Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Actually what I think is that I wish that I hadn't had to make a
    decision on this one :-}!
    
    Jim's note has been moved to start a new note...those who wish to
    respond to the content of the note please do so in note 620 and
    those who wish to further react to the fact that the note was entered
    at all may do so here...or continue in the Hot Buttons note...
    
    
    my personal best choice would be that the subject be closed and
    not used to start another round of negative exchanges.
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator

Tanya slipped this response in while I was moving things around :-)
    
    
                <<< VIKING::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 594.30       The Following is for Women Only - thank you.          30 of 30
CASV02::AUSTIN                                       15 lines  28-DEC-1987 14:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        
    >I think that when a man replies to a "for women only" note, the
    >moderators should delete his reply.  What do you think, moderators?
    

  I am not a moderator but I would like to give my opinion on your 
  question.  I don't think .29 said anything that would hurt this 
  topic, I think it may have been helpful to some people.  His reasons
  for entering it in a topic that had been requested to be answered by 
  women only, I don't know.  I would think that since the author did 
  ask for women only to reply, he should have respected her wishes by 
  not entering it.  But since this is an equal access file I think it 
  could cause problems if it were to be deleted.  

  T 

 I am new to this file,and very confused by the moderator(S)actions.

     Please explain.     

  I was offended by notes labeled for ****** only,but had over
looked the prejudice.I was half expecting the moderator(S) to send
a quiet mail message to the people who had posted such notes to change
the heading.Did you the moderator(S) just move a reply because the
responder was male?? If so,what are your reasons for creating a
potential problem?
  Please tell me, I am miss understanding this.

                      With hope George D.

    Re: .3
    
    This has already been discussed _a_lot_, so you might want to search
    back thru previous notes.  My own conclusion from the discussion
    was that if I ever wanted to post a note on a topic that I wanted
    only sensitive replies to, I'd say: "No replies, please, from the
    following: A, B, C, or D."  It happens to be that A-D are males.
    

    re .3
    George,
    
    Try reading the notes titled on psuedo-separtism and hot buttons
    - I think most of the discussion is there. If you have any further
    questions I will be glad to discuss this by mail...and believe me
    there has been mail sent on all these issues...
    
    Bonnie J
    moderator

           
    I was hoping to find some way to help prevent a storm over this
    issue, but we all have to draw the line some place.  I see absolutely
    no reason why one member of this file can not request input from
    any other members of this file.  Of course, anyone in this file
    has the "right" to reply to any note here, but the moderators
    are supposed to see to it that replies appear under the appropriate
    note.  I suspect we could all make their job easier if we didn't
    put our replies in the wrong place. 
    
    While this issue is pending, I would like to ask the women in this
    file to simply ignore inappropriately positioned replies.  I've
    been feeling really good about the way a couple of notes are going
    in this file (anyone else feeling good about that, too?), and I think 
    we *can* transform this file into the space that *we* want if we only stand
    our ground.  
    
    Justine

    	I support the acceptance of having notes which request responses
    be limited to women or men.  I also respect the reason why the response
    in question was moved and feel it was unfortunate the note was entered
    - beginning yet another round of 'them' and 'us' definitions.
    
    Douglas

    I also support the right of requesting that responses be limited
    to woman or men. I do however, hope that this will not be  abused
    as a way of totally shutting out one gender or the other. There
    is a problem that may rear itself. What happens if a man places
    a base note with the request saying "Only Men responed" in this 
    conference ? 

    I do not support slamming the door in the faces of a class of noters
    who may have very serious and personal views on a topic, but are
    arbitrarily prohibited from expressing these views in the conference.
    I firmly believe that such actions only serve to drive a wedge between
    women and men, or whatever groups you are trying to segregate.
    
    I am currently discussing with my co-moderators of MENNOTES a
    new policy to prohibit such notes in MENNOTES.  I feel that
    the conference should be a place for ALL noters to express their
    views, no matter what those views may be or what class (sex, color,
    blood type, shoe size, etc.) the noter may belong to.
    
    I am very sad to see such discriminatory notes proliferate in
    WOMANNOTES, which I once felt to be one of the most accepting
    conferences on the network.
    
    					Steve

    Would people be more comfortable if the basenote writer started
    a note for responses using the next note?
    
    For example, if I start a note in #700 and ask for women only to
    respond, I would also start a note in #701 for anyone to respond who
    chose to.  Women could respond in #700; women and men could respond
    in #701.
    
    That's the model I would prefer.
    
    Holly

re: .12
    Re: .11 A good suggestion but I do have to wonder out loud; 
        When will we ever learn to work/discuss/etc together?????

When we realize that we have to work/discuss/etc together, whether
it's fun or not.

Along with the "you're not welcome here" notes, I also resent the
passive-agressive "have a nice day, asshole" notes that have been
cropping up for the past few weeks -- the ones that say "I read
your note; I don't like it; I won't tell you why (again); and
I want everyone to know that I don't think they should reply either."
On the other hand, I guess the happy holidays notes are an improvement
over the 200 line monologues.

Martin.

    When I see a note marked "women only", I breathe an involuntary
    sigh of relief and say "Thank goodness, there won't be any fighting
    in this note."  I'd like to ask the appropriate subset of men in
    this conference to consider that it's their behaviour here that's
    brought this type of note about.
    

    You got it!  The exchange of information is precisely what a
    non-conflict note is about.  <thoughtful pause>  In fact, what
    good is *any*thing without a transfer of information?  <aside>
    Information is not just "just the facts", it is also the emotional
    import of a situation, or of someone else's emotion, or ...
    
    Therefore, it should be possible for "even :-)" a male human to
    obtain understanding by reading without writing -- just like watching
    the news on the jujubox.  What I [we?] would really like to see
    is a man experiencing an "ah-ha", of the sort called a Click! in
    "Ms." magazine and other feminist circles.
    
    Here's an example:  At a university cocktail party, a professor of
    psychology was explaining to her college dean about a particular
    phenomenon.  This was, that when Person A, who was not a "buddy"
    of Person B, placed a hand on Person B, it was an expression of
    Person A's belief that A was dominant over Person B.  The dean was
    not buying this scenario, until the university president came up
    to him, placed his hand on the dean's shoulder, and told him that
    it was time for the two of them to leave.  The dean turned dead
    white with realization.  *That* is an "ah-ha" -- and a nasty one
    too.
    
    							Ann B.

    Re: . - I forgot the number
    
    Martin, the "have a nice day" notes came about as follows:  Person
    A posts a "you *&^^%%$%$^&&" reply to person B.  Person B flames
    back to A.  A flames at B.  Everyone wearies of wading thru this
    junk.  So, someone suggests that "you &*&&^&^^^" notes ought to
    be ignored.  The "have a nice day" notes seem to be a transient
    stage the noble B people went thru just to say "I know you called
    me a %^^*&^&**&*(, but I'm not going to inflict the scenario on
    everyone else again."  Good for the B people for exercising
    self-restraint.
    
    signed,
    
    learning to next right past the A notes.

RE: ~594.30

For your information, I had asked a moderator if it would get deleted...

RE: 594.30

I entered a reply to 594 because I felt I had something to add to the
discussion, I chose to ignore the artificial prejudice of 594.0

RE: .7

"I think we *can* transform this file into the space that *we* want if we only
stand our ground."

What do you mean "we"?

Ah, well, I guess that us men will have to go back out into the dark, and
wondering 'what the hell *do* these crazy women want of us?', while the women
remake the world without men having a say in matters, and have men telling each
other that women don't understand, and have women telling each other men don't
understand.

RE: .8

"feel it was unfortunate the note was entered - beginning yet another round of
'them' and 'us' definitions."

What I was doing was ignoring the "us" vs. "them" definition.  It is 594.0 which
creates the categories of "us" and "them".

RE: .11 Holly

Could you explain what you feel are the differences between your suggestion,
and allowing prejudiced topics and not allowing prejudiced topics?

RE: .17

"The exchange of information is precisely what a non-conflict note is about."

Funny, I could have sworn I was trying to exchange information...

Jim. 

Jim.

    Jim, I'm not sure I understand your question. I'll try to answer, even
    though I don't agree with your basic premise that women-only notes are
    prejudiced. 
    
    Here's what I entered:                            
    
    !For example, if I start a note in #700 and ask for women only to
    !respond, I would also start a note in #701 for anyone to respond who
    !chose to.  Women could respond in #700; women and men could respond
    !in #701.
    !    
    !That's the model I would prefer.

    My suggestion was directed to the end that everyone gets to speak
    and to be officially recorded in an easily found place (next basenote)
    within the conference.  Readers coming along in a year can easily
    read both sets of responses in a coherent way, for example.
    
    I don't consider notes which ask for women-only responses to be
    prejudiced.  I am very interested in what women think about
    certain subjects.  I also enjoy reading women's responses to one
    another. 
    
    Anyone who wants to know what everyone thinks would also have an easy
    system for finding all the responses.
                                             
    In many cases I would read both sets of responses to see what everyone
    thought, but it would be very nice to be able to have the views
    of the women easily available.  That's one of the reasons I read
    this file regularly and don't make reading "human relations" a priority!
                                                             
    
                        
    

    I must say I like the suggestion a lot (two basenotes when replies
    from women are of special interest).
    
    FWIW, I've seen some fighting among the women (when men are ignoring
    that note for whatever reason) and while I'd agree that the noise
    level is several orders of magnitude lower, we do occasionally get
    into pissing matches like those rampant in the other notes.
    
    Somehow, I find that "our" pissing matches are much more interesting
    and satisfying -- we say we're really pissed off by a note/attitude
    and this is why, and I feel like there's some _content_ to the fight
    -- not just a battle of personalities/wills.
    
    re .21 eagle -- agreed.
    
    Lee

    
         Hmmm... the old 'separate but equal', huh?  An unsuccessful
    and painful memory in America's past.  May it remain in the past.
    
                                       Greg
    

    The suggestion of consecutive notes answering the same base note
    seems to be a reasonable one, though I fear it will complicate matters
    somewhat. We already have responses adressing multiple answers to
    the same base note, now we will have the same phenomenon but with
    two base notes; example:
    
    	re 700.32 ....
    
    	re 701.18 ....
    
    	re 700.41 ....
    
    	re 701.55 ....
    
    When I try to understand what it's all about, it means I am just
    going back and forth between the responses to understand why 700.51
    is saying "You twerp!" to 700.7 (12 days later, for Heavens'sake!)
    
    If we can avoid this snag, maybe we could try this alternative,
    though I'd find it very sad if a majority of the notes were designed
    that way.
    
    Joana

 To request **** only,implies that there is something unwanted
or undesirable about replies from that particular group.Separating
the notes implies pretty much the same thing.The prejudice here
is so obvious that I find it hard to believe, that I have to argue
the point.

 Now that there is a woman's only note file.
Will the for **** only notes in this file be stopped?

 I feel angry. What the appropriate response to the anger I feel
is, I have not decided.The first thing I felt I should do is 
what I have just done.Say I am angry and why.

       Loosing hope George D.
 
 

    Jim B.
    
    	I recognize you responded to a 'women only' note because you
    believed you could add something to the discussion but a belief
    in your ablility to add to a conversation is not an invitation to
    join said conversation.  Your actions, in my opinion, were rude,
    at best and remind me of the children in my neighborhood who show
    no respect for personal property, trespassing where and when they
    choose.
    
    Douglas

    Sigh.
    
    a. I believe that "xxx Only" notes are indeed prejudiced, and I
    find them silly at best and offensive at worst. (This applies only
    where "xxx" is a characteristic that cannot be changed by the owner;
    requests for responses only by those with applicable experience,
    for example, make much more sense. "Only those who've been
    mountain-climbing," rather than "only those who are over 5'3" tall"...)
    
    b. Despite (a), I would not delete or otherwise deny noters the
    right to enter "xxx Only" notes if they want to; they are saying
    something about their perceptions of the world, and that in itself
    may be of interest. Besides, whatever it means to me to see such
    notes, I can't assume that it means the same to the person who posted
    the note.

    c. I would consider it rude for a non-xxx to reply to an "xxx Only"
    note. Rude, not illegal. I've never understood why people get so
    upset at finding unwelcome notes in a conference; I don't always
    like 'em either, but I just hit the "next" key and ignore them.
    If I wanted to comment on an "xxx Only" note for which I was not
    an xxx, I'd start a new note.
    
    Conclusion: No, I don't believe that non-xxx replies to an "xxx Only"
    note should be deleted, set hidden, or otherwise molested. Those who
    respect the intention of the person who posted the note will either not
    reply at all, or will reply in a separate note (to facilitate "Next
    unseen" by someone who doesn't believe that non-xxx's have anything to
    contribute). 

    -b (female, if anyone's counting)

RE: .26

The difference is that WOMANNOTES is not private property.

I am sure that if a bunch of protesters showed up on your doorstep with signs,
that you would find that rude as well.

Jim.

re: .13

In a personal message to me, Suzanne Conlon has pointed out that
"the vast majority of [her notes] are under 50 lines."

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Martin.

    When I was in college, there was an all-black gospel singing
    group.  It was student organized and conducted, and the group rehearsed
    in the living rooms of various dormitories (the ones with pianos in
    them).  One night the group was rehearsing in my dorm, and I stayed
    and listened for a while; I really enjoyed the music.  I had sung in a 
    group like that in high school, and during the break, I went up to the 
    conductor and asked if I could join.  She said, "No."  (I imagine that
    she would have elaborated on her answer if I had asked her to.)
    
    At first I was embarrassed and a little bit hurt by the rejection.  I was
    a pretty good singer, and she didn't even *hear* me!  I suppose I could
    have gone to the Dean and cried, "Foul!"  And I might have won.  The group
    was rehearsing on school property, after all, and I had a right to be
    anywhere I wanted.   

    But I thought about it and realized that even though I was a pretty good
    singer, I couldn't add any value to the sound *they* wished to create.
    But I went to lots of their rehearsals and performances and listened.
    And if any of the members of the group had noticed me quietly humming
    and singing along once and a while (as I no doubt did without even thinking
    about it; I really liked the music) they probably wouldn't have minded
    because my enjoyment didn't infringe upon their enjoyment.  And as I 
    listened, my appreciation for the music grew.

    Now I had a legal right to join that group, but I didn't think it was the
    right thing to do.  

    I find it sadly ironic that the more vehemently the men in this file 
    cry that 
      there are no real socio-political differences between men and women, 
      that there are just people on this planet... some men are sexist, 
      some women are sexist, but you can't talk about general differences 
      between the groups... ad infinitum,
    the more strongly I believe in those differences.  And perhaps it is those
    very differences that keep one group (mostly men) from understanding an
    idea that seems to be quite clear to another group (mostly women) in this 
    file.  That idea is this.  While we (women) do appreciate the contributions
    that men have made and continue to make to society and to our personal and
    professional lives, in order for us (women) to begin to understand and 
    appreciate our unique and valuable contributions, we *Sometimes* need to
    talk to each other.. not exclusively, but sometimes.

    I think that one of the goals of this conference is (or ought to be) to  
    provide some (*SMALL*) opportunity for women to discover and discuss
    issues that are important to them so that women can value themselves
    more.  (You know that saying, "You have to love yourself before anyone
    else can really love you.")  I think that if every one in this conference 
    supported that as one (not the only) of the primary goals, there would 
    be less conflict, and we would all value each other more.

    An aside:  A number of people have made reference to GDE and Blacknotes
    as places where all are welcome and all opinions aired.  I find it
    pretty curious that GDE (where I am a member) and Blacknotes (Which I
    do not read, but the discussions about it here have led me to believe
    this to be true) have not experienced the same level of unrest as 
    Womannotes.  I know that (in GDE anyway) on occasion un-supportive 
    outsiders have intruded, but none of those episodes has lasted very
    long.  Could it be that because GDE and Blacknotes are moderated by 
    (and were founded by) men, other men respect those areas as legitimate 
    turf?  Or could it be that non-gay, white men are less likely to be 
    concerned about the empowerment of Gays and people of color than they 
    are about the empowerment of women?  I don't think we have the tools 
    here to examine this idea, but the coincidence certainly seems to
    warrant some consideration.
            
    This is what I intend to do to make this space useful for me.  I
    intend to enter notes and ask for input from women only, if that
    seems appropriate to me, and I will ignore (what I feel are)
    inappropriately positioned responses from men.  I will trust the
    moderators to implement DEC policy correctly and move the notes
    from men if that's right thing to do or leave them where they are.
    My hope is that men will respect a request for responses from women
    only and not intrude with replies that interrupt the flow of the
    note and cause the moderators more work and heartache.  Out more
    than 620 notes, how many of them have been for women only?
    
    Justine
         

    Justine, I've wondered about GDE and BLACKNOTES in a similar way.
    Hmm...if there were a Lesbian conference I wonder how much "unrest"
    there would be??  Just a musing...npi.
    
    I've been communicating with a few female =WN=er's over the tube
    lately saying how I think we're all brainwashed to "make nice" for
    everyone even when it is NOT in our best interest.  I think you
    call it internalized misogyny.
    
    And the beat goes on....have a fine New Year!
    
    Ann Marie
    

    First, a little background:
    
    I've been reading this conference on and off for about 2 months,
    and have found many of the discussions enlightening and quite
    interesting.  HOWEVER, the bickering and arguing that has proliferated
    so in the last month has severly detracted from this conferences
    value to me, in a large part because so much has to be weeded through
    to find the worthwhile bits.  If all the energy that has gone into
    the bickering had instead gone into developing and exploring issues,
    this file would be one of my high priorities for lunchtime reading,
    instead of one I've often considered deleting.  Just the opinion
    of one non-contributer.
    
    Re .27
    
    I have been thinking for some time about what would be a happy medium
    between what I will call, for lack of a better name, the "womens"
    view and the "mens" view on "xxx Only" notes.  What I will call
    the "womens" view is that 1) they should be allowed, 2) responses
    by a non-xxx should be either moved, set hidden, or deleted.  What
    I will call the "mens" view is that 1) they should not be allowed,
    or 2) if they are allowed, non-xxx replies should still be allowed.
    I am not meaning to imply in any way that all women agree with what
    I will call the "womens" view, or that all men agree with what I
    call the "mens" view.
    
    The thoughts I came up with are very similar to those you presented,
    with a few differences as follows:
    
    a) I too feel that the "xxx Only" notes are often, but not necessarily,
    prejudiced.  For this reason, I feel that if any person wants to
    enter a note excluding any group of persons from replying, they
    should state their reason in the the basenote.  For example:
    
    Note title: For Avocados Only: Do You Prefer The Midwest?
    In the basenote, the reason: I only want the personal experiences
    				 of avocados.
    
    Note title: For Plums Only: Pain in the Pits
    The reason: I want to avoid the controversy likely by allowing bananas
    		to reply.
    
    In this way, the reasoning for the "xxx-Only" is better understood.
    
    b) I too agree that "xxx-Only" notes should be allowed, with the
    reasoning preferably given as above.  Anyone entering a "xxx-Only"
    note should realize, though, that they do not and should not expect
    non-xxx persons to read the note and its replies.
    
    c) Here is the advantage of putting the reasoning in the note: if
    a non-xxx replies without violating the reasoning for having a
    "xxx-Only" note, the reply should not be considered rude.  However,
    if, using the previous example, a banana puts in what it considers
    to be a non-controversial reply, but which the author of the basenote
    considers to be controversial, the author could ask the moderaters
    to move the note to a serepate topic.  Additionally, if a "xxx"
    puts in a reply that violates the reasoning, the author could also
    ask that that note be moved.
    
    I realize that this is not a perfect solution, but I figure it can't
    hurt to try.
    
    Advantages			|	Disadvantages
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    1) "xxx-Only" notes would   | 1) Entering of "xxx-Only" notes
       be allowed, as the       |    could be abused, lowering the
       "womens" view desires,	|    value of this file to some.
       but replies by a non-xxx | 2) The moderators would still be
       would be allowed, as	|    asked to make decisions about
       desired by the "mens"	|    how notes fit the stated
       view.			|    reasoning.
    2) The moderators would not | 3) Convincing the "community" to
       have to move notes	|    agree to any standard will
       unless the author	|    probably bring on bickering of
       requests it.		|    its own.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    
    There are, of course, more points on both sides, but this is already
    far too long.
    
    I am sorry that to add this to the pool of thoughts requires both
    1) adding to the bickering, and 2) a long note, but I thought the
    opinions of someone who isn't involved in the bickering and does
    not plan on getting involved in the bickering might be of some use.
    

    Anne Marie
    
    There is a diference between 'makeing things nice for everyone'
    and trying to mediate between different people each of whom brings
    their own different point of view to a situation. 
    
    Attempts at diplomacy shouldn't be regarded as 'internalized
    misogyny'.
    
    

 I feel badly for those who feel they have been on the receiving
end of miss placed anger or harassment.I really hope that you
can discuss things close to your heart with other women and other
women only if that is your desire.It is the choice of trying to
do so here, in an open notes file.

 I want to support the idea of a private notes file for women for
those who wish to have women only discussions.

 I feel that the forced bussing of responses to segregated areas
is demeaning.

 Lets deal with individuals not groups.I have not purposely harassed
anyone in this file.You are shutting me out because of certain individuals
actions.All that I know I have in common with these individuals is
that I am of the same sex.

    George D.

    re: .34	Well put!

    
    When the issue of a Notesfile FOR women came up in this file, the
    men (and some of the women) said that would violate corporate
    policy.. so the men said yeah, we can be here, but if you
    have an issue that you think is woman-only, label the note
    "for women only" ... and then the men cried foul and said that
    would violate corporate....     and round and round it goes.
    In GDE no one has to say for "Gays only please." because
    the non-gay members only speak to their own experience and
    treat the file with respect.
    
    About the current offer of space for a members-only file, I
    think that's swell, but I've always tried to avoid accepting
    rides or gifts, etc. from strangers.  If I had access to the
    disk space, I would gladly co-moderate a members-only file, but
    I'd want to know all the players first.
    
    Justine                                        

    George, we're not shutting *anybody* out, you least of all!
    
    One more time.  Let's see whether I can make it clear (though if it
    isn't already after eloquent people such as Justine, Suzanne, Karen K.,
    Ann, Lee,...I could go on for awhile naming people... if it isn't
    already very very clear then I confess little hope of being able to
    make it any plainer). 
                                             
    There are a few times when women just want to hear other women on some
    subject.  Women's voices are regularly masked out in the larger world;
    most of what we hear on *any* subject out there reflects primarily
    men's views, from the right way to run the world down to the nature of
    female sexuality.  So, in here, sometimes, occasionally, some of us
    just want to hear what our sisters have to say.  Why?  Sanity checks,
    for one--and probably the most important--thing.  Seeing if there's a
    split in opinion along gender lines, for another.  Not being *told*
    what or how one "should" feel about something, for a third. 
    
    Men aren't being excluded from _reading_, certainly.  And there are a
    number of easy mechanisms for getting one's views "into print", the
    most straightforward of which is starting up a parallel string. That
    has been done successfully for any number of reasons in the history of
    this file. Another way is to apply to the basenote author for an
    exemption...though by the time someone is so in need of women's
    voices as to request women-only responses, they're unlikely to grant
    any such request (Camel's Nose principle).
    
    Consider:  if you were carrying on a conversation with friends in the
    street, would you want other people coming into the conversation, even
    if they were immensely reputable people?  I think not.  When we're
    carrying on certain conversations, we don't even welcome other
    _friends_ into the flow; it's just naturally disruptive.  Same
    principle here:  the worth or lack of worth of male contributions is
    just not the issue. 
    
    						=maggie

RE: .36

" I would gladly co-moderate a members-only file, but I'd want to know all the
players first." 

Apparently volunteer moderators are being welcomed.

Do a SHOW MEMBER and find out who is who...

Jim.

RE: .37

"There are a few times when women just want to hear other women on some
subject." 

"Seeing if there's a split in opinion along gender lines, for another."

Huh?  how can you have the latter if you have the former?

"That has been done successfully for any number of reasons in the history of
this file."

I could be wrong, but it seems that most of the past 'only' notes were for
statistical information... quite different from what we are discussing. 

"Consider:  if you were carrying on a conversation with friends in the street,
would you want other people coming into the conversation, even if they were
immensely reputable people?"

I disagree, I would!

Jim. 

    Re .37
    
    This made me think again about what I said in .32, and I would like
    to clarify a couple of points in my suggestion:
    
    First, I don't think that the reasoning of only wanting to hear
    replies from "xxx" is unreasonable, again provided it isn't abused.
    The idea of including the reasoning for an "xxx-Only" note is that
    the reason for entering it in such a fashion can vary: it can be
    that one just wants to hear from "xxx"'s, it can be to avoid
    controversy, it can be other things.
    
    Second, on the flip side, it would not be unreasonable for a man
    to enter a topic for "xxx-Only", provided the topic fits in with
    women's issues.  For example, if a man was having marriage troubles
    and wanted to hear from other women ONLY about ideas, suggestions,
    or whatever, that could well fit within the structure of women's
    issues.  It would even be appropriate for a man to enter a topic
    requesting replies from men only in some cases, though I must admit
    I am hard pressed to come up with one offhand.
    
    Don't worry.  I'll shut up now. 

    
    
       One thing I fail to understand, is, why do some people feel as
    though they HAVE to reply to EVERY note that is entered??? I have
    absolutely *NO* problem with a basenoter's request that only women
    reply! When a topic is entered requesting that only women reply,
    why...why...WHY do some men get so offended??? Is it because they
    feel as though they have to be in EVERY conversation whether or
    not it concerns them???
    
       I speak very, very softly in this notesfile, but when I see so
    many people get so upset about feeling left out of the conversation,
    it really irks me and I just have to speak up and give my view.
    
    Dan
    
    

    Thank you, Dan.  May all your preferences be as courteously
    respected in return.
    
    							Ann B.

     You give some examples of unfairness.
                                             
    >Women's voices are regularly masked out in the larger world;
    >most of what we hear on *any* subject out there reflects primarily
    >men's views, from the right way to run the world down to the nature of
    >female sexuality.

     You then used the unfairness you experienced to justify actions
    I feel in my opinion are unfair to me.
      
     (So), in here, sometimes, occasionally, some of us
    >just want to hear what our sisters have to say.  Why?  Sanity checks,
    >for one--and probably the most important--thing.  Seeing if there's a
    >split in opinion along gender lines, for another.  Not being *told*
    >what or how one "should" feel about something, for a third. 
    
      If a private women only notes file is indeed impossible I
     will reconsider my thinking.

      Is a private notes file possible or not???

                George D.
                   
     

    <--(.44)
    
    Well, if you consider FWO notes to be unfair, George, then we seem
    to be left with two possibilities:
    
    1) always be fair, even when the world isn't being fair to us. 
    
    2) mostly be fair, but sometimes not.
                                                                   
    I'm afraid that the first course is a guaranteed net loss for women,
    not unlike the famous(?) joke about What If The Conditions In The
    American Revolution Had Been Decided Like A Football Match:
    
       "Admiral Cornwallis, General Washington won the toss and has
       elected the following conditions:  your side have to wear red
       coats with a big white X on them and march down the middle of
       the road.  They're not allowed to fire their weapons except
       all together on command. General Washington's side can wear
       whatever they like, can hide behind rocks, trees, or anything
       else, and can fire at your side whenever they think it's a
       good idea. Is that clear?  Okay, gentlemen, let's begin". 
    
    Can a whole women-only file be supported legitimately?  I don't
    think so; my reading of the policy manual suggests that it would
    need to be permitted at Executive Committee level.  But more than
    that:  I'm unconvinced that it's a good idea even if it could be
    legitimised.  
    
    I know of nobody who is positively trying to exclude men from
    participation in the life of our community.  I think if you'll check
    with the lesbian members...and they are pretty clearly the ones with
    least to lose if men are excluded!... they are no different to any
    of the straight women:  they want women-only space *sometimes*, not
    always.  For all of us, it's a case of "We don't want you guys to
    back off very often, but when we do want you to not write in some
    string we REALLY DO want you to respect our feelings". 
    
    						=maggie

 Couldn't an implied but not excluding title be used.

For instance" Have any other women felt this way"If a male responds
ask him when he had his sex change operation. ;^)
 
 It is the *enforced* exclusion of men from certain notes and not the
expressed desire by individuals for responses from a particular group
that I am concerned about.
   
 I would really like to know if a private notes file for women is
a viable idea.( I would prefer to hear from someone who might have
pursued this possibility.)

                               George D. 

  

    George, you have got me completely confused.  Let's presume for the
    moment that there is no bar to a women-only file.  Let's further
    presume that I start it, vigorously enforce the no-men-allowed
    membership rule, and that there is some self-supporting amount of
    activity in the file. 
    
    Are men better or worse off at that point?  If better, how? If
    worse, isn't it a bit masochistic to lobby for it (which is what it
    sounds as though you're doing). 
    
    De-confuse me, please.  I've the dreadful feeling that I'm missing
    something important in what you've been saying.
                                                       
    						=maggie

    Regarding the private notes file for women -
    
    Who is moderating and hosting the disk space?  (I feel as Justine
    does about taking rides from strangers.)
    
    Also...is the moderator a woman?  I have no interest in
    participating until this information is available.
                                   
    Holly

    Jim Baranski as has been stated in another note is offering the
    disk space but is looking for volunteer moderators.

 I would want this notes file to continue much as it is.The private file
would be the place where notes titled (women only)  could reside.Hitting
next unseen and seeing a note titled for women only is in my opinion
blatantly out of place in what I thought was an open notes file.
In my opinion I have not heard one concrete justification for having any
(for **** only) titles being enforced.I have read we need it ,deserve it,
etc..these are not justifiable reasons in my opinion.If this is an open
file it should be open.I have no problem with what you want it is where,
that is bothering me.

                               George D. 

  

    Aha.  Okay, I think I understand now.  Thanks.
    
    						=maggie

    Re: .50
    
    Tha'ts really nice of you Kerry...
    
    Are you trying to make some kind of point?
    
    T
    

 A clear statement of the goals and rules of this conference at
the beginning of note < 1 the welcome note might be helpful.
I read the introduction and welcome and was totally unprepared
for the actions taken by the moderator(s)( the moving of a note
solely because the reply was written by a male.)If I had known
by the introduction that the right to exclude men from replying
to certain notes was an accepted rule and that the over riding
purpose of this file was for women to talk to other women,
I would not have been so surprised and angry.I would not have spent
the energy that I have, to argue for the expectations I had from
reading the first note, the welcome note.I suggest that the first
entry should make the goals and rules of this conference very clear
to avoid potentially going through this every time a new male noter
becomes interested in this file.I still wonder if rules that 
exclude a certain group from replying are appropriate in an open
file,but sense this rule is currently in affect,the powers that
be, have at least until now, allowed it.With a now more enlightened
understanding of the goals and rules of this conference I
withdraw.This is a personal decision similar to whether to join a 
particular club or social group.I simply feel uncomfortable.
I still may read some of the notes to gain insight but one
rarely frequents were one feels uncomfortable.I will leave the
few notes I entered as they are. The moderator(s) may leave them
or delete them as their need or desire requires.


            With a little less anger and a little more
           understanding I withdraw George D.   


                  

    In my opinion, people see what they want to see and often do what
    they want to do.  So, posting "for **** only" might not read the
    same for two different individuals.  It's like the street sign,
    "One Way".  "But, officer, I was only going one way".  I know someone
    who actually did that.
    
    My point: I don't mind what goes on in here.  I can take the comments
    by men, and I don't have to either.  Quiet honestly, I don't feel
    as intelligent as some of you and I don't even "get" some of the
    notes.  So, I pass it by.  Sometimes I play games and try to guess
    the sex of the individual.  Often, I am wrong.  Quiet frankly, we're
    all sounding alike and hell, maybe that's a step in the right
    direction.
    
    Who knows?  I don't.  All I can see is a mini-conflict between the
    sexes.
    
    Hasn't this battle been going on too long?  Can't we all be friends
    together?  Suggestion for some: start a topic, read the replies
    and ignore the ones you don't like.  I do it all the time.
    
    Cathy (who presses next unseen until she finds something she 
           likes, or understands)

    Doesn't make my blood boil, I could use the mens room if I had to
    go...
    
    And I'm sure if I had to go my screaming would do quite well, they
    would let me go just to shut me up...and I still would win :^)
    
    
    T

    I have thougth about this for a long time prior to commenting. So
    here goes. 
    
    Until "we" as a people stop thinking in the guise of MEN and WOMEN
    we are never going to be able to come together in thoughts or deeds.
    I personally feel that everyone has added value and all inputs should
    be respected. I believe that the response of the "male" that started
    this whole thing did add value. Why not ignore the gender of the
    author and think about what was said. 
    
    Yes I will agree that there are certain topics that men are unable
    to relate to, (try having a baby!!) but take the comments incontext.
    I would only be offended by a response that belittled the basenote
    and that would be regardless of the gender of the author. 
    
    I find that the Womannotes file is of very great value to me, and
    am pleased that the male members get involved.
     

    Re .59
    
    > Until "we" as a people stop thinking in the guise of MEN and WOMEN
    > we are never going to be able to come together in thoughts or deeds.
    
    This is one of those cases where an idea that sounds fair really
    isn't.  The fact is that, because of upbringing if nothing else,
    women are different from men in the way they note.  I believe that
    there still is a need for woman-space.  Demands for "FAIRNESS" only
    help the men in this file who wish to flame where ever they want.
    
    Given the choice between "fairness" and loss some of the women's
    contributions, I'll do without fairness thank you.
    
    I would be disappointed if every interesting new topic in this file were
    marked "for women only".
    
    					MJC O->

>    It seems that those who want to enforce XXX-only notes by POLICY
>    rather than by RESPECT need to feel that they have the power over
>    their world in WOMANNOTES since they don't have that power in the
>    real world. 
 
    Dave, wait: women already have this power--they get together somewhere
    where men can't hear and talk.  What we're offering you here is
    a chance to listen to woman-only conversations, once in a great
    long while (it hasn't happened very often in this notesfile).
    Where else would you get such an opportunity?

    Al
    
    Speaking as a moderator, there is no message being given that in
    the 'so called open file. that men are not wanted'.
    
    individual women have problems with individual men...but it is my
    sincere hope that this file will continue to be a valid and useful
    forum for communication between women....the first priority and
    between women and men...a second priority, true, but also important
    and valuable.
    
    Bonnie J

    re .63
    
    i think there are only two or three woman-only topics in the whole file
    at present (though you may have noticed that discussion of the
    phenomenon is nearly endless). It (woman-only notes) may be a new
    trend, but that does not imply that men are unwelcome. Respectful
    (though not necessarily agreeing) male participation is definitely
    welcome here.
    
    just responding out loud
    liz the person

    
    
    If three, count them one, two, three, notes consitute the WHOLE
    of this conference, then this is indeed a biased conference, look
    at how many notes that include topics of interest to men are here,
    how many notes on medical problems, how many on political issues,
    in fact how many topics are there in this conference?
    
    If the FWO notes bother you look to yourself for the answer not
    us.  
    
    In the past I have requested that a certain topic be handled gently
    or not at all by male noters and I received a lot of flack for doing
    so, then the topic became to intense for the individuals most in
    need to participate in the conversation.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |	The power of creation is in woman
    			The Goddess is the ulitmate creator.
    

    	Breaking yet another resolve - to ignore rather boring
    conversations 
    
    	It appears to me, a number of men are doing a lot of moaning
    about nothing.  If a person wants to hear from a specified selection
    of the society only, so what.  Women only or men only or small minded
    people only or broad minded people only, or people who need haircuts
    or ...  Each of us has the right to listen to or talk with whomever
    we choose.  We also have the right not to listen to or converse with
    ...                              
    
    	To an earlier contributor, I will ask uninvited people to not
    voice their opinions when appropriate.  Asking someone not to
    contribute is not ill mannered.  Asking someone not to contribute
    in the wrong way is ill mannered.
    
    Douglas

    
    I am appalled and offended and embarassed (though not really very
    surprised) that a male has responded to a note specifically requesting
    women's responses only. It displays extreme rudeness and disrespect
    to our gracious hosts. 
    

    
         Really!  How *DARE* he think he has the same rights as a woman.
    
                                    Greg
    

    Give it a rest, Greg.  Please.  Rights aren't in it, in this case:
    there is no socioeconomic impact here at all, nor any smallest prospect
    of one. It's a matter of discourtesy pure and simple:  the equivalent
    of somebody walking up and joining a conversation uninvited, and
    without even a by-your-leave.  It's RUDE to do that, and a person who
    does it can have every legal right to do it and still add no more value
    to what's going on than someone who pees in the community swimming
    pool.
    
    						=maggie 

    re: .73
    
    Very interesting idea, Eagle.  I'm not sure whether or not
    I agree with the analogy all the way through - (barking)
    spiders need to set and think a while about stuff like this -
    but it sure gets my synapses jumping.
    
    Add-on thought:  while the idea-forcing-as-violation/rape seems
    a bit strong to me, I suspect that part of this is because I
    don't often feel as if someone is forcing their ideas on me
    (and I have a *real* strong feeling that this has everything
    to do with my having grown up male in late 20th century America.)
    
    Nonetheless, I have occasionally had the feeling.  For men who
    are perhaps having trouble connecting with the idea, these are
    some images which made Steven's idea seem more reasonable to me:
    
    o  Ever have a boss argue and finally "decide" that your idea
       was "wrong"?  How did you feel then?
    
    o  Ever have a drill sergeant?  ("You ain't bein' paid to 
       think, maggot!")
    
    o  Ever, uh, run afoul of the law?  Come to think of it, 
       even running "afair" of the law can yield some pretty strong
       feelings of "Your thoughts/feelings don't count. . .this is
       the *law* you're dealing with now."
    
    Anyhow, I don't know if Steven's idea is "all right" (for me
    only, of course), but I have an intuitio, uh, gut-feeling that
    it isn't "all wrong".
    
    Steve

    .73-.74
    You all are on the trail here!
    

    From both a moderator and an ordinary noter:
    Steven, 
    
    Your theory strikes some chords for me. Please remember that in
    most cases it's hard for us moderators to draw the line between
    abusive/questioning or intrusive/welcome notes. I can sense your
    frustration with the quality of conversation in the file at times.
    But we mods can't be "note police". I'd like to ask all readers to 
    take responsibility for implementing Steven's proposal. When you 
    feel intruded upon or offended, don't wait for someone to "fix"
    it for you. You can do several things:
     - ask the offending noter to reconsider, delete, and/or rewrite. 
     - ask another noter what they think (do a reality check)
     - contact a moderator; explain what the problem is and what action
       you'd like her to take.

    
    Thanks
    Liz

    I also resonate with the Eagle's thesis.  There is certainly an element
    of "I can do whatever I want and you are helpless to stop me" in some
    of the intrusiveness we've seen in here.  It goes far beyond a mere
    exercise of de jure rights. 
                                
    
    
    
    
    Now, speaking ex officio...
    
    I second Liz's comment about it being hard (maybe impossible) for us to
    be general "note police".  That's a battle we can't win because our
    file would soon become, de facto, a place for "Topics of Interest to
    Bonnie, Holly, Liz, and Maggie".  That's diametrically opposite to our
    actual goal. 
    
    I also *strongly* second her request that we all take responsibility as
    individuals for social control in here.  I would only suggest a slight
    alteration in her list of actions (I know she probably didn't order her
    list, but it looks that way).  I would first do the reality test, then
    ask the author for action (perhaps in concert with your reality
    tester(s) so it's clear you aren't being a crank), and finally --if all
    else has failed-- make contact with one of us for intervention.
                                                       
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

    
        Actually, I think the FWO topics have that element of " We can
    do whatever we want (to men) and they are helpless to stop us".
    It's all a matter of point of view.
    
                                 Greg
    

    May I add a third here....nothing new in addition.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .78
    
    To me it feels more like "We can ask for what we'd like, but
    we have no power to force compliance."
    
    As usual, this be just one view. . .
    
    Steve (who parenthetically learned that he can't spot his own
    silly typos; like it's spelled "hopEless", dummy; and thanx
    to ~--e--~ for helping me reduce my "Fool Quotient")
    

    Actually, I am quite offended by Steven's analogy and would ask
    that it be re-written, leaving out the bit about "having the same
    mind-set as a rapist".
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re .82:
    
    > If it takes being offensive to generate thought then
    > maybe it is because the theory has a disquieting ring of truth?
      
    Perhaps you should read the article in SOAPBOX about improper methods
    of argument. To claim that because I am offended by an insult that
    the insult must be true is probably more offensive than the original
    insult. 
    
    As I recall, there is only ONE instance of a male replying to a
    FWO note, and it was not me. Is the wish to talk to someone or to
    join in a conversation indicative of the "mind-set of a rapist"?
    I do not need to be black to offended by the use of "nigger" and
    taking offense at the accusation of "rapist" does not indicate that
    I am a rapist.
    
    I insist that you retract your statement.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    Steven,
    1) How come you weren't offended when I suggested the same thing?
    2) I don't believe that eagles was referring to "fwo" topics, but
       the whole tone of the notesfile for the last few months.
    3) I don't remember eagles' exact words, but I don't think he said
       that the _wish_ to join conversations is "indicative...". I believe
       he was talking about the action itself. 
    4) There has been more than one instance of men replying to fwo
       notes. In several cases, this has led to the note being changed.
    
    liz augustine
    

    
    Gee, Liz, maybe you moderators could create a "step-outside" note.
    You know a place where men could go and shoot pistols (or whatever)
    at each other at 50 paces, and leave the rest of us out of their duels.
                     
    Justine

    Re: .73 "Eagle's analogy"
    
    That's more than a bit strong - it's wrong (in my humble opinion).
    
    That's like saying "I want to walk down the streets and not see
    any males around, that way I won't be raped.."  Now if that were
    changed to "I want to walk down the streets without seeing any rapists
    around..." it would be a bit more reasonable.  There is a big
    difference between "forcing your opinions on someone" and allowing
    people to express their opinion.
    
    On this whole issue:                                
    
    Using racism in an example (replacing sexism):
    
    A black man stands on a New York street corner talking (to anyone
    who will listen) about his opinions on the current Government.
    On a corner opposite him, a white man does the same thing.  The
    police come along, and tell the black man that if he wants to speak,
    he must go to Noatak, Alaska.  Meanwhile, the white man can 
    continue to speak as he pleases.
   
    The government says that his right to free expression is not being
    denyed.  He may speak in Alaska.  The people in New York feel that
    he might attack them, so he is not wanted there. 
    
    Is this fair?  No.  Substitute "Male in Womannotes" for "black man"
    and "Female in Womannotes" for "white male".  Further substitute
    "moderators" for police, and *wow* it all looks very familiar.
    
    "Seperate but Equal" - Civil rights legislation killed that idea
    a long time ago.  Regardless of *why* people want it, it is still
    *wrong*.  It seems that "seperate but equal" is OK, as long as 
    it favors the majority...
    
    I understand the feelings of many of the noters here who feel that
    they get more meaningful replies and less "static" when they ask
    for Woman-only replies.  That does not make it right.  Punishing
    an entire class of noters for the actions of a few is like saying
    (using a previous analogy) that "blacks cause crime - so I don't
    want any blacks in my neighborhood".  It's just wrong...  You
    don't *know* that the black family in will cause crime.  They may
    be more morally upright than anyone else in your neighborhood. 
    It is unfair to condemn them for the actions of other members of
    their race.  That is prejudice and descrimination.  The same
    thing is occuring here, and it's sad.. :-(
    
    Dave
    

    One quick observation (I have several more thoughts, but 
    very little time at the moment).
    
    .73  stated very clearly that what he had was a theory; qualified
    it further by stating it was ". . .opinion" (something like 
    "bumble-headed"), then started with "Assertion".
    
    I think it's fair to argue whether the theory is valid (preferably
    in reasonable, mutually supportive language), but it seems a little
    harsh to me to "insist" on retraction.
    
    Please understand, I also have mixed feelings about the analogy,
    but, stating the way Steven did, it seems to me that insisting
    on a retraction amounts to insisting that he retract is opinion.
    
    Also, I think the intent of using the rape analogy was to highlight
    the issue of *force*.  While I still feel that the word "rape"
    is a little strong, I do feel there is some validity in the analogy
    (see .74).
    
    Does anyone else feel that the word "rape" itself, because of the highly
    emotional nature of the act, is a risky word to use in an analogy?
    
    Steve
    

    re: .88 (mine. . .obviously not my day to write well. . .)
    
    o  make that "bird-brained" not bumble-headed
    
    o  ". . .highly emotional nature. . ."  I shoulda said that the
       *reaction* to the act tends to be highly emotional.
    
    Time to re-boot the brain. . .
    
    Steve
    

    RE: Using the word "rape" in the analogy currentyl under scrutiny:
    
    Rape is the most extreme example of the mindset mentioned. Namely,
    that male "attention" <in whatever form> may always be forced on
    women.
    
    It's just that - an extreme example. A less extreme example was
    given as well. As an example of the mindset, it serves very well.
    Maybe it even makes people think twice. Maybe people *oughta*
    think twice.
    
    So, as an *example*, I have no problem with it - and I believe
    that was more the intention. As an *analogy* - well, the level of
    violence in this conference certainly can't be said to be equal
    to the violence of a rape. The point, however, was the *mindset*,
    not the level of violence involved.
    
    --DE
    

re: .72

    It's a matter of discourtesy pure and simple:  the equivalent
    of somebody walking up and joining a conversation uninvited, and
    without even a by-your-leave.  It's RUDE to do that ...

If I wander over to some collegues/acquaintences at a party, and they
tell me to go away, because they only want to talk to women, I'd feel
they were being quite rude.

I think the issue in this notesfile has always been

-- some men are obnoxious oafs.

-- I don't want to hear their opinions (yet again) on this issue.

-- So, I'll say "no men may reply."

This, in my view, is directly analogous to

-- some <Ethnics> are thieves.

-- I don't want any thieves in my neighbourhood.

-- So, I'll say "<Ethnics> can live in <EthnicTown>."

Martin.

re .73-.91:
    
    I am truly amazed that it is not only condoned but commended when
    someone calls a number of people "rapists". Yet earlier a man was
    jumped all over for using the phrase "claws extended". I really
    did not expect the moderators to allow such an accusation to remain
    unedited, yet not only did they let it stand, they actively applauded
    it. I am steadily losing my respect for both this file and its
    moderators.
    
================================================================================
Note 621.76 MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE
    ...
    When you 
    feel intruded upon or [*]offended[*], don't wait for someone to "fix"
    it for you. You can do several things:
     - ask the offending noter to reconsider, delete, and/or rewrite. 
[I have]
     - ask another noter what they think (do a reality check)
     - contact a moderator; explain what the problem is and what action
       you'd like her to take.
[I would have except for the moderators' overwhelming support for the assertion]
[621.76 MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE> Your theory strikes some chords for me.
[621.77 MOSAIC::TARBET> I also resonate with the Eagle's thesis.  
[621.79 YAZOO::B_REINKE> May I add a third here....nothing new in addition.

================================================================================
Note 621.84 TFH::MARSHALL 

    re .82:
    
    > If it takes being offensive to generate thought then
    > maybe it is because the theory has a disquieting ring of truth?
	...    
    I insist that you retract your statement.

[This WAS poorly stated, previously I was merely offended at the use of the 
 term rapist, with the quoted statement, Steven is accusing anyone who is 
 offended of being so also. It is this that I am asking to be retracted]
                                                   
================================================================================
Note 621.85 MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE

    Steven,
    1) How come you weren't offended when I suggested the same thing?

[I must have missed it. Does that mean I cannot be offended now?]

    2) I don't believe that eagles was referring to "fwo" topics, but
       the whole tone of the notesfile for the last few months.

.73> Males who would "force their ideas" upon unwilling women
.73> in an "FWO Topic" have the same mind-set about proving their
.73> power over helpless women "victims" as the real rapist does
.73> in the literal sense.

    3) I don't remember eagles' exact words, but I don't think he said
       that the _wish_ to join conversations is "indicative...". I believe
       he was talking about the action itself.

[This was in response to Eagle's statement that the reason I am offended 
 is due to his assertion's "ring of truth".]
 
================================================================================
Note 621.88 HANDY::MALLETT

    .73  stated very clearly that what he had was a theory; qualified
    it further by stating it was ". . .opinion" (something like 
    "bumble-headed"), then started with "Assertion".

[Oh, okay then, in my "humble opinion" I will make an "assertion" that you 
are a child-molester. Do you see my point now? This is the semantic equivalent 
of what Eagle was saying in .73]

================================================================================
Note 621.90 VINO::EVANS

    RE: Using the word "rape" in the analogy current[ly] under scrutiny:
    
    Rape is the most extreme example of the mindset mentioned. Namely,
    that male "attention" <in whatever form> may always be forced on
    women.

[it was not just an example or an analogy, read this again:

.73> Males who would "force their ideas" upon unwilling women
.73> in an "FWO Topic" have the same mind-set about proving their
.73> power over helpless women "victims" as the real rapist does
.73> in the literal sense.    

[He is not saying that an intrusion is like a rape, he is saying that men who 
intrude are rapists, I see a world of difference between the two statements.]

================================================================================
Note 621.91 PARSEC::THOMPSON

    Sometimes you gotta say what you feel even if nobody "agrees"
    and you end up apologizing (or retracting or over-qualifying)
    because nothing said in notes ever appears to change attitudes.

[Eagle, I do understand what you were trying to say. But you cannot call 
 someone a rapist in a corporate document, (which is what this really is,
 not a tennis club) no matter what kind of qualifiers you put around it.]

    <--(.93)
    
    No, Steve, Eagle was *not* calling anyone "rapist"!  To call someone a
    rapist means to allege that they have committed rape at least once.
    Eagle did nothing of the kind.  What he *did* do was to allege that men
    who would force their opinions on women in the face of a clear request
    not to do so share the same sort of confused and unhealthy dominance
    needs that rapists do, albeit (we can hope) to a much reduced degree.
    
    <--(.92?  Martin, anyhow)
    
    Your analogy to a party feels apt, Martin, but I'm not sure how
    far it can be pushed since the two dynamics are so different. Let's
    try.
    
    Let's presume that you come upon a small group of women off in some
    room at a party, obviously having an intimate rather than a general
    conversation.  You notice a number of sideways glances directed at you
    as you approach, and the conversation clearly falters. From what you've
    overheard, it's nothing earthshakingly intimate, but it's pretty clear
    that the women have been made uncomfortable by your approach.  Do you
    wade right in, armored in "right" and uncaring of the obvious
    discomfort your presence has produced?  No, I'd make book that *you*
    wouldn't.  Just as you don't here.  You, Martin Minow, are sensitive of
    and responsive to the needs of others...even if you sometimes neither
    understand nor sympathise with them.
    
    						=maggie

    Re: .94
    
         If that is your analogy, perhaps you can answer this:  Since
    when does a person hold an intimate discussion (even not
    "earthshakingly" intimate) in a way so that people on some 22,000
    nodes can see and read it?  It seems as if 'intimate' belongs in
    E-mail.  My analogy of this is more like:
    
         A member of a certain group writes a letter-to-the-editor in
         the local paper.  It is about a topic of interest to many 
         readers and not just members of that specific group.  The 
         writer, however, insists that no letters-to-the-editor be
         written in reference to that person's letter, except by 
         members of that person's specific group.  The paper is not
         owned by that group, but that group wishes to exert control
         over that paper which is not truly theirs.
    
    
                                 Greg
    

    
    
    PS: To bring the 'seperate but equal' topics into the analogy, the
        writer will allow letters from non-members of her group in the
        Dear Abby column in another section of the paper.
    

    To Steven Marshall:
    
    _I_ am truly amazed that by complaining like this, you're appearing to
    exhibit the very behavior that we've been talking about. It doesn't
    matter what the analogy is. The fact is that several men have been
    using "force" and arguments centering around the first ammendment,
    naziism, and south africa to bully their way into (so far 3 out of 650)
    conversations that women would like to carry on amongst themselves.
    It's just plain rude, intrusive and insensitive. The harder you (all)
    push, the more conclusively you prove our point. I hope you will review
    previous notes in this string in an effort to understand our message.
    That's Liz the person speaking. 
    
    Now for Liz the moderator. You say that you're steadily losing respect
    for the entire file and its moderators (actually, it's unfair to accuse
    Holly, since she's been away this week). Two thoughts come to mind.
    People have many differences of opinion. For example, when you can't
    convert someone to your own religious beliefs, do you tell them
    you're offended and then that you've lost respect for them? I hope
    that you'll see the parallel with this situation. (unless, of course,
    this argument has been reduced to a semantic discussion about whether
    eagles was expressing an opinion or a moral certainty). I've found
    that many people argue this way: "I have a belief. Unless you can
    prove to me that you share that belief, I will lose respect for
    you and announce that loss publicly." This reduces discussion to
    emotional nit-picking.
    
    Now (my second thought), you've lost respect for the mods because
    we've expressed an opinion different from yours. Actually, I can't
    see what else we've done to earn this loss of respect. You claim
    that you wouldn't think of discussing this situation with us because
    we disagree with you and therefore you'd waste your time. Good point,
    but not necessarily a valid one. I don't pretend to speak for all
    the moderators, but I'm not willing to make blanket statements about
    our future behavior, and I know me better than you do.
    
    With some amount of respect left, 
    Liz Augustine

    <--(.95)
    
    Greg, I can't remember whether you've lived in the Boston area. If you
    have (and maybe even if not) you'll be aware of a column called
    "Confidential Chat" in the Boston Globe newspaper.  It's a women's
    self-help "notefile" the content of which looks quite a lot like our
    file here, with topics both trivial and poignant freely intermingled.
    Yes men also write...though to my knowledge (four years of on-and-off
    reading) only very rarely and then very quietly.  I wonder why we can't
    get the same sort of courteous treatment here?
    
    						=maggie 

re: .93
    
    Let's presume that you come upon a small group of women off in some
    room at a party, obviously having an intimate rather than a general
    conversation.  You notice a number of sideways glances directed at you
    as you approach, and the conversation clearly falters.

At which point, I decide I'm at the wrong party and leave. (Taking what's
left of my bittersweet chocolate mousse meringue with me).

Which is exactly what has happened to this file over the past few
months.  The men (and to some extent, women) who have continued
to communicate here are either thick skinned or committed -- or both.

Martin.

(To be continued, I suspect, at Ann's tonight.)

    
    Re: .98
    
         No, I have never spent any considerable time in Boston.  I,
    consequently, have not read the column, but your mentioning it does
    sort of clarify things.  Are you saying that you wish men would
    contribute rarely and quietly?  This is my main justification for
    opposing these FWO topics.  They started off being justified by
    the very real problem of *SOME* men being rude.  Now, the banner
    has been taken up by those who have *ALWAYS* wanted *ALL MEN* out.
    That initial justification doesn't even seem to matter anymore.
    As I said before, the FWO topics are just a piecemeal path to a
    gender-exclusive conference.  We have been criticized for using
    reasoning like 'corporate policy', 'first amendment', etc., but
    we just have to face it.  They are TRUE.  They APPLY.  There is
    no reason for shutting out those of us who wish to retain the free,
    open interplay of ideas that WN once was.
    
                                       Greg
    

    <--(.99 .. .101)
    
    Since this seems to be a very hard topic, can we try to reduce the
    rhetoric around it?
                                        
    We're interested in providing a space in which women can discuss things
    of interest to them.  We're not interested in providing a space where
    men can discuss things of interest to themselves; that role is filled,
    presumably, by =mennotes=.  We're also not interested in providing a
    place where women and men can discuss things of common interest; that
    role is being filled, and very nicely too, by =human_relations=.  Now,
    none of this says that there isn't a fair amount of overlap and slop,
    or that the Note Police should be prowling around vigorously enforcing
    some abstract standard of purity.  But it DOES argue that each file
    should be able to serve the needs of the people for which it was
    established without being forced to suffer harrassment or carry
    on a running battle.
    
    Now, someone has said that there have been 3 FWO topics out of >600. If
    true (I don't remember if anyone has said that they actually checked),
    that means that FWO topics represent slightly less than .005 of the
    total.  One half of one percent!  All the rest have been open to equal
    participation by both women AND men. 
    
    So, whose needs are being better met here? 
    
                                         	=maggie

    First, for those of you so fond of quoting percentages of FWO notes,
    try looking at the *real* figures.  Since FWO notes started, they
    have made up
    about 8-10% of the new notes.  This is a bit more realistic...
    (Kinda like saying only 2% of the people in the world have ever
    used a car, if you count all the people who have lived since the  
    dawn of time...)
    
    It seems to me there is a *very large* difference between "respecting"
    the wishes of the author (with regard to FWO notes) and making it
    *policy* to remove notes from men.  
    
    To use the party analogy, if a group of women were talking about
    a "sensitive subject" and seemed uncomfortable if I drew near, I
    would have the good sense to go elsewhere.  If a member of that
    group said "Leave.  We don't want men here", I would be offended,
    because of the *rudeness* of that person.  That is exactly what
    is happening here.  If I want to enter that conversation, I have
    every *right* to do so, even if it reflects poorly on me.
    "Pre-emptive rudeness" by a member of that group, or by the
    policy in this conference is unfair to those who have not done anything
    wrong.  I would like to see the policy retracted, but allow the
    notes to continue, with respect governing the replies, not the iron
    fist of policy.  I'm suprised no-one has asked for a "vote" on this
    :-)
    
    Dave
    
    

    Reply to .103, Low,                       
    
    I think you're whining. 8-10% of *new* notes is not a problem. If you
    look at all the replies to determine the percentage of FWOs and replies
    to open topics and replies, it's approx. 3.5%. What does it matter to
    you? 
                                                
    If you want to enter the conversation you have every right to. The
    moderators also have the right and responsibility to hide your replies
    where applicable. I will support them 100%. In fact, if the moderators
    want I'll volunteer to moderate and I WILL set hidden notes that
    challenge FWO topics. Moderators?
    
    Further, I started a topic for women only and a *rude* man replied to the
    topic. To save the moderators grief I renamed the topic and made it
    open to men also. Respecting the authors will is *nonexistant* by some
    men in this conference. I'm convinced that whiners will overcome if the
    moderators don't get tough.
                                          

    Re: .104
    
    "If you want to enter the conversation you have every right to"
    
    "The moderators have every right to hide your replies where applicable"
    
    Well, which is it?  Does that mean I can reply to a FWO note, and
    then have it hidden?  What a deal!  Just like Russia...  I have
    every right to say what I want, and the government has every right
    to exile me to Siberia!!!  WOW!  And I thought it wasn't fair!!!
    
    For all the rudeness you seem to see, I beleive that only 1 reply
    out of over 100 to FWO notes was from a male. To quote you...
    "It's approx 3.5% [actually lower].  What does it matter to you?"
    
    Well, if you think I'm whining because of the treatment of this
    subject, then you're entitled to your opinion.  I'm sure there
    are people who though MLK was whining during his life, too.
    [Note: I am *not* comparing myself to MLK - just making a statement
    about people who voice their displeasure over descimination] 
    
    Also, my first name is Dave, and I would appreciate being addressed
    by it.
    
    Thank you.
    
    Dave
    

    This is painful reading.
    
    It's beginning to feel like the high level meeting that was mostly
    wasted fighting over the size and shape of the conference table.
    
    We have a powerful resource here.  Womannotes has the potential
    to be of great value to both men and women.  We are the first
    generation in history, I believe, that has the capability of having
    simultaneous, worldwide, relatively inexpensive discussions on personal
    topics.  For that reason, all the analogies fall a little short
    of being truly helpful.
    
    When women are free to have conversations with one another, some truths
    that have been stifled for centuries under layers of cultural
    conditioning come to the surface.  This is very important to me,
    although I first experienced it in a slightly different setting.  But it
    was the beginning of my finding my personal power, strength and 
    identity.  I think that this medium of communication can be both
    very public and very intimate.  It's public in the sense that everyone
    may listen.  And it's private in the sense that FWO topics allow
    women to shape the flow of what is being said in some instances.
    That's what I'm committed to protecting.  I am not so much interested
    in excluding as protecting.  
    
    I guess my analogy, though imperfect, would be having the good sense
    not to walk on newly planted grass in a public park where walking
    on the grass is allowed.  By right you can walk on it, but if you
    can find another place to walk for a while, it will have a chance
    to grow.
                                 
    (I'm still leaning toward the partial solution of FWO topics followed
    by a basenote which supports open discussion of the FWO topic. 
    No one is excluded from participating, and the awkwardness is minimized.
    At the same time, women can shape the flow of *one* path of the topic,
    but need not feel obligated to respond to entries which feel to
    them like intrusive interruptions.)
           
    And it's not often that FWO notes are even going to be appropriate or
    needed.  I'm sure that the discussion of them already outweighs all the
    FWO notes that would be written in the next 2 years. 
         
    I started this topic by saying this is painful.  For the last month,
    women have spoken and written to me to say that they are dropping
    their participation in this conference because it's all fighting.
    They hung in for a while, but eventually felt that it wasn't worth
    it.  I do feel that it's worth it, and I do care.  I think we all
    would rather return to the lively discussions of last year. 
    
    It's my personal observation that a number of people are acting out, or
    in some other way bringing, a great deal of personal pain from their
    pasts to this file.  From the bottom of my heart, I firmly believe that
    we cannot solve the majority of those problems here. (I went to therapy
    for years to work through a great deal of the personal pain I felt, and
    I could not have done it in a setting like this one.)   
    
    We can all listen, and that sometimes helps.  We can support one
    another.  We can also challenge one another.  But when we start going
    around in vicious circles on very primal issues, perhaps we each need
    to look elsewhere for some of our support and answers.  When I start to
    feel overwhelmed with the amount of pain I see around me, my friends in
    12-step programs often remind me, "You didn't cause it, you can't
    control it, and you can't cure it".   I try to remember it. 
                                    
    Holly

621.102 (VIKING::TARBET):
                                        
    We're interested in providing a space in which women can discuss things
    of interest to them.

However, in the introduction to Womannotes, the moderators write:

1.0:
    Welcome to =WOMANNOTES=, the notefile dedicated to topics of interest
    to women.

1.1:
    Dr. Tom suggested that I make explicit the fact that participation
    by men is welcomed and encouraged.


I sense a contradiction here.  If you intend this to be a notesfile
where "women can discuss things of interest to them," I would appreciate
it if you state that in the introductory "groundrules" note, so that
those members of this community who are thereby excluded clearly understand
that we are unwelcome.  I would also appreciate it if you would delete
note 1.1 as it incorrectly sets expectations as to the nature of this
notesfile.

Martin.

    Well, Dave, if you want us to look at numbers, I will.  Somehow
    you failed to define "new" in new notes.  I looked at Notes 600-657,
    using "new" to mean "since Ann's previous base note".
    
    5 notes were empty.  30 notes were written by women.  23 notes were
    written by men.  One woman wrote an anonymous note. Two men wrote
    anonymous notes.  One woman wrote a note asking for replies from
    a [sapient] subset of non-terrestrials only.  One woman wrote a
    pair of notes, one asking for replies from women, and one asking
    for replies from men.  It was a feasibility study.  One woman wrote
    a note asking for replies from women, and this is the note which
    started all this commenting.  One man wrote a note explicitly
    asking for replies from women, and a moderator added another copy
    of it for men to reply to.  Another man wrote a note implicitly
    asking for replies from women.  One man wrote a note asking for
    replies from men.  One man wrote a note to which he apparently
    expected that only he would reply (but this was ignored).
    
    Dear, dear, dear!  It looks like men have been trying to do most
    of the excluding in this notefile.  Whereever could that have come
    from?
    
    							Ann B.

    Oh dear. I find myself agreein with Dave Low, of all people.
    [Is it full moon? :-)]
    
    A man at a party not only has the *right* to join an all-woman
    conversation (as frequently happens), but if he does, ignoring all
    warnings signals; the women become the *rude* ones if THEY ask
    HIM to not to join. Female double-bind. 'Twas ever thus.
    
    For about the 100th time, I will say that this notesfile is a
    microcosm of society at large; Women cannot expect any different
    treatment here than anywhere else.
    
    Dawn
    

    
    I rather liked your party analogy, Maggie, because it reminded me
    of the one Womannotes party I attended last summer.  A group of
    women would get to talking about issues important to them and then
    when a man walked by, they would lower their voices.  I have been 
    glad to see women taking responsibility for getting what they need 
    from this file.  I am sorry to see the friction it's caused, but
    itt seems to me that we have to stop lowering our voices and stop 
    asking for permission to talk to each other!
               
    Justine                                        
    

    Re: .109
    
    I don't care *who* does the segregation, it's still not right.
    I think women are more sensitive to the issue of segregation
    than men (in a rash generalization).  I am opposed to it as policy,
    though.
    
    Re: .110
    
    Gee, thanks for that wholesale endorsement!  :-)
    :-)  :-)
    
    Re: .111
    
    Maggie,
    
    Hopefully, we can stop all the fighting in this conference if
    we just hide/delete offensive notes (after asking the authors
    to re-word/re-consider) and not exclude ideas based on a pre-concieved
    notion of what the noter *might* say.  This should lead to a less
    turbulent atmosphere, and one in which everyone feels safe to
    express their thoughts and feelings.
    
    Dave
    

    I had told myself I wouldn't contribute further to this argument,
    but I felt I needed to comment on some of what's been said.
    
    First of all, I agree completely with Martin Minow and Steve Marshall
    in their views, and to a great extent with Dave Low.  I am not trying
    to set the agenda here - I am hoping to persuade enough people that
    the recent change in direction of this conference is a bad idea.  But
    if it's going to change to "topics of interest ONLY to women so men
    please keep your noses out", please say so explicitly and I will
    respect it.
    
    The cocktail party analogy is a very common and very dangerous one.
    It is simply not true.  As was said earlier, your cocktail party
    conversations are not broadcast to 50,000 people.  Perhaps a better
    analogy is to say that the group of women at the party are shouting
    at the tops of their lungs, and what's more saying some things that
    touch me deeply, but I am supposed to cover my ears and not pay
    attention to some selected portion of what they are discussing.
    At some point I decide that, no matter how much I care about the issues
    they are discussing, it's just too painful to have to keep track of
    when I am and am not allowed to join the conversation, so I just
    go elsewhere.  You've just lost an ally.
    
    How many more allies are you prepared to alienate before you are
    satisfied?
    
    I suppose there are two, entirely incompatible, ways of looking
    at this conference:
    
    	1.  It is a place for women and men to discuss women's issues.
    
    	2.  It is a place for women to discuss whatever they want
    	    among themselves.  Men are allowed to listen if they want to,
    	    but must not disturb the women.
    
    The current introduction to the conference, and the manner in which
    this conference has been run until recently, reflects the first
    approach.  Recent indications from some of the members and moderators
    lean toward the second.
    
    My view is that the exclusion of men from full participation will
    result in a LOSS in support by men as a whole.  If the women here
    can live with that, I can accept that, but I think it's a big mistake.
    
    					Steve

    re: .116
    
    Maggie...I rest my case.
    
    --DE
    

    After thinking about the party analogy for a bit:
    
    Would temporal rather than spatial "segregation" have more/fewer/
    same/different disadvantages?  For example, would the request,
    "Would men please refrain from replying to this topic until January
    25th [at 4:45 P.M.]?" be acceptable?  Thus, if a man has a unique
    contribution to make, he can make it then.  (The down side is that,
    if it's not a unique idea, he gets to see someone else post it first.)
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Martin, I couldn't help but think of some other scenaria: 
    You walk into a cluster of women who haven't signalled any unease,
    and they ask you if you know where you can get tampons for less
    than four dollars per box.  (*That* is the time to take your chocolate
    meringue and leave.)  You pass that cluster of women who signalled
    unease with your ears open and hear the fragment "yeast infec",
    and decide you are glad they signalled.  You walk into a cluster of
    men who haven't signalled any unease, and find they are tearing
    apart the DECtalk parser.  You walk past a cluster of men who have
    signalled some unease, and...
    
    Sometimes the personal is political, and sometimes it's just personal.

    
    	A newspaper is readable because it has an editor.   Here the
    moderators may have to play the role of editor.   If a paper printed
    all the letters it recieved it would become as unreadable as this
    notes file is getting.
    
    	At this point I am begining to feel you moderators should take
    a heavier hand, and delete a bunch of the argumentative notes that
    do not seem to contribute to the substance of the discussions.
    A few might be offended, but that's the way it goes.   The editor
    (moderator) has a right and duty to help this be a usable forum.    
    If that means men must be kicked out, well ok, but I really think a few
    deletions per day might do the trick.   Apologies for deleting
    someone's note should not be required, would an editor apologize
    to you if he didn't print your letter to the newspaper?   This
    editorial policy should not be based on sex, and there should not
    be any list of persons to be excluded.   Each letter should be
    judged on it's own merits;   Does it merit being 'distributed' to
    thousands of potential readers?
    
	I don't think these problems can be fixed by rules or boundaries.
    The only real fix will require some conscious controls.

    	Alan.

    PS.   I will support the moderators *whatever* they decide to do
	  about all this argumentative craziness.   Maybe it will
    	  just go away with time.

    Reply to .116; Lionel,
    
    Why do you think that men have anything of value (loss of support) to
    add in this conference? Can such value be added in another, more
    appropriate conference? 
                                                               
    I definitely lean toward the second view and am not threatened by such
    a view. Are you threatened? 

    re .97:
    
    > The fact is that several men have been using "force" and arguments 
    > centering around the first ammendment, naziism, and south africa to 
    > bully their way into (so far 3 out of 650) conversations that women 
    > would like to carry on amongst themselves.   
      
    The fact is that several men have simply replied to notes where they 
    have been requested not to reply. To apply words like "force"
    and "bully" is completely inappropriate. There is no violence or
    threat of violence involved at all. "It's just plain rude, intrusive
    and insensitive", and that is all it is, and hardly comparable to
    rape. 
    
    > "I have a belief. Unless you can prove to me that you share that
    > belief, I will lose respect for you and announce that loss publicly." 
      
    This is not the situation at all. I see a friend who used to be
    open and fair minded, turning into a bigot. Attempts to point out
    this change have been returned with more bigotry and hostility.
    It is this that is causing my loss of respect. It is not just a
    "difference of opinion".
    
    I am not trying to "force" this file to cater to the whims of men,
    or to allow rude obnoxious behavior to go unanswered. All I have
    ever been trying to say is that the appropriateness of a note should
    be judged purely by its content and not by the sex of the author.
    To do otherwise is prejudice, pure and simple. 
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    
                                                   

    Re: .121
    
    Morgan, I am at a loss to understand your position.  What I meant by
    "loss of support" is that many men, myself included, have had their
    "consciousnesses raised" through full and active participation in
    this conference.  Many of us want to work alongside women, fighting
    against inequality and discrimination.
    
    By turning off the very men who are trying to help, it is a net loss
    for women.  That is my opinion, and you are free to disagree with it.
    
    However, Morgan, you seem to be frequently misstating the argument
    as "men want to talk about men stuff in WOMANNOTES".  This is
    absolutely untrue (at least for THIS man).  I want to discuss women's
    issues.  I want to exchange ideas, I want to understand, I want to
    help in any way I can.  If I am excluded, then I won't exchange ideas,
    I won't understand, and I'll be less able to help.  Can you see this?
    
    I am not threatened by anything that goes on here.  I consider it
    tacky for you to even suggest such a thing.  Nor do I consider myself
    a "whiner" as you are fond of saying.
    
    If you truly believe that men have nothing of value to add in this
    conference, then, Morgan, why are you here?
    
    					Steve

    Reply to .124; Steve,
    
    You can call me Mikie? or Mike. B^)
    
    And what are the indications that you have gotten from women that the
    stated purpose of this conference is one of raising *your* consciousness? 
                                                             
    I will freely admit that that has happened in this conference but
    is that the stated purpose of the conference? Not that I'm aware
    of.
    
    It is not a *net* (pardon the pun) loss. There are other conference
    that are more appropriate for human relations. The question is "will
    the whiners and net police let women have their own, private space to
    do with as they please, un-emcumbered by male whiners". They have
    enough problems and issues to deal with on their own. They do not need
    net police and whiners. 
    
    No, I have stated that men whine about women wanting to exclude
    them/men from topics or from this, single conference. Big deal. Let
    them do what they want with the conference. And let them make a
    decision without having to listen to whiners.
    
    I brought up the comment about feeling threatened because it seems
    that some men are threatened and WILL NOT ADMIT IT.
    
    There are things that men can add to the conference but that added
    value could be contributed in other conferences. 
    
    I am here to support women in their endevours and if they don't
    want my help, there are other conferences to contribute too.
                                                    
    Let them have their conference back, it was stolen (borrowed?) with a
    smile and not returned.
    
    I think it would be a good idea to restrict the conference temporarily
    till women can get back on track with their discussions. Another
    effective manuver is to close the conference for two weeks or so and
    rewrite the guidlines to conform more closely to that which will meet
    the needs of women. I'll support them on that too. 
    
    What does it really, I mean really, matter to men anyway if they
    are excluded from this conference or from topics? What is the cosmic
    and cultural loss? I don't see any. 
                           

    Reply to .126, Holt,
    
    No I don't think so. Maybe they should just leave the women alone for
    a while.

    
    Some of us have already said that we will respect any note that
    asks us to keep out. Will you not join me?
    

    Well that was actually a good answer...but honestly I would
    have trouble talking about some really personal subjects with
    most men, and certainly tampax and yeast infections are subjects
    that most women would talk about with other women comfortably
    but feel embarassed talking about with a man unless they all
    regarded him as a close friend.
    
    Sometimes this reminds me of when I was in 7th grade and the
    boys wanted to know what it was that we were all talking about
    at our girl scout meetings. We were at the time talking about
    mensturation etc. and seeing movies on it. One boy became very
    friendly with me and asked me to sit with him. (me who was not
    *at all social*) and then he asked me to tell him what it was
    that we were talking about after school. I felt, betrayed, embarassed,
    and very uncomfortable and told him I would tell him. I then went
    and talked to my friends and they told me that he had no right
    to ask me that...and I felt used....
    When a particular male displays a lack of sensitivity in this file
    I find myself feeling echos of my embarassment then..
    
    Tho my personal vote is that I welcome Martin and other equally
    sensitive men, and enjoy their contributions
    
    Bonnie

    I have been thinking a lot about what a "win/win" could be here
    since the situation feels like a losing one all the way
    around if we continue to go in vicious circles.
                        
    When I try to categorize what I think is happening, I'm seeing 3 sets
    of responses: 
    
    	"Militant" women
    
    	"Moderate" women/"Respectful" men
    
    	"Militant" men
                      
    (please pardon the obvious oversimplification!)
    
    I can't depict this here, but I'm visualizing the 3 groups as 2
    overlapping boolean circles of men and women.  The intersection
    of the 2 circles contains the "moderate" women and "respectful" men.
              
    The people in the last group are the easiest to work with most of the
    time.  If we somehow eliminated everyone else from the conference,
    things would be more peaceful.  But I don't think that's why we
    are here.  I'm grateful that there are a lot of people in the middle
    category, but I want to hear from the others as well.
    
    Given that this is womannotes, I feel a strong responsibility to
    listen to what the most "militant" women have to say, and to help
    create a space where they can participate and share their experiences
    with us.  I feel sad every time one of them tells me that their
    leaving because they have more productive outlets for their resources.
    I don't want this conference to be perceived as being here only
    to meet this group's needs.                                 
    
    At the same time, I feel responsible to listen and correctly hear
    what the most "militant" men are saying, but I also feel that the
    moderators may have to make some decisions to get the conference
    back on course.  For me personally, the preferences of this group
    come third if there is a conflict.
                               
    Here's my vision of a "win/win":
    
    A large lively conference, open to both men and women
  
    The C-R group model is used whereby all people are considered to
      be "experts" on their own life experiences and listened to    
      respectfully whenever they are clearly speaking for themselves  
      (the details are in the note on this subject)
    
    People agree to speak for themselves and not generalize, and moderators
      take a more active role in this process
             
    People feel free to challenge ideas, yet refrain from attacking
      people
    
    The Valuing Differences policy of Digital is posted in note #1,
      and used as a guideline throughout the conference 
    
    People agree to discuss philosophical and religious beliefs as personal
      beliefs, and to speak for themselves only
    
    When there appears to be a conflict of needs, people agree to try
      things for a period of time and evaluate the experiment
      (For example, I propose that we try the following:  For the next
       3 months, we will allow FWO notes as long as there is an
       adjacent string for open discussion of the topic by all men 
       and women.  For the next 3 months we will not discuss the merits
       of FWO notes.  At the end of the time, we will evaluate the
       experiment.  We will listen to all opinions at that time, and
       make a decision, with the help of a personnel or Valuing Differences
       consultant if necessary.)
      
       
    Holly

    
    Holly,
    
    I need to tell you that when I read your last note (.131), I felt 
    sad and angry.  I think that to list 3 groups as you did at least 
    visually suggests that Militant women and Militant men are somehow 
    equal fringe groups.  What do you mean by "militant"?
    Are you using the word the same way to describe women and men? 
    It almost felt to me like your next sentence might be: Women
    talking about their generalized anger at men, and men questioning
    the existence of wife abuse in this country are EQUALLY disruptive
    to the file.  I see the two as very different: one has a place in
    a file called WOMANNOTES.  The other doesn't.
    
    Justine

    Re: .131 - Holly
    
    I like your ideas, and hope that they are implemented soon.
    
    Dave
    

        <--(.132)
    
    Justine, I don't want to go putting words in Holly's mouth but I
    read it as:
    
    "Militant" women:  overt separatists or other women who consider that
    any file such as this has no business allowing men thru the door. 
    
    "Militant" men:  (I'd've said "reactionary men" myself) overt MCPs plus
    men who consider that since feminists are in favor of equality, we've
    to provide it to others even though we're still deprived of it
    ourselves. (Sorta like a capitalist demanding an equal share of a
    socialist's money on the grounds that otherwise the socialist is
    betraying her principles ;-} )
    
    The middle crowd:  the rest of us, with sociopolitical awareness and
    sensitivity in various stages of growth, who want this file to be a
    place where dialog can occur in a way beneficial to all people of
    good will. 
                                                                     
    
    Our priorities here should be first the middle group, second the
    "militant" women, and a poor third the "militant"/reactionary men.
                         
    
    
    That's my take on how she was dividing it out and setting priorities; I
    may be very wide of the mark. 
    
    						=maggie

    I just got a mail message from a member of the community who pointed
    out that one tactic used by the militant men is to claim that the most
    of the women here are militant (i.e., separatist) rather than moderate
    (i.e., strongly feminist but not separatist).  To those men, any woman
    who is not fully supportive of men in a men/women conflict is labelled
    a militant separatist. 
    
    						=maggie

    Maggie's explication was very accurate.
    
    Justine, I decided to deliberately oversimplify to make a point.
    I didn't feel that I was equating the 2 non-central groups, but
    I suppose that by using the same adjective, that conclusion could
    be drawn.  "Reactionary" men says it even better.  And the needs
    of the so-called militant women should come before those of the
    so-called militant men in this file if we have to choose.
    
    I think *I'm* a militant woman at heart who has learned that I get
    much more done using moderate tactics.
    
    I'm sorry if you were offended -- I know oversimplifications are dangerous
    for this reason.
    
    Holly

    re -1
    
    > "Militant" men:  (I'd've said "reactionary men" myself) overt MCPs plus
    > men who consider that since feminists are in favor of equality, we've
    > to provide it to others even though we're still deprived of it
    > ourselves.
    
    I guess that I would have to identify myself as a "Militant" man.
    I am saddend that anyone interested in equality for men is lumped
    in with Male Chovanist Pigs.
    
    I had hoped that people who were sensitive to the way the system
    victomizes women would also be able to apreciate that men also are
    victoms of the same system for some of the same reasons. If I can't
    find that here I don't expect it to find it in any other conference.
    Men will have to wait and suffer until some future time when their
    problems will be addressed.  Somedays it seems to be an extremly
    distant future. 
    
    > Our priorities here should be first the middle group, second the
    > "militant" women, and a poor third the "militant"/reactionary men.
    
    It is going to be a tough job for me to support a file that is
    ineterested in equality for woman only.  I will try to support
    what I can and stay clear of all but the most distructive things
    that I oppose.
    
    God, this does leave a bad taste in my mouth.  Those who are sensitive
    enough to understand that they have having a negitive infuence,
    leave.  The only men that the left are the ones that are insensitive
    of the damage that they do.
    
    						MJC O->
    
    
    
    
    

    
    
    

re: .134:

    "Militant" men:  (I'd've said "reactionary men" myself) overt MCPs plus
    men who consider that since feminists are in favor of equality, we've
    to provide it to others even though we're still deprived of it
    ourselves.

Well, if you're referring to me, I would say that if feminists want
equality for themselves, they must grant it to others even though
they're still deprived of it.

It's a slight change in the wording, but a large change in the meaning.

Martin.

    Holly, I wrote this response off-line and then read your clarification,
    but I'd like to post it anyway because I think this is an important
    topic for women to discuss.  I think the point Maggie made (via
    mail from another noter) is what really made me boil.  Men often
    call women militant, strident (often translated to mean Lesbian)
    in order to shut them up.  I felt that your words (although 
    not intentionally) were helping those men with that work.
    
    
    
    re .134
    
    Well, Maggie, your paraphrase may in fact be what was meant, but I took
    strong offense to the use of the word, "Militant" (a highly charged word)
    to describe both women and men.  I objected to the use of this word because
    it seemed to be linking the so-called "strident" women members of this file
    with the (as you call them) reactionary men who note here.  I was also
    offended because the visual placement of these 3 "groups" suggested a
    sort of continuum where the most highly valued members were in the
    middle (the middle described as a group containing women and men) and the
    less highly valued members were on either extreme end of the continuum 
    and also contained both women and men.

    It seems to me that if the women in this file keep talking to each other
    when/if they want to and keep working to get what they need from this 
    space, then the true allies who are male will support us.  Sometimes that
    support means asking or answering questions and contributing to 
    discussions.  Sometimes that support means listening quietly.  I have been
    glad to see the support that many of the men in this file have offered.  
    And I don't think that support will be jeopardized if we sometimes wish
    to talk only with each other.

    It would be nice if there were less conflict in this file.  But I don't
    think resolving conflict is the most important thing.  Some folks have
    described this space as a microcosm of the world around us, and as such,
    it is doomed.  It strikes me, though, that there's some hope in that
    notion of this file as a microcosm, as well.  I think there's great 
    cause for hope when women stand up for themselves and say what they
    need.  And it's not radical, "militant", "strident" (perhaps lesbian) 
    women who are doing all this self-assertion.  It's women who are
    involved with men, who love men, who value men saying something like this:

    	I'm glad men are in my life, but I want this one space to share 
    	with and learn from other women.  I value men's contributions 
    	here, but I don't want men's participation to change the shape 
    	and the direction of the file.  If I see that happening, I will 
    	speak up about it even though it's scary, and it means that
    	I may be opening myself up for attack from men and even from
    	other women.

    I find women's ability to do that very encouraging.

    Justine

    Beautiful, Justine!
    						=m

    Justine, I couldn't agree more with the gist of your note.
    
    You *did* ,however, make mention of people who has said that
    this file was a microcosm of the world around us, and therefore,
    doomed.
    
    I am someone who has indeed said that this file is a microcosm of
    the world around us. I also said that women probably can't expect
    different treatment here.
    
    I never used the word "doomed". "Doomed" implies 2 things: the future
    and some negative feeling about it. 
    
    I always used the present tense, not the future. And I found the
    response to my statement (or rather, the general lack of response
    to be interesting, in and of itself).
    
    What the future brings, I don't know. For the present, *I* certainly
    notice no significant difference from how women are treated in this
    file and in the society at large. I *do* notice some difference,
    in that this is the only place I've ever heard a male defend a
    women's right to  (almost anything except equal pay) - to a group
    of men. That is good news. But is it *enough* good news?
    
    --DE
    

	RE: .140  I like your indented paragraph at the end.

	RE: "separatism, etc."

	This argument has been going on for months now, and I
	don't think that continuing this argument will force
	anyone to agree with the opposite opinion.  I second
	the motion on a moratorium of this arguement.

	I would like to see the "women-only" files continue if
	the topic author deems it necessary.  I don't always
	agree that the topic should be "women-only", but I can
	value the needs of the person who posted it.  Maybe it's
	not fair (read unequal) to those who are left out, but
	it's just a tiny part of the world and maybe it will help
	someone in some way.  I have never expected life to be
	totally fair, and I have never asked for complete equality.
	(Sometimes I like to be equal, sometimes have the advantage,
	and sometimes the disadvantage.  Just make sure it 
	averages out to be equal.)  If women have to agree with
	men in order to get men to support them in their battle, will
	women ever be truly equal?

	Well, this is my opinion, and if a majority of women (sorry
	men I'm not looking to meet your needs right now) disagree
	with me, then I will abide by that majority's wishes.  This
	file can continue to meet the needs of both men and women,
	and once in a while meet the needs of just women.  Perhaps
	after a while women won't have those needs that exclude men, but
	meeting those needs will help us reach that point sooner.

	Well, not the most articulate note I've written, but I hope
	you get my drift.  Let's stop bickering and get on with
	the discussions.

	...Karen (still reading, but hitting next unseen a lot lately)

    
    
    Gee, Dawn, I guess I tacked more onto your words than was really
    fair.  I think that I have sometimes felt that our prospects for
    meaningful change were gloomy, and so I attached the word doomed
    to those feelings of mine.  I'm sorry I misquoted you.  
    
    The more I see women asserting themselves, the more encouraged 
    (and less doomed) I feel.
                      
    Justine

    Some responses -
    
    .137 (McCarleton)
    
    What I think I said was that I am actively seeking a win/win situation
    for all of us.  If we are forced to choose and cannot create a win/win
    situation, in womannotes my priorities are 1) moderate women/respectful
    men 2)more militant women looking for a separatist environment or
    at least FWO noting 3) militant or reactionary men.
    
    It's a little bit (but not exactly) like the old system of triage.
    Given the resources that we have to work with, divide the people with
    needs into 1) those who will benefit greatly from intervention 2) those
    who will be fine without intervention and 3) those who cannot benefit
    from intervention.  (Warning:  these are not parallel analogies to my
    original groups!)   Triage assumes that all people are worthy of help
    and attention, but that given the resources we have we sometimes have
    to make choices.  So how can *we* best choose where to put *our* resources?
  
    This is womannotes, not human relations.  We are presumably employed in
    some other capacity than as full time noters and moderators. If we
    can't create a win/win situation (and I think we can), then we may have
    to make choices about what we can do.  The list I made reflects my
    personal beliefs about priorities *if* we have to choose. 
    
    And I'd rather choose than continue the present situation which
    consists of a great deal of discord.  For me constant fighting is
    a lose/lose situation.  I'd like to help change it, AND I am not
    saying that a file with conflict would be preferable.
    
    Re .140 (Justine)
    
    By using quotation marks, I had intended to convey that my choice
    of words was less than perfect.  I'm glad you responded as you did.
    It allowed me to clarify some things.
    
    I said that working with the "middle group" would be the easiest
    course, and that I *didn't* want to see us make choices based on
    what was easiest.   I tried to convey that I was seeking a win/win
    strategy for all 3 groups.  
    
    The so-called middle group has generated a great deal of productive
    discussion in this file.  When people aren't fighting, the needs
    of that group will almost be met by default, I think.  A large number
    of people who have participated in this file fall into that group.
    
    Because this is womannotes, I feel very keenly the need to work
    closely with the more "militant" women.  I feel a responsibility
    to them.  This is very much their place, and they have added a great
    deal to the file.  Women who have chosen a more moderate course
    owe a great deal to those who have had the courage to be in the
    vanguard of the women's movement.
    
    (I just don't feel as much responsibility towards "militant" men 
    *here*, though, should it come down to a conflict of needs.)
    
    I was not equating militant women with lesbian women, but I agree,
    people who are angry and threatened by feminists have often taunted
    them and accused them of being lesbians.  Some feminists couldn't
    care less what they were called, while others were truly fearful
    of being identified in that way and kept a low profile.  
    
    Now that I've met a number of people who participate in this file,
    it makes me feel good to realize that we have lesbian participants
    among our most vocal members, and we have lesbian participants among
    our quietest members.  I would be glad to see the lesbian women
    in this conference have a much higher profile because they are
    interesting and valuable women.  At the same time, I understand
    that many of them don't identify themselves as such because of fears
    about job security.  They may be among the most "militant" women
    here because people who have had the courage to "come out" at work
    probably have worked through their issues about speaking up, but
    I think they are a much bigger cross-section of this file than that.
    
    
    Holly                                                     
    
    

         I'd like to help change it, AND I am not saying that a file with
         conflict would be preferable. 
         
    I meant to say...
    
    I'd like to help change it, AND I am not saying that a file with
    no conflict would be preferable. 
    ==     
    

     Re. .145 (Holly)
    
      > .137 (McCarleton)
      BTW that's MCARLETON as is M. Carleton as in Mike Carleton.  Here
      in 36 bit land they used to use first initial,last name for a
      user name.  I did not want to change it when I got my first VMS
      account. 
    
    > It's a little bit (but not exactly) like the old system of triage.
    > ...given the resources we have we sometimes have to make choices.  So
    > how can *we* best choose where to put *our* resources?
    
    I don't see the equality needs of men and women as being as
    disconnected as you do.  I believe that any solution that will
    work will have to address the needs of both men and women.  Because
    I hold this view, I feel that resources expended for a one-sided
    solution are bound to go to waste because the solution will fail
    (or will only work in isolated cases).  That's just my opinion
    
    I have seen solutions that have worked for people within the
    framework of a woman-centered separatist community.  The
    conclusion of drawn by some participants is that it worked
    because men were the problem.  I would hate to see the same
    solution and conclusion reached here by excluding men.
    I think a better solution can be found that includes men.
    It will be much harder to find than a woman only solution.
    
    					MJC O->


                                                              

    Mike,
    I believe that you're putting words in Holly's mouth (or fingers).
    Please reread what she's written today. It didn't sound to me that
    she was advocating total separatism.
    
    Liz

    I finally went back and read through all of 479, which seems directly
    relevant to the issue of FWO Topics, reverse discrimination, and
    sensitivity levels in general.  I would reccommend people take some
    time to look through the replies and notice 1) what was being said,
    2) by whom, 3) how they said it, and 4) what the immediate (next
    5 replies or so) reaction to any particular reply was.
    
    To put my feelings, I think both FWO Topics and male replies to
    FWO Topics are incredibly insensitive.  
    
    Questions:  
    XX: Is it so hard to believe that a sincere (and repeated) request
        for men to be very careful in this topic [since it is a "loaded"
        subject and we want/need support] would be respected?  And if
        some man wandering through put in a hurtful/insensitive reply,
        do you really think that a personal reminder to him would be
        ignored?
    XY: Is it so hard to understand our heightened (perhaps excessively
        so, but that is neither mine nor yours to judge) sensitivity
        on certain issues makes us very hesitant to welcome the presence
        of those who have shown a proclivity for stomping on our faces?
        While you, individually, personally, may be very sensitive people
        who would be unhappy to know that you have hurt one of us, is
        it not possible that you could hurt us (and our file, where
        "our" file belongs to both women and men) without knowing it?
        Do you _really_ want to wait and make a mistake, ramrod someone,
        and _then_ be told that you have hurt someone?
    
    During Holly's (our) experiment, I would suggest a parallel experiment:
    we agree on a symbol which means BE VERY VERY CAREFUL CAUSE THIS
    IS TOUCHY AS HELL -- TAKE YOUR NITPICKING AND ATTACKING TO MAIL
    PLEASE and that goes into the title of the Topic.  That way we have
    recourse if someone steps on toes ("we _said_ it was touchy and
    you were insensitive; take it to mail; here's a copy of what we
    deleted/requested to have deleted"), our male contributors would
    be free to reply carefully and would be warned in advance that someone
    might be very hurt/upset so they might not _want_ to reply, and
    we would be less likely to have nasty replies from women [which
    does happen from time to time :) ].
    
    Thoughts?
    
    Lee

    When I first entered a reply (.74) I said that I felt some resonance
    in the analogy, but was not entirely comfortable with it.  My 
    discomfort was (and is) that the emotional reactions to the act
    represented by the word "rape" are so intense that the word itself
    can trigger those reactions.  And clear, successful communication
    is difficult enough with "cool" heads; it seems to me that as emotions
    rise, misinterpretations increase and successful communication 
    decreases.
    
    By way of examples, the assertion was made that men replying to
    a topic that was requested by the author to be FWO
    
    ". . .have the same mind-set. . .as the real rapist does. . ."
    
    Shortly thereafter, a reply was posted that said:
    
 1) "I am truly amazed that it is not only condoned but commended when
    someone calls a number of people "rapists". . ."

    And later:
    
 2) ". . .I will make an "assertion" that you are a child-molester. . .This
    is the semantic equivalent of what (he) was saying in .nn]"

    And later:
    
 3) "[He is not saying that an intrusion is like a rape, he is saying 
    that men who intrude are rapists. . ."
    
    I think that in #2 above, we have the core of a common problem and
    one that is most often seen in topics of great emotion:
    
    ". . .semantic equivalent. . ."   
    
    Is having "the same-mind set" as a rapist or child molester the 
    "semantic equivalent" of *being* a rapist/child molester/etc?  It 
    looks to me that one side of the equation (mind-set) refers to
    attitudes and thoughts, the other with specific actions.  Is it
    not possible that I could have the attitudes and thoughts of a 
    criminal but commit no crime?  Am I therefore a criminal for my
    thoughts?
    
    Maybe yes, maybe no; it's clear (to me, at least) that there
    is no universal agreement.  
    
    Please understand, my concern is not whether I am in fact what
    I think; I believe that might be worthy of a topic of its own.
    
    My concern is the words we're using and how we're interpreting 
    them.  Where the meaning of the words aren't clear, the door
    is openned for interpretation.  And when the emotions involved
    are high. . .   I've seen bloody (physical) fights start over less 
    and it wouldn't surprise me that wars have been fought over less.
    
    Perhaps, particularly when we're looking at very sensitive topics
    we can try  1) to think very carefully not only of what we want
    to say, but also  2) give some thought to how others might be
    reading those words.  And perhaps, when in any doubt over meaning
    or intent, we might try a little harder to assume that there
    might be some semantic difficulty going on and ask for more clarity.
    
    I fear the risks of assumption and interpretation when the subject
    matter is extremely volitile; I have too often seen the destruction
    that can result.
    
    In peace,
    
    Steve
                   

 I did some checking into company policy, regarding note files.There is
currently very little written policy,the moderator(S) of any particular
file, have a great deal of latitude in how a file is run.Note files are
a new frontier,a new way for people to communicate to each other from all
over the world.I believe the net work is going to continue to grow and
what we do now will help decide the nature of note files in the future.
If we continue to bicker with out finding real solutions to problems in
balancing different expectations and view points, the note files will,
I believe, become burdened down by rules.No one wants to deal with complaints
so rules get made.I suggest that we give some thought to how note
files could be structured to reflect its purpose,and members.I believe
that the current structure of moderator(S) having all of the responsibility
will lead to complaints and more rules limiting the potential of the network.
I have a couple of suggestions. 

  The first note could clearly state the purpose and rules of the conference.
New members could also be sent a copy of the purpose and rules by mail.
This would help to give new members clear expectations of the conference.

  A format could be set up to have rules decided by members and moderators.

 Maybe their could be a conference bill of rights setting the outer boundary
of rules.

 We noter's have a great opportunity to harness the potential of a net work
that spans the globe.I believe one of the first steps to achieving that
potential is to develop new ways of managing conferences.

                George D. 

    RE .149  Your experiment sounds good, Lee. I hereby nominate you
    to the commitee to design an acceptable 'warning sign' suitable
    for such topics.
    
    Example - FHWC - fragile, handle with care
    
    Dana (NOT an acronym buff)

    Re: .149
    
    > It didn't sound to me that she was advocating total separatism. 
    
    Point taken.
    
    Re .149 .151
    
    .149> Questions:  
    .149> XY: Is it so hard to understand our heightened sensitivity
    .149>    on certain issues makes us very hesitant to welcome the presence
    .149>    of those who have shown a proclivity for stomping on our faces?
    .149>    ... is it not possible that you could hurt us without knowing it?
    
    .151> My discomfort was (and is) that the emotional reactions to the act
    .151> represented by the word "rape" are so intense that the word itself can
    .151> trigger those reactions. 


    I think that one of the basic problems here is that it is so easy to
    strike a nerve and not realize that you have done it.  A conversation
    that appears to be purely philosophical and detached from emotion might
    strike a nerve at any time and suddenly become very hurtful (like this
    note and rape).  In face to face communication I can usually detect when
    I have struck a nerve.  Somehow that gets filtered out in notes. Maybe
    we need a "you have struck a never" symbol.  I expect that people
    might be hesitant to use it because it's use might imply more than the
    strikee wishes to make public (that she has been raped, he/she is gay,
    he has beat his wife, she has been beaten, etc).
    
    I'd hate to see this conference cleared of all philosophical discussion
    in order to protect all exposed nerves.  Personally, I am willing
    to risk getting salt in my wounds in order to find some truth. 
    Some may have wounds that are too deep to risk that.  We could change
    this conference so that we remove all risks.  I hope that we can
    find some level of risk that is acceptable and still leaves room
    for philosophy.
    
    Question:
    	Is a reqest by me for tolerence of "salt in the wounds" imposing
    	male standards "emotinal self control" on women?  Does it feel
        unfair or sexist to you?
    
    						MJC O->

    re .149:
    
    Lee, I agree completely.
    
    re .151:
    
    Steve,
    
    To me, saying that someone has "the same mindset as a criminal" is the 
    same as calling him a criminal. The only difference is the actual
    performance of the deed. 
    
    > Is having "the same-mind set" as a rapist or child molester the 
    > "semantic equivalent" of *being* a rapist/child molester/etc?  
      
    Before he rapes or molests, doesn't he have the mind-set of a rapist or
    molester? Or alternatively, after he has commited the crime, he
    certainly now has that mind-set, how can it not be terribly insulting
    to say that someone has the same mindset as someone who _has_ raped
    or molested? To me, the phrase "has the same mind-set as X" is to
    call someone X while acknowledging that they haven't actually done
    X. 
    
    > Am I therefore a criminal for my thoughts?                      
      
    (semantically loaded question) Thoughts cannot
    make someone _legally_ a criminal, but to say about someone that
    they have the same thoughts and attitudes as a criminal is to make
    a moral judgement about that person. It is too equate them morally
    with the criminal. It is to say that the only thing that distinguishes
    the two is the performance of the deed. In this case the the
    judgement was far too extreme. If I were to make a similar analogy
    I would have compared it to vandalism.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    RE:.156
    
    In the interests of proving that men and women are "two genders
    separated by a common language" <paraphrasing the ditty about the
    U.S. and England> I submit that:
    
    The "mind-set" is - Women's Space May Be Freely Intruded Upon By
    Men
    
    The "action" one takes may fall anywhere on a continuum of that
    "mind-set", from feeling free to intrude on women's conversation
    to intruding on a woman's body. 
    
    What an individual man does with this "mind-set" (presuming he
    *has* it to begin with) depends on the individual and his moral,
    eithical, sociological standards. There are many men who feel
    free to intrude on female conversation; there are relatively few
    who feel free to rape.
    
    The "action" is different from the "mind-set".
    
    --DE
    

     I find the following statements typical of one of the most severe
     problems in this file.  

RE .110           -< Maybe if we ignore him, he'll go away >-
    
>   For about the 100th time, I will say that this notesfile is a
>   microcosm of society at large; Women cannot expect any different
>   treatment here than anywhere else.

RE .111
>    Dawn, you positively depress me when you say things like that...mostly
>    because I think you're absolutely right.

     What utter rubbish, although not one will admit it, there is this
     perminating head set amongst a fair number of the women in this file   
     that ALL men are out to get you. Why is this, when its not true ?
     Is the shear presence of a man intimidating enough to cause this
     paranoia ? Because you have had bad experiences with certain men,
     that automatically justifies your feelings that we're all identical
     and our only purpose in life is to control you and put you down ?
    
>    But whether or not the problem is real doesn't depend on whether or not
>    I'm clever enough to pick a good example.  The problem *is* still real;
>    men do really control most agendas, and even in here women's control is
>    fairly regularly subverted.  We've lost many women members because of
>    that fact, and the perceived difficulty of meeting women's needs in
>    here has caused the creation of a whole new file! 
 
     Oh theres a problem all right, but its not what you perceive it to
     be.  The real problem here is that in too many cases you and others 
     can not or will not differentiate between opinion and criticism vs
     coercion and control. Both you and I have the right to our opinions
     and the right to criticize each other if they disagree. Disagreement
     over opinions is a whole lot different that my, as a man using some 
     implied power or threats of violence to force (control) you or other
     women into doing my wishes or bidding.

     No the reason that you have lost both women and men in this conference
     is the fact that it has not lived up to its advertised agenda. In that
     up front agenda the statement of in "discussing topics of interest to 
     women" and "men being welcomed to participate" is false. Its false in 
     that at one time or another every man that has entered an opinion here 
     has been told that he and his opinion have no validity because he is a 
     man. Not because its right or wrong, not because pro or con popular 
     opinion. No its wrong became its not from a female. It has grown since
     the opening of the file to the point where now there are notes which
     openly state that they do not want men's opinions. 

     Whats even sadder is when similar tactics are employed on one of your 
     fellow women, all because her opinion doesn't agree with the hard line 
     stance. Lets admit it folk's, male or female, you've got to be fairly 
     thick skinned to last around here. The question is why ? Yes, there is 
     this problem with the occasional extremist, but thats not the norm. Why
     then is this air of paranoia that all men are out to exploit you,  
     so predominant here ?
   
>    We have a very small (less than six, probably) but very vocal minority
>    of men determined to enforce their equal-access rights at whatever
>    cost, a vanishingly-small minority of men (two, if I've counted
>    correctly) who are willing to speak up vigorously for the right of
>    women to set the agenda here, and a large group of men who regard
>    themselves as feminists but who nonetheless either remain silent or
>    support the "equal-access" claimants.  As Dawn says, just like the
>    outside world.
   
>    So how do we solve the problem?

     On the business of equal access, again its back to the opening agenda
     statement " men are welcome to participate". If this wasn't made in 
     good faith, if you as women have collectively changed your minds, and
     have decided that active participation  by men IS NOT desired, then
     why haven't you changed the statement ? If you really want only limited
     participation from men, then be honest about it and get a representation
     of members together and draft some ground rules and post them. That way
     we all know where we stand, instead of bumping into these "unwritten"
     rules that tell us your wrong in doing that after the fact.   
  
     Now believe it or not I actually believe in equal rights and pay for 
     like jobs and related things. But why am I getting the impression that 
     the word "equal" is being used as a guise, a smoke screen to a hidden 
     agenda of fact.
      
FROM .134
>    "Militant" men:  (I'd've said "reactionary men" myself) overt MCPs plus
>    men who consider that since feminists are in favor of equality, we've
>    to provide it to others even though we're still deprived of it
>    ourselves. (Sorta like a capitalist demanding an equal share of a
>    socialist's money on the grounds that otherwise the socialist is
>    betraying her principles ;-} )
 
    What I detect her is multiple fold.  First is that you refuse to admit
    that there has been any changes the struggle for equality in the last
    100 or so years. Your attitudes are that you are no better off now,
    irregardless of the changes and laws passed, when in truth that is not 
    the case. You act as if you, as women are the only ones that suffer any 
    forms of discrimination or in equalitys, when in fact that is not the 
    truth. What I do sense is that equality is NOT good enough for you,
    that what you truly seek is a superior position. That equal rights aren't
    good enough, that privilege is what you deserve. If this isn't the case,
    then why do you insist upon creating situations and making statements
    that are giving this message ? 
  
    I realize that there is going to be multiple dissenters to what I've had 
    to say. And true to form MS Conlon will probably brush this off by 
    saying " Yup, there goes Bob B, saying that the file is fucked again"
    or something similar. But in reality I believe I've posed some questions
    here that really deserve some thought and answers. This is NOT a criticism
    of the file, what it is, is a questioning of the attitudes and headsets
    of the participants. What are the real vs hidden agenda of the people ?
    What is the real purpose of this file ? And most important, what are the 
    real ground rules for participation by either men or women ? Lets stop
    with the games, put or cards on the table, so to speak, and be truthful
    about what it is you ladies really want in this conference.

                                      Bob B
    

    
    	RE: .159
    
    	  Bob, did you ever stop to the think about what the women
    	are saying before you jump in and claim they are all bitter
    	men haters? If you do it sure doesn't sound it from this males
    	point of view. Now I'm not going to agrue with you, this is
    	only my opinion so if you don't agree that's fine. What I do
    	see here is pretty much the same as happens in grade school
    	plagrounds with bullies. Now somewhere along the way the bully
    	will beat some kids up, but not as the rule. That has already
    	been established he is stronger than the others. All he need
    	do is look at another to strike his fear in them. Would it be
    	true to say there isn't a bully because you watched for say
    	a weeks period and didn't see it once. Would you be a quick
    	to jump up and defend the bully in this case and claim all the
    	other kids are wrong and it doesn't exist?
    
    	 I've been out of work for over a month, so when I did return
    	I had some catching up to do. While I'll admit I didn't agree
    	with some of the more stronger views around men trying to
    	"set the agenda" then, I am changing my mind on this as I
    	catch up in my reading. There are just too many topics that
    	a woman will make a comment on only to have some of the men
    	jump all over her telling her her opion is all wet/stupid/wrong
    	man-hating/etc. and that "xxxx" is how she should see it.
    	If she comes back and disagrees then it resorts too many times
    	to the men attacking her character saying she only hates men
    	and that is the true issue.
    
    	Why can't we just abide by their wishes? If they request a
    	topic for women only what is so damn wrong with that? Would
    	you go into the Bird-watching (if there is one) notesfile
    	and jump into the middle of a topic on say watching bluejays
    	in the wild and then try to change the topic around to your
    	best spots to go hunting for these worthless (in your eyes
    	anyways) birds? Do you think you'd be very welcome there
    	if allowed to stay at all? I'd rather doubt it!  I know if I'm
    	having a chat with someone and another will walk right and try
    	to jump in un-invited, they can count on being told where they
    	can get off!! Why do some men have to be so sef-centered that
    	if they can't be the center of an activity they have to make
    	sure they can atleast insure noone else can enjoy it.
    
    
    	More than my $.02 worth,  time to go back to R/O mode

         perminating head set amongst a fair number of the women in this
         ===========
            ??    what do you mean, Bob?   pervasive, perhaps?
    
    I don't think most of us act like all men are out to get us unless
    we are on a city street at night, where if we do *not* act that
    way, we may well not arrive at our destination.  
    
    Men's opinions are welcome here, especially when they are expressed
    as personal opinions and not generalizations.  (I think... or In
    my experience... as opposed to Women always ... or Women should...).
    
    The entries by men to which I have objected are the ones in which
    the writer attempts to force his opinion on women, trivializes
    something a woman says about herself, or contradicts something a
    woman says about her experience.  (By the way, I don't like it when
    women generalize or write rudely, either.)
                                              
     >   that at one time or another every man that has entered an opinion here 
     >   has been told that he and his opinion have no validity because he is a 
     >   man
      
      A generalization.  Every man?
    
    For the sake of argument, let's say that you and a few others
    have been told that you were rude, that someone disagreed with what
    you said, or that there were some things you could not possibly
    experience as a woman does.  Perhaps an individual woman noter got
    furious with you and disagreed angrily.  That does not mean that
    all women here have rejected you and all other male members.  
                                                            
    Unless we have taken a vote on something, it's not fair to assume
    that the file has not lived up to its advertised agenda.  I'm sure
    that you and some of the other men are often *uncomfortable* here.
    In my experience, men are often uncomfortable when faced with women's
    anger, and especially when faced with women's collective anger.
 
    But as has been stated before, our power is closely tied to our anger,
    and many of us have no intention of giving up our power or glossing
    over our anger ever again.  I do agree that it's unfortunate that some
    of you who care about women in a positive way sometimes get the brunt
    of anger we have carried around for our whole lives because it was not
    safe to express it then.   
      
         Lets admit it folk's, male or female, you've got to be fairly 
         thick skinned to last around here. The question is why ? Yes, there is 
         this problem with the occasional extremist, but thats not the norm. Why
         then is this air of paranoia that all men are out to exploit you,  
         so predominant here ?
   
    I'm not particularly thick skinned.  I've been here since the beginning
    and I almost never get flamed or trashed.  I think it's because
    I almost never generalize.   
    
    Like most of my woman friends, I've been hurt badly by men.  I don't
    hate all men, but I walk very carefully, and trust very slowly.
    I'd rather be assertive and make a man feel uncomfortable than let
    a man put me down or trivialize me.  For that I've been called a
    "castrating bitch".  I don't get the connection, but I do know it
    works better for me to speak up than to feel abused.  I try to start
    by listening to what each individual has to say, but if things look
    abusive, I'm out.
    
       What are the real vs hidden agenda of the people ?
       What is the real purpose of this file ? And most important, what are the 
       real ground rules for participation by either men or women ? 
    
    Good questions.   I proposed an experiment recently which would
    give us a set of working ground rules for the next 3 months.  
    Perhaps we will try it, perhaps not.  It feels like an issue bigger
    than ground rules to me, though.   It feels like a power struggle.
    
    Holly
         
                         
    

    re .158:
    
    Dawn,
    
    > What an individual man does with this "mind-set" (presuming he
    > *has* it to begin with) depends on the individual and his moral,
    > eithical, sociological standards.
      
    Can't you understand that, to me, "mind set" _includes_ one's moral,
    ethical, and sociological standards?                        
    
    Do you remember any of the following quotes?

    575.43 38636::AUGUSTINE>
    YES you should refrain from telling someone how to feel. That's how
    they feel. It's non-negotiable. That's who they are. Why can't you 
    just acknowledge how that person is feeling and say "Here's a
    different perspective that you may not have considered". 
    
    sometimes when i write a note and others reply "you shouldn't feel
    that way. here's a better way to feel", i feel like i'm drowning
    in a wave and swallowing sand. why is it so hard to just listen?
 
    575.44 3D::CHABOT>
    As a further note, I often find being told how I should feel to
    be rather disorienting.  Being a friendly reader, I'll even try
    to see what that would feel like, then I'll try to figure out who
    I'd have to be in order to tell people how to feel, then I'll wonder
    where I am, how I got there, and then I'll go read some other note.
    
    575.45 VINO::EVANS>
    But how the ($&* do we get to: "My life experience has been
    such-and-such."  and somebody feels perfectly free to say "No, it
    hasn't - it's been so-and-so."  ??????
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    re: .154
    
    "I think that one of the basic problems here is that it is so easy to
    strike a nerve and not realize that you have done it."
    
    Big time agreement, Mike.
    
    "I'd hate to see this conference cleared of all philosophical discussion
    in order to protect all exposed nerves."
    
    Ditto. . .mostly, but. . .
    
    "Personally, I am willing to risk getting salt in my wounds in order 
    to find some truth.  Some may have wounds that are too deep to risk 
    that.  We could change this conference so that we remove all risks.  
    I hope that we can find some level of risk that is acceptable and 
    still leaves room for philosophy."
    
    I'm willing to take some risks, too for myself.  What you've hit
    on (and I agree) is that, particularly on very volitile or sensitive
    topics, we might keep in mind that what is low-risk to me might
    not be for others.
    
    Also, I feel that there may be risks that some folks aren't seeing.
    As an ex-cop (and ex-lots-of-other-things) I promise you that 
    people have bled and died as a result of things that began as
    a "discussion" of a highly-charged topic.
    
    It *doesn't matter* whether "mind-set of x = x" - in honesty I
    don't know and, right now, don't particularly care.  What I do
    care about is that when humans start "discussing" real "hot" 
    topics, unless great care is taken with the language, the end-point
    *can* be the morgue.
    
    When people start throwing around terms like "rapist", "murderer",
    "child-molester", etc. with strangers, I believe (because I've seen
    it. . .repeatedly) that it is tantamount to playing with fire of
    terrible intensity and unpredictable speed.  Even with "friends"
    it's a risky business.  For too many, such "arguments" have ended
    permanently before they had a chance to say "But I didn't mean what
    you thought I said."
    
    Bob B. - I will not go off the deep end because you might call some-
    thing I said "utter rubbish".  But how many thousands of people
    might be reading this highly emotional topic?  Might there be
    one in those thousands who is "on the edge" of some radical 
    behavior?  Might that be all they need to go tumbling over?  And
    might it not be possible to say the same thought with "I respect
    your opionion, but I really don't agree and here's why. . ."?
    
    Yes; the "odds" might be one in a couple of hundred.  When the
    stakes are, say, five dollars, that might be an acceptable risk.
    But the stakes here just might be someone's life.
    
    Please know I'm not trying to "pick" on Bob or anyone else; as
    a matter of pure fact I agree with things he's said from time to
    time.  I'm only trying to make people aware of the effects their
    (to them) "harmless" words could have when the subject matter is
    as loaded and armed as this one.
    
    If the man in my department who was beaten and murdered last fall 
    (over a highly volatile man-woman issue) could bear witness, I 
    have an idea he might agree.
    
    Steve
    
    
    Question:
    	Is a reqest by me for tolerence of "salt in the wounds" imposing
    	male standards "emotinal self control" on women?  Does it feel
        unfair or sexist to you?
    
    						MJC O->

    	RE: .160
    
  >  	  Bob, did you ever stop to the think about what the women
  >  	are saying before you jump in and claim they are all bitter
  >  	men haters? If you do it sure doesn't sound it from this males
  >  	point of view. Now I'm not going to agrue with you, this is
  >  	only my opinion so if you don't agree that's fine. 

      George
    
        I'am glad to see that you really took the time to read what I 
        had to write. For your information there isn't one single reference
        or statement accusing or stating that anyone in the file is
        a man hater. Why don't you read what has been written before you 
        run off at me because you've pre-judged it based on what other
        people have said about me based on my past writings.
    
        You, in fact have done the same thing that I was objecting to in
        my note. You have pre-judged me based on only one known fact of
        who and what I am and what I have to say, WITHOUT taking the time
        to check out the rest of what the note actually said.        

        To go along with your analogy, lets say that Joe, the school yard
        bully has blond hair. I have blond hair, but I'am Bob, not Joe.
        Is it fair that I be regarded to be a bully like Joe because I
        have blond hair ?  My analogy is that too many women in this file
        have a pre-set distrust for all men because of what one or two men 
        have done to them. My objection is to being treated and regarded
        like Joe the bully because both he and I are male. It's totally
        unfair in that Joe and I are two totally different people. 

        Are you, or any of these women, under this delusion that I, or
        other men haven't had bad things done to us in our lives by women ?
        Since I don't judge all women to be like those that did me wrong, Is it 
        too much to ask to have that same courtesy in return ? To be
       judged as me and not every other Tom, Dick, and Harry in the world?
  

       
       Holly

RE.161           -< 'You ladies' is an offensive way to refer to us >-

         This was not written to be a provoking statement, It was written
         as to address the entire audience. But on the other side, It is 
         an example of how you perceive things and how little it takes
         to get you into a defensive mode. Why are you and others so quick
         to go into this defensive mode ? This is a perfect example of what
         I've been trying to point out. This is a public notes file in a 
         civilized atmosphere of a very good company, not some combat zone
         city street. 

        I'am quite sure that this company goes through some pains to ensure
        that its employees are honest, professional type people vs street
        hoodlums. Now since I have worked for this company for some almost 
        seven some odd years, I would expect that if I was anything less then
        an honest professional that I wouldn't still be here. With that in mind
        would you mind explaining why you are so defensive with me, who you 
        don't know virtually anything personally about. Why is it that I am
        accorded the same treatment as some street hood or bad person from
        your past when I am someone totally different from those people ?  
        This is the headset that I'am talking about.   

   >      perminating head set amongst a fair number of the women in this
   >     ===========
   >         ??    what do you mean, Bob?   pervasive, perhaps?
    
        Whoops, missed that one, should have been - permeating-
        meaning it has spread throughout....
    
 >   I don't think most of us act like all men are out to get us unless
 >   we are on a city street at night, where if we do *not* act that
 >   way, we may well not arrive at our destination.  
    
     NO ??? Humm, then why so quick to be defensive about the way I 
     used "you ladies" ( see above )

>    Men's opinions are welcome here, especially when they are expressed
>    as personal opinions and not generalizations.  (I think... or In
>    my experience...as opposed to Women always...or Women should...).
>    The entries by men to which I have objected are the ones in which
>    the writer attempts to force his opinion on women, trivializes
>    something a woman says about herself, or contradicts something a
>    woman says about her experience.  (By the way, I don't like it when
>    women generalize or write rudely, either.)
            
     I share your objections to "blanket" generalizations. I disagree about
     the open acceptance of men opinions. It has been my observation that
     many time these valid opinions are regarded the same as the generalizations.
     Hence my statement ;

     >>   that at one time or another every man that has entered an opinion here 
     >>   has been told that he and his opinion have no validity because he is a 
     >>   man
      
>      A generalization.  Every man?

    I don't think its a generalization, but a fair statement.  I believe every 
    regular male contributor has at one time or another had one of his writings
    made light of as if to have no validity.
    
>    For the sake of argument, let's say that you and a few others
>    have been told that you were rude,

     Rarely happens, I guess I'am too polite

>   that someone disagreed with what you said,

    Happens every day

>   or that there were some things you could not possibly experience as 
    a woman does.

    I never claimed I have experienced "woman" things. But I am human,
    and in being so, I feel that I can relate my experiences on the same
    subject of thing that happen to us all.
 
>  Perhaps an individual woman noter got furious with you and disagreed 
>  angrily. That does not mean that all women here have rejected you and 
>  all other male members.

   This I can understand, if I say something that you or someone else
   disagreed with. That I don't have a problem with. What I do have 
   a problem with is those that have that anger at me simply because
   I'am a man. NOTE that I did not say hates me, different thing. I referring
   to the way too many coincide differences of opinion with someone 
   trying to control them.  
                                                            
>    Unless we have taken a vote on something, it's not fair to assume
>    that the file has not lived up to its advertised agenda.  I'm sure
>    that you and some of the other men are often *uncomfortable* here.
>    In my experience, men are often uncomfortable when faced with women's
>    anger, and especially when faced with women's collective anger.
 
>    But as has been stated before, our power is closely tied to our anger,
>    and many of us have no intention of giving up our power or glossing
>    over our anger ever again.  I do agree that it's unfortunate that some
>    of you who care about women in a positive way sometimes get the brunt
>    of anger we have carried around for our whole lives because it was not
>    safe to express it then.   
 
     Is anger the only way you can derive power ? are you really happy
     and comfortable living with that anger ? If so, you've chosen a 
     tough way to live. I know about that anger, I still have traces of
     it from multiple sources. It took me some time to control it and 
     push it aside and to replace it with more important things in my 
     personal agenda of life.
 
     To quote some trues about anger, those that live by it, shall die 
     by it. A long with, all that anger will burn you up. In short, it is
     not healthy to live with it as a priority in your life. If you are 
     convinced that anger is the sole source of power in ones life, you 
     are sadly mistaken. Belief in ones self generates an inner power
     that no one can take away. That inner power can give you the confidence
     to go out and do anything you wish. It is the basis from which all
     other power is derived. 
    
>    Like most of my woman friends, I've been hurt badly by men.  I don't
>    hate all men, but I walk very carefully, and trust very slowly.

     I'll say it again, women aren't the only one that have been burnt and
     hurt in relationships. Believe me I've have my share of being shit on too.

>    I'd rather be assertive and make a man feel uncomfortable than let
>    a man put me down or trivialize me.  For that I've been called a
>    "castrating bitch".  I don't get the connection, but I do know it
>    works better for me to speak up than to feel abused.  I try to start
>    by listening to what each individual has to say, but if things look
>    abusive, I'm out.
 
     Do you really listen first ?? or is it a pre-judge that leads to auto
     defense mode with the best defense is an aggressive offensive ? Just look
     at what you've said;

>    I'de rather be assertive and make a man feel uncomfortable than let
>    a man put me down or trivialize me. 
     
     How many times have you pre-judged a person or situation before word one ?
     Think about it for a second, did you really give that guy the benefit
     of the doubt ? Is this person rendering an opinion or telling you what
     to do ? What I sense, is that you, as so many others in this file, go to 
     auto defense mode and on the offensive before you really determine whether
     the statements are a shot at you or an opinion.

     I can understand the caution, I can't understand the continued and
     nurthered anger. Its as if you've developed the attitude lets do it 
     to them before they can do it to us. That no man is trustworthy, guilty
     by association until he proves his worth.   What an incredibly frightening
     insight. No wonder relationships between men and women are so strained
     today.

    

    re: .163
    
    It scares me sometimes, the things I read in this conference and
    how they could be intrepreted by a reader.  
    
    For instance, the note on rape.  Supposing the reader had been raped
    quite recently and went to that note to see what advice, to test
    out their feelings, to possibly make a decision as to whether to
    prosecute or not.  One of the first notes, by a respected male
    contributor, asks the question "When does no mean yes".  Think about
    what that could do to a person.
    
    I have said this before but it bears repeating.  When we are in
    face to face conversation we temper our words with the body language
    we observe.  This medium does not allow such editing.
    
    It would be so nice if each of us would write notes that considered
    the many individuals (20,000?) that read this conference.  I am
    responsible for my own behavior and yet I admit that the mood of
    this conference can have a direct impact on my mood for the day.
    
    .163 says some pretty strong stuff...can we face up to the possibility
    that our strong statements and opinions could change someone's life?

    Bob,
    
    I don't think that Holly was being overly sensitive on the "you
    ladies" comment. She simple said that many of the readers in
    this file object to it. I am also aware that there are women read
    or who used to read the file who like the term ladies and get
    upset when its use is contested.
    
    However, were I writing in Blacknotes, and tho I know that some
    - especially older people of African descent - prefer 'Negro' 
    and actually dislike 'Black' I would use 'Black' in the file and 
    save 'Negro' for mail to a personwho had told me that they objected 
    to 'Black'.  In other words...when word useage has become sensitive
    it is simple courtesy to avoid emotionally charged words.
    
    For anyone who has any questions about such words please go back
    and review the note titled "Don't Call me Girl".
    
    In general the most appropriate word to use for female human
    beings above 18 is woman.  It is unlikely to ever cause offense,
    whereas girl, lady etc can.
    
    and Bob one of the reasons that I tackled this subject was that
    about two years ago I found myself getting lectured on the subject
    by a young woman who thought I was old fashioned, conservative
    and definitely not a feminist or liberated because I used the
    word lady...much to my amazement!
    
    in friendship
    
    Bonnie
  

    Bob,
    
     >>   RE.161       -< 'You ladies' is an offensive way to refer to us >-
      
     >    But on the other side, It is 
     >    an example of how you perceive things and how little it takes
     >    to get you into a defensive mode. Why are you and others so quick
     >    to go into this defensive mode ? This is a perfect example of what
     >    I've been trying to point out. This is a public notes file in a 
     >    civilized atmosphere of a very good company, not some combat zone
     >    city street. 
      
    I wish I could have said it to you in person complete with body
    language.  
    
    I would have made eye contact with you and said, "Bob, I find 'you
    ladies' to be an offensive way to refer to us" very calmly and quietly.
    I would have said it about the same way I say "I would appreciate it if
    you don't borrow my manuals without leaving me a note" to my
    co-workers.  The point is to convey information, not to fight. 
    I'm not attacking a person...I'm referring to behavior I don't
    like.
        
    For you, "ladies" may seem like a nice, genteel way to refer to adult
    females.  Many of us have asked over and over again to be referred to
    as women. Women is a more inclusive term than ladies when referring to
    employed adult females.  I appreciate your intention, as stated, to be
    inclusive.  For me, the effect is just the opposite.   I would *never*
    refer to myself or the women in my group as ladies.  
    
    Most of the men I know at work would prefer to be called "men" than
    "gentlemen".  Men is more inclusive, and just more comfortable I
    guess.  
    
     >	Why is it that I am accorded the same treatment as some 
     >	street hood or bad person from your past when I am someone 
     >	totally different from those people ? This is the headset 
     >	that I'am talking about. 
      
    I totally ignore street hoods, and I try never to have contact with
    abusive people in my past.  Some of the things you said earlier made me
    want to spend a couple of hours this morning thinking out some fairly
    thoughtful responses, thus causing me to still be in my office
    working tonight.  There's a world of difference! I'm choosing to put a
    fair amount of energy and some personal time into communicating with
    you. I'm not screaming, flaming or arguing, just thinking and
    listening and responding.
                                                                        
     >   I never claimed I have experienced "woman" things. But I am human,
     >   and in being so, I feel that I can relate my experiences on the same
     >   subject of thing that happen to us all.
      
    I agree with you.  There are lots of things I would enjoy discussing
    with you if I can manage to convey the right body language.  (Mostly
    calm and thoughtful...)  There are a few topics I would like to
    discuss just with other women.  Examples of these might be how long
    different kinds of tampons last, how I felt when I was sexually
    abused at age 3, how I felt when I was almost raped and strangled,
    how it feels when men do things that make me feel trivialized.
    (I'm speaking only for myself here, not for the other women in this
    file.)
    
    If I even choose to discuss it here, I do so knowing that I've just
    opened it up to a large group of readers.  OK.  You may or may not have
    something you are very eager to say to me about one of the above
    personal/sensitive topics.   What I need is to discuss some of the
    sensitive personal things with the women first.  By ourselves, without
    having men say much until we've heard from each other.  After that, I
    might be ready and interested in hearing all the opinions.  And that's
    why I've been suggesting general discussion strings in tandem with
    occasional FWO note.  Everyone who has something to say can respond as
    many times as they like.  The women who are needing to think through
    something sensitive with the support of other women can do that as long
    as they need to and read the other responses when they are ready to.
    (I hope this is the "win/win" I have been looking for.) 
    
     >	What I do have 
     >	a problem with is those that have that anger at me simply because
     >	I'am a man. NOTE that I did not say hates me, different thing. I 
     >	referring to the way too many coincide differences of opinion 
     >	with someone trying to control them.  
      
    There are some women who will be angry at you just because you are
    a man, that's true.  There are others who will be angry at you if
    you engage in specific behaviors which have been directed at them
    by men before and which hurt.  
    
    The only parallel I can draw to empathize is that some black people
    will be angry at me just because I'm a WASP (by birth, anyway...). When
    I think about it, I can understand that because being born into
    a WASP family in the 1950s ensured that certain privileges and
    opportunities would come to me very easily.  I don't like that anger
    when it's focused at me, either, but I respect it.  I haven't walked
    in their shoes.  And there are probably other black people who won't
    begin by being angry at me, but if I engage in certain behaviors
    which they associate with abusive white people they will become
    furious.   
    
    >>    and many of us have no intention of giving up our power or glossing
    >>    over our anger ever again.  
    
    Listen again to what I said, please.  I never intend to gloss over
    my anger again.  
    
    If something makes me angry and I stuff it down inside myself and
    don't say anything, there are consequences.  If I keep current with
    my anger and acknowledge it, I walk around feeling pretty light.
    Does that seem like a contradiction?  
    
    I stuffed the anger for years, and tried to please people and to gain
    the approval of others. I rarely showed anger to anyone in a position
    of power because I was scared of getting hurt.  On the surface I seemed
    sweet and nice, but on the inside I was seething.  I *never* want
    to live that way again.  It looked and felt pretty good to the adults
    around me, but I was a wreck inside.  
     
    > Is anger the only way you can derive power ? are you really happy
    > and comfortable living with that anger ? If so, you've chosen a 
    > tough way to live. I know about that anger, I still have traces of
    > it from multiple sources. It took me some time to control it and 
    > push it aside and to replace it with more important things in my 
    > personal agenda of life.
 
    
    I feel pretty good most days now.  Some days I go home and cry.  Other
    days I get a friend to give me some support when I've gotten dumped on.
    Once I get the anger out and get some support, I feel better and am
    able to plan how to approach the person who upset me and resolve the
    situation. I don't walk around seething...I think my last performance
    review said something about being full of cheerful enthusiasm all the
    time. 
    
    But I couldn't be cheerful and enthusiastic unless I could process
    the angry feelings when they happen.  And they will happen again.
    I hope I will be able to keep working with them and letting them
    out when they do.
    
    > To quote some trues about anger, those that live by it, shall die 
    > by it. A long with, all that anger will burn you up. In short, it is
    > not healthy to live with it as a priority in your life. If you are 
    > convinced that anger is the sole source of power in ones life, you 
    > are sadly mistaken. Belief in ones self generates an inner power
    > that no one can take away. That inner power can give you the confidence
    > to go out and do anything you wish. It is the basis from which all
    > other power is derived. 
    
    This paragraph is harder to read and respond to than the previous
    one because it feels like you've stopped speaking for yourself,
    started generalizing, and would like to tell me how to be...
    It's much, much easier for me to listen attentively when the
    writer/speaker says "I" rather than "you".
    
    It seems like it's very important to you to have some of the women in
    this file acknowledge that you've been hurt by women.  I believe it.
    (I've been hurt by some women, too.)  Does it seem like some
    of us are saying that women are incapable of hurting others? 
                                                                 
    > How many times have you pre-judged a person or situation before word one ?
    > Think about it for a second, did you really give that guy the benefit
    > of the doubt ? Is this person rendering an opinion or telling you what
    > to do ? What I sense, is that you, as so many others in this file, go to 
    > auto defense mode and on the offensive before you really determine whether
    > the statements are a shot at you or an opinion.
     
    The above paragraph doesn't feel like you are talking to me.  I don't
    know if you feel like you have a sense of me as an individual or not
    from reading the entries I've made in this file.  I listen a lot, write
    very carefully, and don't respond when I'm actively angry.  (I believe
    I have one of the lowest flame quotients of the active participants).
    It feels like instead of talking to me you are responding in your mind to
    a woman or women who have hurt you and shut you out. 

>     ...I can't understand the continued and
>     nurthered anger. Its as if you've developed the attitude lets do it 
>     to them before they can do it to us. That no man is trustworthy, guilty
>     by association until he proves his worth.   What an incredibly frightening
>     insight. 
    
    Are you speaking to me personally, the women in this file, or women
    in general?  Your reply was addressed to me, so I'll assume it's
    me.  
    
    I can't relate to that statement much at all.  I couldn't work here
    at DEC if I felt that way.  I work with a number of men whom I enjoy
    and have good relationships with.  I sort of doubt that the median
    male salaries in the group are anywhere near the median female salaries
    in the group, which is disconcerting, but other than that the
    relationships among us are good.
    
    The only time in my life I really felt the way you describe was the
    year I was coming to terms with having been sexually abused as a child.
    I began to understand my lifelong fear of men, and of medical people
    (the abuse was in the hospital).  Years of pent up rage were coming
    out, and I warned most of my male friends that I didn't have much of a
    sense of humor at that time in my life.  I absolutely would not have
    participated in this file at that time because I felt like a volcano
    going off at the slightest provocation.   But that was several years
    ago and lasted for about one year. 
    
    But it sounds like that's what you think I do now...
    
    I wish we had some smiley-face type icons to convey thoughtful,
    reflective, and listening carefully.  This whole response is written
    in a very calm tone, and I hope it comes across to you as such. 
    
    
    Holly
    
    
                                          

    Holly,
    
    I think your reply (.168), besides being very logical and consise,
    explained many feelings that I also share.  I hope that Bob and
    others  are able to read it through completely, and think about
    what it is you have said,  and not focus solely on the words used.
    
    Thank-you for writing it.  I find that you often express my feelings,
    in a much calmer manner than I could myself.
    
    Mary

    Thanks for the feedback, Mary.  As I was driving home last night it
    occurred to me that perhaps no one except Bob and the other 3
    moderators would be motivated enough to plow through 190+ lines!
    
    Holly 

    re a few back (Barber)
    
    >I don't think its a generalization, but a fair statement.  I believe every 
    >regular male contributor has at one time or another had one of his writings
    >made light of as if to have no validity.
     
    I am not trying to say that your reply or anyone's reply has no
    validity, but I do want to respond to a specific point you made.
    
    > How many times have you pre-judged a person or situation before word one ?
    > Think about it for a second, did you really give that guy the benefit
    > of the doubt ? Is this person rendering an opinion or telling you what
    > to do ? What I sense, is that you, as so many others in this file, go to 
    > auto defense mode and on the offensive before you really determine whether
    > the statements are a shot at you or an opinion.
     
    So as I understand your words here, you're suggesting that many
    women jump to conclusions (in your words, "pre-judge") men's words
    even though the men are just giving their opinion.
    But earlier in this same reply you write:
    
    >>Is anger the only way you can derive power ? are you really happy
    >>and comfortable living with that anger ? If so, you've chosen a 
    >>tough way to live. 
    
    Now I think the words "you've chosen a tough way to live" are expressed
    as fact not opinion.  In this next passage you continue:
    
    >> In short, it is not healthy to live with it as a priority in your 
    >> life. If you are convinced that anger is the sole source of power 
    >>in ones life, you are sadly mistaken. 
    
    Now, Bob, you may think that your words are being attacked because
    you are male, but I can tell you that for me that is not true. 
    When anyone tells me that I am "sadly mistaken," I tend to shut
    myself down to anything she or he has to say.   Can you see how
    other people (men and women) might be offended by words like the
    ones I've cited above.
    
    In this passage, you described your experiences.  I felt much more
    comfortable with that.  
    
    >>I know about that anger, I still have traces of it from multiple 
    >>sources. It took me some time to control it and push it aside and 
    >>to replace it with more important things in my personal agenda of life.
      
    Bob, I just want you to know that for me it really is the way you
    expressed yourself in that note... not the fact that you are male
    that made me angry.  If you had said something like:
    
      It seems to me that you have a lot of anger, and this disturbs
      me because I think anger gets in the way of other things.  When
      I feel angry...  
    
    Those kinds of statements feel very different to me than the things
    you said in your note to Holly.  Some people think (and I agree)
    that men and women *generally* have different ways of expressing
    themselves.  I think that women are more likely to express things
    in terms of personal experience and that men are more likely to
    express things as fact.  Now if my opinion is correct, if those
    differences do exist between men and women *Generally*, then it
    may look to some folks that men are being harshly judged because
    of their gender... not because of the ways they sometimes express
    themselves.
               
    Justine

    Justine,
    
    I found your remarks to be very perceptive.  One thing surprised
    me, however.  Neither you nor anyone else took Bob Barber to task
    for the following:
    
    "Oh theres a problem all right, but its not what you perceive it to
    be.  The real problem here is that in too many cases you and others 
    can not or will not differentiate between opinion and criticism vs
    coercion and control."
    
    No qualification of "I believe" is made, just the simple ~what you see
    is wrong~.  No examples are cited, no reasons are given.  Any easily
    peeved sociologist would rip that statement up, throw it to the ground,
    and jump up and down on it.
    
    Yes, Bob has the right to his opinions.  Nevertheless, if he states
    them as facts, then others have a equal right to question their validity
    and even their veracity.

    Bob, men qua men *are* welcome to participate.  However, certain
    subsegments of the world population are not welcome because of,
    well, shall we say, certain abrasive or distasteful qualities.
    (To me, a distasteful quality would be a careless attitude towards
    the truth, and and abrasive one would be an insistance on having
    the *right* to be careless about the truth.)  In our culture, girls
    and women have been far more rigorously trained in how to be polite
    and in how to withdraw a statement or claim that is disagreed with
    than boys and men have been.  Therefore, in this notefile (which
    has our culture as one of its anchor points), men are far more
    likely to be in this unacceptable subsegment than women are.  Please
    consider seeing that situation in this more diffuse cultural light
    than in the absolutist, "post hoc ergo propter hoc" light which
    you seem to be using.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  I do not think that there is a single woman (or man) in this
    notefile who does not believe that women in this country are better
    off now than they were last century.  However, I (for one) to not
    confuse the concept "better" with "good"; e.g., a 1% raise is better
    than no raise, but it is not a "good" raise in this company.

    Small editing correction (the price of not double checking
    my text.)  .163 shoulda ended with my name; I shoulda edited
    out the remaining lines - was editing a copy of Mike's reply.
    
    Apologies,
    
    Steve
    

    
RE .167   Bonnie
    
>    I don't think that Holly was being overly sensitive on the "you
>    ladies" comment. She simple said that many of the readers in
>    this file object to it. I am also aware that there are women read
>    or who used to read the file who like the term ladies and get
>    upset when its use is contested.

     I hear you, and I trust that you and other knew that I did not
     say (write) "you ladies" to be taken in a derogatory manner.
     Things like this are kinda tough for a person with my upbringing.
     My mother was from the South and the terms "lady, ladies, and 
     Ma'am" were common place curtsies to address a woman.

     Its almost strange that you bring up the association of terms
     applied to Negroes. I can remember back in the 60's when the 
     accecptable (preferred) terminology to address or refer to 
     Negroes changed almost weekly, and varied with the political 
     views of the person. It almost became a weekly ritual to ask
     my black friends and school mates "well what do I call you 
     this week to keep from pissing you off ? "

     This whole business of women taking offense at being called girl,
     lady or the like is very similar to what I've related above.
     I guess I just come from the old school that still views the term 
    "lady" as a compliment. Back then there were VERY defined words
     that were used to insult VS complement. I just find it tough to 
     believe that people take offense at a term that has traditionally 
     been a compliment. But this is the 80's and the whole world has 
     gone tipsy turvy in the process, hasn't it..... :-)

                                          Bob B
    

    Reply to .176; Barber,
    
    Don't feel like the Lone Ranger Bob. I made the same mistake with a
    about 10 pagan feminist and paid the price. B^) It seemed that to them
    the term "lady" meant that women acted in certain ways that culture
    *predefined* for them. To them acting the part of "ladies" was more of
    a way to conform to society. "Lady" took away options. 
    
    Needless these women didn't conform. I "gaurontee" that if these women
    were participants in this file there'd be plenty hell to pay. B^) And
    you know what? I like women better that way!
    
    It's pretty humorous. I'm from Tenessee and Georgia and was raised
    to say Yes mam and No mam, Lady and Gentleman. Every once in a while
    I slip and say lady, you should see the faces!  But they know where
    I was raised so they cut me a little slack... 

    re: use of lady
    
    I was born & bred down south, (Alabama, Lousianna, Georgia, etc)
    and often heard "it's not lady-like to do (insert almost anything
    that is fun and involves dirt...:-)  ).  When I move to NE, age
    14, I deceided that I was _never_ going to be a lady.  I would be
    a _woman_, polite, sensitive, etc, (even displaying 'lady-like 
    characteristics'), but I would never be a _lady_.  As it had been
    defined to me all my life,  a _lady_ lived a very restricted life,
    while a _woman_ was expected to be responsible for her own successes
    and mistakes.  One was the life of an adult, and one the life of
    a pampered pet. 
    
    Now this is a very extremist statement, and I meant it to be, so
    that possible some people can understand why I and others object
    to being called 'ladies'.  It generally comes accross patronizing
    and condascending, even if it is not meant to be.  (Same when called
    'dearie' by waitresses and shop-floor assistants). At the same time,
    I must admit that it bothers me less when used by close friends
    whom I know respect me (though I _do_ get on their case!)
                                                             
    
    Of course, this is only my view.  My 80 year old grandmother would
    be appaled if she was not refered to as a "lady".  By all definitions,
    she is.
    
    mary
    
    PS, given the time, Ah hope ya'll forgive me ma spelling & gramma.

  >  I just find it tough to believe that people take offense at a term that
  >  has traditionally been a compliment. 
   
    Bob, I think that's the whole point.  I can see why it's tough for
    anyone with a southern upbringing to re-hardwire themselves, too.
    
    The term has traditionally been a compliment, and women have
    traditionally had extremely limited roles.  As we have broken
    out of traditional roles and become much more versatile and powerful,
    many of us no longer want to be defined by the traditional terms
    which have connotations which are quite limiting.
    
    Holly
    
    Mary, I thought you explained it well.
                                             
    

    re .172 Hank....
    
    I don't think that anyone here is asking men to be perfect...
    just to be a little more sensitive....
    
    Women have been strongly disagreed with by other women in the file,
    perhaps it has been happening more often with men because of the
    nature of how people have been participating in the file of late.
    
    Bonnie

RE .168    Holly

     Let me start off by saying thank you for the way that you've been
     responding through all this. I think its been a learning and 
     enlighting experience for us and others. I really believe this
     discussion should serve as an example of a good way for two people
     with differing opinions to hear each other out.
                
>    I wish I could have said it to you in person complete with body
>    language.  
>    I would have made eye contact with you and said, "Bob, I find 'you
>    ladies' to be an offensive way to refer to us" very calmly and quietly.

     I wish you could have too. Unfortunately this medium does not allow
     for voice tone, inflection, and eye contact. Hopefully you realize 
     that the term was not used in a demeaning or derogatory manner.
     There is a fair number of us men out here, that are of the old school
     of learning, in which the term "lady (ies)" is a commonly used word
     to properly address a woman. It's really tough to believe that people
     take offense to being called that, when in our book it inplys respect.
     Although it will be difficult to deprogram the word to its new meaning,
     I will attempt it, for future conversations here.

>    I totally ignore street hoods, and I try never to have contact with
>    abusive people in my past.  Some of the things you said earlier made me
>    want to spend a couple of hours this morning thinking out some fairly
>    thoughtful responses, thus causing me to still be in my office
>    working tonight.  There's a world of difference! I'm choosing to put a
>    fair amount of energy and some personal time into communicating with
>    you. I'm not screaming, flaming or arguing, just thinking and
>    listening and responding.
 
     Super, nothing has ever been accomplished by getting into a, excuse 
     the expression "pissing contest" in which the flames continue to
     reach exzorbibant crescendo levels of absurdity. Although you may have
     not received everything I wished to covey to you, I am glad to see
     that I have got you to think about what I've had to say, rather than
     to just react to it. In return it affects my style of writing, hopefully
     into one that you will understand what it is I am trying to say.
      
>    I agree with you.  There are lots of things I would enjoy discussing
>    with you if I can manage to convey the right body language.  (Mostly
>    calm and thoughtful...)  There are a few topics I would like to
>    discuss just with other women.

     OK, thats understandable to a degree, but bear with me for a second
     as we look at your examples.

>     Examples of these might be how long different kinds of tampons last,
      
      If I saw this as a subject, I would hit next unseen. This is the 
      type subject that deserves its form of privacy, since I know of no
      man that could contribute to the discussion
 
 >     how I felt when I was sexually abused at age 3, 

     Although this experience was personal to you, it does not mean that
     something similar could, or did not happen to a man at this age.
     Under those circumstances, if this also happened to me, I may wish 
     to relate my experiences also. 

>    how I felt when I was almost raped and strangled,

     I could share an experience on how I was beat up and robbed

>    how it feels when men do things that make me feel trivialized.
>    (I'm speaking only for myself here, not for the other women in this
>    file.)

    Contrary to the "rough, tough" exterior we put on, many a man has been
    put down by a woman, his boss, his parent(s) and others in his life.
    My feeling on this is that we're all human beings first and men and 
    women second. I feel its wrong to exclude men or women from any human
    related subject, since it closes the door to the understanding that both
    have had these experiences. If you close the door on these people, you 
    loose the opportunity to be able to relate to one another, and develop
    better understandings.      
    
>    If I even choose to discuss it here, I do so knowing that I've just
>    opened it up to a large group of readers.  OK.  You may or may not have
>    something you are very eager to say to me about one of the above
>    personal/sensitive topics.   What I need is to discuss some of the
>    sensitive personal things with the women first.  By ourselves, without
>    having men say much until we've heard from each other.  After that, I
>    might be ready and interested in hearing all the opinions. 

     If that the case, then my feelings are that you are probably better
     off discussing the subject in a more private setting or format than
     a public notes file. Ther are in fact may means to do this, extending
     from mail to womens groups set up the discuss these things.  If you
     desise that exclusititvy, why are you putting that subject in a public
     place in which there is a mixed audience numbering in the thousands ?
     To me thats like putting a meal in front of X amount of hungry people,
     and randomly selection whos allowed to eat. Its not fair to all concered,
     and it leads to animositys, which is exzactly what these FWO notes 
     have done.
           
>    There are some women who will be angry at you just because you are
>    a man, that's true.  There are others who will be angry at you if
>    you engage in specific behaviors which have been directed at them
>    by men before and which hurt.  
 
    Let me try and give you an example. If I go up and strike you, I have
    just given you a justifiable reason to be angry with me, for I have
    just harmed you. If I disagree with you about subject "X",  that 
    disagreement does not give you the justification to be angry with me.
    Its a matter of one's opinion vs the others. I have a great deal of 
    difficulty accecpting the same anger factor from someone that gets just 
    as angry with me, as if I had hit then, just because we disagree.
    I have a problem with them attempting to rational or justify that
    level of anger, which in this case is not warranted.

>    The only parallel I can draw to empathize is that some black people
>    will be angry at me just because I'm a WASP (by birth, anyway...). When
>    I think about it, I can understand that because being born into
>    a WASP family in the 1950s ensured that certain privileges and
>    opportunities would come to me very easily.

     Let me try and explain my point of difference using your good example.
     What I am understanding, from your above statement, is that you
     think about the reasons for their anger. To understand the reasons for
     that anger, first you need to know why their angry. Now that you under
     stand their anger, then you think about why its been directed to you.
     And when you understand those reasons, you have accepted that in your 
     rational its correct and justifiable. The problem I have with this is that
     it is not taken the step further that it need to be.

     I am not disagreeing that certain Black people have had bad things done
     to them by White people. But I do have a problem when that anger is 
     directed to white persons in general, instead of those that are 
     responsible. I have a real severe problem when its directed at me, 
     when I did not do a single solitary thing to cause any of them harm.
     I am at a total loss to rationalize why I should suffer and pay for 
     the sins and transgressions of my forefathers and others. They are not
     me and I am not them. That same logic applys to the anger I receive from 
     women, when their only justification for it, is that I'am a man. 

>    I don't like that anger
>    when it's focused at me, either, but I respect it.  I haven't walked
>    in their shoes.  And there are probably other black people who won't
>    begin by being angry at me, but if I engage in certain behaviors
>    which they associate with abusive white people they will become
>    furious.   
 
     I don't like that anger either. The difference here is that from your
     statements, I am interpreting that you willing to accept their anger
     at you because you are guilty by association. That your sin is that you
     were born White instead of Black. Sorry I can't accept that, the same 
     as I can't and won't accept the anger from women for things that were
     done to them by other men. I equate that with being a person that fits
     a generic description, and as I walk down the street , I get arrested 
     and put in jail for a crime done by someone else that has similar 
     features as me. I can't buy the logic which drives those actions.
    
>    If something makes me angry and I stuff it down inside myself and
>    don't say anything, there are consequences.  If I keep current with
>    my anger and acknowledge it, I walk around feeling pretty light.
>    Does that seem like a contradiction?  
 
     Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you or other people aren't
     justified in getting angry when you been wronged. There is a time 
     and place for anger. The difference is when its invoked by someone
     that deserves it vs blind anger directed at everyone in a class of
     people. 

>    I feel pretty good most days now.  Some days I go home and cry.  Other
>    days I get a friend to give me some support when I've gotten dumped on.
>    Once I get the anger out and get some support, I feel better and am
>    able to plan how to approach the person who upset me and resolve the
>    situation. I don't walk around seething...I think my last performance
>    review said something about being full of cheerful enthusiasm all the
>    time. 
 
     Welcome to the human race ... :-).. We all have our ups and downs. 
     The difference is knowing and admitting when its our fault VS 
     someone elses. To carry that one step further, when it is someone
     elses fault, that ruined our day, that be upset with that person
     and not everyone in general.

    >> To quote some trues about anger, those that live by it, shall die 
    >> by it. A long with, all that anger will burn you up. In short, it is
    >> not healthy to live with it as a priority in your life. If you are 
    >> convinced that anger is the sole source of power in ones life, you 
    >> are sadly mistaken. Belief in ones self generates an inner power
    >> that no one can take away. That inner power can give you the confidence
    >> to go out and do anything you wish. It is the basis from which all
    >> other power is derived. 
    
>    This paragraph is harder to read and respond to than the previous
>    one because it feels like you've stopped speaking for yourself,
>    started generalizing, and would like to tell me how to be...
>    It's much, much easier for me to listen attentively when the
>    writer/speaker says "I" rather than "you".
 
     I suppose its my style of writing and thoughts that are being poorly
     understood here. What I as really trying to express here was the results
     of some very hard learned personal lessons. I've still got a ways to 
     go, but they were a very good foundation. I was trying to relate my having
     anger to you having it. I was trying to pass on what I learned when I
     finally came to terms with that anger.
        
>    It seems like it's very important to you to have some of the women in
>    this file acknowledge that you've been hurt by women.  I believe it.
>    (I've been hurt by some women, too.)  Does it seem like some
>    of us are saying that women are incapable of hurting others? 
 
    No , I'am not trying to gain acknowledgment for myself. What I was
    attempting was to get some women to admit that they, as a class of 
    people, aren't the only ones that have been wronged or have problems.
    It just seems (from my prospective) that from the writings here have
    been done in a style and manner that sounds as if women are the only 
    ones in the world with problems. That they are the only ones that suffer
    these wrongs and injustices. That every other class and group of people 
    have it easy by comparison. And that ain't so folk's and we all know
    it.
    
  >> How many times have you pre-judged a person or situation before word one ?
  >> Think about it for a second, did you really give that guy the benefit
  >> of the doubt ? Is this person rendering an opinion or telling you what
  >> to do ? What I sense, is that you, as so many others in this file, go to 
  >> auto defense mode and on the offensive before you really determine whether
  >> the statements are a shot at you or an opinion.
     
 >   The above paragraph doesn't feel like you are talking to me.  I don't
 >   know if you feel like you have a sense of me as an individual or not
 >   from reading the entries I've made in this file.  I listen a lot, write
 >   very carefully, and don't respond when I'm actively angry.  (I believe
 >   I have one of the lowest flame quotients of the active participants).
 >   It feels like instead of talking to me you are responding in your mind to
 >   a woman or women who have hurt you and shut you out. 

     Possibly a mis interpitation, but I was basing it on the statement;

     FROM .161  " I'de rather be assertive and make a man feel uncomfortable,
                  that let a man put me down or trivialize me"

    A personal inturpitation of that statement was that your literally walking
    around with a chip on your shoulder, along with a VERY defensive attitude.
    It would lead me to believe that you have a tendency to go into that
    assertive mode at the slightest hint of provocation, hence the above 
    statement from my .168 (I believe)

>>     ...I can't understand the continued and
>>     nurthered anger. Its as if you've developed the attitude lets do it 
>>     to them before they can do it to us. That no man is trustworthy, guilty
>>     by association until he proves his worth.   What an incredibly frightening
>>     insight. 
    
 >   Are you speaking to me personally, the women in this file, or women
 >   in general?  Your reply was addressed to me, so I'll assume it's
 >   me.  
 >    I can't relate to that statement much at all.  I couldn't work here
 >   at DEC if I felt that way.  I work with a number of men whom I enjoy

     I was speaking to you. based on that "rather be assertive" statement 
     again. But now that I think about it, it does carry over to include
     sone other women that strike me as having the same attitude.

>     I absolutely would not have
>    participated in this file at that time because I felt like a volcano
>    going off at the slightest provocation.   But that was several years
>    ago and lasted for about one year. 
>    But it sounds like that's what you think I do now...
  
     Based on that "rather be assertive" statement, yes thats the 
     impression I got. That statement sends me a clear cut message that 
     you would go on the assertive if you so much as thought that a man
     was going to wrong you in any way. That to me is pre-judging before
     the fact. When you make statements like that, it leads me to believe
     that you still carry some of that anger with you. The question here,
     is that have you thought about that, That the possibility exists for
     some of that anger to still exists.
 
 >   I wish we had some smiley-face type icons to convey thoughtful,
 >   reflective, and listening carefully.  This whole response is written
 >   in a very calm tone, and I hope it comes across to you as such. 
    
     Yes, it has, hopefully mine has been received and perceived in 
     the same manner.
    
                                    Bob B                
    

    re .172   Hank, the reality of intimidation exists and it's
              not equal. And it is a shame.
    
    re .179   >...and women have traditionally had extremely limited
              > roles.
    
              Holly, whose fault was that? The individual in question
              or someone or something else?
    
    re .180   I believe men and women should be identified by the 
              qualities of their arguments (& statements), not by sex.
                Most of these (topic) 'divisions' and 'reactions' on
              the basis of sex are both *traditional* and *dumb.*
                
              Men love being called a 'gentleman.' So what's wrong with
              a lot of women's reaction's here about being called a
              'lady' if the sayer thinks the woman has such 'qualities'?
              The reaction can't be like a man's being called 'Sir'
              can it??  If so, then I come to one conclusion: The 'lady'
              in question, quite simply is NOT one.  She's honest to
              know the difference.  And she makes that distinction known.
              I have no problems with such honesty.  It's believable.
    
                                                         Russ

    Russ...the fact that tradtionally women had extremely limited
    roles was not the fault of the individuals in question but
    rather that they were not allowed to vote, not allowed to
    attend school, not allowed to own property etc. and that they
    had no way to prevent pregnancy and became hostages to their
    children's well being...but we have been over this and over this
    before...
    
    Bonnie

    in re ladies....if you mean that the women aren't ladies in the
    sense that they aren't eldery, dependant, and need to be taken
    care of (and a lot of the other negative steriotypes that go with
    the word) then what you said is reasonable. However if you meant
    that the women in question are illmannered, lack courtesy, slovenly,
    sluttish...and a lot of the other baggage that people often mean
    when they say that a 'woman is no lady' then your last few words
    were not those of a gentleman.

    re: Bob and Holly
    
    I think you two are _really_ doing a great job explaining to each
    other without being the _slightest_ bit offensive.  Keep it up:
    whether or not you two ever convince each other of anything, I like
    what you're saying and how you're saying it -- even if they _are_
    long notes ...:) :) :)
    
    Lee

    re .182 >Men love being called a 'gentleman'.
    
    I must take exception. I am a gentleman, to the best of my
    abilities, and I don't mind being noticed as one, but being
    called one means either "You're moving too slow" or "You're
    going home alone, sorry."   Nice_guys_sleep_alone syndrome
    or being rushed. No thanks. This old set of wheels only has
    one speed. 

     RE .171
     
>    I am not trying to say that your reply or anyone's reply has no
>    validity, but I do want to respond to a specific point you made.
 
     OK, thats fair, I have always been willing to listen to someone
     elses thoughts.
   
   >> How many times have you pre-judged a person or situation before word one ?
   >> Think about it for a second, did you really give that guy the benefit
   >> of the doubt ? Is this person rendering an opinion or telling you what
   >> to do ? What I sense, is that you, as so many others in this file, go to 
   >>auto defense mode and on the offensive before you really determine whether
   >> the statements are a shot at you or an opinion.
     
  >  So as I understand your words here, you're suggesting that many
  >  women jump to conclusions (in your words, "pre-judge") men's words
  >  even though the men are just giving their opinion.

     I wrote these thoughts based on the statement that Holly made in her 
     reply .161...."I'de rather be assertive and make a man feel uncomfortable,
     than let a man put me down or trivialize me." Now I could have mis 
     understood her intent, but the statement sent me a message that she has
     a definite tendency to be defensive to the point of if she even thinks
     that a man is about to wrong her she goes into that aggressive (defensive)
     mode. That denotes to me a person that has a tendency to pre-judge people.
     I am also of the opinion that she is not the only person that does this.
  
  >  But earlier in this same reply you write:
    
    >>Is anger the only way you can derive power ? are you really happy
    >>and comfortable living with that anger ? If so, you've chosen a 
    >>tough way to live. 
    
    Now I think the words "you've chosen a tough way to live" are expressed
    as fact not opinion.  In this next passage you continue:
    
    I believe that you have missed the point, that the answers to the two 
    posed questions as being the qualifier to the follow up statement.
    If the person answered yes to either one or both of the questions
    then they in fact have chosen a tough way to live. Ask anyone that
    has been that way and been fortunate enough to recognize it, to the 
    extent that they stop letting anger rule their life. Believe me when
    I tell you that I've been there and back and know first hand.
    
    >> In short, it is not healthy to live with it as a priority in your 
    >> life. If you are convinced that anger is the sole source of power 
    >>in ones life, you are sadly mistaken. 
    
>    Now, Bob, you may think that your words are being attacked because
>    you are male, but I can tell you that for me that is not true. 
>    When anyone tells me that I am "sadly mistaken," I tend to shut
>    myself down to anything she or he has to say.   Can you see how
>    other people (men and women) might be offended by words like the
>    ones I've cited above.
 
     As holly pointed out , the printed word leaves so much to be desired
     in relation to there is no observed body language, eye contact, and
     voice inflection / tone attached to it. Had you the ability to hear
     the words spoken, you would have picked up on a tone expressing 
     concern. The voice of one friend explaining to another that their 
     own experience has shown then that this lifestyle of anger is wrong.
   
>    In this passage, you described your experiences.  I felt much more
>    comfortable with that.  
    
    >>I know about that anger, I still have traces of it from multiple 
    >>sources. It took me some time to control it and push it aside and 
    >>to replace it with more important things in my personal agenda of life.
 
    I suppose this just serves as an example of the different way people
    can say the same things.  My style is to try and get the person I'am
    talking to to think about what I'am saying. I do this by posing some
    questions and then commenting with my opinion about the possible answers.
    Hopefully this gives the person a clear prospective of my thoughts.
    I also relate personal experiences to try and round out the discussion.
    
>    Bob, I just want you to know that for me it really is the way you
>    expressed yourself in that note... not the fact that you are male
>    that made me angry.  If you had said something like:
    
>      It seems to me that you have a lot of anger, and this disturbs
>      me because I think anger gets in the way of other things.  When
>      I feel angry...  
    
>    Those kinds of statements feel very different to me than the things
>    you said in your note to Holly.  Some people think (and I agree)
>    that men and women *generally* have different ways of expressing
>    themselves.  I think that women are more likely to express things
>    in terms of personal experience and that men are more likely to
>    express things as fact.  Now if my opinion is correct, if those
>    differences do exist between men and women *Generally*, then it
>    may look to some folks that men are being harshly judged because
>    of their gender... not because of the ways they sometimes express
>    themselves.

     I see two things here. First is those women that are angry at men in
     general. It doesn't make any difference what any man has to say as 
     far as an opinion because they will disagree with it anyway. The
     tell tale here is in the manner that they write answers. The second
     is the style or interpitation differences. 
               
      I have a tendency to believe it goes a little bit further than
     just a style difference. I think were all guilty of getting hung up 
     on one sentence, or paragraph of thought, instead of looking at the 
     entire text. A good example of this is above, where as you were
     uncomfortable with one section of what I wrote vs another section.
     They were both talking to the same subject as a continuous train of 
     thought. But as you pointed out if the reader gets hung up one one 
     piece of the total it can destroy the overall meaning of the entire 
     text.

     And this reverts back into one of the things I was saying. That if 
     a person has that chip already on their shoulder, then they are going
     to seek out that one thing that sets them off, rather than receiving 
     the real message in the text. How many time have we seen some one nit
     pic a word, spelling error, grammar error, complain that the persons
     style is all wrong, rather than address the opinions expressed ?
     How many times have we seen someone complaining that someone is "telling"
     them what to do, when in fact the person is giving advice based on their
     experience (which BTW half the time was requested).

     It occurs to me that there is a fair amount of these nit pic things
     happening in here vs discussion of the differences of opinions and why
     a person feels that way. This is something we all need to watch for 
     if were ever to come to a better understanding of each other. I'am really
     not trying to complain, I'am expressing my being tired of playing the 
     one way game some people play.

                                      Bob B

    Bob,
    
    There is a different way to interpret Holly's words. If a person
    has accepted being put down for a long time and swallowed their
    anger, then deciding to be legitimately angry is not the same as
    being hostile, defensive or having a chip on the shoulder.
    
    This may be a difference between men and women. Women were long
    taught to hide their anger. So Holly is I believe talking about
    going from hiding anger and never getting angry except inside to
    being unafraid to get angry with cause. While you appear to be
    starting from the point of being unafraid to get angry with cause
    and seeing this as moving as getting angry at the slightest thing
    with no real cause.
    
    Does this make any sense?
    
    Bonnie

    RE .174
    
>    I found your remarks to be very perceptive.  One thing surprised
>    me, however.  Neither you nor anyone else took Bob Barber to task
>    for the following:
  
     Well since you have , I will
  
>>    "Oh theres a problem all right, but its not what you perceive it to
>>    be.  The real problem here is that in too many cases you and others 
>>    can not or will not differentiate between opinion and criticism vs
>>    coercion and control."
    
 >   No qualification of "I believe" is made, just the simple ~what you see
 >   is wrong~.  No examples are cited, no reasons are given. 
  
     Well number one the replys have been getting long enough without adding
     more to them. But since you've requested it, I give an example of one
     of the most common occurrences of which I speak. There has been a number 
     of time I and others have written an opinion and have been accused of 
    "attempting to tell that person what to do" What, you don't believe me,
     well lets look at a part of .187 right from this note. (With apologies
     to Karen)

         FROM .187                                
	Let's stop this attitude of telling women that if they can't
	discuss something with everyone that they can't discuss it at all.

	...Karen
  
     Want more, go back to the Hite report note and some of the other running 
     controversial subjects that I've been involved in. You will find examples
     from Suzzane Conlon, Ellen Gugel, and others all responding at one time 
     or another with accusations of my telling then what to do, when in fact 
     the statements from me were opinion. Brushing me and others off as if 
     our opinion has no validity simply because they don't want to hear it.
    
     Beyond that are the constant accusations that men are attacking womanhood
     and the file because our opinion deferrers from some feminist author or 
     favorite woman in the file. And for that matter I'am not the only man 
     thats been charged with these and other wrong accusations 
    
>     Any easily                                                       
>     peeved sociologist would rip that statement up, through it on the 
>     ground, and jump up and down on it.

      No , women in women notes don't make light nor say that a man's 
      opinion has no validity to it now do they..... RIGGGGGGHT !!!!
      If thats the case then what is the above....a complement ????
      For that matter since when did Sociology become a hard science ?
      I've always known it as on of the "soft" sciences due to it being
      a matter of conjecture and opinion. So what if a Sociologist gets
      peeved, who is to say whether that person opinion is right or wrong
      save for them selves.

>    Yes, Bob has the right to his opinions.  Nevertheless, if he states
>    them as facts, then others have a equal right to question their validity
>    and even their veracity.

     Oh thank you for allowing me an opinion. But excuse me... how do you 
     differentiate between opinion and facts ? Whatevers convenient for you ?
     I guess you haven't been following all the conversations in here
     for if you had things that I have been talking about would be hard 
     to miss. As you are famous for asking for proof and definitions,
     please define your personal interpatation of the words opinion
     and fact, with examples.

>    Bob, men qua men *are* welcome to participate.  However, certain
>    subsegments of the world population are not welcome because of,
>    well, shall we say, certain abrasive or distasteful qualities. 
>    (To me, a distasteful quality would be a careless attitude towards
>    the truth, and and abrasive one would be an insistance on having
>    the *right* to be careless about the truth.)

      And my problem is when people twist the truth to suit themselves !
      AKA your non observance of the accusations of people charging 
      others opinion of telling (ordering) what to do. 

>    In our culture, girls
>    and women have been far more rigorously trained in how to be polite
>    and in how to withdraw a statement or claim that is disagreed with
>    than boys and men have been. 
  
     BULLPUPPY !!!   maybe days long ago, but not todays women. Most every
     one I know, especially in this conferences have got their own mind,
     speak it and are willing to stick to their gun when they feel their 
     right.  You really know women that will roll over and change their 
     minds just because they were told by some man that they were wrong ?
     I don't believe it .

>    Therefore, in this notefile (which
>    has our culture as one of its anchor points), men are far more
>    likely to be in this unacceptable subsegment than women are.  Please
>    consider seeing that situation in this more diffuse cultural light
>    than in the absolutist, "post hoc ergo propter hoc" light which
>    you seem to be using.

     What I'am looking at is, I sense an attitude of I am to only do what
     you say is OK for me as a man which is different from what you want 
     and preach that is OK for yourself and other women. I believe the term 
     is double standard.

>    P.S.  I do not think that there is a single woman (or man) in this
>    notefile who does not believe that women in this country are better
>    off now than they were last century.  However, I (for one) to not
>    confuse the concept "better" with "good"; e.g., a 1% raise is better
>    than no raise, but it is not a "good" raise in this company.

     If that is the case then I wonder what your goals are and am really
     curious as to you definition of the word "Equality". Which sounds
     like an excellent topic for a new note.
    

    	RE:  .192
    
    	Bob Barber, you mentioned earlier that people rarely tell
    	you that you are being rude.  Allow me to be the first, then.
    
   	I would like to request that you please STOP bringing up my
    	name in a general way (to describe general behavior or things
    	that I *might* say in response to your current conversation).
    
    	I have not been active in this conference for over two weeks
    	and would appreciate it if you would *refrain* from talking about
    	me personally anymore when I am *not* part of the discussion.
    	(If you need the quotes of your text where you brought up my
    	name, please send mail and I will be happy to furnish them.)
    
    							Suzanne...

	RE: .194
    

	Bob,

	I didn't accuse you or anyone of trying to "order" anyone
	around.  I guess I don't really know how to convey my opinion
	that your (and some other people's) opinion makes me feel like 
	you (and they) believe that you (and they) feel that women
	shouldn't discuss things in FWO topics unless those women can discuss
	them with everyone.  In which case I feel that less will be
	discussed if women start to agree with your opinion and this
	file starts a policy to not allow FWO topics,  because I feel that
	these women might not be able to discuss with everyone what they
	could discuss in a FWO topic.   So we all lose.

	Does that make it any clearer?  (rhetorical question).  Probably
	not.  So this is a sort of half-assed apology for wording things
	without stating often enough that this was just my opinion of
	your (collective) opinion and that I now realize that you do not
	expect the moderators to form any sort of policy based on your
	opinions.  I, however, hope they do base policy on my opinion and
	am telling them what I think they should do.
	

>        I am more than willing to acknowledge the ability of a person to
>        know their own personal needs and feelings.  My sense of fairness
>        says that FWO note does not acknowledge that men can have knowledge
>        of them too. To that extent I see them as being a bit one sided 
>        and selfish on the authors part. 

	I said it might not be fair.  My point is that all communication
	(on some topics) between men and women might be shut off if women 
	could not have notes that men could read but not reply to.  Maybe
	once in awhile some women need to be one-sided and selfish.  I'm
	willing to let men have those needs too.  So for now maybe the
	men can not be selfish by letting these topics continue.

	...Karen



	P.S.  I had vowed not to contribute any more to this endless
	debate and here I am one more time.  I won't reply to this
	anymore.  Bob, I'm sorry if you want to question something I've
	said but I'm stopping.  If it's really that important send me
	mail.  I think maybe at this point we should agree to disagree.

    For the record, I think of myself as a "regular contributor to this
    file" and I'm male. I have NEVER felt that a note of mine was taken
    less seriously than I intended, or that it was "made light of".
    
    Except once.
    
    By a man.
    
    	-- Charles

    RE .183-4   Bonnie, I am sorry that *Society* in previous times
              had inequities that people today find hard to believe,
              understand, and (not lastly ...it ever seems) -- accept.
                I have been educated to believe that men throughout
              history are the vicious villains ( to blame ) regarding
              nearly all of these so-called inequities. 
                I have been totally conditioned into (buying) the
              viewpoints that men are the ones who structured Society
              and have oppressed and subjugated women thru all times.
                Be it most any subject from A to Z, I have been 'trained'
              to believe that men have done everything from the building
              of Great Cities and homes to making rockets to reach the
              moon to writing great classics of literature to building
              business empires to achieving super athletic feats to
              to feeding and clothing and caring for a wife and family.
                I have been 'led' to believe that men are totally to
              blame for not always being kind to their soulmates - women.
              I am aware of the painful realities of abusive and criminal
              men and make no excuses for them or their inhumane actions.
                Such 'men are bad influences for Society. More simply-
              bad for *Society*. And I think Society (in general) takes
              'care of' such men.
                So .... I'll admit that some men in history have not
              been the best of creatures. But I think that the vast
              majority of men have been good - and have held power in
              good faith - so ..... therein lies the problem I have.
                Why is it that men -- men are sooo blamed for sooo much
              of the problems in life when the other half - women, has
              SO Much Power in Life?  And rarely gets the appropriate
              *share* of the blame for the many problems that she has
              contributed to.
                Salome was able to get John the Baptist's head. That's
              power. She had the power to have men listen to a killing
              order - and yes - carry it out. 
                Cleopatra got Caesar's attention, not to mention Marc
              Antony's - and millions of Egyptians. Of course 4 years
              is not forever, especially when she allowed the asp to
              bite her neck ....
                Other *non-contributers* in World history must include
              Mary Magdalene. 
                To quote Eisler, "...Mary Magdalene was a *leader* of
              the early Christian movement after Jesus died.... Mary
              was one of the most important figures in the early Christian
              movement.... Mary ...was the Christian leader who had
              the courage to challenge the authority of Peter as the
              head of a new religious hierarchy...." 
                Many different kinds of Queens thru the ages.....
              Madame Chang-Kai-Shek led the Republic of China for many
              years... U.S. President's wives... Eleanor Roosevelt WAS
              President for a time ... Golda Meir, Evita Peron, Maggie
              Thatcher, Cory Aquino, Raisa & Nancy; Imelda Marcos,
              Joan of Arc, Clara Barton, Marie Curie, Florence Nightengale,
              Emily Dickenson, the 'Flappers of 1917-21', Simone de
              Beauvoir and 'The *Second* Sex", Betty Friedan, Gloria
              Steinem, Kate Millet, Marilu Lopez, Shirley Chisholm,
              Germaine Greer, Ms Smeal & Yard, Wilma Heide, Helen
              Caldicott, Mayflower Madam, Donna Rice, Jessica Hahn
              ('lady'), last & not least EVE.... Ms 50% chance of starting
              it all.  
                So where was I... oh yes, people & roles. Blame games,
              crutches, and such. Hmmmm...
                Admissions: Men are bigger & more muscular than women
              (in general). And some men thru history have abused such
              advantages. Over other men. Over women.
                Limitations: Men have been trapped in the limited World
              that conditioned stereotyped role expectations bring.
              Most 'Men I see are the dull robots that E.V. talks about.
              And that scares me. I think men are still in the roles
              that have been imposed upon them from time immemorial.
                Besides John Lennon, do you know of a man that has been
              a REAL FULL TIME   F A T H E R  for his children?
              Do you KNOW .... Really KNOW .... how many Men wish that
              they could toss away their rat race jobs and give their
              ALL to the Women and Children that they so dearly LOVE?
                I hate to say it but a man doen't even THINK of the
              *possibility*. He has from day one been expected to Work
              away from home - and work he does. 
                I hear complaints about housework - sorry ITS EASY.
              I heard all the complaints from the 'Movement' in the
              70's. Sorry - WE never needed it. Civil MEN *ESP.*
              And if I may be brash to say so - Gentlemen are a thing
              of the past because of the CRUSHING CRITICISM from the
              Intellectual 'factual' know it alls. 
                The last breed of Men had no chance when they got &
              virtually had to take it from all *sides* in the 70's.
              We even had to prove our worth as 'performers' among
              the 'sexually liberated women.' 
                Divorce and custody laws are fair. Ha. Military equality.
              Ahem. Circumcision - ouch. Affirmative Action for 'all
              those oppressed *minorities* -- pleeze. I'll find a wife
              to support me to be a house husband - that liberated attitude
              is out there --yeah. Men get asked out :-). It's *certain
              men* who are the troublemakers in a Conf.- aren't WE always.
              Always *US*, never the possibility of ... Mennotes knows
              what men need - issues to discuss. Do many men know what
              a 'male issue' is?  Ha. Men have no idea -- and Eisler's
              gylanic women are not there (or encouraged to go) to help
              them. 
                As someone said in 'Football' over 'there,' if *I* don't
              like it, then *I* can always change the channel. WE all
              can.  And I've heard from many wonderful Women & Men that
              HAVE.
                We MEN are often accused of being insensitive. For God's
              sake take a look at yourselves. All of you. What kind
              of sensitivity IS IT to print a note that says male replies
              will be ** DELETED **.  Tell the 40% of the 'Community'
              what it feels like for somebody to say to you -- "I'm
              DELETING YOU...(if...).
                The reaction from this one is not the idea of the FWO
              notes -- they're OK with me & I've never read a one.
              The ISSUE is *some* of the accompanying ATTITUDES that
              go along with such ideas. SENSITIVITY is a 2 way street.
              So let's be careful before more people DELETE more than
              just a few 'gender's'(precious thoughts) notes.
              That is not the issue.  
    
     re Ann B. There is a difference between 'opinion & criticism' and
               'coercion & control.'  Yes there is..... and let's make
                sure that we all are careful about such possibilities....
    
                Both sexes have done a number on one another thru all
                time. Except for one topic, I have nothing more to say
                for a long time -- it just isn't worth it.
    
                And yes -- we all do like Jim, Tammy & Jessica - DON'T
                WE?   Don't WE?    don't we . . . .
    
                                                  not a gentleman,
    
                                                                Russ

RE: .72

"It's RUDE to do that, and a person who does it can have every legal right to do
it and still add no more value to what's going on than someone who pees in the
community swimming pool."

Are you saying my note was piss?  I don't think it deserves that!

It is RUDE to exclude someone who is present from a conversation.

Jim.

RE: .74

"Ever have a boss argue and finally "decide" that your idea was "wrong"?  How
did you feel then?"

Like the boss is a !@#$.  I usually go and see what other people think of
the idea, and then either drop it, or keep pushing the idea.

Jim. 

RE: .86

"Gee, Liz, maybe you moderators could create a "step-outside" note. You know a
place where men could go and shoot pistols (or whatever) at each other at 50
paces, and leave the rest of us out of their duels."

Odd, it seems to me that most 'duels' have one (or more) woman, and one (or
more) man.  I'd like to see the women with pistols to step outside as well as
the men with pistols.

Jim. 

RE: .90

"Namely, that male "attention" <in [notes]> may always be forced on women." 

What is wrong with that, since female attention (in notes) may always be forced
on men?  Seems fair...

Jim. 

RE: .73

"Males who would "force their ideas" upon unwilling women..."

Come on, how does someone *force* an idea on you?  You can walk away, you can
not listen, you can not agree, you can not believe....  Maybe you can
*brainwash* people, but that is lightyears from what is being discussed!

You *should not* force the other person to move away, to shut up, to stop
believing what they believe...

I speak/write, in response to what I hear and what I think.  I hope people will
listen, think, and reply.  But they may choose not to, and I don't force them
to.  

The reply that disagrees with me is just as valuable to me as the reply that
agrees with me, all other things (logic...) being equal...   However, I am less
likely to criticize illogic of someone on 'my side', I sometimes just keep quite
and hope that the other side doesn't see the flaws. 

Jim.

    Oh, I don't know about that.  And here's a concrete counter-example:
    655.  Besides, this is a place for women to flex their muscles.
    If we want to see you flex yours (or whatever it is), we'll go watch
    you in mennotes.

RE: .104

"The moderators also have the right and responsibility to hide your replies
where applicable."

A meaningless statement without the definitions of "right", "responsiblity", and
"were applicable".  Assuming you mean what I think you mean, I ask who gave them
that right?   No one.  I do not believe that they have that right.

"Respecting the authors will is *nonexistant* by some men in this conference."

And by some women.  I have entered several notes and set them nowrite, and they
have been changed to writable. 

Jim.

RE: .106

"And it's private in the sense that FWO topics allow women to shape the flow of
what is being said in some instances."

There are infinitely better ways of doing this...

Jim. 

    Okay, wise guy, put your fingers where your mouth is.

    Reply to .205, Jim,
    
    There is always a way to defeat a topic and your're pretty good
    at that. Why don't you, personally, respect the will and intent
    of this file and take whatever banterings you have to somewhere
    else?

RE: .125

"And what are the indications that you have gotten from women that the stated
purpose of this conference is one of raising *your* consciousness?"
                                                             
"I will freely admit that that has happened in this conference but is that the
stated purpose of the conference? Not that I'm aware of."

Would the moderators (or a vote) care to pronounce a verdict?

"And let them make a decision without having to listen to whiners."

That would essentially be an uninformed decision.  Why would you prefer an
uninformed decision? 

"There are other conference that are more appropriate for human relations."

That may be true, but obviously such notefiles are not fullfilling the needs
that many would wish womannotes to fill. 

Why is it that *you* Male Mikie feel authorized to tell people what women want?

"What is the cosmic and cultural loss?"

Men understanding women.  Women understanding men.  Seems like a significant
loss to me.

Jim. 

RE: .130

"I then went and talked to my friends and they told me that he had no right to
ask me that."

I would say that he had every right to *ask*.  And you had every right to
decline with dignity. 

Jim.

    I'd be grateful for a little less contentiousness, Jim.  Please?
    
    						=maggie

RE: .131

I feel that the C-R rules are good ones.  However I have a problem following
one of them:

"People agree to speak for themselves and not generalize,"

I often generalize because I *assume* that other people are like me and have
shared a like experience.  I don't *insist* that they are like me, or did share
such experiences, but I want them to identify with whatever I am writing, and
hopefully learn what I learned (or learn something else, and point that out to
me) from the experience. 

I also see a lot of thoughts / feelings that seem harmfull to the person who has
them.  I usually point out how I see them.  It is entirely their right to argee
or disagree, but I do feel obligated to point them out... 

Is there a better way to do this without "'denying'" someone elses feelings /
thoughts / persons then I am doing?  (serious replies only please)

Jim.

RE: .132

"Women talking about their generalized anger at men, and men questioning the
existence of wife abuse in this country are EQUALLY disruptive to the file."

Why does one have a place here, and one not?  Both discussions benifit women.
Where better to get an asnwer to the second question then here? 

Jim.

RE: .134

""Militant" men:  (I'd've said "reactionary men" myself)"

As one who I imagine is branded as Militant, I agree that "reactionary" is a
better label for me.  Not that I believe that the labels are necessarily bad.
Some things need to be "militant" about.  Some things need to be "reactionary"
about. 

I don't think that I fit in either of the subcategories mentioned.  I do feel
that women have some inequality that they need to give up as equality to men,
and that men have inequalities which they benifit from to give as equality to
women.

Jim. 

RE: .135

How does this read?

'I just got a mail message from a member of the community who pointed out that
one tactic used by the militant women is to claim that the most of the men here
are militant (i.e., separatist) rather than moderate (i.e., strongly feminist
but not chauvinist).  To those women, any man who is not fully supportive of
women in a men/women conflict is labelled a chauvinist.'

Jim.

RE: .136

"And the needs of the so-called militant women should come before those of the
so-called militant men in this file if we have to choose."

Why?

Jim. 

RE: .140

Nobody seems to be calling you strident but yourself, (if any).  But probably
there is a better term, just as reactionary might be a better term for some men
then militant.

"And I don't think that support will be jeopardized if we sometimes wish to talk
only with each other." 
 
Quite a few people *have* said that that jeopardizes their support.

"I don't want men's participation to change the shape and the direction of the
file. 

If you see this file as a microcosm of life, how would you feel about this
being applied throughout life?

Jim.

"If women have to agree with men in order to get men to support them in their
battle, will women ever be truly equal?"

Doesn't that depend on what they agree to, rather then who they agree with??

"I have never expected life to be totally fair, and I have never asked for
complete equality."

'That's Life' has been used by *many* to justify unequal treatment!  It sounds
like a built in excuse just begging to be used.

But,

"(Sometimes I like to be equal, sometimes have the advantage, and sometimes the
disadvantage.  Just make sure it averages out to be equal.)"

I can agree with that; sometimes it's good to just go along for the ride for a
while, and let someone *else* take the flack that goes with being 'top dog'.
People have the right to delegate authority if they choose.  The question then
is how much right do they have to complain if they don't like the results? 

The problam is that people will have a ***lot*** harder time agreeing what
averages out to be equal, then what is equal in each case.  Different things
are important for different people.

"sorry men I'm not looking to meet your needs right now"

That ranks right up there with "Would you mind taking your silly assed problem
down the hall?"  I think that the lack of concern and rudeness in both sucks.
Sure, we can't solve all the world's problems, but 'tough luck' doesn't strike
me as a good answer.

Jim. 

RE: .145 militant sides

I believe that each side exists out of reaction to the other.  I think that they
are both necessary.  (I still think 'no men' is going too far) 

"It's a little bit (but not exactly) like the old system of triage."

By your definitions, I would conclude that the ones who need it the most
would be the extremists.  But unfortunately, I think they would be the least
likely to benifit. :-)

"(I just don't feel as much responsibility towards "militant" men *here*,
though, should it come down to a conflict of needs.)"

It is very much necessary to have the "Loyal Opposition", of which I number
myself, to point out flaws, to play the devil's advocate so that improvement may
be made. 

Jim.

RE: .149

"Is it so hard to believe that a sincere (and repeated) request for men to be
very careful in this topic [since it is a "loaded" subject and we want/need
support] would be respected?"

No. 

"And if some man wandering through put in a hurtful/insensitive reply, do you
really think that a personal reminder to him would be ignored?"

No.

"Is it so hard to understand our heightened (perhaps excessively so, but that is
neither mine nor yours to judge) sensitivity on certain issues makes us very
hesitant to welcome the presence of those who have shown a proclivity for
stomping on our faces?"

It is not hard at all to understand.  But it is very difficult to accept. There
is a large generalization in your question, namely that the 'stompers' includes
everyone who is being made to feel unwelcome.

"TAKE YOUR NITPICKING AND ATTACKING TO MAIL PLEASE"

I believe that it would be helpfull to have a series of topics where nitpicking,
if necessary can be taken to...  these should be used by women as well as men.

Jim.

    <--(.220)
    
    Jim, I think it's pretty clear to everyone now that we made a mistake
    in asking you to break up your responses into separate notes.  We
    thought it would make them easier to read (and adding exact quotes
    certainly has had a good effect), but overall I think we're less
    well off now than before.  I'd like to express our official
    appreciation for your courtesy in being willing to change your style
    when asked.  At the same time, I'd also like to offically request
    that you go back to concatenating all responses into a single entry.
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

RE: .151 semantic problems...

What I has been trying to do lately is not assume that I understand what is
being said, which seems to be such as to make my blood boil, but instead to ask
if that is indeed what is meant, and go no further.

Jim. 

RE: .157

"Part of what _I_ want from this file includes giving men an idea of how badly
some of these things _hurt_ -- the assault on our feelings by what seems like an
innocuous remark."

This is a very important part of the file for me...

Jim.

RE: .158

"In the interests of proving that men and women are "two genders separated by a
common language" <paraphrasing the ditty about the U.S. and England> I submit
that:"

I agree that it sometimes seems like that! :-)  But is the solution then to talk
together less, IE seperatism?  I would think the solution would be to talk
*more*. 

"The "mind-set" is - Women's Space May Be Freely Intruded Upon By Men"

I would phrase it as 'Notesfile Space May Be Freely Intruded Upon By Men And
Women'.

"The "action" one takes may fall anywhere on a continuum of that "mind-set",
from feeling free to intrude on women's conversation to intruding on a woman's
body."

Are you equating Men in WOMANNOTES to Rapists?

Jim.

RE: .169

"What utter rubbish, although not one will admit it, there is this perminating
head set amongst a fair number of the women in this file that ALL men are out to
get you."

I didn't read that, at least not in the quotes you gave...

Jim.

RE: .168

(I think :-}) I understand how you feel about anger, Holly.  I think that
you put it very well.

"Does it seem like some of us are saying that women are incapable of hurting
others?"

Yes, it does.  But most of the time I know that that is not what is meant, so I
ignore it. 

Very good note Holly, I could read the 'thoughtfullness' between the lines...

Jim.

RE: .171

"Now I think the words "you've chosen a tough way to live" are expressed as fact
not opinion."

I would say that those words are expressed as fact as Bob believes them. But I
do not feel that they are anything to get upset about.  It would be quite easy
for me to disagree with him.  I would not feel that Bob's opinion has been
'forced' on me.  I do not understand very well why this form of a statement
causes so much anger.

"It seems to me that you have a lot of anger, and this disturbs me because I
think anger gets in the way of other things."

I would be much more upset by this form then the previsou one, because it
explicitly makes an assumption about me, namely that I am angry.

Jim. 

    re: .199 
    
    Jim, I think your replies may point to one of the difficulties
    of this (and some other) discussion.
    
    In .74, I suggested a couple of ways men might consider what
    having an idea "forced" upon them might feel like.  F'rinstance,
    I wrote:
    
    "Ever have a boss argue and finally "decide" that your idea was 
    "wrong"?  How did you feel then?"
     
    You replied:
    
    "Like the boss is a !@#$.  I usually go and see what other people 
    think of the idea, and then either drop it, or keep pushing the idea."
    
    A bit later (.203) you replied to .73:
    
    RE: .73 "Males who would "force their ideas" upon unwilling women..."

    Come on, how does someone *force* an idea on you? 
    
    **********************************************************************
    
    If I had said that the boss not only says that your idea is wrong
    but that you must work to comply with *his/her* idea, would it
    change the picture?  The other two examples I gave in .74 probably
    serve better as illustrations (one was of a drill sergeant "sharing" 
    his/her ideas with you, compliance mandatory or of the legal system 
    "suggesting" what it think is good and fair for you/me/the people).
    
    I apologize for not making the analogy clear in the "boss" example
    (i.e. that the boss would/could enforce compliance with the idea),
    but what I was getting at was that for some, such an event *feels*
    like "force".  I've a notion that what feels like force differs by 
    individual and that, if we poke around a bit, we'll find that there
    *are* some generalities which differ by sex.  
    
    I have a hunch that men have (in general & historically) been 
    conditioned to "push back", "stand up for their rights", etc.  
    But this simply indicates *how* we were taught to react, not *what*
    we're reacting *to*; and I think that "what" is a feeling of
    being forced.  Even if situation "x" doesn't feel like force to
    me, it might to you (& vice versa).
    
    Ach!  Nutz!  Y'know when ya gotta run to a mtg. and you got more
    to say. . .I hate when that happens.
    
    Steve
    
    

RE: .173

"Perhaps the greatest gift men can get from participation in this conference is
the real understanding of how it feels for women in the work-place."

I do not feel this should be used as an excuse for double standards to exist.

Jim.

RE: .174

"No qualification of "I believe" is made, just the simple ~what you see is
wrong~.  No examples are cited, no reasons are given.  Any easily peeved
sociologist would rip that statement up, throw it to the ground, and jump up and
down on it."

Not without looking at the context around that quote, I hope...

Jim. 
    

RE: .181

"If I saw <tampons> as a subject, I would hit next unseen. This is the type
subject that deserves its form of privacy, since I know of no man that could
contribute to the discussion"

Not necessarily... a man may not have personal experience using tampons, but may
have aquired knowledge of them from a female SO, or through reading, etc... This
applies to many supposed 'woman only' topics.

Jim. 

Jim.

    Jim, my point in the note in which I placed actions based on
    mind-set on a continuum was to REFUTE 
    
    those who were claiming that those who said men who had that
    particular mind-set WERE rapists.
    
    My contention is that this conclusion CANNOT be drawn, not the reverse.
    
    --DE
    

RE: .183

Bonnie, I don't know of many people in womannotes who "were not allowed to vote,
not allowed to attend school, not allowed to own property"... :-}

Jim. 

    re .233
    
    Jim the operative word was 'traditionally'

    Depends upon the school.  In 1973, Caltech sent me a letter saying
    that the next year was the first year they were going to admit women
    as regular students.  True, I could have gone to Caltech, but I
    don't know about my friends a year ahead of me.  I couldn't have
    gone to Harvard (okay, so the difference was dissolving even then).
    
    In 1973, because of a lack of funds, my high school cut the women's
    tennis team.  They didn't drop any men's teams.  The women's tennis
    team had been active.  Women's sports teams weren't provided uniforms;
    most men's teams were.  (Okay, so I was in band and the math team.
    Nobody had uniforms for the latter.)  Extra-curricular activities
    are a part of education, if not schooling.  In essence, my school
    spent more on young men's educations than on young women's.  (Do
    you know how much it cost every week just to get those football
    uniforms dry-cleaned?)
    
    I haven't looked around lately because it's not like there's been a need,
    but 15 years ago, many states had laws that stated that a married
    woman could not own property--it belonged to the husband.  I know
    there are women in this file who've been married more than 15 years.
    Anybody have any cold hard facts?  At the time, I'd heard, in fact,
    that California was one of these states.
                          

    Just this decade, I think ... admittance to military academies for women.
    	West Point
    	Air Force Academy
    	Annapolis
                             
    ap

    Fraternities.
    
    My fraternity got thrown out of their national because the national
    alums got upset when they thought a woman was in charge of our chapter.
    Well, sort of, she was commander (pres.), but she didn't do the
    secret stuff, only the men did that.  And I was annoyed, because
    I wanted to be a Sigma Nu just like my grandfather.
    
    Yeah, and I was a man of Alpha Phi Omega, but the semester I was
    initiated, they backed down at taking the women through the secret
    stuff, so they hauled us off to this room where we just stood while
    the men got to know the secret stuff.  I was told it later, but
    I still can't remember it because it wasn't told in a special way.
    
    And if you don't think frats are important, it's just because you've
    never had two Epsilon Thetans together in the same room with you.
    (You haven't been attending enough womannotes parties.)
    
    Yes, military academies are more important than fraternities.  Women
    had to prove themselves there, and they did.
    
    For that matter, some ROTC was closed to women.  I had a friend
    two years older than me who was a trial participant in women's Navy
    ROTC at MIT, back when it was an experiment.

RE: .207 "infinitely better"

1: judge each note on it's merits.

2: if you want to complain about 'being told what to do', or sexist statements,
   etc, do it in Mail, or a side topic.

Need I say that these rules should apply to both male and female?

RE: .228 steve "forcing ideas"

Like I mentioned, the forcefull boss, or drill sergeant example of 'forcing
ideas' is not a very good analogy.  Either you are forced to physically *do*
something, or there is no "force" involved.  Neither a boss or sergeant can
*force* me to change my thoughts.  In any case my words on the screen have no
force, threat or authority except for their meaning.

The legal system is a much better analogy of what "forcing ideas" means to me,
but I doubt that notes have the threat of authority that the legal system has.
And again, the threat or force is physical, even the legal system cannot change
my idea of what is right.

RE .232 DE "mind-set"

Thank you for clearing that up...  Does that mean that the statement "you have
the minds-set of a rapist" is acceptable here or not? 

RE: .235 Lisa "school choice"

There is a big difference between not being allowed to go to school, and not
being allowed to go to the school you might like to go to.  I would like to go
to Harvard, but there are many reasons why I will probably not.

Certainly these need to be addressed, and many of them have been, but the bald
*unqualified* statements are untrue. 

Jim.

    re: .238
    
    We're getting closer, Jim.  For you, the court analogy "worked best".
    I'm simply suggesting that for other people, while the court situation
    would not feel like force but the boss analogy might.  Or some other
    situation.  
    
    What I think I'm hearing in the discussions around force is that
    people attach the word "force" to different experiences (or, in
    a slightly more contorted fashion, people give meaning to the symbol
    "force" through their experiences).  It seems to me that while part of
    our defining the word "force" comes in the classroom, the personal
    definitions/connotations we attach to the word come from our various
    experiences.  I'd hazard a theory that most or all of us don't like
    it when we feel "forced" - no matter what the circumstances; when
    such an event occurs, we attach that experience (feeling) to the
    word force.  If the theory (or "thee-rrry" as A. Elk would say)
    is right, it would lead to the word "force" meaning different things
    to different people. . .
    
    Thus, in my own twisted view of the cosmos, it sounds to me that
    some of what's going on here is that some people are saying "X
    is (i.e. feels like) force" while others say "No, Y is force".
    
    Problem is that when couched in terms "Force is. . ." (vs. "Exper-
    ience X *feels* forceful"), there is bound to be disagreement. 
    But maybe it would help us all to remind ourselves that what
    feels like force is valid for all of us individually and that we
    all might find common ground in understanding that though we've
    attached different experiences to this word, the pain and pressure
    we felt when "forced" was remarkably similar.
    
    Steve
    

    re: (my) .239  (odd title, no?)
    
    Oh see the boy.  See the boy edit text.  See the boy smile smugly
    to himself as he blazes over the keyboard, loading that type-ahead
    buffer.
    
    Oh see the system laughing at the boy who obviously doesn't know
    when to slow down (and make sure the reply title is right. . .ack!)
    
    Steve (of the Helsinki Institute of Going a Bit Red)
    

    Titles are easily changed:
    
    MOD NOT/TIT="Some string"

    re .237  Lisa, Frats
    
    Yes, for what it's worth, Lisa Chabot and I are Brothers.  I used
    to say Sisters, but people thought that meant we were "Little Sisters"
    of some frat, rather than full members.  And the first =w= party
    we both attended, we spent some time boring the gourd out of several
    people.  Our frat was an important part of our life at school, even
    though we attended at different times.
    
    re .238  Jim Baranski, Schools
    
    You hit a hot spot for me Jim.  

> There is a big difference between not being allowed to go to school, and not
> being allowed to go to the school you might like to go to.  I would like to go
> to Harvard, but there are many reasons why I will probably not.
    
    If I was more than qualified to attend Harvard, and the reason for
    my choice of Harvard was that they had the country's best facilities
    for studying the subject of my choice, there is no reason _whatsoever_
    that I should not be permitted, even encouraged, to study there.
    After all, there is a high likelihood that I will become well known
    for my work, thereby making Harvard's reputation all the better
    and attracting more better-qualified candidates and research $$.
    
    If West Point is the best place to learn [some arcane military subject]
    and I am equally or more qualified than other candidates, there
    is no reason _whatsoever_ that I should not be permitted, even
    encouraged, to study there.  It is not at _all_ unlikely that a woman
    will distinguish herself as a brilliant military strategist.  If
    that woman has received her formal training at West Point then when
    she becomes widely recognized, so will West Point, thereby improving
    its reputation, perhaps attracting more $$, certainly attracting
    more and more excellent candidates.
    
    Not only is it unfair to me, it is unfair to the school trustees
    for a school to act against its best interests that way.
    
    I'm afraid I feel the same way about all-women's schools, all-black
    schools (though most of them _do_ admit qualified whites I believe),
    Catholic schools, etc, etc, etc.  But I suppose discussion of schools
    is more appropriate in the school topic.
    
    Lee

    Who cares about Harvard!  Consider Caltech.  Caltech is the most
    prestigious engineering and science school in California.  California
    had at the time I was in high school a very good scholarship program,
    and once you qualified at all you would get a scholarship based
    on the cost of the school you selected, but only for California
    schools.  In other words, poor students could go to the prestigious 
    schools in state.  However, prior to 1973, only poor male students.
    
    You probably don't have any idea what it's like to know you're good
    but that no matter how good you are you can't get the education
    you don't just want, that you burn for.
    
    I got accepted at Caltech, I got the big scholarship, I turned it
    down to go to a school with a better track record for women.  I'm
    still paying for that education, I'm proud of it, I know many people
    have received other excellent educations at other schools but I
    wouldn't have traded my experiences for anything.
    
    And then there's ROTC.  Sure, it's not for everyone, but depending
    upon the program, it may pay for your education.  This was closed
    to women, until very recently (I'm not that old).
    
    Until about 1973, I couldn't have taken shop in high school or junior
    high.  They didn't allow girls.  This was schooling denied to me. 
    I could have used the skills shop teaches, in college.
                                              

RE: .242 Lee

"If <qualified> then go to <school of choice>..."

True...  (waiting for the other shoe to drop...)

No argument here, that was not what I was disagreeing with...

Jim.

    This topic has been write-locked until May 1 since it is essentially
    a discussion of FWO topics.
    
    (Please continue the college discussion in 252 if you wish.)
    
    Holly
    moderator