Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    (I agree, Kerry...it isn't a trashnote)
    
    Are you saying that, for example, all WM managers are fully competent
    but some/most F managers are not? 
    
    						=maggie

    For one thing, I haven't noticed any substantive rights accruing to me
    (or anyone else) because of being female.  The "rights" that do accrue
    to members of "protected classes" are paper "rights" and seem to be
    worthless in all but the most blatant cases. 
    
    But that doesn't really seem to get at the heart of what you're saying,
    and I'm not sure I quite follow the point that you are trying to make. 
    Could you be more clear?  Or give more detail, I'm not sure just
    what is needed.
    
    						=maggie

     Sorry Kerry, but I think you're off base. Last time I checked most
    managers are still white. If you go higher you'll see most VP's
    are whtie males. I have yet to meet a Engineering manager that was
    female, I'm not saying there isn't any but I deal with a lot of
    different engineers and 85% are white males.
    
                      REK

RE: < Note 449.2 by CEODEV::FAULKNER "copying basenotes = stupid" >
                                     -<  >-

>>    and I have enough mail to destroy about 20 marriages and if I forwarded
>>    it womannotes would go belly up.
    
Well, I for one am confused. What does your forwarding personal mail have
to do with WOMANNOTES?

    <--(.5)
    
    Yah, that's part of my problem too, Jenna.  How exactly do 20
    marriages, =womannotes=, class action charges, and [allegedly]
    incompetent women managers?  There doesn't seem to be a real thread,
    unless I'm exceptionally dim today.
    
    Kerry, could you explain the connection?  Thanks.
    
    						=maggie 

        In some ways I agree with what I hear Mr. Faulkner saying and in
        some I disagree just as much. 
        
        To disagree, I don't know of any rights I've been denied because
        I'm a white, male, Anglo-Saxon, protestant, heterosexual,
        married, able-bodied, upper-middle class, suburban father whose
        ancestors came over on the Mayflower. Unlike Mr. Faulkner, I am
        sure that if I complained to my PSA or my manager (who is
        female) about harassment it would be taken seriously. 
        
        To agree, however, I have taken a lot of what I feel is
        unwarranted abuse for being a member of the above mentioned
        minorities. When I was in college I was beaten fairly severely
        by an inner-city black who was released from prison only because
        he was willing to enroll in a college. He had no educational
        qualifications nor any interest in being in the school
        (exclusive of a desire to be outside of a prison). He
        terrorized, hospitalized and stole from his fellow students with
        fair impunity. 
        
        To the best of my knowledge, I have never mistreated anyone
        because they were of a different race, sex or class from me.
        Yet, merely by being what I am, I have often been made out to be
        an oppressor of some sort.
        
        So, yes, it is possible that in our attempts to correct the
        failings of the past we don't so much correct them, but turn
        them around. But, no, it is not true that women or blacks or
        homosexuals or any of those things I'm not dominate our society
        or our company. A white male on the whole is much more likely to
        get a fair break than a woman or a black.
        
        It is my impression that people with a chip on their shoulder
        have a tendancy to lose. Anger seems to provoke anger and abuse.
        Both happiness and frustration are self-reinforcing. Positive
        feed-back is a very powerful force. When we are successful it
        makes us happy and fills us with confidence and optimism. When
        we are happy, confident and optimistic we are successful.
        
        It is my impression that both the men who complain bitterly of
        being abused by womennoters and the system, and women who
        complain bitterly about the oppression of men and the system set
        themselves against the system, and set themselves up for
        failure.
        
        JimB. 

Well, Rome, England, and Greece were primarily run by men.
(Queen Victoria had very little actual power.)

Perhaps, now that women have "the edge when it comes to rights"
will cause all that to change.

Somehow, it all seems very silly.  If you feel you are harassed,
you should go to personnel.  If they "laugh at you", you should
use the open door policy to elevate your concerns through personnel.
If that fails, you can always go to MCAD (Mass. Council Against
Discrimination), or hire a lawyer.

Or, of course, you can come to the conclusion that you are incorrect
in your belief that you are being discriminated against because of
your sex, race, or religion.

Martin.

    re .2
    >i.e. the ability to threaten me with harassment, class actions
    >etc... if I did that to you you would laugh all the way to personnel
    >and I have enough mail to destroy about 20 marriages and if I forwarded
    >it womannotes would go belly up.
    
    I interpret this to mean that you receive e-mail that you consider
    sexually harassing - from women that might be identifiable from
    womannotes - and that if you were to expose this mail a lot of people
    would be hurt by that (marriages?) and that you feel that you could
    not bring the issue of harassment to personnel, as this issue would
    not be take seriously, and that you have no recourse in this issue
    of sexual harassment because you are a man.
    
    I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but please help me to
    be sure that I (probably others as well) understand the issue that
    you have brought forward for discussion.  If I have not interpreted
    your statements, would you please clarify the point that you are
    trying to make, for those of us who are lost in this note?
    
    thank you, Sandie

    <--(.8)
    
    Kerry, few --if indeed any!-- people in this community think you're
    an "idiot".  Many are probably unsure just what to think of you,
    considering your history in this and other files, but "idiot" is
    not a term I can remember ever having been applied to you in a serious
    way.       
    
    I'm not going to fall into the trap of trying to argue whether the flak
    you get is deserved or undeserved, but I think there's an hint in your
    admission that you make "mildly offensive" statements.  What would
    happen if you *didn't* make such statements, do you think??  Your life
    would be very different, I suspect. 
    
    But in any event, as I read it in the orange book the policy against
    harrassment protects everyone, female and male alike.  If you think you
    have enough evidence to support a charge of harrassment,  I *urge* you
    to lodge it with the appropriate personnel office.  Today.
    
						=maggie    
    
    
    

Okay, I think I've got it.. what you're saying is that you said something 
"mildly offensive" and received all sorts of threats against you, but you cannot
forward your personal mail and "destroy about 20 marriages" and "make a lot
of people miserable" because you are a nice guy and women are "protected" 
by incompetant women "getting double digit raises that can barely wash their 
hands, even if someone else turns on the water for them." But that is all going
to change soon because Rome fell and all that. Am I right?

    re. 14
    thank you, I think I'm getting the jist of all this, at last.

re 449.10
    
	>When we are successful it makes us happy and fills us with confidence 
	>and optimism. When we are happy, confident and optimistic we are 
	>successful.
        
	So, Jim, can you see how that gives white males an edge?  If one
	group starts out with the advantage of being taken seriously right 
	from the start, they grow self-confident and happy which leads
	them to be taken seriously as candidates for success...

 	>It is my impression that both the men who complain bitterly of
        >being abused by womennoters and the system, and women who
        >complain bitterly about the oppression of men and the system set
        >themselves against the system, and set themselves up for
        >failure.
       
	I have a tough time understanding why you (and others) suggest
	that it is a bad thing to get angry at the system.  I think it
	is possible to separate how we feel about something from how
	we act about it.  Complaining, letting off steam can be  
	important steps in acknowledging a problem.  The next step is to
	develop a strategy for dealing with the problem.  I find that I
	am much more successful in managing problems when I first have a
	chance to discharge the anger in a supportive environment.  I
	believe you when you say that you don't actively oppress people
	because they are different from you, but the opposite of oppression
	is not non-oppression; it's support.  If men wish to be supportive
	of women in their struggle for an equal share of our culture's	
	resources, I think a good place to start would be to be more
	respectful of the anger we feel.  To me valuing differences means
	more than whom you agree to hire; it also means that you can
	respect that each of us has different challenges and that each
	of us responds to them differently.. and that it's ok.
                       
    	
	Justine

re .16 I think that Jim meant that anger often turns into a defeatist
    attitude, crippling one from the outset. Anger is fine if it fuels
    determination to succeed. No 'system' can hold down a person who
    knows what (s)he wants.

    about getting raises/promotions/rights that are undeserved:
    
    I feel most vociferously that:
    
    those who do not deserve a position, by career ability and nothing
    else, should not get the position, and often don't.
    
    those who attain positions higher than they can handle, will be sifted
    out, as it becomes increasingly obvious they can't do the job.
    
    often, promotions that are given to minorities with less seniority
    are often labeled "undeserved", when in truth the minority-member's
    abilities rival those of other contenders.  I see very rare cases where
    a minority person is elevated to a position, leaving a person which
    fits the job description more accurately in the dust.  
    
    And, just to head it off, I get the feeling I might get a response
    which tells me to "wake up and smell the coffee".  But I am not
    living in a dreamworld, this is what I have observed, and what I
    have experienced.
    
    -Jody
    
    

    Re: .16 and JimB                                   
    
    I agree with .16 that the anger is necessary.  I think it is a question
    of how you react when you are denied an advancement that you think
    you deserve.  You have one of two choices.  Either you turn the
    anger inward and start to doubt that you did indeed deserve the
    advancement or you get angry at the organization that denied you
    the advancement that you still believe that you deserve.
    
    The problem is that there are very few people - of either sex -
    that truly deserve some of the advancements that are handed out.
    When you are denied an advancement that you truly were not ready
    for, your ego might still cause you to lay blame on the organization
    that denied you the advancement.
    
    Every person that I know who has been fired from DEC has told me
    a wild story about savage politics that shot them down.  The wilder
    the story the more likely I am to believe that the person deserved
    to be fired. "Thou dost protest to much, Me thinks."
    
    In the end the action of blaming the organization comes down to:
    
    o "They are all against me so I guess there is no use in trying"
    
    or
    
    o "They are all against me so I will work harder and show them that
       they are wrong"
    
    						MJC O->

Re .0, Kerry, just being a white, anglo-saxon, straight, male 
may not make it any easier to succeed in life.  But, there
are no particular drawbacks to succeeding in life because
of being a white, anglo-saxon, straight, male either.

It would be interesting to make a survey of all the people
who graduated from high school in Connecticut the same year
that you did.  It would be interesting to see what percentage
of the white males are now making over $30K a year.  Then, 
it would be interesting to compare that with what percentage
of the black females are now making more than $30K a year.

It would be interesting to make a similar survey at Digital.
I wonder what percentage of the males working at DEC, regardless
of job, are making more than $30K a year, and what percentage
of the females working at DEC, regardless of job, are making
more than $30K a year.

I have a hunch that the results of these surveys would not
support your claim that as a white, anglo-saxon, protestant,
male in America, you have no rights.

I just filed another company organizational chart for my boss.
There's still only 3 women's names on that chart of the top
managers at DEC.  No woman on the Executive Committee yet.
But, there's supposed to be more women in America than men?
Then, if there's more women, and women are getting more
rights than men, I would think it would logically follow
that women would be running DEC.  But, that doesn't seem to
be the case yet.

As for the PSAs, if you knew how much they make compared to
programmers, Kerry, I think you'd be the one who died laughing.
I don't think it's even a WC4 job.  Ever notice all PSA's seem
to be women, but a lot of recruiters and personnel reps are
men?  

I find it difficult to believe that white, anglo-saxon, protestant,
straight, men are discriminated against in America.  You guys
*wrote* the constitution and you forgot women and black men
way back then.  I don't think *all* of us have caught up with
*all* of you yet.

Lorna

    

        (I'm posting this in response to mail without having read
        449.11-449.20.)
        
        Someone has indicated that they were uncomfortable with my
        description of my assailant as an "inner-city black", because
        they felt that indicated that the reasons for the attack were
        racist and/or classist. They wondered if a more neutral phrasing
        might be more appropriate.
        
        Well, the attack was explicitly racist and calssist and the
        gentleman (in every sense of the word) who rescued me from the
        attack was able to do so only because he was black. No whites
        were permitted to get anywhere near us. Ted, being black was
        able to walk over, get between us, and stop Willy. In many ways
        the only major difference between the incident and a good ole
        1920s style lynching was the color of the victim and assailants
        and the level of violence it had escalated to at the time it had
        stopped. Similar attacks ended in hospitalization.
        
        I certainly did not mean to categorize all urban blacks with my
        assailant and his cronies. It is quite clear to me that there
        are good and bad folk of every class, race, sex, religion, and
        sexual orientation. There are also bigots of all ilk. This one
        was of the inner-city black variety and his bias was against
        every one who wasn't at least black and preferably urban lower
        to lower-middle class black. 
        
        JimB.

re: .20
        
>It would be interesting to make a survey of all the people
>who graduated from high school in Connecticut the same year
>that you did.  It would be interesting to see what percentage
>of the white males are now making over $30K a year.  Then, 
>it would be interesting to compare that with what percentage
>of the black females are now making more than $30K a year.
>
>It would be interesting to make a similar survey at Digital.
>I wonder what percentage of the males working at DEC, regardless
>of job, are making more than $30K a year, and what percentage
>of the females working at DEC, regardless of job, are making
>more than $30K a year.
....
>   Then, if there's more women, and women are getting more
>rights than men, I would think it would logically follow
>that women would be running DEC.  But, that doesn't seem to
>be the case yet.

    I don't think the above survey would 'prove' your point.
    The cause of a lower percentage of women earning more than $30K 
    than men may be due to many reasons, one of which could be an element
    of discrimination. 
    
    Malcolm

    we are definetly not a "protected minority" anymore!
    a we (women) make up a major part of the work force today.
    i am not sure what the new "in"minority is yet.
    
    i also seem to reall a man winning a reverse disrimination(sp)
    concerninga medical school in california.
    
    					kelly

    i can see why i am not getting ahead
    just take a look at my spelling!  :-)
    sorry folks
    
    
    kelly

        My comments on anger are based on my own personal experience.
        Your mileage may vary.
        
        In my expereince, when I was beaten up and did nothing about it
        I felt immense anger. At times I internalized the anger, at
        other times I externalized it and expressed it, but at no time
        did it help me one iota. When I finally stood up and said "I've
        had enough. I don't have to take this any more.", it was done
        with out anger.
        
        I remember quite clearly the time in the fifth grade when I
        finally fought back. The class bully knocked my books out of my
        arms as I was about to get off the bus. As I was reaching for my
        books, all ofthe anger and all of the fear just fell away, and I
        saw that I wasn't effectively standing up to him and so I swung
        my fist from the floor into the face that was looking smuggly
        down.
        
        You might think that that resorting to your fists was a sign of
        anger, but in many ways it wasn't. In many ways it was only
        possible when the anger left, andthe fear as well. Suddenly I
        wasn't angry. I was determined. And from then on my normal
        reaction to bullying became defiance and determination. I
        stopped reacting with my glands and started to think.
        
        It has been my experience that anger robs me of control. Anger
        and fear seem to give the other guy the edge. They seem to waste
        energy, not channel it. This may not be your experience. Anger
        may work for you. It doesn't work for me, and my observation is
        that it often works against others. Lots of angry people are
        ineffective. I've seldom if ever met a successful person who
        attributed their success to their anger. Maybe I've just talked
        to the wrong people. 
        
        I can sympathize with anger and with fear. I support my friends
        and acquaintances when they are wronged, but I do find it hard
        to encourage anger. It held me back.
        
        JimB. 

    The following response is from a member of our community who
    wishes to remain anonymous at this time.
    
    						=maggie
    ==================================================================
                                              
    When I was in a minor supervisor's role I pulled on the arm of a
    male co-worker; it was not sexual in any way, I used it as a means
    to get his attention.  You can believe I heard about it later from
    my supervisor.  Sorry, Kerry's charges are groundless: we are
    treated just like anybody else in those types of cases. To this day
    I have not ever physically touched another co-worker. 

    
    Jim,
    
    I'm not sure that we really disagree about anger and how it ought
    to be used.  I think we may just define it differently.  What I
    pulled from your last note was that it was only when you let go
    of your anger that you were able to punch this guy who was bullying
    you.  Well, first of all, I tend to see hitting as an act of anger,
    but I'll try to see it in the context in which you framed it.  But
    I think that it was only because you were able to be angry about
    this maltreatment that you were able to act at all.  If you hadn't
    allowed yourself to feel angry on some level,  you probably would have 
    felt that you somehow deserved the attack.  I'm not saying that women 
    ought to go out and trash DEC property as an expression of anger.  
    I am saying that it's not only ok to be angry about injustice, but 
    that it's a necessary part of the process.  When we get angry about being
    treated unfairly, we are putting the responsibility for the behavior
    on the actor.  If we deny our anger, we are much more likely to
    take responsibility for the unfair treatment we are receiving. 
    That's when you start hearing people say stuff like, "Maybe I really
    didn't deserve that promotion," or "Maybe it's my own fault that
    he hit me..." 
    
    
    Justine 

        Justine, (may I call you Justine?)
        
        Maybe it's just because I have a terrible temper or perhaps it's
        the way many boys are brought up, but it is my experience that
        although anger may often result in violence, violence is most
        effective when performed as coldly and as emotionlessly as
        possible. When you are angry it is often hard to think clearly.
        If you aren't used to violence, anger can make you flail wildly.
        It can make you hesitate, flee or cower.
        
        You are, of course, right that there was a lot of anger involved
        leading up to my beginning to fight back effectively, but the
        anger also interfered in many ways with being effective and the
        bullies know how to use fear and don't respect anyone who can't
        act effectively.
        
        Getting your opponent to lose his temper is a very intentional
        strategy in a lot of brawling and other aggressive and
        confrontational interactions. Boys and men are much more often
        taught the arts of violence than girls and women, and one of the
        lessons that we are taught is how to be violent dispassionately.
        Some teachers emphasize learning to act without thinking which
        has advatnages of speed. Others teach you to think about what
        you are doing, which can have advantages of precision and
        effectiveness.
        
        It's this lesson that we were taught when we learned boxing,
        street fighting, self-defense, or martial arts that lies behind
        the mysterious admonition to not get angry. Maybe we believe in
        it because it is what we were taught, and not because it is
        absolutely true. Maybe I believe in it because anger debilitates
        me even more than others. It is, none-the-less a lesson I've
        learned over and over again ("don't get mad--get even"), and one
        that has been effective for me.
        
        JimB. 

    The following response is offered by a member of our community
    who wishes to remain anonymous at this time.
    
    						=maggie
    ===============================================================
    
    I would like to expand on a similar experience as the one mentioned
    in note 449.26. 

    I was in a group that I was not pleased with. It seemed the more I
    offered to do the more that was demanded of me. 

    So I took the normal recourse, told my supervisor, and her
    supervisor that I was to start interviewing. They're response was to
    inform me I was critical to the project's completion date and would
    not be allowed to leave. They further admonished me that if I were
    to go on interviews they would get me fired from DEC. I then asked
    fellow employees what I should do and they suggested I should get
    personnel involved, which I did. 
                                    
    Personnel supported me and told me I could not get fired. 

    When the day for my interview arrived I sat with my two (female)
    supervisors and told them that I had kept everything above board and
    I was going to an interview. 

    My supervisor then dashed after me into my office and grabbed my arm
    and spun me around, I had a cup of coffee in my hand. It went all
    over my office and my white shirt. I was not aware of my rights at
    that time and refrained from going to personnel about the incident
    since I am male and was reticent to do so since I feared the stigma
    of complaining about abuse by a female; the next time I won't. 

    Jim and Justine,
    
    Could we have a definition problem here?  Or are we missing a
    word?  Given that we have a spectrum of words:
    
            calm    <word>    anger    rage
    
    I think that Justine is speaking of <word>, a more-intellectual-
    than-emotional state, which is achieved as a rising from the
    ground-state of calm, and is required in order to *do* something.
    I think that Jim is speaking of anger leaning towards rage, a more-
    emotional-than-intellectual state, which does not do anyone much
    of any good, and makes other people find the holder an unpleasant
    person, whom one would do well to avoid.
    
    Ummm, maybe <word> is wrath, or maybe it is indignation, or ....
    
    						Ann B.

    re .30
    My immediate reaction to what happened to you was that it would
    have been awfully hard not to want to throw the rest of the
    coffee at the supervisor.
    
    Did you go to the interview? Are you still working for the same
    person?
    
    I think you had reason to complain.
    
    

	To get back to Kerry's comments...The problem seems to be a classic
	case of backlash. The job market is tough, the numbers of people
	competing for all the higher level jobs has increased. There are
	not enough well paying positions around to keep all us baby boomers
	in the lifestyle we have come to expect. The lines of battle seem
	to have been drawn between white males (who used to get all the good
	jobs) and every other minority. If we get these jobs some white males
	will obviously not get them. Who is to blame? Is anybody? Is society?

	For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the number
	of jobs does not increase but the number of job seekers does, someone
	will not get the job/chance they want. I have read several magazine
	articles that have mentioned that the baby boom generation will have
	to accept a lower standard of living than their parents. This causes
	resentment and a desire to find somewhere to place the blame. 

	There's always going to be people who get undeserved promotions and
	opportunities. They will be men and women, white and black and every
	sort of combination you can think of. It's the way life is in
	business. The Peter Principle is a reality that doesn't seem to
	discriminate. The difference now is that women and minorities may get
	there too, I'm not sure that's what we're really striving for but
	we have the same failings (as individuals) as do white males (as
	individuals). I also believe we have many of the same strengths.

	liesl

      Ms. Kleinberger, is there any need to copy he note in here?
    
                          REK
    

    Mr. Happiness...
    
    Yes, because it makes the replies 1 - .33 have less continuity...
    
    Now, when someone who has NOT read .0, and all its replies, will
    NOW understand what .1 thru .33 was responding too...
    
    That was the MAJOR complaint I had in the first place... the author
    of .0 would start a topic, and then delete his note, so that another
    reader would have a difficult time in following the "total" topic...
    
    He said he would not delete it, so I didn't "immediately" recopy
    it as reply number 1, now I'm sorry I didn't...
    
    Ms. Kleinberger

    While I am not Ms Kleinberger, I would say there _is_ a need --
    to keep the context of the conversation which followed.
    
    Lee

    Lee, who asked you?
    Gale, If people can't follow a topic they need not reply. If I'm
    going to commemt on something then I read the whole note not just
    a few of the last replies. I don't think it to be right that a base
    note being put in here every 30 replies. If everyone did that then
    why not every note?
    
                    REK
    
    But its a whole different story if the note got deleted......
    Gale, happeness is put on hold, wifie-poo is 4 months along.....

    um REK, did you notice that Gale only put the copied note in
    after the base note was deleted?
    
    and why shouldn't Lee have answered?
    
    confused,
    
    Bonnie
    
    (and congratulations :-) )

     Opps, I see Kerry is up to his old tricks again....
    I didn't ask Lee, I asked Gale why she did like she did.....
    Gee, even after Kerry said he wouldn't delete it.....
    
             REK
    
    Thanks, Donna and I are real happy. We want a little girl!!!!
    

RE: < Note 449.40 by NISYSI::REK "Daddy in training!!!!!" >
    
>>    Thanks, Donna and I are real happy. We want a little girl!!!!
    
E Gadz...a REKette! I hope she acts just like you REK...it's only fair..:-)

J Pooh

    Bonnie and I have decided to set .34 hidden for karmic reasons.
    
    We apologise to the other members of our community for the
    discontinuity that this (re)introduces. 
    					
    					in Sisterhood, 
    					=maggie 

    Re: 42 I don't think the note should be set hidden. I thought Gale
    was putting in a note that was already there. Since it got deleted
    some how Gale was within the rights of noting to reintroduce the
    note. I was objecting to reintroduce a note already in the conference.
    I hope this clears up my objection.
    
               REK

    Maggie -- whose karma?
    
    ;-o

    Holly, hers and mine I guess :-).....