Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    What is community?  Is =wn= a community?  What is required for 
    membership?  
    
    Do we have leaders?  Yes we have moderators, but beyond that, do we 
    have community leaders?  Do our leaders come and go, or do they remain 
    leaders long after they have become less active?
    
    Do we "indoctrinate" newer members of the community into listening 
    carefully to those we (as individuals or as a community) consider
    leaders?  How does this happen? 
    
    Is there a difference between long-time members and newer members?  
    When does someone pass from "newer" to "established" then to 
    "long-time"?
    
    For those of us who've been around a while, how has our perception of 
    other individual noters changed?  Do we routinely see a name on a 
    screen and make a conclusion?  Have we ever found a need to revise the 
    conclusion associated with a specific node-name?  Is that revision 
    more often negative-to-positive or positive-to-negative? What has made
    us do that? 
    
    I've a lot more questions, but am getting tired.  Maybe more in a few 
    days.

    Lee T

    
    A while ago, there was a pretty tough exchange of notes about 
    monogamy, cheating, morals, open marriages, and such between (mostly) 
    Charles Haynes and Herb Nichols.  I wrote a reply (somewhere - 
    rathole?) asking both of them to stop making nasty.  Somewhere in it I 
    said something along the lines of "Herb is a long-time member of this 
    community...", in an effort to remind Charles that Herb also has a
    long, mostly positive history with the file and so please cut him some 
    slack.
    
    It's the most recent time I've used that phrase ("long-time member"), 
    but I'm sure I use it a lot.  I know I think that way, too, trying not 
    to flame "old-timers" (especially old-timers I like) too crispy.  I
    wonder why that is.  I think it may have something to do with the
    "In"/"Out" phenomenon that's come up. 
    
    After *any* appreciable time participating in this file, I think it is 
    natural, normal, and perfectly fine to develop both positive and 
    negative impressions of people.  A little while later, I come to think 
    of them as "good guys" and "bad guys" and "unknowns" - and I read 
    replies from members of each of these categories with an entirely 
    different mind-set.  [Side note: I come to think of people as 
    "friends" and "enemies" much, much further down the road, but once 
    again, modify my mind set accordingly when reading their replies.]

    It can sometimes take a long time, with lots of supporting evidence, 
    for me to revise a person's category - it takes *much* more evidence 
    from an old-timer for category revision in my head than I need when 
    trying to assign a category to a newcomer.

    I think it's *normal* for people to do this.  Kind of a short-hand way 
    to keep track of which node-name is which *person*.  But what if lots
    of people start making the same conclusions and sorting the same 
    individuals into the same category?

    When does it go from being individual thoughts about individual people 
    and become a "party line"?  When do groups of people of similar 
    likes/dislikes etc become "cliques"?

    Offhand, I'd say it's a "clique" if you're not a member.  But as I 
    think about it, I remember that I've been no happier as a member of a 
    clique than as a non-member.
    
    
    But I'm happy as a member of a community!  So what's the difference?
    There *is* one, I *know* it.  But what *is* it???
    

    
    Your notes are thought provoking.  Alas, I have no time to do them
    justice; my loss.
    
    However, I can say that I've changed my opinion of one noter, going
    from negative to positive.  I remember the moment -- though not the 
    exact note -- when I decided one noter was refreshingly candid and 
    screamingly funny and NOT an "air head".  It was a sudden change. 
    
    Thanks for starting such an interesting topic.
    
    CQ

    
    from the very beginning, lo these many years ago, i've always
    envisioned myself as a guest at a very big party; a party at
    which i was *not* the guest of honor. i see myself sittig in a
    corner, ocassionally giving my opinion on something of import,
    more often merely making a bon mot or a murmur of approval.
    i have always felt welcome at this party, though at first i
    felt that more because of the graciousness of the hosts than
    because of any sense of belonging or connection. recently, i have
    felt like i've been through enough (kind of like helping with the
    dishes or going on a beer run) that i've 'earned' my welcome. but
    'community'? no, i don't feel quite that way, and don't expect i
    ever will. first of all, i live too far away from most =wn= to
    feel truly connected to them and second, i'm too much of a loner.
    most importantly, i'm too much of a literalist: i am ever aware
    that this is *woman* notes and my presence here is a small ripple
    in the current.
    

    Very interesting subject.  I'll have to think in more depth about some
    of the question, but one thing came to mind immediately...
    
    I do think differently of "long-time members" than of new members, but
    I don't think it is because of cliqueishness, or that they have proved
    themselves, or anything like that.  I think it is because, in most
    cases, the longer someone is here, the more I get to know them as
    *people*.
    
    When someone is new, I respond just to the words they say.  But words
    don't convey all the information there is to convey.  After someone has
    been here a while, I usually learn something about their past,
    something about how their feelings and attitudes developed, about their
    personal interests, hot-buttons and causes.  So if, for instance, there
    was a discussion about Santa Claus, and a new-comer about whom I knew
    nothing came in and started flaming people who were Santa-positive, and
    being obnoxious, and would be annoyed and probably flame back.  But if
    and old-timer, who had once shared the knowledge that hir sister was
    murdered by someone in a Santa Claus suit, did the same thing, I would
    be a lot more accepting, thinking to myself "I think s/he is wrong to be
    Santa-negative, but I can see why s/he is and sympathise."
    
    This knowledge about someone can work both ways.  In the above example,
    it worked for the old-timer, in the sense that I was more tolerant and
    understanding, having information about hir past.  But it can also be
    that someone I know usually has opposite reactions than I do, or who
    has a cause of which I disapprove, or who is frequently bringing up hir
    past experiences about something related in *other* notes, and in that
    case I might read more into a note than is written there, and take more
    offense or be harsher than I might of the same words coming from
    someone I didn't know.
    
    I think both of these are valid.  The longer you know someone, the more
    you know about them, and therefore the more information you get from
    their writings.  Sometimes it isn't fair, but usually I think it's for
    the best, and improves understanding.
    
    D!
    
    [I realized this was how I felt with I thought about EDP - he has been
    here for a long time, but has given almost no information about himself
    - therefore I still feel like he's a newcomer, despite his history
    here.]

>    What is community?  Is =wn= a community?  What is required for 
>    membership?  

     My take on community is any sense of connection.  For me, it is
     all the feelings I have and the thoughts I have when I both read
     and write notes.  I believe it conveys both responsibility and
     priveledge.  Responsibility to do my best to be thoughtful, honest
     and sensitive.  The priveledge is the trust that all of you will
     still accept me even when I reneg on my responsibilities (as, sigh,
     I am wont to do when I get *hot*).  I surely believe that =wn= is
     a community.  For me, membership is paying attention to your
     responsibilities.
    
>    Do we have leaders?  Yes we have moderators, but beyond that, do we 
>    have community leaders?  Do our leaders come and go, or do they remain 
>    leaders long after they have become less active?

     I certainly think there are leaders, both mods and nonmods.  To me,
     these are the folks who both say what they think and think about
     what they say.  In addition, they are the folks who "own" what they
     say and let me know when they "wish they hadn't said that."  I have
     to believe that leaders remain leaders, and that active/passive is
     not a condition.
    
>    Do we "indoctrinate" newer members of the community into listening 
>    carefully to those we (as individuals or as a community) consider
>    leaders?  How does this happen? 

     As a newer member, I can't say that I've ever felt indoctrinated.
     Perhaps that is because I am not an easy personality for others
     to indoctrinate.  Perhaps that is because no one is really trying
     to do that.
    
>    Is there a difference between long-time members and newer members?  
>    When does someone pass from "newer" to "established" then to 
>    "long-time"?

     Can't answer most of this, but I believe there is a difference just
     based on human interaction.  One has to listen and be heard from
     before anyone gets "to know you."

>    For those of us who've been around a while, how has our perception of 
>    other individual noters changed?  Do we routinely see a name on a 
>    screen and make a conclusion?  Have we ever found a need to revise the 
>    conclusion associated with a specific node-name?  Is that revision 
>    more often negative-to-positive or positive-to-negative? What has made
>    us do that? 

     It hasn't been a long time, but surely I have made some conclusions.
     What I find is that there are "literalists" who simply refuse to
     acknowledge the "sense" or "spirit" of a question or discussion.  
     They (I know, I hate they/that/things, etc. but do not wish to start
     any personal wars) most often seem *to me* to be the folks who give
     terse and/or condescending type answers to questions.  I have the
     notion that changing negative-to-positive happens more often than
     visa versa.  I think that is because I am reluctant to have what
     a person has said change my view all the way to negative even if
     I recognize "a wrong."  For me, it is also that assumptions can be
     driven away with knowing.

I rather appreciate feeling part of the =wn= community.

Barb

    Regarding leaders:
       I can't say I perceive any leaders here. It's funny because I do
    think the -wn- community is sort of cliquish in a way  but the clique 
    holds the power, no single individuals do, in my opinion.
       I remember once a frequent noter was given kudos for her style and
    direct approach by another noter who admired her tremendously. Well, I
    read the same notes and see these notes as superficial drivle. Funny.
       I am glad I'm pro-choice. If I wasn't I don't think anyone in THIS
    file would ever know about it. I have brought up a few subjects here 
    that didn't "go with the flow", so to speak. For example I don't be-
    lieve in the public funding of the Mapplethorpe exibit. I do think the
    feminists should do more to support the needs of working mothers. I do
    think a pregnant woman has a responsibility to her child once she dec-
    ides to carry it to term (as in cases of crack and FAS babies). Although 
    people have disagreed with me, often strongly, I have very rarely, if 
    ever, been treated with disrespect. Maybe it's because I've rarely, if
    ever have shown any.
    
    In theory, I'd like to see -wn-'s stay a supportive place for women and
    others.
    
    In another way I'd like to see the term PC put to rest. (along with the
    term SO but that's for another note). I'd like for all people who think
    George Bush is doing a good job to feel safe about stating that (gag).
    I'd like to hear from people who do not think abortion should be legal-
    ized. I like to hear from people who do not think gays should be foster
    parents.
    
    Only through sharing ideas, not squelching them, can we learn. I don't
    know who it was; maybe Grandma or some teacher that said,"You can learn
    something from every person you meet if you just listen". 
    
    I come here to learn and grow. When I stop listening to people's opinions
    I feel I may stop learning. To me that's a fate worse than death.
    Seriously.
           

	Notes tend to be clique-ish, people who have noted in a conference for
	a while get their own buz-words, and triggers.

	An example of this is the base note, I haven't a clue what PC/PI
	means.
	I presume it has been used in the past, and these initials are now
	taken as a standard abbrieviation.

	Heather

    What is unique for me in this community is the common experiences that
    I have shared with others.  These bonds continue to happen, for me, as 
    I read over and over the experiences of others.  I bared my soul in V1 
    and to tell the truth although it was a great catharsis I was very happy to
    see that version closed and the new versions started.
    
    The emotion is strong in wn because the experiences and issues are
    core.  I personally can not go through the telling again....and I
    wonder if my inactive status either dilutes the few opinions I share or
    the lack of knowledge of my background makes my words subject to a
    different scrutiny then the current active wnoters.
    
    The experience is worth whatever limits the medium and time puts on my
    participation and I rather doubt I will ever write another "Swan Song"
    which btw was a great title for a note.

    I believe =wn= is a community of sorts. It is my impression that =wn=
    can be a  very nice place for those who hold certain beliefs. I do not
    believe that =wn=  is especially open to dissenting voices, thus
    dissenters are not generally  considered to be part of the community.
    And by dissenters I mean people who have  different value systems,
    perspectives or beliefs on a number of issues, not just  someone who
    has a difference of opinion on one or two issues. Certain issues are 
    considered to be core issues and one may only disagree with the
    prevailing consensus a very small percentage of these else no
    membership is allowed.
    
    I believe that there are leaders in the community, and they generally
    turn out  to be those who are the most outspoken or eloquent with
    regards to publicizing  or defending the prevailing opinion on the core
    issues. It is my impression that  the leaders continue to lead even
    after they are no longer active writers via  the channel of FWO affairs
    and extracurricular activities.

    I definitely believe that an indoctrination process occurs when a new
    member  steps up to the podium. There seem to be four cases that
    frequently crop up. The  first case is that the new noter is an avowed
    feminist whose views conform  carefully to that of the powerbrokers.
    These people are generally quickly  assimilated into the network of
    strong supporters of feminism and become full  fledged members faster
    than anyone else. It is often difficult or impossible for  other
    newcomers to discern these noters from "old-timers" of the file within
    a  few weeks or months of their appearing on the scene. The second case
    involves  those whose own views are neither particularly well developed
    nor strongly held.  These people are viewed as persons capable of being
    drawn into the fold, and are  frequently young and fresh out of
    college. Successful indoctrination of these  people into the program
    produces feminists who are both willing and capable of  defending the
    faith, thus a serious effort is made to determine whether a person 
    belonging in this category will be willing to accept the doctrine as
    presented.  If a successful recruitment is made, the person is made to
    feel most at home; if  unsuccesful, they are frequently viewed as being
    philistines and products of the  patriarchy. The third group is
    comprised of people who are largely sympathetic  to feminism but
    unwilling to accept the more radical proclamations of the  separatist
    or anti-male factions. These people usually disagree on one or more  of
    the core issues, and as such are not usually considered to be members
    or are  discouraged from trying to seek membership. I get the
    impression that an attempt  is made to push these people away by having
    people concentrate on their  differences and argus in such a manner as
    to polarize these people. Though I  cannot say that this is done
    deliberately, is does seem to occur with almost  predictable frequency.
    The last group is the vocally anti-feminist/radically politically
    incorrect types. They are attacked from the get go as being horrible 
    people/invaders. Sometimes their treatment is justified, sometimes not.

    There is clearly a difference between long time members and new
    members, but  the difference is not as significant as
    members/non-members. Long time members  are universally afforded
    respect except by the most PI types who usually afford  them respect
    but not always.

    The time period during which one becomes recognized as a long-time
    member seems  to be proportional to the extent in which one's views
    correlate to the feminist  consensus.

    I believe that the node-name attached to a note has a great deal to do
    with how  the note is perceived. I know of one person who did a short
    experiment in =wn=  due to his rather chilly reception. He had another
    account on a different system  than the one which he traditionally
    noted from. He wrote notes with the same  general theme but signed them
    in a manner such that his gender would be  obscured. He found that the
    notes that he wrote with the obscure signoff were  treated much more
    civilly than the notes in which he used his (obviously male)  signoff. 

    The questions posed in .2 about when a groups of individuals with
    similar  thoughts become a clique has something to do with intragroup
    communication as  well as political clout in a closed entity (such as
    =wn=, or the Senate, or  whatever...) The addition of extracurricular
    activities, particularly those to  which only certain members are
    invitied contribute at least to the perception  that a clique exists if
    not the reality.

    re .10 Heather ("what is PC/PI?")
    
    Um, I defined it in .0:
    
    .0> This phenomenon also includes: PC/PI (Politically_Correct/
    .0> Politically_Incorrect) [...]
    
    Lee T

    My experiences with watching noting communities develop and grow
    indicates that newcomers tend to be ignored at first in most files
    unless they ask questions, request help with something, or write
    something exceptionally outrageous.  It isn't my impression that
    anyone is trying to be rude by ignoring newer noters.  It just
    seems to take time to become acquainted in notes, so people tend
    to converse with familiar noters more readily.
    
    Electronic communities often grow on the basis of common interests.
    If they didn't have things to talk about, obviously, noters wouldn't
    be there.  These common interests often involve some affection for
    the subject, so a perceived dislike or hatred for the subject by
    some members of the conference will create some amount of adversity,
    depending on the level and degree that some noters express their
    disaffection for a subject or a common theme of the conference. 
    
    If the adversity continues, alliances and camps tend to form.  The
    camp of people with great affection for the subject and/or theme
    being addressed will tend to be larger (with more perceived power
    in the notesfile.)  
    
    In Womannotes, I see the people with disaffection for the theme of
    the majority trying to claim that it's somehow unfair to be in the
    position of going up against a group of people with affection for
    this theme.
    
    I see long, involved, damning descriptions of Womannotes' process of
    development as a community (with insinuations that some sort of dire
    conspiracy is involved.)
    
    The whole thing sounds to me like a bargaining point lodged by the
    disaffectionate people for the purpose of finding a way to prevent
    the affectionate majority from being allowed to support and defend
    their subject or theme.
    
    In a situation like this, majority and minority camps are drawn from
    ideas shared by people with a wide variety of personal (race/sex/creed)
    differences, so the question comes down to whether or not people can
    demand to be a welcome member of a group whose members have great
    affection for a theme these people spend most of their time knocking.

re: .14 - very well said. That's pretty much what I see here. Because there is a
large group of people willing to "fight" for their view point those on the
opposite side feel left out. I say if they want their views expressed then speak
out, but don't expect me not to disagree with you just because I might side with
the majority. In fact, most of the "majority" held views here are the "minority"
view in the world outside this file. No one in the outside world feels any need
to make sure my opinion is heard and accepted.

As for members vs non-members. I see members as those who write and non-members
as those who don't. I don't feel any particular affinity for read onlies because
I don't know anything about them. For most purposes they don't exist because
they don't speak out.

I personally feel a sense of community, this is especially strong for those whom
I have met personally but not limited to them. This feeling also extends to
those that I disagree with, I may not even like them but they are part of this
community and make it what it is. 

And last, I do think there is a feeling that as women we *should be* more sens-
itive and not argue so much. That our disagreeing is somehow more distasteful
than if mostly men were having the discussion. I even feel this way myself at
times, much to my chagrin. It upsets me more when women argue. I was trained 
that women don't do that and expect most of us were. We are *supposed* to make
nice and when we don't cognitive dissonance occurs and people feel uncomfortable
They don't know why but things just feel wrong to them. IMHO, liesl

    I have felt a part of this community since I first received welcome
    notes from the moderators via e-mail.  The notes left me feeling
    that I belonged, even though I was "new."  Since that time, I have
    shared a number of events in my life, asked for help, and lent support
    whenever I felt it would be of help.  To me, the people I interact
    with in this file are very "real."  They have helped me in my life,
    lent support when I was down, and showed genuine caring whether
    in notes, by mail or phone.
    
    During my time in =wn= I have had the chance to help a woman
    and her child escape a battering and abusive situation.  This
    opportunity occurred when she read one of my notes and contacted
    me through the mail.  I was able to help her plan her "getaway"
    from over a thousand miles away through the wonders of the network.
    
    Another time, I lent support to a noter going through avery
    touch-and-go pregnancy. We've since become very good friends.
    It is in situations like these that the true goodness of =wn= shows
    through.  No one ever knows who may be helped here, and I think
    that this is one of the most important points to be said in favor
    of the WOMANNOTES community.  In spite of all the frustration of emotional
    venting that takes place for weeks on end, there are many good things
    that happen also.  I prefer to focus on the topics I find reasonable
    and skip those that cause me grief.
    
    I feel comfortable with those who choose to write here, and I feel
    equally comfortable with those who do not.  I feel connected to both
    groups even though it may sound strange.  I can "sense" the read
    only noters.  As for leaders, I feel that different people lead
    at different times.  There is no urge to agree, disagree,or follow 
    whatever the current "leader" is saying, and I'm comfortable
    with that.  I *do* respect everyone's right to be heard whether
    I agree or even bother to read their replies or not; that's probably
    why you won't find me arguing with other noters.  To me, we simply have
    different points of reference and different realities based on our
    life experiences.  I'm comfortable letting others be who they are
    while I am still who I am.
    
    Barb

    Thanks Barb
    
    Some of the previous notes paint an image of womannotes that is
    very strange to me. Your vision of the file is quite close to mine.
    
    Bonnie

>    re .10 Heather ("what is PC/PI?")
>    
>    Um, I defined it in .0:
>    
>    .0> This phenomenon also includes: PC/PI (Politically_Correct/
>    .0> Politically_Incorrect) [...]
    
 
	Sorry Lee, but I still didn't understand it, I have since had a mail 
	which has explained it.


		Thanks folkes,

			Heather

          re: 588.16 (Barbara Haslam)

          What a cool note, Barb.  Your sharing of experiences caused me to
          reflect on how much I've been helped and encouraged by those
          who've reached out through =wn=.  I have received so much more
          than I've given here; I almost feel guilty about that.  And the
          help continues (indirectly)...  I am in electronic touch with a
          woman about my age (not a Deccie) who experienced almost the
          exact same unfortunate incident that I did down to the questions
          we were asked in the trial!  She seems to be farther down the
          road to recovery than I am, and has given me some very helpful
          specific advice.  My preliminary conclusion is that if the
          collective anger of rape victims could be properly channeled we
          could solve this country's energy dependency on foreign nations!

          Anyway, I love this community.

                                                       nancy b.

    Re: .19
    
    :)Thanks, Nancy!
    
    Barb