Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Dana Charbonneau
    
    Sorry, I reserve the right to call 'em like I see 'em.
    
    I've always thought that people who say "I'm ignoring you"
    were being oxymoronic. I'd rather certain folks *wondered*
    if I were ignoring them.

  Dana, I don't think being on the List means giving up the right
  to call 'em like you see 'em.  The List, first mentioned by Mike Z
  in 22.444, was near notes 22.438-440, in which Mike asked whether
  noters would continue to interact with men who replied in FWO topics.

  But Mike never actually said why he was keeping the list or what 
  was being listed.  I suspect Mike feels that the list is essentially
  uncomplimentary.  That's why I'm happy to be on it, given the source
  of the uncompliments...

  So, Mike, exactly what is this a list of?

  JP

    John, I'm just a natural contrarian. (I think this is a heck
    of a good time for buying DEC stock :-) )
    
    I see people gaily flocking to join a 'list' that they don't
    even know the purpose of. I use flock in the sense of 'sheep',
    not 'birds'. Sorry. Not my style. 
    
    Dana

  <<< Note 306.3 by SA1794::CHARBONND "in the dark the innocent can't see" >>>
    
<    I see people gaily flocking to join a 'list' that they don't
<    even know the purpose of. I use flock in the sense of 'sheep',
<    not 'birds'. Sorry. Not my style. 
<    
<    Dana


Dana, I resent that. NOWHERE in that note do I see people 'flocking' to
join a list they don't know the meaning of.  In fact, there is documented proof
just the opposit has occurred.  Where a noter didn't understand the purpose 
of the 'list', the question was raised and SEVERAL people provided 
explanations.  Very responsible noting, i feel.

So why are you likening us to sheep, implying that we have no intelligence?
Why the put-down?  Why the need to draw conclusions that are demostratively
un-true?

m

    re .4 I just went back and re-read all of 303 and still 
    don't understand why the 'list' is being kept. And nowhere
    in that note does the 'keeper' of the 'list' explain *why*
    he is doing so. Nor does anyone else. (And I will be doggone 
    if I'm going to go back to the processing topic and wade through 
    a couple hundred replies in the hope of understanding. It's
    Friday, I'm tired.) 
    
    I still see the 'signup' as a massive chain-jerk.
    
    Dana

    
    	RE: .5  Dana
    
    	The List is a list of "the accused" (orginally gathered by a noter
    	as a way to identify all the people he wanted to publicly accuse
    	of the sin of the day.)
    
    	Happily joining The List is (more or less) a sign of support for
    	those being accused.
    
    	It's sort of an act of Civil Disobedience (Notes style) when
    	a number of people voluntarily submit to being under Notes arrest
    	as an act of solidarity with those already charged.
    

    And our original source of inspiration, the movement we're joining in
    defiance of the List Keeper who sought to intimidate by publishing our
    names...that source is 22.369.  You don't have to wade through hundreds
    of replies, Dana. Maggie hit all the important points, for those with
    the ears to hear.
    
    Just read the one note, to figure out what we sheep have signed up for.
    
    DougO

    Mike Z. isn't old enough to remember it, of course, but I'm reminded of
    another person who had a list, and who brandished in in public in an
    attempt to seize power.

re: .8:
    Mike Z. isn't old enough to remember it, of course, but I'm reminded of
    another person who had a list, and who brandished in in public in an
    attempt to seize power.

Maggie, who has the honor of being older than I, if only by one month,
surely must remember the fate of those honored to be on the list -- here,
I'm thinking not so much of McCarthy's list of Communists in the State
Department, but of the HUAC Communists in "the Arts" list, folk like
Bertold Brecht, Dalton Trumbull, Lillian Hellman.  Many of these folk
-- I can't remember their names, can you? -- could not work in their
profession because their politics were judged by the list-makers to be
politically incorrect.


Martin.

    	RE: .9  Martin
    
    	> Many of these folk -- I can't remember their names, can you? 
    	> -- could not work in their profession because their politics 
    	> were judged by the list-makers to be politically incorrect.
    
    	Bingo!  Rights movements are not politically correct among
    	conservatives, thus "The List" was devised by a conservative
    	member of this conference as a way to keep track of who dared
    	to take a stand (eg, ignoring noters in certain situations)
    	that is not considered politically correct in a conservative
    	sense.
    
    	What others did in this conference would be the equivalent of
    	people flooding McCarthy's list as volunteers (as a way to show
    	support for those whom McCarthy had targeted.)

    WHat a joke.
    
    nuff said....

    
    re: .12, Mike Zarlenga
    
    >       It is my belief that 1.11 is misleading, as it does not offer
    >    any information to the unsuspecting that the "FWO" designation is
    >    anything more than a courteous request.
    
    It still isn't any more than a courteous request.  My interpretation of
    "following Magie's lead" is that now, those who are following her lead
    will no longer be polite to those men who do not honor the wishes of the 
    basenoter.  

    Analogies can be dangerous, but: If I am a guest at someone's house and, 
    upon entering am asked not to smoke, I don't (I am a smoker).  I would 
    not expect to be treated very kindly by my hostess if I decided to light
    up regardless of her request, no matter how courteous her manner was 
    when making it.  I certainly wouldn't expect her to act as though she 
    hadn't noticed that I was smoking, or to offer me an ashtray, or to 
    explain why she didn't want me to smoke.  And, I wouldn't be surprised 
    if she wasn't very nice to me. 

    >       By showing that many prominent noters planned to ignore men who
    >    reply in any FWO notes, I wanted to show the moderators that 1.11
    >    understates the significance of the FWO label.
    
    Does this mean that you think a courteous request is not significant 
    (or is less significant than any other kind of request)?
    
    CQ

    
    	"Please don't XXX" ought to be MORE than sufficient for most
    	people.
    
    	If not, they have a problem that the longer explanation won't
    	be sufficient to address.
    

    if some one deliberately chooses to be discourteous do those
    who have asked them not to be so just 'lie back and enjoy it'?
    or do they have the right to protest the dicourtesy?
    
    

>	1. Homeowner says "Please don't smoke."
>
>	2. Homeowner says "Please don't smoke.  If you do, some of the
>	    people here may take offense and avoid being around you while
>	    you're smoking."

I can't imagine anyone responding to #2 who wouldn't respond to #1, if for
no other reason that you'd have to be pretty dim not to infer #2 from #1.

Seems to me the main point of this tempest is the tempest itself.

.16>	Christine, which of the following notices would you prefer?
.16>
.16>	1. Homeowner says "Please don't smoke."
.16>
.16>	2. Homeowner says "Please don't smoke.  If you do, some of the
.16>	    people here may take offense and avoid being around you while
.16>	    you're smoking."

Actually, I'd prefer number 1.  Smoking has become socially unacceptable 
and I know this.  Many people don't like it, and I know this.  If the 
hostess explained, I'd feel like I was being patronized (or matronized, as 
the case may be).  I'd be a little embarrassed, too.  Heck, if it was 
winter, under the conditions stated in number 2, I'd probably have my smoke
as long as I could do it without having to go outside to freeze my other 
butt off. :-)  

(Maybe smoking is a very good analogy in this case, because as a smoker of
too-long standing, I smoked in the days where I could do it just about 
anywhere, except in movie theaters, and in stores in certain parts of the
country.  I was used to being able to smoke just about any old time I 
wanted to.  Now I can't, and I don't like it.  Carried to a ridiculous 
extreme, I suppose the analogy breaks down because, given that no one else 
in the house could force me out physically, I suppose that if I insisted on
smoking in my hostess' house regardless or her request not to do so, she 
could eventually call the cops and have me forceably removed, whereas the 
request to comply with FWO strings is unenforceable.)

.15>  Does this mean that you think a courteous request is not significant 
.15>  or is less significant than any other kind of request)?

.16>	To me, it's the same as any other request to be courteous.

A courteous request is not the same to me as a request for courtesy, though
I believe that the request in 1.11 is both.

.16>	Is is discourteous for me to question the policy in 1.11.

Was that a question or a statement?  It appears to be a statement, given 
the paragraph that follows it, but I'm not sure.

CQ

    	In nearly every case I know (of people in my direct acquaintance,)
    	a simple request not to smoke is all it takes.  

    	I would consider it overkill for someone to go on and on with an
    	explanation of the possible punishment if the person refused to
    	comply with the request.

    	If I were a smoker and someone went into detail to explain how I
    	would be treated socially by refusing to comply with a request
    	not to smoke, I'd be offended.

    	A simple request should be sufficient.

RE: the smoking analogy and the guest concept

	Women at Digital do not own this conference..  It resides on Digital
	property and is thus, by policy, open to all employees of this
	company.

	This conference is here for the express purpose of discussing
	topics of interest to women.

		I am a woman.
		I find the topics being discussed to be VERY interesting.

	Therefore, there HAS be no DISCURTESY to the "owner" of this
	conference because, basically, YOU don't own it.  It is here 
	for us all, it belongs to Digital.  The fact that I as a member
	of the female gender find it to be interesting (as do some other
	women that I know that are being very quiet in this file at
	the moment) means that it is pertanent to this conference's charter.


	Some of you may not LIKE the topic being discussed, but you have
	the option to hit NEXT UNSEEN and it will go away.  Just as I do
	with many topics that I am not interested in.

	But, the fact remains, the smoking/guest analogy doesn't fit, because...
	we are ALL guests in this conference.


	kathy

    	Fine, let's abandon the "smoking" analogy that Mike Z. brought
    	up.  I'd rather not drag smokers into this - they take enough
    	heat everywhere else.  [No puns intended.]

    	Let's keep in mind, though, that NO ONE in Notes has an obligation
    	to converse with ANYONE ELSE (which means that everyone is free to
    	ignore anyone and everyone they choose to ignore in Notes.)

    	So, if some people have decided to ignore others in certain
    	situations, it's their choice as individuals (and has no need
    	nor business being written up as part of conference policy.)

    	Ignoring people who are being discourteous is probably the LEAST
    	objectionable way of dealing with confrontational situations, so
    	the last thing anyone should be doing is criticizing those who
    	have decided to take this avenue.

Kathy,

.22>	Women at Digital do not own this conference..  It resides on Digital
.22>	property and is thus, by policy, open to all employees of this
.22>	company.

Yes.

.22>	This conference is here for the express purpose of discussing
.22>	topics of interest to women.

.22>		I am a woman.
.22>		I find the topics being discussed to be VERY interesting.

Ok.  Below you say that you use next unseen to pass by topics that do not
interest you.  It's the same with me, too.  Some I read, some I don't;
some are interesting to me, some are not.  That can probably be said of 
everyone who reads here.

.22>	Therefore, there HAS be no DISCURTESY to the "owner" of this
.22>	conference because, basically, YOU don't own it.  

I have never thought of courtesy or lack of it as having anything to do with 
ownership of anything.  Now that you've brought it up, I still don't see how
one has anything to do with the other.  

.22>    It is here for us all, it belongs to Digital.  

Yes, I agree, it is Digital's.  But, as I said above I don't see what this
has to do with courtesy.

.22>    The fact that I as a member
.22>	of the female gender find it to be interesting (as do some other
.22>	women that I know that are being very quiet in this file at
.22>	the moment) means that it is pertanent to this conference's charter.

I've lost you here.  What is the "it" you are referring to?

.22>	Some of you may not LIKE the topic being discussed, but you have
.22>	the option to hit NEXT UNSEEN and it will go away.  Just as I do
.22>	with many topics that I am not interested in.

I do this, as I mentioned above.  If one noter ignores another noter, they 
will, in effect, be hitting "next unseen", (or "next reply unseen").

.22>	But, the fact remains, the smoking/guest analogy doesn't fit, because...
.22>	we are ALL guests in this conference.

Again, I don't see the connection.  What if my hypothetical hostess doesn't 
own the place where I am her guest?  A friend of mine worked at DECworld 
recently; he stayed overnight in Boston at one of several apartments rented by 
Digital to temporarily house DECworld workers.  If I'd been his guest while he 
stayed there, I'd still consider his request that I not smoke to be one that I 
could not considerately ignore (and believe me, he would've asked me not to).

CQ

p.s. That's kind of a morbid personal name you've got up there.  Are you 
feeling Ok?

    	RE: .24  CQ

    	> p.s. That's kind of a morbid personal name you've got up there.  
    	> Are you feeling Ok?

    	Kath's personal name is a phrase from the movie "Flatliners."
    	(Keifer Sutherland meant that it was a good day to die_and_
    	find_out_what_it_was_like_and_then_to_be_returned_to_life_to_
    	discuss_it_with_one's_friends.)

    	Taken out of context, though, it's a pretty creepy saying, I
    	agree.

    
    Ah.  I think I read something about that.
    
    Thanks for the clarifying it.
    
    CQ

>                <<< Note 306.24 by LYRIC::QUIRIY "Christine" >>>


>p.s. That's kind of a morbid personal name you've got up there.  Are you 
>feeling Ok?

	Actually, no, I think I'm getting sick, thanks for asking, though.


	The personal name is a quote from the movie "Flatliners" and it's
	not morbid at all, in fact, it's fascinating once you see the
	context the quote was made in.

	kath

    
    
    	And now back to our originally scheduled noting....
    
        The majority of conferences that I keep up with, I do for 
    	2 reasons.  I wish to be entertained or gain some sort of
    	enrichment.  Most of the time WOMANNOTES provides enrichment,
    	with a little humor here and there.
    
    	I respect the authors request for FWO topics, but don't you
    	feel that maybe you could be limiting yourself when you make
    	this sort of request.  The men of this noting community have
     	raised(?) some very interesting and thought provoking (as well
    	as argument provoking) points of view.  It gives you a chance
    	to see another perspective.  Isn't that why we're here?  If
    	we want to have our views accepted, don't we need to be open
    	to others also.  Isn't that how we learn?
    
    		THEREFORE, I do not wish to be on 'The List'.  
              

.29>    The majority of conferences that I keep up with, I do for 
.29>    2 reasons.  I wish to be entertained or gain some sort of
.29>    enrichment.  Most of the time WOMANNOTES provides enrichment,
.29>    with a little humor here and there.
    
Me too.  I think conferencing is wonderful.  For any question I can
dream up, no matter how esoteric, there is probably a conference where
I can ask that question, and there is probably someone reading who can 
answer it.  And, I've met some really swell people electronically.
I've had a lot of good laughs electronically, too.

.29>   	I respect the authors request for FWO topics, but don't you
.29>   	feel that maybe you could be limiting yourself when you make
.29>   	this sort of request.  

No, because I could read the associated FGD string.

.29>    The men of this noting community have
.29>   	raised(?) some very interesting and thought provoking (as well
.29>   	as argument provoking) points of view.  It gives you a chance
.29>   	to see another perspective.

It does, for sure.

.29>    Isn't that why we're here?  If
.29>    we want to have our views accepted, don't we need to be open
.29>    to others also.  Isn't that how we learn?

It probably helps.

But FWO and FGD strings do not prevent anyone from saying whatever they
want to say.  It may sometimes be a bit confusing, especially if there is 
lots of referring back and forth, or it may be cumbersome, but it doesn't
prevent men from saying what they want to say about the topic at hand.

CQ

    IF there is in fact a desire to keep men from writing to Womannotes
    then those woman who feel that way might consider that in my opinion
    that is the equivalent of a womans club which keeps men out.  Wasn't
    the womans' movement started in part because males had exclusive keep
    women out clubs such as The Boys Club, Boy Scouts, Elks, VFW etc?
    I believe it was said that males had no right to exclusive clubs which
    were sex descriminitory?  
    
    Whats my point?
    
    That there ARE some times when it may be desirable to have one sex only
    'clubs' because it serves the needs of that gender best.
    
    I also want to point out to those womennoters who may resent male intrusion
    into Womannotes that THAT is how some men felt about the push to
    include women/girls into some male organizations.
    
    I do think that the balance HAD gone too far the other way, in that
    women were in fact inappropriately descriminated against in some male
    settings and that the womans' movement helped correct that balance.
    Sometimes though I think it was taken to illogical extremes.  
    
    This has to work two ways.  If there can be no male only
    clubs/organizations then there should not be any female only
    clubs/organizations either.
    
    I hope I have not violated any string guidelines here.  I have read
    over my note several times and cannot see any insults to anyone.
    
    But, I probably and going to get jumped on here anyway.  So be it.
    
    Jeff
    

    Jeff,
    
    I think you've missed the entire point of this note.
    
    First off, the people on the list, male and female, were signing
    up that they agreed not to respond to men who were *rude* in the file
    especially in ignoring the courteous request not to write in
    FWO (for women only) notes. 
    
    This is not to be equated with a desire to keep men from writing
    in Womannotes.
    
    Second I and most of the other women I know who regard themselves
    as feminists, appreciate the need for female only and male only
    space. We have in no way said that private social clubs that
    are unisex are wrong. (or at least I haven't seen anyone who said
    that.)
    
    What I and others have objected to is barring women from clubs
    where busines deals were being made and which then hampered
    the women's abilities to get ahead in their careers.
    
    The court's ruling was that if a club was used for business,
    if it served liquor and food to outsiders and if a substantial
    (I forget how much) portion of the club's income came from
    non club members and if there was no bonafide club related reason
    for the club to be unisex then they had to admit women.
    
    Can I ask btw, why groups like the Lions, VFW or Chamber of Commerce
    should be all men? (I don't know anything about the Elks so I'm
    not counting them here.)
    
    There are women who are veterns of foreign wars, to what purpose
    exclude them from the veterns groups? 
    
    The Lions raise money to help the visually impaired and to promote
    civic responsibility among young people. They allowe women in
    as associate members for years, and recently in Mass made them
    full members. What was gained by keeping women as associate members?
    
    The Chamber of Commerce was designed to help businesses in a town
    esp small businesses in small towns survive. How did they gain by
    excluding women who ran businesses?
    
    By the way, since this is the list note, I'm going to move this
    reply and I'd like to continue this discussion as a new note.
    
    Bonnie