Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Let me be the first to say that it means exactly what it says.
    Topics of interest to WOMEN. 
    
    It is a poor person who goes into a conference say for the ibm pc and
    tries to discuss microvaxes. 
    
    Men have mennotes and there is a human realtions conference. Women
    started this conference to meet the needs of WOMEN, *not* men.
    
    My personal reaction is that I think it's SAD that a presumably
    grown and mature man will whine and complain when he's told that
    women don't want to hear from him/men in a particular topic.
    
    Personally I think that in line with the name and purpose of this
    conference that any topic focusing on mens needs, wants or desires should
    be COPIED, DELETED and MOVED to a more appropriate conference.
    
    I see absolutely no reason to discuss dogs in a cat conference. I see
    absolutely no reason to discuss mens issues in a womens conference except
    if *women* want to.                    
    
    I ask the moderators to take this seriously. Don't give into the
    whinning.  Move mens topics to mennotes and if some men continue to
    whine about issues not appropriate to this conference I'd set hidden
    their replies until their replies conform to the focus of this
    conference. Be strong, take action to preserve the focus of this
    conference. Otherwise you might as well rename the conference "Whiners
    Manipulating Women".
    
    Comments? 

    Personally, I find "topics of interest to women" to be rather
    meaningless; any topic I can think of is going to be of interest
    to *some* women.
    
    My impression of the *intended* meaning is, "topics of interest
    to women because they have more impact on women than on men," or
    "because women will have a unique response to those topics." Lately,
    this impression has been modified to include, "...and which the
    women don't want to discuss with men." (Or, more charitably, "which
    the women would rather be able to discuss among themselves first.")
    
    I cannot think of a topic for which I couldn't also think of
    individuals of either sex who had in interest in it, and other
    individuals who had no interest in it at all. Therefore, to me,
    it isn't the topics that distinguish (?) WOMANNOTES, but rather
    the rules of order for the participants to follow when raising and
    discussing those topics. 
    
    -b

    	I cannot think of many topics that are exclusively of interest 
    	to women and not to men.  A few come to mind, but most of these 
    	aren't appropriate to discuss in such a public forum as this.
    
    	Maybe the title of WOMANNOTES should be changed from "Topics
    	of Interest to Women" to "Topics for Women to Discuss."
    
    						Carla
    
    	P.S.	I should qualify myself by saying I don't want to see
    		male participation vanish in this conference.  Respect 
	    	should be granted, though, when expressly asked for.
    

    I think that "Topics of interest to Women" means just that:
    Topics that interest women.  That does not mean that these topics
    cannot interest men also.  That does not mean that women are the
    only people who can discuss these topics.  I think that the literal
    interpretation is very concrete.  If we change it to "Topics for
    Women to Discuss", then it changes the purpose of the conference.
    It would then mean that this is a place for Women (only) to discuss
    certain topics.  I believe that there are a few women in here who
    would like to take the latter interpretation, thus relegating men
    to "invited guest - do as you're told" status.  That's really SAD,
    when women feel so threatened (for whatever reason) that they do
    not feel comfortable with a male's presence in a forum such as this.
    
    I hope that this file gets back to its stated purpose, and stops
    wandering about as it has been.  According to the stated purpose,
    all are welcome to share thoughts, ideas, and feelings.  Let's
    keep the "open" atmosphere, and stop trying to segregate this
    file.  Such segregation can only lead to the eventual destruction
    of this file and this forum.
    
    Dave
    

    Reply to .6, AMartin,
    
    Uh, did you just loose something? 

    Reply to .8, AMartin,
    
    Oh, I thought you lost your temper...

    <-- last
    Never!  Wouldn't waste the energy.  
    keyword=thought. 
                            @L

    Reply to .5, Low,
    
    I think you are interpreting Maggies statements as *you* would have
    them interpreted.  She has been plain and forthright. Read 621.102 and don't
    put words in her mouth. 
    
    If you prefer to discuss things in a different enviorment try Human
    Relations.
    
    If you don't like the conference then go somewhere else.

    MR Morgan, I am right, it IS MR.
    Who the hell are you to judge this low person?  
    Read the first line in his note, " I think", that and the rest of
    his note said nothing about Maggie.  
    
    FWIW: You being male, I guess that your little idea would also include
    you???      
    Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Reply to .12; AMartin,

    Your reply is actual proof that some men will not respect women
    authors wishes.
        
    I think your supposed to take *argument* to other notes. Why don't
    you try that. I'll be around.

    
    	In discussing the Title/Purpose of this conference, I'm surprised
    to see "binary" nature of the rule that I guess at least some of
    the participants would like to see: IF X .NE. "Topics of interest"
    THEN ==> OUT!
    
    	Why hasnt anyone looked at the forum in terms of the people
    who participate? I see the "collective consciousness" based on the 
    group of people who "hang out" (for lack of a better word) in the 
    conference, rather than a hard specific title. 
    
    	Perhaps a noter wants to tap into the this resource, because
    s/he feels comfortable with and "knows" somewhat the *people* here.
    
    	A strict conformance to the intended topic might change the
    base set of participants; yes, you may get some people to "leave"
    or whatever with this strategy. Consider the lost differentiation
    in replys, the lost experience that just might be your teacher
    if considered at other than face value. It's possible that things
    could become very predictable, hence boring, i.e. get the answer
    you wanted; no surprises, no challenge to the intellect.
    
    	Like so many things which "naturally" dont end up conforming
    to a strict rule_set, perhaps the idea of probability should be
    used to think about it. As in "In this region of NOTES, most entries
    correspond to "Topics of interest to WOMEN"". Exceptions indeed
    may exist, for the sake of discussion with the collective body of
    people who like to note here.
    
    	Joe Jas                                                   

         I think TOITW means those topics that individual female contr-
      ibutors to this Conf. perceive to be related to (or involve) a
      Woman's life experience (concern's, issues, etc.).
    
        Perhaps a generation or two ago, this question as to what
      constitutes a TOITW would have produced some stereotyped 'trad-
      itional responses. Awareness of individual choices and liberties
      has moved many people away from such tightly defined definitions.
      (Manhood, Womanhood, role expectations, etc.).
    
        In Modern Society I think (certain) 'divisions' based on sex
      tend to fade with time. At the very least, all Humanistic concerns
      involve us all.
    
                                                           Russ

    Re: .11
    
    I was asked for my *OPINION* of the statement and I offered it.
    I did say "I think...", which denotes opinion.  If you are not
    clever enough to realize that, why don't you go read another
    conference?  Maybe you'll learn the meaning of "think"...
    

    
    I think I agree with the opinion that topics may include subjects
    of interest to women, rather than subjects that are of interest
    specifically to women. I did think about this recently when I started
    a note about giving to the third world (612), I did wonder if this
    was the right place for it, I decided on the basis of the fact that
    it was important to me as a woman, and having read quite a bit of
    this conference, I wanted to see what the people in this conference
    had to say. I also thought that if anyone objected they wopuld soon
    say so !!!
    
    However, I think its a matter of balance, some of the things I've
    found most interesting to read about in here have been more
    specifically relevant to women.

I joined this file with the intent of exploring to a deeper level what it 
means to be female in today's society.  This does not imply that I have no 
interests in 'human' or 'male' issues.  It simply means that in this 
particular notesfile, I am looking for specific issues relating to the
female experience (thus, my definition of "Topics of Interest to Women").  
        
I have enjoyed some of the sharing between both women and men here.  I have 
also hated some of the discussions.  I just completed "Women's Reality" by 
Schaef and highly recommend this book to both female and male participants of 
this file.  I am looking for that Female System that Schaef says is emerging.  
Perhaps WOMANNOTES is the forum for this; perhaps it is not.  I intend to 
stick around awhile to find out.

ap
    

    re .1:
    
    I think you are making unfair accusations.
    
    > I see absolutely no reason to discuss dogs in a cat conference. 
                                                                         
    I am not aware of anyone asking for this. What is being discussed
    here is whether the cats conference can deny participation to someone
    simply because they own a dog and not a cat. Does the fact that I do
    not own a cat automatically exclude me from wanting to discuss cats?
    And when the subject is something like "fear of losing my cat",
    is it really inappropriate to contribute your fear of losing your
    dog?
      
    > I see absolutely no reason to discuss mens issues in a womens
    > conference except if *women* want to. 
    
    I absolutely agree, but I do not think that is the issue. At least
    that is not what I am "whining" about.
                                          
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                  

    This is a very funny note!
    
    The title is "What does 'topics of interest to women' mean to you?"
    Including this note:
    
    5 women have replied.   
    6 men have replied.
    (one unregistered person that I couldn't track down via elf also:
    who-are-you-Mansfield?  Don't be shy, we're just folks.  :-) )
    
    2 of the men felt compelled to post 5 replies each!
    
    Some of us didn't follow one of Liz's guidelines:
    	"If you'd like to denigrate or argue about someone else's comments,
        please do so in another note. "
                       
    I'm behind, but I'm surprised no one objected to the arguing, but
    well, I can't blame anyone for not doing what I also didn't do!
     :-)
    
    "Topics" of interest to women" to me means more than just topics
    of interest of women.  It also means a place where women can discuss
    these topics, perhaps with men too, but without men, and I mean
    specifically men, carrying on an shouting match on the topic.  For
    instance, this topic is only of vague intellectual interest to me,
    since more of the notes are part of an ongoing argument than are
    actually to the point of the specified topic.
    
    Let women carry on the shouting matches in this notesfile.  Men
    can do the same in mennotes.  (-:  Well, I'm sort of serious about
    this: it's an interesting thought. :-)
    
    I also suspect that those of us who claim to be here to learn about
    women have as much to learn about men.  And should therefore be
    reading mennotes, no?  Then we can squabble in the appropriate
    notesfile, and be all ears (and also fingers sometimes) in the
    corresponding notesfile.

    
    
         "Topics of interest to Women", to me, encompasses those subjects
    which are important in the lives of women.  This does NOT mean that
    they are not also interesting to men, jews, blacks, hockey players
    and longshorepersons.  Anyone who is interested in "topics of interest
    to women" should be able to discuss, interact, gain or sometimes
    lose from the discussion.  "Topics of interest to women" by it's
    wording, excludes NO ONE.
    
                                Greg
    

I'm going to quote, 'cause I like it:

   "Note 1.2 VIKING::TARBET,  APR-1986 

       Essentially any subject is fair game.  Career, family, children,
       education, health, hopes, poetry, sport, DEC, world events,....  "
    
Clairvoyancy, by Maggie Tarbet.

And Look At the Date!  We're almost two!  
                                                     Meigs

RE: .0

I feel that any topics should be related to women.  But most of the time that
does involve other parts of women's environment, including, (yes folks) men.

Women do not exist in a vaccuum.  I feel that one of 'women's needs is to be
understood by men.  To borrow an anology, you might well drop into a Uvax note
to ask how to download to a pc, or drop into a feline note to ask how to get
your neighbor's cat to stop teasing your basset hound.

On a more general level, I feel that to have Equality, equal access, and equal
treatement must be available to *whoever* requests it, man or woman.  Otherwise,
you may very well get the reaction, "If I can't dance, I don't want to be part
of your revolution!"

RE: .4 Carla

Do you mean, "Topics for Women to Discuss" to mean that only women are allowed
to speak?  That is what it implies to me.

Jim.