, one moderator's interpretation.  When it's not signed
	it gives the illusion that it's a consensus of the moderators,
	which, as has been revealed, it wasn't.  (In other words, it
	wasn't a note that the moderators sat down and composed together
	and ran by each other).

	I wasn't "closely scrutinizing" the note, I was merely asking for
	clarification.  I don't think there is anything wrong with generic
	moderator accounts, but I feel there would be less controversy if
	they were only used when posting anonymous notes and/or stating
	policy.

	Interpretation of policies and moderator viewpoints on situations
	are something this is unique to each moderator, and therefore would
	probably be best identifiable.

	Relax.....I would have made the same exact comment had the same
	thing happened in the Mennotes or H_R conferences.  I like to know
	who is saying what, especially when it comes to the people in
	control of a conference.

	I'm not "being a bitch", I'm simply asking for clarification.  And
	I got it, case closed.

	Kathy

    �in re .30 tho I'm not sure if this really applies...
    
    maybe for us to come to the 'still point' we have to get
    away from women doing what men need..
    
    
    maybe we have �to say 'so what?' to 'men's' needs� and instead��
    listen to our �own internal needs, and only give to the needs
    of our friends and children and lovers, be they male or female,
    not because they 'need' us as a group, or a �ge����neric����ic member of�our
    sex �but beca����use they need
    us for our selves.�
    
    I will give from my heart for anyone male or female, adult
    or child that claims a part of my heart out of love and sharing.
    I will try to disentangle myself from those who put an obligation
    of necessity on me�that resolves out of my gender, *female* ��parent
    rather than parent, woman, as object not as lover and intellectual
    and independant human being.
    
    I am no person's chattle, but I will love those �freely that
    give me love �freely.��
    
    Bonnie

    <--(.30)
    
�                      You and most women don't understand that Men *need*
�    that quiet logic.
    
    Dave, don't take this the wrong way because I'm quire sure you don't
    intend this effect, but:  we're trying to get away from always doing
    things to meet men's needs, we're trying to get to a place where we do
    things because they meet *our* needs.  So when you tell us that _we_
    should behave in some certain way because _you_ (men) need us to, that
    sets the teeth of an awful lot of women.  
    
    Bonnie just said this better than I, thank heavens.
    
    						=maggie

    Us vs. Them.  Men vs. Women.  FWO ... FGD ... LISTs ... It's awful.
    
    We are all ONE group of unique individuals.  The moment we try to
    segregate ourselves into 'seperate but equal' groups, we are doomed
    to a life of constant bickering.
    
    Play nicely together!  This used to be a FUN conference to read.
    
    B. Sousa
    223-5782

re: .31
    
    Even if we did not sit down and agree on everything beforehand,
    quite a bit of the time we agree anyways.  A good deal of the time we
    support each other's decisions and what they espouse as their belief
    becomes something we can all support.  We are separate, working
    together, coordinating quite meticulously for the most part.  I feel
    uncomfortable that someone reading a Moderator response would require a
    single name to attach to the writing - it smacks of the need to string
    someone up if you are displeased with the response (and lord knows,
    Moderator Responses are not always sweetness and light)....
    
    
    and re :.34
    
    I'm sorry you feel it is awful (why do I feel I must apologize?  I am
    always doing that....I'll put that on my list of New Year's
    Resolutions...) - we are all ONE group of unique individuals.  We are
    TWO groups of sexes.  Men and women.  In order for women's differences
    and strengths to be recognized and not subsumed into the morass of the
    current social reality - we must identify that women are different to
    some degree, and that the DIFFERENCES are POSITIVE ones.  
    
    Two groups can take their energy and focus it on collaboration, or on
    argument.  Two groups can choose to bicker, choose to support, choose
    to combine, choose to explore, or choose to ignore.  Nobody is doomed
    to a life of constant bickering without their consent!
    
    And as for playing nicely.....I am not playing at all.  This is not a
    game for me.  This is not a "fun thing I do", though it is often
    enjoyable.  This is connection and strength and empowerment.  It is
    learning and growing and seeking to communicate.  This is far more than
    Tiddley-winks on Tuesday - this is a community of people, with their
    strengths and weaknesses, exploring topics vital to them - laughing,
    crying, enjoying, supporting, comforting, and communicating their ideas
    and ideals.  Yes, they disagree sometimes - but it doesn't have to be
    in the form of bickering.
    
    This conference was not designed for the fun of it.  A lot of effort
    has gone into its support and maintenance, its continued growth, and
    the connection of the women (and men) here.....
    
    -Jody
    

1. Has it ever occurred to anyone here that some of the men in this
   conference might actually be intelligent enough to understand what this
   conference is about and might only be resentful of the way certain
   extremists are allowed to trivialize and openly insult them without fear
   of reprisals???

2. Does anyone here remember the value of giving respect for differences as
   a first step towards getting such respect???

3. Has anyone other than me ever applied the principle of "what you say is
   what you get" to the dynamics of this conference in order to gain some
   understanding of why there is so much conflict here???

   I honestly don't expect anyone here to even try to seriously address the
above questions, but I felt that they should at least have been asked.

                                        -Robert Brown III
                                         (Who really wants to be a nice person
                                          but is getting tired of being placed
                                          in situations where he either has to
                                          apologize for being who he is or 
                                          behave like a big, first class 
                                          JERK!!!)

    	Every "Valuing Differences"/politically-oriented conference I've
    	seen in DEC experiences degrees of periodic or ongoing conflict.
    	
    	Every "Valuing Differences"/politically-oriented conference I've
    	seen in DEC experiences topics that have to be closed and/or notes
    	that must be set hidden and/or deleted due to complaints about
    	these conflicts.

    	Every "Valuing Differences"/politically-oriented conference I've
    	seen in DEC experiences groups of people who tend to bond with
    	each other due to philosophical agreements on issues that are
    	debated or discussed frequently.

    	Womannotes is the only "Valuing Differences"/politically-oriented
    	conference I've seen in DEC (so far) that uses these sorts of NORMAL
    	Notesfile interactions as an attack on the Conference as an identifiable
    	entity itself.

    	Womannotes is the only "Valuing Differences"/politically-oriented
    	conference I've seen in DEC whose NORMAL Notesfile interactions result
    	in an onslaught of suggestions (demands?) that the Conference entity
    	doubt itself, rethink itself, and feel GUILTY every single time one
    	of the NORMAL Notesfile interactions involves a conflict.  

    	No, I don't think it's a coincidence that this keeps happening to
    	a group (women) who live in a culture that believes women should
    	be quiet and defer to the feelings/needs of others at all possible
    	times (avoiding conflict at all costs.)

    	[If this is happening in any of the conferences I don't frequent, I'd 
    	be willing to bet almost anything that the Notesfile involves some 
    	sort of minority group.]

Referencing 307.38 (Suzanne):

   Your perspective is good and very useful. Thank you.

For your information:

   There are at least two other conference at DEC where differences are not
valued. Neither of the ones I have in mind are associated with a minority
group. One of them, actually, is semiprivate (I am a member) and its members
tend to be intolerant of anyone who views hir life experiences differently 
from the views of a certain vocal minority (though I consider that minority to
be composed of really nice people, I still find them intolerant to certain 
opinions and ideas that I and some other members have had). The other is a 
public Notesfile that I have been studying with the possibility of entering
notes to. There is a group of people there who are highly intolerant of anyone
whose political views do not match theirs, and they have pretty much dominated
that file. I have been watching, with great interest, a number of battles
there which make the conflicts in WOMANNOTES look like friendly poker games.
The battles are between the vocal intolerant minority and a new minority
whose views are completely opposite.

   I will not mention these files here, because it is not my policy to
"badmouth" other Notesfiles in a public forum. Anyone who doesn't believe
me and wishes to know which those Notesfiles are, send me MAIL and I will 
tell them.

   As long as there are WOMANNOTERs who advance the belief that they (and
the file) are always subject to attack simply because they are women, they
will continue to alienate many men who do, indeed, value differences. Such
generalized accusations bring about what I have come to call "Created White
Hatred" (so named after certain dynamics I have noticed in the relationship
between certain Blacks and Whites), and will do little to end the conflicts
which we all wish to see ended.

   Saying that WOMANNOTES is targeted simply because it is a woman's Notesfile
is easy and, to some extent, it may even be true. But it is much more difficult
(though more effective) to take responsibility for how you respond to perceived
attacks by confirming that you are actually being attacked before responding,
and determining the real reason for the attack before accusing someone (or
some group) of having some set of motives that you may prefer to believe hir
has.

   Such is a simplified piece of my perspective. Of course, I am certain
that it will be perceived by certain individuals as just another "attack"
by a man who just loves to attack a woman's conference. If that's what
they want to think, so be it. They want to call me a sexist, then so be it.

   I just don't give a crud anymore.

                                                     -Robert Brown III

    Robert, tell me which the conferences are, please.  Judging by what I
    could find in your response, you misread what Suzanne said.  She was
    talking not about how differences are or are not valued, but about how
    no other file has to defend the legitimacy of its very existance.
    
    I think she's right.  I certainly cannot think of another file where
    people come in and complain that that the file should serve a different
    community than the one it was founded to serve.  If you know of a
    couple, I'll be relieved and interested.
    
    						=maggie 

    
    	RE: .40  Robert
    
    	You missed my point completely.  *sigh*
    
    	Conflict in notesfiles is NORMAL!  Arguments with notes set hidden
    	and/or deleted happen in OTHER NOTESFILES, TOO!  Not just this one!
    
    	The thing that is different is:
    
    	No other notesfiles get put through the collective guilt trip that
    	I see here almost daily (the "Let's talk about what's wrong with
    	this entire conference that causes notes conflicts" even though
    	such conflicts are INEVITABLE in politically-oriented notesfiles.)
    

    RE: .42
                 Soapbox has been thru a lot worse.  I think thou doth
    protest too much.

    
    
    Does anyone else find it ironic that the idea of ignoring noters who
    are rude has gotten so much ATTENTION?!!!!
    
    I keep thinking of that Dale Spender article where she said that as
    she listened to tapes of lectures she'd given, she heard HERSELF giving 
    a lot of attention to men who challenged her ideas...  I see that I often
    give a lot of my energy away trying to defend my right to exist.
    Well, here's to trying to do less of that.  I am here.  I exist.
    This space is here for me as much as it is for anyone, and I can use
    it as I wish (given of course, that I follow basic rules of human
    courtesy and DEC policy -- fortunately for me and all concerned, my
    mother raised me to be a nice girl, and those things stick.)
    
    Justine  

    
    	RE: .43  Dave
    
    	As a member of Soapbox myself, I know what's been happening there
    	- and it doesn't resemble the phenomenon in Womannotes in any way
    	shape, or form.
    
    	What's happening here is unique.  (Again, I'm referring to the
    	whole process of self-doubt and re-thinking of Womannotes as an
    	"entity under attack" that we see here time and time again.)
    

    RE .45
                   As far as I can see, there has been no rethinking of
    policy or even direction.  I may be wrong...I'm not privy to all that
    goes on, all I *see* is women defending their point of view in a very
    pointed way and changes in the last two versions have been few with the
    exception of the addition of FWO notes.  
    
                   It would be interesting to see the "mix" of women
    writing in mennotes vs men writing in womannotes.  I do/have seen in
    this file an effort (on the part of some) to "chase off" men who think
    they have something to say.  I don't see the same thing happening in
    mennotes.  I know...I know...this is NOT mennotes.  I bring this up to
    show the different attitudes between men and women.  If I see a
    question reacted to *very* strongly, (an over reaction) I tend to hold 
    that reaction in suspect...its human nature.  
    
                   Now Suzanne, I wouldn't say a word about any of this if
    I hadn't had some mail from women saying these same things.  Bonnie and
    Mez have both urged  me to release the names of these women and I have 
    not been able to get permission to do so, but that does not invalidate
    the idea because I AM bringing it up.  Im not a trouble maker, just a 
    person wondering why all the fuss.  FWO, according to the dictionary is
    NOT sexist.  Does that suprise you?  The reason is the word only
    relates to discrimination of Men to Women and not the other way around.
    There is NO word for that concept and I think its too bad because In my 
    mind it IS a discriminatory practice and invalidates (in my mind)
    womens desire to Not be discriminated against.  In other words, you are
    doing the exact same thing you didn't like to have done to you.  Now I
    ask you, what kind of example it that?  There are *some* women out
    there that feel the "do unto others" idea is the way to go.  It is
    obvious that is not the prevaling attitude here, for what ever the
    reasons.
    
    
    Dave 

re: .38:

    	Every "Valuing Differences"/politically-oriented conference I've
    	seen in DEC experiences degrees of periodic or ongoing conflict.
...    	

    	Womannotes is the only "Valuing Differences"/politically-oriented
    	conference I've seen in DEC whose NORMAL Notesfile interactions result
    	in an onslaught of suggestions (demands?) that the Conference entity
    	doubt itself, rethink itself, and feel GUILTY every single time one
    	of the NORMAL Notesfile interactions involves a conflict.  

...

Or, to summarize, all "valuing differences" notesfiles have occassional
problems, but only Womannotes has this kind of ongoing year-after-year
disagreement.

Why is that?  What is there about Womannotes that differentiates it from
other "valuing differences" notesfiles?  It's not the subject; Womannotes
is not substantially different from Blacknotes, Christian, or Bagels in
its announced subject, "Topics of interest to X."

After analysing the problem, the only logical conclusion I can draw is
that Womannotes is the only notesfile that has only women moderators --
all of the other notesfiles I know are moderated either by men (only)
or by a mixture of men and women.

Logically, then, one must face the issue of whether women are capable
of moderating a notesfile (by looking at the result).

However, instead of arguing about whether this is true or not, may I
humbly suggest an experiment for, say, six months:  that Womannotes be
moderated by men only (without changing its announced philosophy in
any way) or, perhaps, if this is too radical a suggestion, that it be
moderated by a mixture of men and women.

That way, if the problems diminish, we will all have learned something
very useful.

Martin.

ps: no, I am not volunteering to moderate Womannotes.

    
    
    Actually, I think that if most women treated most men the way they
    treat most women, most men would not like it very much.  That is not to
    suggest in anyway that I think most women treat women badly.  It's just
    that I have heard more stories than I can count about women who get
    angry with women who mistreat them, abandon relationships with women
    when the relationships seem one-sided, refuse to engage with women who 
    are rude, and yet they hang in there with the men in their lives who 
    display similar or worse behavior.  I don't think men will be happy
    with the results if they lobby for equal treatment.
    
    Justine                             

    re .47:
    
    Oh that's just precious, Martin.  I didn't see any smiley
    faces on your note, but I won't assume the worst about you.
    You just forgot to put them on, right?
    
    I know you can't be serious, because we all know that Maggie,
    Bonnie, Jody, Justine, Mez, and Ann (anybody I forgot?) are doing
    a good job and a fair job.
    
    Or don't you think so?
    

    
re: .40

>   As long as there are WOMANNOTERs who advance the belief that they (and
>the file) are always subject to attack simply because they are women, they
>will continue to alienate many men who do, indeed, value differences. Such
>generalized accusations bring about what I have come to call "Created White
>Hatred" (so named after certain dynamics I have noticed in the relationship
>between certain Blacks and Whites), and will do little to end the conflicts
>which we all wish to see ended.
    
    As long as there are men who attack women simply because they are women
    (verbally, physically, however) then I refuse to ignore it.  The men
    who do not attack know who they are.  Why should I mollycoddle all men
    because some men who are not attacking me and KNOW they are not
    attacking me require me to walk on eggshells so they feel OKAY.  What
    about MY right to feel OKAY?  The primary way to end conflicts is to
    CALL THEM OUT ON THE RUG.  CALL them what they are.  STATE what is
    happening SAY loud and clear the WOMEN are getting hurt.  And say it
    long enough that people hear - even those with their ears closed.  The
    men who I admire, respect, and who nurture and succor me KNOW they are
    doing this, and realize that when I speak of men hurting women - I am
    not speaking of them, for they are not IN the ranks of men hurting
    women.
    
    
>   Saying that WOMANNOTES is targeted simply because it is a woman's Notesfile
>is easy and, to some extent, it may even be true. But it is much more difficult
>(though more effective) to take responsibility for how you respond to perceived
>attacks by confirming that you are actually being attacked before responding,
>and determining the real reason for the attack before accusing someone (or
>some group) of having some set of motives that you may prefer to believe hir
>has.
    
    More effective for whom?  More effective in your opinion.....The
    attacks are everywhere!  The attacks that keep us under, that hold us
    down, that keep us playing meek and mild and subservient - why your
    request attacks my right to be myself by requesting I not respond to
    men hurting women....and suggesting I should make nice and it'll be all
    better.  Are you "making nice" to avoid conflict here?  I see you are
    unafraid of getting some peoples' hackles up - so why should I be
    afraid?
    
    
    re: .48
    
>Logically, then, one must face the issue of whether women are capable
>of moderating a notesfile (by looking at the result).
    
    Tee hee!  It's not that women are not capable of moderating, it is that
    the universe at large seems unable to ACCEPT that women are capable of
    moderating - and thus some of its members at every turn require the
    moderators here not only to toe the line MUCH more closely than almost
    any other moderators under the sun, but hold the belief (albeit for the
    most part subconsciously)  that women do not have as much RIGHT and
    POWER as men in such circumstances, and thus they continually
    question EVERYTHING about the file - 
    
    We are NOT uncertain about what we do.  Nor should you be.
    
    -Jody

    re .47, you *are* joking, right, Martin?  If you're not I can't write
    here what my opinion of your "modest proposal" is because my rude
    language would not be tolerated in a notesfile.
    
    I agree, Justine.  If most women really did start treating most men in
    the same manner that most men have treated most women, in the past,
    most men would *not* be very happy!  (but, it sure would be funny to
    see, wouldn't it?)
    
    I don't understand why Robert, and Martin, and Dave, don't just *go
    away* and read some other notesfile that they like better?  Why is it
    that so many men think they have to control every single thing that
    goes on in the world?  If you don't *like* this file, then don't read
    it.  Go away.  I, for one, won't miss any of you at all.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: Lorna
    
                My point exactly.  The attitude is "go away".  Come on
    Lorna, can't we dissagree and still try and support the basic idea?
    Equal rights are "equal" rights.  Shouldn't it be so?  I also am on 
    a DEC machine talking on a DEC network and have been told I have 
    every "right" to be here, are you changing that?  Equal and "payback"
    IMHO, do not equate.
    
    Dave

    re Dave, just because you have a right to be here does not mean that I
    can't *wish* you would go away.  I didn't say that you had to leave. 
    That is certainly not my right, and it is certainly your right, as a
    DEC employee, to continue noting here.  I merely said that I *wish* you
    (and the other men who see things your way) would go away.  That's how
    I feel.  I wish you'd go away.  I'm not interested.  Also, I don't
    understand.  I don't particularly enjoy Soapbox, for example, I find
    most of the people rude and unpleasant.  Result?  I almost never read
    the conference.  It never occurred to me to go into Soapbox and try to
    change the way they note.  I just thought, Hey, fine.  Some people
    enjoy that file.  Let them have at it.  I like womannotes.  So, I don't
    understand why, if you don't like this file, you don't just stop
    reading it.  That's all.  I don't have any big investment in having men
    who disagree with my basic thinking, keep noting in womannotes.
    
    Lorna
    
     

    
    	RE: .46  Dave
    
    	Don't start in on the comparisons with Mennotes.
    
    	Every time someone comes along to say "Gee, this doesn't happen
    	in Mennote," I show the error in the statement (then I get kicked
    	in the head for comparing the two conferences.)
    
    	Suffice it to say that, in spite of the fights in Mennotes and
    	closed topics, etc., no one starts conference-wide campaigns there
    	asking why they have fights in the first place.
    
    	This only happens in Womannotes.

    
    re .51 (Lorna)
    >>I agree, Justine.  If most women really did start treating most men in
    >>the same manner that most men have treated most women, in the past,
    >>most men would *not* be very happy!  (but, it sure would be funny to
    >>see, wouldn't it?)
    
    God, I couldn't be so cruel to suggest that women actually treat men the 
    way men have treated women -- not just because it wouldn't be nice but 
    because it would change women.  (Though of course, some folks might
    equate rape, murder and theft with being asked to wait outside the door
    of the rape crisis center) I was just suggesting that if women had the
    same expectations of men that they have of women, men might not like
    it.  I've heard a lot of women complain about men in their lives and
    then talk about what they're doing to "save the relationship."  When
    I've asked them if they would tolerate the same behavior from women
    friends, and they have mostly said no.  I think what some men seem to
    find so threatening (aka so unfair) about Womannotes is that many of
    the double standards here are gone.  Men here are occasionally asked
    to wait their turn or do the assigned reading before they attempt to
    change the discussion to something they are interested in.
    
    Justine

    re Justine, no, I wouldn't really want most women to start killing,
    raping, stealing, and starting wars the way many men do.  I think it
    would make for a nicer world if most men started trying to kiss up to
    other people the way many women always do to men.  
    
    If real feminists have no sense of humor, does that mean I'm not a real
    feminist, or what?  I think I'm confused by that title.  I know I'm not
    politically active, and I do sometimes kiss up to men myself, but I
    agree with most feminist ideals I think.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re:.47
    swiftian overtones aside, i would suggest that the reason for the
    'difference' is because dealing with changing the roles of women
    is simply more revolutionary than dealing with changing the
    roles of ethnic or racial minorities.
    

    
    RE: .47  Martin
    
    > Or, to summarize, all "valuing differences" notesfiles have occassional
    > problems, but only Womannotes has this kind of ongoing year-after-year
    > disagreement.
    
    All Valuing Diff/politically-oriented notesfiles (including SOAPBOX,)
    have arguments, closed topics, with notes set hidden and/or deleted.
    IT'S NORMAL.
    
    ONLY Womannotes has these normal events turned into questions about its
    existence, and the meaning therof.  ONLY WOMANNOTES!
    
    > Logically, then, one must face the issue of whether women are capable
    > of moderating a notesfile (by looking at the result).
    
    If women are harassed, then we must be doing something to deserve it,
    eh?
    
    Horse puckey.
    
    A conference with a majority of women is the target for the usual crap
    that we're the target for in the rest of society:  Some people expect
    that this is the ONE CONFERENCE where disagreements shouldn't exist,
    so THEREFORE, we are not living up to our duty as women to make nice,
    keep the peace, etc.
    
    If we made nice and agreed with every person who came in here, there
    wouldn't be a single problem.  Meanwhile, men can fight all they want
    in files (and be proud of it.)  It's their domain, and most decidedly
    NOT the domain of women to debate/disagree/etc.

    Re:  .54 (lorna)
    
                    I am sorry....very sincerely.  I sometimes "fly" off
    the handle and say things I shouldn't.  I think you *know* that. ;^)
    I never said I "didn't" like this file, I'm like you in that respect,
    If I don't like it I fade away.  I am , However, representing 4 women
    that wrote me and asked these same questions.  Why aren't they here?
    Lord, I wish they were!
    
    
    RE: .55 (Suzanne)
    
                       I wasn't trying to compare the two notes, I *KNOW*
    they're different.  I was only trying to show that the attitudes *are*
    different, both in the men of that file and the women that are there.
    Let me state, for the record, I do *NOT* want a conference-wide
    campaign for changing this file "exactly" the way I want it.  I only
    ask...is there not room for question?  
    
    
    Dave

  Re: 307.47 by BOLT::MINOW 

  Martin, you switched horses in mid-stream.  You start by talking about
  conferences of the form "Topics of interest to X" and say that the only
  difference in =wn= is that the moderators are all _women_.  The aspect
  of interest in these conferences is whether the moderators are all "X,"
  no?  Are the moderators of BLACKNOTES, CHRISTIAN, and BAGELS,  Blacks, 
  Christians, and Jews, respectively?  That seems like a more interesting
  question (I don't know the answers, btw).

  A less modest (but perhaps more entertaining) proposal would be to
  call for the CHRISTIAN and BAGELS notesfiles to swap moderators.
  Then BLACKNOTES and, um, SOAPBOX could try the same thing. Why don't 
  you run those experiments for six months and present the results. If the 
  results are interesting enough, perhaps the moderators of WOMENNOTES 
  and MENNOTES would then try it.

  Smiley faces where appropriate...

  JP

    Might I humbly suggest that the style of moderating in =wn is
    different.
    
    It is participative...which requires a lot of work and energy on the
    part of the moderators.  
    
    Many of the other conferences (moderated by men) are dictatorial.  The
    rules are the rules follow them or the notes are deleted.  The
    discussion is rarely held in the conference.
    
    Based on the discusssions in this conference I have come to the
    conclusion that men can not *stand* to abide by decisions made by a
    majority of women.  If they are making the rules fine!
    

    RE : .62
    
                I am going to "have" to dissagree here.  Womennotes should
    IMHO be moderated by women...and....again IMHO they've done a wonderful
    job.
    
    Dave

re: .60
>    I am , However, representing 4 women
>    that wrote me and asked these same questions.  Why aren't they here?
>    Lord, I wish they were!
    
    
    Look - we can't be everything to everyone, dig?  No matter how
    incredibly hard we try - not only is our effort going to fall short,
    but some other people who are trying to connect with womannotes just
    WON'T find it's up their alley.  Period.  It was a painful thing for me
    to accept, but I can't fix the ENTIRE universe, only small portions.
    
    I have, for the past year or two, had an open request for anyone
    disturbed with the file to communicate directly and anonymously with
    the moderators via sending me mail (as outline in 23.0, I think).  I
    never respond to their messages, I simply strip off the identities of
    the authors, sift the commentary into a variety of topical areas, and
    the mods discuss it as "advice from the file".  We're listening.  If
    these women are talking only to you - how do they expect it to bring
    aobut change?  If these women can't vocalize where it'll do the most
    good, I get the impression they feel no investment in making womannotes
    more comfortable for women like them - not only that - but I feel that
    some of them may actually feel there is a payoff to bringing their
    troubles to men or other women in the file who feel the same way and
    GRIPING about it.
    
    How can I even make a dent in someone's discomfort if
    
    a.  I don't know about it
    b.  They aren't invested in making it more comfortable through
    	the proper channels
    c.  They seem to ACTIVELY share and spend time with this discomfort
    	in the form of bringing it forth to other noters.
    
    What does it look like is going on to you?
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

Gosh John, now _that_ sounds like fun (and educational).
	Mez

    .64 (Jody)
                  Bonnie stated earlier a possible explination.  I
    personally feel it *might* be a little simplistic but it could be.
    She basically said its a way of getting to know and "make connection"
    with men.  Yeah....I agree its a disgusting thought.  I do know that in
    at least one of these letters, that was NOT the case.  
    
    Dave

    
    Re my "real feminists have no sense of humor" title

    re: .67
    
    Eagle, was that Freudian?
    
    E Grace

re:        <<< Note 307.37 by RANGER::R_BROWN "We're from Brone III... " >>>
                              -< Some Questions >-


<1. Has it ever occurred to anyone here that some of the men in this
<   conference might actually be intelligent enough to understand what this
<   conference is about and might only be resentful of the way certain
<   extremists are allowed to trivialize and openly insult them without fear
<   of reprisals???




Robert, has it ever occurred to you that we might *know* that "some men
who happen to be intellignet enough to understand thhis conference" ARE
resentfull, *but we[1]  don't care[2] ??!!??*

	

	[1] we, of course, stands for me and any others who happen to 
	agree with me.  and all other disclaimers....sigh.... do i HAVE
	to put this in every time???


	[2] maybe we care some,  but not enough that we will let it
	change the way we operate in *this* *ONE* area of our life.
	we let it change (control??) the way we interract everywhere
	else, we 'make nice' in all our *other* dealings with men,
	
	SO WHY THE H*LL SHOULD WE BE CONSTRAINED HERE, IN OUR OWN
	FILE?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????

	WHY try to make us feel GUILTY for being ourselves, each of us, 
	being our own individual beings, some calm and soft spoken, 
	some outraged and loud or shrill, and most fluctuating 
	between the two.


	I like to say i'm sorry that some men are resentfull of how
	they are treated in this file, but i'm not. If anything, I 
	envy them.  Yes, ENVY.  Obviously, they've never had to learn
	a simple fact that EVERY woman faces regularlly,

		LIFE AIN"T FAIR.  SOMETIMES YOU GET THE SHORT END
		OF THE STICK.  


	m

    RE: .67
    
    > Dave's phrase "friendly power game" sounds like a good model ...
    
    
        Huh?
    
    Dave         who is wandering around wondering if he is in the
                 "Twilight Zone".

anyone anyone else notice another recurring theme here?  how when
	the women of -wn- don't concentrate on 'making nice' and insure
	that everyone feels warm & fuzzy, (meaning male contributors, 
	of course...)


	......we're accused of treating men the way they've been 
	treating us??!!!  

	and we shouldn't do that if we want to 'win' any *RESPECT(???)*
	from the men who 'really do support us'?


	let's see,  they won't respect us if we act like them,  *AND
	THIS FROM OUR SELF STYLED SUPPORTERS???*



	thanks, but no thanks.  I'll take my support from those who
	achnowledge my humanity, in all it's strengths and frailties.


	m

    
    
    I just had an idea.  I was talking with a friend earlier who was saying
    how frustrating it is to keep going over and over this ground (should
    Womannotes be here for women.../Are we (women) doing it right/well
    enough?)  I had been feeling frustrated about this for a long time, and
    so I stopped for (a while) writing notes in defense of this space
    because I felt like I just kept writing the same note over and over
    again.  But as the membership here changes, and as we migrate to new
    versions of Womannotes, it has struck me that some of what I've said
    so many times before might bear repeating.  
    
    But here's my idea.  How about if those of us who are interested try this: 
    for every note we write in defense of the file or in defense of women's 
    space, in other words, for every defensive note we write, we try to write 
    some other kind of note, too -- even a lite note or a quick reply to 
    something in the news, something to make us feel that there is more to our
    participation here than our defense of our participation here.
    
    
    Off to find some other note to write to,
    
    Justine      

    
    Or we could put all the defense responses in a single topic, with a
    pointer to the note it is in response to (which will probably be in a
    separate string).
    
    This will not only give incoming people less reason to question our
    validity/existence/purpose - but also enable US to see JUST HOW OFTEN
    WE DEFEND THIS FILE.
    
    -Jody

    
    along the lines of "indoctrination" - since we do seem to sometimes go
    through the same topics/explanations/etc when new people come to the
    file, or a new version begins.....
    
    Someone just suggested to me (anonymously) that we have "Advanced
    Womannotes 101" - a file for those who have already got the hang of
    what the file is all about and want to delve deeper into some of the
    topics....
    
    Made me chuckle, and made me think....
    
    -Jody
    

Zarkov? Wonder if that means anything in Biello Russian [how do you spell White
in Russia in this character set?].

Jody - it's been done on the Internet. There's a forum called women, and a
forum calling femail (I subscribe to the latter). Femail assumes that all
participants understand that women don't like to be called girls, that it is
woman-dominated space (and it's moderated to maintain that mix), and that
abortion shall not be discussed (there might be other rules too).
	Mez

�   Zarkov? Wonder if that means anything in Biello Russian [how do you
�   spell White in Russia in this character set?].
    
   Yeah, it means the same thing as in velikorossiskij, Mez:  of the
   family of Zark (analogous to Zarksen in dansk, or MacZark in scots). 
   Far's I know, however, there's no such name as Zark.
   
   (Belorossiskij...you just have to know that "e" is pronounced "yeh")

    
    C'mon, Eric.  Chill out, it's a Friday afternoon after 5:00 pm
    in the summer.  Time to go home and forget about work and womannotes
    for the weekend, eh?
    

    RE: .85
    
                  Interesting.....I never related "common good manners"
    as "pandering".  I'll have to think about that.
    
    DAve

     

     <<< Note 307.86 by DPDMAI::DAWSON "THAT MAKES SENSE.....NONSENSE!" >>>

<    RE: .85
<    
<                  Interesting.....I never related "common good manners"
<    as "pandering".  I'll have to think about that.
<    
<    DAve


	DAve, 

	is it still 'common good manners' when you are forced to 
	display it? if it is expected to be displayed by one sex to
	a high level, and by the other to a minimal level?

	if when a man doesn't display it, the comment is "boys will
	be boys" or "it's man stuff.  you wouldn't understand".
	yet if a woman doesn't display it, she is almost universally
	declared to be a b*tch, *at best*?  

	before anyone asks, I seen the above reactions time out of mind.
	

	A suggestion.  Think of a time when you consider a woman to 
	not be 'displaying common good manners'.  Now transpose the
	situation to where a man does the same thing.  Is the reaction
	the same?  To the same degree?  If so, then yes, both are not
	'being civil'.  If not, then maybe women *do* have to pander....

	think about it...
	

    RE: .87
    
               I just let my wife read all of 307.  Then I looked at her
    and asked her what in the world .87 was talking about.  Her answer 
    was "I have NO idea!".  I also asked her If I had ever treated her
    unfairly or as a "second class person" and again her answer was a
    resounding NO.  Could it be that I have not expierenced what you have?
    Im from Texas and I have not found that "manners" were anything but
    THE way to interact.  "Pandering" brings up in my mind a person who
    puts all their feelings and love into someone else to the detrement of
    themselves.  Am I wrong here?  Is this a question of semantics?  I
    was raised to respect and care for all persons reguardless of their
    sex.  Is it different where you live?  If so, move!  If it hurts you
    that much, and it appears it does, then by all means get out.  I agree,
    thats what I would do.  I like living in a place where people take you
    at face value and not as what they want you to be.  
    
                Good manners and respect for all people is only right. 
    Slaves can apply elsewhere.  I use good manners ever day I can so I can
    look myself in the mirrow every day.  If you are unable to do this then
    I feel very sorry for you.  It must be a hard life.
    
    
    Dave

    	RE: .88 Dave
    
    	Well, gee, if your wife hasn't seen what people are talking about
    	in this topic, then I guess we've all simply imagined it, eh?
    
    	This reminds me of something I've noticed for a long time...
    
    	Once, in this file, a man wrote a long, scathing note to me (as a
    	critique of my notes and character, as witnessed by him for a number
    	of years.)  He didn't mention the subject of the topic at all - it
    	was purely a note to tell me what he thought of me as a person.
    
    	It went on and on (really ripped me to shreds,) then at one point,
    	he made one statement that was half-way nice.
    
    	My response back to him asked him who gave him the right to judge
    	me - and he got really angry (calling my statement an "usolicited
    	attack" against him.)  He claimed he hadn't said anything bad about
    	me - and reminded me of the one nice thing he'd said.
    
    	At the time, I honestly thought he was lying about not having said
    	anything insulting to me - but then, I realized that the scales of
    	"nice" are very different for men and women.  On the scale for men,
    	he *was* being relatively nice.
    
    	Just this past week, another male noter wrote to me asking why I
    	was annoyed at the note a male had written about feminists.  Again,
    	it was very insulting, but the person did say one non-angry thing
    	that could almost be considered positive.  The noter who sent me
    	mail pointed out that the other noter was trying to be nice.
    
    	The way I see it - "nice" for men can be defined (by our society)
    	as "Not being nearly as negative, violent or cruel as the man could
    	have been, all things considered."
    
    	"NOT-nice" for women can be defined (by our society) as "Failing to
    	kiss up to men as much the women should have done, in one way or
    	another."

    
    	Now, my crystal ball tells me that somewhere, a program is about 
    	to reprint my last note...
    
    
    	...with "women" replacing all instances of "men" and vice versa.
    

    RE: .89
    
                SUZANNE!!!!! ;^)  My wife and I both laughed in frustration
    at your reply.  We both understand WHAT you are saying, but how it
    applies to my note neither of us understand.  I *N-E-V-E-R*  said that
    you and all the others haven't expierenced what you say.  PLEASE, don't
    even suggest that I think you or anyone else are lying.  I don't think
    that and it honestly didn't cross my mind.  Im SURE you and the others 
    have seen and expierenced what you say.  But Im not that way.  Why do I 
    have to "pay" the penality for some of the "Jerks" of this world?  
    
                All I want is to be treated as an individual.  Is that so
    hard?
    
    
    Dave

    	RE: .91  DAVE!!!!!!!  ;^)

    	Your reply makes me laugh, too!

    	Why do experiences here have to fit into the lives of you and your
    	wife?  They still apply to others - and no one needs to make excuses
    	to you or suffer through your pity and condescension simply because
    	you can't relate to every note written here.  Ok?

    	> Why do I have to "pay" the penality for some of the "Jerks" of this 
    	> world?  
    
    	What penalty are you being asked to pay?

    	Is it that much of a personal affront to you to discover there's one
    	place where women speak openly (and it isn't what you wanted to hear?)

    	> All I want is to be treated as an individual.  Is that so
    	> hard?

    	You *are* being treated as an individual.  Look at the top of my
    	reply.  It's addressed to "Dave" - isn't that you?

    	What the hell are you talking about?

    RE:  Suzanne..............
    
    .94> Why do experiences here have to fit into the lives of you and your
    .94> wife?  They still apply to others - and no one needs to make
    .94> excuses to you or suffer through your pity and condescension
    .94> simply because you can't relate to every note written here.  ok?
    
    
             Where and when did I *SAY* that experiences have to fit into
    my life and that of my wife?  Of course they apply to others, I *never*
    said they didn't.  Have I asked for excuses....I don't think so.  As
    for suffering through the pity and condescension, give it a break! You
    must get very tired being a diety and being able to read thoughts thru
    this notes file.  I think you are reading notes in the way you "want"
    to hear them so you can come to the conclusions you want.  Try taking
    the notes honestly and at face value and you might come up with a 
    different conclusion, because you sure read me wrong.
    
                I haven't taken a "personal affront" until you took both of
    my last two notes and read into and out of context to support a view
    that wasn't even offered by me.  
    
    Dave

    	RE: .96  Dave
    
    	Chill out, Dave.
    
    	Let's just back off from this - going back to your note, I see
    	that you mentioned how you couldn't see how my note applied to
    	yours.  You seem to have misunderstood what I meant when I 
    	said that "this reminds me of something."  I was talking about
    	the topic in general, not your reply specifically.
    
    	Perhaps I should have gone to a separate reply.
    
    	> I haven't taken a "personal affront" until you took both of
    	> my last two notes and read into and out of context to support a view
    	> that wasn't even offered by me.  
    
    	You asked why you should pay a penalty for what other "jerks" have
    	done.  Unless you're taking a whole lot of replies pretty personally,
    	I don't see what penalty you could be talking about.
    
    	The file is under fire in this topic, not you.  Where are you paying?

    RE: .97
    
             Ok Suzanne....Im "cold".....;^)
    
                  
    
                   I am a man.  When I see Men being "lumped" together
    as a whole, it reminds me of the "outrage" that Women express when
    they are treated the same way.  Men thru out history, have made grave
    errors in this respect.  Is it possible to learn from them and not
    make the same ones?  When I am "lumped", I say to myself " thats wrong,
    Im an individual", just like you women do...and rightly so!  Is it 
    possible to create a "better" world where respect is given to all
    persons....reguardless of gender?  I hope so.  Communication is one of
    the "keys".  Thats why I am here, in this notesfile, to understand and
    maybe even offer insights.  Just as a judge needs "both" sides of a
    question to make an intelligent decision, so does the world need both
    genders input for survival.  
    
    
    Dave.......Im still "cool".....:-)

    I am seeing things in this note begin to cool down.  This is a good
    thing.  Please try to cut one another some slack and reduce any
    potential name-calling.
    
    Thank you
    
    -Jody
    

About once per version of Womannotes, I post essentially the same proposal
to change the policy to one I fell better reflects Digital's corporate
philosophy.  (The moderators are welcome to dig my earlier proposals from
the archives, including the one that was deleted by the moderators as soon
as it was posted).

I wish to suggest modifying the "Purpose" note to remove what I feel are
offensive, insulting, demeaning and humiliating gender-specific references.
I believe that this can be done without in any way affecting the purpose of
Womannotes: "the discussion of topics that are interesting or important to
women."

Specifically, I recommend that the following paragraph be deleted:

    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.  Whenever it seems clear to us that the needs of women and
    the needs of men are in conflict --and ONLY in that limited case-- the
    needs of women will take precedence and we will take whatever action
    seems appropriate to meet those needs. 

I do not believe it is necessary and feel it is insulting to me as a person.
I also believe it is unsupportive of Digital's corporate philosophy and in
conflict with Digital's policies insofar as it discriminates against
individuals because of their sex.
                                                                
Furthermore, I would recommend that the "FWO" policy be eliminated (but
not the non-sexist "SRO" policy) for the same reasons as stated above.

Martin Minow

    
    	As a microcosm of the world, this notesfile offers an incredibly
    	accurate demonstration of the degree to which women are subject
    	to the limits and definitions of our male-dominated society.
    
    	It's an amazing thing to watch up close.
    

    re: .102  (Suzanne)
    
                   Women have, and rightly so, have been insistent in their
    "rights" in reguards to "male" dominated parts of our society.  I know
    of NO part of this "male dominated society" that has NOT been
    challenged by women.  So since the women have felt and feel that no
    aspect of male situations above reproach or question, why are you not
    affording males the same rights?  Women have used certain techniques,
    and then complain when men use the same techniques.
    
                   There is also another belief that bothers me a great
    deal.  I have heard, in this notesfile, that it is the mens fault for
    this being a male dominated society.  In the animal world, the larger
    and stronger is usually dominate.  In some animals its the female and in
    others its the male.  Men didn't set out to dominate anyone, it was a
    function of nature.  Ok......we're intelligent and I agree its time to
    change this, but don't blame us for an accident of birth.
    
    
    Dave

    	RE: .103  Dave

    	This is my last response to this topic.  I don't have time for
    	these futile discussions anymore about how women should be limited
    	in the way we describe our society.

    	> So since the women have felt and feel that no aspect of male 
    	> situations above reproach or question, why are you not
    	> affording males the same rights?  Women have used certain techniques,
    	> and then complain when men use the same techniques.
    
    	You've got to be kidding.  Women have been defined and condemned
    	in the most critical terms possible for thousands of years.  How
    	are the women here stopping this process???

    	Women haven't engaged in widespread campaigns to stop men from
    	defining and condemning women in other NOTESFILES, much less in
    	our society at large.  The only campaign to stop anyone from
    	speaking openly about society is happening here - and it's aimed
    	at women.  

    	> There is also another belief that bothers me a great
    	> deal.  I have heard, in this notesfile, that it is the mens fault 
    	> for this being a male dominated society. 

    	You haven't seen ME say this, though. 

    	> Ok......we're intelligent and I agree its time to
    	> change this, but don't blame us for an accident of birth.
    
    	MY GOD, DAVE!  Are you trying to "lump" me with other people when
    	you tell ME to stop doing something I've never done?

    	Don't you regard me as an individual?

    
    	At no point did I compare the two for their beliefs.
    
    	Get real, Al.
    

re .100, Martin-
    
> About once per version of Womannotes, I post essentially the same proposal
> to change the policy to one I fell better reflects Digital's corporate
> philosophy.
    
    Yes, I remember last time.  Womannotes-V2 15.698 was my response,
    then, and you declined to discuss it, so my questions remain.
    
> Specifically, I recommend that the following paragraph be deleted:
> [...]
> I do not believe it is necessary and feel it is insulting to me as a person.
    
    Far be it from me to dispute what you find insulting.  I am interested
    in understanding this insult, however, for I do not see anything in the
    referenced paragraph that insults me as another person; and presumably,
    it should insult us the same.
    
> Furthermore, I would recommend that the "FWO" policy be eliminated (but
> not the non-sexist "SRO" policy) for the same reasons as stated above.  
    
    Similarly, I don't dispute the insult you find, but again, I don't
    understand it, and politely request an explanation.
    
    On both recommendations, you also expressed a belief that these
    current policies are "unsupportive of Digital's corporate philosophy 
    and in conflict with Digital's policies".  My belief is opposite, on
    precisely the same grounds; I believe these policies perfectly reflect
    Digital's corporate philosophy to value differences, and reflect the
    policies intended to implement that philosophy.
    
    With respect in differing viewpoints,
    
    DougO

    	Every ounce of persecution against this conference (including the
    	sexist suggestion that women aren't capable of moderating Digital
    	conferences) is just additional proof that the fight for freedom
    	is as necessary today as it's been for thousands of years.

    	Personally, I'm grateful to witness it.  It certainly disputes the
    	idea that we've already reached equality (as if the only issues
    	being discussed are about PAST inequalities.)  There are MORE than
    	enough happening this very day that are worthy of concern.  

    	It also supports the idea of how threatening women's voices are
    	in our society.  Try to even IMAGINE any other conference being
    	persecuted (as an entity) for daring to describe our society the
    	way we see it.

re: .112:
    
    Far be it from me to dispute what you find insulting.  I am interested
    in understanding this insult, however, for I do not see anything in the
    referenced paragraph that insults me as another person; and presumably,
    it should insult us the same.

You will have to decide for yourself what you find demeaning.  For me,
this policy brings up memories of my childhood, when I bicycled into the
next villiage from where my grandmother's summer home was located and
saw the sign "No Jews, Dogs, or Niggers."

Then, a few years later, we vacationed in the South and I asked my parents
why some people had to sit in one part of the movie theater and others
had to sit in other parts.  It was, after all, the same movie.

I see the seperatist policies as continuation of that history.

I hope this answers your question.

Martin.

    	RE: .122 edp
    
    	> I ask you:  Do you support equality?  Do you support equality in
    	> Womannotes?
    
    	Yes, I do.  In general and in Womannotes.
    
    	However, I don't defer to your definition of it simply because you
    	have the ability and the stamina to persecute this conference.
    
    	I refuse to subjugate myself to your opinions simply because you
    	happen to feel you have the right to demand this of me.
    
    	You seem to think you can bully us (something you were unable to do 
    	in Soapbox) because the file has a female majority.  I guess we look 
    	like an easier target.
    
    	You are not the holder of "THE TRUTH" - and I refuse to be bullied
    	and persecuted by you.  Buzz off!

    Would all members of this discussion please cease name calling
    and other types of quarelling.
    
    thankyou
    
    Bonnie R.
    =wn= comod

    	The irony of all this...

    	My Encyclopedia Britannica has articles about the women's movement
    	that are far more scathing (about the treatment women receive in
    	our society) than almost anything I've seen in this conference.
    	They make no bones at all about how badly we're treated, and they
    	treat it as fact (they're an Encyclopedia, for God's sake.)

    	Last night, I saw a lengthy feature on CNN/Headline News about the
    	women's movement (in honor of the anniversary of our winning the
    	right to vote 70 years ago yesterday.)  They made no bones at all
    	either about how much work is left to gain equality in this country.

    	A sure sign that they're right is the persecution women face when
    	it comes to being allowed to talk about this situation ourselves.
    	It's good to witness it here, in case any of us had forgotten just
    	how bad it can get.

    
    	Show me one time I've ever said that "All men" are bad in any way,
    	shape or form.
    
    	If you can't do this, then you owe me one hell of an apology.
    

  re. 129:
  
  Just ignore...

    I have hidden a number of responses in this string as violating
    1.7/1.15.  I would prefer not to have to continue doing that, and I'm
    quite sure the other mods feel the same.
    
    Any chance that we could have fewer shots taken?

    
    	RE: .132  edp
    
    	Just as I thought.
    
    	You can't produce a SINGLE, SOLITARY NOTE I'VE WRITTEN THAT SAYS
    	ALL MEN ARE BAD IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!
    
    	Your persecution of me has been unfounded from Day One.
    

>       <<< Note 307.133 by CSC32::CONLON "Cosmic laughter, indeed...." >>>
    
>    	You can't produce a SINGLE, SOLITARY NOTE I'VE WRITTEN THAT SAYS
>    	ALL MEN ARE BAD IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!
>    
>    	Your persecution of me has been unfounded from Day One.


   Why should he, Suzanne?  You fail to produce any evidence of the
   words you attribute to me...even when repeatedly asked.



   Here's some rules I try to apply to myself when I note...perhaps you
   might want to think about them a little.....

	Never ask someone to do something that you are not willing
	to do yourself.

	Never say something about someone else/another group/another
	society that you would not want said about you/yours.


	kathy

    	RE: .134  Kath
    
    	> Why should he, Suzanne?  
    
    	He's accused me of bigotry (in the sense of making statements about
    	all men.)  If he can't prove that I've done this, then he had no
    	business launching these accusations and he owes me an apology.
    
    	>  You fail to produce any evidence of the words you attribute to 
    	> me...even when repeatedly asked.
    
    	What are you talking about?  If you mean the notes in Soapbox, you
    	have already described the note you wrote about Womannotes, so why
    	should I produce it?
    
        > Here's some rules I try to apply to myself when I note...perhaps you
   	> might want to think about them a little.....
    
    	If only you remembered to apply these rules to your notes here. It
    	would be a wonderful improvement.

    re .134, Kath, does that mean, then, that you don't mind if people call
    you stupid or silly?  Since that's what you called FWO book discussion
    groups?
    
    Lorna
    

    re .116, Martin-
    
    Thank you for responding.  That the policies to which you object bring
    up painful memories for you, I regret very much.  I hope your sharing
    this here helps us all to understand why you make this objection, and
    to dissipate rather than exacerbate the upset many of us feel when this
    space is challenged yet again.
    
    While I feel for your painful memories, however, I still feel that
    the benefit for female participants here of the policies you question
    should be given precedence; and I still feel that such is the intent 
    of corporate policies.  Thanks again, though, for making the effort 
    to be understood.  I respect that a great deal.
    
    DougO

    RE: no one in particular....
    
    
                      Can we get past all of this personal abuse and try
    and deal with the base notes idea?  Yes, there have been attacks
    against men as a whole and yes they have been somewhat demeaning.  To
    blame an entire gender for specific abuses, IMHO is a cop-out.  But
    also men are attacking specific women who never said these things.
    For reasons I can not fathom, blood is running *very* hot over this 
    issue.  All women are not bad and All men are not bad, so making
    sweeping accusations against an entire gender is counter productive.  I
    hope we can ALL agree on that.  I do feel though that IF there is a 
    specific instance, then the author has an obligation to refer to the
    instance with specifics.  
    
    
    Dave  

    
    	RE: .139  edp
    
    	The facts are on my side.  Until you can produce a single note
    	(written in my own words) where I state that ALL MEN are bad in
    	any way, shape or form - you owe me an apology.
    
    	You have persecuted me for no reason, and I demand that you stop.
    
    	You have also lied and misrepresented my notes.  I demand that you
    	stop.
    
    	Women have a right to exist in this conference without being subjected
    	to your endless persecution.  I demand that you stop.
    

>    	Women have a right to exist in this conference without being subjected
>    	to your endless persecution. 
 
	Do men have that right as well?

		Alfred 

    
    Yes, we all have a right to exist without persecution.  The sticky part
    comes in where we disagree about what constitutes persecution.  If I 
    do my best, for example, to talk about my own feelings and my own
    experience, but you (anyone) still feel wounded by it, what
    responsibility do I have to you?  How can I convince someone that I
    mean him no harm and still meet my own very important need of being
    true to myself.  These are tough questions, and I doubt we'll ever
    answer them completely.  But I think we could go a long way if each of
    us would keep working to:
    
    1. Avoid generalizations (re-read what you write before you post it -- 
       add qualifiers like some, many, ones that I've known, or even it seems 
       to me that...) 
    
    2. Assume that the man or woman you're mad at really meant to but just
       didn't do enough of #1 before s/he posted the reply that's got you
       so mad.
    
    3. Remember that bickering -- no matter what the cause and/or how
       justified you feel -- keeps people away.  Some people really get
       upset when people start tossing insults around, so when you're
       fighting in this file and throwing grenades at each other, other
       folks are getting sprayed with (whatever it is that comes out of
       grenades when they explode -- please tell me in the rathole :-).
    
    I'd love it if we could get through the rest of today without accusing
    anyone of anything or demanding that anyone do anything.  Hell, if 
    terminals were pistols, I dare say we'd have to send out for more body 
    bags.  Even though I've never had (and probably won't have) any
    children, I now have a greater understanding of this conversation
    that took place many years ago between my mother and me..
    
    Me:  What do you want for your birthday, Mommie?
    
    Mom: I'd like you and your brother to stop fighting for a day.
    
    Me:  Come on, Mom, really, what do you want?
    
    Mom:  (She just smiled...)
    
    
    Justine
                                         

>   <<< Note 307.136 by WRKSYS::STHILAIRE "I don't see how I could refuse" >>>
 
>    re .134, Kath, does that mean, then, that you don't mind if people call
>    you stupid or silly?  Since that's what you called FWO book discussion
>    groups?


    My dear Lorna....I never called YOU or anyone else in this conference
    "stupid" or "silly."  I said that "I feel that FWO events are silly."

    Now, you have every right to turn and around and tell me that you "feel
    that thrash metal concerts are silly."  And, I'll support you 100%
    in the fact that you believe they are.

    In fact, you're more than welcome to say "I think you're stupid, Kathy"
    and I'll support you 100% in THAT statement.  However, I will NOT
    support you if you say "Kathy you ARE stupid."


    Basically, my feeling is, what do I care what you think about me
    and what I do?  You're welcome to your own opinions about anything
    and anyone.  You, however, are not welcome to state your opinions about
    me as facts.


    In other words, what I'm saying is you're welcome to your opinions
    about me and you're welcome to express those opinions AS your
    personal opinions.

    The problem arises when people do like Suzanne did with a few of my
    notes in other conferences.  She misrepresented them and stated those
    misrepresentations as FACTS (ie, "Kathy wrote..." "Kathy said...", etc)
    when in fact she should have prefaced it with "I interpreted what
    Kathy said in another conference to mean....".

    It seems to me what you've done is taken a statement of my opinion
    and projected from an opinion about an EVENT into a statement of
    FACT about the participants in that event.  I never said ANYTHING
    about my opinions of the people that attend FWO events.  And, btw,
    I support those participants 100% in going to FWO events and I
    am 100% behind them in their believe that those events enrich their
    lives.

	And I still think FWO (educational) events are silly (to me).


	kath

    	RE: .144  edp

    	Well, I looked in the notes you mentioned (including the quoted
    	text from 95.0) and I can't find a single word that says ALL MEN
    	are bad or violent or anything in particular.

    	Please show me where those words are - if you claim they exist,
    	then they should be worthy of quoting (so I can see for myself
    	how ALL MEN were characterized.)

    	You claimed that I made statements about ALL MEN.

    	Provide the direct quotes or an apology (take your pick.)

RE: .140 (Suzanne)

>    	Women have a right to exist in this conference without being subjected
>    	to your endless persecution. 
 

	Do I have the right to exist in this conference without being
	subjected to your endless persecution?

	I challenge you, Suzanne (and I accept this challenge for myself
	and your notes) to respond only to the content of my notes, to
	not make false implications and state them as facts, to not
	reference any other notes of mine without direct references to the
	note in question and to not demean/discredit my name in public.

	Let's coexist in this conference and DISCUSS.  Let's participate
	and VALUE that we hold different opinions and that NEITHER of
	our opinions are RIGHT universally, but rather right for each
	other.


	Do you accept my challenge?


	kathy

    	RE: .145  Kath

    	Are you still harping on the Soapbox thing?  I mentioned that you
    	advised everyone there that you don't read Womannotes much, and
    	you admitted (here) that you did write this.  No misrepresentation.

    	As for what you write here, it's a matter of record, but I will
    	produce more quotes for you (than the ones below) if necessary.

    	Aside from this...

    	You suggested to me earlier today:  "Never say something about someone 
    	else/another group/another society that you would not want said about 
    	you/yours."

    	In topic 22.*, you made some disparaging implications about people
    	in this conference feeling "superior," but when I relayed to you
    	some notes of yours that I considered a sign that YOU feel superior,
    	you protested quite vigorously about it.

    	Also, you suggested today:  "Never ask someone to do something that 
    	you are not willing to do yourself."

    	In topic 22.* again, you made a lot of assumptions about the people
    	here, but demanded later that we check with you before assuming
    	anything about you (something you've been unwilling to do thus far.)

    	You don't follow your own advice in notes, Kath.  Lorna's point
    	was very well taken about this.

    
    	RE: .147  Kath
    
    	If you can participate in discussions here for a SINGLE DAY without
    	making derogatory comments about this community (and reminding us
    	repeatedly how much you contempt you have for this forum,) I'll
    	gladly discuss anything with you.
    
    	However, I won't agree with you simply because you claim minority
    	status here.  I reserve the right to hold my own opinions about
    	anything we discuss.
    
    	Better think carefully before you agree to this.  Some habits are
    	very hard to break.
    

    	RE: .149  edp

    	> In that paragraph, you inclusively blame "the rest of society" for 
    	> this bad belief.

    	"The rest of society" as opposed to "this small segment of society
    	known as Womannotes."

    	Where are ALL MEN described?  (They aren't.)

    	>> The way I see it - "nice" for men can be defined (by our
        >> society) as "Not being nearly as negative, violent or
        >> cruel as the man could have been, all things considered."
    
    	> In that paragraph (and the one that followed it), you perpetuate a
    	> false standard for men, one that depicts them as negative, violent, 
    	> and cruel.

    	A society is described that ***** CAN ***** define "nice" for men
    	and "not-nice" for women in two distinctly different ways.

    	This says nothing about the inherent nature of ALL MEN.

    	> In 95.0, you perpetuate the concept of "men's aberrant behavior".

    	Eric, do you know what "aberrant" means?  My dictionary (Webster's
    	Third New International Dictionary) defines it as "a person whose 
    	behavior departs substantially from the standards of behavior in his 
    	group" (listing DEVIATE and DEVIANT as synonyms.)

    	If ALL MEN engage in this behavior, how can it be considered
    	deviant?

    	You jumped to preposterous conclusions.

    	Apologize.

    	RE: .152  edp
    
    	If I were in a dark alley and a stranger pointed a loaded gun at
    	me, I might miss the fact that he was trying to tell me that some
    	words spoken at my last meeting were hurtful.  I'd defend myself
    	from the gun first.
    
    	You are a stranger.  All I see of you here is your gigantic, loaded
    	gun.
    
    	If you have something to say that comes without this deadly threat,
    	perhaps I will listen.
    
    	...After you put the gun down.

    Yo! Eagles!
    
    Good question!
    
    Ad

    RE: .157  edp
    
    > Quote **MY NOTES** on this.  Show me what deadly threat you are
    > referring to.
    
    Aside from your saturation of Womannotes (from end to end) with your
    complaints, here's one:
    
    
            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 307.120      Proposals to change WN policy strings in 1.*        120 of 159
JARETH::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."         10 lines  26-AUG-1990 20:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Re .119:
    
    I am discussing the matter with corporate personnel, but that does not
    mean I will cease other efforts to achieve change.  And would you
    explain what turmoil and discord indicate if not change?  You perhaps
    think the dislodging of prejudice is necessarily a calm, uneventful
    process, that bigots and people in power give up their power easily?
    
    
    				-- edp

    RE: .159  edp

    > Women in this conference have said several times that INFORMING a
    > person they are hurting somebody else is sufficient reason for them to
    > stop.  But they don't obey that rule themselves.  I do not generally
    > allege there is intent of making people feel taunted or teased, but
    > they have been informed they are hurting people, and they refuse to
    > stop.

    You keep complaining about the phrase "Men are the problem" and "Men
    are inherently violent" - yet I haven't seen these phrases (except for
    a quote from Newsweek) since you complained.

    You went away from the conference for MONTHS (!!!!!!!!!) and when you
    started in on us again, you were complaining about the same words that
    existed in the months PRIOR to your last war against us.

    How far do you need to take censorship of us (and ending our free speech
    about OUR LIVES) before you will cease and desist these periodic war
    games here?

    re:  .83
    
    Eric, could you think about the possibility that *you* are wrong, and
    that maybe you have made some mistakes?  
    
    I'm sorry.  Maybe you just don't realize just how pervasive is the 
    prejudice against women, therefore you can not understand how 
    pervasive is our anger.  This is the only place we are able to express
    that anger, so it becomes very focused.  Are we always right?  No, of
    course we are not; perhaps when we have had thousands of years of
    practice, we will learn how to express our anger and frustration in the
    most painless manner possible.
    
    E

    	RE: .155 edp

    	Something to think about before we give this a rest...

    	> Yes, and the segment known as Womannotes, which you also blamed, plus
    	> the rest of society adds up to all society, doesn't it?

    	Society is composed of women, too - it's our environment.  It says
    	nothing about the inherent nature of ALL MEN.

    	> And by defining a different conduct for men which portrays them as
    	> negative, violent, and cruel, you characterize all men.

    	By describing the ways our society defines behavioral standards, I'm
    	talking about the standards themselves (which are not the same thing
    	as describing the inherent natures of the groups within the society.)

    	As an example, society defines women as dumb, but I would hardly
    	characterize all women (or even MOST women) as any dumber than men
    	are as a group.
    	
    	>Suzanne, do you know what "men's" means?  It describes a characteristic
    	>being ascribed to men.  The statement in question ascribed aberrant
    	>behavior to men.  Not to particular men, not to violent men, not to men
    	>different from others but to men, without qualification.
    
    	Eric, you are wrong about this meaning.  The author of this phrase
    	has communicated with me about it herself (and she is the ONLY
    	authority on her meaning) and she assures me that "men's" was used
    	as an adjective to qualify the particular aberrant (eg, DEVIANT)
    	behavior she was referring to in her note.  ("Men's aberrant behavior"
    	as opposed to the aberrant or deviant behavior that might be witnessed
    	in some other group.)

    	When women engage in "aberrant" behavior, we deviate in a somewhat
    	different manner, as I'm sure you realize.

    	> You said you hold certain beliefs; show me that you sincerely 
    	> oppose the prejudicial statements and you support requests to
    	> end them, and then I will apologize.
    
    	So far, all your objections have been about statements that you
    	misinterpreted.  

    	Apologize.

    I for one would be grateful if we could have a moratorium on this
    discussion at least until tomorrow.  I'm not at all sure that anything
    useful is being communicated in either direction, 
    
    							=maggie

    	
    	Eric, why do you think we have some obligation to confine
    	all our words here to your particular standards?

    	By the way, a man started the "Why I Hate Men" topic here.
    	If he'd known you would use this against us, I'm sure he
    	would have refrained from starting it.
    
    	If you want to talk about Corporate Policy, I can show you
    	thousands of notes in other conferences that break and bend
    	the spirit and the letter of P&P at every turn - and these
    	conferences are moderated by people who have twisted Digital's
    	policy to justify breaking it (as well as to justify hounding
    	and insulting groups of minorities.)

    	As for Corporate Personnel, if only women and minorities had
    	the clout everyone seems to think we have.  As it is, white
    	males are far more likely to be heard in almost every aspect 
    	of our society.  So you have the distinct advantage, if you 
    	hate us enough to seek to destroy us.

    	It must be wonderful for you.  Congratulations.

    	Meanwhile, I've been wasting my time bothering to offer these
    	explanations to you when you were so utterly convinced of the
    	righteousness of your stance (regardless of the truth of what
    	our words meant) - and when it comes to what we mean when we
    	write, we are the only authorities on the subject.

    	My apologies to this community for the colossal waste of time
    	in trying to discuss this with you.  It's been a frustrating
    	and completely fruitless experience.
    
    	Should've just ignored you...

    >	My apologies to this community for the colossal waste of time
    >	in trying to discuss this with you.  It's been a frustrating
    >	and completely fruitless experience.
    
    >	Should've just ignored you...
    
    
    Suzanne, on behalf of anyone in the community who agrees with me, your
    apology is ONLY accepted if you agree NOT to EVER get sucked in again.
    
    
    Please try your best.
    ;-)
    
    
    'ren

    
    	RE: .171  'ren
    
    	Thanks, I'll try!  
    
    	Not always easy for a Philosophy major who specialized in Logic. :)
    

     Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. 
     Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. 
     Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. 
     Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. 

     Anything you say will be used against you.

     Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. 
     Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. 
     Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. 
     Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. Ignore. 

     Bruce

You know Suzanne, it's easiest to ignore someone if you don't read their notes.
Of course, this means all sorts of easily refutable things or rotten things or
anything could be being said. It certainly is a tough trade-off, but it's made
easier for me when I realize that everybody has tried there best, and there is
no progress imminent.
	Mez

I suspect that someone going into Ron Glover's office (he writes the P&P)
expecting to get better treatment because he's a white male would be in
for a bit of a shock.

Martin.

This note from Martin never got answered and has been lost in
the ensuing debate. I feel that it should be adressed.

____________________________________________________________________

>You will have to decide for yourself what you find demeaning.  For me,
>this policy brings up memories of my childhood, when I bicycled into the
>next villiage from where my grandmother's summer home was located and
>saw the sign "No Jews, Dogs, or Niggers."

>Then, a few years later, we vacationed in the South and I asked my parents
>why some people had to sit in one part of the movie theater and others
>had to sit in other parts.  It was, after all, the same movie.

>I see the seperatist policies as continuation of that history.

>I hope this answers your question.

>Martin.

Martin, I know that you and I have been around this topic several times
but I'd like to put my thoughts out on this subject one more time.

I don't see the file policy as analogous to 'no jews or niggers' or
'no irish' either to use my own background.

It is to my mind more equivalent to a support group for say, Holocaust
survivors, or Blacks who have suffered from segregation. Whites or Germans
are welcome in these hypothetical groups, but when sensitive issues that
relate to their particular pain are raised the needs of the Holocaust
survivors or the Blacks take precidence over those of the Germans or
the Whites.

Bonnie

    re .145, my dear Kath, thanks for your clarification in regard to FWO
    book discussions.
    
    As far as "thrash metal" concerts go, it remains to be seen whether I
    would consider them silly or not, since I haven't been to one.  I might
    even enjoy it!  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    	After watching women and minorities being bludgeoned in Notes
    	with interpretations of the P&P, I'm asking myself (for the very
    	first time in my nearly 9 years with Digital) whether the company
    	really supports our equal opportunities here or not.
    
    	It's not Ron Glover's fault, certainly, but the questions are in
    	my mind, nonetheless.
    
    	It's amazing to me that I could even begin to wonder about this
    	after all the years I've spent being convinced that this was the
    	best possible company for opportunities.
    

    Bonnie, Martin's note was addressed by me in .137.
    
    DougO

    Thanks DougO
    
    I recall your note now that I went back and read it again.
    
    Bonnie

re: .176:
  It is to my mind more equivalent to a support group for say, Holocaust
  survivors, or Blacks who have suffered from segregation. Whites or Germans
  are welcome in these hypothetical groups, but when sensitive issues that
  relate to their particular pain are raised the needs of the Holocaust
  survivors or the Blacks take precidence over those of the Germans or
  the Whites.

In that case, Bonnie, say "the people who need support" -- there is absolutely
no need to presuppose that "Germans" are, per-se, unsupportive and "Jews"
are, per-se, supportive.

Martin.

    okay,
    
    but in this file the aim is to serve a particular group of
    people who need support who happend to be women...
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    
    I am totally convinced that when you support women you are also
    supporting men, and vice versa. And, when you do not support women
    you are also not supporting men, and vice versa. 
    
    Bruce

    Bruce
    
    But there are times when women have special needs/cares/concerns,
    for example in re a rape victim, in such cases as women's needs
    come into conflict with the needs of men, in this file, we will
    put those needs first.
    
    Bonnie

<
<In that case, Bonnie, say "the people who need support" -- there is absolutely
<no need to presuppose that "Germans" are, per-se, unsupportive and "Jews"
<are, per-se, supportive.

<Martin.


	Martin,

	If I was a holocaust victim, and was talking/ sympathising with 
	other victims, or even other people who had/ (currently?) face
	being victims, 
	
		*there is NO WAY* I would be able to be objective
		enough to select out which german had been a
		fanatical nazi and which had felt forced by society
		to not object.

	Sorry, I would be discussing pain and anger, and facing that
	*it could happen again* and *might still be happening* and to
	ask me, in that context, to realize that not all germans
	tried to kill/ maim me is simply asking too much.

	So while german's may be capable of being extremely supportive,
	at that time, in that specific place, I am not capable of
	receiving it *from them*.

	In general, I would understand that (i hope  ;-}  ) and be
	able to live my life with german/ non-german people, but for
	that specific discussion group, NO WAY.  WHICH WOULD BE *WHY*
	I JOINED THAT "PROTECTED" GROUP IN THE FIRST PLACE.  To *have*
	a place where I could discuss it IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, and
	not to have to worry about  the feelings of those 'good'
	germans.  

	so when a woman says *i want to discuss this only with woman*
	try to understand that she is simply stating the fact that
	for the duration of that particular topic, she is unable 
	to distinguish between a specifc male noter and all potential
	male (rapist, abuser, whatever). 

	In fact, you could think of it as a courtesy extended to you,
	'cause otherwise, you will be viewed as a member of that
	group which had caused all the pain.  *and might receive 
	all the backlash!*

	mary

	(please, do not take this as an attack on germans
	per say,  i was just carring on the annalogy. I like germans.
	some of my best friends are germans  ;-}   ,,actually, my best
	friend is male,  but there are some discussions where he'll take
	the brunt of it if he forces his way in... which is why he's not
	invited!  )

    Thanks Mary

    	To Some Friends,

    	Thanks for the encouragement - two weeks' pay is an effective
    	behavior modifier!  ;^)  Even as a joke!

    	Hugs,
    	Suzanne :)

    After reading this string over several days, I have a few comments to
    add.
    
    -- edp, in several of your replies, you refer to equality in the
    treatment of men and women in noting (I think that is your intention)
    i.e. not grouping all men together or all women together.  In .188, you
    state: "I think you have an obligation to obey Digital policy and the
    laws of the states and countries involved."  I going to try to explain
    some of MY thoughts on this statement.
    
    1.  Yes we have an obligation to "obey Digital policy" (sounds like the
    old marriage ceremony, I prefer the term follow myself).  That is why
    womannotes is open to all Digital employees, male and female.  In
    keeping with the spirit and letter of Digital policy, this is not woman
    only space.
    
    2.  "...obey ... and the laws of the states and countries involved." 
    There are very few states with an equal rights provision that affords
    equality to women.  The US Consititution does not contain an equal
    rights provision that affords equality to women.  And anyway, what does
    obeying the laws of states and countries have to do with noting in a
    notesfile whose intent is to discuss topics of interest to women?  I
    don't quite understand what you mean here.
    
    Personally, I have woman-only space at home, where I can consciously
    choose to allow men to enter or not as I wish.  My home is my castle.
    
    Sue (lesbian by design)
    

    Re: .195
    
    Thanks for clearing that up for me.  And you are entitled to your
    beliefs, just as others are entitled to their beliefs.
    
    Sue