Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    I say we have one 'war' topic, for any and all discussion except
    arguing over whether we should be there, which causes only personal
    attack type arguments (I was actually told to "go enlist" by an
    anti-war person).
    

    But Nick, how do we then deal with those who are strongly opposed to
    the war, are they not to write?
    
    Bonnie

    Please note that "Smack Iraq" is already taking a position on the war.
    And this position is fraught with controversy...

    Just as "No way unto the Father but by me" or
            "Down with the infidels" 
    	    "A woman's place is in the home"

    are espousing controversial positions on other matters.
    
    If it is decided that this conference ought not to discuss "the war",
    then perhaps this conference should also 'ban' any note signatures that
    make an editorial statement about 'the war' or about war-ring in
    general.

    				

    
    
    What I'm saying is we can talk about the war.
    
    ie----
    
    "I hear that some Iraqi soldiers surrendered today."
    
    "I think that we should stop bombing baghdad.  There are no military
    targets left there."
    
    and other commentary.  Just none of this stuff--
    
    "This war sucks.  We have no right to be there.  I don't want all those
    people to die."
    
    "Lets kill Iraq.  I mean really blow them off the map.  That Saddam
    should burn in eternal %ell.  And those anti-war protesters shoul burn
    with him."
    
    
    Nick
    

    
    RE:  .3
    
    
    Is this better?     :-)
    
    Nick
    

    I would like very much to hear from the women of the community
    on this topic as well.
    
    Bonnie

    I feel we should have some level of discussion on the war, but I also
    feel that the previous level was getting to be a bit overwhelming. 
    I feel we should have some notes, in particular, I was interested in
    the notes on women's role in this war, and the NOW stand on women in
    combat and it's subsequent discussions.  I think we need to be
    supportive of people in the file that need our support at this time.
    I also feel we can do this with a minimum number of notes.  I do feel
    we need to have some discussion, as many need a place for that, but
    I for one was getting a bit overwhelmed by the imbalance that was 
    occuring in the file with the number of notes dedicated to this topic.

    ok.
    
    I get all the war discussion I (personally) need in Soapbox.  It's not
    that I don't want -wn- to discuss it, but that I don't need it to.
    
    But since we are probably going to discuss it here as well, here are
    some thoughts.
    
    What is written here, stays here.  Actually, this should apply across
    the whole range of topics in this conference imo.
    
    No namecalling: ie, "babykiller" and "appeasenik" are equally
    unwelcome.
    
    Pleas for, and news of, political action (as in, "here's what you can
    do to get C.O. status", or "Here's information on how to answer
    anti-war arguments") go to some appropriate, other conference.  I say
    this because this note is not a place for a teach-in or a political
    rally, NOT because such actions are inappropriate in themselves.
    
    Notes about the morality of war in general, ok - ie, "What, if any, are
    the criteria that distinguish a moral war?"
    
    Notes about the role of women in the military, ok.
    
    Notes about how we're feeling about the war, ok.
    
    I am one of the offenders who has dashed off a heated reply once or
    twice.  I will try not to do that again.
    
    Sara

    Personally, the less I read about the war, the better.  Not because I'm
    hiding from it, but because I just can't seem to stop thinking about
    bad things going on everywhere once I hear about them - and the more
    detail I get the worse it gets.
    
    This is womannotes.  If we could keep a topic discussing "women in the
    military" to THAT topic, that would be cool.  But there's no guarantee
    that would happen.  Who would decide what stayed in the topic, and what
    went?  How can we limit volume without squelching someone's say?  
    
    It looks to me like it's "all or nothing".  And given the limitless
    other discussions on war going on in other notesfiles (and a notesfile
    JUST about the war), I say I'd rather support nothing HERE, and AT THIS
    POINT IN TIME.
    
    -Jody
    

    I feel like I have no place to turn without being battered by news of
    the war.  I also am not hiding from it; it just seems that it should be
    okay to have one place that doesn't talk about it.
      
    I don't feel like I can *celebrate* in here anymore.
    
    E Grace

    I was going to stay out of this discussion, since I am not a woman, but
    I did want to make one comment.

    I don't agree that discussions on applying for CO status should be
    construed as having to do with political action, because the topic has
    nothing to do with changing government policy per se.  It is, rather, a
    personal decision, and the issues involved in making that decision are
    important to know if you happen to be affected by it.

    Because women in the military can become COs (and also because the
    women in this notes conference may have sons, brothers, husbands,
    lovers, or friends who may qualify), I consider this a valid topic for
    discussion in this notes conference, even if discussions of the war are
    not permitted.

    -- Mike

    
    Information about the war seems to be passed on in other sources.
    
    It seems no matter who you talk to, conversations turn to the war.
    
    Yeah, I think it's nice not having conversations about it here in
    womannotes.  

    re: .11
    
    yes, but HOW can you keep it on track - ANY topic that discusses part
    of the war (heck, there was even a peace note in here that became a war
    discussion) tends to wind up another battlefield for who's right who's
    wrong and people wind up trampling others' ideological petunias left
    and right.  HOW can that be prevented? 
    
    That's why I'd choose no discussion of war, because the alternative
    seems to be topics that get offtrack shortly after their creation
    (unless they're specifically asking for something peripherally related)
    and become the kind of notes that pull the file out of balance.
    
    -Jody
    

    _I'm_ certainly interested is how the war goes or does not go. And
    I don't really need to discuss it here.
    
    I would much rather see other things in =wn=.
    
    However, this war is so much a part of our lives right now that it
    would be hard to discuss a _lot_ of things without the war and it's
    effects colouring the discussion.
    
    Taxes, entitlements, de facto single parenting, travel, safety and
    security at work, in public places ... all are affected.
    
    Even before the Gulf war there was spirited discussion of women's role
    in the military and combat.  Even without the Gulf war there was
    was much said about patriotism and who could and couldn't be a patriot.
    Even without the Gulf war there was heated debate over the need for a
    hefty defense budget when entitlement programs were being curtailed and
    homelessnes was on the rise.
    
    In short, I feel we should be able to discuss the war as we so choose;
    as the issues seem not to have changed.  Only the level of emotion
    invested.
    
    Those who do not wish to discuss the war and its effects need not; just
    as we need not respond to or discuss anything here.
    
    Unfortunately, the option to avoid the entire subject isn't open to the
    moderators.  I can see how it would 'feel like warnotes' given the
    war's pervasive effects.
    
      Annie

I think there should be one (or a small, finite) set of topics for
discussing the war here, because it *is* pervading our lives, and
it feels false to me to ignore it.  If the number of topics is
limited (and we don't go bouncing out into the miscellanous topics
to get our digs in), those who would rather not participate can
skip the conversations more easily.

I don't think we'll have any luck trying to say "We will only talk
about these 3 aspects of the war", because, as we've seen, it will
always get derailed into the most basic opinions on the rightness
of this (or any) war, and the rightness of this (or any) war protest,
and the rightness of this (or any) censorship, etc.

I *do* think we need to all try to stick to the usual rules -- no
name calling, no "this is right, this is wrong" instead of "this
is what I think", watch out for answering in the heat of anger or
emotion, especially in this area where we know it's volatile.
If things get out of hand, write-lock topics for cooling down
periods.  If that gets out of hand, revisit the question.

We all need to do our part to not make this an additional load on
the moderators, so to take extra care with our discussions, with
staying courteous no matter how strongly we disagree with individuals
or ideas, and with not letting the discussions interrupt other
conversations, out of courtesy to those who would rather not participate.

But I do feel it's part of our lives, and that we should be able to
handle it with civil and maybe even constructive conversation here.


	MKV

    Well, a looooonnnnnnggggg time ago, I suggested, in the process note,
    that discussions in =wn= which did not pertain to women be redirected
    to the appropriate notes conference.  I was accused of fostering
    censorship and of "silencing the voices of women".  Harumph.
    
    I think it makes perfectly good sense to redirect war noting to Soapbox
    or Israel_Gulfwar, etc.  
    
    casting my vote,
    Marge

          There are some aspects of the current conflict which seem
    unusually suited to discussion here.  The roles of women in the
    armed forces of the countries involved is one which immediately
    springs to mind.  None of the other files I've been in since the
    bombing started have dealt with this.  Another topic which provides
    SRO-type responses to those with loved ones involved in the conflict
    who are struggling to cope with the emotional, financial, and other
    repercussions of deployment also seems appropriate.
    
    What felt like "war-notes", and which I find adequately discussed
    elsewhere are news updates, discussions of whether we should have
    been in *this* conflict at *this* time, how we want to see the conflict
    end (and post-war scenarios of all sorts) and the discussions of
    the morality of being a CO once you are already enlisted in the
    military.
    
    Possibly, for the mods, "cut the discussion here" guidelines could
    be:
    	Is the note content a description of current news events? (Gone)
    	Is the note content providing reasons for or against participation
    in this specific conflict?  ("We should have waited longer for sanctions
    to work" would be a 'gone' note.)
    	Is the note content discussing public demonstrations - either
    for or against the conflict - and how to participate? (gone)  [In
    this case, I would suggest that pointers to material or other files
    be allowed, but not discussion.]
    
    Alison

I think the way the abortion topic is handled would be very appropriate for
the war topic.

That is - there are a limited number of topics for discussing the war.  Any
discussion of the pros and cons of war outside of those topics is moved and/or
deleted.  Blanket condemnations or flat statements of opinion as fact are
prohibited.  Some notes are restricted to only the "pros" and others to
the "cons" (like the Taking Action for Choice and Taking Action for Life 
topics).

I realize that this creates more work for the mods - the abortion topic is
hard enough to maintain.  Perhaps you could appoint someone you feel is a
judicial and unbiased member to moderate just that note.

D!

    I would prefer that there be no topic in womannotes devoted to the war. 
    I think it will be impossible to maintain discussions that do not
    become heated since such strong differences of opinion exist.  I feel
    that if I want to read or write about the war I can do so in Soapbox or
    Mennotes.
    
    My second choice would be to agree with D!'s suggestion.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I agree with Lorna.  No war topics in =wn=.
    
    Carla
    

    We have already got note 22.  Why do we need another war note?  It hasn't
    been more than 24hrs since this notesfile comes back, and we have
    already got a ferocious battle going on there in 22.*  Maybe we can soon, 
    in the name of peace, lock that note before the battles over there
    produce too many casualties.
    
    Eugene

    
    I'd be very sorry to see this war become a taboo subject in here, since
    I think that war is, and has long been, very much a subject of concern 
    for women, for a lot of reasons. While I personally didn't think the war
    discussions in =wn= were getting all that overwhelming, others do and so I
    think D!'s suggestion of using the abortion topics as a model for war
    topics is probably good.
    
    Dorian 

    I agree with Mary and D! - this "war" is a (fairly pervasive) part
    of our lives, in different ways prob'ly, for all of us.  It's fer sure
    a "topic of interest to women", and if we discuss other topics of
    interest that also have pertinent notesfiles, then I think we have
    to be allowed to discuss the "war" too. Are we going to eliminate from
    discussion all those topics we can discuss in other conferences? I
    doubt it...
    
    Again, as Mary and D! said, we need to be very cognizant of how we
    phrase things in that topic. And I for one wouldn't object to mods
    being "quicker on the trigger" to hide notes and stuff, for that
    particular topic. There are more company concerns around such a
    discussion, so we need to be more circumspect. I think we can do that.
    
    --DE
    

    Well, I think we should discuss the war in this file, if we want to.
    Those who don't want to, can hit next unseen.  Isn't it stereotypical
    a bit to think "women don't want to discuss such things..."?  Oh
    yes, that's an old outdated idea but still, if we 'outlaw' a simple
    discuss of the war here, then we're falling into the stereotype
    (imho).  I mean there's more to life than getting the "ring out of
    the collar."  And horrible as it is, the war is, unfortunately, a
    part of all our lives now, like it or not.
    
    Maia
    

    re .24, just because some women may be tired of endlessly arguing about
    the war, doesn't mean that all we have to talk about is ring around the
    collar.  There are plenty of other subjects to discuss besides war and
    laundry detergent.
    
    Even though I would rather not argue about the war, I get too angry at
    some of the opinions I see expressed to just next unseen.  I think if
    we decide to discuss the war we may as well accept the fact that it's
    bound to get nasty because it seems that  people's feelings are just 
    too strong for everyone to remain polite.
    
    Lorna
    

    Feelings are not "polite", war is not "polite", feelings about war
    will, for the most part, not be "polite".  But war involves Women and this
    notesfile is here to allow discussion/communication about the things
    that involve Women.  
    
    I have to believe that people are bright enough to skip a topic that 
    will upset them, unless they happen to be in the mood to become upset.  
    Which means that sometimes I will read these notes and sometimes I won't. 
    
    I don't think excluding the topic is the answer.
    
    Miriam    

    
    HOW TO BE POLITE IN A WAR DEBATE
    
    1)  Don't imply that pro-war people are ruthless killers.
    2)  Don't imply that anti-war people are cowards.
    3)  Don't knock the US or Iraq in general (knocking GB or SH is ok).
    4)  If you are outraged by someone's opinion, attack the opinion with
    facts.
    5)  If you are outraged by someone's attitude or p_name, hit next unseen.
    6)  Do think of both sides when you reply.
    7)  Do remember that this is an international conference.
    8)  Know the facts before you make broad, sweeping statements.
    9)  Don't spread false "news" rumors.
    10)  DO NOT CALL OTHER NOTERS NAMES!
    
    

    	It's ok with me, whatever the mods decide to do about war topics in
    	=wn=.
    
    	As others have said, the war affects all our lives - so we have many
    	avenues open for gathering information about it.  Most of us also
    	have multiple forums/opportunities to discuss it.  So the break from
    	it here would be nice.
    
    	On the other hand, it's important (IMHO) that we take note of the
    	fact that the Womannoters among us have quite a variety of opinions 
    	on this issue - and I think it's interesting to see the diversity.
    
    	The politics and history of the Middle East are fascinating aspects
    	of our world culture - and the war is tied up in both of these - so
    	I wonder how far we can ever get away from the war when these issues
    	loom so large in the lives and futures of so many people in the world.
    
    	It would seem feasible to me to discuss the war as long as we weren't
    	deluged with dozens or hundreds more articles from one side of the
    	issue (and as long as no one else tries to suggest that women have
    	an obligation *due to our sex* to belong to one side or the other
    	of the anti-war or support-the-war groups.)

    I was going to stay out of this discussion, since I am not a woman, but
    I did want to make one comment.

    I don't agree that discussions on applying for combat duty should be
    construed as having to do with political action, because the topic has
    nothing to do with changing government policy per se.  It is, rather, a
    personal decision, and the issues involved in making that decision are
    important to know if you happen to be affected by it.

    Because women in the military can become combatants (and also because the
    women in this notes conference may have sons, brothers, husbands,
    lovers, or friends who may qualify), I consider this a valid topic for
    discussion in this notes conference, even if discussions of the war are
    not permitted.


:-}
Amos

    I haven't lost track of how to use next unseen, and use it whenever I
    can't handle a string or the people in it.  (Very useful in a lot of
    other conferences as well)
    
    Discussion of the war, and associated strings serves a useful function
    for me.  I have friend, relatives, and friend and relatives of friends
    in Saudi, many of whom I am only finding out about now that we have
    time after the holidays to track down people.
    
    I also think that if we handle this the same way we do the abortion
    note, it shouldn't get out of hand.
    
    Meg

There is a problem with the "next-unseen" theory that those who don't want to
discuss war should just skip those topics. Two problems, actually.

One, the war discussions don't stay in the war topics.  I *do* skip all the
war topics.   But it seems to pop up in just about every discussion.  If 
discussion were to stay confined to war topics, I'd be very happy.  But people
can't seem to resist gettings digs in in the "I love it when..." or "Rathole"
or other notes.

The other problem is bigger - it has seemed that war dominates the file.  If
I skip all notes about war, there is very little else.  All discussions
seem to be drowned in the everpresent warnotes battles.  (I don't think the
"If you don't like what is being discussed, add something else" applies to
me, as I add as much as I have time for to the file...)  The entire *tone*
of =wn= changes. It isn't a matter of just skipping particular notes - the
"war issue" seeps into every topic, every reply, every note.  Tempers flare.
antogonisms develop or are exagerated, people glare angrily and warily at
eachother across the virtual table.

I *don't* suggest we not discuss it - it is, after all, an important if
unpleasant part of our lives.  But let us not let it *kill* us!

D! 

I too felt there were too many notes on the war. However, I don't think we can
police the file without full time moderators and DEC probably wants them to 
work part of the day on business. If we could limit it to a few topics and allow
the rest of the file to provide other subjects for discussion I'd be happy.

I would like to see the wholesale inclusion of dozens of notes from "elsewhere"
eliminated or slowed down. Pointers to them are fine for those interested. 

Name calling has to stop. That starts wars of it's own. liesl

    If we are going to allow any discussion at all, then the posting of
    articles from outside sources ought to be fair game, or at least not
    banned outright.  I also don't think that this notes conference should
    censor any particular viewpoint concerning the war.  In my case, if
    this notes conference is going to permit war discussions to continue,
    then I will repost the notes that I deleted yesterday at the request of
    the moderators.

    -- Mike

Mike, there is a difference between "discussion" and what you were posting. If
you had been discussing the points in your own words or posting an occasional
article I wouldn't have a problem. What you were doing was snowing the file
under the writing of dozens of people who were not involved in this file. As a
supplement that's fine, you made it a major portion of the topics. You buried
the topics in it. We could download the whole net into one file but it wouldn't
be a discussion, it would be a dump. liesl

    Liesl, I had stopped that practice some time ago.  Most of the
    information that I get from the net I am sending out on a mailing list. 
    You never see 95% of it.  Recently, I was only posting an occasional
    article that I believe might be of particular interest.
    
    -- Mike

    I don't need to read any more about the war.  But I don't consider it
    censorship not to allow people to discuss the war here when there are
    other forums created for that purpose, any more than it would be 
    censorship not to allow "aardvark" to be defined in the "C" section of
    the dictionary.

    However, I think it is indeed reasonable to discuss war issues insofar 
    as they are women's issues first and/or foremost.  I do not mean for 
    that to be interpreted broadly, as being a policy that would sanction 
    any sort of discussion of the war because "the war affects all our 
    lives", or would even permit discussion of news items such as "a 
    missile hit a bomb shelter where mostly women were housed", or "a 
    group of [people who also happen to be] feminists participated in a 
    march to say XXX [about the war]".  What I mean is that discussions on, 
    say, women's equality within the military should be allowed, since that 
    sort of topic pertains more to the topic of this conference than the 
    topic of others -- and that noters on that topic should be aware that 
    the confines of that topic are very narrow (as with abortion-related 
    topics, except that the "other note" is another conference).

	Sharon

    
    
                 THere have been some *very* interesting replys here.  Of
    special note I believe Lorna's .25 to be one of reasonable attitude
    among many others.  I have loved ones (both family and friends) in the
    war.  I hate war....I hated Viet Nam.....but we are there now and while
    if effects us all, we have to be aware of past history reguarding our
    treatment of our military *after* they have done their job.  My fear is
    that we would become *so* insensitive to this war that we forget that
    "real" people are fighting and dying.  Burying our head in the
    proverbial sand, as we did for Viet Nam...at least as our men and women
    were concerned, I don't believe is productive.
    
    
             As a result I might suggest this:
    
    
       1.  There would be *ONE* file allowed for a "no holds" discussion of
    this war and should anyone "stray" outside it, the moderators could
    take swift and harsh action against the offender.  This could even
    include a suspension from the _WN_ file for a defined period.  This
    discussion would, of course, be subject to the normal policy's outlined
    in 1.*.
    
       2.  there be another "SRO" file to discuss our personal hurts and
    problems coping with this war and all policy's governing "SRO" files
    be enforced.
    
    
                These two, and *ONLY* these two, files would be all that
    would be allowed to talk about this war.  All others deleted and action
    taken to be sure that it doesn't happen again.
    
    
    Dave

    As others have said, we should have 1 war note. This should be written
    in P's + P's (note#1) So that the moderators aren't bogged down with
    moving misplaced notes, they should delete them. Just blow'em away.
    
    Kate

    While I will always press next unseen when it comes to war notes, I
    feel those who choose to discuss it should be able to do so in one
    note, as per D!'s suggestion.  
    
    I'd really like for this file to be what it was like when I first came
    to DEC 1 1/2 years ago: *discussion* of topics, with the exchange of
    ideas, mutual respect, without a lot of sidetracking.
    
    Linda

    re 693.36

    There were 4 such entries in 674.31,.32,.33,.34 (since deleted) posted
    within 15 minutes of the reopening-of-WOMANNOTES announcement in
    EASYNET_CONFERENCES
    
    
    				herb
    

    Herb, that was because Womannotes had been down for a week.  Those
    entries had accumulated over the time that Womannotes was unavailable. 
    
    -- Mike

    <Womannotes had been down for a week>
    
    From my point of view, that is not relevant. I felt inundated by your
    postings before the conference closed down. And I again felt inundated
    by your postings within 15 minutes of the reopening of the conference.
    
    (I feel that the latter flood of responses was particularly egregious in
    view of 593.178. I was -and am- astonished at the myopia that their
    submission reflects). Strikes me that it's good evidence in support of
    a policy of NO war discussions.
    

    Herb, *I* feel inundated by the pro-war rhetoric that bombards me
    wherever I go.  I will not stand silent while this war that I oppose is
    going on.  If there is to be no war discussion in this notes file, then
    so be it.  But if there is, then I will disseminate whatever
    information that I feel to be useful, especially since individuals have
    expressed appreciation to me for my posting many of those notes.

    -- Mike

    
    
    RE:  Mike's postings
    
    I feel that if you want to name those sources and give page numbers and
    give your email address for copies, that's fine, but page after page of
    something very few people care to read word for word is a little much.
    
    -- Nick
    

    Nick
    
    Mike has, as he mentioned, cut way back on the notes he posts.
    He was posting just a few and sending the vast majority out
    to a mailing list of people who were interested.
    
    Bonnie

    	RE: .44  Mike V.
    
    	> Herb, *I* feel inundated by the pro-war rhetoric that bombards me
    	> wherever I go. 
    
    	Mike, this is no excuse to take your frustration out on us.  No one
    	is depositing dozens or hundreds of support-the-war articles here.
    
    	> I will not stand silent while this war that I oppose is
   	> going on. 
    
    	Again, please don't take these convictions out on us.
    
    	I'd rather see people here discuss these issues rather than being
    	subject to an ongoing protest/sit-in staged here for our benefit.
    	If we have no other choice than to be subjected to this if we allow
    	the war to be discussed here, then let's ban the whole topic.
    
    	We aren't the Senate or the White House (nor are we the media.)

    Although I, too, will next unseen most of the warnotes, if people wish
    to discuss them in Womannotes, then that is fine with me. If someone
    wishes to enter a note that is several hundres lines long, that's OK
    too. This is a file for topics that are of interest to women. Not just
    topics that are germaine to women. This war should interest at least
    some women and I'm sure it does. I know it does. I know there are other
    files to discuss it, but I see no problem with it here. 
    
    Regarding Mike's notes: I don't think its fair to single out his stuff.
    Just because they're long. Mike really has the courage of his
    convictions and he has every right to do evwerything in his power to
    see his beliefs put into practice. Sometimes that means becoming boring
    or even obnoxious to some people. (Not to me Mike. :-)  ) If that is
    the case, then next unseen him. I'm sure he needs no defending and is
    perfectly capable of defending himself in here if he so chooses, but I
    had to say this as I see it as an attempt to silence him and others  on
    this subject (the war) and that my friends is censorship.
    
    Phil

    
    Mike, I had been feeling comfortable with the level of your postings,
    though assuming we do find a way to talk about the war again, I'd
    like to hear more of your own orginal thoughts and feelings, too.  But
    I'd like to second what Herb said: when in the first few minutes of
    Womannotes being back online, you posted 4 long articles, I too felt
    inundated.  I can see how you might have had a few backed up in the
    queue while Womannotes was a way, though, so if we get back to talking
    about the war again, I would be comfortable with your (previously)
    occasional posting of articles of interest.
    
    I'm glad we're able to talk about this here.  It's clear that the war
    is important to many of us and that many of us want to be able to talk
    about it here, but it's also clear that a lot of us were feeling
    overwhelmed by the volume and tone of the discussions.  I think we're
    well on our way to finding a way to do this that will work better.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Justine                                                          

    RE: .49  Suzanne,
     
    
                        Why does it cause =wn= to be "torn apart"?  I see
    it as people who have strong feelings and aren't able to deal with
    them.  "Next unseen" is a very good way to bypass such notes...I do it
    all the time.  I haven't seen the previous war notes as getting out of
    hand.  Some people may wish to talk about this war.  In my suggestion, 
    I added a note, an SRO note, that would be a space to "dump" feelings
    and IMHO, its *more* important than the "free-for-all" war note.
    
    
    Dave
    
                        

    	RE: .48  Phil
    
    	The war interests many/most women - it affects all our lives in one
    	way or another.
    
    	However, this doesn't mean that we have an obligation to have =wn=
    	torn apart by differences between the anti-war movement and people
    	who support the war.
    
    	=wn= is not the only forum on the planet for this discussion.  We
    	should have the right to make decisions on whether or not we want
    	to be subjected to the war in one additional area of our lives.

My point was not to silence discussion. The posting of these other notes is not
discussion by the members of this community, it was a data dump. I see a 
difference between Mike discussing, in his own words, what he feels about the 
issues and posting notes written by people who are not even readers of this
conference. I'm with Herb, when I first got back into =wn= I felt bombarded by
a new set of preprinted notes. 

What happens if someone who is pro-war now decides to post everything they find
on the internet? If I wanted a bulletin board I'd read one. I want two way
discussion with the members of this community. Besides, I use DECW notes and
real long notes can be a real pain. Several in a row is downright annoying.

BTW, I am not against the occasional inclusion of these notes. I was happy with
the ponters in use before the file shut down. It's just that on re-entry it
seemed that had gone by the board. liesl

	I have no objection to Mike (or others) posting *pointers* to
	articles.  I do object however, to having to wait seemingly-endless
	seconds for my DECwindows to read in the entire file, just for me
	to hit <next unseen>.

	Sue

    If people wish to discuss the war, that's fine with me.  I also am a
    NEXT UNSEEN fan for notes of any ilk that I'd prefer to skip.
    
    Barb

    I usually NEXT UNSEEN the war notes, too, but occasionally scan them.
    I have found some good stuff there, but have also felt overwhelmed.
    
    Anyway, there's something that doesn't feel right about making the war
    a taboo subject here.  The war is a part of our lives and we all seem
    to have feelings about it and I think we should be able to talk about
    it here.  But, the war is only a *part* of our lives other topics need
    their fair share too.
    
    I think D! had a good suggestion about handling it the way abortion is
    handled.  I know this means a tough moderating job.  But, no matter
    what we do, moderation is going to be tough.  These are tough times.
    
    Mary

    
    
    This topic could become moot!  (and therefore mute)
    
    Let's hope he pulls out!
    

I didn't read the articles that Mike V. posted in =wn= before he deleted 
them, but I've read them since, and I must say I'm amazed that he was
asked to delete them. To me they're all extremely pertinent to the
subject of women's perspective on war. 

I'm not saying that all will agree on what women's perspective on war is,
or should be, or even that women *have* a particular perspective on war. My
own view is that, generally speaking, they do have one, for numerous
reasons, among them being that women are the ones who grow the cannon
fodder for war, and also, that women's issues are among the first to be set
on the back burner when there's a war on. But my own view is neither here
nor there. That we are apparently being forbidden to even *discuss* such a
perspective, in *this* conference, is what I find really scary. 

To take just one example, the author of one of the articles (one of the two
from Ms. Magazine) states that one of the worst characteristics of
patriarchy is 'compartmentalization', while one of the best characteristics
of feminism is 'connectivity'; and she relates this observation to women's
tendency, worldwide, to seek nonviolent solutions to problems. What could
possibly be more appropriate -- especially now -- for discussion in =wn=? 

People have said they don't want this war to 'tear us apart,' or to affect
their lives more than it is already doing. I think that if we let this war
prevent us from talking about war, about women and war, and, yes, about the
possibility of ending what all agree is terrible: war, then we're falling
directly into that trap. And we're letting war silence women just as surely
as we've let a whole lot of other things silence women over the centuries.
I move that Mike be invited to repost his articles here. 

Dorian

    - .1
    
    Well, the analogy of this war to a kid's toy isn't one that would have
    occurred to me...maybe if you thought of yourselves as presiding over a
    dinner-table discussion of (at least) adolescent-level types who may
    occasionally kick each other in the shins, we could talk? I mean you
    could still set the kicks hidden if they bruised too hard.
    
    So a few electrons fly in here...so what? It's better than being sent
    to bed without supper.
    
    D.                    

    
    I agree, and I think we're close to working out some groundrules for
    discussing this topic.
    
    Justine

    
    .58 was deleted by the author, who should have known better.
    
    Justine

    RE: .57  Dorian
    
    > That we are apparently being forbidden to even *discuss* such a
    > perspective, in *this* conference, is what I find really scary. 
    
    Dorian, the ideas you mentioned *are* interesting and well worth
    discussing - however, they were couched in terms of material from
    the anti-war movement, which did the general discussion of such
    things a great injustice (as far as I am concerned.)
    
    As a feminist, I'm against war in general.  No question.  I'm also
    against it as an American, and as a resident of the planet Earth.
    
    However, I don't see peace being served by avoiding war in the face
    of the threat we were seeing at the hands of a Saddam Hussein who would
    not have been stopped.  I'm sure we'd all like it better if we did not
    have to get into wars, but not if it means we're all DEAD or enslaved.
    
    If these subjects are couched in terms of why we should not support
    the current war, they are not well-served at all.  They become lost
    in the anti-war rhetoric.
    
    The main reason I am firmly against linkage between the anti-war 
    movement and the women's movement is that our issues would be put on
    a back burner BY THIS MOVEMENT ITSELF.  We would use up our resources
    (AND LOSE THEM FOR OUR ISSUES) in a situation where they would not be
    put to their best use.
    
    The discussion on non-violent problem-solving would not best be served
    either by tying it to a discussion of the present conflict.
    
    It deserves its own consideration by people for *and* against the current
    war.  If it becomes an anti-war stand, it will get lost in the shuffle.
    
    The current situation in the Middle East is too complex to be solved
    this way.  Our best hope is to have things in place to prevent the next
    war.  It's too late to stop the start of this one.

    I don't see what is the problem with not having warnotes here. 
    MENNOTES just write-locked all of their war topics and asked people to
    go to SOAPBOX, DISCUSSION, etc., to discuss the war.  
    
    E Grace

    Mennotes is run substantially like a dictatorship, E Grace, in that if
    the host moderator doesn't like what's going on, he stops it.  Period,
    end of discussion.  Notice there's no processing note there.
    
    Womannotes, on the other hand, has always attempted, in my experience,
    to decide as a community on the issues regarding conference policy. 
    The two are not at all similar, in my opinion.
    
    So while you said "I don't see what is the problem with not having 
    warnotes here." and while I personally agree with you, citing mennotes
    as an acceptable precedent meets my profound disagreement.  I hope this
    file *never* makes its decisions in such a manner.
     
    DougO

    BESIDES, you wouldn't want to adopt a policy JUST BECAUSE the men did
    it, would you?  (Well, that's how I inferred the tone of the note)
    
    :-)
    
    ed

    No.  My point was that whenever the mods here try to stop a
    "conversation", it seems that they get accused of censorship.  I was
    just asking why the same standard is not held for "that other file."
    
    E Grace

    Oh, we accuse mennotes moderators of censorship and stifling
    discussion, but they delete those notes.  Many of us have given
    up on those discussions because they are fruitless.  In my view,
    its one of the reasons mennotes gets so little participation
    compared to womannotes.  And just you watch; the mennotes moderators
    will come in here and say "please stop discussing mennotes here".
    They don't like (some people's views of) their methods to be known.
    I just wish that the people who pillory our moderators so incessantly
    would spend some time on controversial topics in mennotes.  They might
    gain a little more appreciation for how they're treated here.
    
    This file, on the other hand, has as one of its highest values that of
    listening to all voices in the chorus.  That means we do a lot more
    processing, such as in this discussion about the appropriateness of
    warnotes, and encouraging people to speak their minds.  I think we get
    a lot more noise that way, but I also think we see far more differences
    and unique thinking from this encouraged diversity.  We have to put up
    with our moderators (and all of us, by implication) constantly under
    attack, but we get a heck of a lot more input at the same time.  That
    said, I'd agree that having our moderators accused of censorship, when
    mennotes skates free, is evidence of a double standard.  But I doubt
    that this undisputed truth will change the behaviour of any of the
    folks you or I might wish it would.
    
    DougO

    
    	Well said, DougO.
    

    I vote for treating the subject of war the way we treat the subject of
    abortion -- with two parallel notes.
    
    Interesting that some of the notes in this string about whether or not
    to discuss the war actually discuss the war!!  (We can't help it!)
    
    Seriously,  if the war "is tearing =wn= apart" it is because it is
    tearing some of *us* apart -- inside -- and because it has the
    potential to tear apart our society!  
    
    Just as the Vietnam War did.
    
    This is what war *does* to us, folks.  There's no place to hide from
    it.  So what better place to include it than here???
    
    
    Nancy

    Doug O, you hit the nail on the head about mennotes. I refuse to have
    any part of that notesfiles and if anyone ask me about it I tell
    them my opinion.
    
    
    REK

    
                   DougO said many of the things I was feeling also.  There
    are reasons why I do not note in Mennotes and the type of moderation is
    one of them.
    
                   Censorship, IMHO, is wrong wherever you see it.  I think
    that the Moderators *here* are about as good as you are going to get.
    Now, that doesn't mean that I will "blindly" follow anything they say
    or do....its just not in my nature.  If I see or feel that some action
    is wrong, then I *will* say something about it.  On the other hand, I
    cannot, for the life of me, see why there are some who feel they have
    to make the disagreements *SO* public.  It almost as if they are trying
    to "gather" a following.  Offline mail has, for me, been all that I
    needed to get my point across because I only wanted to get *MY* point
    across and not to "score points".  Question of perspective, I guess.
    
    
    Dave  

    Haven't read thru the string recently but I resonated to what D! said;
    I think it'd be wrong to *BAN* talk about the war, but I think we
    should try to limit the # of strings in which we deal with it.
    
    FWIW, my 2� worth, Dan

    
    It would make me very angry if we couldn't talk about the war here.
    
    Limiting the number of topics is a good idea. 
    
    I don't give a tinkers darn what mennotes or any other notesfile 
    does with the topic.
    
    If *you* (generic you) don't like a topic, just NEXT UNSEEN!  I don't
    understand the problem.  I've 'next unseened' over stuff in here
    *every day* for *five* years!  AND, I've never considered that a
    problem!
    
    Also, *don't* tell me to "just go to Soapbox".  I don't read Soapbox
    and have *zero* desire to.  I interact here in womannotes because I've
    gotten to know the participants and the tone of this file over *five*
    years and I want to hear *this* file's and its noters' perspective, not
    another file's.
    
    Thank you.
    

    .61 Suzanne,
    
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - since I see ending war in
    general as very much a women's issue. But. As for the articles that
    were deleted being 'couched in terms of material from the anti-war
    movement,' I see no problem with that - certainly material from the
    other side of the argument as well could be included. It's stopping the
    discussion altogether that worries me.
    
    D.
      

I'm tired of war, and war discussions.  I would rather not have it in here.
There is already an entire conference for that.

If the moderators decide to include the topic anyway, please limit the
number of new topics.  In my opinion, it got out of hand.

        Carol

    Carol,
    
    If there is "an entire conference"  -- *not* soapbox -- that is
    speicifcally devoted to the war in the Gulf, I'd like a pointer,
    please.
    
    I'm tired of war, too, and I'd rather not have it, period.  But it's
    here, it's a reality, it's a fact of life, and we bury our heads
    in the sand if we try to ignore it.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    
    
                  If the moderators don't make a decision quick, the
    question may be moot.....the war will be over....or is that what they
    had in mind anyway?
    
    
    Dave

>    If there is "an entire conference"  -- *not* soapbox -- that is
>    specifically devoted to the war in the Gulf, I'd like a pointer,
>    please.


	HPSCAD::ISRAEL_GULFWAR

					Tom_K

    
    
    RE:  .77
    
    ISRAEL_GULFWAR is not a good place to talk about the war.  It deals
    with mostly Israeli points of view, and it is very small.
    
    The most intelligent conversation you can get on the War is in
    COMET::DEFENSE_ISSUES.  It is VERY technical, however, ie there is no
    discussion of feelings; only tactics, etc.
    
    NICK
    

    Why bother ? I mean, we'll have the same back-and-forth as in the
    self-defense issues, with the matter boiling down to two opposed
    philosophies, namely, those who oppose all violence, and those who
    accept the use of violence in defensive situations. Neither side will
    say anything new. Each side will maintain it's attitude of moral
    superiority. Each side will try to get in subtle digs at the other,
    under the moderators' nose. Nothing will be resolved. More bad
    feelings. Why bother ?
    

    re .-1
    
    Here, here!
    
    
    				herb

    Sometime next week I plan to start a pair of notes about the war
    one for discussion and one for SRO about feelings. There will
    be some fairly firm guidelines put in place for the disucssion
    note.
    
    I'm sorry to have taken so long with this, I have an illness in
    my immediate family which has taken much of my personal energy.
    
    Bonnie

  Seriously, give COMET::DEFENSE_ISSUES a try.  You get information from
  _very_ knowledgeable people who happen to represent a wide spectrum of
  political beliefs.  And the moderators as well as the members do a great 
  job of keeping the discussion civil.

  JP

    Yeah, we're tired of the war, for sure.
    
    It's a good thing the soldiers over there aren't tired of it, or are
    they?  I wonder if Bush is tired of it, no, not him.  
    
    IMHO, this war is just starting so those of us who are 'tired of it'
    better find a place to retreat to for a while ... maybe a good
    Disney movie?  Or a romance novel?
    
    Seriously, folks, aren't we being a bit self centered to be tired
    of a one month war?  If we're in support of it, then I think we have
    an obligation to keep on going, just like the troops...
    
    M.
    

    re .83, if we don't support the war, is it okay to be tired of it?
    
    I don't think people choose what they get tired of.  I think it just
    happens.  If you're tired of something, you're tired of it and that's
    all there is to it.
    
    Probably a lot of the soldiers are tired of the war, but that doesn't
    mean they'll stop doing their jobs.  Probably a lot of them wish they
    could, though.
    
    Lorna
    

re being tired of the war.

When most people say this they mean "bored by the war". Personally I don't
think it's acceptable for anybody - pro or con - to be bored by it.

On the other hand I am tired of it. Since last August I've been pulling
double shifts: 0900-1730 at Digital and evenings and weekend days at my
army job. Last weekend (Thursday evening to Monday morning) I travelled -
literally - around the world on military duty (it was hot in Dhahran and 
Thailand, rather cold in Alaska and Washington DC...)

I am tired. Bone tired. I am sure that many of the forces personnel in the 
gulf are also. You can't stay on peak alertness if you are tired. Something
has to give soon: we either have to stand down from peak readiness or we have
to start to fight.

/. Ian .\

    I totally agree that it's important to talk about and think about the
    war (though I respect others' choice not to), and I've actually been
    feeling angry that some folks were unable to discuss the war without
    fighting with each other.  Setting stuff no-write is a very drastic
    step for us, one we've hardly ever taken, but it really felt that
    the war discussions were out of control, and we felt it necessary
    to step back and find a better process.
    
    I think using the abortion discussion as a model will work well, and
    we will start that soon.  Bonnie has been planning to take that on,
    but she's got a lot going on in her life right now, so that's the
    reason for the delay.  If you all could just hang in with us a little
    longer, we will have something going soon.
    
    Thank you,
    
    Justine

    
    Well you know there are a lot of things I'm tired of too, like
    in our society -- patriarchy, and misogyny, and child abuse, and rape, 
    for starters...does that mean I should just shut up about them?
    
    (don't answer that)
    
    D.

    I don't know if .-1 was intended to be a direct response to .-2. I hope
    it wasn't. If it is so intended, I am really surprised by what I
    consider its gratuitous rudeness.

    - .1
    
    No, it wasn't. I'm only saying that I don't consider being tired of
    something reason for prohibiting talking about that something.
    
    D.

    thankyou
    
    I agree