Conference quark::mennotes

        I think this is actually a broader topic. For example, should a
    {insert minority} oriented conference be moderated by people not of
    that minority?  Or a religious oriented conference be moderated by
    people not of that religion?

    In general I believe that people can moderate conferences of different
    types. In fact for quite some time I hosted and moderated the Catholic
    Theology conference and have never been a Catholic. I believe that the
    right man could moderate a woman's issues conference or a woman
    moderate a men's issues conference. But it would not be as easy for
    a man to moderate a woman's issues conference or a woman to moderate
    this one. I speak from some experience. It was often not easy for me
    to moderate C_T which was (and is, I believe) a very quiet and non
    controversial conference. 

    I think moderation requirements depend to a large extent on the nature
    (not just focus) of a conference. I would prefer men only to moderate
    MENNOTES. Though I can believe a woman could do the job I don't offhand
    know a woman I'd feel comfortable with. And I can't think of a man I'd
    nominate to moderate WOMANNOTES either. (Not even my worst enemy :-) )

    Several things lead me to this opinion. One is that there are enough
    people in both conferences that mistrust people of the opposite gender
    that having mixed moderation would erode trust in the general
    moderation. Bigotry? Perhaps but a lot of people feel they have good
    reason not to trust men or women. So one has to decide if one wants to
    lose those people for the sake of adding mixed moderation. Is it worth
    it? I think not.

    An other issue is understanding. I've been told time and again that I
    as a white male can't understand what it's like to be a minority or a
    female. If that's true the converse must be true as well. Moderators,
    as humans, read notes through the filter of their life experience. So
    a woman moderating MENNOTES or a man moderating WOMANNOTES or a white
    moderating BLACKNOTES for that matter is starting off at a handicap.
    They are less likely to be able to understand where a writer is "coming
    from." Also they are less likely to be able to communicate with people
    because of the lack of shared experience. Is this an insurmountable
    barrier? Of course not. But it's a large one.

    I think that being said that a new conference starting out could have
    mixed gender moderators. The tone would not yet be set. All members
    would be going through the same learning and developing trust phase
    at the same time. It could work. It would not be as easy to change
    things in mid stream however.

    		Alfred

One of the most important requirements for being the moderator of a
conference is to be willing to support the goals of that conference.  A
moderator of BLACKNOTES shouldn't belong to the Ku Klux Klan, for example.

At one time I was a co-moderator of CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE even though I'm
an agnostic.  This would seem to contradict what I said about a moderator
being willing to support the goals of the conference.  In reality, though,
the goal of CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE was/is to allow open discussion of
Christianity, and I was in full agreement with that goal.  The CHRISTIAN
conference, on the other hand, has a different goal: to foster belief in
"Bible based" Christianity, so I would not be an appropriate moderator for
CHRISTIAN.  (Making me a moderator of CHRISTIAN would change the character
of the conference.)

I think the primary goal of WOMANNOTES is to provide a safe place for
women to discuss their issues.  I would think that a man who was in tune
with that agenda could make a good moderator.  Perhaps some women would
feel less "safe", though, if one or more of the moderators were male.

What's the primary goal of MENNOTES?  I don't think it's a mirror image of
WOMANNOTES.  MENNOTES provides a place to discuss men's issues, but I
don't think it's intended to provide a safe place for men.  My impression
is that the conference tries to be gender-neutral, as a counter to the
(formerly?) female-centric policies of WOMANNOTES, and it tends to support
open discussion of the issues.  Accordingly, I think that having a female
moderator of MENNOTES should be, if anything, less objectionable than
having a male moderator of WOMANNOTES - as long as the female moderator
supports open discussion of men's issues.  If I'm right that one of the
goals of MENNOTES is to be gender-neutral (i.e. the issues to be discussed
are issues of interest to men, but both men and women can freely discuss
these issues), then it might even be an advantage for one of the
moderators to be female.

What leads me to take this position?  A gut feeling, combined with my
experience in other conferences.

				-- Bob

    
    I think if there's a reason that most people who participate in a file
    feel is valid that it *should* be something-onlies moderating the file,
    then it should be moderated by something-onlies, if they're available
    and willing.
    
    this might apply to notesfiles like:
    smokers moderating the smokers file
    non smokers moderating the nonsmokers file
    women moderating the womannotes file
    men moderating the mennotes file
    (humans moderating the humannotes file)
    black people moderating the blacknotes file
    jewish people moderating the bagels notesfile
    unitarian universalists moderating the UU notesfile
    poets moderating the poetry notesfile
    knowledgeable engineers moderating a given focused technical ntoesfile
    
    
    etc.
    
    -Jody
    

Re: .3

>    unitarian universalists moderating the UU notesfile

I just realized: I'm also a non-Quaker and I'm a co-moderator of the QUAKER
conference.  (That's because they needed a home for the conference and I
volunteered my workstation.)

Re: .1

Interesting, Alfred, that we both mentioned having moderated religious
conferences for religions that we aren't members of.

As I said, I think it's more important for a moderator to agree with the
goals of a conference than to be a member of a particular group.  But
that's my own personal perspective - I'd rather emphasize the similarities
between people than their differences.  No doubt some women would be
uncomfortable with having a male moderator of WOMANNOTES, some men would
be uncomfortable with having a female moderator of MENNOTES, etc.

				-- Bob

    I think it's best for moderators to know about what they're moderating. 
    I think the only men should moderate mennotes and only women should
    moderate womannotes.  Ideally, I think that only Jewish people should
    moderate bagels, only black people should moderate Blacknotes, only
    Christians should moderate Christian Notes (whatever it's called), and
    only gun owners should moderate the gun notesfile.  In some instances,
    there might not be anyone fitting this description, who is available to
    moderate a file.  In that case, the moderator should at least be
    sympathetic to the concept and thrust of the file.  This only makes
    sense to me.
    
    Lorna
    

    Does this imply that only diplomats may moderate Diplomacy, brewers
    moderate Beer, and who the hell gets to moderate Marketing?

    Lorna, I think what you're saying makes sense fundamentally, but
    that the cases of WOMANNOTES and MENNOTES are somewhat different
    from some of the other notesfiles that you mentioned, if only because
    men and women are so much alike in so many ways.  It is important to
    understand the thrust of the subject, as you said.  While I don't
    feel that I know much about bagels or guns (or any other topic that
    involves putting holes in things), I do feel that I know quite a
    bit about men.  I'm not interested in being a moderator of MENNOTES,
    but I do think that there are women who could do the job just fine.

    Diane

    As someone already pointed out, the main problem seems to be, not the
    ability of a <not-group-X> to moderate a <group-X> conference, but the
    feelings and concerns of the <group-X> members about the situation. I,
    personally, would have no problem with male moderators in =wn=, or
    female moderators here, or non-fantasy-role-players moderating FRP, or
    any other combination; as long as the people in question were good at
    _moderating_, and were supportive of the goals of the conference, I
    think it would work out fine. HOWEVER, I know that there are people who
    would feel uncomfortable with that situation, and if a conference's
    stated goal is to try to make participation easier/safer/more
    comfortable for the <group-X> members, it should take their feelings
    about <non-group-X> moderators into consideration. [If it comes down to
    a debate between <group-X> members, some of whom want "open" moderation
    while others want it restricted, then we have what you call your
    <gulp!> policy decision.]
    
    -b

   >> As someone already pointed out, the main problem seems to be, not the
   >> ability of a <not-group-X> to moderate a <group-X> conference, but the
   >> feelings and concerns of the <group-X> members about the situation. I,

    But the feelings and concerns of the <group-X> members about the
    situation revolve around the ability of a <not-group-X> to moderate a
    <group-X> conference.  N'est-ce pas?  Isn't that what this is 
    all about?

    Re .9: Agreed, in part; some members admit that a non-group-X person
    might be able to moderate well enough, but say that they would simply
    not feel comfortable with the situation. (And, of course, people's
    feelings may not correlate with reality; my point was that, whether or
    not a non-group-X person *could* effectively moderate a group-X
    conference, if some members _felt_ that they couldn't, that might be
    enough to ban them - even if those members' feelings were, shall we
    say, without foundation in fact...)
    
    -b

As long as the moderators stay out of the way, and let us have our conference
(which fortunately for the most part they do), why does it matter *who* is
moderating ?



/Eric

    Ditto.
    
    Ken

	RE: .11 It only matters when you do need a moderator to handle some
	issue. I'd assumed that was a given. And I've yet to see a conference
	that didn't have issues that needed a moderator. But hey I've only
	been noting for the last 9 years or so. :-)

	Now a days of course company policy pretty much mandates there be
	moderators. And sets policy for content that someone has to keep an
	eye on.

			Alfred

>	Now a days of course company policy pretty much mandates there be
>	moderators. And sets policy for content that someone has to keep an
>	eye on.

    	Wouldn't it be reasonable to presume that these issues should be
        independent of the conference objectives?
    
    	I value the ability of a moderator to not get caught up in the
        positions expressed in a string so that they can make clear 
        impartial judgements when they are needed.  A danger I do
        see in having a moderator for a conference who could be classified 
        as an outsider would be the potential for a moderator who was
        not attuned to the sensitivities of the members and thus had
        difficulty communicating the justification for moderating
        decisions.
    
    Ken
     
    

    re .7, I disagree.  I disagree because, while men and woman may be
    alike in many ways, they are also different in many ways.  
    
    Womannotes was originally started by a woman in order to create safe
    noting space for women, at Digital, to interact with one another.  I
    would *not* feel comfortable if a man were allowed to be a moderator of
    the file.  It just wouldn't be the same.  All of my life I have lived
    in a world where almost *everything* has been run by men, and I am a
    woman.  I appreciate the fact that, at least, Womannotes, is run by
    other women.  For god's sake, do men have to stick their noses in
    everywhere?  Can't women have any place just for themselves - in this
    world?  in this company?  And, furthermore, I don't understand why
    certain noters, who apparently don't like Womannotes, still continue to
    note there and bicker about the policies.  When *I* don't enjoy a
    particular conference, I don't note there!
    
    Lorna
    

 I believe that the function of a moderator is to ensure that the noters
at large interact in a manner consistent with P&P. I don't believe it is
the job of the moderators to direct substative discussion (in their position
as moderators.) I personally believe that not only is it possible to have
non-x moderators moderating an x-centric file, it is preferable.

 By obtaining a diversity of opinions on the moderating team it is perhaps
easier to cover all the bases when making difficult decisions. If the
moderating team is chosen carefully, there will be a synergy that develops
out of the diversity. The moderators should respect each other. If this is
true, then all viewpoints can be brought to the table and examined on
their merits more easily than if the moderators' beliefs neatly dovetail 
together.

 I would be perfectly comfortable with some female (potential) moderators 
of mennotes, and uncomfortable with others. My comfortableness relates
pretty directly to my faith in their ability to put their personal feelings
aside and deal with the overriding principles involved. This is because
while I believe that moderating decisions may be made in light of emotions,
they should not be dictated by emotions. They should be dictated by policy.

 I don't believe that policy may be inherently better interpreted in an
x-centric conference by an x than by a non-x. That being the case, no
convincing argument can be made to categorically prevent non-x noters
from being moderators in an x-centric file.

 the Doctah

	>>For god's sake, do men have to stick their noses in
        >>everywhere?

	Wow.  Have you forgotten that this is MENNOTES?  Quite ironic
	for a woman to be asking that in here.  

        What is wrong with men showing an interest in topics of 
	interest to women?  Must you assume that their interest
	veils a desire to control or manipulate?

    One thing I think might not have been considered is that a non-x
    moderator can likely learn something about what makes x people tick,
    and by extrapolation and contrast something about what makes non-x
    people tick.  There is self-knowledge to be had in them thar files.
    
    -dick

	RE: .17 Now, now, I'm sure Lorna is happy with men getting involved
	as long as they remember their proper place. :-)

	Seriously though I think you're taking her comment out of context.
	I read her note as a commentary about the common tendency of men not
	to just get involved but to take over. Especially when women are in
	charge. It's a very valid concern and this topic is a valid place to
	bring it up. We're not just talking about MENNOTES here after all.

	Lots of notes in WOMENNOTES do appear to be attempts by men to control
	the conference. Adding a male moderator would look the same even if that
	was not the intent. Perception is a very real part of reality.

	I think it is quite reasonable for people to have conferences that are
	a safe space. If that means all moderators are "foo" fine. If "non foo"
	don't like the way the conference is run, assuming company policy is 
	followed, they can go elsewhere. FWIW, that is why I don't note in WN 
	anymore - I don't like the moderation. Of course I didn't like the
	way the first men's issues conference was run either. I stopped noting
	there and Mike and I started this one. I have the same option if I
	wanted a new woman's issues conference. But I'm not intimidated by a
	woman run conference and I don't have enough to say in one to bother
	starting a new one.

			Alfred

    >>Seriously though I think you're taking her comment out of context.

	No, I'm not.  It was the tone of that comment that made me point
	out the irony.  No need for that sort of slight, particularly
	in this forum.

    >>We're not just talking about MENNOTES here after all.

	Clearly.

    RE: .19  Alfred Thompson

    Agree 100% with your assessment of Lorna's comment (and your general
    remarks about the issue being discussed.)

    > I think it is quite reasonable for people to have conferences that
    > are a safe space.  If that means all moderators are "foo" fine.

    In a theoretical sense, every noter has the potential (at least) to be
    a good moderator of any file.  Noters across Digital are going to have
    a huge variety of opinions on the benefits or lack thereof of having
    a "non foo" moderator of a given file.

    However, if pressure is brought to bear on a conference to have "non foo"
    moderators (based on a philosophical viewpoint or principle,) it's bound
    to be perceived as an attempt by "non foos" to "control the conference"
    (to quote the words you used) "even if that was not the intent."

    The variety of opinions on the subject of moderators (and who is most
    appropriate or inappropriate to serve for which conferences) is fine
    and healthy.  "Foo" conferences will either take new action or they
    won't (based on such opinions.)  It's reasonable, as you said, if the
    conference goes with the idea of "safe space" (and for that to mean
    that all moderators are "foo.")

    Thanks *very much* for your note!!

    re .19, .21, yes, Alfred, that's what I meant.  I have no problem with
    men noting in womannotes.  I would have a problem with a man being a
    moderator of womannotes.  
    
    Diane, I think you did take my comment out of context.  I note in
    mennotes, but I have never suggested that women should be moderators in
    mennotes, and I have never complained about the fact that there aren't
    any women moderators in mennotes.
    
    Lorna
    

    I don't really see that we need quotas for foo versus non-foo
    moderators.
    
    I see the statement that a non-foo will be eliminated per-se as a
    moderator of a foo conference as blatant discrimination.
    
    I have no problem with elimination of moderators, foo or non-foo who
    might, because of a particular bias, moderate inappropriately.
    
    
    Ken
    

    
   >> Diane, I think you did take my comment out of context.  I note in
   >> mennotes, but I have never suggested that women should be moderators in
   >> mennotes, and I have never complained about the fact that there aren't
   >> any women moderators in mennotes.

    I didn't say you did.  What you said was (roughly) for God's sake, do men
    have to stick their noses in everywhere?  That has nothing to do with
    the above.  I was struck by the irony of a woman, in MENNOTES, making
    a remark like that about men. 

    Whatever.  Forget it.
    

    I think women could do well here as moderators, I think men could
    do well in -wn- as moderators in the context that moderators are
    there to ensure that noting activities conform to company P&P.
    
    This issue is not a burning enough one for me in either conference,
    or any conference I note in for me to push the issue in one direction
    or another.
    
    Christine

    I should reiterate that the purpose of this topic, as I envisage it, is
    not to push for changes in policies here or anywhere else.  I asked for
    people's feelings, not their political agendas.  It is clear that for a
    number of people who have responded, the sense of inappropriateness for
    a non-foo moderator is very strong.  Please let's not be drawn down the
    "forcing the issue" or "attempt at control" ratholes.
    
    I myself believe that a non-foo moderator in any subject area can quite
    likely perform as an apolitical adjudicator.  Several replies here seem
    to agree with that position, insofar as it may be the only issue.  But,
    it must be noted, it's not the only issue.  Comfort in "safe space" may
    be more important than merely the presence of a skilled moderator.  For
    situations of this latter kind, things get muddy fast.  The ethical di-
    lemmas may outweigh (or equally may be outweighed by) any formal policy
    of the governing organization (in the case of Notesfiles, Digital).  So
    there may not be any clearcut answer possible, I think, beyond taking a
    poll of contributors to any given file and securing a ruling from above
    on the acceptability of the consensus in view of a file's purpose.  The
    precedent for having only-foo moderators is established indirectly with
    the corporation's acceptance of support groups.
    
    -dick

    RE: .26  Dick Binder

    > Comfort in "safe space" may be more important than merely the presence 
    > of a skilled moderator. 

    Let's keep in mind, also, that skilled moderators are available from
    the 'foo' group, so it isn't a question of *choosing between* 'safe 
    space' and skilled moderators.  (I do realize that you didn't mean
    to suggest otherwise, by the way.)

    > The precedent for having only-foo moderators is established indirectly 
    > with the corporation's acceptance of support groups.

    Thanks for mentioning this.  While 'only-foo' moderators may *feel* like 
    discrimination to some folks, Digital (our employer) doesn't appear to 
    regard it that way.  Arguments based on the premise that Digital (or the 
    law) *does* regard it as unfair (illegal) discrimination are invalid.

    Your "safe space" should be applied to the evaluation of any candidate
    for moderator of a foo conference.  
    
    By assuming in advance that the "non-foo" candidate can not fulfill
    this role, you have applied a stereotype to this group which is not
    realistic.  There are so many examples of this type of stereotyping
    that I will not bother you with a litany of them.  Choose one, and
    see how easy it is to use it to justify a particular discriminatory
    position.
    
    Once again, I don't consider the role of moderator of such significance
    that I see any need for a corrective program, but lets call a spade
    a spade.
    
    Ken
    
    

    Can somebody explain exactly what is meant by "safe space"?
    I'm not being flip, I really want to know.  Safe from what?

    Thanks,
    Diane
    

    RE: .28  Ken
    
    > Your "safe space" should be applied to the evaluation of any candidate
    > for moderator of a foo conference.  
    
    "Safe space" is usually meant in the sense of being a type of support
    group for a particular 'foo' (and that such "space" is available for
    almost any possible 'foo conference' at Digital.)
    
    > By assuming in advance that the "non-foo" candidate can not fulfill
    > this role, you have applied a stereotype to this group which is not
    > realistic. 
    
    It is reasonable for a 'foo' notesfile to seek 'safe space' by having
    'only-foo' moderators (in keeping with the idea of being a type of
    support environment) if they so choose.
    
    > Once again, I don't consider the role of moderator of such significance
    > that I see any need for a corrective program, but lets call a spade
    > a spade.
    
    While 'only-foo' moderators may *feel* like discrimination to you, Digital 
    (our employer) doesn't appear to regard it that way.  Arguments based on 
    the premise that Digital (or the law) *does* regard it as unfair (illegal) 
    discrimination are invalid.

    re .29, Diane, in order for me to truly know where you are coming from,
    I would need to know a couple of things about you, such as:  How old
    are?  What do you do for a living?  Obviously, it's up to you whether
    you choose to divulge that info or not.
    
    But, to be honest, I find it difficult to believe that you don't
    understand what is meant as safe space for women in womannotes.  To me
    it means that women can be free to express themselves and communicate
    without having to deal with men trying to come in and put them down, or
    try to take over and run the show - silence their voices.  
    
    Anoter example of safe space, for women, away from men, for me is the
    women's book discussion group I go to once a month.  A group of us -
    all women - read one book a month - must be by a female author - and we
    discuss it.  Every woman, no matter how quiet, always gives an opinion. 
    Even when we disagree nobody tells the other one they are wrong, or
    gets angry, or tries to dominate the converstion.  There is no right or
    wrong.  We simply share our views and it's nice.  I know, from
    experience, that if even one man joined that group, but especially if a
    few did, that the entire atmosphere would change.  It seems to me that
    most men get angry when women disagree with their viewpoint on
    something such as the meaning of a book, or whether it's good or not. 
    The men would try to tell the women who disagreed with them, that they
    were wrong, stupid, their opinion not worth anything.  Before you know
    it,some of the women wouldn't speak up anymore.  Easier to stay quiet
    than be told you're wrong or stupid, then some women would just stop
    coming, and eventually men would be running the whole show (just as
    they run the whole planet now!!)  I don't want that to happen to
    Womannotes!
    
    What planet have you been living on, anyway, Diane?  You need to read
    up on some Fay Weldon, or something.
    
    Lorna
    

    
   >> But, to be honest, I find it difficult to believe that you don't
   >> understand what is meant as safe space for women in womannotes.  To me

    I don't care if you find it difficult to believe - I honestly wanted
    to know what is meant by it.  
    
   >> What planet have you been living on, anyway, Diane?  You need to read
   >> up on some Fay Weldon, or something.

    What planet?  My sense of decorum keeps me from responding
    to this insult the way I'd like to, Lorna.


    By the way, thank you for your insight into "safe space".
    

    Re .31
    
    Lorna, please reconsider your final paragraph to Diane in the light of
    an ad hominem attack on Diane's intelligence and reading agenda - this
    because you confess that you don't know her at all.
    
    Reis aliis
    
    "Safe space" is not something that only women need, and I would really
    appreciate an acknowledgement of this fact by all here.  I am trying to
    keep this topic from getting ratholed into a diatribe against women or
    WOMANNOTES or men or MENNOTES.  There are rumblings of such a turn, and
    if I see it going in that direction, I will ask the moderators to
    consider write-locking it.  We do not need the conflict here any more
    than we need it within WOMANNOTES.
    
    "Safe space" is something that all people need at one time or another;
    what differs from person to person is only the nature and extent of the
    "safe space."  For me, "safe space" might be an hour sitting in front
    of my Apple IIGS working on my family tree.  For you, that probably
    won't do it.
    
    Try this on for size:  Gunther Schwarz is an IV drug user who is trying
    to get straight.  He's been told by several people around him that all
    it takes is willpower - you want it enough and it's yours.  I don't see
    these well-meant remarks as necessarily valid *for Gunther,* unless
    they come from others who have walked in his shoes.  So Gunther might
    decide that he needs to find a place where he can talk with people who
    really have been there.  He might want as part of this desire to avoid
    the (to his mind) sanctimonious piety of those who have always been
    straight.  So he seeks out a support group populated by people who have
    been there.  Now let us suppose an always-straight is moderating the
    group.  Well, Gunther finds himself in a difficult position because
    here he is with people he trusts - all except for the person at the
    leader's desk.  How can poor Gunther place any faith or credit in what
    this person decides to allow, or not to allow, in the group?  This
    person doesn't have a *clue*!  So Gunther feels very threatened.  He is
    not in a "safe space."
    
    The same case can be made for any support group, regardless of the
    medium that group uses for communication.  It cannot, however, be made
    equally for a group that does not define itself as a "safe" support
    group.  I don't like to hold WOMANNOTES up to this scrutiny; nor do I
    like to hold MENNOTES up.  But it should be noted that neither of these
    Notesfiles makes any attempt to limit its participants to the "target"
    audience.  We do not see straight people noting freely in conferences
    for recovering alcoholics or other special-needs groups.  So there is
    not a direct parallel between WOMANNOTES and MENNOTES and such groups. 
    But there might well be *feelings* of a parallel in the minds of some
    noters in WOMANNOTES and MENNOTES; this is why the issue of who should
    be eligible to moderate such conferences isn't at all clearcut, and it
    is the essence of my reason for starting this topic.
    
    -dick

    Diane, I'd never heard the term 'safe space' before notes, either.
    
    It's quite possible (very *likely*, in fact) that you don't need or
    want such a space.  The fact remains, however, that Digital has seen
    fit to allow such a 'space' (as something very similar to a support
    group) for those who would like to have it.
    
    It's reasonable to have 'only foo' moderators in such a conference,
    if the members and current moderators so choose.

    RE: .33  Dick Binder

    > The same case can be made for any support group, regardless of the
    > medium that group uses for communication.  It cannot, however, be made
    > equally for a group that does not define itself as a "safe" support
    > group...

    It's possible to define a notesfile as a place for 'safe space' while
    not placing limits on which groups actually participate.

    In such a case, it's still reasonable to want the moderators to be
    'only-foo.'  It shouldn't be necessary to keep all 'non-foos' out of
    the notesfile to have the option of 'only-foo' moderators (especially
    when the 'foos' have repeatedly stated that they have no desire to keep
    all non-foos out of the conference.)

> 
>     "Safe space" is not something that only women need, and I would really
>    appreciate an acknowledgement of this fact by all here.
>
    No,
      I would not acknowledge this.  I need safe space too and I am not a
    woman.  
    
    Ken
    
    
    

    Ken, you just agreed with (and acknowledged) his statement.
    

    
   > It's quite possible (very *likely*, in fact) that you don't need or
   > want such a space.

	That is possible, but I wouldn't assume that it's *likely*.

   > The fact remains, however, that Digital has seen
   > fit to allow such a 'space' (as something very similar to a support
   > group) for those who would like to have it.

	Yes, I'm aware of that.  I'm just asking for an explanation of
	what it is.
    
   > It's reasonable to have 'only foo' moderators in such a conference,
   > if the members and current moderators so choose.

	Sure, if the moderators and members of a conference decide
	that that's what they want, then that is how it should be,
	whether it's discriminatory or not.
	I'm trying to understand what would lead them, as individuals,
	to want that.  Dick's example is a good one, albeit a somewhat
	more sensitive topic than most of the ones around here.  Personally,
        I see the diversity as something to be welcomed, rather than feared.

	And that, Suzanne, will be the end of conversation with you,
	for me.  8^)  Cheers. 

    
    Personally I am more concerned about the PC-nes of the moderator
    than I am the gender of the moderator.  I've seen both good and
    bad moderators from both genders.
    
    fred();

    RE: .38  Diane

    > Sure, if the moderators and members of a conference decide
    > that that's what they want, then that is how it should be,
    > whether it's discriminatory or not.

    So far, I've seen nothing proving that unfair (illegal) discrimination
    takes place when a conference styled as a type of 'support group' 
    chooses to have 'only-foo' moderators.  Moderators receive no monetary
    compensation for their work with notesfiles (*and* the interactions
    involved are more defined as 'social' than business, even if the
    employer sanctions some types of 'support group' activities on its
    resources.)

    > I'm trying to understand what would lead them, as individuals,
    > to want that. 

    People of some groups may feel they don't have as much of a 'voice'
    (in our culture, government, business, economy, etc.) and may wish
    to explore the nature of their seldom-heard 'voices' with others
    in the same situation.  While it isn't necessary to limit the
    participation (of such explorations) to be only-foo for the whole
    conference, it's likely that many foo would feel more comfortable
    to air their seldom-heard 'voices' in a forum guided by people in
    the same situation (in our culture.)

    
>    unfair (illegal) discrimination
    
    :-)
    Ken
    

    
    Safe space...hmmm....
    
    Safe space is where it feels safe for the people in the group that is
    seeking a safe space to be themselves - particularly when they feel the
    world is not that kind of space.  
    
    In mennotes, I work to create a safe space to men by checking some of
    my knee-jerk reactions.  If a man is venting some of his feelings, or
    is angry at women, or makes a negative remark about women, I ask myself
    if he needs to vent and feel comfortable being how he is more than I
    need to respond to his venting.  Often, the answer is yes, so I will
    not respond to comments that feel like they denigrate, insult,
    group-categorize or stereotype women.  This allows the men here to be
    comfortable being how they are, without feeling they need to walk on
    eggshells on my behalf - gives them space to say what they need (I use
    the particular example of women's issues and describing women or
    commenting on them, because that's one of the areas where my knee-jerk
    response comes up most readily - for someone else other subjects could
    be seen in the same light).  Do I succeed in this aim all the time? 
    Hell no.  Do I feel squashed or lesser not responding to these comments
    or allowing them to stand?  No.  This conference is not primarily
    designed for me.  I have someplace else that strives to meet my
    connection/safe-space requirements.
    
    In womannotes, I help create safe space by supporting women in sharing
    themselves, encouraging an environment that is less attacking and
    fact/logic-driven than the outside world, and a place where women can
    feel validated wherever they are, whatever they're doing, as perfectly
    fine just as they are.  Do I succeed?  hell no.  Can I keep it up all
    the time?  hell no.  But that's what I attempt to do.  As a woman, I
    often feel some of my skills are undervalued in society, and I often
    feel I need to change my mode of communication or censor my thoughts in
    mostly-male spaces, and in the world.  In womannotes, I strive to
    create an environment where I do not have to limit or censor my real,
    authentic self and my honest heart-felt skills.
    
    
    -Jody
    

    
    Forgive me Jody...
    
    >need to respond to his venting.  Often, the answer is yes, so I will
    >not respond to comments that feel like they denigrate, insult,
    >group-categorize or stereotype women.  This allows the men here to be
    >comfortable being how they are, without feeling they need to walk on
    >eggshells on my behalf - gives them space to say what they need (I use
    >the particular example of women's issues and describing women or
    
    I think its important to state that in a woman's safe space, there may
    be a need to vent which includes denigrating, insulting, group-cate-
    gorizing or stereotyping men. When this is not prevented or challenged,
    it allows the women to feel comfortable being how they are, without
    feeling they need to walk on eggshells on men's behalf - gives them
    space to say what they need.
    
    	I just had to get that off my chest.

    
    I don't see a need to forgive, 'Ren.....I was stating what I contribute
    to try to have spaces be safe.  That's an excellent reflection of what
    I do, and I would like to see it happen in womannotes if possible when
    women are venting and need space to express what is in their hearts...
    
    -Jody
    

    The problem with Jody's and 'ren's "safe spaces" is that they are *not*
    safe spaces, because they are public Notesfiles and can be required to
    conform to P&P.  Members-only files, I think, because of their support-
    group purpose, can be less answerable for the things that are said in
    them.  Denigrating men, in a place where men can and do respond, is not
    acceptable, any more than denigrating women, in a space where women can
    and do respond is.
    
    I think that a "safe space" must by its very nature be a place where
    the "problem" people cannot go.  In MENNOTES, for example, you rarely
    see long strings of profanity; in a men's "safe space" you might see
    them.  The reason in MENNOTES is that there are still some eggshells
    that some men feel must be walked on, and similarly for WOMANNOTES and
    for any other foo-centered file.
    
    -dick

>    The problem with Jody's and 'ren's "safe spaces" is that they are *not*
>    safe spaces, because they are public Notesfiles and can be required to
>    conform to P&P.  Members-only files, I think, because of their support-
>    group purpose, can be less answerable for the things that are said in
>    them. 

 I completely agree. It is my position that it is impossible to have "safe space"
in an open file that fully complies to both the spirit and letter of P&P. In
closed files you certainly have a lot more latitude in being able to basically
ignore P&P without causing much harm to anyone. In other words, you can get
away with saying some pretty unflattering things about heterosexuals in the glb
conference because even the hets that are that won't (generally) complain
since the conference is members only.

 I personally believe that attempting to make an open file into safe space
is prone to failure on many levels. It doesn't really provide safe space.
It aggravates non-x noters due to the moderation practices necessary to give
the appearance of safe space. Of course, it does provide limited safeness,
which can be an improvement so the idea is not entirely without merit...
It's just tough to implement if one supposes to attempt to follow P&P.

    More generally: It's impossible to have a totally safe space because no
    two people have identical needs for (or definitions of!) "safety". The
    best you can do is to try to keep the un-safe-nesses at as low a level
    as possible, AND to make it clear for each group/conference/school/club
    /etc. just what the charter is. [Somebody who joined a fishing club and
    then said that putting worms on hooks was too painful for them would
    be, in my opinion, somewhat out of line to expect the rest of the club
    to change their ways...]
    
    -b

    RE: .46  The Doctah
    
    > In closed files you certainly have a lot more latitude in being able 
    > to basically ignore P&P without causing much harm to anyone. In other 
    > words, you can get away with saying some pretty unflattering things 
    > about heterosexuals in the glb conference because even the hets that 
    > are that won't (generally) complain since the conference is members only.
    
    Do you think 'open' files should disallow 'unflattering' remarks about
    women (such as negative stereotypes and demeaning or ridiculing statements?)
    
    If 'open' files exist where such comments are relatively common, do you
    think the corporation should do something to stop these files from
    allowing such statements if women complain?

    	Another thing which is a factor in this issue is that typically
    when a new moderator is needed, the existing moderators are the ones
    who decide who that will be.  It is easy for the moderation of a file
    to have an evolutionary drift in a particular direction as existing
    moderators choose others who fit in.  Ultimately a file could end up
    being representative of only a small fraction of its nominal audience.  
    	Although it is theoretically possible to create a new file for
    people disenfranchised by the first file, it rarely succeeds.  People
    tend to view the original file or its descendants as being the real 
    thing even if it doesn't serve all or even a majority of its nominal
    constituency.
    						John
    

    A good moderator of one conference is a good moderator of any conference.

>    But, to be honest, I find it difficult to believe that you don't
>    understand what is meant as safe space for women in womannotes.  To me
>    it means that women can be free to express themselves and communicate
>    without having to deal with men trying to come in and put them down, or
>    try to take over and run the show - silence their voices.  

Rather amusing since there are some very 'vocal' women that do exactly
that to other women.  
    

>    
>    It's quite possible (very *likely*, in fact) that you don't need or
>    want such a space.  The fact remains, however, that Digital has seen
>:    fit to allow such a 'space' (as something very similar to a support
>    group) for those who would like to have it.

Actually, was the conference originally of "Topics to Women" and not as
a "safe place for women"?  Digital has seen fit to do squat.  It was never
intended nor chartered to be a 'support group', in my opinion.  Do you
have reason to believe that it was?
    
>    It's reasonable to have 'only foo' moderators in such a conference,
>    if the members and current moderators so choose.

There are male members as well.  If they want a male moderator (for
whatever reason), will you support that?  

>    chooses to have 'only-foo' moderators.  Moderators receive no monetary
>    compensation for their work with notesfiles (*and* the interactions

What about their weekly pay?  Moderating is done on company time on company
equipment with the purported purpose of enforcing Digital's corporate
policies.  I do not see how you can believe they are not getting paid.

>    I think its important to state that in a woman's safe space, there may
>    be a need to vent which includes denigrating, insulting, group-cate-
>    gorizing or stereotyping men. 

It would also violate corporate policy as well as conference policy, would it
not????

    RE: .52 - .55  Joe Melvin
    
    You're raised a number of (possibly) interesting ratholes, but 
    Dick Binder has made it pretty clear that he'll ask for the topic
    to be closed down if we pursue (or re-pursue) such ratholes.
    
    The topic is not about Womannotes, but I will tell you that my
    position is (as has been stated before) that I support any/all 
    choices the current =wn= moderators make for new moderators.
    
    If you have additional points or arguments along the same lines,
    please use email.
    
    Thanks.

    re: .54
    	I am a moderator of several conferences, some work related and
    others not. My moderation is not usually done on company time, though I
    do admit I have had a company VT220 and modem at home for the last 8
    years.
    
    	Where moderation involves enforcing company policy and if it is
    taking company time to do so then there is a quick and simple solution
    - delete the notesfile. I have done this once.
    
    	What is much more typical of moderator activity is that once a
    year, maybe, you get a mail request to hide a particular note. Whenever
    this happens there are the person who wrote the note and the person who
    is requesting that it be hidden involved. If it is a question of
    company policy then the decision of whether to hide or not is usually
    trivial. In any case, in the event that one party wants to appeal the
    decision and some minority group is involved, the decision is likely to
    be taken out of the hands of both the moderator and the minority group.
    It is not likely to be relevant whether the moderator is or is not a
    member of the minority group, and he knows this before he takes his
    decision.
    
    	The service that Steve provides in this notes file of entering
    notes on behalf of people who wish to remain anonymous is exceptional,
    and obviously takes more work. He is taking personal responsibility for
    every word of the contents of every such note he enters. However the
    service could be provided by someone who was not the moderator.
    
    	From my experience the function of moderator is fairly trivial for
    most notes files once note 1.0 has been written. Many conferences are
    almost self-moderating since social pressure from other members will
    keep an aberrant member who ignores 1.0 in line. There may be
    exceptions, but the sort of qualities needed in a moderator - knowlege
    of DEC policies, unwillingness to drive the conference where members
    don't want it to go, ..., and maybe a sense of humour, are not
    restricted to any particular group of ethnic origin, sex, age,
    religion, political persuasion, ...
    
    	Of course the system manager or any other privileged user of a 
    machine that holds a conference is de-facto a moderator, if not in name.
    A good moderator could moderate almost any conference.

    RE: .57  
    
    > Of course the system manager or any other privileged user of a
    > machine that holds a conference is de-facto a moderator, if not in
    > name.
    
    In this sense, Womannotes does indeed have a moderator who happens
    to be a man.

    WOMANNOTES is not the issue here.  Period.
    
    I have learned what I should already have known, which is that I, as
    the original author, can write lock this topic.  I don't suppose most
    of you consider it a big issue; if you do, be advised that, although I
    see some useful, substantive discussion here, this topic is perilously
    close to being write locked.  (Suzanne, please note that your .58 looks
    to me like pursuit of the rathole against which you cautioned in .56.)
    
    -dick

    Dick, I suggest you write-lock the topic.
    
    You can't control every word written here.  It's simply not possible.
    

    
    Good topic ...
    
    Notes are something my employeer has allowed to occur (flourish) on
    company resources with compamy folks involved.
    
    I do not like the idea of my employeer of condoning any selection
    criteria based on sex, race, religion, etc. 
    
    So I think moderators should be the best volunteers available at the
    time where I define best as moderation attrubutes like fair, good
    listener, patient ... and nothing given by chromosones.
    
    Anything else violates my wants for the environment I want from my
    employeer.
    
    My 2 cents,
    Greg
    
    PS - To rathole my own argument ... I do feel it is OK for Digital to
    match gifts to organizations that do have biased selection processes
    ... so I'm drawing a somewhat arbitrary line.
                                                          

Oh, what the heck..  I'll write-lock the topic.  I think the general issues
Dick wanted to discuss have been gone over enough at this point, and I don't
see a lot of relevance to "topics pertaining to men".  This would be a good
item for discussion in the MODERATORS file.

				Steve