Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    WEll. I just don't see how we can go ahead and discuss something like
    this, when there are so many more important issues to deal with.
    
    Like false accusations of rape, fer instance.
    
    
    
    :-}
    
    

    Ah, the wondrous art of misdirection....
    
    allows people to:
    
    blow off problems that are SQUARELY in front of them for -------
       (reach) that REAL big problem over *THERE*
    ex:  I can't deal with this sex education situation because...
         millions of people are *starving* in Bangladesh....
    
    distract other people from a current problem such that they cannot
    	effectively discuss or resolve it (similar to ratholing, only it's
        more like a rechanneling of energies)
    ex:  Well, yes, we're discussing how people feel about their deepest
         emotions and all, but what we REALLY need to focus on is how we
         know when we have emotions - can we all laugh for instance?  what
         do we all laugh about?  are jokes really funny?
    
    allows people to feel virtuous that they're handling *some*thing
    	and are too busy to deal with another problem that they may
    	for whatever reason be uncomfortable handling.
    ex:  I'm rolling up my sleeves and raising money for the children with
         disease X.....I don't have time to discuss our relationship right
    	 now.....
    
    -Jody
    
    

    I was trying to find the note written sometime in the last two months
    that discussed this phenomenon in a very critically relevant sense:
    that is, when it happens here in =wn=, why do we fall for it?  Why do
    we allow ourselves to be sidetracked into nitting after the ratholes
    merely because we neglected all the disclaimers to make our statements
    100% accurate?  I think it was a note of Justine's that raised this but
    I couldn't find it and can't be sure.
    
    I was looking for that note because it seemed to me that one of the
    recent BASENOTES was evidence of the same phenomenon!  Something about
    a 'call for responsible usage'...from the get-go, it looked like a tactic 
    to put womannoters on the defensive, and force us to use our energies 
    discussing someone else's concerns instead of our own.  I won't play 
    that game any more.
    
    DougO

>    Why do
>    we allow ourselves to be sidetracked into nitting after the ratholes
>    merely because we neglected all the disclaimers to make our statements
>    100% accurate?
    
     It is a well known fact that notes is a more or less permanent medium;
    opinions expressed herein differ from verbal expressions for several
    reasons. Not only are we less able to obtain verbal clues such as
    intonation, inflection etc from notes, we also lack the capacity to see
    the person's facial expressions (which can be a key indicator of
    meaning). In addition, when we say (write) something that isn't quite
    correct, we are unable to make a one or two syllable utterance to
    clarify ourselves, unlike during conversation.
    
     Being a more permanent medium, it is both necessary and reasonable
    that notes discussions are treated somewhat differently than conversations.
    If we wish our notes to withstand the scrutiny of literally thousands
    of (perhaps even hostile) eyes, it is incumbent upon us to write with a
    certain degree of precision. While this doesn't mean that every
    statement must be written in a sort of notes-legalese, it does mean
    that we ought to make sure that we are really expressing how we feel.
    It may mean reading over our replies before entering them to ensure
    they do not use words like "invariably" where "usually" or "often"
    belong. People often use words which simply do not apply in any literal
    sense for the shock effect. It sounds more forceful and authoritative
    to use "never" when "hardly ever" is the accurate term. It should come
    as no surprise to anyone when a definitive statement is made and is
    challenged with counterexamples- for definitive statements are false
    when counterexamples exist.
    
     Another rathole generator is when (typically) a woman makes a
    statement about men which fails to include all of the possibilities and
    in effect is a sexist statement (no, not "all men have male genitals.")
    :-) The reason this is a rathole generator is because men here are
    reminded whenever they manage to make a statement that can be
    considered sexist. So after awhile, they are on the lookout; they are
    more careful. Then, when a woman makes a sexist comment, they are more
    than ready to point it out. And the problem arises when the woman
    doesn't say "yes, that is sexist." We get the "Oh, excuuuuse me, I
    forgot to include ALL the disclaimers." (And boy, can I hear my 2nd
    grade teacher talking! :-) All I'm saying here is that if we all agree
    to try to make fewer sexist comments, and admit our mistakes when they
    are made, we'll eliminate an entire class of ratholes.
    
     The Doctah

    RATHOLES: EVOLUTION AND THEORY
                or
    Why are there so many dern Rats!?  ;)
    
    
    Maybe the cause for all this misdirection (ie, tangents within notes,
    which seems to be the gist of this topic, or at least the most
    prevalent gist :) is because there is no issue, "of interest to
    women" or not, that is so cut and dried that no other issues are,
    or can be, connected with it.
    
    When discussing topics that are such hot beds of concern and emotion,
    (such as the "Legalized Rape" topic) other topics are bound to spring
    from it -- ie, false rape accusations, which are a legitimate concern,
    albeit not hugely to women.  But then again, our species is not
    unisexual, either.  When discussing labels and the application thereof
    (ie, misogyny, sexism, racism, dog-hater, whatever), tangents on
    semantics and the "true" meaning and proper usage thereof is bound
    to occur.  Why?  Because we are a wide, varied, humanistic audience
    with a vast array of opinions, mind-sets, perceptions, beliefs,
    and mores.  I don't know of any two people who are exactly alike
    in the way they think on everything.  When differences are expressed,
    and different reasons given, then ratholes appear.  Whether or not
    they are continued within one note, or are allowed to totally break
    off of the original subject seems to depend on the depth of the
    rathole (how many people talk about it) and the size of the rat
    (just what kind of tangent it is :)
                                   
    
    EXTERMINATION PROCEEDURES
              or
    Do we really need the D-Con?
    
    
    Should we avoid this?  Not really.  Legitimate points are brought
    up.  To use the issue of false rape charges again, that's a topic
    that should be of concern to everyone, women and men alike, albeit
    for differing reasons.  It probably deserves a topic of its own.
    To allow it to totally derail the discussion on "legal" rape isn't
    anymore correct (or polite) than ignoring the tangent or dismissing
    it because it's not the topic.  Instead of taking the tangent down
    a rathole, it would be more beneficial and deserving to simply
    recognize the tangent for what it is, acknowledge its existance
    and give it a note of its own.  The integrity of both topics are
    preserved and no one feels as if "their" topic is being demeaned
    or being talked over.  (of course, we all participate in ratholing
    at one time or another -- noting etiquette and popular opinion would
    seem to dictate through common sense when enough is enough and 
    a rathole, or misdirection, should be set on its _own_ track).
    
    RATS IN REAL LIFE
          or
    I think it's just a mouse in disguise
    
    
    As for why, in the general population, what the author of .0 termed
    misdirection occurs -- well, there's a lot out there that needs
    fixing.  The public is fickle -- one group or person might think
    this cause is more important than that cause.  God knows, I do.
    In the situation where a dicussion of a relationship is buffered
    off because of starving children in Bangladesh, however, that's
    not misdirection -- that's just an excuse, and a rat of a different
    species altogether.  
    
    And that's my opinion.  
                      
    
    ---kim
    

>All I'm saying here is that if we all agree to try to make fewer
>sexist comments, and admit our mistakes when they are made, we'll 
>eliminate an entire class of ratholes.

This is exactly what women have been asking for since they were 
old enough to talk and certainly since the inception of this file.  In
addition to ratholes, the above would help to eliminate the glass ceiling, 
wage discrepencies, and probably even some violence against women.
    
But since we haven't been able to get compliance with this request, what 
makes you think that repeating it here will finally, once and for all, 
resolve everything?  Are you really calling for EVERYONE to avoid them or 
you calling for a stricter adherence to the tacit selective enforcement of
this which seems to be the unspoken rule here?  

For example, in 1008.12, a male writes,

>... because men, being as competitive as they are, have contests to see:

And NO ONE took him to task for not saying "some" men, or for failing to
preface this with IMO.  No one bothered to challenge him for having the 
audacity to state something that doesn't apply to them of for even suggesting 
that men in general might behave this way.  No one said, "That has not been my 
experience and therefore..."
    
Why not?  And *especially* why not considering a woman saying the same
thing, (I'll find the note - because *I* said it), is, was and will be
challenged?  Following that comment there were several replies by men, (and 
even by some of those who have become the most vigilant and challenging in 
patrolling women's words) which suggests they have read the above and
let them pass.

Read the notes of men  - they are full of the exact same vernacular that
most English-speaking people, *including female English-speaking people* 
have been brought up to use and to understand.  
    
I intended my original reply here to be a comparative one.  Offensive, I'm 
sure, because it would make a pretty good point.  I just read at
lunch the Boston Globe article in which two researchers have proven that
unconscious gender bias exists, (racial too, but one thing at a time), among
men who say and consciously believe they are not sexist.  And they are not,
for the most part.  But via this unconscious bias, many men simply hold 
women to higher standards than they hold for themselves and for others they 
exempt, usually other men, occasionally "favored" females.  
    
The respectable and very worthy human goals of valuing differences, eliminating
sexism, (and other -isms), from speech and behaviors, exploring oneself for 
the seeds of prejudice and working to eliminate them, are goals with which
few would argue.  But it appears to be expected that women should have
already completed the process of examining themselves and have somehow 
miraculously achieved what the world-at-large, (the one men live in),
is still struggling with.  Or is that women were never expected to be
any other way?
    
The same lofty ideals are not used as reasons for challenging men's words
when they make the same kinds of statements or even the *exact* same statement 
a woman makes or has made.  It is expected men will be definitive, concise and 
authoritarian and it is through these biases the words of men are read and 
allowed to pass unchallenged.  It is expected that women will be deferential, 
non-judgemental, kind and benevolent and it is through those biases that their 
words seem "harsh", "strident" or at the very least, out of line.  With a 
woman's words, the point being made is often secondary to the fact that she
is attempting to be definitive, concise and authoritarian - in effect, she 
has failed to meet expectation and automatically garners disapproval.
    
Women are supposed to take their cues from men and if one man "done her wrong",
she just got tied up with the wrong one.  At no time are women expected to 
ever consider, appraise and, if they must do that, then certainly not discuss 
men as a group.  The converse, that women are nearly always considered, 
appraised and discussed as a group, (through gender bias), proves that beneath 
the superficial cries for "responsible word usage" et al, lie men's
suspicions at best, fears at worst, that treating peple this way is
dangerous and dehumanizing.  That it doesn't feel very good, (nor
contribute to any learning as many male noters say), to be considered "one of 
those" rather than an individual.

If men mean what they say, as in the opening quote here, and as in Mike
Zarlenga's call for responsible usage of potentially incendiary terms,
then we, men and women have ALWAYS agreed on the basic priniciples of
human discourse and exchange.  Respect, dignity, the benefit of the doubt
until one proves themselves unworthy seems to be our common goal.  So
now our mission is to eliminate selective enforcement of these principles, 
and stop expecting that only one gender will carry the burden of displaying
kindness, gentility and chivalry for all.  Just as charity begins at home, 
equality has the chance to start every time you begin a thought or are spurred 
into an action.  It is not an issue for a subcommittee somewhere or for some 
panel in Washington to deal with, it is an issue for everyone to incorporate 
in their daily livese.  Maybe that was the function of organized religion
after all - to teach us that it is all connected and that the world is made
up of nothing more than the billions and billions of beliefs, attitudes
and actions of the daily lives of everyone.

Wow, Sandy!

I'm going to print that out and hang it on my cubicle wall for inspiration.

Making the English language include all people, including female 
English-speaking people, instead of just the people in power, is such an 
important thing, and it sounds so small -- thank you for reminding me
that the battle isn't in the streets, it's in me every day.

--bonnie

    Sandy, Dorian, Mark, Mike, et al....................
    
    Regarding my 1008.12, I was *not* serious. (Somehow, I suspect that
    some of you already knew that.)
    
    In fact, toward the end of that reply, I told Rachael - who had
    asked about the "masturbation therapy" part of the Workshop -
    that I was sorry, that I knew her question was sincere, but that I 
    couldn't take the whole thing seriously.
    
    Further on in that string, I responded to Liesl's asking if I
    "was pulling their (collective) legs" with a 'yes'.
    
    So, again, there was ample indication that I was replying tongue-in-cheek.
    
    However, since Sandy, Dorian and I have been exchanging Noting
    pleasantries for some time, I think we know where each of us is
    coming from.                       
    
    And (IMO), none of us are as ingenuous as we sometimes might sound.
    
      Alan                
                                                     

    Alan, no offense meant, whatsoever.  I saw nothing at all wrong with 
    your response.  My point is that no one else seemed to, either - that 
    not even the noters who are the most vigilant in policing women's
    notes, making sure that they are properly worded, correctly qualified and
    completely representative of universal truth, devoid of personal
    experience, wrote anything challenging about the use of your word
    "men" to describe a quality that doesn't apply, across the board, to
    every male on the planet.  Not even a hand slap!  
    
    And I think that is very interesting since there have been countless
    occassions where the same "tone" that you used, the same ideas that you
    expressed and even the same WORDS you wrote have been used by a woman and
    suddenly plenty of people seem to see things wrong with them.  I could
    have used any of hundreds of examples and my original intent was to do
    that.  But you provided the most recent example and I figured most
    noters would get the point without an exhaustive litany.
    
    I personally referred to men once as competetive and for some strange
    reason, when I said it, it sounded awfully sexist to more than a few
    guys.  Why do you suppose that is?  It's obvious that it's not the 
    words themselves.  
    
    Martin - the reason is because this is what we want to talk about.
    Like everyone else, you have two options in this string - discuss this 
    topic or be quiet. 

    
    Re .19
    
    Just seeking clarification....
    
    Tying in with the topic, are you suggesting that becoming overly
    defensive about phrasing of notes (and which gender wrote them) is one 
    of the methods frequently used to divert notes in this conference 
    from a subject of interest to women into bickering?
    
    And also that this "ratholing" is used as a method of control?
    
    'gail
                              
    

re: -1  Yes.
    
Imagine it's a beautiful Spring day, not unlike today.  You're tooling
down the highway, radio on, ("ya got those wayfarers on, baby"), and you 
feel great!  The traffic is moving at a good clip and you're in the middle
lane passing some on your right, some passing you on your left.

Then suddenly, you see it - the light in your rear view mirror.  Yup, you're
being stopped by the local gendarme.  And when it's all over, you've got
a speeding ticket.  How do you feel?  Especially since there were others
passing you.  You mention to the officer that you were driving with the
traffic and even that others were passing you but the officer doesn't
care.  You were speeding - you broke the law - and you deserve a ticket.

Such is the way with male challenge in womannotes.  There are lexical "laws",
there are "rules" of communication, that's true.  And when they are broken,
the perpetrator is guilty, that's true.  But not ALL perpetrators are 
guilty when they break them and that is the part we're not supposed to
notice or discuss.  The officer doesn't care to hear your whining about 
the other cars passing you.  And challengers don't want to hear our whining 
about other noters being allowed to bend or break the lexical "rules" by 
using the vernacular, by using connotation and denotation separately and 
selectively.  They emphatically state that we have "broken a rule" and
that is that.  Selective enforcement.  Double standard.  Double standard
based on sex - sexism.

I was skimming through the channels last night and happened upon a situation
in "Growing Pains" where Alan Thicke was teaching his youngest son the value 
of honesty.  "Cheaters never win", he said to his youngest son who countered,
"You mean always never or sometimes never?"

At that point Alan, in his exasperation, yelled, (as much as sitcom fathers
ever yell at their kids!), "Are you missing the point on purpose?"

He was not forced to obey the rules we are forced to, here, in fact it would
have been ludicrous.  He was making a point and it was accepted and under-
stood that his point was valid and that the "always versus sometimes" question
was a stalling tactic used by a child to avoid the point being made.  The kid
backed down, obviously.  Respect for the speaker had something to do with 
that.  Fear of the consequences did also.

In any idea exchange between humans, anyone can make a point, but it is
incumbent on the listener to be willing to accept that point.  Einstein
said that matter at the speed of light, squared = energy and vice versa.
Not every human expects that it will be proven again and again to each
and every new human on the planet.  It is accepted because we are willing
to believe that he knows what he's talking about, or we are willing to
believe that the other people who believe him know what they are talking
about.  In essence, we are willing to be a respectful audience and do
our part in allowing a point to be made, an opinion, (because it IS
just a theory!), to be expressed.

This is generally not the case with women speakers and is specifically
not the case in womannotes.  We don't have the automatic respect accorded
others, and as such, we are asked over and over again to PROVE, beyond
a shadow of a doubt, every point we wish to make.  But that's just busy-
work since if our audience is unwilling to play their part, we will be
unable to make a point no matter HOW much proof we can find.  Using our
own experience only solicits the rebuke, "that's just your experience".
Citing studies solicits, "Studies can be flawed", and the great quote I
read recently, "Torture numbers enough and they will admit to anything".
The sexism inherent in requiring women to perform superhuman feats,
(who ever DOES prove anything 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt?), is not
supposed to be noticed and certainly not pointed out as evidenced by
the backlash created when a woman does.  "Are you calling me a sexist?"
is the gleeful taunt of a little boy who knows that the cultural rules
forbid a woman from saying yes.  These are the little boys who torment
dogs on chains or animals behind bars in the zoo.  Scared little boys
who require the unwritten cultural rules to firmly control a woman's
response to their taunts and jeers.

Before we can speak to the wizard, we are told to bring him the witch's
broom.  That's cute in fairy tales, but in real life, nothing we can
bring will qualify as a witch's broom since the point is that our
audience is simply unwilling to accept what we have to say no matter
what we bring.  And while we're busy hunting for the broom, we're not
talking.  We're not pointing out sexism in men and we're not empowering
other women to do the same.

The mistake made often by women, myself included, in this file as in life,
is believing that if we just find the right words, the right facts to back 
them up, and of course the right tone to present them, we will be heard, and 
if not understood, at least that's a beginning.  But that's a lie and it's
always been a lie.  The scurrying keeps us busy, the constant, "No, that's
not a witch's broom" keeps us believing that we are inferior communicators,
(ha!), and forces the more vocal among us to try again, and unfortunately
again, until we have become "strident" at which point we lose because a man
will label us.  And we've been socialized to both allow men to label us,
and to believe that their labels actually DO define who we are.  If a woman
calls a woman a slut, we often write it off as jealousy.  If a man does,
we think differently about her.  Men's power to name - we can diffuse it
simply by ignoring it.

The men in this file who exhibit these sexist attitudes are also the ones
who scream the loudest at at women who would point out the attitude and dare 
to call it what it is.  "I'm not a sexist, but I play one in notes" seems 
to be the party line of the more bullying of the male noters.  They are safe 
in their knowledge that women are culturally powerless to label men, power-
less to effectively point out sexism, ("What, ME?"), and powerless to really
do anything about it.  Since such men still get women, still can disguise 
their sexism when the bedroom beckons, they have nothing to lose by display-
ing sexism and misogyny here.  And this is exactly the cue we need to take.  
And I'll start.

I'm a bitch, ok?  I don't appreciate being treated like a child, I'm not
thrilled with having to constantly remind my audience that although I have
breasts, I also possess at least average intelligence and know that no
trait applies to everyone across the board.  I am not pleased to be the only 
one stopped for speeding on a highway where everyone, including the stoppers,
(especially the stoppers!), speeds.  If that makes me a bitch, then fine.  
I know that it is normal human behavior, but I also know that normal humans 
make for bitchy women.  The underlying sexism is that women are or should
not be "normal" but should be "better".  Normal and average are the rights
of men, only.  Normal and average women are "bitches".

I'm going to point things out and I'm going to express my opinions and
I'm going to name things because I no longer feel that my first priority
is to avoid at all costs, the potential of being labeled by some unknown
male.  You know why I'm suddenly no longer afraid?  I learned it from you
guys!  It's because *I* still get men.  Plenty of them!  I'd be willing to 
bet that I can get more sex from more different people than any of the males 
in here, save for a few cuties I won't bet with!  ;-)

Men are under the false impression that feminism is the domain of the ugly
woman.  But think about it.  Ugly women don't have the luxury of going against
men if they want men.  Feminism, like sexism, and like any boat rocking, is 
best embraced by those who have nothing to lose.  And I CERTAINLY have 
nothing to lose by being labeled here by some little boy who had to resort
to name-calling.  I'm a bitch, you bet!  And I thank you because that means 
my range of emotions is appropriate, (non-bitches are only allowed a few
emotions), my intelligence is intact, (non-bitches are expected to be less
intelligent than the men around them), and my self-expression effective, (non-
bitches are expected to fail but not really mind anyway).  And I'm STILL 
gonna be able to find sex whenever I want it.

So, guys, I'm done with letting men stop me and give only me a speeding
ticket.  I'm through with qualifiers.  I'm going to state here once, and
never again, that I possess at least average intelligence such that I know
that no one trait can apply across the board to every member of a group.
And now that I've said that, I've bought my right to use the English
language as men do, to understand and use connotation, to expect that my
audience believes I am of at least average intelligence and that they are
too, and that we can get on to the business of exchanging ideas.  And when 
I see the blue light in my rear window, (which I'm sure will be prompted
by this note alone), I'm just gonna keep on driving.

I've "pulled over" in the past, I've put aside the ideas I'm expressing to
deal with a man who challenges something,  because I believed, and still do,
that I AM capable of articulating a cohesive thought and if he is questioning
something, it's because this time I wasn't so articulate.  Boy, was I wrong.
I have been surprised and angered to find that there are men who don't believe
I can or that I should and who, by their challenges, are not confused about
my words, they are simply playing the game of "selective enforcement" of the 
lexical rules and are doing so specifically BECAUSE I have articulated a
cohesive thought.

I, like a lot of women, have been too quick to go on the defensive - too 
quick to sincerely believe that I have a wide-eyed, innocent male, who is 
sincerely "trying to understand" when what I most often have is a closet 
sexist who is sincerely, "trying to control" and believes I have no recourse 
since I'm culturally expected to fear his labeling.  Everyone knows that 
what a man says about a woman is true, right?  ;-)

It's that men still get women - still get sex - that gives them the freedom
to laugh at this file and the relatively annonymous women in it.  In their
personal lives, they can and do offer a different image of themselves when
they think it will lead to the bedroom.  We're being maipulated whether we're
invited into their bedrooms or shut out of their lives.  Both are done with
the belief that women can be and should be simply pushed around, led around,
controlled and used to male advantage.  Very rarely are a woman's words
"courted".  Usually, only their bodies are and even that stops once the
sex priviledge has been won.  Do I have the right to draw the conclusion 
that men basically have no respect for women but go through the motions when 
they want sex with one?  I don't care.  I just drew it.

Should I fear sexist men?  Should I fear two-faced men?  I don't think so.
I'm already under control via the threat of rape and violence.  What more
can they do but act on those threats?  They will be forced into breaking
the law, and suffering the consequences thereof just as we in notes are
often forced into stridency and suffering the consequences.  Turnabout
IS fair play and it will take a strong woman to do it.  I'm willing.

You can't change another's behavior, you can only change your own.  And
I have done that.  I've discovered that even I have the vestiges of the
need to have general male approval and it is THAT ALONE that has set the
stage for my believing that all I need is to find the right words, the 
right corroboration, the right presentation when in truth, I already
have all of that.

And I've already got the approval of the men I need!  I'm loved by a great 
guy and I'm confident that I can get many more if I need to.  Go ahead -
call me a man-hater.  Sticks and stones...  And it is this knowledge that 
empowers me to ignore the immature noters in this file who would send me off 
on an endless search for 50 feet of shoreline, for a counter-stretcher,
for the witch's broom, lest I face the penalty of a speeding ticket while 
everyone else whooshes past me on the highway.

The joke's over and womannotes is no longer a place to come in and tease
the little girls 'till they cry.  You think you've seen a bitch?  Meet
a BIG one!  And proud of it!
    

    
    
    
    
    
                                     wow
    
    
    
    
    

	re: .21

	Go for it.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

			The meek, the mild, the carrier of a big stick.

    re: 1019.21
    
    Sandy - Bravo! Thanks for saying what I have been thinking for a long
    time, but had neither the courage nor the eloquence to say.
    
    Joana

re: .21

        outstanding!

    
    Sandy!
    
    Over the years I have greatly admired your writing in this file.  But
    I have never been so moved, enraged, encouraged, and inspired by one
    of your replies as I have been by 1019.21.  I found myself actually
    saying "Yes!!!" as I read, and I couldn't wait for the next screen
    to appear each time I hit return.  Thank you!
    
    Justine

Hey Sandy -- I just made my own witch's broom.

Wanna go out speeding on it?

--bonnie

    Herb, I think you may have misunderstood what Sandy was saying.

    "Bitch" is the man's term.  I am a normal and happy, proud human.
    To sexists, that means bitch.  No one has "embittered" me.  Quite
    the opposite.  Discovering the truth, I have become self-accepting
    and proud of my humanness.  I am free!

    re .21, Sandy-
    
    YAAAAAHOOOOOO!  The key to stopping the problem is identifying it,
    naming it, and you've got the naming power in spades!  That's one 
    of the most powerful statements I've ever read!  Refusal to accept
    misdirection, refusal to be sent on the hunt for the magic words,
    refusal to pander to the egos and vanity of the lexical police;
    refusal to see their taunting "bitch" as anything but their attempt
    to deny your arguments legitimacy.  Damn, that was good!
    
    DougO

    re .21
    CLAP CLAP CLAP!!!!! Standing ovation for you. It's about time that some
    person stood up to the baiting jerks in this file. I hope everyone
    does. No one should have to take any crap from anyone and I hope you
    come down hard (SSSLLLAAAMMM!!!) on those that do.
    
                                   Phil
    

    .37, commenting on .34, commenting on .28...
    
    ...methinks I see a bit of "misdirection" starting up...ironic, huh?
    
    
    I'm thrilled and energized by Sandy's .21!  THWAP, between the eyes!!!
    
    Pam

    FYI, .37 has been changed since I wrote .38, so my comment no
    longer applies.

    Mike, you're a master.

    						=maggie

   Sandy, that was powerful.  Your notes have been the few bright spots in 
      this file in the past week or so.




   Re 1019.37    Tee hee

     I hope I'm laughing _with_ you, not _at_ you, Mike.  I am surely laughing.





Barbi

  Sandy...that has to be your best entry ever, at least I think so.
  Also I hope now that wo-MAN-notes will once again become WOMANNOTES-V2.
  

    re .21
    
    Outstanding!!  
    
    Sign me up as another proud bitch, a.k.a. another empowered,
    intelligent woman.  I'll join you in refusing to be baited 
    into finding the witch's broom. 
    
    I have been infuriated by the automatic assumption that a
    woman probably does not know what she is talking about.  
    Even when we write "I remember ..." , we are challenged 
    "are you sure?".  This happens even on minor points, like 
    our memories of the sixties dances and the Barbie doll craze 
    of the early sixties, or Bonnie's memory of when birth control 
    pills became legal.
    
    From now on, if I say "I remember", I mean just that, and
    will not respond to challenges, unless there is some data
    to support them, like "I was there and I remember it 
    differently".  When I am not sure, I say so.
    
    Thank you for naming the behavior so eloquently.
    
    Pat 

    As the Misdirection Technique is a good one for interrupting
    communication among women (as we have seen), and as our communication
    with each other can create a very powerful group [note that I said
    "communication", not "agreement"], I would like to thank Sandy for
    knitting up the raveled edges of our communication with each other
    and bringing us closer to community than we have been in a long time.
    
    Powerful stuff.
    
    --DE
    

I prefer Slut, myself.

You know the type ... constitutionally unable to rustle up guilt for being
jerked around ... unable to see the logic of being responsible when someone
else is being obtuse...vocal in putting forward her priorities instead of
just listening...asking for money in a good cause...not wearing useless 
foundation garments in case she's rendered unconscious in an auto pile-up.

Just a few of the character traits and manifestations that caused others to
call me a slut...to my face even.

to quote Inigo Montoya, 'you keep using that word...I do not think it means
what you think it means.'

   Ann

    Well spoken, Sandy.
    
    --- jerry

    Sandy, very good note.
    
    I have butt one question for all you "self imposed bitches"
    
    Now that you have labeled YOURSELVES as "bitches" is it acceptible
    for me (or others) to call you that?
    
    I normally would never say that to ANYONE, let alone a womannoter, but
    if you insist...
    
    Dink

    re: -1  Cute.  "Butt", you've missed the point.  The label is not ours,
    it's men's.  And it is used to insult as a means of shaping women's 
    behavior.  It has never been "acceptable" to insult anyone.  But if you 
    must, it will say more about you than it will about your "insultees".

    GESH! ask an honest question and get picked apart.
    
    Ever hear of typos?  go through my emtry, I am sure that you can find
    more than one instance of typographical errors.
    
    Per your entry, I got the impression that you have again brought to my
    attention.  I understood that you ment that it was "mens words", but
    the OTHERS that have decided to call themselves "Bitches" was to whom I
    was referencing.  Sorry that that fact was not clear.
    
    as for it being "acceptable" to insult someone, surely you gest.
    
    This file (as well as many others) are reeking with insults.  It is one
    of the many facets of noting and "debating".  When someone is "loosing"
    a debate, they usually resort to insults towards the writer or the
    entry itself, or even, GASP an entire gender.
    
    Forgive my being a male.  Ill try harder in the future.

    The others are using the term the same way.  So my honest answer to
    your honest question stands.  If you care to continue, we can do it
    offline.

    No thank you.  Glad to see that you have also mastered the art of
    speaking for others.
    
    For now, Ill ges crawl under my rock again. OK?
    
    

As I see it, the use of the term "bitch" is derogatory, and is perceived by many
as being a term by which males put down females.

 However, Sandy and several others have taken this derogatory label and are 
wearing it proudly as a token that THEY are not the sort of women who take that
shit from anyone. So, the term will have different connotations depending on 
who uses it! Be careful, the life you save may be your own.

 As an aside, I read somewhere that the term "yankee" was originally a very 
derogatory term which the British used to refer to the unwashed colonials of 
the North American Colony.  The American rebels took the term to their hearts
and proudly proclaimed themselves as "yankees" during the fight against the 
British. This may be "folklore", but it is a good tale.


					Nigel
					(not a bitch)
					(not a yankee, either)

    And if true, an exact parallel.  Thanx, Nigel.

    
    
    There's something very powerful about claiming a negative term as your
    own.  To me it feels like facing a fear head on instead of running away
    from it.  It's like saying, "ah, the worse thing that can happen is
    that people will think I'm a bitch?  There, I'm  a bitch, so what?"
    
    I think that one of the things that has been divisive for women along 
    the lines of those who feel personally connected to men and those who do 
    not (this doesn't exactly break down into lesbian and bi/strate women) 
    has been this issue of what will happen to me if men think I'm a bitch?  
    So to hear women who acknowledge and honor their personal connections to
    men say that they no longer fear this label feels like a great step 
    forward. 
    
    
    Justine

    A few months ago, I started to notice how men used the term "bitch",
    and from these experiences I derived what I believe is their
    (i.e., `belonging to those men I noticed') meaning.
    
    bitch - a woman who does not give a man what he wants, when he
    wants it, for the price he is willing to pay, generally meaning
    `for free'.
    
    						Anbrose Bierce

>    has been this issue of what will happen to me if men think I'm a bitch?  

It seems (and Sandy seems to agree) that there are a lot of men out there
who *like* bitches.

While it might sometimes not seem true, I think there are many men who find
women who are strong and have mind and will of their own, who throw off
stereotypes and stand out *attractive*.

Any man who doesn't, doesn't do me any good anyway, so what's the point?

[A tangent that has absolutely *nothing* to do with this string, but I was
remembering something today, and it was depressing, so I am going to talk about
it here, *so* *there*:

When I was dating a man my freshman year in college, at one point he confessed
to me that there was a behavior pattern he didn't like in me, and that he
wanted me to change.  Not being adverse to change for the sake of one I
love, I asked what?  He told me I was too agressive.   That I acted masculine.
That I stood and walked like a man, that I used too many curse words, that
I was acting like I was trying to be "one of the guys".  That I came on "too
strong".  I asked him what his objection to this behavior was.  He said
it embarassed him.  That he felt other people though I was "masculine", and
that it reflected badly on him.  He thought that people would think that if
I was too aggressive it meant I was controlling *him, and he didn't want people
to think he was weak.

At the time, I took this to heart.  I ddidn't want my honey to be embarassed
so I tried to act more feminine.  He appreciated it.

And when we broke up I decided I would never, ever again date a man who found
my style and personality *embarassing.*  I would never change my behavior
because someone needed me to act like less than I was so that s/he could
feel like more then s/he was.  I would never again be swayed by someone who
was more concerned with what *other* people thought of me than what *they*
think of me.

And so now I only date people who *like* strong, aggressive, outspoken women.
People who, if they sense that other people don't like my attitude, get angry
at *them*, not me.  People who are secure enough about themselves that they
don't need me to act a particular way to make them look good.

And you know what?  There are plenty of them.  So go ahead.  Be a BITCH if you 
want to.  Don't hold back for fear that men won't find you attractive -
the men have been there all along, but you just haven't met them, because
they were out pursing other exciting, aggressive, outspoke BITCHES!]

Now back to our regularly schedule topic.

D!

	It is my understanding the Yankee was and, to some people, still is
	a derogatory term.

	I can trace my mother's side of the tree back to New York City, 1820,
	that doesn't quite make me a "real" Yankee.  But I have lived in
	the Grand Old Commonwealth of Massachusetts all of my life (with
	a little time off here and there to travel), so I think that I have
	a life experience of knowing some "real" Yankees.

	Now I have also been a rather outspoken woman, except when I was
	a rather outspoken girl, and I think that I understand the meaning
	of the word BITCH.  Yeah, I think that I am one, and I am proud
	that so many men have seen fit to name me one.  I guess that they
	aren't all blind (maybe just a little deef).  Coming from a man
	I will usually not take it a compliment, more a statement of 
	understanding on their part.  The same goes for when a person 
	refers to me as a Yankee.

	I would guess that anyone who calls a woman a BITCH is doing so
	knowing that any woman who is a BITCH is most likey not going to
	be taken aback but the act.  More likely she is going to take
	the man apart abit (if you get my drift).

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Beautiful
			Independent
			Throughly
			Confident
			Humans.

    RE: .54
    
    Even if it weren't obvious from the string that we were "seconding"
    Sandy's use of the term....
    
    Yes. Sandy *can* speak for me here.
    
    She often does, as it happens. And says it so much better than *I*
    could. 
    
    
    RE: .60
    
    Good one, Peggy! T-shirts, anyone? :-)
    
    --DE
    

You may find the paper "Linguistic taboos, code-words, and women's use
of sexist language" by Sol Saporta in Maledicta (International Journal
of Verbal Agression) interesting.  Send $20 to Maledicta Press, 331 South
Greenfield Ave, Waukesha, Wisconsin, 53186.

Saporta points out that women now are more likely to use the same profanity
as men instead of trivializing by using words such as "goodness".  But,
many of these words are themselves sexist.  "Hence, the double bind;
eirther women refrain from using such expressions, thereby legitimizing men's
privilege [of greater latitude in the use of emotionally charged words] or
they do not refrain from using them, and thereby participate in their own
degradation.  The result is the incongruous situation whereby women who
are indignant at the use of a word like "chairman" have nevertheless
'reclaimed' the word "bitch."  A related issue is the struggle to influence
men in their linguistic usage, the current debate about pornography being
essentially the logical extension of this position.  ... [skipping to
Saporta's conclusion]  Breaking a taboo is not the same as eliminating
it.  Given the fact that taboo words persist, women seem to be in a
double-bind, because the two desireable consequences are mutually
exclusive.  They cannot simultaneously deny men their linguistic privilege
and refrain from using sexist language.

  "The pornography issue can now be rephrased: Can a sexist society
sustain an erotic language (or literature or art) which is not sexist?

Martin.

Ps: Saporta references Robin Lakoff's 1975 book "Language and Woman's Place"
which might be of interest to readers.

    Perhaps a more compelling analogy in the "is it derogatory or not"
    argument is the fact that some blacks are perfectly happy to call
    each other the "n-word", but would not appreciate it if a white
    person called them that.
    
    It's another aspect of the "power balance" issue. In the one case,
    it's folks referring to themselves and their peers. In the other,
    it's someone using a term that belittles the other in order to
    create a hierarchy where the former appears in a superior position.
    
    --- jerry

YEAH! YEAH! What she said!

I *love* Joanna Russ if for no other reason than she PISSES ME OFF! And I
know that when I get pissed off that it's often a defense reaction to something
I don't really want to think about or deal with. So I think about WHY I get
pissed off, and I usually learn something - either about myself, or about my
society, or sometimes about her.

GOD, she pisses me off, and I LOVE it.

	-- Charles

P.S. I really like "We who are about to." too. It's your standard castaway
colony story... with a Joanna Russ twist.

    "the two of us" is the Russ that really has hit me that I remember
    
    but I've not reread her in years.
    
    Bonnie

    Re .21:
    
    Did the police officer select you because you were female?
    
    Are men not given tickets when there are others passing them and they
    are driving with the traffic?
    
    Where do people who obey laws, either speed laws or lexical laws, fit
    into your picture?
    
    
    				-- edp

    >Did the police officer select you because you were female?
    
    The person was stopped for speeding.  No reason beyond that is, was or
    ever will be given or necessary.
    
    >Are men not given tickets when there are others passing them and they
    >are driving with the traffic?
    
    The officer's criterion for selecting among speeders is irrelevant. 
    Only the fact that there is a selection process going on is the point
    there.  Use any criterion you choose and the end result remains the
    same; some are held to the rules, some are not.
    
    >Where do people who obey laws, either speed laws or lexical laws, fit
    >into your picture?
    
    Quiet and unnoticed as selective enforcement continues.
    
    If you still don't understand the analogy, we can continue offline.
    

    re: .67  edp
    
    Have you ever heard of an analogy?  If so, aren't the answers to your
    questions sort of obvious?
    
    Pam

re: .70,

	Whew!  I haven't been reading this conference in a while, so I
    just popped-in for a look and about the first thing I see is note #1019.70
    ....MAN!  WHAT A NOTE!!!

				    -davo

p.s.	I guess maybe I've been missing out (on exactly what I'm not sure yet..)

    Re .68:
    
    > Only the fact that there is a selection process going on is the point
    > there.  Use any criterion you choose and the end result remains the
    > same; some are held to the rules, some are not.
    
    Is it so simple?  What if the criterion is simply that the officer
    selects whatever speeder is first after the officer is done with
    previous tasks?  I would not say that means some are held to the rules
    and some are not -- it would be, in such a circumstance, merely the
    inability of the police to catch everybody, and not a willful failure
    to hold some to the rules.
    
    Or if the criterion is just random luck, perhaps whoever catches the
    officer's eye when the officer is ready to go after another speeder --
    if the criterion isn't targeted at a certain group, if every violator
    has an equal chance at being caught, I do not think that is the same
    result as a criterion that is prejudiced against any certain group or
    groups.
    
    I have seen in many conferences people asked to explain, demonstrate,
    and/or support their points.  It happens to a lesser degree in some
    conferences and a greater degree in others.  It happens by men and
    women to men and women.  So I would like to know why you think there is
    anything special about when a woman is asked to explain, demonstrate,
    and/or support their points.  What makes you think women are treated
    any differently from men in this regard?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .69:
    
    Yes, I have heard of an analogy.  Have you?  If Sandy Ciccolini can use
    an analogy, cannot I also?        
    
    
    				-- edp

    Then do it.
    
    Oh, by the way, it has to map to the experience of the reading
    group.  When you manage to do that, someone will tell you you
    have succeeded.
    
    						Ann B.

    Re .74:
    
    Funny, it was the same analogy.  Did it map or not?
    
    
    				-- edp

re: .74,

>                               -< Be our guest. >-

	Speaking for the masses are we?  Or do you have multiple personalities?

				    -davo

>    Is it so simple?  

Yes.

>What if.....

Then I wouldn't have used it to convey the feeling I wanted to convey,
which is how it feels to be held to rules when others are not.  If you
need some other analogy in order to understand the feeling I am trying
to get you to understand, send mail and we'll try to come up with one.  
The specifics of the analogy itself are, (once again), *beside the point*!  
("Ben, are you missing the point on purpose?")
    
> So I would like to know why you think there is anything special about 
> when a woman is asked to explain, demonstrate, and/or support their points.

I would like to know why you think I think that.

> If Sandy Ciccolini can use an analogy, cannot I also?        

Just this once.  ;-)   It might help your readers if you explain what
you are trying to illustrate with your furthering of my analogy.

    Re .77:
    
    >> So I would like to know why you think there is anything special
    >> about when a woman is asked to explain, demonstrate, and/or support
    >> their points.
    > 
    > I would like to know why you think I think that.
    
    You said "we are asked over and over again to PROVE, beyond a shadow of
    a doubt, every point we wish to make" -- and I think by "we" you meant
    women in Womannotes, correct?  Do you think women are treated
    differently from men in that regard?
    
    If so, I would like to know what makes you think women are being
    treated differently than men in this regard.  I have seen people asked
    to explain, demonstrate, and/or support their points in several
    conferences, not just Womannotes.  I have seen plenty of notes asking
    men to explain, demonstrate and/or support their points -- so what
    makes the treatment different when a woman is asked?
    
    You said there was a double standard based on sex.  Tell me what
    standard is being used for women and what standard is being used for
    men.  Tell me what makes you think there are two standards and that the
    standards are applied based upon gender.
    
    
    				-- edp

    No, edp, I do not believe you used the same analogy.  Sandy wrote
    that suddenly the traditional flashing lights blossomed, not that
    she saw a policecar pull into the stream of traffic as she passed
    by.  Therefore, the policecar had to have passed cars behind her
    in her lane going her speed, and been passed by cars on her left
    going faster than her speed (This is all implied by "middle".), in
    order for her to suddenly discover it behind her.
    
    Your suggestions bore no relation to this set-up at all.
    
    davo, your second question undoubtedly brought a gust of laughter
    to the lips of Tamzen, Suzanne, and many others reading this file, as
    it did for me.  Seriously, though, perhaps you noticed that Note 1
    is labelled "Welcome!", and that no notes in that string were written
    by me?
    
    edp, anent .78, your "why" is discussed throughout this conference.
    That it cannot be laid out more succinctly is the cause of the
    complaint in this note.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    P.S.  I'd like to thank edp and davo for their excellent examples.

    in re .78 edp
    
    as to why I believe that women are asked to prove things
    in a differnt way then men..
    
    because I am a sentient human being.
    
    Bonnie

    Re .79:
    
    What do you think it means that the police car appeared behind Sandy
    rather than pulling into traffic?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .80:
    
    > . . . because I am a sentient human being.
    
    I do not believe you.  I do not believe that being a sentient human
    being somehow caused you to believe that women are asked to prove
    things in a different way than men.  I might believe that you observed
    things and your sentience played a part in how you came to conclusions,
    but I will not believe that you believe such a thing just because you
    are a sentient human being.
    
    I asked some questions.  I am trying to get some information; I am
    trying to understand.  And when I get a snide and evasive answer like
    the above, I am not encouraged to continue.  I would appreciate it if
    you would help the discussion, not hinder it.
    
    
    				-- edp

re: .79,

>    davo, your second question undoubtedly brought a gust of laughter
>    to the lips of Tamzen, Suzanne, and many others reading this file, as
>    it did for me.  Seriously, though, perhaps you noticed that Note 1
>    is labelled "Welcome!", and that no notes in that string were written
>    by me?
 
	Am I to infer from this statement that you are not welcoming
    me to this conference?  If so, then why?

				     -davo

>    P.S.  I'd like to thank edp and davo for their excellent examples.

	Examples of misdirection?  Ok, maybe so, but that is the topic
    of this particular note is it not?

Re .70

Peggy,

I'm confused. The quote that you entered *is* of a woman. It was in the
original. I don't understand your point. It's STILL great. Or are you asking
that if a WOMAN had quoted it first in the notesfile instead of a man, would
the effect have been the same? If that's the question then I would answer,
yes, it reads the same to me.

But then I'm not threatened by the quote... I agree with it. Someone who
disagreed with it might find a difference if it had originally been posted
by a woman instead of a man.

	Am I being dense?
	-- Charles

>    You said "we are asked over and over again to PROVE, beyond a shadow of
>    a doubt, every point we wish to make"
>    If so, I would like to know what makes you think women are being
>    treated differently than men in this regard.  

Would you, now.  After all this discussion you're back to square one.  Why
is that?  Try reading .8, .15 and .19 if it's truly my reasons you're 
interested in.  Unless, of course, your real goal is simply to "start again"
and see if you can take another road to discrediting me.  If so, start again
by yourself beginning with the basenote.

> so what makes the treatment different when a woman is asked?

Start reading again from the basenote.
    
>    You said there was a double standard based on sex.  Tell me what
>    standard is being used for women and what standard is being used for
>    men.  

I did.  So are you asking for a witch's broom before you'll hear it -
read it - accept it?

>Tell me what makes you think there are two standards and that the standards 
>are applied based upon gender.

I did.  Where were you?

> I do not believe that being a sentient human being somehow caused you to 
> believe that women are asked to prove things in a different way than men.

No offense, but either you have an awfully simplistic way of looking at
things, or you're just trying to make Bonnie look silly.  Being a sentient
human being allows one to notice things.  And this is what Bonnie is
saying she has noticed.  So shall we get to work now on maybe "how much
sentience" is required before one is allowed to conclude or something
ridiculous like that?

>  I might believe that you observed things and your sentience played a part 
>  in how you came to conclusions,

Then why all the other crap, edp?  Why?

> I am trying to understand.  

I do not believe you.  I don't think you are sincerely in the dark about
the questions you have asked since I know you have already read the answers.
I think you're sincerely trying to redirect a conversation on redirection!
    
> I am not encouraged to continue.

That's fine.  We are not required to encourage you to continue.  If you don't
feel like continuing, then don't!  Or were we supposed to feel guilty
about something here?  I don't feel guilty, do you Bonnie?  Do you Ann?

>  I would appreciate it if you would help the discussion, not hinder it.

The discussion needed no "help" until you came in with questions that were
answered more than once, starting some 60 replies ago.  And you refuse to 
take your personal sidetracking to mail.  THAT's hampering the discussion.  
Or misdirecting it.  We get to name now, too, remember?!

And if you won't take my word for it, take Ann's - 

>    edp, anent .78, your "why" is discussed throughout this conference.
>    That it cannot be laid out more succinctly is the cause of the
>    complaint in this note.
    
    							Ann B.
    
>    P.S.  I'd like to thank edp and davo for their excellent examples.

"Unwitting", excellent examples!  What a trip this string is!  ;-)
    

re: .-1,

> That's fine.  We are not required to encourage you to continue.  If you don't
                ^^
> feel like continuing, then don't!  Or were we supposed to feel guilty
                                             ^^
> about something here?  I don't feel guilty, do you Bonnie?  Do you Ann?

> The discussion needed no "help" until you came in with questions that were
> answered more than once, starting some 60 replies ago.  And you refuse to 
> take your personal sidetracking to mail.  THAT's hampering the discussion.  
> Or misdirecting it.  We get to name now, too, remember?!
		       ^^

	I see this conference hasn't changed much, the word "we" is still
    used almost as often as the word "I".  This leads me to think that I am
    standing amidst a mob.  Am I?

				    -davo

p.s.	Please note: I jumped into this particular note at random (it happened
	to be the first note string that appeared when I set seen /before=yes).
	Therefore, I have not read the entire string preceding it, and as such,
	my conclusions about the "groupthink" phenomenon should be weighted
	with a margin of error.  However, I have noted in this notesfile in
	the past, and I noticed the same sorts of patterns then as well.
	Consider me a biased observer in this regard.

	Charles,

	I was being bad - sorry.  I have deleted the note.

	_peggy

    Oddly enough, davo, that's what *we* often think, too.  
    
    And it ain't us.  :-)
    
    						=maggie

    FWIW, I think edp is asking some legitimate questions, not trying
    to provide an unwitting example to hoist up on a flagpole.
    
    edp, Sandy's lengthy note (the one greeted with much praise back
    some replies) bemoaned the fact that everytime a statement is entered
    in womannotes, it is routinely picked apart by people who can't
    see why the noter would write that. **
    
    ** this is my interpretation of a good note with many valid points
                                          
    I think Sandy and those who agreed with her are tired of having
    their statements being questioned over and over and over and over
    and over and over, instead of someone just saying "Why?" maybe once,
    maybe twice, and then just letting it lie.  Hence, "we are asked
    over and over again to PROVE, beyond a shadow of a doubt, every
    point we wish to make...", the "we" most often being a woman, the
    people most often asking for proof most often being men.  After
    a while, after many exchanges, after dozens of why's (when it's
    by now painfully obvious that the person doubting the info is probably
    going to doubt it no matter what), it gets tiring (to read and to
    write) and insulting.  As much as it is not likely to change an
    opposing view in this forum, it's also unfair to demand that someone
    come up with 100% bona fide, concrete, *irrefutable* PROOF to justify
    their feeling, especially when done ad naseum.  And since this is
    *mostly* a women's forum, where the women that participate are quite
    opinionated, when the demands for absolutely irrefutable proof come
    from men, it's a quite sensitive issue and might look peculiar to
    some.
    
    Thus, Sandy's feeling that there is a double standard.  Or so that
    I interpret.  Unfortunately, by questioning, over and over, her
    feeling that there is a double standard, you are doing exactly what
    prompted her to write the note in the first place, and thusly,
    providing an "example" of such "missing the point"-ness.
    
    I hope that might make it a bit more clear.  Whether or not Sandy
    is 100% correct about the double standard isnt the issue -- the
    fact that she and enough other =wn=ers feel that way is.  Whether
    we (we = other womannoter's) agree or disagree is something else
    (at least in this topic), and picking it apart after you've already
    said you don't agree isn't going to be .  
    
    I think.  (Kim is not feeling well and is less coherent than she
    might be.  Apologies to Sandy if I've sadly misconstrued the points
    she was trying to make.  This is what *I* got from her note, and
    all standard disclaimers apply.)
    
    ---kim  
                                           

re: .87,

>	I was being bad - sorry.  I have deleted the note.

	Now I'm bummed.  That was definately one of the most powerful
    notes I've ever seen, and now it's gone forever.

re: my "groupthink" rathole,

	I should apologize for barging in here and starting a rathole
    right off the bat like that.  I am curious to learn more about this
    sort of phenomenon however, and I have created a note for this sort
    of dicsussion (see #1039, "Teams and Individuals").

	I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion...

				    -davo

    Thank you, Kim.  Your interpretations are correct, (and your patience
    is admirable!), except that I doubt edp's questions are innocent inter-
    rogatories.  No one can "try" to do anything "unwitting" so in a sense, 
    you're correct - he isn't "trying" to provide us with examples.  Never-
    theless, that's what he's accomplishing, unwittingly.
    
    >I see this conference hasn't changed much
    >the word "we" is still used almost as often as the word "I".  
    
    Sorry you have a problem with the way noters write in womannotes.  I 
    wasn't aware the conference was suppposed to have changed with respect to 
    that nor was I aware that apparently enough of us change styles when we
    write in this conference as opposed to others.  Or is this a general
    noting problem you've taken to moderators of all conferences? 
    
    >This leads me to think that I am standing amidst a mob.  Am I?

    A mob, a collection, a group, a crowd, a throng, a bevy... yeah, we're 
    more than one woman, I'm afraid.  Is there a problem with there being more 
    than just one woman noting here or is there a problem just with you 
    standing amidst us?  Should we disperse or should you go where you're
    more "comfortable"?  You own the problem, you suggest a solution.
    
    > and I noticed the same sorts of patterns then as well.
    
    We've been noticing, (oh, that "we" again!), a few patterns, too, hense
    the basenote.  Care to discuss the basnote?  Or join in the
    misdirection tangent about whether or not "we" are really "noticing"
    anything at all?  Or feel free to start your own misdirection.  This IS
    the "misdirection" note!  ;-)

    Re .91:
    
    > Your interpretations are correct, (and your patience is admirable!),
    > except that I doubt edp's questions are innocent interrogatories.
    
    Damn it, I have not accused you of dishonesty, and I RESENT your
    insinuations.  Give me the simple respect of accepting that I am
    honest.  I WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR ACCUSATIONS.  I do not give a DAMN what
    gender you are or I am; your words are INAPPROPRIATE FOR ANY PERSON.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    This sounds like it may be getting heated, and may go the way 
    of a vehement interpersonal disagreement.  Please take personal
    disagreements off-line - particularly if they seem to be resorting to
    personal insults.  In that case, it would not belong in this, or most
    any other notesfile.
    
    Thank you
    
    Jody Bobbitt
    co-moderator of womannotes

    davo,
    
    You seem to have a little trouble understanding the nature of the
    plural, "we".  It means "the person communicating plus at least one
    other".  Since English does not have a dual, it is not possible to
    tell if "we" means two or three or twenty, or any other integer larger
    than one.
    
    When you had trouble with my "Be our guest.", I pointed out that
    in addition to myself, the writer(s) of note 1 had indicated the
    presence of a welcoming atmosphere.  Hence, I was entitled to use
    the plural forms.  Do you understand now?
    
    When Sandy uses "we", she means herself plus those people who agree
    with her.  Since both she and I are literate, she is aware that (in
    this matter, at least) I am such a person.  She is also aware of
    others, but the two of us are sufficient to permit the legitimate
    use of "we".  Do you understand that as well?
    
    Lastly, I assume you are now aware that in this conference, as in
    all other conferences, that when you enter a notestring in medias
    res, it is politic to either go back to the base note and read from
    there, or to inform the readership that you have not done so,
    before entering a reply.  To do otherwise gives the impression that
    you are interrupting a conversation rather than participating in it.
    
    							Ann B.

    Mike,
    
    What does a room containing an easily countable number of readily
    identifiable people have to do with discussions in a notefile?
    The two bear insufficient resemblence for what appears to be an
    attempt at making an equivalence.
    
    							Ann B.

    Oh, Mike, that's so sweet.  It's very nice to think that this
    casually brought together bunch of women has some (one or more)
    idea or view one hundred percent in common.  With a lever like
    that I could move the world.  (Well, someone could.)
    
    Alas, I cannot fake myself into believing it is true.  I think women
    are just like other clumps of people in this respect:  They're
    never all going to agree on anything.
    
    However.  Public relations departments use the rule of thumb that
    for every person who writes about <x>, there are five who feel the
    same way but never got around to writing.  So, take the number of
    women/people/pick-a-group who have written on a topic, multiply
    it by six, and use that number in your mental visualizations.  Does
    that help?
    
    							Ann B.

    
>    	Ann, I'm not claiming right nor wrong, I'm explaining how "we"
>    can be commonly interpreted to mean "all of us" in the situation in
>    question.
 
    Ann has meanwhile explained exactly how she meant this, does that
    mean the issue can now be considered closed? It's obvious how the
    viewpoints are.
    
    What makes me curious, Mike, if your view of the =wn= community
    is negative, then why would you want to note in here?
    
    Ad

    Re .85:

    > Try reading .8, .15 and .19 if it's truly my reasons you're  interested
    > in.

    You cite a note as an example, but you speak in generalities.  I am
    looking for more information. One note does not make a pattern.  I
    think Mike Zarlenga, for example, has asked many people of both genders
    and of unknown genders for explanation, support, et cetera.  The one
    note you cite does not make a pattern.

    If you see some people asking mostly women for explanation and support,
    are those people being discriminatory or is it simply because most of
    the people with whom you see them in discussion are women, so most of
    the people of whom you see them ask for explanation and support are
    also women?

    E.g., if on a certain day a police officer gives many more tickets to
    women than men, is that sexism?  What if on that day there were a
    convention of Women for Political Change in Prominent Slavic Countries
    in town and the only reason the officer gave many more tickets to women
    than men was that on that day there were more women than men on the
    road?  Is it sexism then?

    I've seen men and women ask men and women for explanation and support
    -- and I have seen men and women not ask men and women for explanation
    and support.  I could find examples of any combination, so single
    examples don't prove anything.  What I would like to see is evidence
    such as:  Does Mike Zarlenga ask for explanation and support more
    frequently when he is in a discussion with a woman than when he is in
    discussion with a man?  Do I?  Do you?  How about other noters, male
    and female?

    Suppose for the sake of argument that the situation is this:

         A certain set of male noters tend to ask many people,
         indiscriminately of gender, for explanation and support.

         A certain set of female noters tend to ask few people,
         indiscriminately of gender, for explanation and support.

         In Womannotes, many of the ongoing discussions are between a
         person from the first set and a person from the second set.

         Because of the above, women in Womannotes are asked for
         explanation and support more than men, even though no single
         person in Womannotes asks women for support more than they
         ask men, in proportion to their notes in response to people
         of each gender.

    In the above situation, would you say any specific person is guilty of
    sexism?  Would you say sexism exists?  If sexism exists, what would you
    say should be done to correct it:  Men ask fewer people for support,
    women ask more people, some of each, or something else?  Why?

    Would you say you are not holding men accountable for "breaking the
    rules"?  If men are not being held accountable for "breaking the rules"
    and women are, who is responsible for that difference?  Who can act in
    what ways to change it?

    > Being a sentient human being allows one to notice things.  And this
    > is what Bonnie is saying she has noticed.

    Bonnie did not say she noticed anything.  She only said she believed
    "because I am a sentient human being".  That does not tell me ANYTHING
    about what she noticed -- and that is the information I was asking for.


    				-- edp

    "I am WOMAN, hear me roar
     In NUMBERS TOO BIG to ignore..."

    edp, there is a subtle difference in asking and asking. The first
    kind of asking consists of honest questions, looking for a further
    explanation, and an honest and serious interest in the background
    that led the author to coming to this specific opinion.
    
    The second kind of asking is that which starts out with the assumption
    that the formulated opinion is *wrong* and will probe and probe
    for just the slightest irregularity that will (obviously) be followed
    by a big "Aha! I proved you wrong!". That sort of asking doesn't
    challenge the position of the person who asks in the least, in fact
    this position can rest unknown and safe. The original author on
    the contrary will be left with a shot down statement, without any
    possibility to further examine the line of thoughts that prompted
    the statement in the first place.
    
    That second line of asking is the line that seems to make out the
    majority of the male-to-female replies as of late. And it doesn't
    only annoy the female members of this society, nor are they the
    only ones to notice it.
    
    Ad

    
>	Ad, my opinion of the WN community is irrelevant.

    How about the opinion of the WN community about you?
    
    Ad    

    
    Okay.  I'll try.  Once.  With feeling.
    
    re: .102
    
>    You cite a note as an example, but you speak in generalities.  I am
>    looking for more information. One note does not make a pattern.  I
>    think Mike Zarlenga, for example, has asked many people of both genders
>    and of unknown genders for explanation, support, et cetera.  The one
>    note you cite does not make a pattern.
    
    Actually, they cited a few replies as an example (.8, .15, .19).  That
    is what led to their reasons.  Their reasons were probably (I
    conjecture here) generalized from those replies.  Others might not see
    those replies the same way, having different experiences, and may bring
    forth the contents of those replies into their head, and come out with
    different opinions.  When one has formed a rationale or an opinion from
    a set of data, one often has taken the bits of data and created a
    "general case", and from then on one might speak in generalities, and
    still be aware of where their opinion came from, and feel it valid.
    
>    I've seen men and women ask men and women for explanation and support
>    -- and I have seen men and women not ask men and women for explanation
>    and support.  I could find examples of any combination, so single
>    examples don't prove anything.  
    
    True.  When one forms an opinion from reasons one formulates by taking
    in certain pieces of information and filtering them through one's own
    personal experience, not only can no single example prove anything, no
    single example can yield the same reasoning pattern in many people.  We
    are creatures of perception and experience, and we all differ.  We are
    each a survey sample of one, each unique, each valid.
    
    
    What I would like to see is evidence
>    such as:  Does Mike Zarlenga ask for explanation and support more
>    frequently when he is in a discussion with a woman than when he is in
>    discussion with a man?  
    
    This evidence would be difficult to cull and time-consuming, and also
    may result in various disagreements on *exactly* what each set or
    subset of data/text represents - according to how we perceive it.  I
    suppose the only way we could all know *exactly* what Mike Zarlenga
    asks and how often would be to ask Mike Zarlenga.


>    > Being a sentient human being allows one to notice things.  And this
>    > is what Bonnie is saying she has noticed.
>
>    Bonnie did not say she noticed anything.  She only said she believed
>    "because I am a sentient human being".  That does not tell me ANYTHING
>    about what she noticed -- and that is the information I was asking for.


    It is sometimes very difficult to give specifics as to exactly WHY one
    is convinced of something.  On occasion, there comes a feeling, a 
    perception, the dawning of awareness, that there is a quiet pool
    developing.  There are droplets of thought, trickles of perception,
    sometimes on the very edge of your field of thought - but they mount. 
    They are difficult to point fingers at because when you try to pin
    single occurrences down, they can often be explained or waved away. 
    But they mount nonetheless until there is such a quantity that it is
    obviously a pool.  There was no storm, no rushing high tide, no obvious
    development, and certainly no concrete feeling of *WOW - it wasn't
    there a minute ago - and now it's THERE!*.  But the pool exists.  And
    you are aware of it, and aware of your awareness of it, and cannot
    explain it in any way other than to simply acknowledge its existence
    for you.  "I see the pool."  And others can say "There's no pool
    there."  or "I see it too."  or even "Let's test the waters together." 
    *I* for one sense that the pool of information has accrued - both
    through my own perceptions outside this file, and inside this file.  I
    could not point at a certain time/text when it started, or it became
    noticeable.  All I can avow is my perception that it exists, based on
    my existence as a sentient, thinking, perceiving human being.  In this
    case, it seems that men often ask women to explain themselves far more
    often than might be necessary if they really had all their
    perceptions/thoughts/experiences/feelings open to receive and cogitate
    explanation.  I put some food for thought that was pertinent to this in
    1025.21, particularly near the end of that entry, only in addition to
    explanation, men also seem to want proof in many cases.....and when
    you try to grab the pool of proof - it slips through your fingers back
    into droplets.....
    
    -Jody
    
 

    
>	Are you through now?

    I am :-)
    
    Ad    

	The answer to all is pic-a-nic baskets. - The Zen of Yogi Bear.

	_peggy (a new regression phase VIII)

    An interesting question is how to *halt* misdirection.  How does one
    reroute the situation and get back on course?
    
    -Jody

For a good example of Misdirection Phenomena, see note 1019.

john

Mike and EDP,

You seem to have some issues with feminism or feminism as desribed in
this file.  I can't really be sure what it is but I'll take a guess
that you both perceive feminism to be some kind of reverse sexism or
something like that.  I'd like to suggest that you both just clearly
state what your position or concerns are (in another note) instead of
attempting to pick apart other notes and trying to prove your point
that way.  It's a lot easier to try and pick apart everyone else's
responses than to clearly state your own and discuss and defend that. 
Maybe we can make some progress and actually understand each other if
we all put our cards clearly on the table.  (I hope).

john

    
    of course, if someone is holding a gun to my head and i give them
    my wallet *i've* made the decision.
    

    How does one halt misdirection?  The first thing we can do is NAME it!  
    Ratholing is a phenomenon we can discuss because it has been given a
    name.  Without the word, people would be floundering around when it 
    happens, trying to communicate their displeasure with words.  But once 
    it got a name, the word need only be mentioned and everyone understands 
    what it means.
    
    Trouble is, in this string, the "misdirecting" is taking the form
    of preventing the naming.  We are being challenged as to whether such a
    thing as misdirecting even really exists or if it does, that it is used
    against women by men more often than any other combination.
    
    If you'd really like to see misdirection stopped, or at least slowed
    down a bit, let this string run, unstopped and unlocked.  When it's
    over and everyone's exhausted, the phenomenon will have been named
    and agree with it or not, everyone will know what is meant by the name.  
    And THEN we have a weapon - a name - to deal with it when we see it.  
    In meetings you don't have to explain what a rathole is in order to use
    the term.  And in notes, we'll never have to explain again what a
    "tangent challenge" is - we can just use the term to label the offending
    note and move on.
    
    Sometimes, string locking only works for the challenger.   Since the 
    challenges are all cloaked "in innocence", the defender usually ends up 
    seeming responsible for the "problem".  This string is different, though, 
    it exists to discuss this very situation.  Write-locking it when it gets 
    hot, (as any act of insubordination is bound to), will ensure that rat-
    holers and petty challengers are guaranteed a "polite" forum for their 
    games.    
    
>    You cite a note as an example, but you speak in generalities.

Then don't ask me anything anymore.  I will admit that I am unable to 
make you understand.  Let's stop beating a dead horse and agree that as
a communicator, I have failed to communicate with you.  And we can let
everyone decide for themselves why that is.

>  I am looking for more information.

Have you ever thought of getting "more information" yourself?  Maybe doing a 
little research on your own might HELP you understand things in this string a 
little more if understanding is, indeed, your only goal.  Have you done any?  
I'd  really like YOU to make ME understand what YOUR "research" has shown.  See
the difference?  Your endless questions show that you expect it is my
obligation to make you understand.  But you have not bothered to do anything 
at all to make yourself understood to me.  You don't say what you think
on the subject, you say what you think about what *I* think on the subject.
It's so subtle, Eric, you don't even see it when you're doing it yourself.

>    What I would like to see is evidence such as:  Does Mike Zarlenga ask 
>    for explanation and support more frequently when he is in a discussion 
>    with a woman than when he is in discussion with a man?

I'll BET you would! ;-)  Trying to draw me into a rousing game of slander?  
Sorry.  I can see a suicide mission when I'm being sent on one.  Everything
you're asking for is all right here in notes.  YOU do the work if you want 
answers to your questions.  I am not obligated to cut the data 67 ways for 
your enjoyment.  Stare running directories and looking at some of the notes 
decide what YOU think of the phenomenon.  See if YOU think it exists or not
rather than just sitting there in judgement of others who HAVE done some
work and who HAVE seen a trend and are willing to state so.

Asking for clarification of a point is one thing.  Demanding that we "satisfy" 
you before being allowed to continue with the discussion brings us right back 
to .21.  You stand alone in continuing to derail this down the "convince me" 
rathole.  So why didn't you take it to mail?  Or do a little work and
arm yourself with a little information?  Either would have served your
alleged goal of understanding much better than what you did opt to do. 
And yes, I'm afraid that too contributes to my assessment of your motives.
People do make judgements based on what you write and why they assumed
you wrote it.  So it's not surprising to me that you'll probably find the 
same thing happening in a forum where the people just happen to also be
women.  You can't stop life from happening so get used to it or find a
"safer" place in which to communicate.

    >My concern is when I perceive my character to be slandered by
    >people, be they feminists or non-feminists, male or female.

    Then why do you give people so much ammunition?   ;-)
    

    re: .121 Mike
    
    I don't think people in this file have a problem with noters who
    disagree with them.  I think they are angered when noters disagree with
    them and don't say WHY.  It seems arrogant and closed-minded for
    someone to say flatly, "That's wrong," without offering any supporting
    evidence.  How do you answer that kind of thing?  "No, it's right!" 
    Nobody learns anything from that kind of argument.  We have to EXCHANGE
    views and reasoning to "interact."
    
    Mike, when you "read something you belive is wrong," and say so, can
    you explain WHY you believe it's wrong?  Otherwise you are setting
    yourself up for being misunderstood.  How can we know who you are and
    why you say what you do?  
    
    Pam

    Re: halting misdirection
    
    What we used to do on PLATO (when we didn't just shut the person out of
    the file completely) was for the noting community to agree to *ignore*
    the notes of the offending individuals.  I've seen the tactic used
    here once or twice, although maybe not intentionally, and thought it
    pretty effective.  Its not a pretty solution, but it does have its
    negative reinforcement value.
    
    If nothing else, it cuts down on the ol' unseen count.

    I'm getting uncomfortable.
    
    I don't want to "witch-hunt" anyone here or watch it happen.
    
    Can we talk about issues and not the personalities of specific people
    who are talking about them?
    
    Please?

    Re .120:
    
    > But you have not bothered to do anything  at all to make yourself
    > understood to me.
    
    What have I got to make understood?  I HAVE NOT YET TAKEN A POSITION. 
    I have asked some questions which people will not answer.  I find
    nobody willing to explain, to teach.  Even if I accept what you say as
    true without question, what good does that do if I don't understand it?
    
    You want misdirection, here's misdirection:  A person ASKS a QUESTION,
    and they get accused of things they never said.  That's misdirection.
    The question never gets answered.  That's misdirection.  The person who
    makes claims won't explain them or provide information to show where
    the claims came from.  That's misdirection.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    	Four people are sitting together in popular lunchtime restaurant
    	with large cafeteria-type tables.  
    
    	Two of the people start talking about computers - they both work
    	for the same computer company, and they are talking about some
    	interesting news that has been released to the press that day
    	about some of their new products.  A third person at the table
    	works for another computer company, with computer products that
    	are quite similar to the ones that have just been announced.
    
    	They proceed to discuss the information released to the press
    	that day, enlarging the conversation to include the computer
    	business in general.  (Of course, no one is revealing anything
    	that is confidential about their own companies.)
    
    	All of a sudden, the fourth person at the table jumps into the
    	conversation.  He works in a non-technical area of the computer
    	business, and knows very little about the products that have
    	been announced.
    
    	Every sentence uttered by one of the other three people is now
    	met with, "I don't understand.  I've never heard of such a
    	product.  How does it work?"
    
    	The three people try to give short explanations about what they
    	are discussing, but it's not good enough for the fourth person.
    	He persists with his questions (criticizing the others for not
    	explaining what the products are and how they work well enough
    	for him to understand.)
    
    	They try to continue what was formerly an interesting conversation,
    	but they can't make it through more than one or two sentences with-
    	out hearing from the now-quite-agitated fourth person who asks
    	endless questions about what's being discussed, refusing to believe
    	most of what he's being told (since the parties at the table can't
    	PROVE that the products work the way they've described,) and who
    	berates the people at the table repeatedly for their reluctance to
    	sideline their entire discussion simply because he doesn't happen
    	to understand what they're talking about.
    
    	Needless to say, the lunch hour ends on a sour note - trying to
    	have a conversation in the fourth person's presence has been both
    	frustrating and futile.  
    
    	When they spot each other for lunch the next day, they try to
    	avoid sitting with the fourth person, but he still wants to prove
    	to them that his questions were reasonable all along, so he follows
    	them to a new table and begins again.
    
    	They try a different subject, but the fourth person has as little
    	knowledge in this subject (as he has in computers,) and his queries
    	are now louder and more insistent.
    
    	The next day, the three people (who have become friends by this
    	time,) try a different restaurant.  They still prefer the original
    	restaurant, however, so they try it again a few days later.
    
    	The fourth person is discovered badgering a new set of people with
    	endless questions about whatever it is *they* have chosen to discuss.
    	The fourth person has become fairly hostile by this time, and tries
    	to suggest that the regulars who frequent the restaurant have joined
    	in some sort of conspiracy against him (to keep him from being able
    	to have meaningful conversations at lunch.)  
    
    	His endless questions are, in his opinion, the fault of others who have
    	not been able or willing to answer them to his satisfaction.
    
    	And so on...  (The story has no ending...)

    
    re:.132
    looks like a fairly 'applicable' story to me.
    

    	In my analogy, the four people sitting at the table were all on
    	equal footing - they were all regulars who were not previously
    	well-acquainted with each other.  Two of them had more in common,
    	but three of them at least had the basis for a good conversation.
    
    	The biggest difference was that the fourth person felt that
    	the others should not have the right to engage in a pleasant
    	conversation without being subject to his endless questioning
    	about subjects he lacked the knowledge to discuss adequately.
    
    	It was entirely predicatable that the fourth person would 
    	blame the other three for their desire to have a conversation
    	without being subject to endless disruption, though.
    
    	While it may be within the rules of the restaurant that no one
    	can refuse to sit or talk with another patron at lunch, it's
    	far from "social" to use this authority to *force* people to
    	interact with someone (dragging them all into the rathole of
    	who_was_not_being_as_friendly_as_possible_to_who first.)
    
    	At some point, the fourth person should either go take some
    	computer classes so that he can discuss lunchtime subjects with
    	some degree of intelligence, or he should go find another place
    	to eat lunch (where they talk about things he can share.)
    
    	People's lunches shouldn't be ruined day after day because he is
    	determined to talk with these people whether he has anything worth
    	contributing or not (especially if he's going to keep being hostile
    	about it.)

    
    	There is no corporate policy stating that anyone is obliged to
    	"educate" another in the course of casual conversation.
    
    	Furthur, there is no corporate policy stating that anyone is
    	obliged to respond cordially to endless cross-examination from 
    	a hostile questioner when one refuses to submit to demands to 
    	"educate" someone else in a social situation.
    

    
    	Here's the restaurant policy (as quoted from my note .138):
    
    	"While it may be within the rules of the restaurant that no one
    	can refuse to sit or talk with another patron at lunch, it's
    	far from 'social' to use this authority to *force* people to
    	interact with someone (dragging them all into the rathole of
    	who_was_not_being_as_friendly_as_possible_to_who first.)"
    

       
    	My analogy stands as written.
    
    	There is no Digital policy that requires anyone to "educate" 
    	others nor to submit to endless cross-examinations during 
    	casual conversations (whether on DEC resources or not.)
    

    Re .132:
                                      
    Restaurants are for eating.  The very purpose of a notes conference is
    to exchange information and views.  It is NOT to be a social club for a
    clique.  Your analogy is further flawed in that you describe the fourth
    person as knowing very little about the subject.  The correct
    description is that the fourth person has information on the subject,
    but holds different opinions.  Further, THIS topic is hardly a table
    where the three people have sat to talk about a subject unrelated to
    the fourth person.
    
    
    				-- edp

<    Your analogy is further flawed in that you describe the fourth
<    person as knowing very little about the subject.  The correct
<    description is that the fourth person has information on the subject,
<    but holds different opinions.
    
    I thought you yourself said in any earlier note that you do not yet
    have an opinion and want to be educated.  Which is it?
    

    
    	But...the fourth person refuses to state his opinions, choosing
    	instead to ask an endless series of questions (professing his desire 
    	to be educated and berating those whom he judges as "unwilling to 
    	teach.")
    
    	If his ignorance is a ruse, it's hardly the same thing as simply
    	expressing different opinions.
    
    	Nevertheless, the resulting disruption is unproductive, whether
    	his ignorance is feigned or not.
    

    Re .148:
    
    > I thought you yourself said in any earlier note that you do not yet
    > have an opinion and want to be educated.
    
    I said I have not taken a position.  I didn't say I "want to be
    educated"; I said I was seeking information.  I am already
    knowledgeable about the subject to some degree, and I have some
    opinions, but I am considering some things, AND I WANT MORE
    INFORMATION.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    	We are under no obligation to give it to you, however...
    

    Re .149:
    
    The series of questions is not endless.  It has an end.  But of course
    the end will never be reached if nobody answers the questions.
    
    Tell me, does this conference exist only for the three people to talk
    or only for the person to ask questions?  Or is it for BOTH?  What
    would you change in your analogy to solve what you see as the problem?
    
    > 	Nevertheless, the resulting disruption is unproductive, . . .
    
    Not asking the questions at all also produces nothing.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    	The saturation point has been reached when it comes to questions
    	and lengthy cross-examinations.
    

 Nous gaspillons du temps....

    okay.  here goes.
    
    re: 1019.152
    
>    The series of questions is not endless.  It has an end.  But of course
>    the end will never be reached if nobody answers the questions.
    
    the truth still holds that nobody here is responsible, nor required, to
    answer questions.  I am (honestly) sorry.  It's the truth.
    
>    Tell me, does this conference exist only for the three people to talk
>    or only for the person to ask questions?  Or is it for BOTH? 
    
    The conference exists for everyone to discuss at a level that is
    comfortable for them.  Some people do not wish to answer questions. 
    Some people much of the time do not even wish to talk.  I feel this
    notesfile is for sharing, and caring, and exploring how the
    participants feel about things, how they perceive things, and what
    their experiences are, to the extent of their own level of comfort.
    
>> 	Nevertheless, the resulting disruption is unproductive, . . .
>    
>    Not asking the questions at all also produces nothing.
    
    Perhaps in your mind, it produces nothing.  But prior to the entry in
    this file of many of your questions, many people felt the conference
    productive, supportive, and a welcoming place to be.  There can be
    sharing and introspection and listening *without* questions also. 
    
    There are many modes of communication, even in a notesfile. 
    Questioning is one of them, yes.  But there is simply "sitting in" and
    listening, there is experiencing what others have to say by mentally
    putting yourself in their shoes, there is quiet cogitation after
    reading large portions of a discussion, there is sharing an experience
    *you* have had that you feel would be pertinent and that might strike a
    chord in others and add to the wealth of enriching knowledge already
    existing in this notesfile, and in its previous version V1.  This file
    is comprised of a great mosaic of people, all reflecting upon each
    other when they are comfortable doing so, and inwards upon themselves
    when they are comfortable doing so.  
    
    -Jody
    
    
    
 

    As has been suggested several times, a good tactic for dealing with
    misdirection is to simply ignore replies that derail, rathole, or
    misdirect the discussion.  Most people are willing to next reply
    through one useless reply, but I personally reach the next unseen
    point after three of them.  And after a while of doing this in a
    given note, I simply next unseen immediately when that note comes
    up.  People can't interact unless others cooperate with them. They
    can pound on the window and create a certain amount of noise, but
    unless someone gets up and opens the door to let them in, they aren't 
    really part of the conversation.  I wouldn't suggest that a group
    decision be made to shut out an individual, but if you personally
    don't like the nature of a reply, ignore it.  If enough people do
    this, then maybe a noter will realize that when they exhibit
    antisocial behavior they won't get rewarded for it.
    	Linda

    "while stupid men, themselves forever unable to conceive a new thought,
    pecked at their betters with endless why's and how's... and were
    even so unwise to think this lifted them up."  - Homer
    
    

There seem to be two separate issues/agendas here, both covered by
Dec policy as I understand it:

-- first, you are under no obligation to be nice to someone who is
   acting in an obnoxious manner.  This seems to be Suzanne's message
   in the restaurant analogy.

-- however, you are not permitted to decide that <category> is presumed
   to be obnoxious because of that person's membership in <category>
   (where <category> is age/race/sex etc.)  This seems to be Mike's
   message.

Assuming that this is a reasonable summary, can we agreee to agree
that there is no real conflict between these two standpoints? I.e., give
Suzanne (etc.) the benefit of the doubt that they are reacting to behavior
they feel is obnoxious, and not reacting to the <category> of the person,
and give Mike (etc.) the benefit of the doubt that they feel that they are
being "noticed" more on the basis of their <category> and less on the
basis of what they write?

And, agreeing so, can we move on to other things?

Martin.
ps: great note, Jody.

   

    Re: .160
    
    I'll second that!

    a-nal-o-gy n., pl.-gies  Correspondance is SOME respects between
    things that are otherwise DISSIMILAR.
    
    (the american heritage dictionary,  DEC standard issue.)
    
    Why would someone insist that the analogy given is unacceptable unless
    it matches in every respect?  Could they be trying to diffuse the
    impact the analogy has on a given position?
    
    
    An analogy is an analogy.  Point out where it doesn't match the
    situation under discussion if you must,  but don't insist that it
    EXACTLY duplicate the situation.  (Unless you really DO intend to
    derail the discussion, of course.)

Jody, your .109 reminded me of a favorite quote of mine. It's much lovelier in
other translations, but here's the Bartlett's version, with two ammendations:

[She] who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget
falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will,
comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of [the gods].
	Aeschylus, from Agamemnon, part of the Orestia

    Re .0:
    
    > Perhaps the reason people discuss nuclear war is so they *don't* have
    > to take on the more immediate -- and in many ways more difficult --
    > day-to-day women's issues.
    
    That is an incredibly self-centered view -- that people are concerned
    about nuclear war because they don't want to deal with the author's
    preferred issues.  Right, like nuclear war isn't a dangerous problem
    and nobody has any real, honest reason to be concerned about it.  Such
    an implication that people devoting energy to other concerns are just
    weaseling out is an insult and should not be permitted to be hidden
    behind anonymity.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Eric, did you see the "perhaps" that began the sentence?

    Re .166:
    
    The "perhaps" makes it no less ludicrous and self-centered.
    
    
    				-- edp

    ... towards lessening the ludicrousness and self-centeredness of this
    particular reply.
    
    IMHO of course
    
    :-)

 =maggie-

 No offense, but the standard that an offensive statement preceeded by perhaps
remains an offensive statement has existed here before edp's latest series
of entries.

 To put the foot on the other shoe for a moment :-), if a male wrote a 
condescending and sexist statement that devalued some women in this file but
preceeded it with the word "perhaps," do you think it would fail to arouse
the requisite amount of vituperation? Or would said backlash be deemed 
unjustified by the rhetorical nature of the statement (question)? I say nay to
both of these. Not only would the vitriol exist; it would also be justified.
Such is the case here, I believe.

 The Doctah

    Mark, did you read "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman"?  If you did, do
    you recall the conversation he had at the Nobel investiture about
    discussing the weather -vs- discussing physics?  I found it cogent, how
    'bout you?
    
    						=maggie

>    Mark, did you read "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman"?

 Nope. Can you mail the gist of it to me?

 The Doctah

re: .172:

I vaguely remember this as a New Yorker cartoon, with the, you should
excuse the expression, hen-pecked husband saying "my wife lets me make
all the important decisions, such as whether to admit China to the
United Nations."

About 25 years ago, some students occupied an empty building in the
center of Stockholm (there were many, emptied for furture urban
renewal projects).  They wanted to setup a "youth house" for various
disadvantaged groups.  Some folk in wheelchairs suggested that there
should be ramps put in so they could move about on their own.

The radical view was (I'm not joking) that this would work itself
out *after* the advent of socialism.

The radical (Swedish) left used similar arguments to put down other practical
day-to-day issues, such as day-care and parental leave.

We read European history as the history of important individuals.
Is this misdirection?  Is "history" really the action of individuals,
or do the "masses" play any part in the great doings of nations?
Does anyone remember or have a copy of Brecht's poem that begins,
more or less,

	"Who built the seven towers of Thebes?
	The history books say Alexander the Great.
	All by himself?

	Julius Caeser conquered Gaul.
	Didn't he even have a cook with him?

	Napoleon wept over his troops at Trafalger.
	Did anyone else weep?

This is all by way of saying that I would read .0 as suggesting that
people (not specifically men or women) may occasionally use theoretical
arguments or questions of policy as a way of avoiding the real-world
issues of day-to-day living.

In my more cynical moments, I wondered today whether the public outpouring
of grief over Ryan White's death would carry over to the all the other
people who died from Aids.

Martin.