Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Yes, it does bother me. Perhaps something open, but still pc would have
    been good, like: "applications from women and minority candidates would
    be welcome." No, even that doesn't sound quite right, does it? Almost,
    though.
    
    Alice T.

    No, it doesn't bother me much... I've stopped paying attention to petty
    things a long time ago... I simply ignore narrow mindness when I see
    any signs of it.
    Ana
    

    re .0, no, it doesn't bother me.  White men still have most of the best
    jobs so I don't see anything wrong with expressing a desire to
    interview women and minorities.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    I don't see anything discriminatory about inviting underrepresented
    folks to apply -- it's inclusive not exclusive.  New choir seeks more
    voices, especially tenors.  Does that discriminate against sopranos?
    
    I'm pleased to see Digital making the effort.  If different wording
    would make some folks more comfortable, though, I'd be interested to
    talk about that.
    
    Justine

    "The Future Fair!  A Fair to All, and No Fair to Anybody!"
    				(Firesign Theatre)
    
    sigh.
    
    mods, somebody, where was that discussion of equitable vs equal?  The one
    where we discussed for lots & lots of replies whether it is better to
    judge every person on individual merits, or to try to make up for
    historical inequities?

Re: .4

The difference is that only a soprano can sing the soprano parts, so they are 
justified in requesting a soprano. If there are bonafide experience or skill 
requirements, then these are pertinent.

But in the example cited, the gender and race of the applicant is irrelevant to
the position. The job can be performed just as well by males, females, blacks, 
etc. 

Frankly, I am ambivalent about putting statements like that on job solicitations
(or anything else). At the least it could have been more diplomatic (I.e., "We 
welcome applications from women and members of minority groups.")

I am also ambivalent because, carried to its extreme, it makes almost anyone a 
member of a minority group. Should women and minorities receive preferential
(versus equal) treatment in the workforce?

I may look like (and sometimes behave like) a white male in his 50s, but 
according to Digital I am officially designated as "Handicapped" (and a member
of a minority) because I am hard of hearing. There are some jobs I would not 
apply for or accept because of my hearing or lack therof, but that is my choice
and decision, not the corporation's. 

Another area of ambivalence has to do with making up for past discriminatory
practices. Women and minorities, the arguement goes, should receive priority
treatment now to make up for lost opportunities in the past.

In the distant pre-Digital past I was told I was not hired for one position 
and not promoted to another because I was Jewish. (Since I was Jewish by
heritage but not by religious beliefs this was particularly puzzling to me.)
Should Digital now give me preferential treatment because of something that
happened in my past that had nothing to do with Digital? 
 
I think not, and that is one reason why I am not so sure women should receive 
preferential treatment. 

I welcome additional comments by all. Women and minorities are especially urged
to comment.

Bruce

    
    so did they say they wouldn't hire anybody but women and minorities? 
    no.
    they said they'd like them to apply.
    
    BIG difference.
    
    -Jody
    

 Jody-

 It _sounds_ to me that T&N would like to hire "minorities and women" but will
accept white males only if not enough m&w apply...

>Another area of ambivalence has to do with making up for past discriminatory
>practices. Women and minorities, the arguement goes, should receive priority
>treatment now to make up for lost opportunities in the past.
    
    This is not how I've heard of it or how I see it. Affirmative action
    tries to make up for discriminatory practices going on _now_. Please
    correct me if I've misunderstood it all along.
    
    Very few jobs have clearcut criteria and who is hired often depends on
    who appeals to the manager. Women and minorities are often not
    percieved as being good enough. It is this bias that affirmative action
    tries to make up for.
    
    manisha
    

    
    One of the things I've heard in response to "why aren't there more
    women and minorities in your group/company?" is -- "They never apply."
    "We couldn't find any."  This invitation seems to me to be an attempt
    to increase the group's diversity by increasing the diversity in the
    applicant pool.  I think that's an excellent course to take.  I've been
    invited to apply for jobs by various managers -- I never took that to
    mean that I would get the job if I applied for it.
    
    Justine

    The reason I started this is because I have a lot of experience in
    the specific field (tech writing) that T&N is recruiting for.  I've
    done it, I've managed it, and I've taught it in college.....but to
    me there is a very clear message in that statement - STAY AWAY.
    
    I think that whomever is responsible for that little indiscretion
    should have their little arse in a crack.  It really is a bit too
    much.

    why don't you apply anyway.  if they really don't want you you'll
    likely know.

    
    I agree with those who don't see anything wrong with it.
    As Jody clearly pointed out, it's a TOTALLY different thing
    to *advertise* that you'd like members of a certain group
    to apply, and to *hire* one of that group.
    
    I would *not* assume that any requirements were being waived
    or lowered because of an ad like this.  I think that anyone
    who would think that is being at least slightly paranoid
    (or worse).
    
    I for one would appreciate it this *does not* turn into a
    discussion on a) quotas or b) lowering standards to "make up"
    for past inequities.  The ad says nothing that would lead
    me to believe that either one is occurring.
    

    Well, as I mentioned in .0. I'm not interested.....but this one sorta
    hit me between the eyes because it's in a field I'm very good at.
    
    Just the same (and I am not a passive person), I would never apply
    as it is very clear what their agenda is.  I've done my tilting at
    wind-mills, thank you.
    
    What is particularly interesting is that if they had used those words
    in a classified ad in a newspaper, there would appear to be grounds
    for a law suit.  Oh well.......

Actually (and I don't know if this is the case here or not), some companies
have rules that state that at least one woman/minority must be considered
for a position before it can be filled.  As one might imagine, this can
lead to a search for another applicant after one has already been tentatively
selected.

    re.14 hunh? I see ads with "Women and minorities encouraged to
    apply" all the time in the paper. (Yes I read the want-ads, doesn't
    every Deccie?)
    

    
    re .0
    
    as claude rains would say, I'm shocked, shocked...
    
    seriously, did you really believe that AA has anything
    to do with fairness and nothing to do with revenge of
    the selfpercieved "underclass" .. ?
    

re: .14
    
>Well, as I mentioned in .0. I'm not interested.....but this one sorta
>    hit me between the eyes because it's in a field I'm very good at.
    
    Oh, and no woman or minority could possibly be as good as you at it and
    you assume they'd be hired anyway?
    
    How utterly prejudgmental
    
    -Jody
    

    Damn.....my secret is out!!  What's my next mission into enemy
    territory, Rush??
    

    re .19 ... Oh c'mon now, you've really got to work at it to squeeze
    that meaning out of my comments.
    
    How utterly judgemental!!

    
    re: .19 (Jody)
    
    Color me shocked at my PI stance today, but I sure didn't hear 
    any prejudgmental tones in .14.  My take is that he noticed it 
    because it's in his field of experience -- and that is what he 
    relayed in .14.  Just as I don't pay attention to engineering 
    ads, but do to tech writing/editing ads, therefore the verbage 
    in those would naturally 'hit me between the eyes' moreso than 
    the stuff I really don't give two hoots about.
    
    My 2�.
    
    Carla
    

    I usta work for the State of Massachusetts.  I had to hire people.
    The ad had to include a similar statement.  I was required to have
    qualified minority and female candidates or go back out and search some
    more.  I was also pressured to hire a lesser qualified minority
    candidate on one occasion (over a woman who was thoroughly qualified).
    He was unable to do the job and (after a year of paperwork) I
    terminated his employment (and he is now working at something that make
    him happy.  He stopped by months later to let me know).  
    
    Sometimes AA actions depend on the agenda of the AA Officer.  
    
    I never had a problem with encouraging women and minorities to apply. 
    The only real problem I had was that the state hiring process moved so
    slowly that most well qualified candidates (and especially qualified AA
    candidates) got jobs before I could make an offer.  Leaving me with a
    minimally qualified pool that often contained no women or minorities,
    meaning that I got to start over again (and you were wondering how come
    the effectiveness of many state employees is poor and the cost of
    government is high, weren't you possums?).
    
    jimc
    

    To me, it seems just like the signs you used to see on taverns saying
    "Booths for Ladies" or "Ladies Invited".
    
    The message isn't so much discriminating against any group as it is 
    conveying information to the group mentioned, (who might not bother, 
    knowing that traditionally they didn't have a chance in hell), that this
    time, they do.  They've got the *chance*, not the job.  And that's a
    good thing.  The best!  That's all anyone deserves - the chance!
    
    Sandy

By saying "T&N would like women and minorities to apply for this position" it
implies that T&N does not want non-women and non-minorities to apply.

This is a lot different from saying "Women and minorities are invited to apply."
That implies that all candidates will receive equal consideration.

Bruce

    re -1
    
    Well, maybe they were trying to use good tech writing skills and wanted
    to avoid the passive voice. :-) Too bad managers don't have to submit the
    stuff they write to an editor before it goes out to the world.
           
    Justine

    I agree, Bruce....it's that subtle difference that's got me concerned.
    To me, it's a red flag that says "stay out".

     Here we have a case where an advertisement for a position within the
    company causes someone to feel left out, snubbed, not invited to
    participate. I'd say we have to evaluate the situation and see if what
    we have here is a case of someone looking to pick a fight or someone
    who is genuinely nonplussed by the ad. If we have the former, then
    perhaps our best response is to wait to see if there are any more
    genuine objections. If we really have genuine objections and we can
    solve them by simply wording things to make people feel included, it
    seems that it would behoove us to do so.
    
     and re: Jody
    
     I didn't see that at all in Lennard's note. I think you really had to
    turn on the cynicism generator for that one...
    
     The Doctah

    I didn't see anything exclusionary in the quote.  Encouraging some
    people does not imply discouragement of others, certainly not with
    something as bare bones as that statement.
    
    It's worth noting that one reason people have different perceptions is
    that they have different agendas.

    Personell adds in Holland (especially from the government, universities
    etc.) usually have a phrase like "we would like to increase the number of
    women and members of minority groups working for us and they are
    especially invited to apply for this position. If qualifications are
    equal, members of these groups have preference".
    I'm not really bothered by it, but in my book positive discrimination
    is discrimination.
    
    Charles Mallo

    I think there's a world of difference between saying "Women and
    minorities are encouraged to..." and saying "White males are _not_
    encouraged to..."

    Read a bit further where it says they have preference....
    
    Charles Mallo

	Sally, Jane and Tom are talking to each other. Roger, a friend of
	all three, comes by, and says, "Hey, I'm having a party, at which
	all my friends are invited. Sally and Jane, can you come?"

	How do you think Tom feels?

				Tom_K

    I fail to see how the analogy works.
    
    I don't think job applications should be judged on how they make you
    "feel".  Otherwise, I could protest that all the job applications that
    say "Wanted: principal engineer with at least 10 years experience in
    networking, tool development, user interface design and technical rock
    climbing; gourmet chef a plus" make me feel inadequate.
    
    Job hunting isn't supposed to be a warm-fuzzy experience.
    
    D!

	Some previous replies claimed that the wording of the solicitation
	was intended to be inclusive. I was attempting to demonstrate
	that the effect may not have matched the intent.

				Tom_K

          "T&N would like white hetereosexual male candidates 
           to apply for these positions."
    
    The only change I've made from the original is to substitute "white
    heterosexual male" for "women and minority."
    
    Do you think my version is non-discriminatory?
    
    Bruce

    I also received the E-Mail document on the tech writing openings.  On
    first reading it, it IMPLIED that there was a POSSIBILITY that
    minorities and women would have preference.  However, that could be
    just the wording they used.  We've reached 36 replies to this note
    about an ambiguous line of text in an E-Mail note...
    
    
    
    
    ...and not *one* of us enlightened, intellectual beings has done
    anything to verify the intent of the wording of the job offer.
    
    
    Shawn 
    (Who_could_FLAME_ON_all_day_about_PC_jerks_at_his_undergrad_university)
    

>I don't think job applications should be judged on how they make you
>    "feel". 

 We aren't talking about applications, we are talking about advertisements,
in particular solicitations of employment. Given the fact that more and more
emphasis is being placed on the concept of inclusion, does it not make
sense to allow white males to be a part of this too? Or do white males remain
the excludable? Is it more ok for white males to feel excluded than minorities
and women?

 The Doctah

    Re:.38   Two points for the Doctah.
    
    Re:.37   I've just started an electronic inquiry on the intent of the T
    and N positions.  I'll keep you posted on the results as they come in.  
    
    Shawn
    (Who will continue the chase even though his last day is this Friday)
     

    
    Do white males feel excluded because the language is exclusionary or
    because since written history began, everything has been by, for, and
    about them, and now someone wants to pass the ball to the other players
    on the team....?
    
    If I were in Personnel and saw all the discomfort caused by this ad, I
    might spend some time trying to make the wording clearer.  But I think
    there would be some resentment anyway, and I think it has to do with
    this tiny (barely measurable) shift in power.  
    
    Justine               

    
>    Do white males feel excluded because the language is exclusionary or
>    because since written history began, everything has been by, for, and
>    about them, and now someone wants to pass the ball to the other players
>    on the team....?
    
    So White male graduates of 1992 should be willing to lose opportunities
    to make up for all the extra opportunities their fathers and
    grandfathers had?
    
    Nick
    

    re .38, I thought it went without saying that white males always know
    that they are always included in everything.  Why should there have to
    be a special statement saying that *white* *males* are invited to apply
    for a certain job?  Haven't white men always known that they could go
    wherever they want to go and do whatever they want to do?  That hasn't
    changed, except that now they sometimes have to share their space with
    a few women and minorities.  
    
    I think women and minorities have been excluded from important
    positions for so long that we still need the fact that they now have
    more opportunities brought to our attention.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .41
    
    Maybe no one should expect them to be willing. I certainly don't. But
    its quite true that white men are going to face stiffer competition and
    will lose more frequently when discrimination barriers drop for women
    and minorities.
    
    That's how competition and free enterprise systems work. Nobody likes
    having the tables turned on them. But sometimes, that's the only way to
    convince someone that an injustice has existed at all.
    
    And I'm STILL waiting to see a stronger percentage of women and
    minorities demonstrating true fiscal and political power in this
    nation, on the order of billion dollar budgets and decisions which
    affect the lives of more than a million people.
    
    White men still haven't been willing to give up that kind of power!

    
    re: .41 (Nick)
    
    I think it's the non-white-male graduates of 1992 who ought to
    _continue_ to be willing to lay on their collective backs, and
    _continue_ to allow white males to trample and rule them, and 
    _continue_ to step aside while white males enjoy the cream off
    the top while the rest of us scramble to suck the drips that 
    dribble off white male chins.  That's how it's been for 5,000 
    years.  Why stop now?
    
    Yeah, Nick, why should white males be willing to lose any of it?
    They know a good power structure when they create one.  But it's
    toppling, isn't it.  Ah well, what comes around goes around.
    
    Carla
    

    re -2 .....power has to be earned...not "given up".

    re .45, yeah, well most of the power in this country has been earned by
    being born white, with a penis.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    
    Carla,
    
    I never trampled anybody.  I have never ruled anybody.  I have never
    made anyone scramble for any drips.
    
    So, if I am slightly more qualified for a job than a non-white-male,
    who should get it?
    
    Nick
    

    re: -1 "Earning" it doesn't always give you it - especially if your a
    non-white male.
    
    *Somebody's* got to lose out when there are only so many jobs to go
    around.  Traditionally it's been everything *but* white men.  So why
    not change that?  It's unfortunate that the "current" white males feel
    they are expected to lost out just because they're white males, but
    it's no different than the billions of non-white males who've lost out
    for what they were, too.  *Somebody's* gotta lose.
    
    I agree with you, Lorna, 100%.  It generally goes without saying that
    applications from white males will be accepted.
    
    Sandy

    
    Sadly, Carla, I don't think it's toppling.  
    
    Nick, do you think you benefit *NOW* because you are a white male?  If
    not, then we probably won't agree on much else around this issue. 
    Because I don't see AA/EEO as revenge for past wrongs -- I see it as
    an attempt to spread the wealth a little bit.  The analogy I used
    earlier was one of passing the ball to another player on the team so
    s/he could take a shot.  I didn't say I wanted to throw the players
    who have had the ball off the team.  uh oh, i always get myself in
    trouble when i try to use sports analogies...
    
    Justine

    Hey Nick, don't feel too bad.  I never trampled anyone, either.  But
    I've lost out to less qualified white males, even so.  It won't kill
    you.  Just do what they say to me when that happens - "keep your chin
    up and keep trying"!
    
    ;>
    
    Sandy

    
    Eroding would have been a better word.
    
    I believe it _is_ eroding . . . slowly, determinedly, with every
    woman that rises up and finds her voice, for every man who looks
    around and joins the ranks of humanity, rather than 'mankind'.
    
    Carla
    

    Re: .38
    
    >Or do white males remain the excludable?
    
    White males weren't excluded.  They might _feel_ excluded, but then,
    I'm told that people are responsible for their own feelings....
    
    If you want to talk about language that makes people feel excluded,
    let's take a look at the use of "he" as the third person singular
    indefinite pronoun.

    The "additional" prerequisites are no comfort to those who don't pass
    the first test, Herb.
    
    Sandy

    Herb?  Did you just delete the note I responded to?  If so, wise
    choice.
    
    S.

>>    If you want to talk about language that makes people feel excluded,
>>    let's take a look at the use of "he" as the third person singular
>>    indefinite pronoun.
    
    "She" is also used to describe sexless objects.
    Especially in French.
    
    
    Carla,  No I don't feel like I have benefitted from being a white male,
    except in one case.
    
    Nick
    

    Re: .33
    
    >Sally, Jane and Tom are talking to each other. Roger, a friend of all 
    >three, comes by, and says, "Hey, I'm having a party, at which all my 
    >friends are invited. Sally and Jane, can you come?"
    >
    >How do you think Tom feels?
    
    If we're going to use analogies, let's make them as accurate as
    possible.  Tom and Roger are buddies who hang out a lot together. 
    Roger is casual friends with Sally and Jane; they haven't spent much
    time at each others' houses.
    
    Now, in that context, as the same question.  Is Tom being excluded? 
    No.  Given their relationship, it's assumed that Tom will be at the
    party, if possible.  Sally and Jane don't have the same relationship
    with Roger, so their attendance is not a given and Roger needs to ask.

    Re: .56
    
    >"She" is also used to describe sexless objects.
    
    Yes, and isn't that sweet?  Women can be things, but not people.

    Yuh gutta do a heluva lot more than be a white adult with a penis.
    Most of the power has a prerequisite of being born white with a penis.
    			    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    But there are lots of ADDITIONAL prerequisites. Some obvious -like being an
    ADULT white penis possessor, some not so obvious -like not having grown
    up in an urban or rural ghetto, like being a -say- migrant farmer or
    -say- an unemployed auto worker.
    There are far more DISempowered white penis posessors than there are
    empowered white adult penis posessors.
    There is a pecking order in this country. The peckers at the top are
    almost ALL male. Everybody else is peckees, women, men, children etc.
    
    Sandra Day Oconnor has a lot more in common with Antonin Scalia than
    she has with either you or me.
    John Mackinroe (sp?) has a lot more in common with Navratilova than he
    has with you and me.
    And -heaven forbid- you and i have a lot more in common with each other
    than either of us has with either a black man or a black woman in the
    bowels of -say- Washington D.C.
    

    Ah, there it is.  My .53 refers to Herb's .59.
    
    S

    Late next century, if were lucky and smart, things will even out and
    people will finally be hired on their merits and given higher education
    based on their ability to learn. Not on such frivilous things as going
    to the "right school", knowing the boss's family, being in the boss's
    family, having enough money or being a white male. Until then, the
    white male population of the US and other predominantly white male
    dominated (population wise or politically) countries are going to be
    more and more disappointed in the job hunt. After centuries of
    inequalities in hiring practices, school acceptances, and life in
    general, women and minorities are making headway. That means that white
    males will lose out. There will be mistakes and even discriminatory
    practices with the white male coming out on the short end of the stick. 
    Things will eventually even out and merit and ability will be the
    deciding factors, not race or sex. Of course, white males are going to
    scream. If you had life relatively easy or had an advantage because of
    race and sex, and had come to think of this advantage as a birthright,
    due to societal conditioning, wouldn't you scream. The screaming will
    quiet down. It just may take a couple of generations to do it. Until
    then, women, please put up with some of the screaming. consider it
    sound and fury, signifying if not the death of inequality, the slow
    awakening of what is right and proper.
    
    PJ(a white, anglo-saxon, protestant, male, born, raised, and currently
    residing in old puritan new england)

    
     re .56
    
    I'll tell you what -- you can call boats "he" if you start calling
    humans "she."
    
    they call the wind Jeremiah?
    
    punchy,
    
    Justine
    

    Tom in .33,
    
    Tom feels distaste for the crudity of Roger's pass at the two women,
    but feels pleased that he has not be included in it.  He then remembers
    the time he essentially invited himself to a New Year's Eve party at
    Roger's house, and decides to stop feeling anything on the subject.
    
    Nick in .41,
    
    The graduates of 1992 should be philosophical and realize that it
    was the special opportunities and privileges of their grandfathers
    and fathers that got them prepared for college, and into college, and
    into one of this degree of quality, and that it is now their own
    responsibility to parlay the advantages they've already been given
    into their own advancement.  (.47) The really honest graduates will
    realize that they themselves just might have an unfortunate habit of
    discounting the qualifications of non-Caucasians and non-males, and
    so misperceive the qualifications of other applicants.
    
    						Ann B.

    and all the women able to read this note are one heluva lot more
    empowered than the male Chicano farm laborers in California or the
    male Black migrant farmers in the Gulf coast states (or even in Concord
    Massachusetts).
    Your message would have a better chance of being read loud and clear,
    if somehow you were able to communicate to men that we SHARE a burden
    rather than that we impose a burden.
    That we ought to commiserate rather than attack or whine or snarl.

    >The peckers at the top are
    >almost ALL male. Everybody else is peckees, women, men, children
    >etc.
    
    Aren't all peckers male, by nature?
    
    ;-)
    
    D!

    But we don't "share" a burden, Herb.  The "burden" of the white male
    is, if anything, surprise and the outrage that comes from that.  The
    burden non-white males have, however, is that of a lifetime of being
    "less than" and that's quite different.
    
    If you, (singly or as a representative of men), prefer that we
    "commiserate rather than attack or whine or snarl", then try doing the
    same and speak to the men who are attacking, whining or snarling about
    the situation in the basenote!  Perhaps they should commiserate instead
    and realize that they are now indeed "sharing" part of our burden! 
    You say that's the better way...
    
    S.
    
      

    
    I was just thinking that rewriting the ad would be a wonderful homework
    assignment or college students in a Human Resource Management class -
    
    Assignment:
    
    Write a Job Ad that encourages women and minorities to apply without
    making white men feel UNwelcome.
    
    It would be interesting to see the results and men's and women's
    reaction to the different ads.
    
    Justine

    And really, are you saying we should take comfort that there are dogs
    even lower than we are?  Wow.  Would that position in life comfort you,
    Herb?  If so, then even if the ad in the basenote *did* intend to
    interview only women and minorities, what's the beef?  You'd *still* be
    better off then the classes you named!  And you feel that should be ok
    for us...
    
    S.

    
    I'm angry that we're discussing this here in womannotes!
    
    Really, please take your gd gripes to mennotes!  I'm kind of
    surprised and disappointed that the mods haven't asked you
    to do that yet.
    

    stop your goddamn debating Sandy.
    You know damn rigth well that i am not saying we should take comfort in
    anything.

    So there was an ad that didn't direct itself to *you* - the
    privileged, middle-class, white heterosexual male - and that
    made you feel bad.  You weren't mentioned, so therefore you
    were left out?  Well, life *is* a bitch, isn't it?

    Lighten up.  If it weren't "against" the rules in here, I'd
    say you're being *waaaaaay* too sensitive!  What a bunch of
    whiners.

    
    Am I to understand that there are women working for DEC who would be
    reluctant to apply for an internal job unless "encouraged" or
    "invited" to apply?
    
    I interpret those notices to mean "White Men need not apply because
    we want/need a minority". Especially if is a company that does business
    with the Federal Government.
    
    In 1985/86 when I was unemployed, I cut out an article which told about
    DEC and Raytheon winning an award for hiring more minorities than the
    Federal Government required to do business with them. I interviewed
    with Raytheon and several others on the list, and, when asked about
    hiring quotas, they denied having any. When shown the article, they
    would say "Oh, *those* hiring quotas".
    
    All I ever asked for was true equal opportunity when applying for a
    job. If those companies really wanted *only* minorities and women, they
    should have said so, except that is probably illegal, hence the
    ambiguous wording.
    
    
    Guy
       

>                        The peckers at the top are
>    almost ALL male.

That's priceless, Herb. Thanks.

Kathy

    Gee, Herb, I'm sorry, I thought I was allowed to debate in here along
    with everyone else.  I didn't know I wasn't supposed to.  Is there a
    list somewhere?  Wouldn't want anyone else to make the same mistake.
    
    And another apology for misunderstanding you.  So please help clear
    things up for me, ok?  What did you mean by the following?
    
    >and all the women able to read this note are one heluva lot more
    >empowered than the male Chicano farm laborers in California or the
    >male Black migrant farmers in the Gulf coast states (or even in Concord
    >Massachusetts).
    
    Were this just a statement like "the sky is blue"?
    
    Sandy

    Sandy:
    
    I am not trying to win debating points.
    
    

    Yes, Guy, there've been jobs I knew I was qualified for but didn't
    bother applying for because over time you get worn down and you can
    pretty much sense sometimes the kinds of situations for which
    ultimately a white male will be hired.  So you start saying to yourself, 
    "why waste the stamp" or "why waste the time".  When you do a whole lot
    of wheel-spinning over the years, you begin to get a sense of where
    you've got a shot, where you've got a small chance, where you've got
    none.
    
    S.

    That's good, Herb, neither am I.  So now will you please clear up your
    meaning on that paragraph?
    
    Thanx very much,
    
    Sandy

>    In 1985/86 when I was unemployed, I cut out an article which told about
>    DEC and Raytheon winning an award for hiring more minorities than the
>    Federal Government required to do business with them. I interviewed
>    with Raytheon and several others on the list, and, when asked about
>    hiring quotas, they denied having any. When shown the article, they
>    would say "Oh, *those* hiring quotas".
    
>    All I ever asked for was true equal opportunity when applying for a
>    job. If those companies really wanted *only* minorities and women, they
>    should have said so, except that is probably illegal, hence the
>    ambiguous wording.

Guy, It sounds to me as though you think there's a problem with
companies hiring more minorities and women than the minimum they
were required to hire by law. Is that true, or am I misreading you?

Kathy

    Lets cut the crap
    You are angry at males. Your anger is misdirected. I am angry at
    parents. You and i -the both of us- have a lot more to blame on parents
    of both sexes for not reaching 'our destinies' than we have to blame on
    the 'male hierarchy'. I believe that you -and many others- have founded
    a place where you can bitch about inequity (and do lots of other things
    as well that don't interest me). My point is very simple that men and
    women in similar 'stations' in life share a lot more that we typically
    acknowledge. And your articulate debating does a lot more to enrage men
    than it does to convince them. If your goal is to convince men, you are
    using the wrong tactics. (by the way, i KNOW that my tactics are the
    wrong tactics too. I'm just bloody pissed off at watching a bunch of
    otherwise bright, caring, sensitive women pissing and moaning about
    men.)
    If we had absolutely the same gifts, same family, same whatevers who
    would 'go further' you or me?  Well, almost certainly me, but that's no
    reason to be angry at me or at any other man. You have a RIGHT to be
    pissed. But I have a right to be pissed too. And we can't be sensitive
    to each others pissedness, as long as we blame each other for our
    shortfalls.
    

>    and all the women able to read this note are one heluva lot more
>    empowered than the male Chicano farm laborers in California or the
>    male Black migrant farmers in the Gulf coast states (or even in Concord
>    Massachusetts).
    
    This is an argument I often hear from anti-feminist men.
    
    First, I'd add "... and the female Chicana farm laborers are less
    empowered still..."
    
    What the argument is really good for is glass ceiling stuff. As some
    members of oppressed groups work their way up the power structure, the
    fact that the vast majority remain dispossessed is supposed to keep
    them from getting overly ambitious; some warped sense of guilt is being
    appealed to, I guess. But you didn't see Ronald Reagan or Frank Sinatra
    refusing to grab every privilege available just because so many Irish
    and Italian immigrants didn't have it so good. Everyone AT EVERY LEVEL
    has to fight these battles -- sexism cuts across class boundries.
    
    This argument selectively holds "up from under" groups to a higher
    standard of social conscience, one which coincidentally requires them
    to not compete with the arguer. I'll take the argument more seriously
    when I hear a white guy refuse opportunities out of fellow feeling for
    "male Black migrant farmers".
    
    That's not to say that feminism hasn't had a checkered history as
    regards racism and classism. But the "what're you complaining about,
    look how much better off you are than X" argument doesn't do anything
    but defend the status quo.
    
    Ray

    Uh, well, thanx for all that, Herb.  I hope you feel better now.
    
    So you aren't going to clear up your meaning behind that paragraph, 
    then?  And you're upset with me for asking it?  You seem it.
    
    Ray Davis - *very nice*!  Well said!  But aren't you ascribing the same
    meaning to that paragraph that I did?  I wasn't supposed to think
    that...    
    
    Sandy

    
    re .76, Sandy:
    
>    Yes, Guy, there've been jobs I knew I was qualified for but didn't
>    bother applying for because over time you get worn down and you can
>    pretty much sense sometimes the kinds of situations for which
>    ultimately a white male will be hired.  So you start saying to yourself, 
>    "why waste the stamp" or "why waste the time".  When you do a whole lot
>    of wheel-spinning over the years, you begin to get a sense of where
>    you've got a shot, where you've got a small chance, where you've got
>    none.
    
    Yeah, but Sandy, that's not important, remember?
    

    Herb,
    
    I believe that you are flinging yourself into the path of a good deal
    of anger that is not directed at you. Why you are doing this I cannot
    begin to fathom.
    
    In .79 you state that were you and Sandy [and I assume by extension any
    female person] given the same start in life, you believe that it is
    reasonable to assume that you, rather than the woman, would 'go
    farther.'
    
    I agree.  And that makes me angry. Very, very angry.  Am I angry at
    you?  No, I am not.  Do I wish that you, or someone like you didn't
    have the edge? You bet I wish that.  Some days I wish you, and those
    like you weren't there to stand in my way; neverthe less I am not angry
    at men, and I am not angry at you specifically.
    
    My anger is directed at the inequity, and if this inequity is, as you
    say, of no interest to you I find your compulsion to discuss it an
    interesting exercise to say the least.
    
    I point of fact, I , personally , have more cause to lay my shattered
    dreams at the feet of the established male-dominated hierarchy than I
    do at the feet of my parents -- after all they had the emininent good
    sense to be members of the ruling class and bring me into it.  They
    brought me up to believe that I _could_ do anything [not acceptance,
    mind you, just innate ability and opportunity] and it wasn't until I
    hit the Real World that I realised that I had a bit of a handicap.
    
    While I have more in common with people in my 'station' in life in
    general; in my quest to succeed in a chosen professional I have more in
    common with women of all stations than with just about any man of my
    own.
    
      Annie
    
    

    Thanx, Annie, that was beautiful and says exactly how I feel, too.
    
    Hi Eagle!  Yeah, I guess my sensitivity radar got out of whack there,
    for a moment.  I know I should have known better.  I know I should have
    quietly backed down early on in the exchange.  But you know, sometimes 
    I just get pissed at all those otherwise intelligent, caring males who 
    are pissing and moaning about some perceived slight.  And I felt that
    expressing *that* kind of anger was probably ok for some reason... 
    Silly me, I forgot though.  I'm still a woman.  And therefore all anger 
    is "misplaced anger".  Bet I could knead a mean hunk o' bread dough right 
    now - or wash and wax an entire house full of floors!  ;^>
    
    S.                                                  

	re .63,

	Ann, those are interesting answers, but I believe they
	are not common ones.

	FWIW: I believe a better way to word the solicitation would
	be "Qualified candidates are encouraged to apply." or
	"Qualified candidates are encouraged to apply regardless of
	their [list of attributes]". Excludes no qualified candidates,
	even implicitly.

	re "pissing and moaning":

	This discussion appears to be a case of "What's sauce for the 
	goose...".
	
				Tom_K

    
    RE: .78
    
    Kathy, I have no problem with them hiring more minorities than
    required, but wish they co be more up front about it.
    
    From Feb 85, to Nov 86, I applied for at least 100 jobs a month.
    I developed my own criteria on which jobs to apply for. Now, suppose
    a minority with the same criteria as I sees the ad. Do they have to
    be "encouraged" to apply? Do they assume prejudice if no encouragement
    is listed; I would guess that would be the reason.
    
    Guy
    
    
    

re .44

	The bigotry and hate expressed in .44 make me feel very sad.
	Especially for the person who expressed it.


						Tom_K

    Tom_K
    
    Why is it bigotry and hate to describe exactly the way things have
    been for women and minorities for a long time? Your definition of
    those words and mine must differ a lot.
    
    Bonnie

I am appalled at the outright anger, bigotry, hatred, mudslinging and 
insensitivity that many people have shown in this note. I am tempted to say 
the hell with womannotes take a hike from this file. Who needs this nonsense?

But that won't do anything to change anyone's attitude. 

Bruce

RE: .88

>    Kathy, I have no problem with them hiring more minorities than
>    required, but wish they co be more up front about it.

Guy,

I keep thinking I must be missing your point, because if you
mean what it sounds like you mean, I'm shocked. If the government
says "Your company has 2400 employees, and you'd damn well better
have at least 200 minority and female employees" and the
company hires 400 minority and female employees, what does the
company have to be "up front" about? The quotas weren't put
in place to LIMIT diversity; they were put in place as a minimum
requirement.

I have yet to see a company with an employee pool (from management
to grunts) that is truly diverse. When one company does a little
better at it than required, why not applaud them instead of acting
as though they're trying to get away with something evil and sneaky?

Kathy
    

    
    Bruce, *you're* angry?  Don't make me laugh.  Here come a bunch
    of whining guys into *womannotes* who are angry - and because of
    what? An ad soliciting women and minorities to apply for a job?
    Don't you think that 1) you're going overboard a bit and 2)
    you could find a more sympathetic forum somewhere else like
    mennotes?  You expect *us* to sympathize with *you* after
    the way we've (as a group) have been treated for thousands
    of years?  You have a HELLUVA nerve, Bruce!  Well, *your*
    egocentric attitude makes *me* angry too!
    
    And before any other man makes a wild leap - the above is
    not hate or bigotry - it is anger - pure and simple.  And if
    that makes you uncomfortable, that is just TOUGH!!
    

	Bonnie,

 	I believe that bigotry is an accurate term for ascribing
	certain characteristics/behaviors to all members of a
	readily definable subset of the species. I believe the
	hate in the reply is self-evident. I also recognize
	the anger, as well. Anger is justified, bigotry is not.

					Tom_K

    I'm sorry I ever started this.  Didn't realize there were so many
    open wounds.

    
    My dear Tom_K, 
    
    Take your own inventory.
    
    Carla
    

    
    re .94:  If the hate in Carla's reply is so "self-evident",
    Tom, then how come the rest of us don't see it?  It's nice
    and neat for you to explain it away that way, isn't it?
    That way you don't have to think about the reply and the
    anger behind it and maybe there's just something justifiable
    about it?
    
    

>    re .94:  If the hate in Carla's reply is so "self-evident",
>    Tom, then how come the rest of us don't see it?  

	One possibility is that they feel the same way.

>	It's nice and neat for you to explain it away that way, isn't it?

	No, it is honest for me to explain it that way.

>    That way you don't have to think about the reply and the
>    anger behind it and maybe there's just something justifiable
>    about it?

	Despite the question mark, I failed to see the question.

		Tom_K
    
    

    I'm throwing my hat in with Carla's reply.
    
    It's ridiculous for men to try to deny that we have and still do occupy
    a place of privilege in this world.
    
    Get a grip, gentlemen.

    p.s.  forgot to sign my note there!
    
    DANIEL

    re: .99
    
    thank you, Daniel.
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  sure you didn't add the signature just to grab the .X00? ;)

    oh, I'm such a *PIG* aren't I? ;-)
    
    daniel (in little letter this time)

    
    re .98:  I suppose you must feel real good about yourself,
    occupying the moral high-ground and all there, Tom.
    

	No, as I mentioned in a previous reply, I feel sad.

				Tom_K

    
    yes by all means, lets puke, in unison. 
    I'll even hold the bag fer you..
    
    all this EO talk really boils down to class and gender war, not
    fairness. 
    
    thanks fer all the enlightenment..
      

    Ya know what got me PO'd years ago and still does when I think about
    it? Back in the last place I worked, a small company of 30 or so
    people, we got a phone call from the EEOC local office one day. They
    asked the person answering the phone if we had any blacks working
    there. He said yes, one. The person on the other end said that was
    right for the total number of employees we had at that time. Our black
    was Joe Black (Not his real 1st name) The person answering the phone
    thought it was the funniest thing she, yes she, ever did or said. We
    continued to get gov't. business and continued to discriminate. We did
    eventually hire a minority, but though he was a talented engineer with
    lots of ideas, he was never really listened to and kept checking other
    peoples work. Of course this was the type of a place where packaging
    engineering was "Gimmee a box. I'll make it fit." 
    
    Women were kept in secretarial positions or else in marketing jobs
    where they basically folded flyers. One woman made it to a senior sales
    position, but she was the president's secretary and sales wasn't the
    1st position she made it to. Not rumor or sour grapes, she admitted it
    to me and others. She didn't feel bad or degraded about it. She nearly
    revelled in the fact. 
    
    So, there are companies out there that still practice 1920's or earlier
    versions of how to treat the help. We are pretty lucky here, where,
    even though there are inadequacies and inequalities in our system, it
    is pretty fair. Hope it never changes, except for the better. 
    
    PJ

I'm not angry at the ad itself, or particularly upset by it. I do think it 
could have been written better.

It's some of the comments and replies that amaze me. Here are some attitudes 
that come screaming to me from the screen. 
 
  o Women have been wronged in the past, so whatever woman do now is fine.  
  o It's okay to be bigoted against men.
  o It's okay to discriminate against men but not women. After all, men 
    have the power.
  o Your only a man, so your attitude and opinion isn't worth a damn.
  o Your fathers and grandfathers got all the breaks, so men don't deserve
    anything.
  o Civil rights don't apply to men because they've gotten all the breaks in
    past.
  o All the women working for Digital are underprivileged, underpaid, under-
    employed and exploited, and every man reading this note is to blame.
  o All men are the enemy.

How can you possibly change things for the better with such destructive 
attitudes? 

Bruce





 

    That's right.  Most men *have* no idea the "open wounds" women and
    minorities live with.  Oh, maybe an intellectual idea, perhaps, but not
    the visceral feelings - the internalized ones - and the outward 
    reactions which are almost always repressed, (via name-calling, outright 
    hostility, etc), as is being done here somewhat.  And that repression
    of reaction not only contributes to those open wounds but also causes a 
    few of its own.  One sometimes feels like a caged animal poked at and 
    laughed at and then shot at if one dares to growl in response. 
    
    Guy, I mind companies that hire mostly white males for the good jobs
    and I'll tell you true, I wish the hell *they'd* be more upfront about
    it!  I've gotten the runaround so many times over the years from
    companies that just need to interview x number of women before they can
    hire the man they want.  They've wasted my time, they've worn down my
    energies, they've contributed to my cynicism and anger.  And all to
    "get around" what's right and what's fair.  Now *that's* sneaky,
    bigotted and worthy of contempt - not the reactions of those who get
    successfully flim-flammed by it.
    
    I always get a kick that a problem isn't often a problem until women
    become involved.  If we just let men have their say here and don't
    refute them, don't challenge them, don't contradict them, I can almost
    guarantee there would be no charges of "hate" "anger" and "bigotry". 
    Once a woman responds, it seems that suddenly we have  "heated
    exchange", the origin of which most often seems to be with the woman's
    response.  It reminds me of the time I watched this group where all the
    men came and went as they wished.  Came in late, left early, took long
    lunches, etc.  No problem.  And it went on for months.  But then some
    of the women started doing it, too.  Suddenly, the manager sent out a
    stern warning about this "problem", which hadn't been a problem before.
    Everyone behaved for awhile and then the men began drifting back into
    their old patterns.  There wasn't another memo issued.  The "problem"
    had resolved itself.  I see the same kind of thing here.  The "problem"
    is that women are standing here toe to toe and giving it right back and
    so it seems that there's "mud-slinging" going on when in fact, there's
    no such thing.  There's some good dialogue here about a real problem
    and some men who are very surprised to learn of the magnitude of it.
    And the expression of their surprise is taking various forms.  But that
    those expressions are being met head on is NOT the problem or even A
    problem!  Well, at least it shouldn't be.  But I do understand that in
    a society where women are supposed to be quiet and happy with what they
    get, such a standing up is indeed seen as the beginning, the origin, of
    a problem.  And it isn't.  The origin is the sexism built into our
    system.  Women's responses in this string to the text in the basenote,
    (and to men's attempts to quiet their responses to the text in the
    basenote), is many, many layers removed from the true origin of the 
    problem.  So let's not point halfway down the line to the place where
    women stand up and say, "wait a minute", and say, "that's where the
    problem begins".  It betrays an almost hopelessly ingrained sexism
    where an "alarm" goes off in one's head such that the original issue 
    being discussed is tossed by the wayside in favor of this new, and "more
    important" issue - women talking back.  Some men *say* they understand
    and accept women's anger, but their actions prove otherwise if they
    simply cannot get by it.  If it so totally takes their attentions away
    from the topic being discussed, it obviously isn't something they
    "understand" OR "accept".  And if it's something they must deal with
    forthwith before going on to anything else, then it's clear that they
    have some deep-seated issue about women expressing anger and should
    probably take it to another string or drop it altogether.  
                             
    Sandy 

    yah, but then there's the company in (Chicago?) that was featured on 60
    minutes a while back.  As near as I can remember the details (somebody
    with better memory, correct my mistakes, ok?):
    
    Seems their workforce is nearly entirely black and latino, but one or
    two (black, I think) people whose applications were declined on
    account of they were not qualified, filed complaints with EEOC saying
    they were denied jobs on accounta discrimination.  The EEOC comes in,
    investigates, and SUPPORTS the claims -- the company may go under,
    paying the fines, because hiring virtually all minorities is not
    enough, when the minorities argue among themselves about who is more
    discriminated against and refuse to EVER consider that merit might have
    something to do with it.
    
    so this can backfire, and benefit nobody.  What a world.
    
    Sara
    

    No Bruce, civil rights don't belong to men because they still don't
    belong to women and minorities.
    
    And once again, (sigh), *women's attitudes* are not responsible for 
    the way things are, (men's attitudes are, dare I say!), nor can they,
    as the underclass, change things much if the power structure doesn't
    want them to.  We can smile and be hopeful until the cows come home and 
    go back out again but if we did that, we'd still be pouring the coffee 
    and typing all the memos - um, *if* our husbands let us go to work in the 
    first place and *if* a company needed another coffee pourer/memo typer. 
    
    Sandy

    Tom,
    
    In note 970.98, you quoted a previous note:  ``If the hate in Carla's
    reply is so "self-evident", Tom, then how come the rest of us don't
    see it?'' and then replied, "One possibility is that they feel the
    same way."
    
    The only way I can make any sense out of that reply is if it means
    ~If other people believe what Carla believes then they will not believe
    her belief is hateful.~  But in that case, you are claiming that
    if many people share the same view of reality, then they are being
    hateful -- WHETHER OR NOT THE VIEW IS CORRECT.
    
    And then you talk about honesty.
    
    						Ann B.

	Civil rights belong to everyone.

	When they are usurped, retaking them is proper. Usurping
	others rights, is not.


				Tom_K

	Ann,

	I claimed a possibility, not a actuality. I believe 
	.99 validates that view.

	Honesty is always the best policy.

				Tom_K
	

    <The only way I can make any sense out of that reply is if it means
    <~If other people believe what Carla believes then they will not believe
    <her belief is hateful.~  But in that case, you are claiming that
    <if many people share the same view of reality, then they are being
    <hateful -- WHETHER OR NOT THE VIEW IS CORRECT.
    
     Awe cummon, Ann
    
    It's clear to me that Tom was concluding that the reason others didn't
    see Carla's anger was that they shared it and -thus- suffered from the
    same blind spot.
    
    I don't know if its accurate, or logical, or sensible but it certainly
    seems clear enuf.
    
    What's the point? are we all getting caught up in a debate?
    
    				herb
    

    Herb,
    
    So you are saying that "anger" is the same as "hate".  Or that
    Tom is *entitled* to believe, without correction, that the two
    are the same.  And to still call himself honest.
    
    							Ann B.

	A note:

	honest != correct

		Tom_K

It would be nice if we could work together toward a common understanding,
mutual respect, and worthwhile goals.  

Why is it so damn difficult?

Bruce
  

    Not saying anything other than that it seemed that you must have
    understood  what he had in mind. That you seemed to chose to act as if
    you didn't, suggested to me that you had gone into debating mode.
    I was expressing surprise -and disappointment- that's all.
    Sorry if it seemed more than that.
    
    				herb

    For a starter, Bruce, you could learn that what "come[s] screaming
    to [you] from the screen" does not bear a whole lot of resemblence
    to what was written onto the screen.  You could learn that silence
    is not necessarily a negator:  ~Women and minorities welcome~ does
    not have to mean ~Caucasian men unwelcome~.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .118
    
    a) because women feel the need to express their anger at MEN	
    b) because men feel the anger is being expressed at them individually
    c) because there really ARE some women in this conference who seem to
       despise virtually all males (and their voices are loud)
    d) because a public place is not the place for a support group
    e) because for some men supporting women feels too emasculating
    
    am sure you can come up with some more, Bruce
    

    I find the note offensive in the same I would if it said,
      "Job opening for such and such a job.  Caucasion men are
    encouraged to apply."
    
    Just doesn't sit right with me either way.
    
    
    
                                       L.J.

    
    RE: .92
    
    Kathy, I don't think I mean what you think I mean. I was not suggesting
    any limitation of diversity or not supporting minority hiring or
    whatever. I was trying to make two points in .88:
    
    1. I was lied to regarding hiring quotas. All they had to say was yes
       we have them.
    
    2. I went on several interviews where it was clear that they only
       wanted minority candidates - they told me so.
       Perhaps, If they had put in a notice about it being a minority
       owned and operated business, I wouldn't have applied.
    
    
    Perhaps, since working at DEC, I've been in so many diverse groups,
    and have had minorities as my direct supervisors, I didn't realize that
    minorities still might not apply for a job unless encouraged to.
    
    Guy
    

    	Well, I'm coming in here late and all, so I'm just trying to
    	figure out the rules:
    
    	Do I win if I declare unequivocably that I am positively 100%
    	certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of the notes written
    	to women in this topic are definitive proof that the authors of
    	these notes hate all women?
    
    	Just checking...  :-)
    

    Someone doesn't "believe what he saw"??
    
    I don't believe what I'm *reading*!!
    
    How many times does it have to pointed out that the ad in question DID
    NOT exclude men but merely encouraged people who may not otehrwise have
    applied?
    
    I really think that the men in the string are generally missing a major
    point.  Yes, it is true that white, upper class women occupy a higher
    social role than male migrant farm workers.  But it was also pointed
    out that the FEMALE migrant farm workers occupy an even lower role. 
    Therein lies a problem.
    
    At EVERY STRATA of our society, women occupy a less empowered niche
    than their male counterparts.  There are countless sociological studies
    to back this up.  Education research shows that even in a classroom
    which is 2/3 women, the remaining men will dominates up to 70% of the
    conversation.  I've seen it in action, and I believe it is a result of
    the underlying metamessage hurled at women daily: 
    
    "Don't bother, honey, you don't count.  Go home and play with Barbie
    long enough and Ken will come along..."
    
    Do lots of women escape this?  Sure, but not without difficulty, and
    the ad discussed here is NOT discriminating against men -- it is
    encouraging the applications of people who may very well have not
    bothered to try otherwise because of deeply ingrained socialization
    processes.
    
    In fact, look at it this way, if hiring guidelines either suggest or
    require a certain number of employees be from group X isn't it in
    everyone's best interest to have as many people from said group apply
    as possible?  You get a better sample of people that way.
    
    What *really* disturbs me is seeing all of this hoopla on
    womannotes...a woman makes a perfectly valid set of observations on the
    privileged place men occupy in the world and all of a sudden, men come
    jumping out of the woodwork shouting "That's not fair!  That's not
    fair!"
    
    Life isn't fair.  Is it fair that women are cut up and marketted for
    mass consumption in the media?  Is it fair that a white woman needs a
    masters degree to earn as much as a white male with a bachelors?  That
    a black woman needs a PhD?  Is it fair women are *ACTIVELY* discouraged
    from going into the sciences? (C.S. majors out there -- how many women
    were in your classes?  No fair those who went to women's colleges! ;-)
    
    There's certainly no foul in trying to point out these realities and no
    harm whatsoever in encouraging people to apply.  I agree with what was
    said earlier, it is *ASSUMED* that men will apply, but many tallented
    women who have had the fact that they are women held against them all
    their lives may not.
    
    This whole thing is starting to sound like a Robert Bly seminar or
    something.  Why can't all the "Iron Johns" around here get a grip and
    stop whining about women dissin' on men???
    
    Oh, I guess the sopabox refugees can start calling me a "feminazi" or
    something like that...
      
    Daniel
    

    Daniel, you said what I was thinking!
    
    I think its funny that the men don't realize or don't want to admit 
    that white-male is always implied. Only when it is otherwise is it 
    blatantly stated.
    Like in the newspaper or on the news, 'man' implies 'white man' if it
    is otherwise, it is always stated. LET ME ADD that this is changing
    little by little. 
    And the fact that men were put off by that add is interesting. How do
    you think it feels to have to have a special statement that includes
    minorities? If one gender/race wasn't implied, it wouldn't be necessary
    to 'include' others.
    
    Hannah
    

    I've thought about this some more.
    
    �"T&N would like women and minority candidates to 
    �apply for these positions."

    You can read this two ways. 1: if you're not a woman or a minority,
    then do not apply. 2: if you're a woman or a minority, then apply.

    The choice of words is critical and #2 is what they are really saying.

    But still, something bugged me about the ad. Something about it was
    wrong. Then I asked myself why did they exclude white men from the
    list of applicants that they would like to see? They could have said
    "All applications are welcome, including women and minorities."

    I have to wonder just how welcome a white male applicant would be.

    If I were COOKIE::LENNARD, I'd raise this question to his local human
    resources or personnel department. At the very least, they will clear
    up this misunderstandiong and work with the person who wrote the ad
    so that we don't have this problem again.

    And maybe it's just a case of sloppy wording and you'll have yourself
    a new job.

    I'm very surprised to see so many people here defending the exclusion
    of men from the list of invited applicants.
    
                                   L.J.

re: .118
    
>It would be nice if we could work together toward a common understanding,
>mutual respect, and worthwhile goals.  

>Why is it so damn difficult?
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    
    one of the reasons it is so difficult is that you are requesting we
    play nice, and be nice, and yield, and validate your point of view,
    before you have validated ours.
    
    I am a lot more tractable when I realize that somebody not only
    understands what shit I had to go through to get here, and offers
    empathy or sympathy GENUINELY.
    
    sometimes I refuse to play nice or be nice or make any pretense of
    assuaging YOUR situation, until you realize mine.  FULLY and
    completely.  Live it for a while, put on a wig and a padded bra and
    tell me what changes in your life.
    
    Then tell me to play nice, and that communication is the key, and that
    will fix everything, and make it all better.
    
    -Jody
    
 

    No, Suzanne, you'd be unfairly generalizing and doing so because
    basically, you really hate all men.  You have no way of knowing 
    what these men are thinking and your pronouncements would be rather
    presumptuous.  But then we know your type anyway, don't we?!
    
    Sandy-a-friend-of-Suzanne's-so-stay-calm-everyone!

 Kudos to those who've attempted to keep their replies within the realm of
reasoned discourse.

 The Doctah

    That was great, Jody.
    
    Hannah - 
    
    >If one gender/race wasn't implied, it wouldn't be necessary to 
    >'include' others.
    
    Bingo.  That's it.  Some of the male voices in here are denying the
    basic premise that one gender/race is always implied, therefore this
    "inclusion" isn't really necessary, therefore it's there specifically
    to be discriminatory and should be eliminated, which would bring the
    ad safely back to the comfortable white male default.  Uh-huh.
    
    S.

    .127 (I think), L.J. has put her finger on it.  The writers of this ad
    worded it so poorly as to leave it open to the questions that have been
    raised here.  Nearly everyone, women and men both, who has replied here
    has seemed to me to be reading their own beliefs, and their own
    perceptions of the _intent_ of the ad, into both the ad and to the
    reactions of others to it.
    
    Yes, women and minorities of both genders have been kept down for ever.
    
    Yes, the individual white males now in existance are responsible only
    for their own actions, and not for The Patriarchy, or Slavery, or even
    Jim Crow laws.
    
    (Even if white men have benefitted from the system, they are not
    responsible as individuals for it's structure; and like all of life it's
    a tradeoff -- they lost some stuff that some men are now trying to
    reclaim, like time with their kids for ex.  And women have benefitted
    in some ways from the existing system -- none of us was drafted to
    perform, and be subjected to, horrors in Vietnam, for instance
    -- just as we have been victims of that same system.)
    
    The point is not to get mired in who-had/has-it-worser-under-the-system,
    the point IS to make the system better, to make it work for everybody.
    Even white men.
    
    Yes, prejudice and discrimination still exist and must be changed, for
    the benefit of _all_ of us.
    
    Yes, this can be done in a way that does not exclude anybody.  That has
    to be a conscious goal.
    
    Yes, this ad blew it.
    
    Sara

    One thing I really look forward to when (finally!) there is equality in
    hiring:  just think how satisfying it will be for white men to know
    that they are truly the best applicant for the job because of  _skills_
    and _experience_.  What a sweet feeling.

    Maybe then, feeling good about themselves, they will calm down some. 
    
       Margaret  dreaming of a better future

    For me this whole discussion is reminiscent of an incident that
    occurred about 3 years ago.  The women in the organization I worked for
    had a "day" where we discussed what we, as women, could do for ourselves
    and what we, as women, could do to support and help other women.  The VP
    asked that we come to his functional staff and present the results. 
    Among the information on the 5-or-so slides I presented was the line
    
    "Sponsor women for Jobs"
    
    I hadn't even progressed to that point on the slide before one of the
    men on the staff zeroed in on it.  He asked how I would feel if he got
    up with a slide that said "Sponsor men for jobs".  I told him that I
    figured that was happened anyway and why not formalize it.  I then went
    on to explain that we believed that we needed to be sure that qualified
    women were visible when jobs became available; that we keep hearing
    that the organziation wanted more women and people of difference but
    wasn't having any luck recruiting them etc.  This had no impact on him.
    He insisted on going back to that line several times during the
    remainder of my presentation and again during the presentation
    following it.  Two years later, the woman who presented after
    me had a meeting with this man and he brought it up again.
    
    My thought -  My, my, get's a little threatening when WE decide to play
    the game deosn't it?  
    
    On the note in general --
    
    As the only woman on an otherwise all white male staff, I have NO
    problem with proactive attempts to recruit people of difference and
    women.  Having been excluded from opportunities in my younger days
    (and in one case in the fairly recent past) simply because I'm a woman,
    I have trouble sympathising with men who find such efforts unfair
    and/or threatening.
    
    Polly
                                                 

re .132

	Bravo!

		Tom_K

    
     Maybe, just maybe, someday, there will not be a need for "quotas".
    
    It never did make sense to me why someone in power, would not want
    to hire the best person for the job anyway. It would only make there
    job easier by hiring the best......so, these days we have quotas
    as a result of not using common sense over the years I guess. 
    
      It is interesting to see how the men + women here are responding.
    Looks like the saying is true about "...what ever side of the fence
    your on...."
    
    Jack
    

    
    I feel like I say this same thing every few months or so.  Maybe I'll
    spend a little time on it, extract it to a file, and just plug it in so
    I don't have to keep finding new ways to say the same thing...  Here
    goes.
    
    
    The only legitimate reason I can think of for a man to participate here 
    in WOMANnotes is that he wants to learn about women, and many men
    here have actually said that that is why they are here.  And yet, when
    an opportunity to learn something about women that is something other
    than sweetness and light (for example, when it's anger that is being
    expressed) presents itself, suddenly men don't want to learn -- they want 
    to teach.  And it pisses me off.  I (personally) don't come here to read 
    what men think of women - I can see that on TV, in text books, on 
    billboards, in the laws -- in other words, just about everywhere else.  
    That is why I (and I think many other women) feel so defensive about this 
    space.  There isn't much else on the planet that even has the word woman 
    in it.
    
    Some women are interested in men's views of women, the world, etc, and
    so by definition, men's voices are a topic of interest to women.  But I
    think when you (generic you) want to learn, it's best to be as open as
    possible, open to receiving.  For example, a man enters a note about a
    job ad saying that it makes him mad, and quite a few women enter quick
    replies saying something different.  It seems to me that a man who
    wanted to learn about women would look at that reaction and see what it
    could teach him about (some) women.  It's hard not to take stuff
    personally, but I think folks learn more when they suspend judgement
    (at least a little longer than they might usually) and when they spend as
    much energy looking for opportunities to listen as they do for
    opportunities to talk.
    
    Justine 
                                                                  
    
    General disclaimer -- I only mean "all" when I use the word "all."
    Otherwise, I mean "not all"

    re.138
    
    ~eagles~
    
    I can honestly and sincerely empathise with the stress that WASP men
    endure when faced with the 'edge' that EEO/AA might offer equally
    qualified female and/or minority candidates.
    
    The stress is probably exactly the same as that which women and/or
    minorities endure[d] in the absence of EEO/AA when the 'edge' cut in
    favour of WASP men.
    
    I am sincerely sorry that _any_one has to face this stress.  But, in a
    very real sense, I feel like saying "Welcome to the _real_ world,
    guys."
    
    Not for payback. Not for spite.
    
    I don't want to 'take turns' being stressed.  Stress is a part of life.
    There have been times when I thought I'd never get a job; or going in
    against an equally qualified candidate who fit the WASPman mold made my
    stomach turn with the anxiety of trying to make a connection.
    
    It ain't easy for anyone.  I can't say as I like the implementation of
    EEO/AA; but I gotta have _something_.
    
      Annie

    i think there is another legitimate reason for a man to be here
    and that is to try to convince women that 
    	o the public is not the correct place to have a support group
    	o women hold a much larger share of the responsibility for us men
          then you seem willing to acknowledge.
    	  For every father who taught his son that he should "dominate"
    	  or take precedence over women, there was a mother who stood by
    	  and let it happen or actively reinforced the message.
    	  For every father who taught his daughter that she should be
          dominated by men, there was a mother standing by meekly and
          mutely acknowledging the "truth" of his message, or actively
    	  supporting his message.
    
    
    				herb

    I'd say that for every father who..., there was a woman who was equally
    dominated by his wishes.
    
    And further, it matters not what is the "correct" place for a support
    group.  We like this one, and therefore that makes it "correct" and so 
    we'll keep it, thanx.
    
    And one last thing - women's entire lives are spent listening to men
    trying to convince them of XYZ.  Actions speak louder than words.  What
    we think is the result of what we've seen.  To change that, we've gotta
    see something different.  And we haven't yet - not much.  When that
    happens, no one will have to come in here trying with words to convince
    us that what we've seen isn't what really is.  I think we can trust our
    own eyes.
    
    Sandy

    	If people think we should "work together" to find a solution for
    	discrimination, then part of that should be to "share" some of
    	the burden that minorities and women face in the world as a 
    	result of discrimination.
    
    	It's rather hollow to suggest that "working together" is fine as
    	long as white males are never, EVER expected to pay the kind of
    	price that many minorities and women are *already paying* for having 
    	a certain color skin or sex.
    
    	When someone says, "Why should I pay for the sins of my fathers?"
    	- I think to myself, "Is it better that minorities and women keep
    	paying for your fathers' sins instead?"
    
    	Let's share the burden and the price (and get this thing fixed so
    	we can get on with other matters.)

    Yes, Suzanne, I think that's what they want.  That the status quo
    remain until, *together* we can find a way to make "everyone" happy,
    (and yes, never lower the current level of happines for white men),
    and if it never happens, well, we gave it our best shot.  I personally
    think they simply cannot comprehend that it's really "that bad".  That
    when they perceive they are losing out because of a vaguely worded ad
    or something, it's so distasteful to them, that they just can't compre-
    hend living an entire life that way.  We non-white males *must* be making 
    this up.  We *must* just have some axe to grind.  There *must* be something
    else.  Managers in business just *wouldn't* do that sort of thing.  It can't
    *really* be as we say.  Spoken in a tiny whisper: <it is!>
    
    Sandy

    	Agreed, Sandy!
    
    	Some of the comments we hear back at us with regard to minorities'
    	and women's rights are really strange:
    
    	       "Well, not ALL white males are VP's with yachts, etc."
    
    	I can't help wondering:
    
    	       "Gee, are the rest of us in the world in line BEHIND
    		every white male on the planet?  Do we have to wait
    		until every white male is a VP or equivalent before
    		expecting to have problems such as the 'glass ceiling'
    		addressed?"

    I'm entering this for a member of our community who wishes to be
    anonymous at this time.
    
    Justine -- Womannotes comod
    
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I recently lost out on a job for which I was the most qualified 
candidate to a white male who had flubbed up on the last three 
projects he was assigned to.  What made this particularly hard to take 
was that my supervisor had said 'don't worry, you'll get the job, 
everyone knows his track record'.  I was stunned when the hiring 
supervisor told me he had been chosen over me.  It was a tough 
decision she said but they decided he was more experienced in project 
leading.  Not true in reality.
 
For the first time ever in my career, I got angry enough over the 
injustice of this to take it to the next level of management.  I 
wanted to know why this happened.  Their first reaction was that they 
didn't realize how important this was to me and that 'if only' I had 
shown more interest, perhaps the decision would have been different.
Um, I applied for the job, I interviewed for it and told them I wanted it; 
I felt that argument didn't hold water.  So I pressed further, till 
finally I was told that sometimes when someone has floundered in 
previous assignments they like to give the person every opportunity to 
prove themselves.  They gave the job to him because they thought maybe 
this was something he could succeed at where he had failed at other 
projects in the past.
 
Is this company policy, I wonder, to reward incompetence?  If a woman
had screwed up repeatedly would she be treated as royally?
 
Signed, 
 
Exasperated
    

re .136

	I didn't read anything in this string that indicated anyone
	was uncomfortable with the idea that women are not satisfied 
	to be cast into a second-class role in society.

re .139

	I refuse to be a guest in my own house.

					Tom_K

    
    	What??  And I thought this was *my* house.  :-}
    

    re. ?? in .146  FWIW
    
    Yes, it has been my experience that it is a universal policy
    that incompetance is rewarded.  Sad but true.
    
    8*(
    Pam

    re:.136  (the last paragraph)
    
       On an entirely personal level I've *never* been with a man
    who didn't pull his share of work around the house.  And yes,
    they knew the stereo-typical men things about cars and electrical
    stuff that I personally know didly about.
    
       I know you weren't trying to say all men are this way...but
    either they are changing or I've been exceedingly lucky.
    
    
    
                                   L.J.

When I came to Digital 10 years ago, I was the first man hired into my group.
I'm still with this group. The top senior manager is a woman, and she reports to
a male vice president. The next senior manager is a woman, and the cost center 
manager under her is a woman. 

There are more female supervisors than male. More senior and above positions are
filled by females than by males. 

They have gotten to their positions through merit. They are a great group of 
people to work with. More power to them.

I don't know what goes on in other groups, but I would be damn skeptical of 
any woman in my group who complained of sexual bias.

Bruce

    
    Why don't you take a look just a wee bit higher . . where the
    real power lies, say, at the VP level.  And on up.  Still no 
    sexist bias?  Still equal representation of men:women?
    
    You could take a look at the housecleaning staff of a motel
    and cry, "But look at all the women and minorites we employ!"
    And I would say, yes, but look at how they are employed.
    
    Carla
    

    re:.139
    
    With views that dictate what men should be here for, in fact "The
    only legitimate reason" for a man to participate here, thank goodness 
    you're not a moderator.
    
    Some people would say that attitude makes objectivity impossible.
    
    
    What about the women here?  What should we be doing, in your opinion?
    
    
                                      L.J.

    re .153 re .139

    Just a nit ... Justine *is* a moderator - I believe her note was
    intended to present her personal views, to distinguish them from
    her actions/prerogatives as a moderator. (Not trying to put words
    in her fingers...)

Bruce (.151),
    
<<I don't know what goes on in other groups, but I would be damn skeptical of 
any woman in my group who complained of sexual bias.

    Funny Bruce I'm a member of the same group and I could site a few
    incidences of sexual bias, but then you'd be damn skeptical and I'd
    be betraying confidences...so I'll leave it at that!  |^(
    
    Ro
    
    

    
    well by all means lets invite gummint to prop up a few showpiece
    female VPs fer appearances sake regardless of ability and trade 
    the evyl myn's kabal for a true femocracy...
    

    Re: .108
    
    >How can you possibly change things for the better with such
    >destructive attitudes? 
    
    Probably the most destructive attitude in the world is the "I am right;
    you are wrong" attitude.
    
    Someone posted a note, claiming it showed discrimination and asking for 
    comments.  Several people responded, saying that they didn't see any 
    discrimination.  The argument quickly degenerated into the usual "see
    how women discriminate against men; they're really not interested in 
    equality; they just want to knock men down" vs "men have had it great
    all along; why don't you wait until you have something real to whine 
    about" stuff.  (It's not like we're covering any new ground here.)
    
    Instead of accepting that some people don't see the ad as
    discriminatory, you've chosen to believe that they hate men or resent
    men, but regardless, they're wrong, wrong, wrong about the ad.  Now,
    maybe it's just so obvious to you that the ad discriminates that's it's
    simply impossible for you to imagine how someone else could fail to see
    it.  If so, I suggest you take a break and come back when you _can_
    acknowledge the fact that people see things differently -- not because 
    they're out to get you, but because they're different people.

    .141
    
    I don't often respond but this note really pushed my buttons.
    
    Where do you suggest "the correct place" for a support group
    may be?  The kitchen?  The closet?  A room in a state hospital?
    C'mon herb, wherever people can get support is the correct place.
    
    And of course, of course, let's blame the woman, the mother, for
    man's inability to take responsibility for his own life.
    
    Argh.
    
    Maia
    

    Discrimination isn't disproved by simply displaying a woman in a mangement
    position.  You don't simply compare the number of men to the number 
    of women in the same role and leave it at that, (although it can be
    *one* measure).  You must compare what a woman is doing with what she is 
    *capable* of doing.  There well may be women managers, but if they far 
    more qualified than their male peers, *there has been gender dis-
    crimination* in their careers.
    
    Women are "allowed" to be managers in non-critical areas.  Publishing
    comes to mind.  Slowly, tech writing is being "handed over" to women,
    (when this is done it's because men don't want it), and I personally am 
    noticing its decline in status over the years, which goes right along with 
    it.  Are these managers capable of running a UNIX development project? 
    Probably.  Do they generally get the opportunity to compete for them on
    a fair level?  What do you think?  So is the woman tech writing manager
    proof that discrimination does or does not exist?  And is the
    middle-level manager slot the top for women even in publishing/writing?  
    Usually.  Please understand I'm taking nothing away from women who are
    tops in their field and who've deserve at least these positions.  If
    they didn't, if they'd "flubbed up", they most certainly wouldn't have
    these positions! 
    
    I believe they've gotten them, though  specifically because they are 
    *more* capable than the slot requires.  These kinds of positions  
    give companies defense against potential EEO charges or even personal
    grumblings like what's going on here.  Before the "threat" of that, women 
    didn't even have *these* chances!  A few "get through" the net because 
    they are needed where they are - not necessarily for their skills,
    (although that's required too but I'm sure they'd prefer a white male
    in the slot), but for their gender.  And most are paid less than their 
    male counterparts, (ask any secretary who sees the salaries - I was one
    - I saw them!), most work harder and longer, most have less power, get
    rated more stringently, get the lower status office and get the projects 
    the higher powered men don't want.  But they're *there*, right?!
    
    I remember losing out to a *far* less qualified man, (they also hid the
    req from me, too, because they knew I'd want it and that I was
    obviously the best person for the job but they wanted a man in the slot).  
    And then this new hire was trotted into my office for me to train!  
    That's when I quit.  
    
    I remember one noter some years back who said she was on an interview
    with the required credentials where the manager said he believed she
    could do the work but that he just couldn't "bring himself" to give her
    the job.  Was that you, Suzanne?  The truth is that it's *men* who
    bring their personal prejudice into business and who lower the quality
    of the workforce because of it.  It's men who have a tendency to scrape
    the bottom of the male barrel before ever even looking at the cream at
    the top of the female barrel.  Because they just can't "bring
    themselves" to do it.  We "make them uncomfortable" as Jody says.  They
    cannot be professional.  And they are in power.
    
    Sandy  
    
    

    Let's take a look at what's happened here.
    
    At the literal level, someone posted a note about something that
    bothered him and asked, "Doesn't this bother any of you?"  I think this 
    falls under the heading of "Don't ask questions you don't want to know 
    the answer to."
    
    
    At the message level, someone posted a note saying, "Look!  Men are
    being discriminated against in favor of women and minorities.  Isn't
    that terrible?"  There are basically two responses to a hand-wringing 
    appeal like this:
    
    1.  "Oh, how awful!"
    2.  "Get a life."
    
    Looking at this situation, what answer do you expect?
    
    If you expect the first answer, you're being naive.  As I said, we've
    covered this ground before, and there's no reason to believe that
    things will be any different this time around.  (The triumph of hope
    over experience is willful naivete.)  So, if you're upset because you
    didn't get the first response, all I can say is, you had unrealistic
    expectations and we're not responsible for your disappointment.
    
    But perhaps you expected the second response.  In this case, someone
    posted a note, women gave the expected response and got chewed out. 
    Sounds like a set-up, doesn't it?  If you felt you were the victim of a
    set-up, wouldn't you be ticked?  (The next step is for a note to appear
    in Mennotes saying, "Someone posted this note in Womannotes and got 
    jumped all over; isn't that terrible?")
    
    So, which response did you expect?

     > a) Men should be read/only
    
    Not at all. Learning is helped by conversation.
    
    > b) Women can learn and should learn nothing whatsoever from men here.
 
    Nothing that they don't already know from living in men's world, no.
    
    >c) The corporation has provided an environment in which one group can
    >act with impunity in debasing another group, and they (the other group)
    >are to shut up about it.

    Yup.  It's called patriarchy, the white male default, the glass
    ceiling, etc.  But you didn't mean THAT, did you!
    
    >Frankly, I think that if the corporation is going to provide a therapy
    >space for specific groups, those groups ought to be open only to members
    >of those groups.
    
    Sure, ok.  That's doable.  If you feel that way, you can help
    voluntarily to make this space more that way!
    
    >I just don't know what the right thing is here.
    
    We're all trying to figure it out.  I'm sure most of us are interested
    in "the right thing".

    >All members of the target groups of these conferences have to put up with 
    >insensitive, ludicrous, moronic and inflammatory replies.
    
    When it happens to women and minorities, it's called simply "life".
    
    >And it sounds like you think you shouldn't have to.
    
    You mean we should have to put up with it?
    
    >the corporation says everybody is allowed to play, 
    
    The fact that its actions prove that they do *not* really believe that is 
    the basis of the whole problem, you see.
    
    >And in the final analysis, all of these employee conferences are play 
    
    Exactly.  So don't take them as seriously as what goes on in real life.
    And what goes on in real life is exactly what you are saying goes on
    here and what disgusts you - only in real life, where it really counts,
    it happens only to those *other* than white males.
    
    > I personally believe it was extremely impolitic for Lennard to start 
    >this string here.
    
    I don't.  I think the nitty-gritty is good.  It's only "impolitic" in
    that it's bursting a few bubbles.  Is that wrong to do?
    
    >I can't imagine what he hoped to accomplish, except to inflame.
    
    Inflame who?  What women are saying are things they already know. 
    We're saying what we're saying because we're *already* inflamed.  So
    who is being newly inflamed?  Who's is experiencing shock and surprise
    here?  Not me!  Probably not most of the women responding.
    
    >Many of the notes in this string would probably fit better in "Primal 
    >Scream."

    Where women can just blow off steam and leave the men blissfully
    untouched?  A place where it really doesn't count?
    
    >I absolutely agree that women are the focus of this conference and that
    >strings which take away from this focus are ill advised and ill conceived.

    And you're assuming this string is doing this?  On who *is* the focus
    of this string, then?
    
    >When someone behaves in a way that is blatantly hypocritical, it is 
    >extremely difficult to keep one's mouth shut.
    
    Then you can understand why women's mouths are open, yes?
    
    >Notes provides an opportunity for many diverse people to engage in 
    >discussion, flirt, debate, criticise, complain and chatter. 
    
    As long as the complaining and criticising is certain boundaries
    acceptable to men?
    
    >Unfortunately, people tending to be vain, we don't want to admit, "yeah, 
    >I'm selfish, too bad!"
    
    I know.  Instead they say, "You're not qualified for the job" or "he
    flubbed up so we're giving him another chance", idiotic stuff like
    that.  And so our mouths are open about it.
    
    > We all need to learn to grow as noters.
    
    But self-centered hiring managers don't need to learn to grow as
    people?
    
    >I quite often get the feeling when reading your notes that you feel that 
    >women are through growing and that men have to catch up. 
    
    Um, you're not going to like this, but yes.  Men have to catch up.  Get
    with the program.
    
    >I think that's an unfortunate attitude.
    
    It isn't so much an attitude as it is a fact, borne out by the likes of
    men who are "too uncomfortable" to put the best person in the job.
    
    >I suspect that the corporation mandates the possibility of a bit more 
    >male-female (in this case) interaction than you'd like.
    
    If so, it's only in notes and other, low-level, social kinds of things. 
    When it comes to the plum jobs, money and status, it prefers a lot
    *less* male-female interaction than we'd like.
    
    >It's unfortunate that your wants are at odds with the corporation, 
    
    It's more than unfortunate, it's wrong to treat people this way.
    
    >but I think we have to deal with that.
    
    We're doing that.  Strings like this is part of how we wish to do that.
    
    >And part of dealing with that is understanding that men will be here. 
    
    We're quite cognizant of the domineering presence of men in our lives.
    
    >The corporation says "make room for all." 
    
    No.  Its says "make room here for these kinds of people and make room
    over there for those".
    
    >it doesn't have to erupt into a major backlash by fuming women. 
    
    No, it doesn't have to, but that's what happens!  And it should serve
    as a lesson about how much anger and frustration bubbles under the
    surface of smiling women.  It may serve to enlighten people as to what
    our lives are really like.  This file, (this simple play), is pretty
    much the only place we *get* to stamp and fume.  Everyplace else, it's
    "smile" or we won't get even the crumbs we do get.  
    
    If life were fair, if life were only *as fair* as it is for white men,
    you wouldn't be seeing this at all.
    
    I know you meant all your comments to address only notes.  But they are
    comments that are easily applied the other way - to the lives women
    lead - and that's what I've done to make my point.  Everything you say
    is absolutely true.  And it should be that way in notes.  But it isn't
    in women's lives, so what the hell!  No sympathy.
    
    Sandy

re: .153
    
>    What about the women here?  What should we be doing, in your opinion?
    
    Why are you asking this?  So you can skewer again?  So you can flame? 
    If your'e not going to do it anyway, why do you care?  Why are you
    baiting?
    
    
    
re: .157
     
>    Someone posted a note, claiming it showed discrimination and asking for 
>    comments.  Several people responded, saying that they didn't see any 
>    discrimination.  The argument quickly degenerated into the usual "see
>    how women discriminate against men; they're really not interested in 
>    equality; they just want to knock men down" vs "men have had it great
>    Instead of accepting that some people don't see the ad as
>    discriminatory, you've chosen to believe that they hate men or resent
>    men, but regardless, they're wrong, wrong, wrong about the ad.  Now,
    
    Amen!
    
    Again, if the basenoter had their own, preformulated opinion about the
    ad, why did they ask?  Why do people ask when their ears are closed and
    their heart is closed and all they want to do with the response is
    explode at several thousand degrees?
    
    Why do they want an answer when all they're planning on doing is
    toasting the response they feel they'll get?
    
    -Jody
    

    
    re .151, Bruce:
    
    Well, Bruce, I think you should ask those women in the management
    positions in your group if they've ever experienced discrimination
    in employment.  Not necessarily in their current group, but somewhere,
    sometime, along the way.  And I'll bet the answer is yes.  Did you
    even ever think to ask them about this, Bruce?  Before using them
    as "evidence" that this problem doesn't exist?  (Or isn't "that" bad.)
    
    Since you're going to offer personal anecdotes, allow me to do
    the same.  (As Sandy and others have in this string.) It is true for
    me that I have not had a problem in this area in the 5 years I've
    been at Digital.  But I've had other problems before that, such as
    being rated lower for doing as fine a job as other engineers (male
    engineeers, that is).  And I've also had job interviews where the
    interviewers were manufacturing reasons why I should not be hired
    that had *nothing* to do with my ability to do the job, such as
    "oh, I see you just quit your last job to 'go traveling' - why should
    we trust you?"  Huh?  Where'd that come from?  This, despite the fact
    that I had very good references from the last company at which I had
    worked!
    

    Re: .155
    
    Ro,
    
    If you truly feel you have been a victim of sexual bias at work, then
    you should pursue this through the proper channels.
    
    When the group began to increase in size several years ago (before you
    were a part of it), the first 4 or 5 people promoted to supervisor or
    manager positions were women. It has only been the last 3 or 4 years
    that any men have became managers or supervisors (starting from about
    the time you joined the group, by the way).
    
    When I entered .151 I debated saying something like "if there has been
    any sexual bias in the group, it has been in favor of women," but I felt
    that my personal feelings and perceptions might not be 100% realistic.
    
    It's easy for anyone - men or women - to claim or feel it is sexual bias 
    whenever someone of the opposite sex gets gets promoted, and you feel
    they are not the most qualified person.  
    
    Bruce

    
    Bruce, BTW, I am very glad to hear that there is little
    bias of this type in your group.  Sincerely.
    

    Re: .165
    
    Yes, I have discussed this with one of the managers, and yes, she
    experienced discrimination in employment previously. What does that
    have to do with the current situation? 
    
    I have never been  discriminated against at Digital, but previously I
    left a previous career because I was told "Jews don't get ahead here"
    (and this statement was corroborated by future poor reviews and
    raises). What does that have to do with the current situation?  
    
    Bruce

    
    re .168:
    >What does that have to do with the current situation?  
    
    Not much, and neither does your "example" of the women
    in your group.  That's the point.
    
    

    I found .161's comment about the "feminization" of certain job fields
    rang true.....and I have noticed the trend in tech writing.  But, don't
    women to a large extent make the situation worse by flocking into those
    fields?  Also, when this happens, men tend to shy away, feeling that
    they won't be treated fairly.  I don't know if there is a solution.
    Personnel is another field that is being rapidly converted to a female-
    dominated area.

    
    re .166 (Bruce)
    
    >>It's easy for anyone - men or women - to claim or feel it is sexual bias 
    >>whenever someone of the opposite sex gets gets promoted, and you feel
    >>they are not the most qualified person.  
    
    Yes!  And it's also easy for someone else to argue against the claim of
    bias.  And that's what happened here - someone claimed there was a bias
    and others disagreed.  Folks on the fence about this issue might be
    moved by persuasive arguments on either side of the issue, but it seems
    that for a lot of us, it is so loaded emotionally that it is hard for
    us to hear other points of view.
    
    One thing I'd like to point out, though, is that just because women
    don't agree that a certain ad discriminates against men, that doesn't
    mean that women are in favor of discrimination against men.  I think
    that happens sometimes.
    
    Woman: I don't think the ad is discriminatory. Men have been the
    default for so long, that it might require a specific invitation to
    women and minorities for them to feel that this opportunity is open to
    them, too (open in a real,not just legal sense -- we WANT you).
    
    Man: So you think that just because my grandfather had some advantage
    over women and minorities that I should lose my chance to someone who
    isn't as smart/hardworking/experienced/etc as me?
    
    Woman: I didn't say that.
    
    Man: Look, guys the women in Womannotes think it's ok to exclude men to
    right past wrongs.
    
    Woman:  huh?
    
    
    That's the condensed version of the script I see many of us acting out.
    Your perceptions may vary.
    
    Justine

    Sure Mr. Lennard there are areas of employment becoming "feminized",
    and why shouldn't they get the best people for the job at the lowest
    pay level possible?  That's business.  Have you noticed the disparity
    between salaries in the "feminized" position between genders?  It
    exists, largly because of the excuse, well women haven't been in this
    profession very long, in the case of new areas open to women, or women
    used to leave after they were married/became pregnant/left the
    workforce to care for children or parents for a time/ haven't had the
    experience/ or whatever excuse for traditional "feminized" jobs, such as
    nursing, teaching, etc.   Female lawyers and doctors tend to work (be
    pushed) into the lower paying fields of their professions, because of
    the same excuses above for traditionally women dominated jobs.
    
    My parents always counseled me to patronize women in "non-traditional"
    fields, as I could safely bet that I was getting the most qualified
    expert in that field.  Particularly medicine and law.  Their reasoning
    was that only the most spectacular performers and most determined women
    make it through the loop to do those jobs, but mediocre men could be
    found in any field.  A discriminatory way to look at things, yes, but
    unfortunately it has been proven true to me too many times.  
    
    Having grown up with the want ads divided into help wanted men, help
    wanted women, and help wanted.  I could see the discrimination by
    field as a teenager.  Although that has changed and the ads are now
    non-gender specific, I have run into situations where I was made
    uncomfortable for having the clit to apply for a job that they had
    expected a man to have.  I have been asked illegal questions about my
    plans for having a family, what I do with my kids when at work, and
    where my "spouse" would be working.  Don't answer the questions because
    they are illegal is fine, but it doesn't feed the kiddies.  Law suits
    don't pay the mortgage, and I have been primary breadwinner for over 16
    years.  So being a "good woman" I have answered the questions honestly,
    if given the chance have performed in the job quite well, but have
    problems because I don't fit the image of a "good girl" and speak up
    when I see problems.
    
    You are seeing for the first time, what I and many other women like me
    have experienced for most of our working years.  I'm sure it makes you
    uncomfortable, but try being a "good kid" and learn to live with it for
    a bit.  You may come out with a better understanding of what I and
    many like me have gone through, and why some of us may cheer when we
    actually see an ad like this.
    
    Meg
      

    "flocking into those fields?"
    
    You mean like my college roommate?  She had majored in English, and
    minored in computer science.  She wanted to be a programmer.  At
    every job interview for a programming job she had, the [male]
    interviewer would assure her that she really wanted to interview
    for a job as a technical writer.
    
    Y'know, even back in the sixties, technical writers got paid less
    than programmers.
    
    						Ann B.

    
>>    You mean like my college roommate?  She had majored in English, and
>>    minored in computer science.  She wanted to be a programmer.  At
>>    every job interview for a programming job she had, the [male]
>>    interviewer would assure her that she really wanted to interview
>>    for a job as a technical writer.
    
    This is balogna!  As a computer science MAJOR I had trouble getting a
    programming job.
    
    A computer science MINOR of any group of course would have trouble.
    
    And she was an English major, the interviewer was correct, IMO.
    
    Nick
    

    re .172 ...... but do you get the "best" when you create a situation
    that causes male candidates to opt out???  I think not.
    
    Further, I do not buy your argument about low salaries, period.  In
    my 12 years of management experience in DEC, in organizations with
    a lot of females, the opposite was often the case.  Also a lot of
    direct management effort went into insuring salary equity, and
    fixing problems were they existed.  It's a myth.

re .176

	Depends upon if the "best" is male or female. If the former, you
	are correct. If the latter, encouraging males to opt out makes
	the process more efficient. The problem is that in most jobs,
	you have no way of knowing which situation prevails.

					Tom_K

 Lennard, I think your views about the problems that face women are pretty
naive. Part of the problem with living fossils is they think we're still in
the Jurassic period...

    
    re .176: "it's a myth"
    
    Do you really have any idea at all of how OFFENSIVE you
    are being?  Or maybe you are TRYING to be offensive.
    

    I may be a bit naive, and more than a little optimistic, but back to
    the basenote.....
    
    While I can agree with the historic, and ongoing, de facto segregation
    issues addressed here, I think that perhap the ad which you saw meant
    simply.... "We want qualified persons to apply for this position.  If,
    in the past you were hesitant to apply because you thought that you
    might fall through the cracks in the system, we want you to know that
    this will not happen.  Each applicant will be judged on their (sorry if
    this is not the PC version of the pronoun) abilities and track record."
    
    At least, I sure hope that's what it meant.  No matter what the ad
    said, if I were a qualified white male, and I wanted the job, I sure as
    h*ll would apply.  If I didn't it is a given that I would not be given
    the job!!

    Nick,
    
    Oh, really?  Just what was your experience with the job market
    in 1969?
    
    						Ann B.

    Oops--first time entry fingers at work in reply .180.
    
    Last line should read, "If I didn't it is GUARANTEED that I would not
    be given the job!"
    
    -jer

Ann, perhaps you already know this, but its my impression Nick wasn't yet
*born* in 1969, certainly he wasn't in the job market.  And people in temp
situations awaiting active duty military service often have trouble finding
placement, no matter their degree.  Nick may tell us about that...

DougO

>    Nick,
>    
>    Oh, really?  Just what was your experience with the job market
>    in 1969?
    
    
    Lessee.  I would guess that programming jobs were even HARDER to find,
    and that what I previously asserted would be even more true.
    

    >But, don't women to a large extent make the situation worse by flocking 
    >into those fields?
    
    Absolutely!  The more women, especially the more women in management,
    the lower the status drops.  However!  If the choice for ambitious, 
    talented women is (1) Stay a secretary in group X or (2) move into group 
    Y where you have a shot at management, what *should* the ambitious, 
    talented women do?  Are you blaming them for flocking by the hundreds 
    through the one or two tiny holes in one of the lower glass ceilings?  
    Are you saying they shouldn't do this and then that will keep the status 
    of those jobs high?  You're right, it will, but I hope you're not
    saying that it's up to women to stay out and not "sully" them!   
    
    >Also, when this happens, men tend to shy away, feeling that they won't 
    >be treated fairly.
    
    They tend to stay away, allright, but I don't think it's due to fear of
    being treated unfairly.  I think it's due to its perceived lower
    status as in, "If it's full of women, do I really want to work there? 
    They mustn't pay that well."  And too, there's the traditional distate
    of having to work for a woman that keeps some men away.
    
    >Personnel is another field that is being rapidly converted to a female-
    >dominated area.
    
    And its status is dropping rapidly, too.
    
    > but do you get the "best" when you create a situation that causes male 
    >candidates to opt out???  I think not.
    
    Well, no!  But not getting the best by creating situations that cause
    non white males to opt out has not traditionally been seen as a
    problem.  So why should we see the *same* situation, only reversed, as a
    problem?  If we get discriminated *against*, and we do, why must we
    not discriminate ourselves?  (not suggesting that we are, but even if
    we *were*!)  Why must the rules only apply *this time*?
    
    We're getting rights and rules thrown at us.  And I agree with every
    one of them.  Discrimination is unfair, it weakens the workforce, etc. 
    The difference is that it's only non white men who are being asked to
    hold to these rules!  We've got an ambiguous ad here.  And it's being
    blasted for breaking the rules.  But the *world* breaks the rules for
    white men and that seems to be ok.  The only ones complaining are non
    white men and we can easily be silenced with personal anecdotes to the
    contrary, (which often don't turn out to be to the contrary!), with
    charges of hate, etc.  Everyone knows what is right, non white males
    included!  If you don't think an ad like this is bringing equality,
    then you have little understanding of the level of discrimination
    against non white males!  "As ye sow.."  And not you, personally, but
    the ad isn't discriminating against anyone personally, either.  Just
    like the white male default doesn't discriminate against anyone
    personally.  So the situations are equal.  The only difference is white
    men get the benefit silently and by default.  They don't *have* to say,
    "White males encouraged to apply".  They can, (and do), discriminate
    without ever saying a word.  For anyone else to get the benefit, something 
    must be explicitly stated.   We're guilty of having to display it to the 
    world!  
    
    But *someone* is going to have to "give first".  You can't say women
    and minorities must play by the rules, when the rules haven't done
    squat for *them*!  Someone thinks it's a piece of cake.  If you feel
    you've been discriminated against, just go tattle!  Well I did just
    that.  And the rules didn't do squat for me.  The rules are applied by
    *people* so we're right back to square one.  I'll tell you the story in
    mail if you like, I dare not put it here in notes.  I'll lose what
    little I have if I let too many people know what happened.  You don't
    seem to understand that the "rules", such as they are, are only enacted
    to be used *when necessary*.  In an earlier anecdote, I talked about a
    group where the males were free to come and go.  Everyone knew what the
    rules were.  *They just weren't applied evenly!*  Did the manager
    realize it?  Probably not.  To him, the situation just seemed
    comfortable as long as women were not taking advantage of it.  Once
    they did, it did indeed "feel" like a problem.  He responded to a
    problem when and only when *he* saw it!
    
    >Further, I do not buy your argument about low salaries, period.  In
    >my 12 years of management experience in DEC, in organizations with
    >a lot of females, the opposite was often the case.
    
    OK, I'll buy that.  That's probably why there were a lot of females in
    those organizations!  I worked in some of the more "mainline" ones,
    (the more male ones), the ones with direct lines on the org charts to 
    the top - the ones with plum jobs, high status and high pay.  And I saw 
    all the salary plans and all the reviews and women were paid less and 
    rated far more harshly and lost points for "social nicety" kinds of things 
    like attitude and stuff and where men were much more likely to be given 
    the benefit of the doubt, points for potential and kudos for jobs well 
    done.  Women were simply expected to do a job well and didn't get much
    credit when they performed up to expectations.  If you say this doesn't
    happen in your group, that proves nothing!  Each manager is measured by
    how they treat white males and everybody else - not how one manager 
    treats men and the other treats women and minorities.  If your manager is 
    good to women and minorities, chances are that manager is *better still* 
    to white men. 
    
    >It's a myth.
    
    Is not.  ;^>   Pockets of sanity do exist and you may have found one
    which explains why women flocked to it.  But by and large, they are only
    pockets.  And the higher up you go, the higher the stakes, the more the
    goodies stay reserved for white males.  And if women and minorities didn't 
    know this, and if job ad writers didn't know that women and minorities
    knew this, what in the world would make them dream up such a line as
    "women and minorities encouraged to apply"?  Some fluke?
    
    S. 

    Nick,
    
    Then you would have guessed wrong.  You see, the Computer Age was
    just dawning then, so there weren't that many computers in schools
    then, and therefore there were very few people who knew enough about
    them to *gasp* control them.  If you had taken multiple programming
    courses, you were a prize to be snatched up.  (I had, I was -- by DEC.
    Gail had, Gail was too -- by Ma Bell.)
    
    It's just that these individual recruiters had the mindset of
    "woman + English = writer" and, not so incidentally, the mindset
    of either `she made an error; she doesn't want to be a programmer'
    or `she thinks she wants to be a programmer, but I know better.'
    Yucko.
    
    						Ann B.

re: .176

>    Further, I do not buy your argument about low salaries, period.  In
>    my 12 years of management experience in DEC, in organizations with
>    a lot of females, the opposite was often the case.  Also a lot of
>    direct management effort went into insuring salary equity, and
>    fixing problems were they existed.  It's a myth.
    
    just because you have not experienced it does not mean it is not real. 
    The universe does not revolve around you.
    
    If women have so many opportunities in management why are they in such
    low-paying jobs a majority of the time?
    
    see womannotes-V2
    938.3
    938.6
    
    -Jody
    

    I am shocked that men whose minds otherwise work logically
    could perceive any exclusionary intent in the T&N wording.
    As has been said before, to say that group 1 is invited 
    to apply does not mean that group 2 isn't. The party invitation
    analogy doesn't work because one can apply for a job without
    beign asked, whereas one can't attend a party without being
    asked.
    
    And why does anyone think T&N had to put that in their job
    listing? Of course, it's because they were already discriminating
    against women and minorities and trying to remedy the problem
    by equalizing the numbers. But men label the remedy as
    discrimination. I think THAT is continued discrimination
    of men against women and minorities, as usual.
    
    Eileen

      >  And why does anyone think T&N had to put that in their job
      >  listing? Of course, it's because they were already discriminating
      >  against women and minorities and trying to remedy the problem
      >  by equalizing the numbers.
    
    
    I'm sure that the T&N cost center manager will be shocked to learn that
    she has been discriminating against women and minorities, absolutely
    shocked.
    
    You really ought to be very careful about making this kind of
    accusation, it's very unfair.
    
    Mark O'Brien
    T&N Publications

    
    
    RE:  .191
    
    How I love notetic justice!
    

> .190
>    I am shocked that men whose minds otherwise work logically
>    could perceive any exclusionary intent in the T&N wording.

I don't remember anyone here saying anything about the ad author's
intent.  When someone complains about the use of words such as
"chairman" or "denigrate" it is without regard to the intentions
of the speaker.  Whether the ad was exclusionary has nothing to
do with intent.

Dan

    RE: .161  Sandy

    > I remember one noter some years back who said she was on an interview
    > with the required credentials where the manager said he believed she
    > could do the work but that he just couldn't "bring himself" to give her
    > the job.  Was that you, Suzanne? 	

    Yes.  A year before I joined Digital, I went to a small computer
    manufacturing company to apply for an opening they had as a test
    technician.  I went there with my B.A. in Philosophy (Symbolic Logic
    and Boolean algebra specialties,) a year of Electrical Engineering
    (the good stuff since I already had Fresh/Soph courses from my
    first degree,) 5 years in Broadcast Television Production and
    Engineering (which included working on their computers,) and a
    stint at a pure chip-level troubleshooting job with another computer
    manufacturing site that was shut down when the Defense budget was
    cut (our products were used exclusively in jets and missiles by
    the Air Force.)  

    While seeking this new job, I went to the Chief Engineer himself 
    for the technical interview.  After noting my year in E.E., he spent
    a good deal of the interview on engineering topics as well as the
    usual stuff.  When it was over, the Chief Engineer was visibly
    impressed and told me he'd just given me the toughest technical
    interview he'd ever given for the job I was trying to get.  He
    told me that he was going to give a glowing report to the head of
    the company - in his words, "You know your sh!t!"

    I was offered the job (verbally,) but had to wait for a week or two
    delay (paperwork, or whatever.)  I stopped job hunting and prepared
    to work for this company.  After two weeks of evasive responses over
    the phone about when the job would start, I went to see the head of
    the company (who had interviewed me first for the job.)

    He said I was qualified for it, but he couldn't "bring himself" to
    hire a woman for the position (he used those exact words.)  Instead,
    he offered me the chance to work as an assembler for 2 or 3 years to
    prove myself to him - a job paying quite a bit less money, of course.

    I declined.  After all the education and experience I had, I didn't
    feel the slightest need to prove myself to some <expletive deleted>
    who ran his business with this sort of open bigotry.

    A year later, Digital hired me as a Field Service engineer for a salary 
    $4000 above what this man would have paid me if he could have "brought 
    himself" to do it.  :)  Five years later, I was a Digital board-certified
    support engineer.

    The incident with the other company happened in late 1980.  Not much more 
    than a decade ago (and it wasn't the first nor the worst I'd ever seen of 
    open prejudice and discrimination against women in this particular field.)

    RE: .189  Jody

    > just because you have not experienced it does not mean it is not real. 
    > The universe does not revolve around you.

    Well, this is one thing that men definitely have in common with women -
    we're both socialized by our society to believe that the universe does
    indeed revolve around men (together and as individuals.)  :-)

    When I look at this file, for example, the important aspects of what
    happens here is 99.9% women-centered for me.  I see hundreds and hundreds
    of interesting expressions of women's voices every week (and I'm so stunned
    and impressed so much of the time that I barely know what I could possibly
    say that could add to it) - then I see someone come along who thinks the
    main focus of this file is "how =wn= gets along with men" (and with the 
    women whose main focus *also* seems to be "how =wn= gets along with men.")
     
    So I guess most of the tens of thousands of meaningful replies (and 
    interesting conversations) in =wn= are just filler until the REAL business 
    (of our interaction with men) comes along.
    
    Women-centered conversations (including both women and men) seem to be
    too inconsequential to be visible to some folks (even in a place called
    Womannotes.)

    I find this utterly amazing.

    re .176
    
    If I were going to live a "myth", I'd choose one that was more to my
    liking, thank you!  Pay inequity is still a reality for many women,
    myself included.
    Polly

    in re .175
    
    Nick,
    
    Ann is talking about almost a generation before you left school, when
    computer science majors or minors were relatively rare and most
    companies were hiring almost any one who seemed to know what they
    were doing to be programers.
    
    in re. 176
    
    If it is a myth you should speek to the writers of US News and World
    Report who did a fairly extensive article on the glass ceiling and
    the disparity in salaries between men and women about a month ago.
    
    I'm more apt to believe the article is true, than your disparaging
    the salary difference as a 'myth'.
    
    Bonnie

    I guess I should throw this in now.......
    
    About gender problems and jobs:
    
    When I was interviewing for jobs in 1988 (three years ago) a company
    that I interviewed with (right here in Mass.) had an "old-timer" that
    came out and asked me point-blank, "Don't you think you'd have problems
    working in an all-male environment?"  Up until then I hadn't made a
    point of seeking out gender ratios, but after that comment I made sure
    to notice there wasn't a female engineer in the place.
    
    The old-timer's later remark of "Well that's a STUPID project, don't you 
    think?" after I had explained my summer project a DEC the year before
    really put the icing on the cake.
    
    Whenever anyone asks me about the company I tell them exactly what went
    on during the interview.  Creates quite an image.  
    
    Lisa

    re .158

    <And of course, of course, let's blame the woman, the mother, for
    <man's inability to take responsibility for his own life.

    Shame on you for attempting to binaryize my feelings.
    I am NOT attempting to transfer blame from men to women.
    I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT MALES CAUSE MUCH MORE HARM TO SOCIETY THAN WOMEN
    and i'm astonished that you seem not to know that. I choose to
    interpret that as the kind of cheap debating trick that is so common in
    many conferences. (I can think of alternate interpretations that are less
    charitable)

    This [males causing harm] does not excuse women from recognizing that
    you have an opportunity and a responsibility to protect yourselves from
    males' excesses. And that even if the excesses are primarily done by
    men, the solutions are probably primarily through women. 
        
    Entry 28 was a bit of a step in that regard. But it sure didn't get
    much attention.
    Convincing each other that men are the bad guys may make you feel better
    but it ain't gonna solve many problems. I believe that convincing women
    that there are things WOMEN can do to prevent the problem would have a
    much bigger pay back, of the only currency that matters, improved
    conditions for women.
    The 'subordinate' position that American women find themselves in is not
    merely a result of American men. It is as a result of American society,
    to which women contribute AT LEAST as much as men. 
    
    Women contribute to the problem in many ways, from marrying sh*theads,
    to not leaving abusive situations, to condoning the abuse that
    men rain on members of both sexes, to actively participating in the
    abuse themselves, to being the primary abuser in a family.  
    
    But the most important way in which women contribute to this problem is
    as mothers (and maybe as teachers). Bear in mind that until the 7th
    grade (say 12-13) kids have hardly ANY contacts with males outside the
    family except perhaps for sports and cub scouts.
    
    Women really do have the opportunity to 'train' the children to make
    a difference. (And DON'T tell me that women can't, i have SEEN my wife
    do exactly that -with some help from me- to and with our 18 & 21
    year-old daughters). But, far too often, women forfeit that
    responsibility, and then their sisters whine about the evil men who
    train the kids in the 'traditional' way. (Who become the evil parents
    who train the kids in the 'traditional' way..., who become...)
    
    Snarling about how bad men are may make one feel better temporarily 
    but it doesn't do anything to improve the situation indeed it may do
    much to make matters worse since it alienates many who might otherwise
    be allies. (like me)
    Some folks have said this conference is really not all that important;
    that it's not real life.
    I disagree. I think this conference IS -at least a- partial
    reflection of real life. I also think that the revolutionaries in this
    conference see the conference as an important opportunity to
    proselytize their 'buddies'. And like virtually ALL revolutionaries
    these people are not particularly impressed with honesty, reflection, or
    introspection. 
    So that among other things, they seem never able to acknowledge that
    women EVER do anything wrong. (Except, perhaps, with the weakest
    possible kind of well MAYBE, BUT MEN ARE MUCH WORSE)
    
    				herb

    re .199
    
    Well Excuse Me!  

    	Kids have plenty of contact with males outside the family in early
    	childhood (well before the age of 12 or 13) unless they're being
    	raised in a locked room.
    
    	Kids learn sexism (and an unbelievable collection of swear words,
    	by the way) from other kids, from the age of 2 or 3 years old on
    	up.
    
    	Yes, parents have *some* opportunities to change the attitudes
    	learned from other kids - but not a lot.  Kids have far more
    	credibility with other kids than their parents do (from a
    	frighteningly early age.)
    
    	Mothers and Fathers don't need to validate sexist attitudes for
    	their kids IN WORDS.  Kids look around at how women are treated
    	(in society in general) and they get the message on their own.
    
    	By the way, we don't need any more blame cast to women who refrain
    	from leaving abusive relationships soon enough.  They already take
    	enough blame (whether they stay or go.)

    re .200
    
    you didn't sound that way a year or so ago when you were (justifiably!)
    patting yourself on the back for the way your son turned out!.
    

    re: .199
    
    I don't know....I think there has been some really good information
    in this string and yet you continue to feel the need to separate
    the situation into black and white, and 'who should we blame'.
    Please go back and read the responses here again. We  are not 
    pointing fingers and we are not BLAMING in the way you are
    I get the feeling that you just want to yell and screm at women while
    turing the cheek to say 'yeah, but men are worse'.
    
    These are just MY feelings, I didn't mean to sound like I was talking
    for ALL women in this string.
    
    Get back to the subject here, mods if this is a rathole feel free to
    move it.
                   
    Hannah 

>    Snarling about how bad men are may make one feel better temporarily 
>    but it doesn't do anything to improve the situation 

I don't think you can really know how it may mke one individual feel to
finally break free from the social chains and express the legitimate anger
which arises from perceptions of how unfair are the privileges which men
enjoy in this society.  "feeling better temporarily" is a belittling of
what may in actuality be an enormous step in someone's process of waking
up and deciding to heal themself, and/or not allow themselves to be blinded
by custom any more, and/or whatever other role may be chosen.  Your statement
diminishes the first crucial step in the healing/empowerment process.  In my
opinion, you're incorrect, and distressingly so.  There is a need for these
statements of anger, and correspondingly we are obliged to accept and hear
forth these statements, so that in our hearing them forth and recognizing
the legitimacy, we assist the empowerment, we assist the healing.  When you
denigrate it, you reinforce the status quo.  If "improving the situation" is
really of interest to you, you'd be able to accept/hear forth such anger.

DougO

    	While I'm sure I had some influence on my son (to steer him away
    	from violence as a young boy,) I don't kid myself that I'm entirely
    	responsible for the wonderful person (that I think) he's turned out
    	to be.
    
    	We were looking for solutions, and I offered something that seemed
    	to be of some help.  If we're still looking for solutions now, then
    	fine - but let's not pretend that any parent has complete control
    	over the personality or destiny of a child.
    
    	We don't.

is it possible that we, both men and women, have been trying so hard to "get
a handle" on this new social order we NEED...that we are prone to become
"super sensitive" to perceived slights/criticisms, etc.?  I am asking, NOT
ACCUSING here, so please don't jump on my face, but, as I see it:

the initial job listing wasn't intended to be exclusionary - I just didn't
read it that way, but I can imagine that a man who is amidst so much social
change/demands for social change MIGHT have a bad day and suddenly SEE the
discrimation - even when it isn't there.  There is a great deal of difference
between phrases like, "women and minorities are encouraged to apply" and
"only women and minorities need apply"...but the writing doesn't LOOK that
different.  It is a very human response to the stress all around us here at
Digital with the "down-sizing", etc. to amplify these kinds of things into
BIG deals....I know I am much more prone to see "the old boys network" 
at work in the people selected for "separation"...I also know that SOME of
the people selected for layoffs WERE laid off because they were considered
"trouble makers, feminists, gays, lesbians, rebels or other problem people" by
someone...and that the majority were laid off because they simply had the wrong
job at the wrong time.  How do I find the criminals in this?  I guess I
don't...THIS TIME...but, the perpretrators KNOW they have to be d*&ned 
careful, and THAT, in itself, is a small victory for the "white hats". 

I certainly agree that women don't have a fair shake ANYWHERE in the business
world, Digital included...I know about these things, being a woman.  However, 
I also must admit that I, at least, have contributed to my own salary 
discrepancy in the past by not doing my homework - I priced myself too low 
when coming into Digital.  Now, it is quite possible I would not have been 
hired, had I asked a bigger salary to start, but I WILL NEVER KNOW.  From
where I'm standing, I have to find SOME validity in the statement that women
contribute to the problems of inequality....I should have researched the
current salaries for my position at several companies and I should have asked
for a more equitable salary.  Many women I know have made this same mistake.
Once the starting salary die is cast, it is virtually impossible to get even.
So, I plead guilty to this one...however, that doesn't mean I don't hold men
EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for continuing inequities in this society...and I DO
EXPECT them to do their part to clean up OUR MESS.  A mess, I might add, that
men have much less incentive to correct than women, as THEY ARE ON THE UP
SIDE OF THE FLOW.

IMO, we are all right some of the time...

    <that any parent has complete control
                         ^^^^^^^^

    Sure, if you distort what I said, it's EASY to disagree with it

    
    	No one was quoted directly in my note.
    

    re OLSON
<I don't think you can really know how it may mke one individual feel to
<finally break free from the social chains and express the legitimate anger

    I should be so lucky.

    re the whole reply

    Bullpoop
    
    I didn't do the hurt. I don't need to hear it. I don't want to hear it.
    And I don't believe it's appropriate to say, "Go away if you don't want
    to hear it"
    The anger is just, the anger is appropriate, the anger should be
    articulated in private.
    The women need to work through their anger! They don't need to work
    through their anger at MY expense or at the expense of any other man
    who for whatever reasons chooses to involve himself with =wn=.
    And for those with a psychological bent, the process of reliving and
    working through the feelings associated with earlier trauma is called
    ABREACTING.
    It is an ESSENTIAL part of the psychotherapeutic process. And its
    ESSENTIAL that women relive the real emotional trauma of subjugation
    or whatever else you have experienced. (And many of the people who NEED
    psychotherapy, need it because they had been subjected to long,
    relentless, unremitting trauma. Trauma even more heinous than the
    trauma that women have been subjected to for millenia)

    But, it is no more appropriate for women to act out in a public
    conference their feelings toward their multi-generational slights than
    it would be for a man to act out in public his feelings about an
    abusive mother.
    Furthermore, even if it were appropriate, it wouldn't do him any good
    until and unless he recognized that the anger was misdirected. (because
    nobody in this conference is his mother and nobody in this conference
    is responsible for whatever his mother might have done to him.)
    And this conference would resent being used in such a fashion. (indeed
    on occassion perhaps unknowningly it has :-)

    And nobody in this conference is the personification of the males who
    have been keeping their feet firmly implanted in women's necks.
    You deserve your anger.
    We don't deserve to be the recipients of it. And any male who looks
    into this conference becomes a target whether he likes it or deserves
    it or not.
    And all the protestations in the world of "if the shoe don't fit" etc
    don't help me at all.
    Just by virtue of reading this conferences, I became a target of women's
    anger. I have done nothing to deserve it. Act out your anger in
    private. Then come back and we can have some civil discourse. And you
    can use as models the women in this conference who seem already to have
    worked through their anger, or never felt the need for it in the first
    place but who nevertheless feel the need to come to your support
    whenever you express your anger.
    Because there really aren't too many of you who seem to need to express
    this anger so consistently. 
    I think most of the rest of the people feel the need to support you. If
    i were a woman i would too. But as a man if i were to do what
    FMNIST::OLSON just said, would be 'good to do', i would feel like I
    were being patronizing.

    My adult daughters are entitled to be pissed at the inequities that exist
    in American society between the sexes too, and I will do almost
    anything I can to facillitate whatever working-through process they may
    need. But sure as hell I am not going to let them act out that anger
    against me. And if i'm not prepared to listen to my adult daughters act
    out their anger against me, i sure as hell am not prepared to say its
    alright for a bunch of strangers to do it.

     				herb

    
    Herb,
    
    I resent your telling women to "act out" [their] anger in private."  I
    think it's appropriate for women to express their anger here, though I
    agree they/we shouldn't take it out on (I assume that's what you
    mean by "act out") you.  Where we disagree is that I don't think you
    personally are getting "woman's anger" - that big amorphous thing that
    is about the inequities of days gone by (though btw, I think there's
    plenty to be angry about today, too).  I think you get some anger
    directed at you that is about you.  For example, your note made me
    angry - that is about you and me (not about past inequities).  I think
    you often take on generalized anger that is *not* directed at you.  Most
    other men in this file seem to be able to distinguish what is theirs
    and what isn't.  Hearing that you are injured by what some women write
    here is valuable feedback, and it might help us (women) to take care
    not to step on your toes or take our anger out on you.  But we can
    only promise to try not to hurt you; we cannot promise that you will
    not be hurt -- especially as you seem to personalize so much of this.
    
    Justine
                            

    I don't believe a lot of the anger expressed here was directed at 
    *anyone* personnally.  I believe much if not all of it was directed
    at the current society and the "rules" by which we live, which are for
    a large part developed, created, what ever word you chose, by and for
    white males.  If it bothers *some* white males to hear it put sooooo
    plainly, by (horrors) women(!), so be it.  I've often heard it said 
    that which hits the hardest and hurts the most has at least a ring of
    truth to it.  Is the problem perhaps that these comments and the anger
    cannot easily be written off as "obviously untrue and ridiculous"?
    
    I too was asked a lot of intrusive questions early on in my career
    about my "family" plans (I never planned to have one and still don't,
    but it should have had no bearing on whether or not I got a job!).
    They felt like stupid questions to me (what on earth could that have
    to do with my performance?!), they seemed intrusive to me (Why do I
    need to explain my life choices to this *stranger*), and they seemed
    impossible not to answer and not lose the job in the process.  Was I
    angry about this?  YES....Am I still angry?  YES!  That person had not
    a right to ask me that, but intimidated me into answering anyway.  If
    I had been a male, no such question would have been asked.  This is the
    reality many woman have lived with and through, if it caused them to be
    tired and angry, so be it.
    
    I get tired of hearing, if I just tried harder I'd get where I wanted
    to be......Even when my boss tells me I'm a wonderful performer and so
    valuable to the organization.  And another thing that bothers me is
    that with this "rightsizing" stuff that's going on, it *appears* to me
    that many women are being "reorganized" into positions that are less
    than what they were doing - I just watched it happen to someone I used
    to work with....We had our disagreements over the years, came to blows
    a few times, but she is one damn fine competant woman and now she's
    having her talents wasted (or at least underutilized) due to another
    reorg.....And who got her previous position?  Yup, you guessed it, a
    white male......Sigh, and the beat goes on.
    
    -HA

    re:.213
    
       What it could has to do with your job performance is attendance.
    If you planned on several children in a short period of time (say,
    a few years) you could be expected to be out on maternity and possibly
    light duty if your job includes lifting things.  The boss would be
    thinking of how he was going to cover for these absenses.
    
        I don't think you should have been asked these questions either.
    But I'm playing devils advocate here and perhaps giving a possible
    reason for why they were asked in the first place.
    
    
    
                                        L.J.

    Of course, most companies have maternity leave policies to deal with
    this eventuality and should be factoring that into their salaries in
    the first place - And for once, why, oh why, is it so often assumed
    that it will be the *woman* who will be staying home with the child
    after birth, when it is sick, when it needs to go to the doctors, etc?
    That would most certainly *not* have been the case in my case, but it
    would have been *assumed* by said employer without even a second
    thought!  Sigh......That particular employer is *still* doing those
    kinds of things.....And the beat goes on...and on....
    
    -HA

Thanks, Herb, for your response.  I find that *any* venue which permits healing
de facto becomes an appropriate venue for that healing.  If you don't deserve to
hear it (and I agree, you don't) then I am curious that you continue to subject
yourself to it.  What I find inappropriate is your telling other people what 
they *should* have the decency to keep private; but you'll have to decide on
your own future course of conduct.  For the record, when I hear forth the anger
of others who recognize gender-based unfairness in our society, I hear truth.
Hearing truth does not patronize the speaker.

I seek no further to influence you, but, speaking to our other participants,
I'd like to quote Ursula K LeGuin, quoting another:

This is womannotes.  "Offer your experience as your truth."  

DougO

    re .215
    
    I agree totally that it's not necessarily the female partner's job
    which is at risk when the couple becomes pregnant. When myself and
    Garrick (my fiance) marry, I will earn more than him. He recognises
    that and accepts that (albeit, at times, reluctantly). He himself put
    forward the suggestion that it would be better for my career, as well
    as financially for us as a family, if he took time out instead of me,
    when we start a family. He will be working in archaeology, which is a
    seasonal job - practical work in part of the year, and writing and
    studying the rest of the year - so there's plenty he could do at home.
    
    Alice T.
    
    Besides, I think he's better with children than I am - I'm dead jealous
    of that!!

    I have found this string to have much valuable information in it. 
    I didn't feel there was a lot of 'anger' in it, I felt there was a lot
    of 'energy'. I also feel that some people, who thought that
    inequalities were figments of womens/minorities imaginations,  were not
    willing to listen to some feelings and true stories on the subject.
    I felt that rather than accept their own feelings on this issue and own
    them, they pointed the finger or changed the subject. This is common in
    male/female dicussions because men need to WIN, not exchange ideas in
    order to learn and grow. I AM NOT SAYING THAT ONE STYLE IS BETTER THAN
    THE OTHER. I feel there is a place for both and that my observation has
    been that some people feel the need to WIN the discussion here and not
    learn from it.
    
    Another interesting thing about the communication styles of men and 
    women inthis string, is that it has played out every thing I have read
    about m/f communication!
    And that rude comment about acting out, sorry, that wasn't done here
    that I could see, at least not by the women. 
    
    Hannah

RE: .209 Herb
    
   > I didn't do the hurt. 

Okay.  Granted.

   > I don't need to hear it. I don't want to hear it.
             ^^^^                     ^^^^
I suspect this is one of my hot button alerts, so I'll reply with that in 
mind.  Maybe you don't "need" or "want" to hear about it, but I am tempted to 
say "so what?"  Herb, it strikes me as a major league cop-out and one that 
I've heard all the time associated with almost any form of injustice:

"Well, it doesn't affect me and I don't think I've done anything to hurt you, 
so if you'd kindly get out of my face, I'll just go on with my life and not worry 
about it..."


    >The anger is just, the anger is appropriate, the anger should be
    >articulated in private.
                    ^^^^^^^
We were doing fine until we got there.  I just don't see how that is going to 
help! 1)If it is articulated in private, as you suggest, then the perpetrators 
of injustice (and for my purposes, anyone who is complicit with injustice, is 
a perpetrator) will never see just how their actions effect others.  What 
possible good can come from keeping it "in private"?  2) Keeping it in private 
is precisely what victims of injustice have done for centuries with minimal 
result.  You can see it from George Bush every time someone asks him about ACT 
UP "Disgraceful" "Undignified" "Impolite" My reaction?  TOUGH.  Victims have 
tried to work through the system and have been entangled by red tape, 
suffocated by inaction and ignored through intolerance.  If women feel a need 
to express ANGER at what the patriarchal world has done since the Goddess was 
murdered, you have no right to expect them to do so in private.  It will 
fester and it will only hurt those who are being told to "keep it quiet"


    >The women need to work through their anger! They don't need to work
    >through their anger at MY expense or at the expense of any other man
    >who for whatever reasons chooses to involve himself with =wn=.
    
You have a certain point: most (I repeat, MOST) men who come to =wn= are 
probably not major-league-part-of-the-problem types.  However, that doesn't 
mean that they can blithely sit back and expect to never be subjected to the 
anger and frustration women feel at the world around them.  It's hypocritical. 
"Oh, you have a right to your anger, but I just don't want to see it."  It 
reminds me of people who say "I have nothing against homosexuals, but please 
don't ever let me see one."  You can't hold onto both of those positions and 
have the grace of consistancy at the same time.  Part of being a feminist and 
being a man means recognizing the fact that many women have a lot of anger 
that needs to be expressed.  You only serve yourself if you demand never to be 
exposed to it.

Personal example:  I was in group therapy for sexual abuse survivors.  I was 
also the only man.  Very often, some of the women in the group expressed their 
anger and frustration at men in general.  At one point in a particularly 
vehement outburst, one of them turned to me and said "Oh, you know I don't 
mean *you* Daniel, right?"  I smiled and said "Don't worry...you need to be 
angry.  Tell you the truth, I'm pissed at them too..."


   > It is an ESSENTIAL part of the psychotherapeutic process. And its
   > ESSENTIAL that women relive the real emotional trauma of subjugation
   > or whatever else you have experienced. (And many of the people who NEED
   > psychotherapy, need it because they had been subjected to long,
   > relentless, unremitting trauma. Trauma even more heinous than the
   > trauma that women have been subjected to for millenia)

Agreed...BUT (see next)

   > But, it is no more appropriate for women to act out in a public
   > conference their feelings toward their multi-generational slights than
   > it would be for a man to act out in public his feelings about an
   > abusive mother.
    
More "bottling it up" Herb?  I'm sorry, your suggesitons just aren't healthy. 
If someone doesn't commit violence, I see it as entirely "appropriate" to say 
as loud and as clearly as possible "I am PISSED OFF and I'm NOT going to take 
it anymore!"

Society's necessitation of "polite discourse" at every turn of the way denies 
people the rights to express their feelongs.  No, constant anger and yellin' 
and screamin' won't get us very far, but when a person needs to release rage 
it must be acknowledged. "Keeping it in private" is bogus.  It chews out your 
insides.  It makes you feel that your pain is your fault. It helps those who 
make you angry keep their blinders on.


   > We don't deserve to be the recipients of it. And any male who looks
   > into this conference becomes a target whether he likes it or deserves
   > it or not.
    
So I should look over my shoulder now?

   > Just by virtue of reading this conferences, I became a target of women's
   > anger. I have done nothing to deserve it. Act out your anger in
   > private. Then come back and we can have some civil discourse. 

Herb, do you realize just how ridiculous it sounds to make demands upon people 
about how they can "legitmately" (in your eyes) express their anger?  It 
sounds very familiar...I had this argument with my parents last night.  Their 
basic line seemed to be that they were very sympathetic about my pain, felt 
terrible about, but if I could please never let my fear and anger make them 
uncomfortable, everything would be much happier...

For them, maybe, but for me, no way.

You feel upset that a woman may "subject you to her anger"?  Imagine how a 
woman must feell with you telling her she can't express her anger where it's 
going to be in your sight!  What gives you the right to make that sort oof 
demand?  Why post in a conference of "Topics of Interest to Women" if you 
never want to see how angry many women get at the way our world is?

Saying "Oh, hey, it wasn't *me*" is a cop out, and a weak one at that.

Flame away...I've got on an asbestos wetsuit.

Daniel

    Oh Herb,
    
    I'm sorry that my temper got the best of me and that you heard the
    anger of 35 years of injustice by the oposite gender as being directed
    at you.  
    
    Henceforth I shall discreetly retire to the ladies room and cry or
    maybe do something macho like punch holes in walls so that I don't
    offend your delicate sensibilities.  I am so sorry that my anger has
    been perceived as an injury to you ;-p
    
    Meg  

    What I hear you saying, Herb, is that you personally are "hurt" by some
    of the things said here - things which most of the women, (and many of
    the men), have all agreed, either explicitly or implicitly, moderators 
    included, that are ok.  And there's the rub.
    
    We feel "right" but you feel "wronged".  So what do we do about it? 
    Your feeling seems to be, correct me if I'm wrong, that by virtue of your 
    "hurt", you have the right to issue a "cease and desist" order.  Am I
    close?
    
    It's admirable that you want to take what you see as the underdog's 
    position, (and here you see it as men), and fight against all those who
    in your opinion are oppressing them.  What I think you fail to
    recognize is that being "the underdog" is only relative!  You, and men,
    are not "absolute underdogs".  If you feel you are underdogs at all,
    it's certainly ONLY here and not in the vast majority of the rest of
    life, true?  Well the situation is reversed for many of us - most of
    us.  We are not the underdog ONLY here and most certainly are in the
    vast majority of the rest of life.  Before I go on, can you accept
    this?
    
    If you do accept it, then can you understand that to us, to the people
    who spend the majority of their lives as underdogs, (and not just when
    we go into a conference although I'd like to direct your attention to
    the women who note in soapbox and are cavalierly brushed off as
    "twitesses" or "femniacs" like I've been but it doesn't bother me in
    the least perhaps because as a woman I'm *used* to not being take 
    seriously), to the people who spend the majority of their lives as
    underdogs, what you are asking seems like a request that this
    conference mirror the rest of our lives - that we never feel the power
    of *not* being an underdog.  And it's a very, *very* difficult request
    to accept.
    
    That you personally are not responsible for our underdog status
    throughout our lives is not the point.  Nothing about you personally is
    the point in this file or of this file.  The generalized anger
    expressed here neither comes from you, from what you did or didn't do,
    (becuase how would we know?), nor is it directed toward you.  There is
    some specific anger directed at some of your words, however, as Justine
    so succinctly explained, but if you're not willing to accept and deal
    with the reactions to your words, perhaps you shouldn't be saying them.
    I certainly hope your intent isn't to simply prosletyze and expect rapt
    attention and sweet, wordless acceptance.  If so, your expectations are
    most likely the problem you see.  You're going to get feedback.  You're
    going to get it from your wife and your daughters, from the men in your
    life, from your co-workers, and yes, even from women in womannotes. 
    It's called "interaction".  I believe most of us here are expecting and
    engaging in dialogue and if you and some others are expecting and
    engaging in monologue then yes of course, you're going to get "hurt".
    Take a minute and decide if it's the feedback that's the problem you
    see.  Weren't you expecting any?  Perhaps only a certain kind?
    
    You're dealing with a group of "professional underdogs", here.  You're
    "pissing with the big dogs" if you wanna talk about feeling excluded,
    discriminated against, trashed, ignored, laughed at, brushed off, etc.
    Because you haven't got a clue.   Whatever your past life, plenty of
    women have lived it too AND continue to get it from bosses, dates,
    strangers on the street, etc, in our adult lives.  For many of us it
    never was a one time thing.  It's an always thing.  All the time.  It
    never goes away. 
    
    So take what you're feeling here, the "discrimination", etc., and pretend 
    your entire life is like that *to this day*!  And *then* come back and 
    we'll talk about discrimination.  It's true that ideally, no one should 
    feel the way you say you do here, the way we say we do in every other
    aspect of our entire lives.  But whether you like it or not, whether you 
    caused it or not, whether you agree with it or not, women and minorities 
    *do* feel this way - all their lives.  And that you would seem to begrudge 
    us the outlet we've built here and like here, simply doesn't sit well.  
    And I can't for the life of me imagine why you think it should.  I under- 
    stand your feelings, I really do, but I believe *you're* the one who's 
    expressing them in the wrong place.  Not that *you* aren't welcome here, 
    but your requests such as this one, (that we deal with our anger in private
    where you don't "have to" read it - "have to", Herb?), aren't welcome.
    
    You're looking at a flood when you're looking at discrimination and
    nastiness.  But by ranting and raving against us in here you're efforts
    amount to no more than dealing with that flood with a teaspoon. 
    "Discrimination" is not what's occuring in a woman's electronic
    bulletin board that prefers to pay attention to and yes, support, the
    angers and concerns of women.  Not by a long shot.  If it's truly
    discrimination that bothers you, there is a veritable TON of it "on the
    outside".  You would be far more effective in dealing with it there
    because if it ever *does* abate "on the outside", much, most, maybe all
    of the anger will magically melt away in places like this one - places
    where women get together to vent and support each other.  Does that make 
    any sense?  
    
    Your intentions are noble but your efforts are misplaced.  You won't
    stop discrimination by stopping the victims of it from bitching about
    it and/or reacting to it.  You won't make us feel guilty or shame us by 
    throwing yourself in the path of invective and then showing us your wounds. 
    We've got wounds, too.  And they didn't come from logging into a notesfile 
    and they don't go away when we log out.  And if you can't accept that in 
    us, (perhaps you can't in yourself?), if you can't accept that Digital
    has allowed this "womannotes" kind of thing, if you can't accept that
    it does a great service to people whom you say you sympathize with,
    the discriminated against, then perhaps you should spend your time where 
    you feel "safer", where the air is fresher, where you don't have to be 
    reminded of the discrimination and injustice in the world and most
    importantly of the intense reactions of those who suffer from it.  But 
    you have neither the right nor the power to alter the path of womannotes 
    or any other file to fit your personal needs and comfort level.  And 
    whether or not you realize it, that's exactly what you're asking.
    
    Sandy  

    <you have neither the right nor the power to alter the path of womannotes 
    <or any other file to fit your personal needs and comfort level.  And 
    <whether or not you realize it, that's exactly what you're asking.
    
    I agree that no one has either the right or the power to alter the
    path of any conference.
    I also realize that I would like to see the path of this conference
    altered. And anticipate making contributions with that in mind.
    (in the spirit of believing there is a difference between demanding and
    attempting to convince)
    
    One other comment wrt "guest"
    In my opinion, as soon as people start making negative comments about
    'men', at that point men no longer need to view themselves as guests but
    can instead act as 'defendants' or advocates.
    
    				herb
    
    

    .216 .... are you actually saying that as a mother you would not WANT
    to stay home with a sick child?  I hope not.  Certainly a father can
    fill in in an emergency, but caring for sick children is a mother's
    job.
    
    Also, like it or not, family plans do have an impact on your job
    performance, and as intrusive as you may think it is to ask questions
    in this area.....it somehow seems legitimate to me.
    
                            The Fossil

    in re .223
    
    caring for sick children is a *parent's* job...
    
    it doesn't take two X chromosomes to take care of someone who is sick.
    
    Bonnie

    .223 seemed like a hit and run comment to me, made just to unearth some
    anger.
    

    right on Bonnie.  Ask my daughters who takes better care of them any
    time, but especially when they are sick.  It make me kinda sad when my
    youngest daughter thanks me for being nice to her while she is sick
    because her mother was particularly unpleasant at those times 8-{  .
    
    re. -.2 the Fossil - Do you ask young men if they are planning to
    father any children?  Would you think it appropriateto do so?  Why not
    (if I've guessed your answer)?
    
    Sheeez,
    jimc
    

re .225
   I agree with you.
    
    
    				herb
    

    RE: .222
    
    Herb, color me still confused.  I don't get your complaint.
    
    There is a WORLD of difference between someone pointing out,
    complaining and expressing anger and frustration at what our
    patriarchal world has done to most women and personally attacking
    someone because he is a man.
    
    I don't see the second scenario happening on this file.  What I DO see
    are certain men jumping up and down and calling women sexist who DARE
    to suggest that just maybe men still control most of the world and are
    hindering women.
    
    Nobody here has said "Herb, you brasserfrankin' stinkin' filthy MAN" 
    but you seem to take every comment about how the world is run to be a
    personal slap at your chromosomes...
    
    Daniel

re .231

>    Nobody here has said "Herb, you brasserfrankin' stinkin' filthy MAN" 
>    but you seem to take every comment about how the world is run to be a
>    personal slap at your chromosomes...

	Your attention is directed to reply 44 of this very topic.

					Tom_K

    *YAWN* Tom....
    
    I just reread it for the nth time and am still amazed that anybody is
    reading that as a personal swipe. 
    
    It is an accurate, if very sarcastic, commentary on how the world runs.
    
    Life sucks.
    
    daniel

    Oh Lord, if ANYONE has a copy of my original 970.226, please send it to
    me!  I deleted it for a quick edit and instead of "reply/last", I hit
    "reply/edit" and dumped the buffer.  It was titled, "expect no mercy,
    man".  I'll write it again if I have to, but if someone grabbed it
    before I deleted it, I'd *really* appreciate it!
    
    Thanx,
    
    Sandy

    re .232, that is *not* what Carla was saying.
    
    Lorna
    

    Well, Tom, I reread reply .44, and it certainly said *N*O*T*H*I*N*G*
    about Herb, or about any other individual man.
    
    Perhaps you mistyped the reply number?
    
    						Ann B.

>>    Well, Tom, I reread reply .44, and it certainly said *N*O*T*H*I*N*G*
>>    about Herb, or about any other individual man.
    
Thanks Ann!  What am I?
    
    
    Nick
    

    Nick
    
    The note says nothing *about* you either, tho it is talking to you.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Some men behave like reasonable people and some do not.
    

    SHAME on you Ellen for being so sexist in your obvious and calculating
    attacks upon us poor, fragile, disempowered men...
    
    ;-)
    
    Daniel

>    Some men behave like reasonable people and some do not.
    
 Who said men and women weren't alike? ;^)

    re
    <how's my rhetoric today?>
    
    sophmoric

>    I also realize that I would like to see the path of this conference
>    altered. And anticipate making contributions with that in mind.

Well ok, Herb, go right ahead.  You've got that right.  But I hope you also 
realize that you're beating your head against the wall.  The conference 
exists for women and it's women who get to alter the path of it, not Herb.  
So go ahead but don't blame us when your attempts fail.

> (in the spirit of believing there is a difference between demanding and
> attempting to convince)
 
Everyone believes this, Herb, the question is whether or not what you are 
doing constitutes one or the other.  Go ahead and soften your stance when
you're called on it.  You've got that right, too.  But you're not fooling 
anyone - except maybe yourself.

>    In my opinion, as soon as people start making negative comments about
>    'men', at that point men no longer need to view themselves as guests but
>    can instead act as 'defendants' or advocates.

And here is where you finally admit your personal vendetta.  So it bothers you 
when women say something negative about men?  Well, la-di-da.  Does it 
bother you when men say something negative about women?  I wish I could 
hear your answer before you read the next paragraph.

I did not see you in soapbox railing against the men who brushed me off
with the negative comments of "women are twitesses" or "feminazis". 
According to you, with those comments, I immediately became "a 'defendant'
or advocate" with the carte blanche right to now act as such.  But where
were you?  Where was your sense of rightness, then?  Where was your defense
of the underdog against discrimination and hurt?  Not that I was hurt, mind
you, but you didn't know that and certainly there *were* some women stung
by such misogynistically unfair comments!  Your slip is showing, Herb and
your "lofty ideals" are quickly degenerating into the common and very boring
situation of merely having some personal axe to grind.  But you can have 
one, of course, that's your right, too.  You'll just get more sympathy for it 
in mennotes or even soapbox.

That women have been slighted by laws, traditions and rules that are male 
is a fact, whether you like it or not.  That you too are male has nothing 
to do with it.  Not with it happening, not with us being affected by it, 
not with us expressing anger at it.  You seem to have quite an egocentric 
view of the world, there!  My being born female had nothing to do
with sexism, yet I must pay the price out in the real world.  You, however,
cannot even handle hearing about the anger I and others feel because of it.
So their are two possible solutions to keeping the anger from reaching your 
eyes and ears.  Your preferred choice seems to be silence it at the source.
The better choice, however, is for you to simply admit to yourself that it 
exists here, (you haven't really, you know, you've pronounced it the 
ravings of just a few women who "abuse men"), and not subject yourself to
it anymore.  It's the better solution because this is womannotes.  It's the
better solution because some of that anger is fueled by that very
requirement of silence in much of our lives!  I can't believe you don't see 
this but that does happen in cases of blind rage and desperate panic.
      
It's always healthier to deal with life as it is and not as we'd like to 
see it.  You, however, seem bent on shaping this part of life to fit your 
myths and are angry because you continue to fail.  So you can keep banging 
your head against the wall or you can admit that women are angry, the things 
we are angry at are generally male in origin, that they have nothing to do with
Herb, even though he wants it to, and that we are expressing that anger here.  
Maybe once you face these truths a great weight will be lifted from your 
shoulders.

You know, maybe you'll get more "support" in mennotes.  Over there you can
blast the "feminazis" with relative impunity and with as much real-world
effect as we get by airing out our grievances over here.  Or is the effect
the whole point?  Hmmmm!  In mennotes, all you might get IS support.  Over
here, perhaps, you might be able to do some real damage, eh?  Is that it,
Herb?  That you don't really want just support, that you don't just want
understanding, you want some action - some revenge, even?  You want to stir 
up some trouble?  Zat what you're really here for, Herb?  It looks like
your "lofty ideals" have just crashed and burned.  Looks like *you're* the
one mired in hate and anger.  Most of us here are still loving or at least
liking men.  (Would you take *that* to mean "all" men?  How foolish).  You,
however, are compiling and sending out "shit lists" of women.  Have you got
symbols for us "chosen ones" to wear, too?  What does such a thing really
say, Herb?  It's *you* who has anger you need to let go of or express it in 
an "appropriate" place.  Because until you do, you'll never be able to
accept it in anyone else - which certainly seems to be the situation here.
We didn't cause your pain.  We aren't here to treat it.  We sympathize and 
we'll listen, but mostly we're busy with our own because that's what Maggie 
created this for.  Perhaps she should have consulted with you, but she didn't.
So you have two choices.  Join us in accepting the level of emotion that a 
lifetime of sexist and/or racist treatment has elicited, or leave us. 
Silencing us just isn't one of your options.

Sandy-the-loud-voice-again
    

    RE; .245  EXCELLENT!!!
    

    Let me see if I have this right.
    Population: 52% Female
                48% Male
    1 man = 1 vote
    1 woman = 1 vote
    
    Sooooo just who is really in control.......
    
    Not the men.

    	Damn - you caught us!  :)
    
    	We just let men take 93% of the CEO jobs to fool them into thinking
    	they were keeping us out (so we could get pissed at 'em later.) :-)
    

    re .248

    How was the voting for the manager in your group handled? Secret
    ballot? Everybody in the group with an equal say? In politics in
    your district, what process did you engage in to select who was
    going to run so you could later cast your vote?

    (Wasting perfectly good disk space...)

    Gee, so it appears women have control in womannotes?  That must be 
    quite a shattering experience to those who believe they own the right
    to control everything, especially to control women.  Yup.  We and this
    file are most definitely out of your control.  Now go relax.  You've
    got the whole rest of the world in which to play king of the mountain -
    unless of course you've got some real women in your personal lives!
    
            <   Suzanne, you never should have *told* them!  ;^>   >
    
    Sandy

    
    Even though it gives my feminist heart a thrill to see so many
    different women standing up for themselves and each other, and calling
    men on stuff that they see, the thing I love most in this file is
    seeing women talk with each other -- and not just the warm and fuzzy
    stuff - the disagreements and hard things, too.  I dare say that men still 
    have a lot of control (even/especially) in Womannotes when women spend 
    so much of their (our) energy reacting to men.  (Thanks to a very special 
    woman for reminding me of that.)  This space is here for women and men - 
    and we are all free (within certain, fairly flexible guidelines) to use the
    space as we wish.  I'd like to use it to listen to and talk with women
    more.  
    
    Justine

Re: .248

One man, one vote.

One woman, one vote.

IF THEY VOTE!!!

Over the past few millennia, men have done a truly workmanlike job of
keeping women from voting in great numbers by physically barring them
from the polls, by imposing restrictions they couldn't meet, and so on.
(Restrictions like what Lincoln told a woman who persistently demanded
to know where a wounded soldier was hit:  "Madam, the bullet that
injured him would not have struck you.")

Now, when women dare to control *one* *tiny* corner of Digial's vast
amount of disk space, men try to take it away from them.  Pfui.

-d

    
    re .248:
    You must be lost.  Soapbox is at PEAR::SOAPBOX.
    If you need help finding your way back and out of
    here, please let me know.  I'm happy to oblige ;-)
    

    re 970.245
    
<>    In my opinion, as soon as people start making negative comments about
<>    'men', at that point men no longer need to view themselves as guests but
<>    can instead act as 'defendants' or advocates.

<And here is where you finally admit your personal vendetta.  So it bothers you 
<when women say something negative about men?  Well, la-di-da.  Does it 
<bother you when men say something negative about women? 

    No I am not admitting to a personal vendetta. Although I am admitting to
    something perhaps a bit like a crusade. To whit: let's ALSO look at the
    areas where/how women contribute to our societal sexist problems and
    other problems.
    
    And no it doesn't bother me when women say something negative about men
    I generally agree with the comments. What bothers me is when people/the
    conference say negative things about men but will not accept
    discussions that attempt to -IN ADDITION- focus on comparable/ the same
    areas about women that are not positive.


    <I did not see you in soapbox railing against the men who brushed me
    <off with the negative comments of "women are twitesses" or
    <"feminazis".  According to you, with those comments, I immediately
    <became "a 'defendant' r advocate" with the carte blanche right to now
    <act as such.  But where were you?  Where was your sense of rightness,
    <then?  Where was your defense <of the underdog against discrimination
    <and hurt?  Not that I was hurt, mind you, but you didn't know that and
    <certainly there *were* some women stung by such misogynistically
    <unfair comments!  Your slip is showing, Herb and your "lofty ideals"
    <are quickly degenerating into the common and very boring situation of
    <merely having some personal axe to grind.

    I don't participate in SOAPBOX. I haven't even READ SOAPBOX in months
    if not years. I don't consider that forum to be relevant to my life.

    <That women have been slighted by laws, traditions and rules that are
    <male is a fact, whether you like it or not.  
    
    I don't like it. In fact, I deplore it.

    <My being born female had nothing to do with sexism, yet I must pay the
    <price out in the real world.  You, however, cannot even handle hearing
    <about the anger I and others feel because of it.

    I can handle hearing the anger you and others feel! It strikes me that
    the issue might even be the opposite. Namely that others cannot
    hear/understand the anger that men feel. (Unfortunately, those men who
    are angry -in my opinion- don't seem to do a very good job of
    acknowledging female anger either.) 
    Nor can the membership seem to hear/accept that it might contribute to
    sexism in a variety of ways also.
    
    <So their are two possible solutions to keeping the anger from reaching
    <your eyes and ears.  Your preferred choice seems to be silence it at
    <the source.


    I have NO interest in silencing the anger. My interest as I already
    have said MANY times, is in recognizing/acknowledging that although its
    not a complete TWO way street, it's not a one way street either.

    <The better choice, however, is for you to simply admit to yourself that
    <it  exists here, (you haven't really, you know, you've pronounced it
    <the ravings of just a few women who "abuse men"), and not subject
    <yourself to it anymore.  It's the better solution because this is
    <womannotes.  It's the better solution because some of that anger is
    <fueled by that very requirement of silence in much of our lives!  I
    <can't believe you don't see  this but that does happen in cases of
    <blind rage and desperate panic.

    That dog don't hunt!
    I believe that women have a JUST right to be angry for being short
    changed, for being slighted, for being derogated to second class
    citizenship and virtually everything else that one might mention.
      
    But it is hardly a myth, that women are co-conspirators! (albeit
    unwillingly) 

    <So you can keep banging  your head against the wall or you can admit
    <that women are angry, the things  we are angry at are generally male in
    <origin, that they have nothing to do with Herb, even though he wants
    <it to, and that we are expressing that anger here.   Maybe once you
    <face these truths a great weight will be lifted from your  shoulders.
    
    We DO agree on this. My head DOES hurt. 
    At least in terms of effectiveness, it certainly feels that my time
    WOULD be better spent elsewhere. I certainly need to do some thinking
    about that.

    < So you have two choices.  
    <Join us in accepting the level of emotion that a  lifetime of sexist
    <and/or racist treatment has elicited, or leave us. 

    I have joined you.

    <Silencing us just isn't one of your options.

    I don't want to silence you.
    However, if the conference is unwilling to acknowledge that women have
    ALSO been involved in the male/female problems that exist in the world,
    if -wn= is unwilling to listen to, hear, and discuss what women can do
    to understand their role (albeit subordinate and secondary) in
    perpetuating the 'American way of life' then i believe that silence
    -ALTHOUGH TERRIBLE- would be better.
    
    
    				herb

    I'm with you, Justine.  Herb, give it up.  Let it go.  You can change
    tactics, contradict yourself, try anything you like but you *won't win*
    because this is womannotes and it's ours.  To suggest that we're
    "ignoring" men or our roles in men's world is to not have understood a
    single thing you've read here over the years.  You're right back at
    square one for a new game and frankly, I and most of the rest of us are
    way ahead of you.  And it's also clear why you prefer to note here
    rather than in soapbox.  But you're setting yourself up to get the same
    response here, eventually.  Zilch!
    
    Sandy Ciccolini

    herb,
    
    Let me get this straight.  You want us to admit that we have allowed
    ourselves to perpetuate the sexist environment.  Okay fine, yes we
    have.  We have been beaten, raped, rights denied, disenfranshized, and
    basically molded by our culture to participate in subjugating
    ourselves.  However, who has run the culture that has encouraged us to
    do this?
    
    What I am hearing you say to me is the same accept the fact that I
    contributed to my own rape because other women have always been raped
    and a woman was a mother to the rapist. This is blaming the victim, 
    and I can't accept that sort of logic.  If you have been reading this
    notesfile through the years you would see notes on raising non-sexist
    children in a sexist society, fears for our three-year-old daughters
    and how to ready them for the disappointments of a sexist society
    without condemming the society, and how to directly confront sexist
    attitudes and actions.  We do work on this, but don't expect any woman
    to buy into what I am reading in your notes.  
    
    Meg 

    <Let me get this straight.  You want us to admit that we have allowed
    <ourselves to perpetuate the sexist environment.  
    
    NO not absolutely. Yes, to some extent.
    
    <Okay fine, yes we have.  We have been beaten, raped, rights denied,
    <disenfranshized, and basically molded by our culture to participate in
    <subjugating ourselves.  However, who has run the culture that has
    <encouraged us to do this?
    
    Men, primarily.
    
    <What I am hearing you say to me is the same accept the fact that I
    <contributed to my own rape because other women have always been raped
    <and a woman was a mother to the rapist.
    I'm sorry to see that is what you are hearing. It is not my intent.
    
    <This is blaming the victim,  and I can't accept that sort of logic. 
    I don't blame you for not accepting that. It is atrocious logic!
    
    <and a woman was a mother to the rapist.
    Yup! It is the case that most rapists were brought up in abusive
    homes firstly, and in an abusive society secondly.
    
    <If you have been reading this notesfile through the years you would see
    <notes on raising non-sexist children in a sexist society, fears for our
    <three-year-old daughters and how to ready them for the disappointments
    <of a sexist society without condemming the society, and how to directly
    <confront sexist attitudes and actions.  We do work on this, 
    
    Good! It is a very, very difficult and frustrating job. At least partly
    because it shouldn't be necessary. BUT IT IS.
    
    <...but don't expect any woman to buy into what I am reading in your
    <notes.  
    GOOD, i don't want ANY woman to buy into what you are reading into my
    notes.
    

    re: .255
    
    You got me confused again Herb...
    
    You say you don't want to silence the anger yet you said in .209 that
    the "appropriate" place for it is in "private"  effectively stating
    that the voice of women's anger should be hidden away from your view.
    
    Pick one or the other position: you can't occupy both.
    
    Daniel

    re:260 ( Ithink)--
    but by Herb occupying BOTH positions think of how much air-time and
    attention he gets! It must be the only way!

It all comes back to the basic fact that this forum is WOMANNOTES, and
in this forum it is remarks by and for women that have the floor.  It is
all right for an individual to say that men are angry, too, but it is
not all right for that individual to attempt to derail or suppress the
issue of women's anger because of men's anger.  Discussion, no matter
how rough it gets, and no matter whether I/you/he/she/we like the fact
that it's rough, is still better than burying anger.  Words are better
to deal with than ulcers.

-d

    >Listen young man
    
    oh, now I've been patronized.
    
    I have goose bumps all over.
    
    Herb, why do you torpedo everything you do in this fashion?
    
    Daniel

    and while we're at it, why is it nitpicking to call you on your blatant
    contradictions?

    (I have deleted my earlier reply and will try it again without the
    impatience....)
    
    I am trying to do the best I can at communicating what I am feeling.
    Each and everyone of us can nitpick at what others say forever if we so
    chose.
    
    My feeling is pretty close to the following 
    
    if woman can express their anger at men in public, but men cannot
    comment on women's negative roles in American society, then either 
    
    	men should be allowed to make their comments in public or 
    	women should be required to make their comments in private.
    
    That is the message. The message is clear. Everybody knows it's the
    message.
    (including you: so now perhaps you understand a little better what I
    meant when I said that the purpose of debating is to win, not to seek
    understanding)
    
    I believe it is totally inappropriate for that status to continue. 
    The only sensible discussion should be around THAT point.
    
    I have heard some people say that because women have so few
    opportunities/places to work through their anger etc, that women should
    have the opportunity to have a forum for doing that. And that this
    should be the forum. And that men should not interfere.
    That is a very good point. 
    
    I propose making it part of the charter of the conference.
    I propose that the moderators have as part of their authority the right
    to determine which male contributions are supportive and which male
    contributions are not supportive. And that the moderators have the
    right/priviledge/responsibility to summarily delete those male
    contributions that do not meet their measurements.
    
    Alternatively, I propose that the moderators petition the powers that
    be, for a private members only conference that admits all women but
    only selective men (or maybe none). 

    <and while we're at it, why is it nitpicking to call you on your blatant
    <contradictions?

    Because of what I view to be the typical PURPOSE of 'calling people on their
    blatant contradictions' Think of what mood would have been conveyed if
    you had instead said something like...

    "Herb, do you understand there to be a contradiction between on the one
    hand saying that women ought to extress their anger in private and ..."

    To which I would have -hopefully- responded.

    "Thankyou Daniel that is a good point, what I actually would like to
    say is ..."

    To which you would hopefully NOT have responded 

    <Go ahead and soften your stance when you're called on it.  You've got
    <that right, too.  But you're not fooling  anyone - except maybe
    <yourself.
    
			and
    
    <Your slip is showing, Herb and your "lofty ideals" are quickly
    <degenerating into the common and very boring situation of merely
    <having some personal axe to grind. 

    >if woman can express their anger at men in public, but men cannot
    >comment on women's negative roles in American society...
    
    Well you're wrong, Emily.  Women *can* express anger here in notes and 
    men *can* comment and express anger, too!  You may not convince anyone
    of anything, (is that your problem?), but you can express and comment 
    right along with everyone else.  So you've got what you want and you've 
    always had it.
    
    Now how about a nice, big, sweet, "Oh!  Never Mind!"   ;^>
    
    >I propose making it part of the charter of the conference.
    
    I believe it already is.  So once again... "Oh..."
    
    >I propose that the moderators have as part of their authority the right
    >to determine which male contributions are supportive and which male
    >contributions are not supportive. And that the moderators have the
    >right/priviledge/responsibility to summarily delete those male
    >contributions that do not meet their measurements.
    
    Well you're in luck again, because they do!  (They do with women's
    entries too, but since you're specifically addressing men's entries, so
    will I).  The mods quickly set hidden any notes in response to anyone's, 
    male or female's, complaint while the complaint is being investigated 
    between the parties.  "Supportive" or "non-supportive" isn't the only 
    criteria, though, and I doubt a general vote would go in favor of your 
    proposition.  Or did you just want to issue an edict?  Well you can't.
    Dem's da rules!  ;>  Only the mods can.
    
    >Alternatively, I propose that the moderators petition the powers that
    >be, for a private members only conference that admits all women but
    >only selective men (or maybe none). 
    
    That's up to them, Herb, if they have the time or interest.  I'm sure 
    they'll give your proposition careful consideration.  Thanx for your 
    interest in womannotes.  You know, YOU could run such a conference, if
    you like!  In the meantime, you can do your part in making the existing
    conference more like that which you've proposed above!  ;^>
    
    Sandy
                                                         

> try anything you like but you *won't win*
>    because this is womannotes and it's ours.

 I think this ought to be somewhere in 1.*

    What I find interesting in some of the dialogue here is that it is
    percieved that women in this file are complaining about their plight in
    life and that they are doing nothing about it....Women have come into this
    file and talked about how angry they are about the injustices that have
    been in their lives and they have taken that anger and done something
    about it...they have made things happened....and it is because we are
    saying...That's it...I'm not going to let it happen to me again...
    
    
    
    Anger effects change....and I think most women's anger effects real
    positive change.....and if you listen real hard you will hear other
    changes.....women being successful.....women not being abused....women
    breaking the glass ceilings.....women being an equal part of this
    society in every way......if you just listen a little bit.....
    
    denise
               
    

    More thoughts.....
    
    My perception of some reasons why folks note in =wn= is that the care
    and love women...they are interested in what effects women....they want
    to know how women think......
    
    Now you are in a space for women where you hear alot of anger and hurt
    about many many things that have happen to these women....and these
    women are doing something about it.....very strongly and very
    loudly....and because you love and care about women and are concern
    about what effects women it makes sense to me that you do something
    about that anger and hurt.....To me it means that you get involve to
    change why these women are anger and hurt....be part of the solution
    not the problem...
    
    
    Listen to the anger.....listen to our cries....it's not myths....it not
    make believe....it's real and it has been happening to women
    forever...help us change it........
    
    denise 

    re: .270
    
    this is probably more nitpicking, but I *didn't* write the second half
    of what herb quoted...
    
    if you're going to accuse me of being acrimonious, use the correct
    acrimony
    
    daniel

    
    For me, the opportunity to hear other women talk about problems they
    have had has helped to get me past the stage of thinking of myself as
    helpless.  The "complaining" is a step for me in regaining a voice.
    
    After several years of working in a predominantly male group, I'd begun
    to doubt my own working style and world view  (consensus, what a 
    consensus?).  Hearing about others who have experienced similar
    discomforts has allowed me to place that discomfort in perspective -
    it's not al, in fact I'm not out of step at all (wanna join MY parade?)
    As a result I'm walking a bit taller and am beginning to regain that 
    confidence and voice that has been slowly trickling away through
    self-doubt.

    
    re -1
    
    Yippee!   To me that is one of the most important things that
    woman-oriented space can do -- help us feel like we're not crazy! 
    We're not the only ones who feel this way.  
    
    Thanks,
    
    Justine

    .re: all the brouhaha 
    
    It's fairly common knowledge that negative attention is better
    than no attention at all.  That's why beaten children sometimes
    do better than those children who are totally ignored by their
    parents.  At least being beaten, one has to know one exists, right?
    
    I think sometimes some of the men in here feel they don't exist.
    So they ask for the beating, and sometimes they get it.  
    Do you feel better now?
    
    Maia
    

    re 970.275
    
    When i included the quotes in my reply to you, i knew the words had
    come from Sandy and i unthinkingly assumed that everybody else would
    have known.
    I regret any appearance of mis-attribution.
    
    				herb

    re .276
    I agree with Justine and am happy you have found something helpful.

    	I suppose it's very difficult for some people to imagine a
    	world where women decide for ourselves how we will discuss our
    	views on sexism/discrimination in a file called "Womannotes"..
    
    	..WITHOUT being continuously policed for content (and WITHOUT
    	receiving unsolicited advice on what changes should be made
    	to the conference charter and what requests we should make to
    	our employer based on this unsolicited advice.)
    
    	It must be hard to imagine a world where women are trusted to
    	make decisions without such intervention.

>    *YAWN* Tom....
>    
>    I just reread it for the nth time and am still amazed that anybody is
>    reading that as a personal swipe. 
    
maybe the yelp we all hear is of the "shoe fits" variety...if you are taking
this reply SO personally, perhaps you should examine just how you feel about
the increasing demands that power/control of the cosmos be SHARED with others...
perhaps, you DO feel that women/racial minorities/gays, etc simply CAN'T do
the job as well as....?

It is a question ALL of us WASPs need to address in ourselves and the answers
we get may not be too comfortable to our smug "liberal" personaes.  When that
is true, then we know we need to work on our entrenched attitudes.  The first
clue has gotta be when you find yourself standing out there shouting a
viewpoint that is not shared by any/many others.  When that happens to me,
I stop and review WHY I feel the way I do...I don't always change my opinion,
but I do investigate it.

re: changing womannotes ...............I gotta flame a little on this
comment, folks.  FLAME ON:

Who made you king?  NOBODY has the right to change the tone/attitude of
womannotes - or any other conference on the E-NET.  You have the right to
agree or disagree, you have the right to read or not read, you have the
right to reply or not reply.  You do NOT have the right to try and change the
attitude/tone/path of any conference.  If people agree with you, they will
say so.  If they don't agree with you, they will say so - you get to decide
if they are right FOR YOU or wrong for you.  That's it.  We all get the same
privilege. No more, No less.  

If you don't like the attitudes expressed here, you have the same choice we
all have...you can stop reading.

FLAME OFF

re .282

	What do you mean, "us WASPs"? What do you mean "our smug 'liberal'
	personaes"? Except for the "W", none of these shoes fit me...

re changing the tone/attitude of the file:

	The tone/attitude is made by the participants. Every participant,
	for good or bad, impacts the tone, to some extent. Herb is
	well within his right to change the tone, *to* *the* *extent*
	*that* *his* *participation* changes the conference, no more,
	no less, which is no more or less than any participant has!
	His participation influences the conference, as does everyones
	participation. No one dictates the tone or attitude....

						Tom_K

    umm, Tom, _one_ person who incites a great deal of response can
    greatly change the tone of the conference. Both the quantity and
    the severity of the responses incited will dictate how much 
    impact that person has.

    PS - conversely, the community at large can minimize one person's
    impact on the tone of the conference by not responding.

    
    
    Maybe if he's just ignored, he'll go away!!!!!
    
    

re .284,.285

	Didn't ,283 say that?

			Tom_K

    >Maybe if he's just ignored, he'll go away!!!!!
    
    That what "The List" note is about.
    
    It only works if we *all* do it.
    
    D!

    Re .254
    
    	Shove it. Go take a hike yourself.
    
    
    Re .256
    
    	< womannotes and it's ours.
    
    	No, it is not yours. It is a corporate resource and I suggest you
    remember that. A valuable resource can be taken away by a few big
    mouthed ego-maniacs. 
    
    	Someone asked if anyone took a vote on my manager. Well, in the
    last 5 years 80% of my supervisors and cost center managers were women.
    Looks like the 52% to 48% worked here.
    

    ps. OH by the way I have seen a few woman promoted and were allowed
    to pass the hardware boards that were not qualified. At the same time I
    have seen some women passed over. The difference was the latter worked
    and did their jobs and the former complained and threatened. You know, 
    the squeaky wheel thing.     
    		

    			Wayne

    re -1
    
    	I'm software support Suzanne and you know that. As far as being
    angry, I suppose so. I just look at this string and I see a whole group
    of people trying to make it in the world. Yet they are blaming each
    other about things they had nothing to do with. The bottom line is I am
    the only one who will take care of me and my kids no one else. So, I will
    fight anyone for the piece of the pie I have now and any waiting in the
    future.
    
    	That may sound cruel but you know it's true for you also. We are
    the same, were just trying to make it.
    
    
    			Wayne
    

    	RE: .289  Wayne
    
    	> Shove it. Go take a hike yourself.
    
    	> ...a few big mouthed ego-maniacs. 
    
    	Pretty hostile there, Wayne.  Are you angry about something?
    
    	>ps. OH by the way I have seen a few woman promoted and were allowed
        >to pass the hardware boards that were not qualified. At the same time 
        >I have seen some women passed over. The difference was the latter 
        >worked and did their jobs and the former complained and threatened. 
        >You know, the squeaky wheel thing.     
    
    	Anyone who's ever been to a hardware board (which does not include
    	you, right Wayne?) knows that NO ONE just slides through as a 
    	result of making noise about it.  Board prep is a long and very
    	difficult process for anyone who sets out to do it (regardless of
    	race, creed or sex.)
    
    	Hardware people who don't prepare for the board are not allowed
    	to go (so they don't get the hardware promotion associated with
    	the board.)

    
    	The real bottom line is that women have as much right as anyone
    	in this country (or any other country with freedom of speech)
    	to discuss and/or complain about political issues.
    

    
    re .289:
    
>    Re .254
>    
>    	Shove it. Go take a hike yourself.
    
    Good Lord, Wayne.  A friendly little suggestion and
    you go ballistic at me.  The thanks I get for trying to
    help ;-)
    
    
re .291:    
    
    >So, I will fight anyone for the piece of the pie I have now and
    >any waiting in the future.
    
    Perhaps the stress of "fighting" is taking its toll on you
    and you should give yourself a break from the stressful world
    of fighting with women in womannotes.
    
    If so, I take back the suggestion of Soapbox.  Perhaps you
    should try something more restful like KNITTING notes.
    

    re -1 
    
    
    	Good suggestion. I think it's time for me to retire to some serious
    solitude. 
    
    
    		Wayne

>    If so, I take back the suggestion of Soapbox.  Perhaps you
>    should try something more restful like KNITTING notes.

 Why? There's far less acrimony in Soapbox... It's a much safer place to hold
a PI opinion...

    
    fewer pies flaying about ...

    Geez.  I've never made a pie that would even nick anyone.
    
    						Ann B.

Oh, Ann, *I* have.  My crusts used to have the consistency of the best
high-carbon steel...

-d

    I saw a man silly enough to go for a x99 so he can get an x00
    
    
    Jerome.

    One less x00 left to get!  :-)
    
    
    Jerome.