Conference turris::womannotes-v1

        I don't think most people *do* find a balance between the
        conflicts.  There's always a knowledge that this is a public
        discussion, and there's the old training that "one should
        be polite".  Often this results in exactly what you described:
        a very angry note with a thin "polite" veneer.  This layering
        is condescending in that it implies (without the intent of
        the author, most likely) that the reader will be fooled by
        the sugar coating... and therefore spurs the next responder
        (especially the person to whom the original "layered" note
        was directed) to even more vehemance.
        
        And we've got an "arms race" on our hands.
        
        I try to ignore anger in notes directed at me, unless the
        anger itself appears to be directed at me.  And the keyword
        is "appears", for it needn't appear so to the author, or
        to others.  It's obvious that I'm not the only one to suffer
        from this sort of misunderstanding, judging by a lot of the
        replies *I've* gotten.
        
        It's very difficult to remain clear and aware of all the
        implications of what you say or write, when dealing with a topic
        which is highly emotional to you.  I don't think many (if any)
        of us are capable of it... certainly not in all cases.  The
        Cheryl Tiegs topic was, for example, of no consequence to me
        when it started: it had no emotional value to me until I started
        hearing the "this is bad", "this is sexist", and then I had to
        jump in to defend myself (even though, to that point, nobody
        else knew there was any reason to attack me).  Of course, this
        means I was already a bit angry when I started.  And though it
        hadn't previously been an emotional issue for me, it *had* been
        for others, and so the battle raged out of control until I
        finally attemped to call a unilateral truce.  There comes a
        point where it no longer matters who's right, who's wrong, or
        even who gets the last word: the battle has to be stopped. 
        
        The Date rape topic, on the other hand, from the very beginning,
        was a highly emotional topic for everyone.  It was bound
        to be worse unless nobody said anything other than "oh my,
        how terrible".  I made the mistake of attempting to say
        something I felt was constructive.  Perhaps one of the replies
        was correct, and the topic had not been intended for discussion;
        but again, this time in an already highly emotional discussion,
        I saw myself being blamed and feared for something over which
        I had no control, and I reacted emotionally.  Sigh.
        
        I am not attempted to debate either issue here, or who was
        right and who was wrong, or even *whether* anyone was right
        or wrong.  I am simply attempting to make some comments about
        the new topic, by trying to explain my feelings and motivations
        in the particular two examples of explosive notes which .0
        mentioned.  Anything anyone wishes to say about the specific
        topics (aside from aspects directly related to why or how
        anger interacts with communcation), should of course go to
        the appropriate topic, not here.
        
        Rage is a powerful weapon, and difficult to control.  It
        really makes little sense to attempt to sugar coat your rage
        with "nice" words (as I said to begin with, that can be
        perceived as insulting in itself, and in any case it rarely
        actually camoflages the intent).  Still, that's what we've
        all been trained to do in this society.
        
        I've even tried saying "I'm angry, but not at you", but I'm
        not sure that works, either.  People react to the mood of
        what's written, and explicit disclaimers like that just don't
        seem to carry as much weight.  When it's clearly rage, and
        what's being said is directed at you, it's difficult to be
        objective enough to realize that the rage itself might *not*
        be directed at you.
        
        What can I say?  It's hard to be completely nice and polite
        when you're feeling angry, and it's hard to honestly express
        anger without worrying about others' feelings.  We almost
        always attempt to compromise, and the compromises don't always
        work.
        
        	/dave
        
        p.s., I hope I've managed to write my paragraphs about the
        other topics without carrying over any of the anger from them,
        and without saying anything which will cause someone *else*
        to carry over any of *their* anger.  If I've failed, please
        don't take it out on me... at least, not in this topic. 
        Both topics are excellent examples of what *this* topic is
        about (not surprizingly, since they appear to have motivated
        it), and a relatively dispassionate discussion of them could
        only be beneficial (to them, perhaps, as well as to this
        topic).  But let's all try to leave the *topics* where they
        are, and discuss only the reactions!
        
        p.p.s., and now, to lighten things up :-) :-) :-) <smile>
        (I really, *really* needed that :-) )

    I have been reading Date Rape and have so much anger and hate that
    I have avoided responding.  I know that if I did, my note would
    be deleated.  
    One thing that I have learned to do after many years, is to avoid
    reacting to the stimulus imediatly. I know this is not always possible,
    but there are many times when it is.  When my children were small
    and a situation would come up I would go to my room, shut the door
    andtake deep breaths before deciding what punishment to apply. This
    worked 99 9/10ths of the time. Now when I get real angry or upset,
    I take long walks or drives.  I don't like to argue, and I don't
    like confrontations. This may sound like the cowards way out, but
    I rarely get my self into a situation where I wished I hadn't said
    what I said.

  I agree with .3.  Another good technique is to actually write the flame
  while your blood is boiling -- just make sure you write it in a local
  file.  You then wait a day or so (sometimes I need as much as a week to
  calm down) before rereading what you wrote.  At that point, you've got
  the option of rewriting it without the flames or, if you're still as
  ticked off as you were, posting it as is.

  I find that the catharsis of writing the note is all I usually need --
  it's not necessary that anyone read it.  Another big advantage to this
  technique is that there is no limit to the invective you can use...

  JP

    Anger is very powerful and very scarey. In general I will only
    allow myself to get angry either at people I trust, or at people
    who do not matter at all.  For the former I get angry at my family
    because I know that we love and trust each other enough to work
    out the issues that upset us. For the latter I would get angry
    at a person who was rude or racist to my family because I am offended
    by what they say and I want them to know it.
    
    In the great middle ground I am slow to get angry because it can
    be so final. Not only are you taking the chance that the other will
    shut the door on you rather than work out the issues, you are cutting
    off a chance to teach and share and learn and grow. I think that
    the "I message" approach, sharing your feelings but leaving the
    door open to continued communications provides more opportunities
    for mutual understanding than a "you message".
    
    To have a person "shut the door" on another person, or an idea,
    or a conference because of anger directed at them is a terrible
    waste.
    
    Bonnie

    I learned long ago not to be afraid of my anger, because I can't
    cut it out of myself.  I'm human.  But I am cautious about the way
    I react to anger.
    
    Usually I become very cold and clear.  This makes it possible to
    defend a point without just blowing off steam that confuses an issue.
    
    But I've been known to get screaming angry, usually when someone
    else is trying to argue with me and is not *listening* to what
    I am saying in response.  People who do this are only arguing
    with you to hear themselves talk and have no interest in what you
    have to say.  I get furious at this and end up trying to use decibel
    levels (literally and figuratively) to break through the deafness
    barrier.
    
    When I'm really angry at something my husband has said or done,
    I will "file" my anger away and discuss it later with him when I've
    calmed down.  This has saved my marriage many times :^).
    
    Gloria

Because we can't see the other person, and directly interact with that
person, notes tend to be somewhat more emotional (and visibly angry)
than ordinary dialog.  Imagine, if you would, some of the arguing in the
Cheryl Tiegs or date rape notes as if they were actually spoken by two
people face to face, with all the deep emotion inherent in both sides of
the dialog.  It's hard not to imagine the participants literally coming
to blows during the discussion.  Sometimes these notes read like
independent monologues given by a married couple about to have a
divorce; complete with the almost obligitory "you never listen to what I
say" line.  (Perhaps one of the ex-psychologists might comment on this).

One of the problems/pleasures of noting is the immediacy of the
communication. But, when we have no idea of who, actually, the other
person is -- when we haven't shared bread and salt with that person --
its too easy to see that person as an architype, treat their arguments
as some sort of "political" statement, thereby robbing them of their
inherent humanity. 

Martin.

PS: at the next "notes party", perhaps we might try reading some
of the more heated debates out loud to see how they actually sound
in real life.  Might make interesting theatre.

    Thank you for starting this note. I've been trying to figure out
    why certain responses by certain sorts of people in THIS notesfile
    get me angry, when the same text in any other forum would not make
    me mad.
    
    I am a woman in womennotes. If a male noter (sounds sexist to me...:-))
    replies DIRECTLY to a REPLY (not topic) of mine, and does not seem
    to be attempting to address the issues I am trying to address, but
    instead forms a reply that ignores or trivializes them, and writes
    at length about some ideal or counter-example meant to highlight
    some other point entirely (heavens, what a specific list!), I get
    angry.
    
    And, in this forum, I think I have every right to! I express my
    anger by taking the discussion off-line (I find myself more openminded
    in a one-on-one via MAIL), or Next note (thereby ignoring any useful
    points the noter was trying to make).
    
    And don't any of you males respond to this reply and not seem to
    be attempting to address the issues I am trying to address ... :-)
  	Mez
    

>   I am a woman in womennotes. If a male noter (sounds sexist to me...:-))
>   replies DIRECTLY to a REPLY (not topic) of mine, and does not seem
>   to be attempting to address the issues I am trying to address, but
>   instead forms a reply that ignores or trivializes them, and writes
>   at length about some ideal or counter-example meant to highlight
>   some other point entirely (heavens, what a specific list!), I get
>   angry.
        
        Interesting point... but you have to remember that no two
        people see the same thing the same way.  Understanding of
        written words is even harder than of words spoken face to
        face, where there are visual clues to meaning.
        
        Just because someone says something that you believe does
        not address your issue doesn't mean the other person thinks
        so.  Maybe they didn't understand what you meant, or saw
        it as a facet of a larger issue... anyway, the important
        point is that someone else can't see what you meant, only
        how they interpreted what you said.  We all need to keep
        that in mind, and we all fail occasionally.  I know I do...
        and it's often painfully obvious that others do, too.
        
        "I know you believe you understand what you think I said,
        but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what
        I meant"... a great old quote which should probably be posted
        on every noter's terminal.
        
        	/dave

    I think that every one of us needs a place in our lives that is
    safe enough to get as angry as we feel and express it.  For some
    people that occurs with family members and loved ones.   Others do
    it with their therapist, others with trusted friends.  
    
    Those that don't have such outlets often end up "acting out" their
    angry feelings on the job, or dumping on people who happen to be
    in the way.                                               
    
    Those who don't "act it out" or otherwise discharge it can sometimes
    end up with physical symptoms or a case of serious depression--many
    counselors believe that depression is anger turned inward at oneself.
    
    I *try* to express it appropriately and directly.  I sometimes
    inadvertently act it out or snap at non-combatants, and occasionally
    I end up depressed and frustrated.                
    
    I have a very hard time expressing anger about big issues.  It's
    much easier to get temporarily pissed off about the small stuff.
    Luckily I have a few people in my life who know when to just LISTEN,
    and who don't try to fix it, smooth it over, or otherwise placate
    me.  I try to do the same, and would like to be an even better listener
    than I am.
    
    One thing that has helped me a lot with anger is a technique we
    use in the "Opening the Heart" workshops which I work at, and which
    I described in an earlier note.  Two people work together, and each
    take turns being a "witness" and a "sharer".   The role of the witness
    is just to give loving attention.  The sharer can do anything they
    like, including scream and pound pillows on the floor.  After a
    few minutes (usually about 7), they reverse the roles.  This kind
    of interchange can go on for quite a while, and usually helps people
    get a lot of anger out.  We also use it in our couples workshops,
    and many couples are delighted with it.  It's too easy to get
    preoccupied with your next comment at the expense of listening to
    the other person, and this technique neatly sidesteps that tendency.
    
    One of the reasons I like notes so much is that I can think out
    what I want to say without being interrupted or challenged.  Once
    I've gotten that far, I'm eager to read (=listen to) the responses
    I get.  For me, notes creates the kind of situation I found so valuable
    at the workshop.  And when things get stalemated in a notes exchange,
    I usually try to either bow out, or have lunch with the person and
    hash it all out in person.
    
    (The thing that annoys me the most in notes is when people generalize
    and say "all women" or "all men" or something like that.  That tendency
    seems to start more flames than any other.)
    
    By the way, I appreciate all you good listeners in womannotes!
    
    Holly
    
    

    	Emotions are the sinew of our souls.  I don't believe we should
    try to control them as much as understand them.  Anger is not wrong
    unless it is misdirected.  Getting truly angry as a result of something
    which occurs at a business meeting, save for a personal attack,
    doesn't make much sense to me.  Work is not personal.
    
    	I believe there is more flaming in notes than there would be
    in face to face discussions simply because notes limits the writer
    and reader to words.  Communication, when so limited, is very
    difficult.
    
    Douglas

    What a great topic, Liz.  Very timely for where I'm at.

    I'm picking up more responsibilities at work which I'm trying to
    find the balance for.  It's tough because I feel a need to be
    attentive to the older responsibilities and people I've worked
    with, as well as take on the new ones -- all with the same amount
    of time.

    There are times when I believe the only recourse is to show my
    anger.  Normally this is a last resort, after I've tried to
    compromise/work out an alternative to an issue or a problem.  But
    I really hate having to bring the anger out because it can be so
    final (as Bonnie said, I think).

    But there's another problem.  I believe, rightly or wrongly, that
    a woman showing her anger is not dealt with in the same way a man
    is.  (My management is trying to convince me that this isn't
    true, but they haven't succeeded yet.)  I distinctly get the
    impression that my anger is trivialized and that a male coworker's
    anger is acknowleged and dealt with.  Now the result of dealing
    with the male's anger may not be to the male's liking, but the
    act of becoming angry was not trivialized.

    Anybody run into this?  How do you deal with it?
						-Leslie

    ps.  I much prefer the personal experiences on this topic, rather
    than the 'society should' or 'one should' replies.  But each to
    his/her own, right... ;-)

    Leslie,
    I agree that women's anger in a work setting is often taken less
    seriously than men's  (he's standing up for something he believes
    in -- she's being overly emotional).  as a consequence, we learn
    to hold our anger back, we learn to be conciliatory. it's a wonder
    that men still get more ulcers than we do! but by holding onto the
    anger, we run the risk of letting smaller and smaller things become 
    our trigger point.  I think the "correct" response is to express
    it as best we can when it happens. In a sense, the problem then
    belongs to the other people who need to deal with the newly-changed
    situation. (Hasn't your management already implied that they expect
    you to express what's on your mind?)...
    
    A few things stick out in your note -- you talk about finding the
    right balance, feeling responsibility to others, and having unmet
    needs -- a pretty explosive (and yet common) combination.  As you
    work things out, please keep us informed...
    
    
    eliz

    Re .12, your comments about male anger being recognized and female
    anger being trivialized brings back some feelings of anger and
    frustration that I had, not at work, but at home in two major
    relationships.  In both my former marriage and a recent relationship
    it always used to seem to me that if *I* got angry over something
    the man would always act as though I had no real reason to be angry,
    that the thought of me being angry was ludricous, that the fact
    that I *was* angry was just further proof of how *wrong* I am about
    everything.  BUT, if the man got angry over something (no matter
    how unjust or trivial that anger might seem to *me*), the man was
    always *so certain* that HIS anger was justified, so self-righteous
    and self-confident of *his* anger.  The message I got was, from
    the male viewpoint, "If I decide to be angry then I have a *good*
    reason to be angry.  It is *time* to be angry.  But, if you (you
    poor little fool) if *you* decide to be angry, let's face it, it's
    probably over some trivial little thing that you should really be
    happy about."  Oooooh!  Why did that happen to me in two important
    relationships and how can I keep it from happening again?
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .15, Kerry, I don't think they have much in convents that would
    interest me.  For further details send mail.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re .15, in case you mean to imply that in order to keep men in my
    life I have to just accept their temper tantrums and other weird
    ways, I've already figured that out.  (After all, a woman does have
    certain needs...)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Flame on =>
    
    I am tired of and angry with people who are rude, and immature.
    
    As I scream at my own children, ages 17 and 19, will you please
    grow up and realize that you are not the center of the universe,
    I say, a little less tight-throated - When are you going to wake
    up and see the world as the other half of the population sees it.
    
    Flame off  <=
    
    I must be getting calmer as I get older, I have not threatened
    to cut anyone's personal parts off in days.  :^)   -   :^O  -  :^)
    
    When I am very, very angry tears fall, with the usual response
    "Now, Don't cry, it will be alright."  Which makes me even more
    angry.  So I try not to let myself get that angry and to respond
    to what is making me angry appropriately.
    
    _peggy
    
    ps  I am told often that I am to "serious" about things, I guess
        my jokes go over their heads.
    
    
    

>   Re .15, in case you mean to imply that in order to keep men in my
>   life I have to just accept their temper tantrums and other weird
>   ways, I've already figured that out.  (After all, a woman does have
>   certain needs...)
        
        Tsk tsk, Lorna... that's every bit as sexist as a man who
        assumes that womens' anger is trivial.  Why not just accept
        people as individuals?  Certainly, some men are like you
        describe... and if you want to live with *them*, you may
        need to accept their behavior.  Or you could always find
        a man who *doesn't* behave that way, if that's what you prefer
        (and who wouldn't?)
        
        Backing up a bit... there are still many remnants of the
        old stereotypes (in case you hadn't noticed lately! :-));
        women are emotional and flighty, and therefore their anger
        must be trivial.  Men, on the other hand, are solid and steady,
        and would never become angry unless the issue is important.
        I think women long ago responded to these male stereotypes
        by inventing their own: those men tended to childishly treat
        women like children, and so we have the typical female
        stereotype that *men* are childish and need to be humored,
        etc., but can't be taken too seriously.  Or maybe it's not
        all reaction... after all, that attitude caused women to
        go along with the men, and the "serious" men could just wink
        and laugh at the foolish opinions of the flighty women.
        
        <insert loud raspberry here>.  It all comes back to my favorite
        subject: everyone is an individual, and you can't make any
        judgements about someone merely on the basis of sex.
        Propagating stereotypes about men is no more constructive
        than propagating stereotypes about women (though I recognize
        that it may feel good to those who have been the butt of
        stereotypes all their lives... that's not the point).
        
        Everyone gets angry once in a while... and sometimes they're
        right, and sometimes they're wrong.  Sometimes the anger
        is about something important, sometimes about something trivial.
        It has nothing to do with a person's sex, or age, or color,
        or anything else.
        
        The longer inconsiderate women retaliate by holding their
        stereotypes against men, the longer equally inconsiderate
        men will retaliate in kind.  Would everybody please just
        *stop* it so we can get on with improving the world!!!???
        
        	/dave

    RE: .15  "join an organization that can help Lorna"
    
    Given that literacy in Notes is not your strong suit, one might
    assume that you ommitted a comma.  If not, then we already have.
    
    

    Re: .19
    
    For once, /dave and I agree (a bit, anyway); my anger is directed
    at a group ("men..."), but I don't personally know that group --
    I know individuals, and have a hard time staying mad at any individual
    for being a man who is part of "men" or a woman who is part of "women".
    
    
    Lee
    

    re .22
    Do you mean the indivudual persists in button head behavior
    or you persist in perceiving the individual as a button head?
    and could you difine button head? :-)

    Thankyou Steve,
    There is an interesting distinction about anger that your
    reply brings up - that between the quick to get angry and
    the quick to be over it, and the slow to anger but slow to
    forgive. I wonder how often relationships between people
    founder because they are of opposite types.
    
    Bonnie

This response is prompted by the exchange in topic 189 (date rape) around
replies .138 or so. Sandy Ciccolini (sorry if I spelled it wrong) has been
taken to task for being angry. I don't think this is right. I think she has
a right to be angry, and to express her anger, and furthermore I think she
has done a very good job of avoiding personal attacks even though she's
angry. I think it is in large part Sandy's contributions that have made note
189 an interesting and worthwhile topic (along with the personal stories -
thanks to all who have contributed these.) I think the sources of her anger
are obvious, and it's enough to make me angry too: 1) some people (mostly
men but not only men) still want to blame the victim, are still looking for
ways to avoid putting the responsibility for rape squarely on the rapist;
and 2) when the issue gets hot some people will do almost anything to cool
down the hot anger, up to trivializing and denigrating the one who is angry.

(more directly on the topic of anger)

I'd also like to say that as a man I haven't found the level of anger in
this conference to be the slightest bit intimidating. It doesn't bother me
when someone rails agains men in general, you can even say things like "all
men are this or that," and I can decide for myself if it applies to me or
not. I can tell that not everybody has the same level of comfort that I do,
but I don't think it up to the angry person to make everybody comfortable
with his/her expression of anger. I think anger is an appropriate response
to injustice, and we've got a lot of injustice to fight so we need a lot of
anger as fuel to fight with.

Don.

 It is a paradox when comments are made about men in general and in the
same breath comments are made about sexism. My reaction to those types of
notes is that the author does not have credibility. The issues are important
but not those authors views. (to me)

 My best friend, Joe, used to present many things as THIS IS TRUTH. We 
generally have amazing mutual fascination about so many topics but this one
point used to grate on me. I knew that Joe liked to bet so I bet him that
that was not truth. He countered with then WHAT IS TRUTH. I only knew my
feelings and beliefs. In any case I demonstrated that his point was not
truth. Now Joe says THIS IS TRUTH, in my opinion.

-Tom

  I don't mind listening to women sound off even though a drop of vitriol
  splatters me now and then.  And if they can't do it here, where can they?
  Sandy Ciccolini has certainly given me much to think about.

  However, a few things should be pointed out:

  The first is Hazzard's Law, which states that one should not attribute
  to malice what can be adequately be explained by stupidity.  This isn't
  a law of nature but if you think it is a reasonable statement, then you
  probably won't put much credence into conspiracy theories.

  Next, to address some of the terrible things that have happened to Sandy
  (and I have no reason to doubt that they happened), consider that in some
  organizations, competence is unwelcome.  I'm not familiar with the
  groups in which Sandy has worked but I have seen this type of organization
  inside and outside Digital (lots rarer inside than outside, thank goodness).
  If an organization is controlled and staffed by drones, and a competent
  woman comes along and starts rocking the boat, it is likely that she will
  find herself in one of these impossible situations.  But it is not
  necessarily because she is a woman; competence could be the more important
  aspect of the situation.  [As an aside, I believe that if you find yourself
  in one of these impossible situations, you should *get out*.  Some people
  would try to fix the organization -- and more power to them -- but not me. 
  The wonderful thing about Digital is that it is comparatively easy to change
  jobs.]

  Finally, projecting one's experiences onto the rest of the world is an
  iffy proposition. Statistical anomalies we will always have with us.  In
  other words, it is likely that *someone* will run into drone-controlled
  organizations five times in a row.  It's just that, after going 0 for 5,
  one cannot then say that there are only drone-controlled organizations
  in the world.  Such generalizations are, at some level, the same sort
  of thinking that bought us sexism and racism in the first place. 

  JP

  

    <--(.30)
    
    Tom, do you remember who it was (as I recall it was in the context
    of the Black civil-rights struggle) that said "If you aren't part
    of the solution, then you're part of the problem"?  
    
    I would argue, with Sandy and others, that men benefit from sexism
    even when they personally do not practice it actively; that not
    all sexism (or racism, or...) is active and malicious.  When you
    dismiss someone who ascribes sexism to men in general because *you*
    are sure *you* are not guilty, you may feel on the side of the angels
    but it improves nothing in the lives of the women around you.  Sexism
    is alive and well and supported --actively or passively-- by most men
    and far too many women.  Just as racism and other horrors are. 
    
    Anyone of us who does not actively work against these evils, insofar as
    it lies within our power to do so within the compass of our daily
    lives, has no room to feel innocent.  If we aren't part of the solution
    then like it or not we *are* part of the problem. 
    
    						=maggie 

 While I know that I possess some attitudes which may be viewed as detrimental 
to the woman's movement, but these same attitudes are held in regard to both 
men and women and therefore I do not feel are sexist.
 I can argue that my SO and I are helping by setting an example. While no
relationship is perfect, the fairness in ours is something we both work at
and is a source of happiness for us. 
 Members of many causes say that if you are not part of the solution you are 
part of the cause. If one really believe the saying is true, then there are 
innumerable causes which one should fight for. I do not believe in listing 
causes and asking people to justify their participation or non-participation 
in them.
 I believe that if you are not part of the problem, then you are part of the
solution. This does require vigilance of oneself to minimize ones negative
attitudes. Reading this conference helps.

-Tom

    
    
    It is not easy to keep from being part of the problem, and BTW
    most of the "causes" have the same goal:
    
    	A save, sane world for all 
    
    Awareness that there is a problem is a step, working to keep ones
    own actions in line with ones trouted beliefs is another.
    
    Acceptance of the views of others is the hardest, we are not all
    at the same point on the awareness scale.  One can disagree or even
    dislike another's view but no one is the keeper of another's
    conscience.  (I've been reading MZB again.)
    
    _peggy
    
    	(-)     "The Goddess is in all of us."
    	 |