Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    	The following comment describes a phenomenon that seems to happen
    	when some people perceive that a lot of women are present: [1017.30]
    
    	>Those of you who have been following Blacknotes may have noticed the
    	>"new noter on the block", left unnamed, who has come out with some
    	>of the most "unique" statements. About his pride in being a chauvanist,
    	>and how feminism seems like a selfish concept, and male domination
    	>being the natural order of things, etc. 
    
    	>Rumor has it, that one of the reasons why he was being so hostile in 
    	>the notes was because he assumed that all of the noters were young 
    	>clueless women whom he could talk down to, patronize, and give the 
    	>benefit of his wisdom to.
    
    	It's part of the atmosphere of a culture that regards women as children
    	that some people, IMO, apparently feel the need to educate us and/or 
    	straighten us out.
    
    	*Some* people seem to believe quite sincerely that we NEED them to do 
    	this for us.
    
    	No, it's not the majority of people-without-the-difference who do
    	this.
    
    	(Apologies if I neglected to include the full range of disclaimers
    	necessary for expressing this particular type of opinion.)

    Mike, why do you like to "interact" here?  Why do you choose this 
    particular forum, out of thousands, (and though you may also choose
    others, the question pertains to this one only), in which to
    "interact"?  I think that's more the question than simply why do you note.
    Why do you note HERE?

Because some of the most interesting people I've ever met contribute
here.

Martin.

    Re: base note
    
    I "note" here, primarily as read only. Though I'd like to respond
    more, I don't because I too find that many times there appear to
    be more notes from men than women. It also appears to me that
    some folks here see the world differently than I and I'd like
    to understand their perspective better. 
    
    And I've made some friends in this conference. That means a lot
    to me. 
    
    							Hank

Not an answer (I am not a man so I guess I have an inherent reason for being
here) but a thought:

Heterosexual men are compelled by reasons both biological and emotional to
interact with women.  There is not a similar compulsion acting to force
Jews to interact with non-Jews, non-Blacks with Blacks, adoption-triad-members
with non-adoption-triad-members, etc.  In theory, people-with-difference
could totally stop interacting with people-without-difference (I am not
advocating it, sounds *terrible*!) and life would continue; except when that
difference is being a woman.

Seeing as how men are compelled to interact with us (closely, personally,
intimately) it makes sense that they would be more interested in issues of
interest to women. Perhaps that is at least a partial explanation of the 
larger presence of men in womannotes than of whites in Blacknotes.

D!

(BTW, "womanhood" isn't really a difference they way "blackhood" or
"jewhood" or "disabled-hood" [in this country] is - after all, we are a
majority!)

    
    
    Hmm...can _I_ reply here?  I'm not a guy.  Gee, maybe I better not.
    Oh, but then agin, this is =wn= and since I'm a woman, this must
    be MY notesfile......  :p
    
    The  :p pretty much sums up how I feel about the "What the HELL
    are MEN here for??" questions that keep popping up, especially in
    =wn=, so you can kinda get the impression I don't mind men in this
    notesfile at all.   And this subject hit a sore spot yet again,
    so here goes:                                            
    
    
    
    It's kinda long.
    
    
    Remember I'm NOT a man.....
    
    
    Just another human being.
    
    
    Okay, here goes....
    
    
    I won't profess to speak for any of the men .0's question is aimed
    for, but I might try to provide some insight on why the "person
    without the difference" might explore a Valuing Difference notesfile.
    
    I read Mennotes.  I even reply in Mennotes.  Why?  Because I am
    curious to see and hear and talk about issues that are of concern
    to men.  Does that mean I should simply huddle in a corner, silenced
    and unopinionated at what goes on in there --BECAUSE I AM NOT A
    MAN?  I don't feel I should.  If I did, I'd feel rather repressed.
    A victim of sexism.  ("Oh, it's okay if men talk about men, but
    women better not because they are not men, and they should especially
    not *even* pretend to have an opinion on things men have that women
    don't!!")  I think the consensus of =wnoters= don't like sexism
    much.  It's a big problem, isn't it?  It's not much fun to be told
    you can't do this, that or the other because you're a woman.
    
    I don't like sexism.  I don't like xenophobia (for lack of a better
    word --elitism is another which comes to mind), either.  I don't like the
    idea of being excluded or put down, or hampered because I am not
    something, be it female, be it the "correct" race, religion or social
    class.
    
      I don't like living in a world with it.  I
    sure wish it was gone.  But it prevails, even our own notesfiles,
    among adults who generally seem a little enlightened to the problems
    of society.  It exists in little ways --one of which is the belief/feeling
    that if you aren't Jewish, you ought not participate actively in
    a Jewish notesfile.  If you're not Gay/Lesbian, you better not
    participate in an Alternative Lifestyles notesfile.  Not actively.
    If you're a man, you ought not come into womannotes and actively
    participate.  If you're a woman (and yes, this attitude happens
    over *there*, too), you better not go into Mennotes and actively
    participate.
    
    Then what SHOULD we do?  Let's see.  I am a white female, basically
    non-religiously affiliated, fairly mainstream, owner of several
    cats and some birds, and an old car.  I am unmarried, childless,
    and not really on any professional track.  Based on this, I should
    probably keep my mouth shut and typing out of notesfiles concerning
    Blacks and other Minorities, Parenting, Any Religious Conference,
    Dogs, Sports Cars, Any Job-specific conference other than
    DEC_SECRETARY, and just about 75% of the rest of notesfiles.  After
    all, what the hell do _I_ know about a German Shepherd, not owning
    one?  Who cares what _I_ think about Black people, not being one?  What
    do _I_ know about Systems Management, not being a systems Manager.
    What do _I_ possibly know about premature ejaculation, not having
    a penis and thus not experiencing it?  
    
    Guess I don't know much at all.  So maybe I ought to be the good
    little woman and stay in my OWN notesfiles and talk about things
    that only us white, secretarial, cat-owning, old-car-driving single,
    not-Mommies women _do_ know about, right?  
    
    No, I don't think so.  I happen to know a bit more than that.  What
    if I have an interest in muscle cars, which I do?  What if I happen
    to have an interest dogs, which I do?  Should I just shut up and
    never DARE to post anything about something which I don't own, and
    maybe have not first handedly experienced, but have information
    and (shudder!) opinions on?  Should I never DARE to post in Men
    notes about, say, what men find sexy in women, because I am not
    a man, and have never dated a woman?  Does not having DONE something
    make you a complete, utter, and total imbecile on the topic?  No.
    When did not being something (a race car driver, black, gay, an
    athlete, a systems manager, a man, a woman, a dog) preclude you
    from having information and ideas and opinions about that which
    you are not?  What is so damned WRONG about expressing them?
          
    I go into these other notesfiles because I DO have an opinion that
    I might just express and mostly, MOSTLY because I am INTERESTED
    in what the people WITH the differences think.  I might even ask
    them why they think that, or state that I think they are wrong.
    It might cause dissention, it might cause discussion.  It might
    even cause illumination for one or both sides.  I go to Mennotes because
    I want to talk and listen and watch and discuss things about the
    male perspective and issues.  I go here because I want to talk and
    watch and listen and discuss things about the woman's perspective
    and issues.  I go to CANINE because I like dogs.  I go to CARBUFFS
    because I like discussion about cars.  I'd like to go to a lot of
    the other Valuing Differences conferences, but there's enough
    of "What the Hell are YOU doing here" attitude in the ones I do
    frequent to make me want to limit my frustrastion threshold.
                  
    I want to interact.  Condemn me for my intereaction because of what
    I am, and you've simply cast one of those -ism's a lot of us profess
    to hate so much.  Limit the voices you listen to, or will tolerate,
    and you've just created another wall between the ones that separate
    so many of us already, walls that so badly need to be broken down,
    and walls that the world could be far, far better without.
    
    
    
    ---kim
    

    I, W.A.S.P. male, mostly read, occasionally contribute.
    
    I find that I learn most in life from those that are different than me,
    rather then those who are just like me. As a person_without_the_difference
    I read and participate in a number of conferences.
    
    And, I'm endlessly curious.
    
    -roger
    

    Lately I don't know why I follow it; its just too confusing to keep up
    with anymore.
    
    Seriously, though, I followed a =womannotes-type file back on PLATO
    many years ago where some of the most strident feminists I've ever
    known noted.  After a couple of years of reading it a lot of the ideas
    and frustrations finally started to sink in.  I find that every now and
    then this file imparts some gleam of knowledge or an idea I hadn't
    thought about before.

    	RE: .8  Kim
    
    	How does "I was just wondering..." translate to "What the HELL
    	are MEN here for??"
    
    	> ...so you can kinda get the impression I don't mind men in this
    	> notesfile at all. 
    
    	Actually, I kinda get the impression that any questioning of men's
    	motives AT ALL should be regarded as probable evidence of wishing
    	that there were NO men in this conference.  (Heaven forbid that
    	women should *ever* question men's motives about anything.)
    
    	> I want to interact.  Condemn me for my intereaction because of what
    	> I am, and you've simply cast one of those -ism's a lot of us profess
    	> to hate so much.  Limit the voices you listen to, or will tolerate,
    	> and you've just created another wall between the ones that separate
    	> so many of us already, walls that so badly need to be broken down,
    	> and walls that the world could be far, far better without.
    
    	These are stereotypes, Kim.  There are quite a few males voices that
    	are appreciated in this conference, and there are a number of women
    	who disagree with each other (about a variety of topics.)
    
    	When a woman disagrees strongly with a man in this conference, some
    	people come along and scream, "You disagree *because* he is a man!"
    
    	When a woman disagrees strongly with another woman in this conference,
    	some of the same people come along and scream, "How can you say that
    	to one of your OWN RANKS????"  
    
    	The main message is that we shouldn't disagree strongly with anyone
    	at all (and they're ready with disparaging comments to make about it
    	whether we disagree with men *or* women.)  [Notice I'm refraining from
    	assigning these particular practices to *either* gender.]
    
    	Asking "I was just wondering...why men are here" is not an attack,
    	unless anyone feels that women simply don't have any right to express
    	wonder about why some men do things.  (I certainly hope no one here 
    	feels that way.)

	re: .0   (Bobbi Fox)

>    I'm wondering:  what do the men who note in =wn= come to the file for?

	For most of the past year or so that I've been reading this 
	file, I had never asked myself that question.

	In the past couple weeks, that question has arose in my mind 
	repeatedly with respect to certain male noters.  

	It's just not clear to me what they want, what they're
	trying to acheive here, what they want to contribute, what
	they want to learn...etc.  I'm sincerely baffled.

						nancy b.

    
    	The ole "party line" stereotype/myth...
    
    	It's been awhile since anyone accused us of this.  (I'm getting
    	nostalgic again...)
    
    	We disproved this one years ago.  Another one for the archives...
    

    
    	Forget it!
    
    	There is no way I'm going to retrace ground that it took YEARS
    	to cover in this conference for your sake.  
    
    	Aside from that, I refuse to list (and discuss!) identifiable
    	individuals in Womannotes for your edification.
    
    	Most of us remember back to the days when we overcame this
    	particular stereotype.  It's funny to see it recycled again,
    	that's all.
    
    	(Hey, folks!  If stereotypes are already being recycled, perhaps
    	it means that new ones are in short supply.  This could be a
    	good sign!  ;^))
    

    As I commented in my introduction, the most important people in my
    life (my wife and daughter) are (or will be) women.  That gives me,
    I think, a legitimate interest in this conference.
    
    Reading here regularly (and writing occasionally) since V1 was first
    opened has shown me that there is really something to be learned
    here -- even, when I can get past my reflex reactions, from the
    notes (and noters) that seem the most "strident".
    
    It has also convinced me (as a number of noters here have asserted
    over the years) that "free and open debate" *isn't* what it is all
    about.  Opinions need to be contemplated slowly, over a period of
    time.  "Vigorous challenge," degenerating rapidly into intolerant
    argument, loses something irrecoverably.
    
    So why do I write here?  Sometimes I think that I have a bit of
    relevant knowledge to contribute to a discussion.  Sometimes I have
    the arrogance to hope that I might be able to help clarify an idea
    that I see someone else trying to express, and others missing. 
    Occasionally I take an opportunity to promote a pet cause.  And evry
    now and then my ideals collapse and I can't resist disagreeing with
    a note or opinion that strikes me as especially noxious.
    
    	-Neil

    I read this recently, and it was food for thought.  I neither buy all
    of it, nor reject all of it, but mull it over in my mind.  I share it
    for you to mull over as well....this also links with the "learning
    about feminism" discussion that occurred elsewhere in this file
    recently...
    
    "It takes a great deal of strength, patience, and caring for an
    "inferior" (i.e. from a perceived-as-less-than-equal-group) person to
    teach his or her system to a "superior" (i.e. from a perceived-as-
    higher-up-group) person.  It also takes about twice as much energy as
    communicating with a peer does.  This is because "superior" system
    people are often slow learners and are not very motivated to learn
    about other systems.  Why should they?  They're already in charge!..."
    
    "Since men have been [convinced]...that they are superior and that they
    know and understand everything, they assume that they can tell [women]
    who they are and what they are like.  Not only do they assume that they
    have the right to tell women who they are but also that they are correct in
    their perceptions of women and that women will accept whatever they say. 
    [women] resent this very much!  Women want men to say, "Tell me what
    you are like;" instead they are saying, "Let me tell you what you are
    like!"  Whenever women try to explain the Female System to them, they
    reply, "Put this information into the language and concepts of MY
    system so I can understand it."  It is almost as if they are saying,
    "It's YOUR responsibility to make me understand.  If I don't
    understand, it's your fault."
    
    
    excerpted/paraphrased from:
    "Women's Reality" - by Anne Wilson Schaef, ISBN 0-86683-753-1
    
    -Jody
    
    
    
    

    re:.0
    
    I'm here because I want to understand how women think about given
    issues, and perhaps to get a better understanding of *why* they
    think differently from men.
    
    --- jerry

    The following response is from a member of our community who wishes
    to remain anonymous at this time.

    							=maggie
    ====================================================================


    Recently, I, like many other Womannoters, have been wondering why
    certain men are noting in this file.  They seem to have only a
    peripheral interest in "Topics of Interest to Women", frequently derail
    discussions, and engage in seemingly endless debates about  semantics.

    And lately I (a woman) have been asking myself the question: why am 
    *I* here?

    I may wonder, but I know the answer.  Womannotes stays in my notebook 
    because it is somewhat of a refuge, if not a sanctuary.   Among the 
    engineers in my group, men outnumber women 4 to 1.  Not that the people 
    I work with are openly hostile to women or anything like that, but 
    sometimes some of them say unthinking things.  And sometimes these 
    unthinking remarks cause me to feel threatened, or, more often,  very
    alone, very "different", like "the token feminist", or, worse, the
    "token woman".   At those times, I *feel* outnumbered.  

    I started to feel a lot better after I started reading Womannotes.
    There *were* people out there like me.  Some of them were even men! I
    *wasn't* the only person who would be offended by the lunchtime
    conversation about why a male coworker really "should" "pick up" a 
    wife so that his taxes and car insurance would go down, but "it's too
    expensive to date - all 'girls' want is for someone else to pay for
    them to go to all the expensive places" (for example).  And I wasn't
    the only one who would have taken the time to explain to a
    half-tableful of blank faces that no, "salesman" is not a
    gender-neutral term! Knowing that I'm not alone, and being able to
    reassure myself of that  when I really need to, means a lot to me and
    to my self-confidence.

    Lately, many of the people whose voices I value most in Womannotes,
    those that most made me feel I really *belonged* at DEC, have said that
    because of the tone the file has taken on recently, that they are
    thinking of leaving Womannotes.

    The little voice inside of me reaches out to all of those people - 
    "No, please [oh please] don't go.  Then I really would be...

    	all alone."


    
                 

    
    *IF* it wasn't against Digital's Noting Rules to limit access to
    notes conferences on the basis of gender, race, creed etc.........
    
    .....how many women would vote to limit the involvement of men in
    this Notesfile?
    
    Not ban, just *limit*....
                    
    And if it wasn't against etiquette to "name names", and we had a
    space to propose that certain individuals leave this conference
    by request of the majority, how many of women would vote for at
    least one individual to leave?
    
    'gail
    
    

    re .0 Because Soapbox is a soapbox, because Mennotes should be
    called Boynotes, because the conversations and viewpoints 
    here are *real*

    re .Suzanne's question regarding my entry.
    
    
    I was not responding simply to the title of this note, but the
    instances and examples and generally what I perceived the general
    tone of the basenote to be.  For instance (paraphrasing):
    
    1) the author wondered why men posted in notes that was about something
    they couldn't physically do (ie menstruation), or something that
    wasn't directly related to them, or something considered rather
    exclusively a "woman's topic".
    
    2) why they (the men) opened subjects in a notesfile entitled
    "womannotes" or why they posted "a lot".
    
    There were a few others, which I do not recall at the moment.  These
    wonderings, if you will, have been recited over and over and over
    and over in their respective topics ("Why did a *man* make up a
    proposal for policy change -- why didn't a woman?"  "Why is a *man*
    talking in this note (the menstruation one)?" and so on)  
                                           
    sidebar:  Regarding policy proposals -- So why DIDN'T one of _us_
    women write up a proposal?  I, personally, didn't think about it.
    Eric apparantly did.  
                          
    
    Going on...
    
    It's a sensitive point for me.  And, althought the author of .0
    voiced the questions in a neutral tone, the needle pricked.  We
    all have our little rallying points and mine is exclusionary behavior
    be it for women OR men.  
    
    This is what I was responding to.  The basenote was not an attack,
    per se, on men noting in womennotes, but the mere fact that we are
    questioning it sounds damned peculiar and yes, attacking, to me.
    
    ---kim
    
    

    
    This is being posted for a member of the community who wishes to remain
    anonymous.
    
    -Jody
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

   Excuse the style used.  Here are thoughts in some sort of order
   but loosely connected.  What makes them related is the topic.
   It's the feelings I get from a topic like this.
   
set mode caustic_comic

    I used to be FWM, I resigned, too much embarassment.
 
reset

    Reading this file is part of an identity search, but only part.  This 
    was a place to study and interact.  Hopefully it makes sense: the
    context was when trying to be masculine I had all the answers, as
    to who I am really I'm very uncertain. I'm learning for a change.
    Is it time to move on?  No, not yet the lesson hasn't sunk in.

    The writers of .8, .11, .13, .20, and .23 captured  many of my thoughts
    of the last week regarding this file.  Kim, thanks for writing, it's
    why I stay and read.  I have read some of the most moving and exciting
    things here, stories of great despair and of hope, opinions that would
    blister paint at a mile, sincere questions and insightful answers,
    and mostly a feeling of community.


>>Note 1025.0
>>  I'm wondering:  what do the men who note in =wn= come to the file for?

Just thinking out loud:

    Interact, understand, work on communication skills, work common goals,
    share experiences, maybe even sanity check my own ideas.  Of course
    I only speak for me.  After all I'm still figuring out who I am, never
    mind what.

    =WN= is the logical extension of H_R and Men... it does have a
    um, better feeling about it.  Alas it seems to be threatend, can't
    pin it down though.  Sorta sounds like H_R which wasn't as sensitive
    to individuals as here used to be.  Testosterone poisoning maybe?

    There are some very eloquent people here!

    Your question begs out the original question asked somewhere else, 
    "What do men want that women have?"?  Please keep the anatomical
    jokes out of this.  Physical differences aside, the cultural
    differences are significant.  
    
>>Note 1025.2
>>    	It's part of the atmosphere of a culture that regards women as children
>>    	that some people, IMO, apparently feel the need to educate us and/or 
>>    	straighten us out.

    Of course many of the adherents to that practice talk to other men
    that way also, genetic defect most likely. ;-)

    Disparagingly depressing, isn't it? It's embarassing for all who
    think about it.  Who ever claims to have all the answers is
    unspeakably numb to the world.  Of course making that statement
    puts me right in that catagory!  The other side of this is, like so
    many others, my experience is different and has value if only
    as my opinion.

    I heard a line from "joe and the volcano" - it's only a fragment,
    "...most people are asleep, while the rest of us awake people
    walk around in a constant state of amazement".  Waking up is
    hard to do!

    Then of course there are those that cannot tolerate views beyond
    one or the other, they get driven nuts by the both or neither
    people. All they want is the fence sitters to fall into a camp and
    they don't care which. Black and white thinking, in a world of
    subtle grays.

    	RE: .27  Kim
    
    	> It's a sensitive point for me.  And, althought the author of .0
    	> voiced the questions in a neutral tone, the needle pricked.  We
    	> all have our little rallying points and mine is exclusionary behavior
    	> be it for women OR men.  
    
    	That doesn't explain the need to engage in stereotypes about the
    	women in this conference (nor does it justify implications that the
    	act of "wondering" automatically implies that many/most people here
    	don't want men in the file at all!)
    
    	> This is what I was responding to.  The basenote was not an attack,
    	> per se, on men noting in womennotes, but the mere fact that we are
    	> questioning it sounds damned peculiar and yes, attacking, to me.
    
    	God, I was hoping you wouldn't say that.  You do realize that it
    	implies that women don't have the right to WONDER OUT LOUD why men 
    	do things (without being regarded as engaging in a serious form of 
    	insubordination.)
    
    	Not good, Kim.

    I mentioned a personal and a political reason to be interested in
    what =wn= had to say in my intro note. What I did not mention there,
    were my doubts on whether or not I should participate or even read
    =wn=, there are many issues discussed here that I do regard as pure
    women-issues and if those issues take up the majority of the notes,
    I see no reason for me, as a man, to follow them. 
    
    I think most issues though have two sides, where men can learn from
    women, and I think right now that is my main reason to be here.
    
    The rest of this note may show a little bit of frustration...
    
    
    
    That is my personal reason, and I'm not an avid writer here. I do,
    however, completely share the question put in the base note. It
    has occured to me to that there is an awful lot of male input in
    this file, and a lot of those input seems to center around typical
    male issues, or seem to 'watch' this file for any possible sexism
    or generalisation towards males, ready to butt in with both burners
    on to challenge the grave dangers that could arise from this. I'm
    not going to mention any names either but I am disturbed by the
    corruption of good topics in here by endless tit-for-tats that have
    no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand and completely cloud
    the issue for people (males too) who *are* interested in the responses
    from the female side, where this notesfile is set up for in the
    first place. I sure wish that amount of input will rapidly subside.
    
    Ad
    
    

    I read H_R, MENNOTES, and WOMANNOTES. I have for a couple of years.
    This is the first of the 3 that I have felt comfortable writing
    anything in. Actually, I'm still not sure about that. Everyone seems to
    be 10,000% better at articulating their thoughts then I do. This file
    has helped me to change some outdated, meaningless, and stupid notions
    I had about women. I suspect nearly everyone brought up in the 1950's
    had some of these ideas rammed into their brains. This file has helped
    me confront what I already knew was inherently wrong and actually think
    about it. That's why I read it.
    
                                      Phil

    Mike, let's grant your thesis for the moment.  Let's go further (maybe
    it isn't further) and say that the men who are welcome here are those
    who express nothing but agreement for women's positions.
    
    So what?
    
    							=maggie

               <<< $2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 1025.35                 "I was just wondering"                     35 of 36
RANGER::TARBET "Det var som fan!"                     7 lines  14-MAR-1990 12:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mike, let's grant your thesis for the moment.  Let's go further (maybe
    it isn't further) and say that the men who are welcome here are those
    who express nothing but agreement for women's positions.
    
    So what?
    
    							=maggie

    The following is not aimed at ALL the previous repliers.  It is a
    feeling response to a general impression from SOME of the replies.  I
    did not personally read the base note as implying men are not welcome
    here.  If, in fact, that was the author's intent, I don't agree.  I do
    agree that some of the men who participate here are a wee bit
    outspoken, but then so are some of the women.
    
    My feelings at this point are terribly reminiscent of grade school 
    days when the "in" girls in the school decided to form an exclusive 
    club and only let their friends join.  I wasn't one of their friends, 
    and I hurt for a long time over the exclusion.  Since then I've become
    much more sensitive to my own attempts to exclude others in any venue.
    
    Sisters, whether we like it or not, reality dictates that we must share
    this earth with men, both in their mature and their immature guises. 
    If we are going to be able to realize the full scope of our potential
    as women, we're going to have to do it alongside men.  We're going to
    have to learn to relate to them, handle their objections, deal with
    their barbs, love them, hate them, teach them, and, yes, learn from
    them -- the full range of human interaction, supportive or not
    -- and we're going to have to learn how to do it EFFECTIVELY.  If we
    can't do that, we don't deserve to consider ourselves their equals.
    
    IMO, of course.
    Karen

re: .39

>
>>	Some women noters are as unwelcome as some male noters.
>>
>>	And the common trait is an opposing viewpoint.

When I enter something that causes someone, or several someones, to disagree
strongly with me, I don't take that to mean that I, or my ideas, are 
unwelcome.  I take it to mean that people disagree with me.

If my ideas are never challenged, if my assumptions are never questioned, 
if my dearest prejudices are never exposed, how am I going to grow and
change?  How am I going to recognize dangerous prejudices and replace
them by openness?  How am I going to deepen my understanding of the
human race to which I belong and the way we all depend on one another? 

The process of growing and changing is often painful, but it's better
than the alternative of sinking into my own shell and atrophying there until
my brain disappears.

--bonnie

    .29  Suzanne
    
    ::deep breath::
    
    I am DEEPLY sorry if you find my statements "not good".  Suzanne,
    if I meant to say that women cannot wonder aloud, I would have said
    it.  In exactly so many words.
    
    But then again, I find reverse sexism and exclusionary and
    overdefensive behavior "not good".  Each to their own.
    
    --kim

    re .38
    
    Good point!  Well said.
    
    Barb

    <--(.43)
    
    So you're arguing just for the sake of "winning"?  Nothing constructive
    follows?

There are _lots_ of people that participate here that I sincerely wonder about
-- including myself.

There are also people that I sincerely wish would pull up stakes and move along.

These two lists, were I to make them, are dynamic and would have a current
overlap of about 4.

Wondering why someone is here is not the same as wishing that they weren't.

There are male participants in this file [since in this note we are talking
about men] who say that they feel persecuted and unwelcome or that they are
held to a different standard of behaviour. Many of these state that they feel
unable to make progress against some sort of feminist mafia.

Now I can come up with tons of possible reasons as to why these men remain,
ranging from a sincere belief that they will instruct to a malicious need
to silence.  But I can't know if I don't ask; and I won't know if I am not
answered.

  Ann

    	RE: .42  Kim
    
    	> I am DEEPLY sorry if you find my statements "not good". 
    
    	My concern is for the *conclusions* you draw from "wondering
    	out loud" about why men do certain things.  You have judged
    	it as an attack, which means viewing "wondering" as negative,
    	with those who do it regarded as being in "attack mode."
    
    	I have a serious problem with the idea of slamming people for
    	"attacking" others simply because they have expressed "wonder."
    
    	> Suzanne, if I meant to say that women cannot wonder aloud, I would 
    	> have said it.  In exactly so many words.
    
    	Sure, we *can* wonder aloud, if we want to be treated (by some)
    	as if we have just engaged in an attack.  Meanwhile, those who
    	consider "wonder" an attack refuse to accept it as anything else.
    	This is hardly fair.
    
    	> But then again, I find reverse sexism and exclusionary and
    	> overdefensive behavior "not good".  Each to their own.
    
    	If you are accusing people of doing this because they "wonder,"
    	the conclusions you have drawn (connecting these behaviors
    	with "wonder") are quite false, and are based on negative stereo-
    	types.
    
    	Would appreciate it if you reconsidered these points.

    
    	What we have here (it seems) is another argument about why women
    	(and/or feminists) shouldn't disagree strongly with anyone.
    
    	We should worry that people won't feel welcome here if we stand
    	up for our ideas as individuals.
    
    	So, it doesn't really matter whether we disagree strongly with men 
    	*or* women, as I said earlier.  The point is to get us to stop doing
    	it altogether.
    
    	So what else is new.
    

    
    	To whom it may concern:
    
    	When I am talking to specific individuals, I usually address my
    	notes to a given reply (quoting the words as part of my response,)
    	and express my remarks accordingly.
    
    	Assumptions made without these clues lead to spurious conclusions
    	and meaningless dialogue.
    

    	
    	RE: .52  Maggie
    
    	>> This is what I was responding to.  The basenote was not an attack,
	>> per se, on men noting in womennotes, but the mere fact that we are
	>> questioning it sounds damned peculiar and yes, attacking, to me.
    
    	What Kim said was that the basenote was not an attack PER SE, but
    	that she considers this behavior of "questioning" to be attacking!
    
    	My concern (and my note) was about the idea of making the judgment
    	that "wonder" amounts to an "attack" (and subsequently slamming 
    	people for it.)
    
    	I wasn't simply arguing over whether or not the basenote is an
    	attack per se.  I would agree with Kim that it is not.

    I have a very simple question.
    
    Is it WRONG of us (the majority) if someone feels unwelcome here?
    
    Do we have an obligation as women, to "make nice" and be sure that
    *everyone* (excluding ourselves, of course) feels welcome here?
    
    I have never seen another example of on-going 'discussions'  that take
    such care to ensure that, in general, ever consideration is made to
    provide a safe and caring environment for people, (all people) to
    express their ideas. 
    
    Yes, some people hold views that differ from the majority.  Usually,
    only their views are challanged, or attacked if you will.
    (see note:)
    
    Occasionally, some people's personal *style* offends the majority. 
    When that *style* is repeatedly used, *over a period of time*, (long
    time, many months or hundreds of notes, whichever acts as the last
    straw first), then the majority will start challanging the author.
    
    Usually these authors take this as a personal attack, (afterall, we
    don't like the way they *note* for god's sake.  How more personal can
    we get?)
    
    If the majority has repeatedly expressed their dislike of a given style
    of noting, *AND INDICATED THAT IT COMES FROM ONE OR TWO INDIVIDUALS*,
    should the majority be upset those individuals now feel un-welcome here?
    
    I say NO.  I'm glad they feel unwelcome.  At least they are picking up
    on *something*.  Maybe next they will figure out *why* they are
    unwelcome.  Obviously, telling them straight out hasn't worked.
    (Not when diversionary tactics can be used to 'nit-pik' the complaint
    to death.)
    
    Does anyone deny a mother the right to tell her child that "I will have
    respect from you, or at least civility, politeness, and courtesy, or
    you will NOT be allowed in my house?"
    
    Isn't womennotes, is effect, our "house"?  Can I not demand courtesy
    and respect, and the right to NOT have to face 'slash and dash'
    noteing?
    
    
    Note: one basic exception to the above is when an extremely sensitive
    and personally "hard" topic is broached. (ie rape). Then a non-majority
    view will be more likely to be challanged in a personal manner.  Hot
    buttons are Hot Buttons, and pushing them will get reactions.  but I
    don't think that is what is being challanged here.

    Re: -.1 (.54)
    
    Really.  Sometimes I do so wish VAXnotes had the PLATO Notes feature
    which allowed you to let the whole world read *except certain
    individuals*.  Not fair to the individual?  Maybe, but potentially a
    lot better for the masses in general.

    
    	It's funny how often this conference is slammed for the fact	
    	that some people who disagree with the majority don't feel
    	welcome.
    
    	In our culture, we have a very real obligation (as women) to
    	confine our behavior to within acceptable limits (the "nice
    	zone") regardless of the social situation involved, including
    	political debates in notesfiles.
    
    	This obligation is often spelled out to us in terms of our own
    	good, of course.  (If men end up feeling unwelcome here, then
    	some/most of us will be considered sexist man-hating bitches,
    	for example.)
    
    	That's how it works.
    

    Actually, .54 was not intended to be a rethorical question.  
    
    Do we have an obligation to make everyone feel welcome?
    
    I stated my views,, I'd like to hear others.  (but not to see their
    views 'slashed up'.)
    
    As a clarification,  I'm not denying anyone's rights to enter any note
    that follows policy, just their right to be dis-courteous' to me.
    (Which violates P&P rules.  I feel that many of the conversations here
    are border-line 'actionable'. And that if they had occured 'in person',
    would have resulted in charges.)
    
    But I am reiterating my right to not warmly welcome certain people into my
    'conversations'.  Afterall,  discrimination is illegal for race, creed,
    or sex.  Not for obnoxious personality or rank stupidity.

    	
    	Let's hope no one intends to deny that much of the *harshest*
    	negative criticism leveled against Womannotes over the years 
    	has involved the idea that some people don't feel welcome here.

    	If no one here believes that women have an obligation to insure
    	that everyone feels welcome in Womannotes, then I wonder why
    	some folks have wasted so much of our time pointing it out?
    
    	Next time someone brings it up, we should respond the way
    	Maggie did (some notes back):
    
    				"So what?"
    

You don't have an obligation to make any particular person feel welcome
here.

You do have, as Dec employees, the obligation to avoid making any
person feel unwelcome here because of that person's age, race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, handicap, sexual preference, or veteran status.
That is exceptionally clear in Dec policies.

We can argue for years (and, indeed, have) to what extent Womannotes
complies or doesn't comply with this policy.

Martin.

    
    	Martin, we could also spend years arguing to what extent Soapbox
    	or Mennotes complies or doesn't comply with this policy, as well.
    
    	The subject only seems worth raising (repeatedly) here, though.
    
    	This implies (to me) that women have more of a societal obligation
    	to insure everyone feels welcome than is required of others.
    
    	We should have no more (and no less) of an obligation than any
    	other notesfile in Digital.  When all/most other conferences are 
    	encouraged to be concerned about how "welcome" everyone feels
    	there, it will become appropriate for us to be concerned about
    	it here, as well.
    
    	Until then:   
    
    				    "So what?"

    This is me responding for myself only.....
    
    I think as a co-moderator of *womannotes* in particular, *I* have a
    responsibility to hear what people who participate in the file think of
    the file in general (hence the survey, it was created specifically for
    the purpose of garnering opinion and suggestions from the community). 
    Giving the co-moderators an overall view of how the community is and
    what they want by consensus allows us to help the file grow in the
    direction most people want.  
    
    I don't think any notesfile could even attempt to fill
    the need of every noter in the known universe, and to try is folly. 
    Example:  I really felt uncomfortable the one time I went into soapbox. 
    It was NOT my type of conference.  But I didn't go in and say "become
    what I want, change this and that because I feel uncomfortable", I 
    left and said to myself, "it's not something for me, but it's obviously
    something for lots of people.....fine.....".
    
    -Jody
    

    Mike, you're a master.
    
    						=maggie

    ...baiter

    I read different Notes files for roughly three different reasons.
    Some I read because they pertain to my job, one way or another.
    Some I follow because the subject matter per se is of particular
    interest to me. And some Notes files I follow primarily for the
    stimulation and entertainment value.

    Of course these categories overlap, and, from my point of view,
    the more overlap the better. I've lost interest in some files
    because they fail in one or more of the categories. (For example,
    many of the topics in Bagels were, to me (a Jew), of no particular
    interest. Mennotes has been characterized by others (correctly in
    my opinion) as Boynotes). I find that  =wn= is the only Notes
    conference that, for me, fits into all three categories. 

    Here's how it fits:

        1. It pertains to my job. I work with women daily. I have to
        get on with women to get my job done. The more I know about
        women and the better I understand them, the more effective and
        productive I will be to Digital.

        2. The subject matter is of interest to me. Oh, yes, it is!
        I've lived with women all my life, women of all shapes,
        beliefs, persuasions, and ages. I want my wife and daughters
        to have rich, fulfilled lives. I want them to achieve what
        they want, whether it be housewife or CEO, based on their own
        desires, merit, and accomplishments. I want them to have
        personal relationships with both men and women that are based
        on equality and respect. 

        3. =wn= is stimulating and entertaining. The truth is, most
        conferences are boring. The average file is full of poor
        writing, faulty reasoning, and inaccurate information. =wn=
        does have its share of these faults, but it also has a gold
        mine of most lucid, thoughtful, and stimulating notes. I
        continue to be amazed at the fantastic high level of talent
        displayed by Noters here. I may agree or disagree, but the
        intellectual and emotional stimulation has often been
        overwhelming to me.

    I don't often write in =wn=, partly because of time restrictions,
    but also because I want to hear what others have to say.
    I'm more careful as what I say here than in most other files, but
    I that's more because of high quality of the responses than for
    fear of getting flamed.

    Bruce

    re .0-
    
    > So I'm wondering -- what *do* the men who write in =wn= come to the 
    > file for?
    
    Sometimes, especially recently, I have to shake my head and wonder
    about that, too.  A fatalistic saying comes to mind; "takes all kinds
    to make a world."  The immediate relevance for me is that I don't
    expect ever to truly fathom the motives of some of the men who write 
    here.  I'll even confess that I've given up on a few.
    
    On a personal level, sometimes I don't know why *I* note here, 
    truth be told ;-).  I think I started here with an intent to listen,
    and that remains.  I'd spent 4 years in ROTC and 4 years in the AF
    moulding my life in certain patterns, many of which I found distasteful,
    just before I joined DEC.  That 8 years was a time when I severely
    repressed many aspects of myself that were inconvenient to life as an
    AF officer.  So when I got here, I was consciously trying to rediscover
    what was important to me, what kind of man I wanted to be; and finding
    this community to listen to at that time was an incredible stroke of
    luck.  I remain forever indebted to the people who made this place what
    it is.  I read years worth of old discussions, to see what the flavor of 
    the file was, to learn about the individuals within the community.  And
    in that reading, I was forced to re-examine my own opinions about hundreds 
    of topics.  It was just the kind of self-values review I needed.  It 
    reinforced my itent to come here to *listen*.   One hears more when one 
    isn't talking  so bloody much; and other people have plenty of interest 
    to say  without needing me to prompt them to it.  Though it takes severe
    restraint, at times, to keep my fingers off the keyboard, or to
    answer No when prompted to enter my note after composition.  But
    having heard so many unique perspectives and wonderful viewpoints
    here, I know that's the reason I'm here.  To hear.
    
    That doesn't carry me at all times; sometimes I read here in near
    despair, because the discussions aren't interesting, the people are
    crazy and ill-mannered, and everything is ugly.  Usually I'm aware
    enough to go into read-only mode when I feel that way, 'cause that's
    more often a symptom of my problems than those of the file.  Still,
    there are times when I'm incredibly frustrated here.
    
    But if I wait long enough, my own mood comes around back to enjoying
    what's going on, or something amazing like 1019.21 reaches deep past my
    miasma and makes me glad to be here again.  Sandy couldn't have been so
    powerful this morning if the file hadn't been so abused in the past few
    months...and that kind of catharsis has happened before, so I guess I
    was waiting for something kind of like that.  That's why I hang on
    through the frustrating times.  
    
    DougO

re: .62:
    	Martin, we could also spend years arguing to what extent Soapbox
    	or Mennotes complies or doesn't comply with this policy, as well.

As a moderator of Soapbox, and the primary author of its guidelines
I have a definite interest in knowing to what extent Soapbox' guidelines
-- or the way they are implemented -- fail to comply with corporate
non-discrimination (and other) policies, and I would encourage you to
bring that subject up in Soapbox or by mail to the Soapbox moderators.

    	The subject only seems worth raising (repeatedly) here, though.

Of the notesfiles I read, only womannotes has <category>-specific guidelines.
    
    	This implies (to me) that women have more of a societal obligation
    	to insure everyone feels welcome than is required of others.

No, I believe that all Digital employees are equally obligated (by reason of
their employment) to insure that noone feels discriminated against, either by
policy or action, in any notesfile.  I don't think Womannotes, or women, are
any more obligated than anyone else.
    
    	We should have no more (and no less) of an obligation than any
    	other notesfile in Digital.  When all/most other conferences are 
    	encouraged to be concerned about how "welcome" everyone feels
    	there, it will become appropriate for us to be concerned about
    	it here, as well.

My thesis is, and always has been, that all other conferences are, indeed,
"encouraged" by Corporate policy, specifically as set down in P&P 6.54, to
make all employees "welcome".  I would be very suprised if there are other
general-interest notesfiles that have "category-specific" polices such as
Womannotes.  Policy 6.54 seems rather clear that "conferences created to
communicate matters of opinion and common interests ... must be open
to all employees."

Martin.

    	RE: .69 Martin
    
    	> Of the notesfiles I read, only womannotes has <category>-specific 
    	> guidelines.
    
    	First off, these guidelines operate on a voluntary basis.
    
    	Second, Womannotes was accused of "not making men feel welcome"
    	*long* before FWO/FGD notes were introduced.
    
    	Third, Mennotes had basenotes designated as "men only" BEFORE
    	Womannotes had FWO/FGD notes (yet the file wasn't accused of
    	"not making women feel welcome" because of these topics.)
    
    	After the controversy surrounding FWO/FGD notes here, Mennotes
    	made it conference policy that no notes would be designated as
    	men only (although I still see basenote authors make requests
    	from time to time that only men respond to certain topics.)
    
    	> I would be very suprised if there are other general-interest 
    	> notesfiles that have "category-specific" polices such as
	> Womannotes.  Policy 6.54 seems rather clear that "conferences 
    	> created to communicate matters of opinion and common interests ... 
    	> must be open to all employees."
    
    	Topics in Womannotes *are* open to everyone.  There is a voluntary
    	practice of allowing some subjects to run in parallel strings,
    	which is not a violation of corporate policy.
    
    	As I mentioned earlier, though, people who make claims about "men
    	not feeling welcome" in Womannotes aren't speaking strictly about
    	the policies of this conference.  They're talking about the people
    	(women, mostly) who comprise the majority here, and how receptive
    	they perceive us to be when it comes to accepting certain ideas.
    
    	In Soapbox, I saw a topic about homosexuality ratholed while dozens
    	of replies railed on and on about how tired people were of seeing 
    	topics about the gay community (of which there were four at that 
    	point.)  The message I got was that gay topics were "unwelcome" in
    	that file (unless they were confined to one or two topics, out of
    	the hundreds/thousands that typically fill a Soapbox incarnation.)
    
    	In spite of the fact that the people railing against gay topics
    	used language that could be considered *far* more vitriolic than 
    	anything I've seen here against topics introduced and/or discussed 
    	by males, Soapbox hasn't taken years of "heat" for the expression 
    	of this sort of noter preference.
    
    	Meanwhile, if women even express "wonder" about why men come to
    	this file, the whole conference once again is subject to false
    	accusations of attacking men (and not wanting men here at all.)
    
    	Obviously, women are being held to higher standards of "niceness"
    	in this conference than those required in other conferences.

Is master-baiter in the Wickedary?
	Mez

    HAHHAH!  :D   for once in a long, long time, this file made me grin.
    
    Okie, it took a while.  
    
    ---kim

    
    
    my goodness, are we being paid by DEC to do this?
    
    
    
    	eugene
    

    
    	You mean no one told you about the $1000 per week bonus for this?
    

    Re: .70 (Suzanne)
    
>    	Third, Mennotes had basenotes designated as "men only" BEFORE
>    	Womannotes had FWO/FGD notes (yet the file wasn't accused of
>    	"not making women feel welcome" because of these topics.)
    
    I was intending to stay out of this discussion, having grown weary
    of it in years past, but I cannot let this go by.
    
    In the entire MENNOTES conference, I can find only one note, written
    in 1986, where the author requested in the title that men only
    respond.  At no time in the history of the conference has there ever
    been a conference policy to exclude certain classes of people from
    participating in any discussion.  On the contrary, the moderators have
    openly declared the conference to welcome all, male or female, and do
    not permit exclusionary topics.  This declaration was only felt to
    be necessary when some noters mistakenly assumed that the attitudes
    being enforced in WOMANNOTES should somehow be echoed in MENNOTES.
    
    On the other hand, here in WOMANNOTES, it was conference policy for
    a period of well over a year to set up "FWO" topics that not only
    were men not asked to respond to, but if they did dare do so, their
    topics were summarily moved or deleted by the moderators.  Only
    after being told by Corporate Personnel that this was against corporate
    policy, did they back off to a "request" that men not respond to these
    topics, and those who did so anyway got jeered at by the moderators and
    other readers.  Although FWO topics have been replaced by "SRO", the
    conference policy, as stated in the base note, continues to explicitly
    relegate men to a second-class status here.
    
    Therefore, I don't feel that there is anything to be proud about
    concerning the manner in which this conference is structured.
    
    
    The following are general comments, addressed at no one in
    particular...
    
    The questions raised in the base note are not unfamiliar to anyone
    who has been a participant here for a while.  And certainly the
    questions are valid, if one accepts the premises upon which they are
    based, that being that WOMANNOTES is like a "girls club" and that men
    would be boors for wanting to crash the party, so to speak.  And
    certainly there are many who agree with this notion.  Yet there are
    many who disagree, thus rendering the questions nonsensical for them.
    
    I choose to consider this conference a place where topics of relevance
    to women are discussed.  That does not necessarily imply that all of
    these topics are of no interest whatsoever to men.  On the contrary,
    most of the men who participate here seem to do so out of an honest
    interest and desire to share this world more effectively with women,
    to the mutual benefit of all.
    
    It is true that there are some men who would appear to write here
    largely in an effort to impress others, or to try to put women in their
    place.  Similarly, I have seen women exhibit the same behavior in
    MENNOTES.  I chalk this up to the fact, and I can't imagine anyone
    denying this, that people are individuals, and that one cannot
    accurately generalize about men's motivations any more than one can
    about women's motivations.  Each of us has our own private agenda,
    and it's remarkable that we manage to get along as well as we do when
    discussing certain volatile topics.
    
    I find it sad and ironic that some feel it is goodness for women to
    wall themselves off from men, while at the same time striving to
    break down the barriers that men have placed around themselves 
    throughout history.  The very behaviors these women decry in men are
    promoted with zeal amongst themselves.
    
    I do not find it necessary to defend or explain my participation in
    this conference, any more than I do in the MARKETING conference, as
    I hold no position related to marketing.  That I am interested enough
    to read, and on occasion write, should be enough.
    
    					Steve

    	It's somewhat predictable that some in our midst regard Mennotes as 
    	being morally and/or ethically superior to a file called Womannotes.
    	The fact that Mennotes was created *after* Womannotes (and used
    	a slight rewrite of our title as *its* original title - "Topics 
    	of Interest to Men") is of little consequence.
    
    	After all, the idea of a "Topics of Interest to <specific sex>"
    	may have *started* in our file, but men have clearly done better
    	with their incarnation of the idea than we have, in some people's
    	opinions, and how they seem to relish letting us know it!
    
    	Although there have been topics in Mennotes over the years that 
    	have clearly requested "men only" responses (in the title and/OR 
    	the text of the basenote,) Mennotes is regarded as superior by 
    	virtue of the fact that the policy was practiced, but not "official."
    
    	Big difference, alright.
    
    	While the purpose of men's participation in Womannotes has been
    	questioned occasionally, Mennotes once went through a topic
    	asking why women were NOT participating much there.  Of course,
    	being regarded as a superior file, it was decided that it was not 
    	the fault of the file, but rather that the lack of participation 
    	was due to their perception that "women" (no qualifiers provided) 
    	simply don't CARE much about men - (at least not as much as men 
    	care about women.)
    
    	Although Mennotes sometimes goes through periods of fairly active
    	participation (up to 20 or 30 notes in a single day when things 
    	are really going good,) the average number of new notes in the
    	file is often less than 5 per day.  
    
    	Even *this* has been seen as being superior (as evidenced by one of 
    	the Mennotes moderators making a case here for the "big problem" of
    	TOO MANY NOTES per day in Womannotes.)  After all, if Mennotes
    	only has a few notes per day, this is clearly the standard of
    	"goodness" by which our file should be judged.
    
    	One rationale for this argument was that more women would be
    	"helped" by Womannotes if there were less notes written here.
    	(In the context of these discussions, women often seem to be
    	defined in terms of "needing help."  Why else would we note?)
    
    	The practice of designating some notes FWO and FGD was an original
    	idea here, as most of us know.  Of course, since ours is not a
    	superior file, the idea is often characterized as an "imitation"
    	of the way men have treated women throughout history.  Heaven help
    	us if women were credited with doing something that wasn't done by
    	men originally.
    
    	It's funny how I don't recall women in the 19th century being
    	forced to vote in a separate booth than men at the polls - I've
    	always thought we weren't allowed to vote AT ALL until 1920.
    
    	It's also funny how I don't recall women's ownership of property
    	being kept in a separate cabinet from men's ownership - I've always
    	thought that restrictive property laws kept us from owning it
    	AT ALL.
    
    	FWO/FGD notes certainly represent history repeating itself, alright.
    
    	It strikes me as odd the number of times that a moderator of Mennotes 
    	has come into our file to tell us how much better (eg,fairer) the Men's 
    	file is - I can't ever recall our moderators doing the same thing in 
    	Mennotes even once.
    
    	It makes me wonder why the existence and popularity of this file
    	(with all its turmoil) seems to be so threatening to some people.

    Recently, a note started in Mennotes, stating quite clearly that
    although the file was open to men and women, they'd prefer only men
    answer the basenote.  They commented they could not enforce that (nor
    can we here in womannotes, it is a courtesy-request). 
    
    Since there was no parallel string where general-discussion could
    occur, I believe some women did respond in that note, although by that
    point it may have been because they had forgotten the basenote
    requested responses from men only, and the point was not brought up
    again to remind them (I think it's made quite clear here because the
    parallel notes have titles stating where replies should go and
    reminders are given if they seem merited).
    
    The topic was the "men loving men" topic, started on March 5th of
    this year.
    
    -Jody
    

    
    	Quite true, Jody.
    
    	Also, in the topic called "Men on Abortion," some women were asked
    	to stop relaying their personal experiences about how the men in
    	their lives regarded abortion (with the reminder that the topic
    	was about "MEN on abortion," not "WOMEN on ...")  The women in
    	question obliged (and ceased participating.)
    
    	The comment had been made earlier in the topic that men knew only
    	too well what opinions women had on abortion, so they simply didn't
    	want to hear about it in that topic.  They only really wanted to
    	hear what men think.
    

>>        Note 1025.70   by CSC32::CONLON 
>>    	RE: .69 Martin
    
>>    	> Of the notesfiles I read, only womannotes has <category>-specific 
>>    	> guidelines.
    
>>    	First off, these guidelines operate on a voluntary basis.
    
>>    	Second, Womannotes was accused of "not making men feel welcome"
>>    	*long* before FWO/FGD notes were introduced.
    
>>    	Third, Mennotes had basenotes designated as "men only" BEFORE
>>    	Womannotes had FWO/FGD notes (yet the file wasn't accused of
>>    	"not making women feel welcome" because of these topics.)
    
    Then We get:
        
>>      Note 1025.76  by CSC32::CONLON 
    
>>    	The practice of designating some notes FWO and FGD was an original
>>    	idea here, as most of us know.  Of course, since ours is not a
>>    	superior file, the idea is often characterized as an "imitation"
>>    	of the way men have treated women throughout history.  Heaven help
>>    	us if women were credited with doing something that wasn't done by
>>    	men originally.
  
    Well Suzanne, which is it? Was it mennotes that set the Policy
    or wasn't it? First you say it was, then when Steve jumped in
    to challenge it, you turn 180 degrees. That's all Steve was
    commenting on, why did you feel the need to get so sarcastic
    when he pointed it out to you?
    
      
>>    	It's funny how I don't recall women in the 19th century being
>>    	forced to vote in a separate booth than men at the polls - I've
>>    	always thought we weren't allowed to vote AT ALL until 1920.
    
    Gee, I hadn't realized you've been around this long Suzanne. :^)
    And here I was thinking I was the OLD coot.  ;^) ;^) ;^)
    
    	G_B

    Actually both are correct.
    
    The first note that had had a request of 'gender only' reply on it
    was entered in mennotes. Womannotes was the first file to set up
    a formal procedure to allow for such notes.
    
    Bonnie

    	RE: .81  Bonnie
    
    	> Actually both are correct.
    
    	Quite true.
    
    	The formal procedure for FWO/FGD notes was drawn up (as an original
    	idea) after several men complained bitterly about an informal request
    	that men refrain from responding to an especially sensitive topic in
    	Womannotes-V1.  The request was made partway through the discussion
    	(and was not included in the basenote.)
    
    	As I recall, the reaction of one man was, "I will NOT be told to
    	SHUT UP!"  The man went on to tell us that if we wanted his "help"
    	(with sexism in the world, or whatever) that we'd better not make
    	him shut up when he has things to say about topics in Womannotes.
    
    	FWO/FGD notes were designed as a way to allow men to voice their
    	opinions about the topic at hand (while still allowing women the
    	chance to conduct a women-only string at the same time.)
    
    	The practice of making informal requests for 'gender only' notes
    	existed for some time in Mennotes, but no formal procedure (for
    	dual topic strings) was ever devised.  Women haven't complained
    	about these notes (as far as I've ever seen,) so the 'gender only'
    	topics in Mennotes have proceeded without incident, pretty much.

    For the record - there is not now and never has been a note in
    MENNOTES where women were barred from participation.  Nor has
    there ever been a note, contrary to Suzanne's claim, where women
    were asked not to respond by the moderators.  The converse can
    not be said of WOMANNOTES.  In fact, the most recent note that
    several people have referred to, "Men Loving Men", has been
    actively contributed to by both men and women.  There is no need
    for a separate "string", because everyone is welcome. 
    
    I do not claim any sort of moral superiority of one conference
    over another, nor do I feel that there is a need for such a claim.
    I participate in some 50 or so conferences, and each of them has
    virtues and vices.
    
    Nobody is denying that WOMANNOTES came first, nor that MENNOTES'
    conference title imitated the one here.  The conference rules there
    were adapted from those in HUMAN_RELATIONS.   None of this implies
    any claim of greatness.
    
    I fail to see why a few noters here seem to find it necessary to
    repeatedly insult the participants and moderators of other conferences.
    Surely there is enough goodness here to draw people in, rather than
    being refugees from elsewhere?  Or do people need to look for excuses
    to be here?
    
    				Steve

    	RE: .83  Steve
    
    	> Nor has there ever been a note, contrary to Suzanne's claim, where 
    	> women were asked not to respond by the moderators. 
    
    	Nowhere have I made such a claim.
    
    	However, it's true that some *noters* have made public requests 
    	for women to refrain from participating in certain topics.  I can
    	provide quotes from a recent example offline, if you missed it.
    
    	>I fail to see why a few noters here seem to find it necessary to
    	>repeatedly insult the participants and moderators of other conferences.
    
    	Well, I wonder why a moderator of Mennotes has felt it necessary
    	(a number of times over the years) to make such harsh public judgments
    	*here* about Womannotes (including recent accusations about how this
    	file has relegated men to the status of "second class citizens.")
    
    	> Surely there is enough goodness here to draw people in, rather than
    	> being refugees from elsewhere?  
    
    	Do you think we're trying to RECRUIT members of the Mennotes file
    	to join Womannotes (while trying to separate ourselves from men
    	at the same time)?  Think about what you're saying.
    
    	> Or do people need to look for excuses to be here?
    
    	Most of us don't consider a "men's file" to be the default for gender
    	specific noting, so being here (rather than Mennotes) doesn't require
    	an excuse.
    
    	However, it does get annoying when people come into this file with
    	unfair accusations about the way this file is conducted (and if
    	you look back in this topic, it was just such an accusation that
    	brought Mennotes into the discussion this time as well.) Per usual.

    
    	RE: .84  Mike Z.
    
    	The "conflict" didn't occur in the same topic (so it might be
    	difficult to find.)
    
    	The polite request was made for men to refrain from responding,
    	followed by a *very* loud complaint lodged in an ongoing discussion
    	about the interaction between women and men (in another topic.)
    
    	When the man lodged his outburst ("I will NOT be told to SHUT UP!"),
    	no one commented on his specific complaint.  (No, not even me.) ;^)
    
    	The particular response came as a surprise to me at the time, although
    	it pales now (in comparison to the volume and frequency of the myriad
    	ways this file has been condemned for FWO/FGD notes - here and around 
    	the net - since then.)

>    	Well, I wonder why a moderator of Mennotes has felt it necessary
>    	(a number of times over the years) to make such harsh public judgments
>    	*here* about Womannotes (including recent accusations about how this
>    	file has relegated men to the status of "second class citizens.")

 If Steve is going to make public judgements about =wn= (and I won't take a 
stand on whether that is right or wrong), where else would be a better place
for him to do so? I believe you would react even more strongly if he were to 
make statements about =wn= somewhere else.

 The Doctah

    Is this a rathole I see?
    
    						=maggie

    
    	RE: .87  Doctah
    
    	Well, I don't know - one of the more, ahem, boisterous men in
    	this file recently made some exceptionally unfair accusations
    	about Womannotes in Soapbox, and I didn't respond (either here
    	or there.)
    
    	Until now...  ;^)
    

No, no, no Maggie; the quote is "Is this a rathole I spy before me?".
An electronic hug to the first person to identify the take-off.
	Mez

    Well, if there's a rat-hole, someone or something must have dug it, so
    the quote could be modified to "Is this a digger I see before me..."

    
    	Another tunnel added...
    
    	The diggers had to put their shovels down in hysterical laughter
    	when they found out how one boisterous man in this file defines
    	truth.
    
    	They may never get up again...  (Send medics, please.)
    

    Hark!  What rat-hole through yonder window breaks!  It is, at least,
    a fair oubliette, that was done!
    
    -Jody
    

    
    	"To note, or not to note.  That is the rathole..."
    

    re.  last few 
    
    !!!
    
    BTW, I have the complete works of Shakespeare at home if anyone wants
    to crib up on more quotes.
    
    Pam

    I swore not to do it but since we're not serious any more can I
    have the .100 please before Dan sees it? :-)
    
    Ad

If you will excuse a serious note for a moment, I'm one of the people
who have protested (not, I would add, bitterly) against the FWO policy,
whether expressed as "rule" or as "courtesy."

My objection is strictly on my interpretation of Digital's corporate
policies on non-discrimination and on the openness of notesfiles.
I do not believe that anyone in Womannotes (or any other notesfile,
for that matter) has a BUSINESS NEED to know my gender (or age,
religion, etc., etc.)  Nor does any Digital employee have the
right to ask me, no matter how politely, to limit my participation
in Womannotes because of my gender, age, religion, etc.

Womannotes is not a social club; it is a part of Digital's business,
conducted with Digital's resources on Digital's property.  As such,
I believe that it must follow the letter and spirit of Digital's
policies in exactly the same manner as someone announcing an available
job or choosing a project leader.

Martin,

    re .102, I see your point, Martin.
    
    I was in a Men/Women Valuing Differences seminar in December.  One of
    the techniques they used was to sometimes have discussions with all 20
    or so of us; sometimes to split us off into 2's and 3's and 4's;
    sometimes to split us off into discussion groups by gender.
    
    This was a Digital-sponsored activity in which gender-segregation was
    specifically used in the process of learning to value differences
    between the genders..
    
    I know you may feel the two cases (the notesfile and the seminar) are
    different.  Can you say in what ways?
    
    Thanks, Pam

    	RE: .102  Martin
    
    	A quote from one of my favorite authors (Justine Sullivan)
    	seems appropriate here:
    
        	"I think that the standard male-culture definition of 
        	justice involves following an abstract rule correctly.  
        	The rules were designed (we hope) with preserving the 
        	public good in mind, but it seems that in the male-culture 
        	model of justice, the rule is what's important.  Stepping 
        	away from the rule in order to meet group or individual 
        	needs is seen as immoral."
    
    	Rules over people.  I found it interesting how well you demonstrated
    	this theory.

    If that's true, Martin, then what is the point of having Valuing
    Differences conferences? I mean nobody will have a business need
    to know your gender, f.e., but in a conference as this which clearly
    is related to issues that pertain to gender, it's definitely relevant
    to the discussion whether you are male or female. Unless you want
    to discuss everything in a phylosophical theoretical way without
    any  attachment to real situations. 
    
    The conference doesn't rule out men, it does place an emphasis on
    women, if only on it's mere name I would be highly amazed to see
    otherwise. In my interpretation that might not be totally strictly
    literally according to P&P but it's definitely totally within the
    *spirit* of P&P. Which I think is the only thing that counts.
    
    Ad

re: .107  Huh?  What are you saying?  Ya lost me totally.

    Martin,
    
>    I think it's fine for me (or you) to say "I'm an <X> and therefore my
>    experience has been ..." but wrong for you to say "you're an <X> and
>    therefore you must participate ..."
    
    On this I agree with you wholeheartedly and I can add to that that I've
    seen several occasions already in which the current discussion in the
    FWO string seemed a lot more interesting to participate in than in it's
    counterpart FGD string. But then again it's possible to reply to a FWO
    string reply while staying in the FGD string. I guess the 'Separatist'
    topic as the latest example of this scheme is actually one that proves
    you can't just bring a subject like this up without first having to
    plow through the 'usual misunderstandings'. If FWO/FGD is the only way
    to accomplish this I'll happily make the distinction even if *I* feel
    that it's not relevant for what I've got to say - just because of for
    all I know what do I know? It's a bit of a crude way, but I can't think
    of a better alternative.
    
>    I hope we can disagree on whether FWO is "right" or "wrong" without
>    hurting Womannotes.
 
    As far as I'm concerned I don't see any problem with disagreement. The
    only thing I see as a concern is that a repeated challenge whether or
    not something in a specific conference is in line with P&P can in my
    view eventually harm the conference. I don't think the problem in
    question is big enough to warrant that.
    
    I can't give a very clear stand on the subject further than that I
    think it's ok, I guess it's a difficult subject altogether.
    
    Ad

    
    re:.108
    me too, thanks D!
    (i'm not sure if i'm being compared to william f. buckley or
    mary mcgrory)
    

re: .110

Joe, you'll only know if someone exclaims "Oh Mary!" to you.

(Sorry, couldn't resist!)

Carla

    
    re:.111
    happens all the time.
    

I was glad Herb replied to a point I almost replied to, then thought
differently. Basically, Martin implied (or said?) that one can control the
personality information content of one's notes. I disagree. 
	Mez

    Well Mez, you CAN, but it's not easy.  :)  It's almost the equivalent
    of electronically lying.
    
    What you CAN easily disguise (or with small efforts) is your gender.
    Unless someone is determined to find out What you are, they might
    now know unless you sign your name.  In fact, for the longest time,
    I figured you (mez) were a guy.  Didn't bother me, didn't perturb
    me that you'd "be a guy moderating =wn=", didn't make me think more
    or less of your noting content.  And when I finally found out you
    weren't a guy (you aren't, are you? ;), I just thought "Oh.  How
    embarassing if I'd have addressed her as a him!" and that was it.
    
    So you can disguise, intentionally or not, a lot of who you are
    in notes.  Like Martin said, the benefit is that the other people
    really don't know that much about you, other than what you choose
    to type.
    
    And I understood,and for the most part, agree with .107.  Guess
    I'm weird.  ;)
    
    ---kim

    re. my last.  
    
    
    Oops.
    
    I understood .106.  No wonder I was confused why no one else understood
    it (thought it was .107).  nasty trick, Herb.  ;)
    
    ---kim

Yes, I'm a woman. I've only run across two other Mez's. This guy ran out of his
car at a red light on Memorial Dr. in Cambridge, and asked me who Mez is (my
license plate used to be '-MEZ-'). I told him I was. He told me it was his
nicname too. And, in Sara Paretsky's latest (a title with something about
fire), she introduces a male neurologist named Mez. I keep meaning to drop her
a line (with a stamped, self-addressed envelope) asking her where she got the
name.
	Mez

    It seems to me that in special interest notes files that are *defined*
    by a group whose interests they discuss, it is a highly appropritate
    and fair request (even though it cannot be required) to identify
    whether you are a member of the focal group or are "other."
    
    The experiences, cultural context, and comments each of us brings to
    any note are *significantly* formed and affected by race, gender,
    nationality, sexual preference, and the presence or absence of physical
    disabilities.  In most notesfiles, these differences do not matter, but
    in conferences set up specifically around those differences, they
    matter a great deal!
    
    Nancy