Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    I just read a comment in a reply to a note that aggravates me to
    know extent.
    
    This is not verbatim...but the comment indicated if a woman made
    more money than the ex-husband and had custody of the children she
    should pay all the child support.  A reference was made to the fact
    that she would not allow the father his visitation rights.  This
    comment was made in response to my comment that I did not like to
    talk to fathers who did not pay child support.
    
    Flame on...
    
    This is a typical response of a non-custodial parent that does not
    care a hill of beans about their responsibility to their children
    and is in fact neglecting that responsibility by accessing and judging
    the custodial parents behavior, income and whatever else.
    
    And what does income and visitation rights have to do with the whole
    scheme of things.  Do all custodial parents with high incomes deny
    visitation rights to the non-custodial parent?
    
    This type of logic by both men and women is why the courts are
    desperately trying to find ways to settle child support and child
    custody cases.  We expect the courts to do what we refuse.
                                                  
    I have often said that this conference is not a true representative
    of the population.  I expect programmers, engineers and professionals
    to have better sense and therefore give a more enlightened view
    of the world and its problems.  Maybe I am wrong.  Maybe this is
    the real world with real j*erks.
    

>    I have often said that this conference is not a true representative
>    of the population.  I expect programmers, engineers and professionals
>    to have better sense and therefore give a more enlightened view
>    of the world and its problems.  Maybe I am wrong.  Maybe this is
>    the real world with real j*erks.
    
Why do you assume that this conference is not representative of the population?
Or that programmers, engineers and professionals have more sense than the
population at large ? or that jerks don't exist in the cluster cloister ?
Or that the real world doesn't have it's share of enlightened people ?

This IS the real world, with real people. Many of whom don't consider
YOUR viewpoint the enlightened one. Are they all jerks by definition ?

And thank you for introducing a SOAPBOX Note#204 into this conference.
I think I shall vote yes.

dana

	I'm sick of seeing every topic turned into an excuse for
	bickering. I'm sick of people who spend all their time casting
	aspersions on each other's motives and beliefs rather than
	addressing what they're actually saying. I'm sick of quibbling
	over saying "all" instead of "some". I'm sick of individuals
	hovering over this file looking for nits to pick, and
	individuals who mistake nit-picking for personal attacks. I'm
	sick of the self-righteous twits who can't admit that it's
	possible for someone to hold an opposing opinion without being
	in league with the devil (whatever the hell sex it is).

	Before entering a reply, ask youself these questions:

	Am I responding emotionally?
	Am I intending what I say personally, against the author of a
	note, rather than in response to what they said? Am I
	addressing what they actually said, or what I think is the
	motive behind it?
	Am I taking something personally that may not have been
	intended that way?
	Am I nit-picking?
	
	If the answer to any of these questions is yes, SHUT THE HELL
	UP!!!

	I do hope someone opens a restricted file. I doubt it will
	really work and produce a forum where useful discussion about
	the important issues of women and their place in our society
	could take place, but it can't hurt to try.

	Mike

RE: .3

I'd like to reply to your flame, because I'm sure that what I write can be
inferred as one of the above.

I happen to think that it *is* very important to pick at some nits.

I think it *is* important for people to say *some* instead of *all*; it may be
the only way to get people to treat others as individuals, rather then
sterotyped groups.

I think that it is important to question the logic of a train of thought;
it may be the only way we can seperate the fact from the fiction.

I think it is important to question the assumptions and facts *behind* pet
theories.  If I don't know enough of the background, all I can do is dumbly
either nod, or shake my head.  I don't think that is a victory for anyone.

Jim.

    RE: .1
    
    In my earlier note that offended you, I commented that *both* parents
    should be able see the children *equally* (assuming one parent did
    not beat the children, etc.), regardless of their sex or income.
    I made a sarcastic remark about a father who paid money is alimony
    and child support, and yet was not able to see his children.  This
    is Bull$h!t (with a capital B) and often common.  My apologies if
    I was not clear in the original note.
    
    As for setting aside a note for flames/abuse, that may be starting
    trouble.  I have wanted to flame in here at times, but chose not
    to dilute the discussion of the topic.  Now I have a place to
    do so.  That may be dangerous.  :-)
    
    Dave
    

re:< Note 571.3 by GOSOX::RYAN "Equal Opportunity Noter" >
 
<----- What he said. Thanx Mike.

I'm also sick of seeing the same people bickering and saying the same things
over and over and over again. 

Jenna Poopy

    There are a lot of really neat people who write in this file.
    I have been fortunate enough to meet some of them and I have
    found them to be lovely people. Some of those whom I have met
    have gone on to become good friends. I am equally sure that those
    whom I have not met are just as fine and just as wonderful people.
    
    But sometimes, I feel like I do when my teenagers get going on
    something and I am in the middle and all I want to do is holler
    "SHUT UP ALREADY!"...now where I can and have done that with
    my teenagers (and not always too successfully :-})  I can't really
    do that to a group of intelligent articulate passionate etc etc
    adults...
    
    but (very small voice here) some times I do wish....
    
    Let us strive for a little spirit of the season here, please
    
    hugs in general :-)
    
    Bonnie

    I pretty much agree with Jim (.4) although I don't think in
    terms like "nits".  It occurs to me that a common problem around
    the NOTES conferences is that we can't enjoy the advantages
    of non-verbal queues (hence the proliferation of smiley faces).
    This pretty much leaves us with only written words as our means of 
    communication.  At the risk of making a blanket statement, I 
    feel pretty safe in saying that communication between women
    and men is one of the major, recurrent themes of this conference.
    So, from my viewpoint, the words we use and the way we put them 
    together becomes of critical importance in NOTES communication.
    
    And any of you bannana heads who "think" differently can 
    stuff. . .er, that is, the opinions of others, expressed in
    a clear, constructive manner is always welcome.
    
    Steve
    

    Nicely said noter Ryan. And ditto to Bonnie. 
    
    Personally I dislike getting hate mail, especially when those that
    send it will not bother to reply to attempts to "talk about it"
    and maybe understand each others views better. 
    
    One noter from this conference and I became friends when we did
    start corresponding. And it all started out with some heated
    exchanges in notes. But as we started writing to each other and
    I started listening to that persons point of view, I started to
    understand better, and I'm glad we're friends now. So, to those
    of you  who I offend, let me know. I do have an open mind...
    I think........ 

    Another observation I have around Noting phenomena is that, in
    Notes, we too often speak to people, electronically, in ways
    that we would never dream of, if we were speaking to them face
    to face.
    
    At the Party tonight, even if we get into discussions about topics
    that we disagree on, I doubt that we will start off by saying
    "Hey pisswit, you're out of your mind". (At least I hope *that*
    won't happen. Maybe I better take a full metal jacket along. :-)
    
      Alan

    Now, Alan, when did anyone in this file call someone a 'pisswit'?
    
    :-}

    RE: .11
    
    Bonnie, you're right. I meant to say that nobody at the party
    would ever think of saying "Hey, p_sswit". :-)
    
      Alan     

    giggle....
    
    you should hear me when I lose my temper....fortunately it isn't
    very often, I hung out with a bad crowd in grad school and
    picked up some bad habits ;-)

Actually, they'd probably say "Hey p*ssw*t." or something similar.  For some
reason, people here are afraid to spell maladictae properly.

Martin.

    Martin, are you picking on me because I can't spell ;-}  ?
    
    it might be okay to spell it if we could define it...

>< Note 571.14 by MAY20::MINOW "Je suis marxiste, tendance Groucho" >
>
>Actually, they'd probably say "Hey p*ssw*t." or something similar.  For some
>reason, people here are afraid to spell maladictae properly.
>

    There was  a  wonderful libel (or slander, I forget which) case in
    which  the defendant described the plaintiff as "A slimey creature
    who  sleazed up from the bayou" (Or very close to that.) The judge
    ruled for the defendant and (in dicta) said that it was a pleasure
    to see that creative invective was not a completely lost art.

--David

    It seems like there is a person that contributes to this file that
    can straighten us all out.  He can tell us why the file was created
    and he can fix any misunderstandings about the recent poll.
    
    I can't believe that we as women are still being subjected to this
    type of authoritive attitude by even one man.
    
    Iam speechless.
    

> "Clorty Auld Besom" >         ooOOOOooo again!!!

Button 1. Those who reply solely to correct another writer's spelling or 
          grammar.  Take up teaching the dead; they appreciate your effort
          more than the rest of us.
                              
Button 2. Those who write one paragraph relating to the string and three
          paragraphs about Jesus Christ. Dearly beloved children of God,
          have you strayed into the wrong conference?
          
          Meigs  (feeling femmo today!)

I'm sick and tired of seeing endless notes on what and who this file is
for and why it is here. I would think a notesfile entitled "Topics of
Interest to Women" would speak for itself. I wouldn't think a note about
what a hassle it is to find a feminine napkin dispenser that works would
be very interesting to men, but I do believe that there are many notes
that may very well be interesting to men. Same as there are some notes in
Mennotes that are interesting to me and some that are not. 

I also think that many people do not feel comfortable bearing their 
souls in this or any file regardless of whether it is members only or 
not. I happen to be one of those people and for my own reasons I'm not 
about to tell my deep dark secrets to the world at large. If I needed 
to do so I would do it anonymously, period.

I think that there are men who read this file that hate women. I think that
there are women who read this file that hate men. I think that there are 
people in this file that hate everything. I don't think we can ever change
that and all this bickering is getting us nowhere. I think I am having
much more fun and learning lots more by reading BEATLES, 4WD, AUDIO and 
countless other interest files.

The world is an imperfect place. We're all in it together and we're all
in it alone. We can lean on each other and make progress or we can push
each other down and go nowhere. I'm know where I'm going...

Jenna

    
    
    
    .22  <applause>   WELL SAID, Jenna!!!!!!!!
    
    


    I've lost it now.
    
    I'm annoyed at general statements accusing everyone in the notesfile
    (except of course the author of the statement) of being vicious
    castrating bitches.  I'm tired of people celebrating the female
    being accused of men-bashing.  And oh, no, we never make mistakes,
    that's why we are capable of saying these things.
    
    				And if anybody *finds* my sense of humor,
    				please send it back to me.

< Note 571.25 by 3D::CHABOT "I have heard the VAXes singing, each to each." >

    We're not all "vicious bitches", some are "vicious bastards"  8^{).

    I would like to see everybody (including me) become less defensive.
    The only way any new stuff get in to your head and heart is when
    the defenses are down.

    Dick

    I am getting rawther sick of seeing topics become tennis matches
    between a few several people, the later responses seeming to consist
    only of:
    
    "I feel that you said that what I feel was wrong or denigrating
    or offensive"
    
    "I feel that your saying that what I feel was wrong or denigrating
    or offensive is wrong or denigrating or offensive and therefore
    I must assume that <insert slightly non-sequitorial personal remark 
    here that seems sort of outside the original topic>"
    
    "Well, since you said "<quote of slightly non-sequitorial personal
    remark here>", I can only assume you are not biding by what you
    said when you remarked, "<quote from much earlier remark which may
    or may not be relative to the discussion at this point in time>"
    
    I think it's the back-and-forthing that gets me out of discussions
    more often than not.  While this veneration of certain portions
    of statements by repeated proof via n-dozen volleys may prove in
    the end that someone is "right" and someone is "wrong" - most often
    it ends in an awkward silence while the few-several wrangle it out,
    and for some time nothing really new or enlightening related to the 
    topic gets said.

    This is just my bug-a-boo, so I figured it belonged here.  BTW,
    this is nothing personal with anyone in particular or in general,
    it's like Suzanne Vega sings: "It's a one-time-thing, it just
    happens....a lot...."
    
    -Jody
        

    for assuming that men don't have nightmares and would not be able
    to contribute anything to a discussion of coping with them.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

1.  replying to topics with brief messages that don't give a clue as to
	the subject except for a RE: note number.  I would prefer people
	would say RE: #, subject.  (I just have a hard time following the
	discussion without reminders).

2.  People who say that women provide some function for them, such as
	nurturing, or giving advice, or are their best friend.  Why
	women as opposed to men?  Why do men have to come into this
	file to learn about women as if we were some kind of fish?  
	I always feel that women are being condescended to even when
	the author was really trying to be supportive.

3.  People who dump on women who ask for help just from other women.  If
	women want to know if other women have similar feelings (they
	aren't always asking for advice) they should be able to ask
	other women without men complaining.  Sometimes it's a sort
	of sanity check.

4.  People who threaten to leave a notes conference because they feel
	offended or unwanted or something.  Either try to work with
	the situation, or leave.  Don't tell us you plan to leave so
	people can have the opportunity to ask you not to leave.

5.  People who analyze too much.  Who analyze how the file is doing, how
	the analysis of the file is, what people really mean when they
	say something.

...Karen

    Reply to .28; Marshall,
    
    So what's wrong with starting your own topic concerning men's
    nightmares in Mennotes? 
    
    I see no problem with what Peggy did.

Thanks for creating a note for nagging, whining, complaining, screaming,
shouting, frothing at the mouth, and more...

I hate, hate, hate:

- not being able to be critical about a man's attitude without having
  to say that I don't hate men: how can anybody possibly hate 50% of
  all human beings. That's simply preposterous.

- not being able to express some thoughts I have because I feel that 
  some men are going to jump at me, make fun of me, come erudite all
  over me, treat me as a defensive idiot child.

I very much dislike:
        
- people who replace part of the letters in swear words, for example
  writing "h*ll" for "Hell". Either you don't object to swear words, in this
  case go ahead and use them: you are not sparing anybody's sensibilities
  this way. Or you object to swear words, and there are many other ways
  to express annoyance or anger. Among other possibilities:

	1) Say so: "I am extremely angry"
		   "I am very upset"
		   "I cannot accept..."

	2) Be sarcastic: "It has probably escaped your attention that ..."
			 "Though blind people cannot be blamed for not
 			  seeing ...."

	3) Take advantage of the richness of the English language to
	   come up with original or old ways of telling people you
  	   feel they are unbargained-for-remains-of-neo-facistic-memorabilia
	   or moth-eaten-goat-excrements. 

- Smiley faces. To me, they really are a way of saying the most awful things
  without taking the blame for it: "your ideas confirm the theory that not all
  people descend from apes at the same speed" said she/he, following it by
  a smiley face so the person concerned will not take offence and barge into
  him/her with a reciprocal insult. Should this happen, it will allow the 
  smiler to complain about the other person's lack of sense of humour...

  Also people will say something they are dead serious about but, as they 
  are afraid of the reactions of other people hurting them, they will add
  smiley faces to their text.

  They are also a sign of laziness: if we express ourselves clearly
  and accurately, surely we don't need to include drawings in our 
  writings?	
  
Rantingly and ravingly yours,

Joana

    re .31
    The way I understand it the use of * in swear words was due to 
    a degree of sensitivity around whether we could be running afoul
    of FCC laws or for that matter to avoid getting negative reactions
    to notes within the company...tho I admit that this impression could
    be mistaken.
    
    Also the use of faces in notes was originally suggested as a way
    to provide the context of jesture, facial expression etc. that 
    is present in face to face conversation but absent in notes.
    
    

    re .30:
    
    You are violating the convbention of this note. I believed that
    571 was a place to flame. So I flamed, Peggy's note bugged me, and
    you have no right to tell me to go start a note in a conference
    I do not read and have no interest in reading.
    
    You may not see a problem with what Peggy did, and I may be totally
    unjustified in complaining about it, but that is the purpose of
    this note, to vent steam.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Re: .33  - The "nightmare" note.
    
    I agree.  It is totally absurd to start two notes on a subject.
    One for women and one for men.  What does that say?  It says that
    only women can "understand" the authors feelings/fears.  Well,
    that is a typical attitude, and a bunch of maggot-laden, steaming,
    fresh, weasel feces!  You want "women only" to reply to a topic
    that general?  Be serious!  I can understand asking women-only to
    reply to a "yeast infection" topic (not too many men have 1st hand
    experience with that), but this is ludicrous!  
    
    Arrrrrrg!!!!!

    Forgive me, Dave et al., but it is (in my opinion) not at all ludicrous
    for someone to want to hear only from women, even on general topics,
    _in this file_.  A desire is a desire, period.  It is its own
    justification, as is your desire that, e.g., women not have such
    wishes.
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

    I think the single most offensive thing in Womannotes is *this topic*!
    
    I think people are mean, nasty and picky enough to each other in
    notesfiles without designating a special topic exclusively for people
    to be mean, nasty and picky to and about each other.
    
    It seems to me that we should be directing our efforts towards trying
    to understand and be kind to one another, not in thinking up clever,
    witty ways to put each other down.
    
    Lorna
    

    Alas Eagle ... the most understanding men don't learn about women
    through notesfiles.  They turn to the lady beside them and talk
    to her.  I fear that "understanding women" is used by some as an
    excuse for their presence.  They obviously are not here because
    they enjoy our company, or because they appreciate our point of
    view, or because they admire our logic and integrity.  Some seem
    to be here to keep us in our place, to show us the error of our
    ways, to straighten us out.  Why do they stay?  

    RE: .28, .30, .33, .34  et al
    
    This isn't really a hot button with me and I'm not flaming, but
    I would like to point out to ASD::LOW that even "men" can contribute
    to a discussion of yeast infections.  I've never had one, that I
    know of, but I was sufficiently interested to transcribe some
    information from a magazine article which recommended boric acid.
    
    As for BUFFER::LEEDBERG's #594 about dreams, when I read that this
    was an example of what she would like to see in a closed, members
    only conference, I just NEXT UNSEENed the whole lot.  The title
    said "for Women Only", which was somewhat ambiguous to me.  Did
    it mean "no males need reply" or "don't even dare reading further".
    I assumed that the author did not want anyone but "females" reading 
    any further.  This disappointed me because I have always looked to 
    this conference as a place to share information, experiences and
    feelings.  
    
    I wondered about how to avoid reading future replies to #594.  Because
    this is one of three conferences that I follow on a regular basis,
    it would be difficult to avoid seeing some further discussion of
    this "nightmare" topic.  What if we had something similar to what
    the UCOUNT::MOVIES conference uses to hide plot questions that would
    spoil it for someone who hadn't seen the film.  By putting in a
    FORM FEED, the writer alerts any casual readers to the possibility
    that the following information may include "the butler did it",
    for example.  What if WOMANNOTES adopted a convention of using a
    FORM FEED for topics which are considered to be "for women only".
    There would not be any way of policing this, but male readers would be
    honor bound to skip over that REPLY.                 
    
    The following has been put beyond a FORM FEED by inserting a 
    <CTRL> V followed by a <CTRL> L.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
        Example of information separated from the topic by FORM FEED.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Re: the last several
    
    It seems to me that if a woman enters a note and asks for replies
    from women only, it's generally because the note is about a topic
    that's very sensitive for her, and she particularly wants to avoid
    responses from the male writers in this conference who trample on
    people's feelings.  (I know there are good guys out there --
    unfortunately there is no way to set a "women and good male guys"
    filter!).  So, I think it's bad form for a man to go off to another
    note and complain about this.  Among other reasons, it's just a
    way to do an end run around the restriction.  And I think if they
    do this, other members of the conference should just ignore them
    instead of feeding the discussion.  I'm beginning to understand
    the complaints about men in this file, unfortunately.
    
    I don't think anyone objects to men reading "for women only" notes
    -- am I mistaken?
    
    If a man has something of deathless interest to contribute on the
    topic, yes, do please enter it on men notes if you want.  But not
    here.
    

    re .40
        
    >...unfortunately there is no way to set a "women and good male guys"
    > filter!)
      
    How about simply asking for "courteous responses only"?
    
    > Among other reasons, it's just a way to do an end run around the 
    > restriction.
    
    Pray, tell me all my reasons for complaining about the restriction.
    Exactly how is objecting to such an arbitrary restriction, (in a
    note specifically dedicated to complaints)an "end run around the
    restriction"? Have I been using _this_ note to discuss my nightmares
    and how I deal with them?
    
    > If a man has something of deathless interest to contribute on the
    > topic, yes, do please enter it on men notes if you want.  But not
    > here.
    
    Thanks, that is very kind of you. That is sort of like responding
    to a _Boston_Globe_ editorial by writing to the _N.Y._Times_. Or
    maybe a better analogy would be a _Ms_ editorial by writing to
    _Esquire_. 

    Re: .40
    
    So only men trample on people's feelings?
    
    It's bad taste to complain in another note?
    
    Well I certainly wouldn't want to complain in that note, would I?
    After all it's "No men allowed"!!!  The idea of that upsets me greatly,
    and I disagree with that concept completely.  However, I am respecting
    the author's wishes by not replying to that note.
    
    
    Your beginning to understand the complaints against men in this
    file?  Congratulations!  You are on your way to becoming a true
    WOMANNOTER...
    
    What if somebody started a topic here and said "nobody from California
    should reply to this note", because they felt that someone in
    California wouldn't understand their feelings/emotions on a certain
    subject.  How would that make you feel?  Then, suppose you say "I
    have some relevent ideas on that, but you don't want me to respond".
    Naturally, you would feel upset that your opinions (unseen and unheard)
    were rejected, based on your geographical location.  Well, calling
    that response "bad form" is another slap in the face.
    
    I simply find it amazing that a conference that seems to be for
    an open, sharing community, who would like equality for all,
    can be so hypocritical at times by deliberately placing restrictions
    on certain members of the conference.  
    
    I have never tried to deny anyone's feelings in this conference.
    I have never belittled anyone's problems here.  I just want all
    this women vs. men bullshit to stop.  If we can't stop it here,
    there's no hope for the "real world".
    
    Dave
    

    doesn't anyone see anything wrong with the statement:
    
    "You, sir, are being a jerk, I wish _men_ would learn to shut up
    and just listen."
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
    P.S. And then some poor fool male (like me) will stand up and try
    to point out the flaw, and thus automatically become guilty of
    not just shutting up and listening.

    
    David,
    
    sometimes it takes so much strength to express thoughts about the
    issues that we're struggling with that an insensitive reply can be
    devastating. sometimes we need a very specific type of help. 

    just as a white person can be inadvertently insensitive about hurting
    a black person, or a gentile might step on a jew's toes, or a straight
    person might accidentally offend a gay person, it sometimes happens
    that men say the wrong things to women.

    yes, men have nightmares. yes, you might be able to offer your
    experience to peggy (and several people have made suggestions about
    how you can do that if you feel you have something of value to say).

    on the other hand, before you do, please reread peggy's note. try
    to understand what kind of experience she's gone through, what she's
    been dreaming about, and how that might be related to why she just
    wants to hear from women right now. please put yourself in her shoes
    for a moment and try very hard to understand what peggy is feeling.

    
    thank you
    liz augustine

    Re: .41, 42, 43
    
    I think you don't realize how hurtful your replies can be.  What
    apparently seem to you to be reasoned, quiet replies seem to me
    (and apparently to others) to cause pain.  No one who enters a note
    about something sensitive wants to be shouted at in response.  That's
    why the mennotes -- so they can completely avoid seeing your response
    if they want to;  there's no other way to handle that in the current
    notes set up as I understand it.
    
    And it does seem to be the same men over and over again in this file
    who consistently respond in hurtful ways.
    

    Russ,
    Some interesting thoughts. But I don't understand who should be the
    authors of: 
     > I suggest that if *that* idea is a *good one*, then the
     > moderators collect opinions on "personal women's concern's"
     > and present to W/Notes the List. 
    
    men? women? everyone? what's wrong with just writing notes about
    "personal women's concerns"? or am i just not getting it?
    
    As for women contributing to mennotes more, i dutifully tried reading
    it for awhile, but quit when i just couldn't stomach it anymore.
    i understand that that notesfile has gone through several changes
    since its beginning. on the other hand, i have a few issues i'd
    like to work on right now, and "issues of concern to men" just isn't
    one of them at the moment. [quickly donning my asbestos suit here...]
    thanks much for the invitation, though.

    
    liz

    
    don't any men see the truth of the statement:
    
    "You, sir, are being a jerk, I wish _men_ would learn to shut up
    and just listen."
    

    Reply to .33, Marshall;
    
    Let me see if I've got this right. You flamed. I replied as to the
    base of your flame and you tell me that I'm not following the
    convention of this topic. I dont think that questioning the souce
    of the flame is out of bounds for this topic. B^) Uh, did I miss
    something?

    I don't even mind men starting separate basenotes in *this* file
    to respond to topics which women have asked only women to respond
    to.
    
    Disk space can support it, I believe, and those who wish to write
    can write.  Those who wish to read can read.               
    
    Holly
    
    

    Re : .0
    
    How does this work with next unseen?  Is there some feature of notes
    I don't understand?  Otherwise, each time someone opens the conference
    or does "n u" they're likely to have the new note or a reply to it
    staring them in the face, no?
    

    Usually when I have heard people say "Just hit next unseen", they
    mean that if a topic you aren't interested in reading appears, you
    can quickly jump to the next topic.  
    
    For example, there are a couple of long dicussions in this conference
    which I'm not following.  Often 10 replies to one or the other of
    them appear in  a day.  So if I log in and get .25 and I see that
    there are 35 in all, hitting next unseen will get all of the unread
    replies flagged as read.  Tomorrow I may get .36, and will have
    to repeat the process.
    
    

    > identifying patterns of answers by the sex of the answerers...
    
    oops, guilty as charged.  Russ is right.  If I ever enter a note
    that I particularly want to restrict answers to, I will say "No
    replies from A, B, C, or D, please."
    

    Re the replies from men about Peggy's nightmares, if I were a man
    and I read her note and I had something that I sincerely wanted
    to discuss with her about her nightmares, or I sincerely wanted
    to share with her about my nightmares, I would simply send her mail
    and say, "I know you requested women only to reply to this, but
    I really wanted to discuss this with you so I hope you won't mind
    me writing to you in mail, etc., etc., etc.  If I were a man, and
    I didn't  have anything sincere to add about the topic on
    nightmares then I wouldn't give a shit if she wanted men to respond
    or not since I had nothing to say anyway.  What's the big deal?
     The woman didn't want to discuss it with men!  So, what????  (I'm
    tempted to say, now you know what it's like to be kept out of things
    you might want to join!  Not much fun, is it?)
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .55  "...ridiculous"
    
    Lorna, the title of the "nightmare" note says that it's for women
    only.  It doesn't say "women only need reply".  I interpret that
    to mean that I have been asked to not even read other people's replies.
    Because I have been NEXT/UNSEENing every time I run across that
    discussion, I don't know if I have anything worth MAILing Peggy
    about or not.
    
    

    Re: last
    >         The woman didn't want to discuss it with men!  So, what????  (I'm
    >tempted to say, now you know what it's like to be kept out of things
    >you might want to join!  Not much fun, is it?)
     
    So in other words, you agree with much of what I have been saying
    about the hypocracy and reverse discrimination in this file.  It's
    OK to do that to men here, because it's WOMANNOTES.  Try and look
    at this from an abstract viewpoint and you'll see that it is just
    as wrong as the discimination you dislike in the "real world"
    
    Thank you for a fine example,
    
    Dave
     

    .57 was a reply to .55, not .56...ooops
           
    
    Re: .55
    
	
    >If I were a man, and
    >I didn't  have anything sincere to add about the topic on
    >nightmares then I wouldn't give a shit if she wanted men to respond
    >or not since I had nothing to say anyway.  What's the big deal?
    
    Reverse the example and see how it looks.  For example, a local
    tennis club has decided to become "male only", after being co-ed.
    Several women are upset about it.  Since you don't play tennis,
    why should you care if women can't belong to this club?
    
    <Insert standard analogy warning...>
    
    Dave
    

    Re .56, Dennis, the world doesn't deserve such integrity :-)!
    
    Go ahead and read it...nobody will ever know :)!
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: all-male tennis clubs
    
    If I were a tennis player (and I *were*, in my younger days) and
    an all-male club prevented me from playing, or having some certain
    advantages - I would feel that it was unfair.
    
    If a note were entered which asked me not to participate because
    I'm a woman, I couldn't give two hoots less. This is not preventing
    me from doing *anything* except giving, perhaps, unwanted advice
    or commentary. You don't want my advice or commentary on a personal
    subject? Okey-doke.
    
    You create a situation in which I cannot participate in the community
    or society? NOT Okey-doke.
    
    [BTW- I feel it would be tacky in the extreme to enter a note in
    =W= for men only; but in MENNOTES, it's perfectly appropriate]
    
    --dE
    

    To borrow Dave's analogy --
    
    Suppose we have two tennis clubs, one for men and one for women?
    Men and women are freely allowed to visit the other club as guests.
    There are lots of coed matches.
    
    Once in a while though, the women decide to have a women's match
    at the women's club.  The men are welcome to watch, but not to play
    in that match.  Some of them say they would really like to participate
    in *that* match.  
    
    The women think about it, and say "No, we'd rather you didn't. But
    you have a couple of options.  Start a men's match at the men's
    club, or go over to that empty court and start a simultaneous men's
    or coed match, it's up to you.  We don't want to keep you from playing,
    we just want to play with each other by ourselves once in a while".
                                                     
    
    

    	RE:  .57
    
    	Dave Low, since you have expressed such outrage and utter
    	contempt for any conference that allows "one sex only" notes,
    	I have some news for you.  (I'm sure that you will want to take
    	serious action on this one immediately.)
    
    	MENNOTES has "men only" notes.
    
    	If you are really sincere about your crusade to prevent "one
    	sex only" notes, then surely you will want to launch a gigantic
    	protest in MENNOTES about this.  Don't forget the part about
    	how they are discriminating against women (and remember to yell
    	the way you've yelled in this conference about this issue.)
    
    	By the way, I don't believe that any of the women who frequent
    	the conference have complained about it.  I know that I haven't.
    	As a matter of fact, some weeks ago, I even started a couple
    	of "men only" notes myself (before the big controversy started
    	over here.)  But it was nothing new.
    
    	You can forget the analogy to tennis -- we have a conference
    	for men that we can look to for comparison.  If we don't find
    	a problem with MENNOTES having "men only" notes, then there
    	is nothing whatsoever hypocritical about wanting "women only"
    	notes here.
    
    	You, however, will be *very* hypocritical if you persist in
    	persecuting WOMANNOTES for having "one sex only" notes and
    	allow MENNOTES to do it without question.  (You can't use
    	"I don't read MENNOTES" as an excuse, either.)  :-)  I've
    	told you about it, so you KNOW about it now.
    
    							Suzanne...

    Thank you, Suzanne, for pointing out the parallel between MENNOTES
    and WOMANNOTES.  Since I do not follow MENNOTES, I was not aware
    of the situation you describe.  I would also appreciate if you
    could provide me with an example of such notes (as I do not have
    the time to go through all of them, and you seem to know exactly
    where they are..) and MAIL them to me.
    
    Frankly, I'm not surprised that MENNOTES practices descrimintion,
    since many men still don't believe in the "equality" idea.
    The reason that I am so upset by descrimination in this file, is
    that the same people here who complain about descrimination, actively
    promote it (against others).  I doubt that would be the case in
    MENNOTES.  But, I guess I'll just have to wait and see, won't I?
    
    Dave
    

    I'm curious Dave,... how come you follow WOMANNOTES and not MENNOTES?

    I would like to withdraw my original complaint. I would like to
    thank all those women who have participated in showing me just how
    foolish and childish it was. I will try to exercise more restraint
    and courtesy in the future. I apologize to all the readers of this
    file for causing so much disruption.
    
    I do appreciate this file and the participants here very much, and
    would like to remain welcome. I think that I have learned something
    this past couple of weeks, and hope that I can act accordingly.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                                        

    since there's been some comparisons between mennotes and womannotes,
    and yet some noters here haven't participated in/read mennotes,
    I have copied out a recent discussion there (nothing too tawdry)
    and boiled it down to a palateable size to exemplify the difference
    in climate between the two notesfiles (subtle, but noticeable :-)
    
    are there any objections to my posting it here? (sans names, of course)
    
    -Jody

    	RE:  .63
    
    	Oh, I see what you are doing.
    
    	*YOU* get to decide what constitutes discrimination.  Then,
    	when you hear that the certain behavior (that *you* have
    	labeled discrimination) is being practiced by men -- you
    	say, "Ah well, I am not surprised."  (Implied sigh.)
    
    	But that same behavior (that *you* have decided is
    	discrimination) invokes *FURY, SHOCK and DISMAY* when it
    	is done by women (because, *you* have decided, it goes
    	against our quest for equality.)
    
    	So, therefore, *YOU* are EXCUSING behavior in men that
    	you *WILDLY PROTEST* when done by women.
    
	Your argument is the worst sort of manipulation.  You try
    	to adjust our behavior by labeling it as discrimination
    	(and then tell us that it is "understandable" when the men
    	do it because they are the ones who are *supposed* to be
    	committing discrimination.)
    
	Meanwhile, you are still harrassing us. 
    
    						     Suzanne...

    	RE:  .63
    
    	By the way, since you have admitted that you *only* object
    	to "only one sex" notes when they occur for women in this
    	file, then you do qualify as a hypocrite.
    
    	You are also trying to restrict women from having an
    	activity that is enjoyed by men.
    
    	*You* are the one who is promoting discrimination here.
    
    						     Suzanne...

    Suzanne,
    
    I did not say it was OK for MENNOTES to have one-sex notes.  I said
    that it does not surprise me.  It is still wrong, and I did ask
    for some examples so that I could read them in MENNOTES and reply
    to them, pointing out the offense.  I do not see this as being
    hypocritical.  Did I mis-read my own reply?  Just because a behavior
    is expected does not make it right.  I expect police cruisers to
    speed on the highway, even though it is not right.  (And yes,
    I have called the SP to complain about them)
    
    I have never asked for or promoted any restrictions on women in
    this file, or any other.  Please tell me where you got the idea
    that I had.
    
    Re:  Why here?
    
    I read this file, rather than MENNOTES, because I generally find
    women to more expressive and open about their feelings, and generally
    more sensitive than men.  Those men that note here also seem to
    exhibit the same traits.  Since most of my friends are women, 
    I find this desirable and find it easier to communicate in such
    an atmosphere.  Once we get past all this bickering I hope that
    can be more clearly demonstrated - on both sides.
    
    Dave
    

    Dave,
    
    I'm quickly losing my patience on this subject. You are apparently 
    objecting to the fact that some noters have requested that only 
    women respond to their notes. We've patiently answered questions, 
    explained, drawn analogies for you. A moderator has said that this 
    is acceptable behavior. We've offered you alternative suggestions
    so that you can make yourself heard on the topic. We've given you 
    things to think about. And you're *still* complaining. Are you just 
    trying to make a point? Consider it made. Are you trying to change 
    everyone else's behavior and expectations to match yours? Come on. 
    A notesfile is full of compromises. The icing on your cake is the 
    comment:
      > Once we get past all this bickering I hope that
      > can be more clearly demonstrated - on both sides.
    Who's been doing all the bickering in the last few days?
    What will it take for you to drop this issue?
    
    liz    

    Liz,
    
    All I want is for people in this file to feel welcome and contribute
    to any discussion that they feel they can add to.  I really don't
    think that's too much...
    
    About the "woman-only" note:  
    
    	I have responded by mail to the author, and I have stated that
    although I do not like the practice of Women-only notes, I will
    respect the wishes of the author.  I really didn't intend to start
    such a heated argument over it, I just wanted to show that it was
    sort of against the proclaimed nature of many of the members in
    this community.  However, it seems that others here did not see
    it as such.  In my desire to explain my postition more clearly,
    I continued to point out the hypocracy of such an action.
    Apparently, you see the point I am trying to make, and still
    feel that it is OK.  Well, if that's that's the case, then I
    have no reason to continue talking about this, since you
    seem to think that hypocracy is OK.
    
    My comment about the bickering was meant to indicate that
    I would like to drop the issue.  And it takes two to fight.
    
    As far as I'm concerned, the issue is dead.  I've expained
    myself, others have expressed their views, and it appears that
    there is no middle ground. 
    
    Dave
    

    	RE:  .71
    
    	Thank you, Dave, for killing the issue.
    
    	Since it is definitely dead and all, I'm sure you won't
    	mind me pointing out that you made a typo in your note.
    	(Well, no one is perfect.)  :-)
    
    	Those who argue against you do *not* agree that there is
    	hypocracy in wanting a topic once in awhile that is only
    	for women.  Therefore, it is not a matter of anyone here
    	thinking "hypocracy is OK."  
    
    	Some of us merely *totally disagree* with your personal
    	definition of it in this situation.  Our opinions on this
    	are different than yours, but valid nonetheless.
    
    	Glad we got this cleared up.  Thanks again.

    RE: .71
    
    > My comment about the bickering was meant to indicate that
    > I would like to drop the issue. And it takes two to fight.
    
    So drop it already. You don't have to announce your intentions
    to stop. If you do stop, I'm sure people will notice.
    
    Your remark reminds me of the person who calls somebody on the
    phone to announce: "I'm calling to let you know I'm not going
    to talk to you again".
    
    Is your pronouncement on dropping the issue your last one, or are
    we all to be treated with additional "Now I'm *really* dropping
    the issue", 1-n times?
    
    We're most of us pretty astute here. If you really decide to drop
    the isssue, I'm sure we'll catch on.
    
      Alan
    

    re: < NOTE 571.65 by TFH::MARSHALL >
    
    	< apologia >
    
      >	I would like to withdraw my original complaint.......
      
    
    Sir,
    
    I looked, and looked to see little smiley faces, or maybe some
    indication of sarcasm, please tell me it's there but I just missed
    it.  After all, just because you responded to the basenote:
    
    > The purpose of this note is to flame.  Gently and without naming
    > names or insulting.
    
    > I often find comments in other notes that annoy the h*ll out of
    > me and I don't want to divert the note by saying anything so I
    > started this note.
    
    So you had the unmitigated gall to express yourself about something
    in the honorable womannotes file!!!!!!! Something that bothered
    you? Oh for shame, Sir.  Are you sure your feelings are valid?
    Are you sure you have any reason to be insulted?   Why should you
    be upset about being asked to keep your opinions to yourself?  
    NO BIG DEAL, other people have to put up with this type of insult, 
    so why can't you?  Why should you complain?  Even if you were given
    the forum for complaining.  Things should stay the same, people
    should not complain just because they are discriminated against
    because they are not in the majority/prevailing gender!  After all,
    discrimination only exists against women, in the womannotes, men
    are never insulted, there is never any INSINUATION that "you shouldn't
    feel that way"  there is NEVER any INSINUATION that YOUR feelings
    are of no importance, and most importantly the womannotes file is
    always a place where MEN and women actively pursue the exchange
    of thoughts, feelings, and life experiences.
    
    
    and by the way, YES Sir, I DO see alot wrong with the statement:
    
    "You, sir, are being a jerk, I wish _men_ would learn to shut up
    and just listen.
    
    I wish more men and more women (at times, myself included) would
    work harder at listening, because there are a lot of people with
    a lot of valuable things to say, both positive and negative, that
    might just give us all something to THINK about.
    
    Sandie
    

	Gee...NO GE...(just had to say it....;-) )

	Can I offer $.01 of my words of wisdom....

	Why can't we just accept the wishes of others.  Is it really
	that hard.  If a particular noter beit, male or female
	doesn't want that other sex to reply, then OK.  No matter
	if you want to or not....They have asked a simple request.
	Fine.  AND MOST OF ALL, I REPSECT the wishes of people in these
	notes files.  

	Everyone please cool down.  Go home, take a hot bath, have
	a nice dinner, have a nice sleep, and lets all be friends
	again in the AM....

	A simple request from a WOMANNOTER....

		Michael

    Sigh.  I'm really tired of men saying what _women_ are or aren't.
    I neither want to be flattened nor flattered here.  "What's the
    agenda," I wonder, and  "so what's the point?"
    
    New years resolution: I vow to stop paying attention to these kind
    of notes.
    
    This isn't directed at any one in particular, and it's more an
    expression of weariness than a real flame.  If it causes you any
    particular problem, please read .-1 for your own health's sake.
    That's what I'm going to do.

    People who say "...people that...", generally in the form of
    ~I am a person that <verb>...~.  This is wrong!  You are a person
    *who* verbs.  "That" and "which" are for things; you are not a
    thing.  Got that?
    
    Now.  The reason people do that is probably because they don't
    know whether to use "who" or "whom", and the reason people do that
    is probably because they were never taught well enough.  Try chopping
    off the first part of the sentence, and seeing if "I" or "me" would
    make a better substitute for the who-word.  If the former, use
    "who", if the latter, use "whom".
    
    P.S.  Customers deserve the word "who" also, but companies are
    "that"'s.
    
    Now about I.T.S.:  The word "it's" is a contraction for "it is";
    it is not a possessive.  "Its" is a possessive, *exactly* like "hers"
    and "his", and you don't put apostrophes in those, do you?  Right.
    There is no word "its'".
    
    The contraction for "et cetera", which means ~and so on and so forth~
    is "etc.", not "ect.", and is pronounced "ET set-ter-ah", not
    "ECK set-ter-ah".
    
    Prepositions, which are words like "between", "with", and "by",
    take the objective case, which is to say, pronouns like "me", "her",
    "us", "him", and "them".
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Yes, I know that all the punctuation is supposed to go inside
    the quotation marks, but I have *always* thought that that was
    dumb, and I won't do it unless I absolutely, positively have to.

>    Now.  The reason people do that is probably because they don't
>    know whether to use "who" or "whom", and the reason people do that
>    is probably because they were never taught well enough.  Try chopping
>    off the first part of the sentence, and seeing if "I" or "me" would
>    make a better substitute for the who-word.  If the former, use
>    "who", if the latter, use "whom".

    Hi Ann,

    Seeing whether "he" or "him" fits is better than "I" or "me".  The
    "m" ending tells which to use.  I'd recommend using "she" or "her"
    but the "r" doesn't map  8^{).

>    P.S.  Yes, I know that all the punctuation is supposed to go inside
>    the quotation marks, but I have *always* thought that that was
>    dumb, and I won't do it unless I absolutely, positively have to.

    Has it occured to you that other people don't pay attention to any
    grammar rules because they think that they are all dumb   8^{).

    If we are going to flame grammar, which I think is a good idea, then
    let's be consistent.

    Dick

    
    Re: .78  I've always thought that punctuation inside quotation
    marks, when the quotation marks surround a word-as-a-word, was 
    ugly, too.  I think the English have a more sensible approach, 
    i.e., they agree with us!  
    
    Thank you, Ann.
    
    Excuse me, moderators.
               
    CQ

    Thank you, Ann!
    
    I cannot express my irritation at the current fad of throwing
    apostrophes at any final "s" like <ahem> rice at a wedding.
    
    (or is that "apostrophe's") <snicker>
    
    Well, its/it's/i'ts/i't's/ been good to be able to site/cite
    this instence/instance.  ;-}
    
    --DE
    
    

    did anyone read my response (.66)?  I got no response, and either
    no one wants to see it, or it got lost in the fray....
    
    or is it all academic by now...
    
    -Jody
    

    You're right Jody. I'll respond. If it was something I wrote I'd
    rather know first, in case it is something I regret having written.
    But thanks for asking first. 

I think the atmosphere in mennotes is different, the tone is different.
Comparing mennotes to womannotes is almost fair, but since the attitude,
and even the purpose there, is subtly different, you're comparing oranges
to tangerines.

an example:  some nameless excerpts from a recent discussion in mennotes
about football.  I am not ragging on these people, I am not disturbed by
the remarks (except for one), but I just want to emphasize how differently
they sometimes treat discussions.  They seem to take things more in
stride, and don't analyze most things to the extent we do here in
womannotes.  Well...here goes.
    
    

(from the basenote)
Football. Of all the sports one can play or watch, surely football is the
dumbest. The game involves 2 opposing teams that put 11 players each on the
field. The players wear helmets and pads. They're usually strong and large.
The goal is to move a football into the opponents end zone ( much to their
embarrassment ). Or to boot it thru some posts. In the end, one team
'wins'. The sport involves fierce collisions on every play. Often a 250 lb
defender will run full steam at a ball carrier with the intent of
'tackling' that carrier. That stoppage prevents (usually) the ball from
moving toward the defenders goal-line.  I ask, what sane 'person' would
want any part of such a sad sorry spectacle? Why would anyone want to play
such a game, much less watch it? They used to have a Coloseum in Rome for
such glorious gladiators. 
    
(one response)Didn't make the team huh?
    
(another)For the kind of money Vinny Testaverde will make in five years,
you betcha bottom dollar I'd take the chance! The controlled violence in
the game is probably its greatest appeal.  Besides, its the big bucks that
make football so popular. 

(another)Aw leave Football alone!  I would think your hostilities would be
directed first at Hockey.  I mean, when football players get in fights (and
seriously, with all that padding and protection, what can they do to each
other?) they are broken up immediately.  Watch a fight in hockey.  The
referees actually *hold back* fellow teammates from breaking up the fight!
And these guys have unprotected faces and heads....Perhaps you don't enjoy
it, or some other sports, but calling it's viewers "moronic" is hitting a
little below the belt.  Perhaps you should be penalized!  Why not just go
out and rake your yard and forget it's even on. 

(another)As an aside to football; ever watch it and see those commercials
for the National Football League Charities?  For a sport that is 'moronic',
its participants sure do devote alot of time and MONEY to worthwile
charities like the United Way, MS, American Cancer Society, Juvenile
programs, Drug Abuse programs.  Wonder what would happen if that money
generated by the NFL for these charities dried up? 

(another).4 sez it all. if you don't like something ignore it. or
platitudinously. Be a Man about it. 

(another)I feel very sorry for you.Open your mind to all the good that
football has done.Such things as charities,benifits,education,yes
education!!Football has given out many oppurtunities to our young people
for it was not for this grand game they would not be able to afford an
education.Football aslo instills into our young the meaning of such things
as sportsmanship,competion,etc. You have a right to voice your opinion and
express it the way you wish.But,please do all of us a favor and sit back
and get all the facts about the game. These people you call moronic play
this game for a living.This is there livelyhood.Just the same way you earn
your living.Has anyone called you a moron for what you do. 

('nother)I don't watch because those big strong guys patting each others'
behind looks queer! 

(another)Actually the game probably does give fans something; an indirect
outlet for pent up anxieties and a psuedo-release for violence. Hmmmm,
almost sounds like noting doesn't it? 

(oh boy...)Sounds like someone might wanna lend .0 a dime for the tampoon
    machine. |^)

(another)Football's not the only 'thing' that is 'Dumb'. Open wide so I can
shove a bunch of u... ones in. 


The rest of the responses turn into a discussion similar to what one would
see in womannotes.  But sometimes, topics that I'd like to see treated
seriously are bantered around with rude remarks and jokes.  This is how
mennotes is.  I don't complain, because it's not "my" notesfile.  I enjoy
reading it, but seldom respond, particularly when I know what others'
response to my entry may be.  If I have something to say, I don't do it
with a chip in my shoulder.  The folks there have little tolerance for
chips.  I take most of the crass responses as joking (I assume they ARE
joking...right?).  

-Jody

    	RE:  .85
    
    	Too bad you didn't quote the one where a man asked why women
    	don't ask men out.
    
    	The basenote stated that it was because women have inherent
    	character flaws.  [Note:  He did not say "some" women.]
    
    	Another one said that it is because women are sexists.
    	[He did not say "some" women, either.]
    
    	Another one said that it is because women are cowards.
    	[Still no "some" disclaimer.]
    
    	Yeah, mennotes is really different.  They are not worried
    	about insulting women because they know they will rarely be
    	challenged by anyone (except the mods who occasionally
    	delete notes, like the topic about women titled "Stupid Parasites.")

    	That basenote was written by someone who says similar things over
    	here (and is currently saying similar things in a discussion
    	over there as we speak.)
    
    							Suzanne...

    Jody, I see your point. As for whether they're joking, beats me.
    	I'll have to go back in there to see how a serious topic
    	is addressed by them. 

    There is no such word "irregardless"! Use "Regardless". PLEASE!
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    
    re:.89
    
    I know something about that note REALLY bothered me.  
    
    Thanks.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |	We should try to use English not
    					 abuse it.

    According to my LRD (DEC-supplied Little Red Dictionary, American
    Heritage variety):
    
    irregardless: adv. Nonstandard. Regardless.
      Usage: Irregardless, a double negative, is only acceptable
             when the intent is clearly humorous.
    
    So this means we can only use 'irregardless' when it is
    'irregardless :-)', right?
    
    Rita
    

    re:.85
    
    What surprises me, Jody, is that you only found one response
    disturbing. I found four of them rather offensive.
    
    --- jerry_who_also_can't_stand_football

    I tried to take most of 'em in a "joking spirit", which I assume
    they were trying to attain.  The one that got to me was the quip
    about the tampon machine.  
    
    p.s.  anyone know what Jym is up to these days?  I ain't seen him
    and neither have many of his old cronies from WPI.  
    
    -Jody
    

       re .95 (J Dyer whereabouts):
       
       My Dyer was spotted recently on a Green Line train by this
       correspondent.  I knew it was Dyer because he was reminding a
       fellow traveler (who was about to board the car with a lit
       cigarette) that smoking was not allowed. 
       
       He's doing some s/w work for a company in Boston (forget which
       one), thinking about going back to school (U Lowell), and trying
       to remember that it's the 10-centime piece that works in MBTA
       token machines (now that he's managed to lose his pass).
       
       --Mr Topaz 
                  

	I can't stand *long* notes.  If the author has that much to say
	maybe it could be broken up into several smaller notes.  Or
	condensed.

	I can't stand people who reply to practically every reply in a note
	with lot's of RE: #'s and one line messages.  Who can keep
	track of what each # was talking about?  These replies are very
	hard to follow, so I don't.  This means if they ever refer to one
	of my replies, I won't respond.

	...Karen

	What a bummer to be bummed during the holidays when everyone
	gets upset with you because you're not happy all the time.
	Let's give people the right to be a scrooge any time of year.

RE: .55 Peggy's Nightmare note

If I really wanted to say something in the note, I think I'd be inclined
to just reply, and to Hell with the rules and regulations...

But, I haven't read it yet, as you can see, I'm quite behind...

RE: .60

I don't see the difference...

RE: .61

I think that this a a better analogy, but...

The reason that the tennis match sounds ok, is because it is competition.
Notes is not (or should not) be competition.  I think that the duplication
of conversation is a wholely stupid waste.

RE: .62

I wouldn't like men only notes in MENNOTES any better, but I don't read
MENNOTES.  And I have no obligation to carry out *your* crusades, at least
the ones you could really care less about...

RE: .67

"*YOU* get to decide what constitutes discrimination."

Everyone decides for themselves what is discrimination; what's new about
that?

Why be more upset about discrimination in WOMANNOTES and not in MENNOTES?
Perhaps I thought hoped for better in WOMANNOTES then than.  One of the reasons
I don't read MENNOTES is because I don't have the same expectations of MENNOTES.
No insult of MENNOTES intended.

RE: .76

"Sigh.  I'm really tired of men saying what _women_ are or aren't."

'Sigh.  I'm really tired of women saying what _men_ are or aren't.'

RE: .78

Thanks for the English lesson :-|

Jim.

    Although I thoroughly enjoyed my role as a mother, I find the role
    I play now as matriarch of an extended family better.  The role
    of mother is very much a service, nurturing type of activity.  The
    role of father has been historically one of the maker of decisions
    of authority.  Children have looked up to the father.  Children
    have obeyed their mother in order to continue to receive the 
    service she provides.  They have emulated their fathers because
    of the power and control they possess.
    
    It is only after my children left home that they realized how wise
    and smart I was!

    re .102  I believe your premise is that women have the greater
    influence over our young.  I suggest that is not true.  I tend
    to agree more with your last statement adding a few words.
    
       Equal Praise, equal blame and equal responsibility in 
       children's behavior and attitudes.

    I have been overwhelmingly influenced by my mother, and so has my
    brother. Our Dad was an absentee landlord. However, when we were
    small, we looked up to him as if he was God. My mother was "just
    around" and I now understand that she must have suffered very much
    from our attitude. She developed our interest in so many things,
    she opened our minds to the world around us, however when dad was
    around we'd just defer to him for all decisions and treat my mother
    as a domestic help.
                                                        
    That changed with adolescence, and she is now getting the recognition
    we didn't give her when we were small. 
    
    This was still a pretty general attitude when mom stayed at home
    and daddy worked. Now, nobody stays at home, and I think recognition
    goes where it should (at least I hope so!)
                                              

    
    I got completely confused by note 626.* (Women Only Conference
    Announcement).
    
    Is it a joke or is it for real? If it's a joke it's really in very
    poor taste. My sense of humour has gone on hols, and I'll be joining
    him there.
    
    If it's real it should be introduced and announced by the Moderators
    of this conference, or at least by a Moderator of the new conference,
    or at the minimum by someone with a name (I also have privileges
    to use the SYSTEM or OPR accounts, but I wouldn't dream of using
    them for posting anonymous notes).
           
    I'll take this opportunity for stating something so damn obvious
    I thought it went without saying: I wouldn't accept a man as a
    moderator of a members-only conference circling around topics of
    interest to women.
    
    As topic 626 has been set no-write, I guess it's a joke. If I am
    right please consider me as flaming mad. If I am wrong, please accept
    my anticipated apologies.
        
    Joana

>    Is it a joke or is it for real? If it's a joke it's really in very
>    poor taste. My sense of humour has gone on hols, and I'll be joining
>    him there.

    If it is a joke, it is an extensive one.  Members only conferences
    MEN and WOMEN and an open conference THE_SEXES have been announced in
    EASYNET_CONFERENCES on VADER by VADER::SYSTEM.

    Dick

    It is not a joke. As one of the =wm= moderators I contacted
    the individual starting up the file(s) and found out who he is.
    As he said in a different note he is providing the disk space
    and expects moderators to arise out of the membership of the
    conference. 
    
    There is no need for the moderators of one conference be involved
    with the announcement of another related conference in the original
    file.
    
    My suggestion is that people who want a memebers only conference
    go ahead and join and see how things work out.
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator
    
    

    I don't think the distinction is sex I think it is experience.

    Obviously, if the women's only conference is moderated by a man,
    it is not women's only.
    
    However, if his intention was just to get it started, get a woman
    member of that conference to become moderator, then step out of
    the conference and simply provide the disk space, I think it's great.
    If the women only conference is needed, *someone* needed to start
    it and quit discussing it.
    
    Elizabeth

    It is my observation that young children in single parent homes
    seek out relationships with people of the same sex as the missing
    parent.  I have seen this happen in both directions.
    
    How might we better structure our families...there are many good
    families around which came about not out of a socioligical model
    but out love, committment and common goals.
    
    I think children respond well to anything that works well.  So my
    theory suggests that if it works well for you and your spouse it
    will be good family.
    
    Having children for their sake is a new concept and I doubt if that
    was incentive enough so that engineer that figured out the whole
    biological process gave us a little instinct...and we took it from
    there...children have been an asset to a family business or operation,
    they have been a source of pride for the parents...and in some
    societies they have born out of a sense of responsibility to continue
    to populate the earth.  I think children have gained a lot of respect
    over the years and we find more parents encouraging behavior that
    will make the child happy or will benefit the child.
    
    Last but not least I don't expect answers on the screen or in that
    space on the disc that is assigned to Womannotes.  I formulate my
    answers from what I read, interpret and accept.  Even the nonsense
    that goes on in this file has value to me...for it keeps me realistic.
    
    Sometimes I try to imagine face-to-face interraction like we have
    here.  It doesn't happen to often.  What we see here is what is
    going on behind the smiles and the forced agreement that occurs
    in face-to-face confrontations.  This is the real world...most of
    the other is just an impression that is created for the benefit
    of someone else...
    
    
    
     
    
    

    re .114  When I hear having children for their sake I imagine 
             people feeling a responsibility to have as many children
             as they feel they can produce and raise to productive 
             human beings.
    
             If your concept is that after the decision to have the
             child you decide you will raise it for their sake...I 
             think we are getting there and it is about time.
    
             A long time ago I was working in a hospital close to home
             and my ten year old son would come to pick me up.  He made
             friends with a janitor and one day said in front of me
             and a coworker..."When I grow up I want to be just like
             Joe".  My coworker immediately said "Nick, wouldn't you
             rather be a doctor".  I in turn began a discussion about
             Joe's happiness with life and how much joy he brought to
             a sometimes tense and depressing atmosphere. To me raising
             children for their sake means giving up what you want for
             the child and having your major goal their happiness.
    
             In speaking about nonsense I was referring to the male/female
             tension that predominates this conference so often.
    
             Will your first son be named Pete or were you frustrated
             with my responses.
    
             

    RE .115   My major Goal would be for the Child's Development to
              clearly be for Their sake. Education, Happiness, freedom
              to explore (incl var risk-taking). 
                There is nothing wrong with a couple wanting to have
              a child "because I want one," etc.
                Problems can occur when Children are raised to be
              Parental clones (so to speak).
                " If you don't go to college, you'll never amount to
              anything." "Son, I really want you to work in the Man-
              ufacturing Plant, like the Family always has." "Simone,
              STOP wasting your time walking around all over the place-
              hikes in the Woods, you could fall & get hurt! ( didn't
              stop De Beauvior ). " Sandra, You've got to Get a Rich
              fellow like I did, everything will just *fall into place*."
              "Allen, the study of any Religion other than Christianity,
              is a downright sin. Take that sinful book back to Library
              Now before I throw it into the fireplace." "Beth, you
              want to drive a truck - you must be out of your MIND or
              something! That's something Men do! I've enrolled you
              into the Nursing Program that your sister Jean completed
              last summer. Look how happy SHE is. I know you're feeling
              angry about it, but you're sure to like it. You'll see."
              "Son, I know we're of a different Generation, but if you
              don't take that earing out of your ear, I'll have to ...."
              "Mike, take it from me. Marriage is the pits. Relationships
              are the Greatest things. Who needs the Committment. If
              you get into trouble & can't work it out, ya just break
              up - What could be easier!?  All we do is fight, fight,
              fight. What a bitch. And if you do get Married, get a
              Contract, otherwise she'll take ya to the cleaners. Never
              told ya this, but I have this Woman friend see........."
                 "Diane, Men are only trouble. Dad and I want you to
              to wait until your Senior year before you start Dating.
              Boys are fresh and will want to take advantage of a pretty
              girl like you. You could get pregnant or horror - get
              VD or Aids. No, and he mustn't come from a Bluecollar
              Family. Professional Gentlemen are the only good ones."
              "Ted, what's the line on the Rams game against Denver
              today? Denver by 4? You've got to be kidding! Call Jim
              now and put $200 on L.A. Kid, this is the easiest money
              WE'VE EVER MADE." 
                 Regarding the oft-time F/M tensions, it is disgraceful
              & a NO FLAME/BLAME type POLICY Ought to be closely looked
              at. IE Flame the noter's idea(s), and NEVER the Noter.
              Irregardless. 3 strikes and yer OUT. At worse, a 'flame'
              at a noter in a humorous fashion would require something
              like a (FLM, :-) ) type symbol attached to the TITLE.
                 This way, everyone would know up front, at least, what
              part/most of the note was about. I suspect the above idea
              could get the usual howls - from the Guilty Parties in
              Question. More embarrassing, perhaps, could be the listing
              of the most frequent flamers, like a wall chart 'Progress
              Report. I think such a list would make all but the most
              Venal noters (and clowns) shape up - & QUICKLY at that.
                 Not frustrated w/your answers and such, just kindof
              goin with the flow.
    
                                                    Russ

RE: 626.3  "Moderator Response" to "Closed Membership WOMEN Conference"

"I have set this string writable again."

Why is it that Women authors of Topics may select who they wish to hear from,
But Men authors may not?

Is this discrimination or what is it?

Jim.

    Jim, You didn't pay attention to the context. Maggie set it
    no write because she didn't know who had entered the note, not
    because of the sex of the annonymous person who entered the note.
    If anything the error in this is mine since I didn't communicate
    to Maggie who the author was when I found out.
    Bonnie

       Using different technical terms to refer to the same thing.
       
       Specifically, in Notes; more specifically, in this conference.
       
       A while ago, one of the moderators began to use the expression
       "string" to refer to the thing that the documentation and most
       experienced notes users call a "topic".  Now, maybe the concept of
       a topic in a notes conference is similar to the concept of a
       string in some other context that the moderator is familiar with,
       I dunno.  
       
       Now yet another of the moderators has picked up on this misnomer.
       
       There are enough different technical concepts to learn without
       having to also deal with multiple names for the same concept. 
       
       --Mr Topaz

    People who use greater familiarity with a subject to pick nits
    about correct usage.

RE: 637.0 and 637.2

It really pisses me off to see a *man* start a *women* only topic in a *women's*
conference, and then reply to it.  Come on now, don't you know that's not
allowed?!  The moderators should move that note! 


Jim :-)

    RE: .123
    
    Jim, mea culpa.
    
    I already have acknowledged my transgression in 639.1 (or was that
    639.2).
    
      Alan

    re.121 
    no eagle it was alfred e neuman

Today's hot button seems to be private conversations being carried
out in the middle of a public notesfile.

That, and long disserations.

Martin.

    loudmouthed yahoos who don't know when to quit

    Name-calling.
    

    re: .128 (Bruce)
    
    >>	womannotes:==baranskinotes
    
    	Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!  Good one, Bruce!!!!
    
    						Carla
    

re .128 and .131

rudeness to other noters... and jumping on the bandwagon to 'put down'
another

Penny

    re: .132
    
    Rudeness to other noters rudeness to. . .no, wait a minute. . .uh,
    rudeness to noters who are rude to the rudeness. . .no, I'm *sure*
    that's not it. . .
    
    Oh never mind.
    
    This isn't like me at all, is it Penny?  :-D
    
    Steve
    

In note 189.178, I note that I won't enter a summary of an article in
New England Monthly on a date-rape incident at the University of New
Hampshire because, at 10,000 words, it is too long to type in.

that is a cop-out -- the real reason is more complex:

-- any summary of the article would collapse the discussion, making it
   impossible for the notes reader to reach a conclusion as to whether
   the woman consented to sex without trusting *my* editorial judgement.

-- a good article: the lessons are, in my judgement, ambiguous.  I do
   not feel competent to preserve that ambiguity in a summary.

-- the current climate in womannotes leads me to feel that there is a
   strong possibility that some reader would feel I was imposing my own
   judgement on the incident, and discussion of the article (and of
   date rape) would be sidetracked back to the current battle between
   the sexes.

I would welcome someone else summarizing the article.  At this time,
I'm afraid it would have to be a woman.

Martin.

    
    re: .128 
    	
    i second that notion
    

    SOAPBOX
    
    

    I wish the word *obese* could be banned from the English language.
    
    BZZZZZZZ   <-- sound of my hot button being activated.

    Would you be willing to say why, Liz, and which word/s you would
    prefer?
    
    (Any place if this isn't the right one...)
    

    sure... because when i hear the *o* word, i also hear some amount of
    accompanying judgment. to me, it always seems loaded with baggage such
    as "ugly", "unhealthy", "undesireable", and so on. in my book, there
    are plenty of alternatives that sound better -- bonnie randall recently
    used "robust". i occasionally use "plump", or "pleasingly plump". even
    "round" is nice. but i think i like "huggable" the best.
    
    e
        

    RE: .139
    
    Liz, some of the accompanying baggage that is attached to the "o"
    word, e.g, unhealthy ------> undesirable is deserved, if one is
    talking about "clinical" obesity.
    
    Perhaps, the "o" word is too frequently used to describe people who 
    do not deserve that term in the strict sense of the word.
    
    However a 400 pound person (male or female) who is 5'5", and who
    chooses to think of him/herself as merely "chubby" or "robust" is not
    effectively addressing a life-threatening condition.
    
      Alan                                    

    alan,
    
    this is my hot button note. i really don't want a lecture here about my
    response to this word. and it's really not up to us to judge who is or
    is not "addressing a life-threatening condition". (whoops. i feel
    another hot button being set off.)  please feel free to start another
    note if you'd like to continue this conversation. (but if you do, i
    request that you read the material about body size in "the new our
    bodies ourselves" first.) 
    
    
    liz

RE: .141

"it's really not up to us to judge who is or is not "addressing a
life-threatening condition"."

Isn't that what you are doing? :-)

Jim. 

    No.

    I hate the "o" word, too.  I hate it even more because it does not
    apply to me (anymore)...in the clinical definition.  I was reading
    a book on "obesity" and it said that people who are more than 10%
    over their ideal weight are "overweight", whereas people who are
    more than 40% over their ideal weight are "obese".  People who are
    more than 100% over their ideal weight are "grossly obese".
    
    YES I am overweight
    NO I am not obese
    
    and YES a person's weight is THEIR OWN business, whatever that weight
    is and however the person looks and acts in regard to it is THEIR
    OWN business.  Close friends and family may reserve the right to
    discuss their feelings about it with the overweight/whatever person,
    but Jo Q. Off-The-Street has no right to make judgement calls or
    otherwise put more pressure on that person than they are often putting
    on themselves.
    
    -Jody
    

    A recent reply to a note on ERA stated something similar to the
    following statement.
    
      Men have 'traditionally' been 'screwed' by the court system
      on cases of child support and child custody.
    
    Traditionally means to me for a long period of time.  Statistics
    prove that the woman's financial status 'traditionally' decreases
    after divorce and a man's financial status 'traditionally' increases.
    These statement is true even today as non-custodial parents are
    being forced through the courts to pay.
    
    Until the courts decide to assess a non-custodial parent 1/2 of
    the cost of providing for that child the system will never be fair.
    If a parent cannot pay they then owe to whomever does pay the
    difference between what they can afford and what it actually costs.

    Hot button -- references to women as "frigidaires" (ie frigid).
    
    FLAME/ON
    
    simply because a large number of women respond differently with
    different people and MAY not enjoy sex with one or another person
    does NOT, NOT, NOT mean they are frigid.
    
    the word has implications which cannot be ignored, and jokes about
    how a woman (or "most" women) are unresponsive or frigid (also implying
    not complete, somehow sick, lacking) are entirely inappropriate
    here.
    
    FLAME/OFF
    MEANNESS/ON
    
    seems to me a person whose experience leads them to believe "most
    women" are frigid ought to be asking some questions about their
    OWN prowess, love-ability.
    
    MEANNESS/OFF
    GRUMPINESS/SIMMERING
    
    lt

    in re .146
    
    As an observer of the human race for a good while now, I think 
    that there is a lot of truth in what Lee said.
    
    Any man who finds his partner less responsive than he would care
    for should attempt to communicate with her as to what she finds
    pleasurable. Having now been married for over twenty years to
    a gentle creative man I am very much aware of how important the
    willingness to learn together and the desire to find out what pleases
    another is. 
    
    There is a fair degree of truth in the old saw "There are no
    frigid women, only clumsey lovers."
    
    Bonnie

    There are also women who have been told "This kind of sexuality
    is good" (missionary position; vaginal orgasm) and "That kind of
    sexuality is bad/immature" (anything else; any other kind of orgasm).
                             
    Each woman has individual tastes in food, clothing, home style,
    and leisure activities.  Why in the world wouldn't each woman have
    an individualized preference in the area of sexuality?
    
    Young women are not often encouraged to explore their sexual feelings
    to find out what they enjoy.  Much of the popular literature is still
    directed at women and oriented towards pleasing one's partner.
    
    One of the best things I learned from the women's movement is that
    each woman is responsible for creating her own sexual satisfaction
    whether it be alone or with a partner.  She can explore the
    possibilities, 'practice' on her own and also with a partner and
    learn enough about herself and her responses to create what she
    likes.  (And why is this considered a *radical* idea...<sigh>.)
    
    Lonnie Barbach's book, For Yourself, is a good resource for both
    men and women, and addresses the issues non-orgasmic/pre-orgasmic   
    women encounter.  It's pretty widely available.
    
    Holly

  Frigid woman:  One whose sex drive is (even slightly) lower than that of
                 her male partner.

  Nymphomaniac: A woman whose sex drive is (even slightly) higher than that
                of her male partner.

  JP

	One of My Hot Buttons...

	A man makes a smart-a**ed, misogynous remark that is devoid
	of any creativity and meant only as "bait,"  and scores of
	women rush in to help and "educate" him.  A woman creates
	a work of art that happens to include some anger at her
	sense of this male-dominated world we live in, and her 
	comments are removed from view.

	Feeling invisible,

	Justine

    	ps  After writing this, I learned that there might be some
            confusion about which misogynous remarks I was referring
            to.  I was thinking specifically of the frigidaire "jokes."
    

    Yes, our moderators are great, but I think deleting Sandy's poem
    was a mistake.  It is a work of art, and it accurately describes
    the minds of some men.  When all sorts of deliberately offensive
    notes are posted here and remain, I don't understand why Sandy's
    poem was deleted.  Perhaps a moderator could explain why Sandy's
    reply was, but Russ' frigidaire replies weren't?
    

    Sandy's reply was set hidden because we received a complaint about
    it. If we receive a complaint about *any* note we set it hidden
    until we can work out the problem with the author and the person
    who entered the complaint. Russ's note was not felt to fall into
    the trash note category (although I admit that is a judgement call)
    and we received no complaints about it. When the complaint about
    Sandy's poem was forwarded to her she responded that the note
    could be deleted. If any reader has a problem with any individual
    note we encourage you to first contact the author and if that does
    not prove satisfactory, to contact the moderators. Please reread
    note 1.n especially the part that Liz wrote about the sanity check
    first. In general we prefer not to play 'notes police' but we
    will respond to direct complaints.
    
    Thankyou
    
    Bonnie Jeanne
    
    Bonnie

    In general, I don't think that notes should be deleted.  It seems
    strange to me that anyone, including even someone of very questionable
    motives, can suppress a note for an indefinite period of time while
    they slug it out with the author.  Mumbling about free speech and so
    forth, and the rights of others in the file to read the author's
    views.  What we have to learn to do, I think, is just next unseen.
         

    I also wonder:  if a note is removed from the file, should the
    names of the people who asked that it be removed be listed?
     

annonymous reply

    As the person who complained to the moderators that Sandy's poem
    was, in my opinion, sexual harrassment; I would be happy to abide
    by a formal decision by Digital's EEO/Corporate Personnel as to
    whether this posting violates section 6.03 (Harrassment) of the
    Personnel Policy and Procedures Handbook.

    A friend.

    Karen,
    
    First please refer to Maggie's note 1.7 about why we have the
    policy of setting notes hidden. Although you have objections
    about what happened in this particular case, the policy is one
    that is beneficial to the file and the members in the long run.
    
    However, I would not publish the name of a complainer. That would
    be a violation of an individual's privacy. We have upon occasion
    in the past ignored complaints that were obviously meant only 
    for harassing purposes.
    
    Bonnie Jeanne
    moderator

    About Bonnie's earlier point that one note received complaints 
    while the other didn't... that was my point, really.  Women are 
    often accused of advocating "censorship" when they raise objections 
    to material posted here.

    But in this case, women actually reached out to try and "help" the 
    offender.  But when a woman wrote a poem which described some cutural
    trends as *she* saw them, the note was deemed offensive and deleted.

    It was not my intent to take action around this issue.  (Geez, I thought
    the Hot Buttons note was a place to let off steam!)  I merely wanted
    to point out something that I saw.  I, too, believe that "offense"
    is in the eye of the reader, and anyone has the right to say that he
    or she finds material offensive.  I just thought it was interesting
    that when notes here are found to be offensive to women, we talk
    about them and try to explain why we're offended.  When a note is
    posted that has anything to do with anger toward the behavior of
    men, the note often disappears.

    Justine

    Disclaimer:  I am not complaining about the actions of the moderators.  
    I think the policy of setting a note hidden upon request of a noter
    who's offended is fair.  I hope I've made it clear (after a very long
    day) that my issue is not with the moderators but with the different
    ways that controversial material gets dealt with... depending on
    which group is offended. 
    

    Justine,
    
    Thanks for your reply. We have set notes hidden upon the request
    of members of both sexes, however, and the notes in question have
    been not necessarily by a person of the opposite sex of the 
    complainer.
    
    Bonnie Jeanne

    The reason the refrigerator comment wasn't complained about is that
    we're all too BLANK much "good girls" and aren't acting enough like
    real people.
    
    Consider this a public complaint.  It was a rude, offensive comment;
    I want it deleted, not merely just set hidden.

    Re: .156
                                           
    I consider .156 an attempt at harrassment and intimidation, and
    I would like it set hidden.
    

    About the individual's privacy:  there is the concept of the right
    to face one's accuser, which it seems to me takes precedence over this.
    

    Karen, if someone was challengeing one of your notes I would put
    you in contact with them. It was not your note that was challenged,
    you were not being accused.
    Bonnie

    I know it wasn't my note.  I thought you said that someone could
    ask to have a note suppressed and could also request that his or
    her identity be kept hidden.  You seem to be saying that I
    misunderstood?  If the supressee knows, that's almost as good as
    it's being universally known.  (Not quite, actually, since it would
    still be interesting for the file at large to know if certain
    individuals are consistently suppressing others.)  I am assuming
    that anyone who has a note suppressed can publish the name of the
    person who caused it.
    

    Karen, in general I think that allowing people to be able to
    complain about notes annonymously is to the benefit of the file.
    There are still many women who are more private about speaking
    out about things that bother them than you or I are. If we allowed
    anyone to request the identity of a person who objected to a note
    then that would be to the disadvantage of the more private person
    who hesitates to speak out on important issues. and Karen, no
    indivduals are consistantly supressing others. If any such trend
    started you can definitely rest assured that we moderators would
    not tolerate it. What I meant is that if a person complains, then
    the problem should be first adressed by the complainee and the
    complaintiff so to speak with the moderators mediating...I see no
    need to publically broadcast problems which can be worked out
    between individuals.
    
    Bonnie Jeanne
    

    We've talked about not generalizing before.
    
    I think that if someone like Sandy enters a clever and creative
    poem (my opinion) and introduces it by saying it represents experiences
    she has had with SOME men, that puts it in the realm of her description
    of her experience.  No one need be offended...but if the shoe fits...
    
    In the same way, if Russ had said "some women I've known felt like
    frigidaires" he is speaking about his experience.  No one need be
    offended.
    
    Holly

    I am several days late, and probably many $ as well..
    
    regarding Fridigity...
    
    I am not an expert, so I can only speak from my own limited experience
    
    1.  In England I met a woman who said she was frigid.  I asked how
        she knew that, She said that her Husband told her so!
        Not true, just a different placement of an important part of
        her body.
    
    2.  My present wife told me she was frigid, She had two previous
        husbands.  She had never felt anything during intercourse.
    
    With care and understanding I was able to help both, and my wife
    is the "best sexual partner" I have ever had.  We have explored
    new territories each encounter.
    
    I think that if 1000 women were considered frigid, that in actual
    fact fewer than 50 actually may have some problem and that is usually
    physical in nature.  
    
    Dave

>        2.  My present wife told me she was frigid, She had two previous
>        husbands.  She had never felt anything during intercourse.
>    
>    With care and understanding I was able to help both, and my wife
>    is the "best sexual partner" I have ever had.  
    
    It's scary that some women buy into definitions that are handed
    to them by others.  So often those definitions are just a reflection
    of some other limitation of the situation.
    
    Dave, your note is encouraging.  Sometimes women have to fight for
    wholeness and the right to be a free person. It's nice to be reminded 
    of other occasions where men are actively supporting women in their
    desire to grow and have fuller, richer lives.
    
    Holly
    

 
    
    

    
    It's possible that "fridigity" could also refer to
    having a cold, aloof, semi-rude attitude toward those
    fellow humans who happen to be male, in normal daily
    situations. 
    
    It's also a method of communicating that men's presence
    in general may be dispensed with. 
    
    (If men *were* to be dispensed with would someone tell us
     or would we read it in the papers first?)
                                              
    Feel free to copy BOLT::DECUSC$LIBRARY:[TOOLS]CPP*.*

    My goodness Bob, where do you find so many women like that?
    :-)

    Yeah - takes the fun out of 'California Dreamin'' fer shure.

    Hot Button:
    
    The fact that the ongoing accomplishments/achievements of women
    are discredited.  Books written by women, especially if they come
    to close to writing about reality, are lost - disappear from the
    libraries.  A good book disclosing this is "Feminist Theorists".
    
    Even though a woman can, through greater effort, accomplish a 
    salary equal to that of a man it is seen as a gift (another means
    of discrediting what she actually accomplished).

    If anyone has a copy of the poem that was deleted, I would appreciate
    it very much if they could MAIL it to me.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Dave
    
    

    Has the eagle made an assumption?  If yes, perhaps the eagle should
    also read the material being referred to as bad.
    
    People who are offended have taken that on themselves.

    THE MODERATORS DID NOT DELETE SANDY'S POEM!!!!!!!!!
    
    There now that I have that off my chest! Sandy chose to delete
    the poem herself when it became controversial.
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator

    I have received a copy of the peom, thanks!
    
    Dave
    
    I thought it was great!
    

    <--(.177)
    
    um, actually it's still there in a hidden state, and I hope that
    Sandy doesn't delete it because [I think] it has artistic merit
    and it may be that we'll be able to unhide it again one of these
    days.
    
    						=maggie

    Having read the poem (send mail to the author asking for a copy
    if you want to read it), I really don't see what the fuss is all
    about. Speaking as a male, I didn't find it offensive in the least.
    
    --- jerry

    Yet another request for a copy of the hiden note(s)...
    
    Oh and please give me a pointer to the context...I'm over 800 notes
    behind...again.
    
    					Thanks,
    						MJC O->

	Today's hot button:  People who ask for copies of something
	in the note conference, where it would be more direct for them
	to ask the person who has it via mail, and the rest of us
	won't have to read about their requests.

	...Karen

    RE: .183
    
    Karen, maybe they're just afraid of violating "Corporate Policy"
    (see Note 738.97). :-)
    
      Alan

    By asking someone else to "violate" it?

    RE: .185
    
    Lisa, you're right.
    
    I guess Sandy'll have to send it via U.S. mail (from an outside
    mailbox, of course) directly to the home address of the person
    making the request.
    
    In a plain brown wrapper, naturally. :-)
    
      Alan

    RE: .187
    
    Say, Eagles, what are you talking about? Other than using my
    name in your title (albeit, spelled incorrectly) and referencing
    my reply, I don't understand your point.
    
    I suggested (not seriously) that Sandy, in order to follow policy, 
    would have to send her poem via U.S. mail, from an "outside"
    mail box, so as neither to clutter our interoffice mail system,
    nor to violate official policy for mis-use of the Net.
    
    Is there a correlation between your reply and mine?
    
      Alan

    
    I'm getting sick and tired of replies of the form "well, it's not
    so easy for men either". First of all, the folk who say this seem
    to be laboring under the misconception that the topic of discussion
    is 'discrimination' or 'oppression' and therefore 'to keep things in
    perspective' we need to hear the plight of men also. Wrong. The
    topic is women and women's perspective (so it already *is* 'in  
    perspective')  and in that context the plightof men is usually 
    irrelevent and rarely adds to the discussion.
    Second, and perhaps more importantly, when one says, "it's not easy
    for men either" it has the effect of stopping the discussion in
    place and forcing it elsewhere. A trivial analogy: if I'm talking
    about how great the NY Mets are and you say, "well what about the
    Red Sox, they're pretty good too", it is no longer a discussion
    about the Mets. At best it is a discussion of comparisons between
    the two teams. At worst it becomes a discussion of the Red Sox.
    In neither case has the original thrust been maintained and, in
    fact the topic 'the NY Mets' has been trivialized. In discussions
    of women's rights or sexism (especially) time and again the original
    thrust is diverted and trivialized in this simple, yet extremely
    coercive and manipulative way.

    Re: .189
    
    YEAH! What he said!
    
    Now, would you change your personal name? :-)
    
    	-- Charles

    I dunno, maybe you should change *yours* :-)

                             -- Darryl Zanuck --
    
    Re: .191
    
    	"... maybe you should change *yours*"
    
    Hey! Good idea. Thanks.
    
        It is clearly absurd that it should be possible for a woman to
        qualify as a saint with direct access to the Almighty while she may
        not qualify as a curate. 
    
    		-- Mary Stocks, "Still More Commonplace"
    
    	-- Charles "OPHION::" Haynes

from a note header:
    
    | Note 478.268                 Dehumanization of Women  
    | SALEM::AMARTIN "nemoW SDEEN sraM"                     
    
    fwiw, i found the juxtaposition of the base note title and mr.
    amartin's personal name rather intriguing. is this a deliberate
    insult? a "joke"? is it meant to antagonize the readership? 
    
    
    liz "curious" augustine

    Liz
    
    I asked Al Martin about his personal name and if  I recall his
    answer correctly it refers to a rock group that he likes.
    
    Bonnie

    It's also the title of a *very* silly science fiction movie
    from the 60's, a classic "Golden Turkey".
    
    --- jerry

    so if i can find a rock group or a *very* silly science fiction
    movie called "All men are stupid", then it's ok to use that as my
    personal name?
    
    liz

re: .196
    so if i can find a rock group or a *very* silly science fiction
    movie called "All men are stupid", then it's ok to use that as my
    personal name?

You have my permission.

Martin.

    RE:. 196
    
    Liz, not to worry:
    
       ooT, neM SDEEN sraM
    
      Alan

Ahh, but it's OK Liz.

 The Martians have been reading Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler and Cavalier!  They
are actively seeking and removing the smooth-skinned, firm breasted young women
whose pictures grace those pages. 
 That's why we've noticed an upsurge of "real women" in various advertizements,
TV shows, and magazines.  It is not because the social concience of society is
being raised -- NO, it is because all the "fantasy" women who might appear in 
such places have been carted off to Mars.
 Pretty soon, there will be no more "fantasy women" available; they will ALL 
be on Mars. Then the martians will be happy and Al will have to change his 
personal name.

    Mars needs people who can type!

    Sorry if it offended anyone.  I shall no longer use it in this conf.
    in case you are wondering about .200.  It was mine and again it
    was not liked.  It is gone.

    
    the chronic emergence of new bozos who stir up the same old crap

the names have been changed, but the arguments remain the same...

    
    The evil, remain evil.... 
    
    The wicked, remain wicked.... 

    Hmmm, I was thinking it was more like a communicable disease
    or an alien parasite that takes over a person's mind...You know,
    you wake up one morning and discover you have a Mission in life
    now, and it's to enlighten womannotes.  :-)  :-)  :-)  :-)

I get irritated by the people who have a knee-jerk reaction to the letters 'man'
or 'his' or 'him' when these are merely syllables in a larger word. The latest
(and the one which provoked my ire!) is Peggy's use of the word "Herstory". I've
never seen this bastardization before, and am assuming that it is an attempt to
produce a feminine form of "History". 
  I understand the debate over "chair-xxxx" (chairman, chairwoman, chairthing,
chair-tron) but feel that this is going too far! Where will we draw the line?
Might one have to refer to "HISesy" (instead of heresy) in MENNOTES??? 

			Nigel  

ps:now to get into my asbestos suit!  (-:

    Well, Nigel, look at it this way:  It's honest.
    
    "Herstory" means a discussion based on *her* story -- "what happened"
    from the viewpoint of a woman or women.  It is also a gentle, chiding
    reminder that, in many ways, history is *his* story -- "what happened"
    from the viewpoint of a man or men.  You know, as in the caveat,
    "History books are written by the victors."?
    
    							Ann B.

    calling people names 'cause they don't vote the way you like

    Re: .208
    
    >It is also a gentle, chiding reminder
    
    There's many a slip 'twixt intentions and perceptions.

    
    People who threaten womennotes with various 'actions'. Some of us
    dearly love this notesfiles; more than we like some people. I have
    no sympathy for these attacks.
    

    I'm worse than that (re .211), I think such attacks constitute harassment.

    
    	Along the same vein...
    
    	What really bugs me more than anything is when someone comes
    	into this conference as a stranger and uses his professed
    	affection for the file as an *excuse* to threaten that if the
    	file does not bend to his will, he intends to destroy it.
    

    my mother [and the 48-hour barrier]
    
      Ann

    re .214                                       
    
            What really bugs me more than anything is when someone comes
            into this conference as a stranger and uses his professed
            affection for the file as an *excuse* to threaten that if
            the file does not bend to his will, he intends to destroy it.
    
    
    Except for the "stranger" part, 
    sounds a lot like abuse, (e.g., wife-beating) doesn't it.

    	RE: .216
    
    	>  sounds a lot like abuse, (e.g., wife-beating) doesn't it.
    
    	Good grief, I knew there was something familiar about all this.
    	(But don't worry, Lisa, he's just doing this for our own good.)
    
    				<shudder>

    
    
    And of course we would never, ever fight back, would we....
    
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    			Now how do I get this thing to swing????