Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    We must stop meeting like this!
    
    Maybe the answer, as you implies/stated is in how we express our
    disagrement/differences. Maybe we need a kinder and gentler notes
    file while keeping the openness to differing views. Valuing differences
    is essential, valuing safeness (actual or preceived) is also essential.

    Steve

But sometimes I just want to reach out of the terminal, and wring a noter's
neck, shouting "D***it, be nice!". 

I don't know how to force, even to strongly encourage, nice-ness in a diverse
electronic community.
	Mez

One of the reasons this notesfile isn't safe space is because it has such
a divergent and diverse audience.  Pop into something esoteric (and I
am thinking off the top of my head without getting into this note) like
Spelunking and what is there to get nasty about?

Womannotes and Mennotes and soapbox and anywhere people discuss people and
points of view you multiply and diversify the audience.  This means people
with hostile opinions and even sometimes downright un-nice-ness to other 
people.

I am afraid in this forum, you will not be able to get away from the 
occasional person who is not nice.  However, this forum does lead
many into forming new (or more concrete) opinions on various subjects, 
and generally it also leads people into finding how they can 
agree to disagree and still be friends.

This is the key: that despite my opinion that you have your head screwed
on crooked and you think that I have my head screwed on crooked, whoever
you and I may be, we can still coexist on friendly terms.  

Is that possible?  I have had it work on several occasions.

Mark

    The only ways I have found to do this, Mez, is to take disagreement
    "with a grain of salt," or to take more personal comments to one-on-one
    notes via electronic mail.  In all honesty, I'm reading this file
    less and less, hitting NEXT UNSEEN more and more, and generally
    disassociating myself from a lot of "public comments."  Instead,
    I personally write to the person with whom I converse so my messages
    don't end up questioned, or mangled in some way as so many seem
    to in here.  It's hard to feel supportive or supported when so much
    time is spent defending opinions and comments.  I regret that I
    can't offer you a better idea, but that seems to be the way it is
    these days.
    
    Looking forward to better times,
    
    Barb

    What is 'safe space'? That's hard to say.
    
    But 'safe space' is _not_:
    
      - a place to grow and explore.  Without challenge and change,
        growth cannot happen.  Challenge and change by their very nature
        are not safe.
    
      - a place to explore the diversity of the human experience.
    	Exploring, understanding, accepting, and [finally] valuing this
        diversity is a road rich in potholes and dead-end side paths.
    
    'Safe space' can be found in solitude, but when the need is to make
    contact that won't answer.
    
    I believe that safe space can be built 'in a crowd' where there exists
    trust and openness and a willingness.  However, these attributes are, in
    my opinion, impossible to guarantee in any public or semi-public forum
    such as this. 
    
    I will hold my hand up now and be counted as one who thinks that all
    too frequently people have been gouged in the process of growth or
    trying to rebuild.  I will also say here there seems to be more attempt
    to convince than to understand.
    
    On the flip side, I believe there needs to be more understanding of the
    nature of challenges to ideas.  Asking '_why_ to you feel <>?' is
    _not_ the same as 'you shouldn't feel <>'.  All too often it is treated
    the same.  Certainly one can accept that <> is felt; but if one doesn't
    feel <> oneself, it is hard to understand and value if one is not
    allowed to ask.  To challenge is not to reject.
    
      Ann

    re: .5 (Ann Johnston)
    
    OK, Ann, take the words out of my mouth/off my fingertips !!!
    
    I second .5, and present as a recent example of someone who
    has permitted herself to learn, explore, and almost even accept(!)
    via challenge and thought is Lorna St.Hilaire's 775.82.
    (I'm still getting over the shock of it all :-).     
    
    							nancy b.

    
    re: .5
    sorry, but i must say that i feel you are presenting a false dichotomy.
    growth in a supportive atmosphere is not the opposite of growth through
    challenge. i also believe that this 'false dichotomy' is inbred into
    our male dominated society. that is, i believe our society tells us that
    the only way to grow/succeed is through struggle/competition and i further
    believe that this is simply not true.
    

	
	And I agree with .7.

	
	_peggy

I think some people (but thankfully not all!) have misunderstood my base note.
I want to talk about 'safe space', the concept. We can also discuss why
womannotes isn't (or, if you _must_ is :-) 'safe space', but I long ago dealt
with those itchy nasty conflict vibes (well, mostly). I'm much more interested
in exploring what 'safe space' is (hence my request for references), where it
has existed, where it hasn't, stuff like that.
	Mez

I think that before there will be any concensus on what "safe space" is, there
needs to be discussion of what attributes need to be made safe.

I see two different ways to view it, off-hand. There must be others, and 
people may have variations on these categories, as well. Consider the following
to be "templates" rather than realistic descriptions of actual possibilities.

1. Safe opinions

In this view, the "space" is populated by people who are of sufficiently similar
opinions that they reinforce rather than challenge each others' beliefs and
opinions. This can be useful for bolstering positions, shoring up arguments,
and the like. It can also be somewhat illusory, since it tends to isolate one
from dissenting views.

2. Safe atmosphere or ambiance

In this view, the "space" may contain dissenting views, but they are always
presented in a positive light with respect to other views - that is, all
participants recognize that they may be wrong (except for me) and others may
be right.

Which of these two approaches is meant can have a profound effect on how the
space is created and/or administered. For example, even if =wn= were women-only,
"type 1" would imply multiple "spaces" to accommodate diverse opinions 
(say, guns, violence, abortion, whatever) among women. It's more the "club"
approach, to my mind, with people only associating with people of like views.

"Type 2" on the other hand, allows all opinions, but imposes significant 
restrictions on the articulation of those opinions.

    I certainly understand that feeling, Mez.  And I agree that 
    the essence of safety within the context of a NOTES conference
    (open or closed) is how thoughts are expressed (vs. what thought
    is expressed).  It seems to me to be a matter of record that
    nice-ness can't be forced; to the extent that this conference
    is significantly nicer than many, it can be encouraged.
    
    Ultimately, I don't think a NOTES conference can be a completely
    safe space in the way I think of the phrase.  To me, a safe space
    is a place where I can say (or scream, or whine, or. . .) anything
    and, more importantly, say it any way I choose.  There are times 
    when I just want to vent in the manner of "&*%#$!. . .I *hate*
    all ______!!!"  Now, the truth of the matter (something I can only 
    get to when I've gotten past the explosive part of my emotions) is 
    that I don't in fact hate all _______.  I've had an experience which
    has yielded a forceful emotion in me and, in order to get to a
    place where feeling and thinking are in balance, I need to let
    off some steam.  When I'm at a point of better balance, I can
    express more accurately (and less caustically), what I think
    and feel.
    
    The problem is that this venting is extremely difficult to do
    in a NOTES conference without being real disruptive.  One key
    to why I believe this can't be an entirely safe space is that
    what I'm expressing in that venting session is not entirely
    the truth; it's a momentary expression, often of pain, that's
    only part of what I truly want to express.  This isn't to say
    it's not valid; it most assuredly is.  But it isn't complete
    and, without the complement of intellect, it's only partially
    representative of what I want to say. 
    
    The other key has to do with the relationship between writer
    and reader and the nature of what I'm trying to do when I
    participate in notes.  Some of my major goals are to learn
    and grow: I wish to learn about women and grow my understanding
    of them and how I, as a male, relate to them.  To do this I
    need to 1) listen and, 2) speak.  Mostly I need to do the first,
    but if I'm to learn and grow, from time to time I need to say
    what I'm thinking and feeling and find out how others react
    to those thoughts; a sanity check (I use the term loosely), if
    you will.  
    
    When I enter a reply, my highest priority is to express my thoughts 
    in a way that's as clear, complete, and accurate as I know how.  If 
    I don't exercise a certain care, I've made it difficult for the reader 
    to understand my meaning and I feel that the first burden of 
    understanding in NOTES is on the writer.  If I say "____ are
    worthless drool-buckets!", I've invited a firefight because any
    ____ individual reading that will very likely think I'm addressing
    her/him directly and personally.  And why shouldn't (s)he?  In
    letting out my emotional steam publicly, I've given clear reason
    for another interpretation.  If I yell in such a fashion, I think
    the reader has every reason and right to reply with equal heat and
    thus we begin (yet another) flame war.
    
    I think that this conference is a *relatively* safe space compared
    to some, but not completely safe in the sense that it's not o.k.
    to say anything in any manner.  And, to me, that's alright.  I
    don't think that it's feasible to create such a safe space in this
    medium (even in restricted conferences).  I think that it can be
    made safer by exercising care in speaking, by taking some time out
    to let the hottest of the steam escape by other means, then re-joining
    the discussion with a calmer voice.
    
    Geez, I rambled on a lot here. . .gah!!  Oh well, sometimes this
    happens. . .
    
    Steve

    Bonnie Reinke posted this here last year; but I think it's worth
    digging up again because it seems to speak directly to this
    question.  (Note that the line between "safe space" and "processing"
    will inevitably be a thin one, if the only way to achieve "safe
    space" is through the behaviour of individuals, which is a
    "processing" concern.)
    
    From _Parents as People:  The Family as a Creative Process_, by
    Franklin G. Kane:
    
	So the real challenge is to enter a dialogue with the consciousness
	necessary to express your point of view while at the same time
	being open enough to 'truly hear' what others are saying.  One of
	the most difficult things to do is to 'truly hear.'  This means to
	listen with complete openness to the other; not forming judgments,
	formulating answers, thinking about how to strengthen your own
	argument.  Here we are asked to really listen so openly and
	intently that we become one with what we are hearing and even
	further, we become one with the process behind what we are hearing.
	The thought and feeling process and the content itself are only
	imperfectly represented by the words spoken and we reach a much
	higher state of involvement with the other when we can be part of
	the process behind the words.  Not easy!  But it is something
	towards which to strive as it is a way of breaking away from our
	own 'locked in' position which creates barriers and obstacles to
	the formation of a union that transcends the sum of its parts.
	'When two or more are gathered in my name...' points the way toward
	the raising of consciousness beyond the individual bound by
	heredity and environment (and genes) to the potential of a
	spiritual reality of a Christ-like light within.  Interestingly, it
	is not alone, but in communion with others where we have this
	opportunity.  If we can 'truly hear' and 'truly see,' we have the
	possibility to go beyond our lower self and find the Divine in the
	other.  This is the basis for truly human interaction.

	In entering the other's process and point of view fully and
	uncritically, we can begin to experience the world from viewpoints
	other than our own.  It can be frightening and disconcerting at
	first to experience ways of feeling and thinking that are not like
	our own.  The further realization that solutions to problems may be
	quite right and yet be different than what 'I' might have come up
	with is inwardly challenging.  In fact, with active listening and
	intensive dialogue, the chance is increased that a solution to a
	given problem may emerge that is not 'mine' or 'yours' - but ours.

    I agree with .7 - growth comes from both stress and nurturing.
    A simple example is a bodybuilders muscles. First the muscles
    are subjected to strain, lifting heavy weights, then they are 
    given rest and good food so they can recuperate stronger than 
    they were to start with.
    
    Sometimes this place seems too much like the lifting and not
    enough like the recuperation phase. Sometimes you have to sit
    back and let yourself 'heal', not taking on any more weight
    for a few days (or whatever your recuoeration time is.) Just
    don't get discouraged when the other people in the 'gym' are 
    still pumping - no two people lift on the same schedule. 
    
    Dana

    	Safe space seems to me like an opportunity for affirmation,
    	and empowering (and the chance to enjoy the richness of a certain
    	viewpoint with others who mostly share it.)  Sort of like going
    	to Church, or to a meeting where people share a common goal or
    	Philosophy.
    
    	There *is* such a thing as growth by hearing from people who are
    	furthur along in their thought processes on a viewpoint with which
    	you already agree.  I don't think that growth can only come from
    	confrontations with people who present a dissenting opinion, and
    	I think most of us get plenty of chances to get exposed to views
    	that *don't* agree with ours to allow the kind of growth that
    	*does* occur through being faced with alternate views.
    
    	Few of us live in a vacuum, after all.  The chances of our existing
    	in a safe space most or all the time are pretty slim (unless we
    	live in a convent or a commune of some sort,) so most of us have
    	*more* than ample opportunities to hear opposing viewpoints in one
    	form or another.
    
    	It can be comforting at times to know that there are moments when
    	one can be in an environment where everyone understands the basic
    	premises of one's favorite viewpoint (and where one doesn't have
    	to waste one's time in endless haggling over issues that exist
    	at Square One of the philosophy.)  If one isn't required to argue
    	the stuff at Square One on a constant basis, it's possible to move
    	on to other sorts of things that are much more interesting, and
    	enriching.
    
    	Of course, all this makes Safe Space that much more precious and
    	harder to find for some/most of us.  I wish I had more of it in
    	my life than I do.
    
    	The only "safe space" I currently have is through non-public
    	communication with women I've known or met (outside of Digital,
    	and through womannotes.)  When it happens, it's wonderful!!!

    re.7
    
    I presented no dichotomy at all.
    
    I presented my assertion that growth is not possible without challenge. 
    A supportive atmosphere would be my preferred setting to face this
    challenge; however, I take it as it comes.  I cannot have presented
    'growth in a supportive atmosphere' in opposition to 'growth through
    challenge' if I feel no growth takes place if our perceptions are not
    challenged.
    
    I presented no absolutes in terms of the 'only way to grow/succeed'
    either.  I do not feel that struggle/competition is essential, merely
    challenge.  Neither did I speak of success.
    
    If I do not agree with an idea and reject it out of hand without
    challenging both my own perception and the why behind the new idea, I
    have walked away from a growth experience.
    
    A supportive, or at the very least open, atmosphere is much more
    conducive to learning and growth than a confrontational one.
    
    Now, this response so far is not to interpreted as Ann Johnston
    implying that there is no value in competition/struggle.  I didn't say
    that, nor do I belileve it.
    
      Ann

Well, rankly, I don't think such a thing as a "safe space" can exist.  Or
rather, I don't think a multiple person "safe space" can exist.

The problem is that no two people are *identical* in their views.  If you talk
long enough and hard enough with someone, being totally open about your own
opinions and feelings, eventually you will say something that will hurt someone
in your space, or scare them...everyone has their "sore spots" - an area about
which they are not able to be rational.  What's more, I don't think even two
people can have *no* intersection in their sore spots.  I believe the
personality is infinite - therefore the number of sore spots, while perhaps
only a small fraction of the personality, is also infinite.  So the chance of
two people having spots that overlap is 100%.

Eventually, given enough time, the conversation *will* wander into an 
intersecting sore spot, and then the space is no longer safe.  At least one
person will be hurt, or judged, or criticized.  When you start bringing more
than two people into your safe space, the odds of crossing "sore spots"
increases exponentially.

I do believe that you can functionality get something close to a "safe space",
by admitting people who's sore spots more or less are either in different
places than yours, or who's spots more or less exactly coincide with yours,
so you can both avoid them.  (By avoid them I mean avoid prodding them -
two people could have exactly the same sore spot, and they can *sooth* it...
but only if it's identical, and that's rare.)  Then you have to set up rules
(spoken or unspoken) abuot what areas to avoid.  And for that reason the space
is not totally safe, because there are areas where you *can't* be open and
honest.  

D!

    Why do some women in this file feel so sensitive that they actually
    want to create a string where all the responses must be "Yes, ok"?
    That sounds awfully stagnant at best, rather egotistical at worst.
    What does it serve?  It makes me think that the author merely wants
    to hear the sound of her/his own voice, see his/her own words in print,
    and continue on in the fantasy of the world as he/she sees it with no
    one questioning it.  "Only those who agree with me need respond".
    I don't know, but I just don't like the idea of it.  Maybe a notesfile
    should be created that didn't allow replies.  Then we could all
    drop our pearls of wisdom completely challenge-free.
    
    On the other hand, I know full well and first hand that challenges
    are often created as smokescreens - that many of the so-called
    "challenges" really stretch ideas to the breaking point in an attempt
    to weaken a point made.  The most common example of what I mean
    is when someone argues semantics when everyone knows what the real
    point is.
    
       Person A:  "How come you're in a bad mood?"
    
       Person B:  "I am *not* in a bad mood"
    
    The use of the phrase "bad mood" is being challenged to avoid dealing
    with the issue that person B has recognized a problem person A knows    
    but doesn't want to admit to.  These kinds of "challenges" bore me
    to tears and usually infuriate the "challenger" because I rarely
    take the bait.
    
       Person A:  "OK, how come you're in the mood you're in, whatever
                   you'd like to call it?"
    
    And person B will usually then respond with aggression, angry that
    the sidestepping didn't work.
    
    This is the majority of the kinds of "challenges" I see in notes
    here and if that's what you mean, I heartily agree.  It's a waste
    of time and betrays the "challenger" who, in my opinion, might as
    well have admitted he/she doesn't want to hear it/deal with it.
    The best defense is *not* always a good offense - especially in
    a diverse community such as this one where one's words are more than 
    likely being read by people more articulate and more versed in the
    subtleties of human interaction.  Such challengers fool only themselves.
    
    But healthy challenge, i.e. paraphrasing a speaker's sentence as
    you have understood it, definintely has a place in human discourse
    and I don't advocate any attempts to eliminate it.

>    Why do some women in this file feel so sensitive that they actually
>    want to create a string where all the responses must be "Yes, ok"?

Do you think that's what 'safe space' is? 
	Mez

 I feel that growth is stimulated by challenge. Without any form of challenge,
one's ability to grow is disempowered. For many years, everyone thought the
world was flat until one day, someone challenged that belief. It allowed 
intellectual growth.

 Suzanne's point about rearguing the square one arguments is well taken. 
However, I feel that there is value to be added when the premises are
_occasionally_ revisited. Sometimes we find they have changed or evolved.
I do agree that if we constantly argue the premises, the finer points, the 
second order of thinking is never reached. And that is tragic.

 As far as a safe space is concerned, it is difficult to imagine the existance
of that space. The only way I can see it (in a notes context) would be where
all replies were anonymous and dissenting views were not allowed. To me, this
would only be useful as a supprt mechanism, like the =wn= flotation tank. The
learning potential would be limited, but the spiritual potential would be
maximized. Both aspects have their times and places.

 Like Steve Mallet, I find that I sometimes write reactively. And a reactive
writing, given the limitations of electronic media, only shows a slice of the
truth. I may be very angry at a certain point in time, and say "Can you see
how ridiculous this is?" when I really mean "I can't believe you're saying
that given the facts as we know them." or another less vitriolic thought.

 One of the reasons why notes cannot be safe is because it is not always 
possible to see the context in which a noter writes. This is especially true
when one writes about their feelings. 

 And I can understand how Mez feels about "reaching through the terminal
and shaking someone while telling the 'Be nice.'" (I have felt these nerdy
hands around my neck on occasion... :-)

 The Doctah

    re .7
    
    Peggy, maybe this seems crazy, but trees really struggle to grow.
    
    Trees have to fight for sunlight and water. Especially when competing
    with other taller, more branched trees and rooted plants. They have to
    survive those first few years when they are only saplings and anything
    from a hungry deer to a flood can uproot them.  They frequently must
    endure parasites and develop defenses. 
    
    And in the cities, the roots must find a way to get water and expand
    through concrete and brick.
    
    I wanted to be a tree in my next life. Once. I thought about how
    majestic and beautiful they were. I thought that they did not have
    a challenging life.
    
    And then I saw a tree outside the HLO tunnel which had been split in
    two from a freak frost storm in the middle of spring. Its sap had
    risen, and it couldn't take the weight. Poor judgement on the tree's
    part perhaps for trusting New England weather. But that tree suffered.
    And died.
    
    I look at life as a struggle and a challenge now, for all things
    living.  Perhaps there are exceptions, but I don't think trees have
    it easy.                                     
    

re:  MEZ's question of "what is a safe space?"

    I'm not sure I can define it...but I recognize it when I find it. 

    I think it would be *extremely* difficult for any electronic
    medium to be a "safe space" for me.  (I can think of one notes
    conference that is, and another that is fairly close, and =wn=,
    while fun, is not even close.)  How can someplace be a safe space
    if we can't hug each other?  For me, I need the physical
    reassurance, the hugs, to know that I'm still valued as a person,
    even when my beliefs or ideas may be challenged. 

    I have a "safe space" that I get to about every week or so. Many
    of the people there have different values and lifestyles from
    mine.  I have once or twice gone there straight from work, wearing
    my "corporate drag," which is not at all what most of the other
    people there wear to work.  One of the women in the group
    describes herself as an unemployed hippie bum.  (The first time I
    saw her she was wearing *feathers* in her hair!  I was really
    weirded out!)  She gave me a hard time about "climbing the
    corporate ladder--and did you ever think that perhaps that ladder
    is up against the wrong wall?" and we got into a reasonable 
    discussion about lots of things...but I think the discussion was
    reasonable only because I already had lots of assurance that she
    valued *me* and she was assured that I valued *her*, even though
    neither one of us could live the other's lifestyle.  And as I said
    earlier, for me, hugs are a great way of solidifying that
    assurance, that feeling of being valued.  It *can* happen without
    hugs...but it's much harder for me.

    By the way, the above-mentioned safe space is not for women only.
    In general, women seem to find it easier to let each other know
    that they value each other while possibly disagreeing, so my
    chances of finding a "safe space" in a women-only group are
    higher, but obviously not limited to that.

    -- Linda

    Safe is different for everyone.
    
    Someone asked why some noters only want "yes, i agree" responses
    to their notes.  Well, for some that is the only response that
    feels safe to them.  It was asked, "are they so insecure...?"
    Well, we are all insecure and unsure about different things.
    
    Some of us are less eloquent than others.  Some of us do not have
    the strength of conviction that some other noters seem to have.
    It is not as easy for some to attempt to be controversial or 
    argumentative as it is for others.  
    
    I, for one am usually more of a (very interested) reader of 
    most notesfiles than a contributor.  Though, when in a one-on-one
    situation, I am considered very opinionated and out-spoken.
    
    There are notesfiles that I absolutely feel *safe* in contributing.
    But those are not the ones that discuss feelings, opinions,
    reactions, or controversial issues.
    
    I would like to add tho, that this notesfile has served as a
    tremendous source of information and insight for me.  I thoroughly
    enjoy (and feel perfectly safe!) reading it regularly.
    
    jacki
     

I was thinking about brainstorming as safe space for a part of me. It seems
like a good, strong, nerdly, defined paradigm. No criticism, build off each
other, wildness is encouraged.
	Mez

    I think a "safe space" is *exactly* how Mez described it.  One where
    you are in a constructive environment, where people simply respect
    differences of opinion and go on from there.  Where you can say, "This
    is a sensitive subject for me, can we please not discuss it?"
    
    You can grow in a "safe environment", at least growth in a personal
    sense.  A place where you can just communicate an idea or belief which
    you're forming, and not get beat up by others.  Even in the act of
    agreement, your own mind will be refining that position without all the
    anguish of having people call you a "fool."
    
    I've been forming a hypothesis related to this subject, that gender
    seems to affect what is a "safe space" and what isn't.  The more
    combative (growth through challenge) seems to be more male-oriented;
    whereas the more supportive environment I would classify as
    female-oriented.  Given the responses thus far, though, these stereotypes
    don't seem to hold unanimously ;^).

    Is it possible for us as a community to make this a space that's both
    "safe" and interesting?  How?
    
    						=maggie

To the person who said that what is a safe space is so personal: yes!  I
have seen all these notes that say how people feel so intimidated writing 
note to =wn=.  I just don't relate.  Although I do believe, as I said before,
that there is no such thing as a 'safe space' I think =wn= is pretty damn
close, for me.  There are a few topics that get me going, burning, on
which I am very sensitive.  And a few people who's noting styles irritate
and offend me.  And there are a few topics that I won't discuss here, because
I don't think the people here would open their mind to what I have to say.
But overall, I would say that =wn= is for me one of my "safe spaces".

As for 'safe spaces' in general, I was thinking one thing that makes all
spaces (with multiple people) 'unsafe' is a lack of guaranteed confidentiality.
While you can feel assured that (in general) the people you talk to will 
accept and validate you, you can't be so sure that someone they might happen
to mention what you said to will respond similarly.  I have one other
"public" safe-type space, so much so that I often forget that the things I
say are heard by upwards of 20,000 people, and that while most of the people who
*participate* are "safe" other may not be.  I have been burned for openning up
my heart and soul to these people...

Perhaps I feel "safer" than most people because I do not view disagreement
as "unsafe" (except in aforementioned "sore spots".)  You have to be *really*
bitter and nasty and closed-minded for me to feel threatened.

D!

    I haven't read each and every reply here since I was sidetracked by the
    comments about challenges and safe space.  My thoughts have savored
    this subject.  I think that there is a internal/external difference
    about exploration versus challenge.  My sense of safe is in direct
    proportion to my sense of control over my own choices.  So I consider a
    challenge to be externally imposed and an exploration to be more
    self-initiated.  If I should be in the midst of placidly and
    thoughtfully ruminating over a subject and I put that subject out for 
    discussion then I think that I would like discussion.  If what I get
    instead is argument, then it becomes a challenge and the space is not
    what I had anticipated and probably not safe. 
    
    
    Dondi
     

    
    re: last two
    oddly enough, i agree with mr. thompson
    

DECWET::JWHITE:

    
              Frankly, your agreement doesn't suprise me.

                                                    -Robert Brown III
    

    Perhaps it would be helpful to talk about a safe space I've known.
    
    For three years or so I was a co-counselor [as an aside, I wonder how
    many other =wn=ers have been?].  I was in the Boston area community,
    which had internationally-known co-counselors in it.
    
    There are several things about co-counseling that make it safe.  One of
    the most interesting is that, in a way, feelings are not "important." 
    Someone may be counseling about how she despises/wants to kill/intends
    to leave immediately her SO, and if she were met at a co-counseling
    class or workshop she would not be asked "how her marriage was doing."  
    If the next time you counsel with her, she talks about love and
    happiness, she would not be asked about conflicts with her earlier
    counseling.  What I'm trying to say is that it is understood that
    feelings are transitory.  They are expressions of "distress" which we
    all many causes to have stored.
    
    This "distress" is not in fact what a person is all about.  It is
    something to be "discharged" to make it possible to think clearly and
    to make it possible for what the person really is, i.e. loving,
    cooperative, living in "present time" to be seen.
    
    To give fictitional noting example, if we know that a person has been
    through a lengthy and acrimonious divorce battle, and feels that he/she
    has gotten the shaft all around, and his/her notes seem to express alot
    of anger about any control exerted by the opposite sex, we'd take that
    noting not as an example of the fundamental and unchanging character of
    that noter.
    
    Here's another co-counseling idea:  when several of the
    teachers/leaders considered the idea "how far should be go in approval
    of another person," they found that they could not set a limit.  Nor
    could they set a limit on self approval.  I don't know whether I've
    made this clear, but in counseling -- at least with the best counselors
    -- I've gotten the feeling that they think I'm wonderful, funny, smart,
    beautiful.  And this kind of thing gives the freedom to grow like
    nothing else I've ever seen (the freedom to get at those feelings we've
    hidden from ourselves and others).
    
    A woman I wanted to counsel with on a regular basis declined to counsel
    with me regularly, because she said she had tried before to counsel
    with people to whom she gave alot but who could not give her what she
    needed.  She was working on very deep and sensitive material, and what
    she said she needed was for her counselor to adore her, and she felt
    (rightly) that I was not capable of this, although I had great liking
    and respect for her.
    
    Other aspects of co-counseling that make it a safe space is the
    emphasis on confidentiality.  But I think most important -- and perhaps
    most translatable to this community -- is the belief that we are not
    our distress, but are something better than that.  And we are all
    working on approaching that something better as fast as we are able.
    
    If there is one thing I wish for the male noters in this conference, it
    would be to consider how deeply all women have been hurt -- what it's
    like to be defined as only a useful body, with an unimportant spirit
    and intellect, and how deeply we take these feelings in -- and how
    deeply we would like to deny them.  I don't feel that I'm primarily
    here to listen to how men have been hurt.  I'd really like to see them
    consider this in their own safe space.  In the same way that a lesbian
    woman told me that everytime a gay man is bashed, she feels it, I think
    that it is horrid and almost unbearable how commonly we read about how
    women are slaughtered and raped because some man thinks it is a really
    good idea. 
    
    Briana 

Briana, what is co-counseling?

D!

    Co-Counseling, short for Re-Evaluation Co-Counseling or RC, is a growth
    system, or some might call it a therapy system.
    
    Basically, people are trained in classes to assist other people to
    "discharge" stored emotions.  Classically, these emotions are
    discharged through crying, laughing, shaking or trembling, and talking. 
    People start to arrange sessions with their classmates from the
    beginning of class, and if there are two hours available, one person
    acts as the facilitator and one as the "patient" for half the time. 
    There are also specialized workshops, group, and weekend workshops.
    
    The basic idea is that we are not our distress, no matter how chronic
    or constantly visible it may be, but loving and cooperative people
    whose ability to think, function, and feel has been covered up by the
    stored pain, shame, and other distress.
    
    I've seen some wonderful co-counseling.  There are some geniuses out
    there.  I'll never forget when I was a new co-counselor seeing Harvey
    (last name escapes me), one of the founders, counsel on stage before
    perhaps 300 people, a woman whose father had sexually used her through
    her young life.
    
    I remember her asking him how she could stand forth with pride and
    stop cringing.  And he asked her to show him what cringing looked like. 
    She cringed away from him, and he said to her in a perfectly matter-of-
    fact voice, "and of course a little girl would have no reason for
    feeling that way." Well, she cried and screamed for half and hour, with
    his assistance.  I'll never forget seeing her regular counselor sitting
    near me and just beaming throughout--knowing that this was what she
    needed.  At the end of the half-hour, with some botched attempts, he
    had her saying to the audience, again in a perfectly matter-of-fact
    voice "There was all kinds of abuse in my family, including sexual.
    
    There was a young man who was cooking staff present during this
    session, and you can imagine what he thought, never having seen
    anything to even approach this.  The woman said she would ask him
    periodically through the rest of the weekend, "Well, have you recovered
    from my session yet?"
    
    What I've found differs from other therapy sessions in RC is that
    people will give you as much time as it takes to get through your pain. 
    And some things take years of discharging.
    
    I don't really know how to find co-counseling classes right now,
    although someone else may.  Contact persons throughout the world are
    listed in "Present Time," their bi-monthly publication.
    
    Of course, there is lots more to say and I'd be glad to try to answer
    questions directed to me at my node.
    
    Briana 

    
    What is "bashing"?

    American Heritage Dictionary says to bash is "to strike with a heavy, 
    crushing blow," but I suspect this is also used sometimes for verbal
    attacks.
    
    In the way I used it, "everytime a gay man is bashed," it relates to a
    "sport" as in several young men, several 6-packs, and "let's go find
    some [expletive deleted] to bash."
    
    Briana

    
    Well there you go. 
    
    Clearly it is impossible to wield heavy objects in the notesfile.

          re: .0 (MEZ)

          >  A safe place.  What it is.

          o  Both a community that encourages self-assertion and an
             experimental model for life pursued beyond therapy's doors

          o  a sanctuary that embraces the individual's experience of
             solitude and society and that attempts to hold these often
             conflicting needs in a nurturing balance

          o  the elusive therapeutic environment within which
             psychological healing most effectively takes place

               " A psychologically safe place permits the individual to
               make spontaneous forceful gestures, and, at the same time,
               represents a community that both allows the gestures and is
               valued for its own sake."

          All from Lester Haven's
              _A Safe Place_, Laying the Groundwork of Psychotherapy.

                                                            nancy b.