Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    You ask, "what makes you think *you're* the only ones with indignity
    problems?"
    
    I ask, "Where did you get *that* idea?"  You certainly didn't get
    it from reading 750.0:  "Not that there aren't plenty of
    non-gender-specific sources of indignity out there....  Likewise, men
    have to endure a variety of undignified, unpleasant conditions, things
    that women don't encounter...."
    
    						Ann B.

    
    Yes, indignities like having to hear about women's issues almost half
    the time just because the file is called Womannotes.
    
    Sheesh.
    
    Justine

    i don't read womannotes to hear about the problems men have peeing. 
    since womannotes is supposed to address topics of interest to women, i
    don't see how this topic is relevant.
    
    next unseen

    
    Being born of woman?
    
    D.

    maybe if the guys would sit down while peeing, they wouldn't have
    "spot"
    problems.
    
    just a helpful suggestion.
    

    
    
    Not to sound like a b!tch or anything, but isn't this topic more suited
    to Mennotes, NOT Womennotes?
    
    How is a topic on "The Indignities of being a Man" pertinent to the
    discussion of issues relating to women.
    
    I understand the humour in pointing out that men have indignities too,
    but wouldn't it be more appropriate to either move this discussion into
    topic 750, or move it over to Mennotes?
    
    Frankly, I'm not interested, as a woman, in devoting an entire topic to
    a discussion about Men in this conference.  I know that might sound
    snobbish, or maybe even sexist....but when you read the charter of this
    conference, you find that it's not even relevant (and there are plenty
    of other places on the net that it is).
    
    Sign me uncomfortable...................
    
    
    kath

Ditto on Sue and Kath.

D!

    re .0
    
    Well, I don't know you at all, but I interpreted your intent with .0 to
    be to increase the harmony between the sexes.
    It looks like most of the respondents interpret either didn't interpret
    it that way, or for some reason felt that this was neither the time nor
    the place to improve the empathy between the sexes.
    I hope you can ignore the hostile undertones I found in many of the
    replies.

    sigh

    I guess I'm having a reaction similar to Kath and others.  I don't
    think the note on the indignities of being a woman implied in any
    way that there aren't indignities of being a man.  In fact I remember
    thinking of several indignities specific to men.  I like men, too,
    and have supported their presence in this file.  I even find this topic
    interesting, but it just doesn't seem to belong in =wn=.
    
    Maybe there should be a notes file devoted to discussing differences,
    similarities and conflicts between the sexes -- a notes file about
    gender with equal emphasis on both genders.
    
    Mary

    I found hostile overtones in .2,.4,.5,.6 (and, a postiori, .10)
    Maybe the authors of .2,.4,.5,.6 know more about the whole person
    in .0 than I do. 
    Oh and perhaps the author of .10 knows more about the whole person in
    .9 than i do.

    
    
    RE: .9 (Nichols)
    
    In .0, the author writes...
    
    >I've been reading 700.*. what makes you think *you're*
    >the only ones with indignity problems?
    
    Had the basenote author not alienated me in the very first sentence of
    their note, I might have been more open to finding "harmony" with them.
    
    Frankly, the entire note appears to be an "us against them" type of
    response.
    
    And you should know better than to think that I would make a comment
    like this lightly (I'm usually the one in there SUPPORTING men).,
    
    kath

    
    
    RE: .12 (hostilities found in the notes)
    
    I see sarcasm (I think "hostility" is too harsh a word).
    
    Sometimes people don't realize that when they are sarcastic they
    alienate those people that they are trying to reach.  But, in some
    cases, sarcasm is a very real and viable reaction.
    
    I can't condemn or applaud the sarcasm in some of these notes, but I do
    know that I've found that sarcasm rarely EVER gets me what I want, and
    most often alienates me from others.
    
    FWIW...
    
    kath

    Yes, talking about the indignities of being a woman CAN seem to be
    implying that we don't think there are any in being a man.  Because 
    obviously if we recognized that men had them too, we wouldn't be wasting 
    a string on "just" our own, would we???  Can't you just feel the
    tugs at your sleeves as you talk among yourselves?  ;-)
    
    And we're missing an opportunity to promote "harmony between the
    sexes", Herb?  I thought this was just a string in a notesfile.
    I guess by not embracing a topic on the problems men have with 
    their ah, equipment, we certainly are risking creating some serious
    "inter-genderal disharmony" in the world or at the very least we are
    displaying a serious transgression of womanhood in being unwilling to
    make nice.  Sure, maybe this is Womannotes, but you're expected to trade
    away your exclusive rights to set the agenda here if you hope to ever wrest
    away men's excusive right to set the agenda for the rest of your world.
    If you believe you can do it with THAT tradeoff, I have some nice land 
    in south Florida for sale cheap! 
    
    But then women aren't supposed to be *successful* in their endeavors,
    just dogged.  You may not get equality in your world from giving it
    here in your sanctioned space, but you're not expected to realize that,
    you're only expected to change your behavior here when scolded this way, 
    and smooth the feathers you have ruffled.  So if you want 50% of the
    world, I think you're expected to give [at least!] 50% of the .01% of it 
    that you have alloted to you here.
    
    Sounds fair to me!  ;-)
                                 
    Sandy                                                       

    For the record, no hostility in my reply, just a lot of sarcasm.
    And no, I'm not "bothered" by my sarcasm, (I enjoy it actually), 
    since I'm not "trying to reach" anyone.  (yawn)
    
    If I thought this file could change the sexism and misogyny in my 
    world, things might be different.  But I can accept that it won't, and 
    since I must censor, limit, restrict and restrain myself in most aspects 
    of life, I feel very comfortable in putting my cards on the table in 
    Womannotes.  I can do that, can't I?  Please, guys?   
    
    And yes, I still want equality in the real world.  How's *that* for 
    impudence!  ;-)
    
    Sandy

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    But if I wanted to discuss women's issues, I could just talk to my
    friends over a cup of coffee while the kids are napping or at the
    beauty parlor.  I mean, where else can you find out what men think about
    things like politics, childbirth, menstruation, rape, pantyhose, war,
    religion, history, art, music?  There just isn't enough input from
    males on the important issues of our day, and I for one, wouldn't give
    up this rare opportunity to hear from them for anything.
    
    Justine

    
    Gosh, I just read .0, flipped to the next note, and forgot about
    it - until I came back to a whole string of people yelling at
    each other over .... what?  A lite topic?  Try giving it a rest.
    

    I must admit, my first reaction to the base note was that it was 
    humerous.  My first reactions to some of the notes which seemed 
    sarcastic was " oh, nuts, here we go again".  However, to prove
    that on occaision I am not always a hot tempered stubborn wench,
    I finished reading the replies and have come to the conclusion
    (drum roll please), that I DO agree with the sentiments that perhaps
    this note belongs elsewhere.  As much as I appreciated the note, I
    can see why the women who have expressed their discomfort have done so.
    I too love men and have butt heads on occaision with some of the 
    stronger (but respected) voices herein, however, I must agree with
    them in this instance.  The note really has no bearing on womanhood
    (is this a word) and as such, is inappropriate (read, NOT offensive to
    me, just not relevant to me as a woman).   I may not be comfortable
    with the sarcasm, but my experiences with men have not been, and are
    not the same as other women's here, so I will refrain from judging it 
    as the frustration other womannoters have felt in a male dominated
    world is quite real and often overwhelming.
    
    Bring in the lions.
    
    Christine

    
    I do believe most of you have lost your sense of humor...
    
    just the way I feel.
    
    
    jean

    No, Herb, they'll (we'll) just stay right here in womannotes.
    
    As for losing my sense of humor, I know I haven't.  Even though I'm
    laughing and having a good time here, I don't think one should have to
    always chuckle at everything in order to prove one has a sense of
    humor.  But then I never thought I'd have to defer constantly to males
    to prove I don't hate them.  And then again I did learn early that as a
    woman, my motives are always suspect and that I'm generally considered
    guilty until proven innocent, (and you gotta go some to prove it!), in 
    any encounter with a man that doesn't go smoothly, (i.e. his way).
    
    From where I sit, I only noticed one person in here losing their sense 
    of humor.  And it wasn't me!  ;-)
    
    Sandy

    
    .22 -
    
    > As for losing my sense of humor, I know I haven't -
    
    Me neither; I laugh every time I think of how predictable this topic
    is!
    
    D.

    
    ... knowing that the women have gone off somewhere to discuss things among
    themselves for a while.
    
    D.

I tend to agree that this note doesn't belong in here...

However ladies, shouldn't you be valuing differences?

John G.

    speaking seriously here in a lite topic
    
    we have been brought up to value the male difference above all else
    
    but i reiterate, what does men's peeing habits/difficulties have to do
    with topics of interest to women?  I'm not particularly interested and
    i'm a woman.
    
    i think the purpose of this notesfile is to value the difference that
    women bring to the workplace and not necessarily rehash the difference
    that men bring to the workplace.
    
    of course, anyone's mileage may vary.
    
    sue

re: .26
    
>I tend to agree that this note doesn't belong in here...
    >However ladies, shouldn't you be valuing differences?
    
    The note REMAINS in this notesfile, does it not?
    If that's not valuing differences, I don't know what is!
    
    -Jody

    Nonsense!
    
    I can't believe you don't understand the difference between official
    censuring and ostracizing.

re .26,

And telling someones what they "should" or "shouldn't" be doing is
something I find patronizing.  As you missed Sandy's point earlier,
you might want to backtrack to read .15; you might realize you just 
skewered yourself upon it.

DougO

    And the person being ostracized was Bruce.

    And I see quite an irony in that, since (after reading 782.42 &
    782.45) I have concluded that Bruce might have ended up being a
    'goodguy'  if only he hadn't been so imprudent as "to hope to improve
    empathy" (c.f. 785.0) between the sexes at an inopportune time and in
    an inopportune way.
    

    A few years ago Sat Nt Live did a skip on Stay Free Peeny Pads "to
    help eliminate those awful tracks"
    
    Just trying to lighten things up.  [Drat, another dangling preposition.]
    
    ed

    
    .26
    
    "ladies"?
    

    what do you recommend for this use?
    would you have preferred 
    "however, women, shouldn't you be valuing difference?"
    
    

    please, do understand that I at least would consider
    
    "however, women, ...
    
    to be rude and distancing
    
    why?
    don't know, just doesn't feel right!
    
    
    

    How about:
    
    "	-< Companion to 750.0 Lite:  The Indignities of Men >-
    
    I was reading 750.0, and was inspired to describe some of those
    indignities unknown to women that were alluded to.  I hope I can
    be at least as entertaining as that author."  ?
    
    						Ann B.

Since entering the base note I've gotten lots of flak -- positive
and negative. I wrote the base note after a woman friend sent me a
copy of the  original women's indignity article, extracted from 750.0.
She thought I should write the same thing from a male point of view.

So I did. Three women I showed it to (and 2 men, FWIW) thought I
should enter it in =wn=. (I don't know how many of them
follow the conference.)

So I entered it. 

The moderators then had an electronic powwow, and finally decided to
let the note remain. I don't know how they came to a decision, but one
moderator told me that she doesn't think "that issues that only apply
to men belong in Womannotes," and  another said that she was impressed
that "a group of women asked [me] to enter the note." 

The headliner (or whatever you call it) for this notesfile reads
"Topics of Interest to Women." I understand and agree with that
philosophy. Presumably the note was of interest enough to some women
because they thought I should enter it here. 

Notice that the motto does not say "Topics About Women." If it said
that, than my base note clearly would not qualify. But how do you
determine what is of interest to women? It's easy if you're a woman:
anything any woman enters is, a priori, of interest to at least one 
woman.

But how can a man, unless he reads minds, determine what is of
interest to women? Obviously this note is of interest to some women,
even though some responders do not feel that way. Apparently a man    
must risk rejection of anything he writes here, because some women
will not feel it is of interest to women. 

So what's a man to do? Many men avoid saying anything in this file for
fear of flames (and some people will say that is the way the want it).
Some women understand this very well. Here's a mail message I received:

  > I liked your note
  > If I were a man I would give up trying to understand women.
  > If I were a man I wouldn't ever write in Womannotes.


  > understanding woman 

I appreciate the support very much, but I'm not going to give up
trying to understand women (and men, too) or writing in Womannotes.

There are readers and contributors to this file who are interested  in
a specific ideology or agenda. Some of them are quick to lash out (at
men or women) who show any deviation from their perceived "correct"
ideology. Is this valuing differences? 

I think that reply .9 was closest to my feelings. How do we increase
harmony between the sexes? Every minority group of whatever nature
feels that their experiences are unique to their minority group. But 
virtually everybody feels that they are part of a minority. I'm over
50, Jewish, and hard of hearing. All of these groups receive more than
their share of discrimination, but I am not going to become militant
because, for example, someone screams at me when I don't understand
them the first time.

Other responses that seem to be close to what I was trying to do, are 
.11 and .15 (despite the sarcasm). 

So what are the differences we value? How can we, women and men, come
to appreciate what is unique about each gender? How can we, women and
men, come to appreciate what is common to both genders? I don't think
you do it by isolation. You do it by communication. Let's keep trying.

Bruce

    
    I, personally, feel it's kind of an indignity to know that women can't
    talk about something relating to women, without men coming in and
    loudly proclaiming "what about men".  
    
    Men are important, they're half the species, but must they be part and
    parcel of each and every discussion?
    
    enough energy scattered.  back to focus.
    
    

         Just a couple of observations 'folks' [I guess that term
         is safe...] before I fade out of the picture for another
         three months or so...

         ...1...If the women of this notes file truly do not want to
         consider men's opinions, ideas, feelings, and
         perceptions as part of the general intent of this notes
         file to support women in their endeavors, then they
         should restrict the membership to females. The
         implication of men as members is that you are willing
         and even interested in hearing from men. Statements such
         as followed the base note are merely thinly veiled
         examples of reverse discrimination and I, at least, am
         embarassed by them.

         ...2...It always confounds me that women who under
         circumstances where a fellow woman might have 'intended'
         one thing and 'conveyed' another, would politely and
         sensitively help the offending woman find a better way
         to express themselves...jump all over a for man doing the
         same thing. We can't have it both ways. If we want to
         foster equality and understanding, we cannot turn rabid
         everytime a man comes across 'male'. If we do so, we are
         merely stating that we do not want a fair deal; we want
         a better deal...and if that is what we want...then
         again, get the men out of the notes file altogether.

         ...3...FWIW...I did not find the base note offensive or
         intrusive...I suspended my imagination and took the
         author at his word for trying to foster better
         understanding. Sure, he could have worded the first
         sentence a little better...but I suspect there is not a
         single other noter in here who has not made a similar
         gaffe at some time or other.

         ...4...Finally, and sadly, I am reminded why I stay away
         from this file for long periods of time. I made it for
         about five days this time. For those of you who know me,
         you know that I am a liberal feminist...I am a
         professional...and I stand for no sexism or sexist
         comments when I do business...I am outspoken and blunt.
         But I find militarism counterproductive and I find
         _rudeness_ inappropriate under any circumstances, and I
         think the replies following the basenote were for the
         most part militaristic and rude.

         To the moderators, please delete my recent note of
         grieving for those who have recently left us...854
         I think...I no longer wish to participate at this time.

         Melinda

    
    It seems to me that if it's ok for a man to enter a basenote (in
    WOMANnotes) entirely devoted to issues that concern only men, and
    if the purpose for entering that note is to foster harmony and
    understanding between the sexes, then it seems to me that it is also ok
    for:
    
    	o Some women and men to discuss these male-centered issues
        o Some women and men to ignore the note because it doesn't
          fit with their sense of what this file is about
        o Some women and men to express their anger that such a note is   
          here
    
    All of those things are, I think, part of what the work is in reaching
    understanding (and more harmony) between the sexes.  If everyone
    understood the issues in the same way and had equal interest in and energy
    for pursuing those issues at all times... there would be no conflict. 
    We could just get a conference room, write an agenda, and start
    discussing the issues, checking them off as we resolve them.  But I
    don't think that's how it is.  Some of us don't want to read about
    male anatomy in WOMANnotes. But this is "a free country" and an open
    file, so (as Bruce points out) if there is interest in a topic, it will
    be discussed.  Anyone here can influence the agenda -- by simply
    writing about what interests him/her.  But... I think that to say
    that women shouldn't be angry or shouldn't express their anger, is
    an attempt at suppressing part of the information that we need to
    "understand" each other -- just as it would be for me to ask for
    the basenote to be deleted, instead of expressing my anger at its
    existence.
    
    Sometimes I think that people throw the idea, "don't you want to
    promote harmony between the sexes?" at me and other women whenever we
    women want to be by ourselves and/or when we express anger.  When that
    happens, I feel angry and a little manipulated.  Yes, I wish there were
    harmony between the sexes.  However, I think there is more than one
    way to work toward that, and because it's fatiguing work, I think it's
    ok to choose not to do it at every moment of the day.  Some of us work
    for more harmony by trying to resolve conflicts as soon as they come
    up, keeping the lid on angry exchanges.  Some of us think there will be
    more harmony between the sexes when women are more empowered, feel more
    like full human beings (and are seen as and treated by the law as full
    human beings), capable of entering into and maintaining a relationship
    with men that is not only "harmonious" but as fulfilling to women as it
    is to men.  When I think of this file, I see more of the second path
    (growth for women) as something Womannotes could do really well.  And
    men could get to see this, could get to see more of what it is to be
    a woman in this culture and maybe even choose some of those qualities
    for themselves.  They could take risks (e.g., ask for and give hugs),
    try on new roles -- what a wonderful opportunity this is!  But it seems 
    to me that rather than drink in this new culture: learn a new language, 
    hear different music, read new stories, taste new food; lots of men seem 
    to want to bring their old ways of being (ways, which by the admission of 
    many of them, have not been working so well for them) and impose it on the 
    rest... and.... accuse those who resist of not being nice.  Well, I don't 
    feel like being nice (if that means I always have to give up what I
    want), but I'm willing to be observed and to sometimes teach.. when I can, 
    when I have energy, when I want to.  Not a bad deal, I'd say.  And if you 
    would accuse me (in great disrespect, in my opinion, to the men and women 
    who have worked for black civil rights) of asking you to move to the "back 
    of the bus," then I think you just haven't understood me --  in which case,
    you can choose whether you wish to dismiss me as an (inappropriately) 
    angry woman or whether you wish to watch and listen some more.
    
    Justine

    .36
    
    
    So it doesn't feel right?  To whom?  It surely feels right to me;
    I'm a woman, call me a woman; you don't know if I'm a "lady" or
    not.
    
    Round and round we go....
    

In the interests of heading off the "you can only be manipulated
if you allow yourself to be" _ad-hominem_ crowd, let me say that
I read Justine's sentence:
>When that
>    happens, I feel angry and a little manipulated

to mean:

"When that happens, I feel angry and [a little like someone is trying to 
manipulate me]"

Bobbi 

    
    .36 -
    
    I'd like you to ask yourself, what you think it means, to you and to
    others, that you think that calling women "women", "just doesn't feel 
    right"?
    
    D.

Just what everyone needs: another opinion! Sorry, but I can't resist
adding my two cents here.

I thought the base note was funny. I thought the first paragraph was
said with a laugh, not with a snotty "me too" tone. I personally don't
think womannotes is the best place for it (mennotes or human_relations or
soapbox come to mind as more appropriate places). But there's a lot
that goes on in this file that seems (to me) better suited for other
places.  But Bruce is right: the headliner for this conference is 
"Topics of Interest to Women." A woman suggested he put it in here:
so, by definition, it's a topic of interest to at least one woman!

And that's the case over and over and over again in here. We argue time
and time again about the role of men in here. I don't think the problem
here is Bruce posting an inappropriate note. I think the problem is that
the agenda of this conference is too broad; that this file needs a more
clearly defined statement of purpose. Something like "Topics Pertaining to
Women" or "Examining Our World: A Woman's Perspective" or *something* that
helps address this ongoing argument. Then run the conference like a
meeting with a clearly-defined agenda. Clearly a lite topic about the
indigities of being a man would no longer fit in a file for Topics
Pertaining to Women. 

Kathy

    re.42 Umm, Justine, WADR, I don't really think your third group
    are adding to the quest for harmony.
    
    Dana

Bruce and Herb,

>So what are the differences we value? How can we, women and men, come
>to appreciate what is unique about each gender? How can we, women and
>men, come to appreciate what is common to both genders? I don't think
>you do it by isolation. You do it by communication. Let's keep trying.


>    And I see quite an irony in that, since (after reading 782.42 &
>    782.45) I have concluded that Bruce might have ended up being a
>    'goodguy'  if only he hadn't been so imprudent as "to hope to improve
>    empathy" (c.f. 785.0) between the sexes at an inopportune time and in
>    an inopportune way.

[set opinion/mine on]

I simply cannot believe you use these words in conjunction with the 
content of the basenote, or should I say lack of content?  This topic has 
NO SUBSTANCE...Improve empathy between the sexes?  Value differences?  Do 
you hear what you're saying?  Can you seriously believe the basenote 
discussion could ever do that?

It's just plain dam* insulting that you fall back on valuing differences 
or empathy between the sexes in discussing a topic with no merit.

[set opinion/mine off <if such be possible>]

Barb

Who's had it up to hear with "weenie talk as significant discussion"   

Several hundred (thousand?) people read =wm=. Many of them have preset
ideas, mindsets, and agendas, and are quick to attack when someone treads on
their perceived turf. 

Meaningful communication is the only way to clear away such barriers.

Bruce

    Isn't sharing my feelings and my needs if I OWN THEM as MINE and do not
    force them on others part of "meaningful communication", or is
    "meaningful communication" only being nice and saying what everybody
    wants to hear?
    
    -Jody
    

    I believe single-gender notesfiles are against corporate policy.
    
    -Jody
    

Hey Cindi,

which group are you gonna be in?

Kathy

    And I believe (but don't know) that if the issue were pushed
    forcefully, and skillfully (sp?) enough a members-only conference that
    was composed only of people in group one could be established.

    
    re .51
    
    That seemed a little harsh to me, too.  Is that how you see
    some/many/most of the women in this file?  Do you see me in that way?
    
    More generally, can folks imagine a way in which women could express
    their anger without it feeling so threatening?  My sense is that it
    really is more the content (the anger) that's scary than it is the
    method (sarcasm, other methods?)
    
    I'm feeling defensive.  I'm fighting the urge to mention that I have
    lots of straight women friends and a few male friends and lots of men
    that I like and respect -- hmm... I guess I wasn't able to fight
    that urge very successfully.  Reminds me of that Sylvia book of
    cartoons, _Ma,_Can_I_be_a_Feminist_and_still_like_men_?
    
    People are always (ok often) accusing women of hating men and asking
    them why they're angry.  I have a question.  Where does all this anger
    toward feminists (i.e., women who express some anger at male culture)
    come from?  How does my anger hurt anyone?  Do you wish I weren't
    angry?  If so, why?  
    
    Justine

    what a silly note this is.
    
    
    J

    my personal comment Justine
    
    if all the women were as sensitive, insightful, and as thoughtful as
    you are, there would not be a need for 'privacy'. I have never seen a
    'chip' on your shoulder.

Re: -.1

I get my rushes in other ways.

B

    
    
    Re 785.58 (NECSC::BARBER_MINGO   Cindi)
    
    Cindi, I'd like to talk more about this.  I don't mean to single you
    out, but you are very articulate and seem to have some very strongly
    held views.  And even though it seems to me that you have some
    disappointment in how things are here, you seem to feel safe enough
    (which I'm very glad of) to express these views.  So I don't want to
    scare you off or make you feel uncomfortable.  Please feel free to let 
    this drop if you don't want to discuss it anymore (or right now).
    
    In your .58 you said:
    
    
  >>  If you wish- Make group one the-
  >>  Support women at most costs, foster female growth, foster female
  >>  discussion, support lesbian, support gay, support bi-sexual, support
  >>  female strength, support female control, support female autonomy,
  >>  hugs and flotation tank group if you wish.
    
    I see this as a fairly positive list (with some mixed feelings about
    the "support female control" comment), but I get the sense that you do
    not, that this is not what you would like Womannotes to be.  Any sense
    of what you would like it to be?  Can it be what you need and still
    contain some of those things on your list (above)?
    
    Then you say:
    
    >>Sometimes I feel that in the zeal to define/protect some of the
    >>minorities here, the tactics, biases, exclusionist tactics, and 
    >>cruelties used which some people came here to escape are still
    >>in practice... just in reverse order ... 
    
    Can you say how and where you see this?  (Here and/or in Mail, if you
    prefer).  Lots of folks make this charge, but I don't see it, and I'd
    like to understand what it is that folks are seeing that I am not
    seeing.  What are the "cruelties" and the "exclusionist tactics" that
    you refer to?
    
    
    I'd be interested in hearing from any and all on these questions --
    here in the file or in Mail to me and/or the other comods.  
    
    Justine
                                           

Justine, I said it before several replies back.

There are many, many, divergent points of view in this file. By itself, that is
good.

What is not good is that some people automatically become enraged when someone 
enters a view point that differs from theirs (is not PC, if you wish), and the 
flames gush out.

If everybody was as receptive as you are to different points of view, we could
disagree a lot more agreeably.

Bruce

    
    Hmm...
    
    But I think there's a difference between entering a different point of
    view and being WRONG!  Ok, that was meant to be funny.  
    
    What I really want to know is:
    
    How come your difference (in this case, entering a note about male
    issues, mostly physical issues, in WOMANnotes) is one I should embrace,
    
    But my difference (wishing men would talk about male issues someplace
    other than WOMANnotes) is one I should get over?  Or actually, since I
    still manage to be nice even when I'm really p*ssed (something that
    actually makes me more p*ssed, because I fear that I've learned how to
    "make nice" so well that I can't get mad -- kinda like yelling your
    head off and people think you're still whispering, but I digress), I
    can talk about it, but those other women: the strident ones, the ones
    who aren't as "nice" as I -- they should get over it?
    
    Doesn't seem very fair to me.  (and it might not to you either if you
    could actually understand those runon sentences I wrote :-)
    
    Justine                                                                

    Cindi,
    
    I am just so overwhelmed with jealousy that there are *chairs* near
    your dressing rooms that I can't comment on anything else.
    
    						Ann B.
    
    P.S.  Except that the phrase, "quantity time", is very witty.

	Cindi, I think it's superb that you and your husband took
	each other's names and I am very much enjoying your notes
	and perspective here.

	Welcome.

	Carla

    Cindi
    
    I'm also impressed with your notes, and I know my husband would
    enjoy having a chair to wait for me in, rather than have to
    wander about aimlessly amongst the racks, while waiting for me
    to come out and holler at him to come see how I look in a particular
    outfit.
    
    He'd happily sit down on the floor by the door and read or meditate,
    but I've been too embarassed to let him.
    
    Bonnie

    I feel afraid to enter this note and that in itself says something. 
    I'm one of those who does not like to rock the boat.  I fear that some
    of the people I've come to know and love in this file, will judge me on
    the basis of my position on this one issue and not on the basis of me
    as a whole person.

    I have to admit that when I read Cindi's 875.51 I had to fight a strong
    urge to nominate it for the Hall of Fame because it expressed so well
    the way I sometimes feel about WOMANNOTES.  I fought the urge because I
    did not want to rock the boat.

    At the risk of being branded a male sympathizer (or rather empathizer)
    I think WOMANNOTES sends out a mixed message to men.  The "official"
    message is "Men are welcome here and differences are valued here", but
    some women feel a lot of anger at men and may even "unofficially"
    resent their presence here.  That anger and resentment comes out and
    gets perceived by some men as a message that they are not welcome or
    valued here.

    In any group of humans be it all male, all female, or mixed there is a
    tendency for some individuals to obtain control or dominance and that
    happens in WOMANNOTES too.  The non dominant folks may submit or
    initiate a power struggle.  But that's so "male"; surely it does not
    happen in WOMANNOTES!  Perhaps it doesn't; but perhaps some women want
    so badly to believe that women do not suffer from the "male disease"
    that has kept them oppressed, that they just refuse to see it.

    All I can say is that I have seen it.  I have seen exactly what Cindi
    says.  Women behaving 
    
    >towards others the way they often wish/claim they want people 
    >to stop doing to them because it is so unfeeling, insensitive,
    >closedminded, and unfair.
    
    But then there's always the possiblility that I'm the one who can't
    see.  And when two people see the same situation differently who is
    to say which has clouded vision?  Certainly not me.
    
    Mary

    Ren,
    
    Thank you so much for your note. You've actually inspired me to write
    in =wn after an absence (with one exception) of nearly two years.
    You've expressed your and my thoughts very well. Thank you.
    
    Mr. Dawson, As a former =wn mod, FWO notes are allowed as a "courtesy",
    not as a policy, unless some major change has occurred. They're 
    unenforceable, in other words.
    
    I might add here that there are some notes in mennotes that are
    "male-oriented", that are meant for men. There's no argument or 
    pushback; no one goes to personnel and complains. Occasionally women 
    will write into them but apologize profusely and what they write tends
    to be relevant. I don't see the "picking" there that goes on here.
    I have my ideas about why this is so.
    
    Battering: Mr Dawson, I really object to your use of "battering".
    Its use in that sense tends to trivialize what many women (oh yes, 
    "and some men") go through so often. Just read other notes in this 
    conference to get an idea of what I'm talking about.
    
    "...to the point that the 'LITE' is gone from this string."
    there go those humorless feminists again... We'll have to send them off
    to funny school, I guess.
    
    I do hope you go back and read Ren's note. It answered your last 
    comment quite eloquently.
    
    
    
    Liz

    
    I never got the feeling that the official "welcome" message was by
    choice. I always thought that it was a requirement: male presence must
    be permitted by corporate policy. And as for valuing differences, I
    never thought that the purpose of valuing differences files was to
    prove that people with the difference knew how to value everyone else!
    I thought it was a place where people of a particular difference would
    feel that their difference would be valued. Blacknotes is a place where
    being black is valued. The gay/les/bi conference is a place where
    homosexuality is valued. NATIVE_AMERICAN is a place where being a
    native American is valued. And the people who do NOT share that
    difference can go there and learn what its like to see that difference
    being valued.
    
    Now, there are some people who do not place a lot of emphasis on their
    difference. For such people, coming to a place where their difference
    is valued probably feels odd. In fact, for some people with this
    particular difference, coming to a place where their difference is
    valued feels ALIENATING. Because they aren't interested in being
    recognized based on that difference. So, if you are black but don't
    tend to think of yourself as black, or if you are gay but don't think
    of yourself as gay, or you are any "person of difference" who does not
    think in terms of being partially defined by that difference, a valuing
    difference conference centered on that difference will often cause some
    conflict. If you decide that you'd like to explore your difference,
    fine! If you decide that you don't want to be looked  at in terms of
    your difference.... maybe you would have more to say, or feel less
    alienated in a conference where your primary "identifier" was the
    central topic. Maybe human_relations, maybe a conference about being
    married, maybe a conference about being Christian, maybe a conference
    about liking something, like music, or cars, or something central to
    your life.
    
    Now, I'm only a single voice. And this is just my opinion. It takes a
    lot of voices to shape this file. But this is how I approach
    Womannotes. Here, my difference as a woman is something to explore. And
    this is how I approach Blacknotes, where my black identity is something
    to explore and value, and how I approach Buddhism, where my religion is
    something to value and share. If I went to the gay/les/bi conference,
    it would be as someone who wanted to see what it was like when gays,
    lesbians and bisexuals had a place where their difference was valued.
    
    I've learned to laugh at what happens here in Womannotes. Because I've
    done too much crying, and become too angry. I can't think of a single
    other valuing differences conference in which it is NOT clear that a
    certain difference is being valued, and that that is the POINT of the
    conference. In Blacknotes, you don't go in and constantly question
    whether the black people are valuing white people, or people of other
    races. In the Christian conference, I'll bet there are not a lot of
    topics devoted to valuing other religions... unless its a religious
    tenet; it is in Buddhism. In Native_American, I have not seen any notes
    about whether native_Americans are learning to value European
    Americans. But it happens here.
    
    I don't know WHY womannotes HAS to be the exception. But obviously
    there are enough people fighting to make it so that we keep going
    through this stuff.
    
    Fact is, Sandy Ciccolini probably wrote something exactly like this in
    V1. Because I know that when I FIRST started reading womannotes, it was
    more like other valuing differences conferences instead of the
    namby-pamby "let's make everyone feel welcome" diluted environment its
    become.
    
    I'm not going to make any secret of it. I think this should be a place
    where the difference of being a woman is valued, where issues
    pertaining to being a woman are explored, and all other viewpoints are
    subordinate, hopefully just because they get drowned out, not censored.
    Maybe that puts me in category one. But I really think people who are
    not interested in VALUING AND EMPHASIZING AND SHARING AND EXPLORING how
    being a WOMAN can make you DIFFERENT are better off in an employee
    interest conference.
                                                                         
    

re: .75
>                 Your remark about FWO being a courtesy is interesting
>    in light of past events.  It is my understanding that during V2 there
>    was a vote taken and the idea of FWO was passed by a majority of the
>    noters here.  Then it was taken to personel to verify that it could be
>    used to exclude men from that string.  Just the idea that you want to
    
    Policy clarification.  The vote was taken as to whether we wanted
    parallel FWO/FGD strings.  We CANNOT exclude men from any string
    anywhere.  It is a COURTESY-ONLY request.
    
    
>    exclude men, and personel says you can't, speaks volumes as to your
>    attitude toward men in this notes file.  This very string is a good
>    example.  The moderators even discussed if they were even going to let
>    this note stand.  If you read the policy's in .1 you will find that it
>    is stated that mens notes will be deleted "quicker" than will a womans.
    
    This notesfile is for topics of interest to women.  If someone started
    a topic about "How Male Lumberjacks Over Seven Feet Tall Can Better Use
    A Stihl Chain Saw", I think we might think about suggesting the author
    take it to another notesfile more appropriate for that purpose.  We
    generally let 99.995% of all created topics stand, realizing that if
    they are of interest to women, women (and men) will participate in them 
    and if not, interest in them may either slow down quickly, or resurface
    later as something brings that subject up again.
    
    Men's notes will not be deleted "quicker" than women's.  If there is a
    CONFLICT between women's and men's needs in this notesfile a majority
    of the time it will be decided in favor of meeting the women's needs
    (providing this doesn't go against any corporate guidelines or
    policies).  I can think of maybe a handful of times this has happened
    since I became a moderator.
    
    -Jody
    

For a long time, I have always considered this notesfile to be women
only.  To me it is irrelevant as to whether the official policy "welcomes"
men or not.  I don't need a constitutional amendment to tell me not to go
into a restroom that is labeled "Ladies".  But then I had some discussions
with a few moderators, I was convinced that this is not the equivalent 
of the Ladies' room.  I am not so sure any more because as one noter put
it, the "all men are welcome" policy is not by "choice".  Now, don't get me
wrong, I fully support a female only notesfile.  They need their space.  
I don't care if corporate policy says you can't have women only
notesfile.  To me it is irrelevant.  What matters to me is if there is 
a "Ladies" sign there.  Right now I am somewhat confused.  In some sense, 
the sign is there.  After all, this is womannotes (that is the reason I 
hesitated long before I got in).  Well, all that doesn't really matter 
any more.  What I need is a sign of some sort that says "Ladies" from some 
one in charge.  You don't have to be blatant about it, I can take a hint 
(I can't vouch for the others though).

I agree with Mel and Cindi and Mary to a large degree.  Obviously, Bruce's
note doesn't fit in very well here.  When I first read it, I thought it
was funny.  Not only that the content is funny, but the in-congruence of
his note in this womannotes is even funnier.  I have to admit that many of 
the comments about Bruce's note is right on the mark in substance.
Now the problem I have with some of those responses is that they are very 
rude.  If that note was entered by Doug Olsen or other notesfile veterans,
it becomes a fair game.  However, as far as I know Bruce is new
in this place (I never saw anything else he wrote here.  I could be wrong), 
sort of like a guest.  Common decency says you don't treat a guest that way.
You might say you are getting tired of freshmen jumping into the notesfile
and say something stupid, but that is the way notesfile is.  This is not
a private club.  People come and go all the time.  Moreover, making it 
woman only won't solve that problem.  Women are just as susceptible to 
stupidity as men.  Moreover, I am not even sure the issue is stupidity, but
rather a matter of PCness.  How many women are alienated just because of a few
rude people around?

Sometimes, I feel what this notesfile needs is a mother (moderators 
are simply not enough).  Some people here have the manner of a 
five year old.  What they need is a good clean spanking from the mother.
Didn't our mothers tell us that if we don't have anything nice to say,
just don't say it?  Keep in mind that I am not talking about substance,
just the manner especially when we meet a guest.  Like Mary, I hesitated
before I write this note.  Then I remembered what Richard Feynmen (sexist or
no sexist) said "What do you care what other people think?"  Now, I don't 
agree with that philosophy in most occasions, but I think this is an
appropriate one.

Sometimes I wonder why I am here.  After all this is womannotes and I don't
even consider myself a feminist (an unPC male in the feminist womanotes is
by itself quite in-congruent, wouldn't you say?  See I can laugh at myself).  
I guess the bottom line is that I like certain aspects of this file.  I am 
someone who thinks a lot and says very little; feels a great deal, but 
couldn't express himself well verbally.  In short, I am one of those 
quintessential "nerds".  This file provides a forum for me to say something.
To me this is what this file means and I don't care if it is called 
womannotes or mennotes or pepperoni notes until I see a sign that says
"Ladies", then common decency compels me to leave this place.

Eugene

    *ahem*
    
    per the language topic, I don't think you're EVER going to see a sign
    over a feminist-related notesfile that says "ladies" ;)....
    
    women, maybe.....
    
    -Jody

    I think I'm watching a game of pingpong, except there are several
    people on each side of the net.  And all the strokes are old familiar
    ones.  Let me see if I can summarize them fairly, first.
    
    From .73 I heard that the author of .0 was bashed to where the LITE
    disappeared from the topic.
    
    From .75 I heard that the file as a whole wants to exclude men.
    
    From .77 I heard that the replies to .0 were rude, that this is no way
    to treat a new writer in the file (as opposed to an old hand), that we
    just have to live with "freshmen" being stupid, and that the issue is
    PCness.
    
    From .79 I heard again about a wish to eliminate men, and a complaint
    about why the moderators have allowed this topic to become a rathole.
    
    Personally, I disagree with _all_ of these statements except the
    very last one.  Yes, this has become a rathole.  Most other discussions
    of how this file is moderated and how men's writings are handled have
    migrated to the Process topic (22.*); this one might as well, too.
    
    So this morning I put my opinions in topic 22.  Would some of the
    authors of the above notes like to join me there?  Then we can debate
    the general issue of how men and women are treated in this notesfile.
    It shouldn't be necessary for the mass of replies to _this_ topic to be
    moved there first, should it?
    
    Bob

    all I can say is, I'm still willing to discuss their points in 22.* or
    offline.

    anybody want to tell me what was in .73 .75 and .79?
    
    and Jody, I really appreciate what Eugene wrote, and I'm willing
    to cut him some 'slack' on the 'ladies' ;-).
    
    Bonnie

    There isn't a topic in the univverse that isn't of interest to women.
    We are a very diverse lot.
    
    Men are of interest to me. I have a father, a bunch of brothers, a son 
    and many male friends. 
    
    I highly resent anyone telling me what should interest me and what I
    should find offensive. I have more in common with some men than with
    some of the women who note here.
    
    This is unbelievable.
    
    Kate 
    
      

    Yeah, Bonnie, I think its good to cut Eugene some slack for saying
    "Ladies".  Despite this being a "feminist-related notesfile" (as Jody
    says in .78), it doesn't bother me a whit to be called "lady" or
    "girl", in fact sometimes I like it.  I suppose this makes me a pariah
    among feminists, and I sometimes feel that this is more like
    Feministnotes than Womannotes.
    
    Mary

-d:

  I've written several basenotes and replies on the very issue.  We
  fight because down deep, *WE DON'T AGREE*.  There is no one co-
  alition here, striving together towards some common goal.  Even
  when you eliminate all the men from consideration (or the conver-
  sation), the opinions represented by the women still cover the
  complete spectrum from radical left to radical right, although
  the statistical distribution may be different.

  At a certain level, some of the people who note here stand opposed
  to everything I believe in and I'm sure they seem me in that same
  light.  We're not going to "make nice" in real life -- why should
  we do so in Notes?

                                   Atlant

As many of you know, I am far from being a newcomer here. Nor am I scared,
insulted, intimidated, angry, or guilty over any of the replies. I am 
surprised at some of them, but what people do often surprises me. 

Some people have sent me mail saying that I am reading too much into some
replies, and that they just did not like what I said in the base note. 
Could be. But you can always, hit next unseen, as GUCCI::SANTSCHI (785.4) 
pointed out.

Is the discussion in this string a more productive way to have a discussion,
heated as it may get, or would we be better off to have one in [and I'm 
going to whisper, in case he hears me] the -edp- style?  

About two months ago, one lite note was discussing what women want in a man.
One person suggested that the perfect man should have a prehensile tongue, and
the next thought it would be an improvement if he also had broomsticks sticking
out of his ears. That note passed with no angry comments from men or women. 
(Personally I thought it was moderatedly funny.) I think that there is a
difference in the way notes from men and women are treated. 

When the moderators were discussing whether or not to let the base note
stand, I wrote Bonnie R. that three women thought I should enter it. Bonnie
replied that they would take that into consideration. Bonnie, would it have
made a difference if only 2 women wanted it entered? 1 woman? No women?

Bruce

    
    I think the fact that men feel so entitled to discuss their issues
    in a file called WOMANnotes is much more telling (about men and about
    how men and women see women) than the content of the actual note.
    And even though I might make some men and women angry, I intend to keep
    naming the things I see, as I see them.
    
    I'm going to do my best to keep talking to my sisters about the things
    that I want to talk about.  And I hope that other women here will talk
    to whomever they want about whatever interests them.  I have already
    outlined (many times) what it is that I think men can get from
    Womannotes.  
    
    I invite many people into my home, but only a few people have a key, and 
    only my partner and I get to decide how we will decorate our home.  Those 
    facts (who gets a key and who gets to decorate) don't make our guests 
    any less welcome, and my refusal to yield on those 2 important (to me) 
    issues doesn't make me a less gracious host, in my opinion.
    
    Justine
                                          

    re .90
    >We fight because down deep, *WE DON'T AGREE*.
    >We're not going to "make nice" in real life -- why should
    >we do so in Notes?
    
    Atlant, the fact that you disagree with someone does not require you to
    _fight_ with them, just to express your disagreement.
    
    Did you read what I wrote about men's and women's styles in 22.1887?
    It sounds to me like you're characterizing a less "fighting male" style
    as "making nice".
    
    I still feel that, at least for me, that's the "price of admission"
    to _this_ notes conference.
    
    Bob

    .87
    
    >obviously some of the ladies in here don't think we need either 
    >unity or strength.
    
    >I suggest to the ladies to go note in Mensnotes.
    
    Is this an example of what Cindi was talking about in .51 of attempting
    to isolate women who do not agree with their agenda?  Or have I completely
    misunderstood?
    
    Mary

    re .94, .95
    
    thankyou

    actually, no, it is an example of 1 woman being sarcastic. 

    its really great the way people answer questions that were posed to
    somebody else!

    Uh.. Herb,  I posed the question to anyone reading, and am appreciative
    of Bonnie's reply.
    

    The point I was making was that was the reply of *one* woman, not
    a reply of some mythical beast called 'the file'. Some women
    like Maia get upset at some things, some women like Cindy get
    upset at other things. They are both *members* of the file, they
    both have the right to express their opinions. 
    
    Bonnie

    when I quote what somebody just said, and ask questions about the quotes
    i am asking the person who said it.
    Seems others mean something else.
    
    Whatdaya expect (I spose), we can't even agree on what the word Lady
    means
    
    

    
    To those of you who think that Womannotes only "allows" a narrow
    spectrum of ideas: What would it look like if Womannotes allowed
    and encouraged a broader spectrum of ideas?
    
    Would feminism fit?  How could/would it be expressed?
    Would anger fit?  How could/would it be expressed?
    
    What I hear is some folks saying, "only feminist ideas are allowed."
     
    What I see is some social, i.e., not political stuff, some support
    group type stuff (hugs, sharing of accomplishments and troubles, advice
    sought and given), and... some feminist analysis of world events
    including, but not limited to, some of what goes on in here.  Some of
    that analysis includes anger.  How does my expressing some anger
    disallow anyone from sharing his/her ideas and experiences? 
    
    Justine
           

sighEEEKKKsighEEKKKsighEEKKK

Oops, please do pardon...Sometimes you (pl) give me 
such a case of hiccups!  ;)

I waver between the good Dr. Jekyl, defender of all that
is said, thought and felt, and the evil Ms. Hyde, the
women who actually speaks her mind/feelings without
apologizing.

Barb

Seriously, now! 

    Wow!  107 replies, the majority angry, in five (count them (5)) days,
    and it's been TEN (count them (10)) days since there has been a reply
    in the hugs note.  I haven't even been involved and I feel depressed.
    
    	- Vick (Ain't expressin' my opinion, thanks just the same.)

    
    But do you equate the expression of (some) women's anger with
    burning crosses?  What do you mean by "overtly negative?"
    I'm following up on this because I'm trying to get at what it
    is that's really so troubling to some folks.  Is it the content?
    Or is it the method of expression, and if it's the method of
    expression, it would help me to have concrete examples -- if not
    from the past then from now on.  Because I really do want women
    from different backgrounds, experiences, and points of view to
    feel welcome here.  And in all honesty, I think that it's at least
    partly true that if a woman (some women) feels like she can say that she's
    not comfortable with some of the expression of feminism here, that
    means that there is some room for diversity... a place we can start
    from.   Just as the fact that some women feel safe enough to express 
    discomfort with how some men express themselves here and to say how men's 
    prominence here makes them feel means (to me) that maybe in this tiny
    corner of the universe women are a little safer and a little bolder.
    I think both kinds of expressions are good, healthy, and a good sign
    for the future; but they can also be scary and conflictual.  I wish that 
    when there are conflicts (and there will always be conflicts in 
    relationships, I think), we could look at the content of the conflicts 
    instead of labelling one group as bad.  And I also wish that instead of 
    drawing analogies to other forms of oppression (because I think those are
    nearly certain to inflame), we could name the behavior we're seeing
    and describe it in current, specific, behavior-based terms.  
    For example:
       o I don't like it when you interrupt me.  
       o It makes me angry when you change the subject.  
       o When you said you wouldn't be caught dead in high-heeled
         shoes, I looked down at my own pumps, and I felt like you were mocking
         me.  (I used this example, because this is something I once said,
         the "wouldn't be caught dead" part, and it occurs to me that I
         might have hurt some feelings with that comment.)  
       o When you told me I would change my mind when I got older, I felt
         dismissed, like nothing I said would be taken seriously.  
    
    If you tell someone why you're mad at something s/he did.  S/he has a
    chance to understand the impact of her/his actions and/or to explain
    why s/he did what s/he did.  If you come out swinging, too, and if you
    don't make it clear why you're mad, hurt, etc., how can anyone learn
    from the exchange?  I try to assume that no one means to hurt me, and
    if I tell the person how I've been injured (without attacking him/her), s/he
    will explain or change the behavior.  It doesn't always work, but at
    the very least, when I live up to those rules, even if I don't get what
    I want, I walk away feeling good about how I conducted myself -- and 
    sometimes that's a lot.
    
    Justine                   
    

    
    I didn't like the "Ladies can go elsewhere comment either."  So I
    understand your anger on that one.  But that was just one 
    comment - made after you made rather broad brush strokes (in my
    view) about all feminists.  I think we all say harsh things from time
    to time.  But it's my opinion that most people cut feminists very
    little slack, less than they cut other folks.  People will listen to
    us only if we're very, very nice.  Why can't we be human and still be
    listened to?
    
    Justine

    from Atlant's .90:
>  At a certain level, some of the people who note here stand opposed
>  to everything I believe in and I'm sure they seem me in that same
>  light.  We're not going to "make nice" in real life -- why should
>  we do so in Notes?
    
    from Justine's .111:
>    But it's my opinion that most people cut feminists very
>    little slack, less than they cut other folks.  People will listen to
>    us only if we're very, very nice.  Why can't we be human and still be
>    listened to?
    
    Or did I get the names backwards? :-)

    Re: .105 Justine
    
    Womannotes does "allow" a wide spectrum of ideas and feminism fits
    in quite well.  I think what I said was that I SOMETIMES feel like I'm 
    in Feministnotes.  That's not all the time.  You are quite right
    about the support, hugs, sharing, and don't forget the *fun* that goes
    on here.   Anger has its place, too.  And you are quite right that
    expressing anger does not disallow anyone from sharing their opinion.
    
    I could be wrong about this, but I think I was told angrily to go
    note in Mennotes for expressing the opinion that I sometimes *feel*
    certain opinions are not welcome.  Anyone see any irony in that?
    
    However, Bonnie, is quite right that that is one woman's opinion.
    And I might add that the moderators are quite supportive of varying
    opinions.  So, yes, I am free to express my opinion.  I guess my
    point is that I frequently refrain from doing so because I risk being
    the target of anger and not being taken seriously in a community of
    women I have come to care very much about.
    
    So, for now its back to, group two - those who don't rock group one's
    boat.
    
    Mary
    

    *once more*  *with feeling*
    
    When I tell people maybe they might feel comfortable in another
    notesfile (I have on occasion urged people to read euro_woman and
    that they may be more comfortable in there because it IS more
    male-oriented than womannotes, and more male-supportive), I MEAN
    EXACTLY THAT.  THEY MAY BE MORE COMFORTABLE THERE.
    
    If people are NOT comfortable here, nobody is forcing them to stay. 
    Nobody is saying womannotes cannot change, but it is a fact that there
    are quite a few feminists in here, and many of them have certain
    beliefs, and if you are in here, noting, and feel you're bucking the
    tide, there are places where the tides are different.  Or you can also
    create your own place.  PLEASE NOTICE I am NOT saying you MUST SUFFER. 
    You must not leave if that feels like suffering, but you do not have to
    stay if that feels like suffering.  We must each take care of
    ourselves.
    
    Recently I entered a notesfile, where I hoped to grow, and I felt
    uncomfortable because of the way some people were responding in there. 
    I felt invalidated, and I felt it was not a place I could grow.  So I
    left.  I was not angry.  I left because it was healthier than staying. 
    I also volunteered to moderate a notesfile similar to that but with
    guidelines which WOULD ensure the comfort of people like myself if
    space was found, and if it seemed desirable to other noters.
    
    THERE ARE OPTIONS.  I would not tell anyone to leave womannotes.  I
    would tell them to BE COMFORTABLE.  To feather a notesnest for
    themselves so they can grow and learn.  To foster their own growth by
    maximizing their time and effort in a place where they are HAPPY.
    
    PERIOD.
    
    -Jody
    

    This is form a member of the file who wishes to remain anonymous.
    
    -Jody
    
    
    =======================================================================
    
    
    
    Maybe someone can explain the difference between "cutting very little
    slack" towards feminists and the fact that feminists often "cut very
    little slack" towards behavior that _we_ find unacceptable.

    All the negativity I've seen towards feminists in this topic (and in
    this file for a very long time) seems very ironic to me considering
    that the feminist-bashing is _centered_ around our supposed negativity.

    If people have the right to make strong statements of disagreement
    towards feminists, then it stands to reason that feminists have the
    same right (to make strong statements of disagreement towards others.)

    The difference is - people against feminists pat themselves on the
    back for being rigid (and for not being willing to accept certain
    kinds of behavior) while feminists are treated like criminals for
    the same strength of conviction and unwillingness to accept other
    kinds of behavior.

    Why is this?

    By the way, I've also noticed that no one seems too worried that the
    negativity, intolerance, and anger being lodged at feminists will
    suppress us.  In fact, I daresay that this sounds to me like the
    intended goal.

    If this isn't accurate, I'd appreciate a correction.

          re: .116 (anon)

          >  By the way, I've also noticed that no one seems too worried
          >  that the negativity, intolerance, and anger being lodged at
          >  feminists will suppress us.  In fact, I daresay that this
          >  sounds to me like the intended goal.

          That's exactly how I feel.  Well, to be more precise, I feel the
          *effect* of what you noticed.

          My (feminist) viewpoints on many of the topics being discussed
          now would just result in my being yelled at or chided by the many
          (female and male) voices that are quite angry with the feminists
          of this conference.  It seems to be a time when it's fashionable
          to yell at women.  Yes, let's talk about censorship, and who's
          censoring whom.

          I don't have the energy for it now.

                                                       nancy b.

    re:  116
    
    Very good point.  I have in the past been guilty of doing just
    what you describe because I have had some negative experiences
    with some feminists.  I personally have been trying to be more
    tolerant of all viewpoints and realize that I'm not always right,
    even more, in most cases, there isn't an absolute right or wrong,
    just different sides/viewpoints.  What's right for me isn't right
    for you.  I can disagree with you (generic), but I am making an
    effort to not invalidate your (generic) opinion with my disagreement.
    It's sometimes easier said than done, I wish I had answers for you,
    but I can only say that for my point I am trying.
    
    Did I just rathole this topic?
    
    Christine

re: .177 (nancy b.)

>          My (feminist) viewpoints on many of the topics being discussed
>          now would just result in my being yelled at or chided by the many
>          (female and male) voices that are quite angry with the feminists
>          of this conference.  It seems to be a time when it's fashionable
>          to yell at women.  Yes, let's talk about censorship, and who's
>          censoring whom.

    I'm glad somebody [else] said this.  Sometimes this seems like less of 
a "valuing differences" conference than target practice for those who harbor
hostility towards feminist viewpoints.

    Bluntly put, if you're a feminist in this conference and not up to 
playing target, you can either "make nice" in such an environment or you 
can "shut up".  "Shutting up" can be done "creatively" with loud splashes
in the flotation tank, or it can be done by putting on a muzzle.

	Mmwwwwfff.  Vvwwff ngtwwff wwwwmffff.

	    Sharon

    
    By "feminist" do we still mean a person who wants equality for women?
    
    D.

    
    (My) Rule #1:
    		
    		Never enter a discussion if your'e not sure your'e
    		able to *respect* everyones opinions.
    
    (My) Belif #1:
    
    		If mutual respect exicts, anger will not.
    
    I disagree with several of the "feminist" (I do not like the label)
    viewpoints reflected in here. However, if i didn't respect the person
    behind that viewpoint, I should not enter the discussion.
    
    So, is that why I haven't been involved in this topic earlier?
    
    No, it's because I'm afraid of my opinions not beeing respected by
    others. (I appriciate a discussion, I *hate* a fight).
    Please tell me I'm wrong.
    
    Next.
    	
    	Is it inappropriate to ask the moderators if the creation of
    	a "men flotation tank" would be accepted in here? (I suspect
    	it wouldn't be regarded as deasent if I jumped into yours..
    	although *I* wouldn't mind  ;-) ).	
    	I sure could need one right now!  -and, I think the idea would be 
    	even harder to get accepted in other notesfiles.
    
    
    	*HUGS* to you all.   ....stay cool and never forget to *respect*.
    
    
    
    ohhh.....now I did it, didn't I?
    
    Well, move the whole thing to the Rathole (or any other as
    appropriate).
    
    
    
    PerS
    

My my, the defenses are high in here. (On both sides of the coin,
I might add.)

Anon. (in .116) brings up an interesting point:

>    The difference is - people against feminists pat themselves on the
>    back for being rigid (and for not being willing to accept certain
>    kinds of behavior) while feminists are treated like criminals for
>    the same strength of conviction and unwillingness to accept other
>    kinds of behavior.

>    Why is this?

In general society (and even in WOMANNOTES to some degree), feminists are
often objects of ridicule. They are readily dismissed with the
non-productive, say-nothing phrase "politically correct." They are accused
of everything from having no sense of humor to being man-haters and
abominations to being the cause of all that is wrong in the United States
today, including child abuse, unemployment, and divorce.

I'm not so sure the reaction to feminists is much more than the reaction
that is always present whenever change is in the wind. People are terrified
of change, even when the agents of change are in their own family! (I'm
thinking of the dynamics that hit the fan when one family member stops enabling
an alcoholic family member. It really shakes things up for a good while,
even among the non-drinking family members who claim they want things to
be different!) The resistance to and fear of change is present at every
social level: I see it in my family, I see it in my church, here in womannotes,
in government, and in society at large.

It's an amazing phenomenon. I wish I understood it better.

Kathy   

    I feel the flotation tank we have here is peacable and relaxing enough
    for both genders.  I'm sorry you do not....
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  I really don't think a men-only anything is appriopriate for
    womannotes, but I'm just speaking for myself.

    This from the anonymous author who replied before.
    
    -Jody
    
    ===================================================================
    
    re: .121  Cindi

    > I shall presume that people here can not distinguish the difference
    > between anti-feminist statements and anti-exclusionist statements.
    
	As long as you keep generalizing about feminists as a group in
	your notes, they will be interpreted as anti-feminist statements
	(and rightly so.)

    > So far the statements I have made have been specific, at least as
    > far as I am aware.  Repressive, restrictive, alienating feminist
    > behavior is very unflattering.  The same is true for that kind of
    > behavior from the Schafley(sp?) crew.  I did not believe that
    > being feminist was inherently hostile, exclusionist, cliquish, or
    > repressive.  However, if the self proclaimed feminists continue
    > to not see the difference in my statements, I and I imagine many 
    > others will be able to be convinced.
    
	When you continue to aim your hostility at feminists as a group,
	your words will be interpreted that way.  Each note you write
	adds to the impression that you are engaging in feminist-bashing.
	Whatever additional assumptions you make about feminists will
	only serve as self-fulfilling prophecies.
    
    > My mother told me that there were women who treated other women with 
    > the same presumptions and just plain old hostility that men did.

	How is your hostility towards feminists any different (or better?)
 
    > ... that I could not accept she had gone that far and "sister" feminist 
    > were still cliquish and hostile. 

	"Cliquish" because some women and men here are friends and tend to
	stick together when the file and/or feminists are under attack? 
	How is this so much worse than the "I and I imagine many others"
	that you gathered around yourself earlier in your note?

	"Hostile" because we don't accept certain kinds of behavior (when
	you described this aspect of your own personality in such glowing
	terms?)
    
	Do you have privs that other feminists here aren't supposed to be
	allowed to have?

    > Feminists are not just as the reply requested,
    >  "people who want equality for women."
    
    > I am one of those, and have been hinted that my opinions are not
    > appropriate- 
    
    > so they must be something else.
    
    > I wish I had known, could have saved a lunch hour.
    
   	You've spent so much time and hostility attacking feminists here
	that you've excluded yourself from those under attack.

	If you call yourself a feminist, then you are one.  If this is
	true, then all the insults you've lodged at feminists must have
	been aimed at yourself, too.

	Or perhaps you simply feel superior to most feminists.

	Is that it?

    .124
    
    Sure I do.... I was just trying to show a little respect for others
    opinion.
    
    If you (pl) say it's OK, I'll join you!
    
    PerS,
    

    
    Sheesh!  Too many of you have been reading "Skippynotes"!
    

    I would ask that people REREAD my words- SEE that I was talking about,
    Note that, for the most part, I said cruel, supressive hostile
    feminists when I ment cruel supressive hostile alienating feminists.
    When I am referring to supportive, caring, openminded, save the
    world, EQUALITY for women feminists I will let 
    you know.  I repeat... Are you telling me, in your opinions
    that there are not two separate groups involved here?
    People listen- are you paying attention or are your danders just 
    up to high?
    
    Only the members of the first group should have taken any offence.
    And I repeat, I had no Idea there were so many.
    
    Cindi
                                                                        
    P.S.- Yes, I aspire to be among the second set.  And I do believe
    they are a more worthwhile breed. The others are too much like the
    supressive, cliquish, alienating men I have come to dislike so much.

    Why yes, it has always been a welcome, pleaceful place for everybody
    and their needs to decompress, relax, unstress.  
    
    The only things we don't welcome are toxic waste, motorboats, and
    non-vanishing crumbs from the delectible non-caloric poolside pastries. 
    Many men frequent the tank (in fact one notes almost exclusively from
    there - his fingers must be pretty wrinkly by now!).  Many women do too.  
    
    Please, enjoy!
    
    -Jody
    

    Another reply from the anonymous noter.
    
    -Jody
    
    ==================================================================
    
    
    re: .128  Cindi

    > I would ask that people REREAD my words- SEE that I was talking about,
    > Note that, for the most part, I said cruel, supressive hostile
    > feminists when I ment cruel supressive hostile alienating feminists.
    > When I am referring to supportive, caring, openminded, save the
    > world, EQUALITY for women feminists I will let 
    > you know.  I repeat... Are you telling me, in your opinions
    > that there are not two separate groups involved here?
    
	Cindi, you haven't answered any of the questions posed to you
	about why you seem to regard your _own_ cruel, suppressive, 
	hostile, alienating behavior as ok (while attempting to show
	that others you label this way should be disdained and disowned
	as being in some other "group.")  Why is this?

    > People listen- are you paying attention or are your danders just 
    > up to high?
    
	Isn't this a case of telling us what we are feeling, though?

    > Only the members of the first group should have taken any offence.
    > And I repeat, I had no Idea there were so many.
    
	Isn't this telling us whether or not we should be offended?
	And you're assuming that we _accept_ your division of feminists
	into two groups?  

    > P.S.- Yes, I aspire to be among the second set.  And I do believe
    > they are a more worthwhile breed. The others are too much like the
    > supressive, cliquish, alienating men I have come to dislike so much.

	Funny, but all the feminists I know and love here (and elsewhere)
	are in your "second set" ("supportive, caring, openminded, save the
        world, EQUALITY for women feminists.")

	The thing is - you seem to be saying that your current hostility
	is ok (and that you might still see yourself as belonging to the
	wonderful "second set," by your definition) - but we can't.

	What you don't seem to acknowledge is that we should have the same
	rights you have:  The rights to be rigid sometimes and to refuse
	to accept certain kinds of behavior (while being supportive, caring,
	openminded, save the world, EQUALITY for women feminists" at other
	times.)

	Luckily, it isn't up to any one person to split the feminist movement 
	into two (or any number of) groups, nor is it up to someone else to 
	decide who belongs to which group.

	If anyone fails to see the merit in the women and men feminists
	nearby, that's the individual's problem.  Not the women and men
	being viewed.

    Re- Anon-
    
    It might help.
    
    I feel no hostility towards the "second group". I feel remorse at
    what their behavior have done to women and men alike.
    
    I can not answer questions regarding my hostility when I am not
    harboring any.
    
    That is why I have not addressed them.
    
    Regarding my own classifications, if it does not apply to you-
    If you are not alienating possibly valuable sisters in your struggle,
    If you are not harboring and inflicting nasty things on those trying
    to assist you in your struggles, and If you are not treating
    your own possible compatriots as confused "men spoiled" bad apples,
    do not wear the mantle.  It is a simple description of a label.
    You can accept it, or you can not-
    Both are your right-
    
    I have only been the bearer of the description, 
       some others have seen it as well,
         If you feel the description is not apt- Please disgard it.
    
    -----
    Re- Personal Hostilities
    
    I am an archer. I often release my tensions by shooting my bow.
    It is good stress reduction.
    
    Regards,
    Cindi
    
    

    
    Cindi,
    
    All the things that you have described would make me angry - I just
    don't see that behavior here.  When your "feminist friends" suggested
    that you were not a real feminist, that was rotten, but not because of
    their feminism (not sure how comfortable I feel with their feminism,
    actually, but that's a different issue) but because it was mean and
    disrespectful of you.  It pushes a real button for me when someone
    generalizes from the behavior of one (or some) judgemental "feminist"
    to me or to feminists, in general.  There may be some trends or traits
    among feminists that we can see and name, but I don't happen to think that
    mean-ness or lack of respect for difference is among those trends.
    
    I think women have every right to be very, very angry and every right
    to express that anger.  And the laws of the "civilised" world and the
    rules of Digital Equipment Corporation actually allow us (legally) to
    be a lot meaner to each other than I would like to see us be in
    here.  I don't want anyone to suggest that some kinds of women ought to
    go someplace else, but neither do I want Womannotes to be labelled
    "Old bitty notes."  That characterization is, in my view, both an
    insult to the women (and men) of this file and an ageist remark and
    right up there with the phrase "old maid," another weapon that has
    been launched to silence women.  I have no doubt that you believe in
    claiming women's right to equality, and I would never question your
    feminism, but I simply have not seen the behavior that you have
    described in this file.  I'm not asking you to "prove" that you have
    seen it, but I wanted to make it clear where I agree and disagree with
    you.  I am not attacking you (does it feel to you like I am?), but
    I feel strongly about this.
    
    Justine                                                     

    I would be angry at what I have seen done, but I have been hurt
    more by too many other things in life, to be hurt by things such
    as that type of behavior.  Most of my anger stems from hurt.
    So... I have not felt angry or hostile.
    
    I just recognize that it is a part of some people.
    Some people I talk to and like.  Some people I do not talk to
    and do not know.
    
    If I think the people have merit otherwise or they are unaware of
    what they are doing, then I tend to ignore it, and keep on going-
    Sometimes, when I think they are strong or capable enough to hear
    my opinion then I tell them. When I think they are not, I usually
    don't say anything, because people who are not ready CAN get 
    hostile about it- and the majority of them take too much energy
    out of me to explain it.  Kinda like banging your head against a
    wall when the hostility arises.  I usually wind up "taking the punches"
    until they are spent... and then I try again, until I am too tired
    to try.
    
    When I finally do get tired, clashing opinions and theories with
    people's opinions/emotions, I often feel I have taken a shot or
    two.  But then, I figure the folks can not help it.
    
    Had it been a man, and physical punches, I would have been tempted
    to burn him in his bed.  However, since they were just ideological,
    I will just sigh, and take a seat, until I have a little more
    energy.
    
    For those whom I perceive have no promise, I do not make the effort-
    For those that do, I continue to try and share the ideas.
                   
    Cindi
    (I am 24, and too young to feel so tired.)

    
    
    > when I quote what somebody just said, and ask questions about the
    >quotes i am asking the person who said it.
    
    
    That's when I use MAIL.  I believe NOTES is for discussions among
    everyone, not limiting responses to anyone.  MAIL is a better vehicle
    if you intend to direct your comments to only one person, I think.
    
    kath

    <that's when I use MAIL>
    then why didn't you?

    
    Another reply from the anonymous noter:
    
    -Jody
    
    ========================================================================
    
        re: .132 Cindi

    > I feel no hostility towards the "second group". I feel remorse at
    > what their behavior have done to women and men alike.
    
	No criticism meant here, but just to prevent any possible confusion,
	the "second set" you mentioned earlier were the feminists you admire
	("caring," etc.)

    > I can not answer questions regarding my hostility when I am not
    > harboring any.
    
	Oh. No one else is qualified to note hostility in you, but _you_ are
	qualified to identify hostility in others, then.  Not very equitable, 
	though, is it?

    > Regarding my own classifications, if it does not apply to you-
    > If you are not alienating possibly valuable sisters in your struggle,
    > If you are not harboring and inflicting nasty things on those trying
    > to assist you in your struggles, and If you are not treating
    > your own possible compatriots as confused "men spoiled" bad apples,
    > do not wear the mantle.  It is a simple description of a label.
    > You can accept it, or you can not-
    > Both are your right-
    
	Do you think I'm only insulted when negative stereotypes are
	used to label _me_?  Should I take the tack of advertising that
	"I'm not one of those nasty ole feminists that everyone hates -
	so it's ok to like me"...?  Would that be a big help to the women
	and men feminists who _are_ being labeled?  Wouldn't I be alienating
	possibly valuable sisters and brothers in my struggle if I accepted
	your insults against them?

    > I have only been the bearer of the description, 
       > some others have seen it as well,
         > If you feel the description is not apt- Please disgard it.
    
	I've seen so many horrifyingly negative stereotypes about feminists
	as a group, Cindi - yours are nothing new (and they aren't unique.)

	I'm waiting for the day when people who happen to be feminists can
	express opinions in a sometimes rigid way in the process of refusing
	to accept certain kinds of behavior (without being subjected to the
	kinds of negative labeling that some people seem to love to throw
	at women and men feminists as a group.)

	However, I refuse to try to elevate myself in the meantime by
	assuring everyone I meet that I'm not one of those so-called
	"nasty ole man-hating" feminists that everyone loves to stick 
	with such negative labels.

	I'm a feminist.  I don't tell others they aren't "proper feminists"
	(nor do I tell others that they're "nasty feminists" while I'm a
	"nice feminist.")  

	Labeling others as "nasty feminists" is absolutely as appalling to
	me as telling someone that he or she is _not_ a feminist.  I'm very
	suprised and saddened to see you complain about the second, but 
	embrace the first (when there's so little difference between the two.)

>	I'm waiting for the day when people who happen to be feminists can
>	express opinions in a sometimes rigid way in the process of refusing
>	to accept certain kinds of behavior
    
    Me too Anon--- Me too---
    
    Sigh--
    
    Cindi

  >	Oh. No one else is qualified to note hostility in you, but _you_ are
  >	qualified to identify hostility in others, then.
    
    Nope- If you say I am hostile, and I am not, I get to tell you
    that you are not correct in that.
    
    It's one of the rights.
    
    Cindi
    

    I've got some more energy.  I drank some cola.
    
    Now- maybe from a different perspective-
    
    Is a mean feminist still a good feminist?
    Should I refrain from stating that there exists mean feminists
    to protect non mean feminists?
    
    Is stating that they exist a threat to the movement, the file,
    and women's abilities to be feminists?
    
    Rather precarious then hmmm?
    
    ----
    
    Also- to Anon ---
    Could you tell me where you saw me say feminists were man haters?
    Can you tell me where you felt I said that?
    
    The fundamental contradiction there is that I perceive myself as
    a feminist.  I also do not believe that I hate men. 
    
    Help me out yes ?
    
    Cindi

    
    More from the anonymous noter.
    
    -Jody
    
    =================================================================
    
    
    re: .140  Cindi

    > Is a mean feminist still a good feminist?
    > Should I refrain from stating that there exists mean feminists
    > to protect non mean feminists?

    	Perhaps I can help on this one.

    	The cause of women's rights is Just no matter how anyone else 
    	perceives women and/or the women and men who are feminists.
    	Women don't have to prove we deserve rights, in other words.
    	We're human beings.  The rights should never have been denied
    	to us in the first place.

    	If our society feels justified in denying women rights on the
    	basis that some feminists aren't nice - there will _always_ be
    	feminists to offer as figurative human sacrifices (scapegoats,
    	if you will) in the name of denying women rights.  

    	"Nice" (and "mean") are subjective determinations anyway.  An
    	individual may decide that another person isn't nice, but it's
    	only a subjective viewpoint based on perceptions that could be
    	the farthest thing from the truth (either way.)

    	Human beings, including women, are not welded to the external views
    	that others have of us.  We have intrinsic value that is completely
    	separate from every role we play (as workers, spouses, parents, etc.)
    	As human beings, women deserve to have equal rights regardless of any 
    	aspect of our personalities and regardless of our performances in any 
    	role we could ever play in our entire lives.

    	Women deserve equal rights even if others perceive us all to be the
    	nastiest creatures on the planet.  We're human beings - we don't
    	need to _prove_ that we deserve human rights.

    > Is stating that they exist a threat to the movement, the file,
    > and women's abilities to be feminists?

    	The only threat to the movement would be to believe that we need to
    	split the movement so that we _can_ prove we deserve equal rights
    	(by disassociating with the feminists that most of our culture 
    	dislikes.)  It's a futile, unnecessary gesture.

    > Could you tell me where you saw me say feminists were man haters?
    > Can you tell me where you felt I said that?

    	I was including these negative stereotypes in with the negative
    	stereotypes you mentioned directly.  I see very little to keep
    	them separate.

    	The visual impact of these words is the same.

    First-
    >	I was including these negative stereotypes in with the negative
    >	stereotypes you mentioned directly.  I see very little to keep
    >	them separate.

    >	The visual impact of these words is the same.
    
    It is the same to you, however, it is not to me.
    In case you were interested in knowing the origin or intent.
    
    So, you just read "man hater" in because you felt like it?
    Or, because you felt it fit? Just kinda jumped to the conclusion
    without asking me huh?  Just kinda assumed it? Hmmmmmm.
    
    
    Second- I would also be interested in see where you saw
    ANY indication that I was against womens rights. ANYWHERE!!!
    Pick a place!!! Pick one !!!! and I will recant.
    Or, did you just assume that too?
    So that you could make the rote feminist statement...
    
    ...To a person who already knows the agenda, agrees with most
    of it, and already lives by most of the accepted protocols?
    
    Third- I have not said the movement must be split.  I said I was
    disheartened with some of the portions of it.  I also said that
    I attributed much of what I disliked about the movement to the
    old Master/Slave syndrome, where the present slaves do not really
    wish to just end slavery, they long to pick up the whips, and
    use them themselves.  I wished that part of it to be gone.
    I do not wish to replace the Old Boy network with the Old Girl
    network.  If that happens, I will still have to deal with the
    White clubs, and the Black clubs...Even if the feminist movement
    finally succeeds.  The only way for 2B's such as myself to make
    it is if everyone is mostly supportive of everyone. IMO.
    
    Finally- I percieve myself to be a sort of feminist.  I have said
    something in a not "nice", rather unsavory way.  Many of the responses
    in this file showed how bad they felt when it was done even remotely
    to them.  They did not like it at all.  There was a rally to stop
    it.  Will you give the same heart to stopping man bashing? straight
    basing? Opinion bashing?  I hope so.
    
    If you read the last section, my final point has been illustrated
    very well.  Why do feminists have to be "nice"? Because it hurts
    folks, even men folk, when they are not.  It is their choice...
    but wouldn't you have rathered the charicature noter I have portrayed
    had been kinder, subtler, or offline with her big bad feminist
    comments?
    
    
    Note in peace,
        
    Cindi-
    To the rest of the file, who may be tiring of this, I am sorry,
    I would take it off line, but there is no one for me to take it
    off too.  My partner in this segment of the discussion is anon.
     

    It's been my experience that most any group will have it's share of
    silent hard workers, outspoken hard workers, and a few loudmouths
    who specialize in pushing the extreme positions as *the* *agenda*,
    with the net result being that they alienate those outside the group. 
    In our news-crazy world the latter group usually get the most press
    coverage. 
    
    That the group, as a whole, is right, that the group, as a whole,
    is reasonable and working for change in a positive way, gets lost 
    (to the public eye) in the ranting of the few.
    

    I agree with you Dana!
    
    And for most of the time from -say- November 1989 to -say- July 1990
    those few loudmouths were men -with a few exceptions. But in my opinion
    things started changing last summer. So that 
    now, - I assert - those extreme-position-specialists are women.
    And for me they are just as unpleasant, just as obnoxious, and just as
    disruptive as the male loudmouths were before.

    I am just happy to be done with my illustration so that I can take
    my less "radical" role again. Maybe trail my fingers in the water
    behind the boat. 
    
    What a relief to hang up my DA (Devils Advocate) horns, 
    take my shoes off (flats),
    and maybe spend a second in the Flotation Tank... Reading mostly...
    I'm kind of a voyeristic floater.  I like to watch.
    
    'Ren - If you are around ... Did I play the part well?
    Can you see why not to take too much to heart anything that
    occurs in the two dimensions of a notes file.
    
    Ahhhh.... Into oblivion I go....
    
    And possibly...
    
    To introduce myself...
    
       as Bonnie said to be earlier- 
          to say hey.
    
    Cindi

    Cindi in .142,

    In your earlier replies, you had used the following language to refer
    to people whom you claim are part of this conference:

    "only politically correct feminist points of view"
    
    "protect the unwary [against the cited people]"

    "Replacing a master with a master"

    "only tolerate, or be overtly negative towards ideas that are not
    explicitly politically correct according to the `feminist agenda'"

    "A burning cross"

    "confederate flag"

    "your own hostilites"
    
    "your expression of anger winds up supressing other people"
    
    "`America, love it or leave it.'" [Under the heading of Parallel]
    
    "`We don't need your kind in our nice peacefull neighborhood.'" [Under the
    heading of Parallel]
    
    "`N***r go Home'" [Under the heading of Parallel]

    "racism"

    "The behavior was supressive, sometimes cruel, sometimes cliquish,
    sometimes just needlessly intolerant."

    "Repressive, restrictive, alienating feminist behavior"

    "hostile, exclusionist, cliquish, or repressive"

    "self proclaimed feminists"
    
    "plain old hostility"

    "`sister' feminist were still cliquish and hostile."
    
    "cruel supressive hostile alienating feminists."

    "are you paying attention or are your danders [sic] just up to [sic] high?"

    "supressive, cliquish, alienating"
    
    "alienating possibly valuable sisters"

    "harboring and inflicting nasty things"

    "treating your own possible compatriots as confused `men spoiled' bad
    apples"

    "mean feminist"

    Why, pray tell, do you think your failure to use the phrase "man-hating"
    makes one iota of difference in this litany of negativism?

    					Ann B.

    Just stating the point that the Character had never mentioned
    man hating, and that the responder was jumping to conclusions
    and adding words where the words were not before.  Which they
    did.  To answer your question.
    
    To respond to your list-
    I look at the list out of context, and it is even worse than
    it seemed in context.  Almost makes ME angry, and I know what
    the intent was.  I was carefull not to be immedately slanderous
    to particlar people, that would be a personnell matter.  I
    was however, very unkind.  Did it make you angry enough to
    want to stop me?  Even though I was claiming a feminist perspective?
    Did it illustrate for you that EVEN feminists shouldn't be able
    to say just any 'ole thing they want to...in any 'ole way they want to
    and have it glossed over?  Will you extend the courtesy
    you wanted from that noter ... to the author of the base note?
    
    Turn up the lights-
    Cindi
    
    
    

    
    Another reply from the anonymous noter.
    
    -Jody
    
    ======================================================================
    
    re: .142  Cindi

    > So, you just read "man hater" in because you felt like it?
    > Or, because you felt it fit? Just kinda jumped to the conclusion
    > without asking me huh?  Just kinda assumed it? Hmmmmmm.

    	None of the above.  The words were never attributed to you at all.
    	They were included as a more general representation of some of the
    	more common negative stereotypes about feminists.  You assumed the
    	rest (in error.)

    > Second- I would also be interested in see where you saw
    > ANY indication that I was against womens rights. ANYWHERE!!!
    > Pick a place!!! Pick one !!!! and I will recant.
    > Or, did you just assume that too?
    > So that you could make the rote feminist statement...

    	This wasn't attributed to you, either.  I have no idea how you jumped
    	to this added conclusion (also in error.)

    > ...To a person who already knows the agenda, agrees with most
    > of it, and already lives by most of the accepted protocols?

    	Well, I don't live by any "accepted protocols" (except by pure
    	accident) - so perhaps you can tell _me_ sometime whether or not
    	I qualify as a "real feminist" in your eyes.  Sounds like you've
    	got a pretty tight definition.  (And I thought this was the thing
    	you were most against.)

    > I also said that I attributed much of what I disliked about the 
    > movement to the old Master/Slave syndrome, where the present slaves 
    > do not really wish to just end slavery, they long to pick up the whips, 
    > and use them themselves. 

    	How do you know that this is what other feminists think?  Do you
    	read minds?  (I also seem to recall that you took umbrage at the
    	idea of someone else describing what you think or feel.  Why do
    	you feel free to do it to others now - and condemn them, in the
    	bargain, for what _you_ have decided they think?)  

    > Finally- I percieve myself to be a sort of feminist.  I have said
    > something in a not "nice", rather unsavory way.  Many of the responses
    > in this file showed how bad they felt when it was done even remotely
    > to them.  They did not like it at all. 

    	You've jumped to yet another conclusion about what other people
    	think and feel, even though you've objected to the idea of anyone
    	doing this to you.

    > There was a rally to stop it.  Will you give the same heart to 
    > stopping man bashing? straight basing? Opinion bashing?  I hope so.
   
    	There was no such "rally to stop" you.  A number of people
    	disagreed with you, that's all.  So people engaged you in 
    	conversation.

    > If you read the last section, my final point has been illustrated
    > very well.  Why do feminists have to be "nice"? Because it hurts
    > folks, even men folk, when they are not.  It is their choice...
   
    	Actually, the "mean" feminists (as you called them earlier) play
    	a vital role in the women's movement, and we'd never have made it
    	this far without them.

    	Their anger and radical approach to the women's rights movement
    	pulls "the middle of the road" closer to the goal of equal rights.
    	When they call attention to themselves, they provide a target for
        those in our culture who resist the change.  As more people spend
    	time venting their outrage at radical feminists, their own positions
    	begin to move - suddenly, they say things like, "Well, sure, I
    	believe in equal rights for women, but these man-hating bitches are
    	too much."  Earlier, many of them wouldn't even have stated that
    	they believe in equal rights for women.  They moved their "moderate"
    	stand closer to the goal of equality without even knowing it.

    	It also moves people to take time to discuss the issue of women's
    	rights - and the closer it is to our cultural consciousness, the
    	better.  People start discussing women's rights issues with the
    	moderate feminists they know.  It moves the issues closer and closer
    	to the point where more people realize that equal rights for women
    	is Just.

    > but wouldn't you have rathered the charicature noter I have portrayed
    > had been kinder, subtler, or offline with her big bad feminist
    > comments?
   
    	No.  You provided the opportunity to point out the inconsistencies
    	and futility involved with negative stereotypes about feminists
    	(even though hatred for radical feminists plays a positive role
    	in the progression of the movement.)  

    	In my opinion, it's often a worthwhile venture to air these things 
    	out now and again.

re: .147

>    was however, very unkind.  Did it make you angry enough to
>    want to stop me?  Even though I was claiming a feminist perspective?
>    Did it illustrate for you that EVEN feminists shouldn't be able
>    to say just any 'ole thing they want to...in any 'ole way they want to
>    and have it glossed over?  Will you extend the courtesy
>    you wanted from that noter ... to the author of the base note?
    
 
    It did not really make me angry, it made me sad.  I do not want to stop
    you, I actually feel more like healing you, because your anger seems to
    come from a ferocious response to something-else, someplace-else that
    wasn't womannotes, but you're venting it here.  Feminists should be
    able to say WHAT THEY FEEL, not any ole' thing, and the laws of human
    nature SUGGEST courtesy when it is an available option (as it is a
    majority of the time to the human spirit), but cannot DEMAND it.  If
    you felt the need to be THAT venomous, I support your venom if it leads
    you to a more integrated, more whole self.  If women need to spit nails
    or chew glass or proclaim injustices to heal, I say let them.  If they
    need to say DAMMIT I HURT! in order to own their pain, make it real,
    and then help it subside with the support of their friends, I say let
    them.  If they need to call out what is happening in this universe to
    them and their womenfriends in order to raise awareness among
    non-women, in hopes that there will be help in fighting WRONGS, not
    just fighting for RIGHTS (which we deserved all along, whether we got
    them or not), I say LET THEM!
    
    Hoping you can heal this gaping wound of animosity....
    
    -Jody
       
    
    

    I will try again.
    
    To say nicely, "we should be nice to others because we would like them to
    be nice to us." was not working.
    To type a series of strongly negative assertions, some of which I
    have seen in news papers, some of which I have had directed at me,
    some of which I KNOW they have had to go through before-
    I hoped, would call the defenders of the feminist regimes/concepts
    to reply to the "bashing". Hopefully, from the feelings invoked
    from someone being unkind to them- they could upon reflection-imagine
    the feelings that some of their negativaty was inflicting in others.
    It was almost as though they forgot how bad they felt when people
    did it to them... or at least they forgot enough to want to do it
    to others.  I was attempting to remind them.
    
    As a female, and a proponent for women's equality, I believed I
    could state the extreems, incite the responses, and crystalize the
    issue of the need for kindness and diplomacy within the movement.
    
    I have gotten the reaction.
    
    Now if only I can pull the rest of the noters out of the dive,
    out of believing the hostility, out of reacting to it, by declaring
    my intent- this plane could really soar.
    
    Cindi
    It was to be an ironic two step.   

    For the rest of the second piece-
    
    1- Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
    You can not expect to be unkind to others while you are demanding
    that they be nice to you.  It does not work.
    2- Speak softly, and carry a big stick.
    Speaking kindly, might enable us to be heard- The big stick we possess
    it that we are more than half of the world populace. That is power
    when unified.
    3- Mostly the issue is the difference between passive resistance
    and active resistance.  I have often imagined that wars and violence
    were unreasonable ways to get what you wanted.  Warrior tribes of
    women might be a good power base, however, many of us would have
    to die to win that.  So- personally- I tend to opt for the passive
    resistance.  I like the concept of silk exteriors with iron running
    through them.
    
    I apologize to those who took the whole "mean feminist" genre too
    close to heart.  I thought most would see through it, as it was 
    very trite, and very sterotypical name calling, but I realize by
    the continued responses that some of you may not have gotten it.
    
    And as I work here more, I am comming to realize, it may not have
    been that obvious for you...because people like that may really
    exist here.... Momma told me they were real... but I had to
    see it for myself.
    
    Cindi-
    Pulling up as hard as I can.
    

    Cindi,
    
    The author of the basenote entered the note, was informed that this
    was not an appropriate conference for it, but insisted that the note
    ought to remain.  We courteously allowed this.  He demonstrated no
    shread of empathy towards us, but shoved his penis in our faces,
    figuratively speaking, and demanded that we demonstrate empathy
    towards him and his ilk, after making it quite clear that he did not
    feel that we had done so in the past.  He was asked, politely (*I*
    think), why he did not believe that the comments about the unique
    indignities of men mentioned in 750.0 counted.  He never granted us
    the courtesy of a response.
    
    Why doesn't this male-type person have to conform to the same, strict
    criterion of niceness which you have set for feminists: "We should be
    nice to others because we would like them to be nice to us."?
    
    						Ann B.

Anne, I did not insist that the base note had to be included. I told Bonnie
specifically that it was up to the moderators. I pushed nothing in anybody's 
face. Your analogy is way out of line. I do not know what your personal
feelings were because I heard nothing from you personally.

I have tried to reply to relevant and coherent questions, but with 150 plus
comments I might have missed something. Please send me a pointer to whatever
I've failed to reply to.

Bruce

785.1

  > You ask, "what makes you think *you're* the only ones with indignity
  > problems?"
    
  > I ask, "Where did you get *that* idea?"  You certainly didn't get
  > it from reading 750.0:  "Not that there aren't plenty of
  > non-gender-specific sources of indignity out there....  Likewise, men
  > have to endure a variety of undignified, unpleasant conditions, things
  > that women don't encounter...."
    
  > Ann B.

Ann - I don't think women are the only ones with indignity preoblems.
I'm sincerely sorry if you or anyone else misinterpreted what I thought
was a light-hearted attempt. 

Bruce

    Unless something transpired in private mail that I am not privy to, I
    do not believe you owe anybody an apology.

    From my point of view, the issue is that your motivations were
    misinterpreted. You are not responsible for that misinterpretation. I
    believe your motivations were misinterpreted because the
    misinterpreters have some -distorted- view of who you are.  As a
    consequence of this view, they choose to (are compelled to?) impute
    mischievous motives. And to respond to a _putative_ 'attack' with a
    counter-attack.

    Thank you, Herb, for informing me of the motive I was imputing to
    Bruce.  I, silly woman, was thinking that it should be something
    like self-aggrandizement.  But then, I'd be liable to impute the
    same motive to you.
    
    						Ann B.

    Ann:
    
    The reason I put the word "attack" in quotes was because I do not know
    what the correct word is to describe what you were feeling. And it is
    not because of vocabulary limitations but rather that I didn't know
    precisely what you folks were feeling.
    So, I did not know that you folks felt an attack was going on, but you
    clearly felt something negative going on and responded to it with what
    I feel comfortable describing as a counter-attack.
    

    p.s.

    My motives are clear to me

    If indeed I can be accurately accused of engaging in self-aggrandisement
    then that self-aggrandisement is taking a distant back seat to the
    following motivations...

    a)I want to see rectified, the injustice done to Bruce, 
    b)I want to see 'avenged' the injustices I feel have been done to me in
      this conference (so when I see an opportunity to 'bash' somebody
      I sometimes avail myself of that opportunity)
    
    (the word "avenge" is in quotes because that word does not precisely
    connote what I am feeling. But it ain't bad.)

    (which I believe is the motivation(revenge?) for a lot of the male
    bashing that goes on in this conference)

    Oh, and I suggest that that word ('vengeance'?) has been some the
    motivation of a lot of the very distant, analytic, nit picky, formal
    logic kind of communication that we have seen in this conference from
    so many men at different times. 'Vengeance' and/or perhaps 'showing-up'
    

    My reaction of the base-note was one of annoyance. I felt like my arm
    was being jogged to re-focus my attention.  No hostility, no fear --
    just 'oh. yes. now if you'll excuse me, I'd like to get back to what
    I'm doing.'
    
    I felt that its particular contribution was meant in a humourous vein
    to show the 'other side'; however, I felt also that it was
    inappropriate as to time and place. [much as it would be inappropriate
    for me to inject the true story of my mortification at ordering the
    'wrong' wine to compliment the fruit & cheese course into a strategy
    session for alleviating the problem of inner-city hunger]
    
      Annie

Anybody can hit next unseen at any time whenever you feel a note is not worth 
reading for you. Nobody glues your eyeballs to the screen and forces you to
read an offending note.

Judging from comments and mail I've received, the base note touched a hot spot 
for many. The range of opinion varies from rabid approval to raving disapproval.

FWIW Dept: Two of the women who sent me mail saying they thought the base 
note was funny said that they are read-only because they don't want to
be attacked by other noters. 

Is that the kind of open discussion and safe haven for women that is wanted 
here? 

Bruce
 

    Anyone got an icon for utter disbelief?
    
    Here in WOMANnotes we're arguing over whether not a man who started a
    note about issues related to the male body was treated fairly when it
    was suggested that perhaps his issue might be more appropriately explored
    elsewhere.  Does that sum it up?
    
    Something to try - for those who care to:
    
    1. Think of some respected person outside this file.  
    2. Now think of telling that person about this conflict, and if you have 
       strong feelings about it, please try to imagine explaining to that
       person what those feelings are.   
    3. Then come back here and keep arguing about whatever it is that we're 
       arguing about, imagining that your respected person can read all the 
       replies.
    
    Justine
    
    

Justine,

People are writing in this string because they want to. It must fill some need.

Bruce

    <Here in WOMANnotes we're arguing over whether not a man who started a
    <note about issues related to the male body was treated fairly when it
    <was suggested that perhaps his issue might be more appropriately explored
    <elsewhere.  Does that sum it up?
    
    No.
    
    

sigh.  wish I was fishin.

    Was there this much fuss when the Hug note was pulled from mennotes?
    Cindi

>      (so when I see an opportunity to 'bash' somebody
>      I sometimes avail myself of that opportunity)

Yuck -- why subject all the (hundreds of, probably)
readers of this conference to that?
    
    
	MKV

    gee, why should i be so different from so many others?

    Re. .170-
    I think it is one of those lemming/Empire state building things.
    Cindi

    well your right Cindi, of course
    
    but i think some more introspection on the part of a lot of people
    might help.
    

    This from a DIFFERENT anonymous noter.  Call them "noter2" if you need
    to differentiate form noter1....
    
    -Jody
    
****************************************************************************

	I'm a read only so far in this file.  I'm still trying to get a
    feel for the "atmosphere" here.  Right now, it leaves me feeling ill. 
    This note is one of the better examples.

    	I have really no idea at all what the real point or issue is here.
    I think I get a handle on it and then a response gets put in that
    throws me right off the track.

    	I have a couple of questions.

    	First......can someone give me the definition (preferrable one from
    say Webster's) of a feminist.

    	Second.......how does a feminist differ from someone who believes
    in equal rights for everyone?

    	Third.......maybe some idea of what the issue is in this note. 
    I've been trying because I feel that there is something here that is
    important to me to understand.

    Thanks,
    

>	I'm a read only so far in this file.  I'm still trying to get a
>    feel for the "atmosphere" here.  Right now, it leaves me feeling ill. 

	You're not alone in your nausea, Anonymous Noter.

	Carla

re .173, anonymous number 2, the question of a final or real definition for
"feminist" has come up many times, most recently last month as topic 759.
Jody put pointers in there to all the other discussions about it, too.  Lets
have a discussion over there if we need to, but, suffice to say, the opinions
vary.

DougO

    <Here in WOMANnotes we're arguing over whether not a man who started a
    <note about issues related to the male body was treated fairly when it
    <was suggested that perhaps his issue might be more appropriately explored
    <elsewhere.  Does that sum it up?
    
    No. That does not sum it up for me.
    I would not have entered the discussion except for the _way_ that you
    folks did it.

    Unfortunately, the only way I know how to communicate this is with
    hyperbole. (Which i'm afraid won't go very far toward improving
    understanding)

    Some of the hyperbole is prompted by my recognition that after 174
    entries many still profess not to understand what is going on. The rest
    of it is still in anger at what was done.

    Now, my hyperbole.

    I am flabbergasted that there seems to be no understanding of how
    insulting, and demeaning, and ridiculing most of the first several
    responses seem to many people. 

    I am flabbergasted that you seem unable to recognize that many people
    feel that implicitly a bunch of you banded together to rid yourselves
    of that 'evil man'.

    I am flabbergasted that a group of people would be so hurtful toward
    somebody whose only crime as far as I can tell was to stumble into a
    hornets' nest.

    I can easily offer a list of names -including mine- of men who were
    _they_ the author of .0 the attack might at least have the plausibility
    of righteousness indignation.
    But that list doesn't include Bruce.

    Finally, I am flabbergasted that people do not seem to understand that
    over the last 9 months or so, this conference has moved from one where
    men were the 'badguys' to one where women have become the 'badguys'.

    That about sums it up for me.

    p.s. One final point...
    I am angry at the way you are treating Bruce. (and I have been angry at the
    way some of you have treated me it the past)

    I imagine that Bruce is angry at the way you treated him. 

    On the other hand, I think that the women who are angry -and I believe
    there are a lot of you- are angry at MEN and in this case
    inappropriately acting out that anger on a largely innocent bystander.

    o	Who was trying to do something tongue in cheek and 
    o	who was trying -however inappropriately you may feel the attempt
    	was- to "improve the harmony"

    I don't feel that that (what? possibly gaucherie?) justified the
    response.

    But perhaps several milennia of oppression does justify it in some
    fashion

    Push over Carla and Anon2; pass the barf bag please!
    
    
    Linda

Herb,

I guess we just come from such different places that I
am "flabbergasted" over much of .176.  I will say,
however, that I think most of what you say revolves
around:

>    p.s. One final point...
>    I am angry at the way you are treating Bruce. (and I have been angry at the
>    way some of you have treated me it the past)

*In my opinion*, your motivations have everything to do
with your parenthetical remark.  I don't think that you
can let go of whatever "injustice you perceive" was
done.
       
>    But perhaps several milennia of oppression does justify it in some
>    fashion

Again, *in my opinion*, you are what I would term hiding
behind popular drivel - also my opinion that this is 
truely childish.

If you want to know why I am offended by you, I will 
tell you.  It is patently obvious that you do take 
whatever opportunity avails itself to "bash back," and
to "seek your revenge."  This is obvious to me in that
you continue to "fight and speak for Bruce" when Bruce
is not doing so, and that you tell Bruce not to
apologize when Bruce felt he needed to apologize.  I'm
sure Bruce must be overwhelmed to be lucky enough to 
have a second conscious.

Your actions/words are certainly not one of someone who
wishes to grow and communicate - what sets me off is that
you pretend that to be your purpose.  

Barb

Who is having a really hard time seeing so much anger
vented at "feminists" in a womannotes conference.  It
gives me that same quesy feeling in my stomach I used to
get when I was an undergraduate hearing other women say
"We don't need Libbers or women's rights."

    Herb,
    
    I don't think of Bruce as a badguy or 'evil man'.
    
    When I saw the basenote I wondered what it was doing in womannotes. I
    thought it was inappropriate. Nothing wrong with the contents of the
    note itself. But put in the wrong place. I'm sure many other noters saw
    it that way.
    
    180 notes later I still don't think of Bruce as a bad guy. And I don't
    see other noters " banding together to rid ourselves of that evil man"
    [your words]. So I'd appreciate it if you stop attributing motives to
    us.
    
    manisha

    well, i am saddened by .177-.179
    
    i guess y'all won.

    Why do you persist in seeing everything in terms of either/or
    win/lose?
    
    Bonnie

In any communication there are the words themselves, and the meaning behind the 
words. Face-to-face it's easier to discern the meaning. (For one thing, you
can ask questions and get clarification, and immediate mid-course correction
and feedback.) 

In Notes, it's much more difficult and slower, but the potential audience is 
much greater.

Look through the anger. 

Bruce  

    What was done to Bruce -whatever words are used to describe it- was
    either Just or Unjust.
    I can either Win or Lose in convincing the readership that it -and by
    extension, things that have been done to other men- was Unjust.
    Based on the responses i have seen so far i have Lost
    and my personal feeling is, so has the conference and the readership.
    It is equally clear to me that a substantial number of women -and some
    men- will feel they have won.
    Because -as already said- my involvement in this discussion is that i
    feel a Wrong is being perpetrated in the name of =WN=. 
    That is what this discussion is about. 
    And from my point, i think that is what Cindi has been saying as well
    
    It is much, much more global than a little natter about niceties and
    courtesy and appropriateness.

    re .182
    
    Bruce, i don't know whether you are talking to me or to Bonnie. In the
    context of this discussion i feel that is either mutually exclusive or
    unrelated to the discussion.

Bonnie and I had a collision.

Bruce

    re. 183
    
    Herb,
    
    This is where your perception and mine are considerably at odds on the
    subject of Win/Lose.
    
    You feel that a wrong has been visited upon Bruce.  I do not. It could
    just as easily be said that you have won, as I understand your
    viewpoint, yet you do not understand mine.  i.e. You have successfully
    communicated, whereas I have failed to do so.
    
    It could be said that Bruce 'won' something as he learned, if he cared
    to, why _some_ women can appreciate his humour while feeling it is best
    shared in another venue.  _I_ would have been more receptive in other
    circumstances than I was here.
    
    It could be said that I had 'won' something if I could have
    communicated to you the difference between annoyance and hostility in
    this context.  Under the circumstances, I guess I've 'lost.'
    
    I cannot approach this situation in such binary Win/Lose terms.  There
    are many people -- some that I love and value dearly -- that do not
    agree with me or cannot be convinced of the rightness of my opinions/
    positions.  This does not mean that I characterise them as evil, or
    even lesser, creatures.
    
    If I can look inward and feel rightness, I have 'won.'  If you/they can
    do the same then you/they have 'won.'
    
      Annie

    'bye everybody
    

Herb, if you quit, you lose and nobody wins.

If you stay, nobody loses and maybe we can all win.

I don't think I've lost anything. You shouldn't either.

Bruce

    me too
    
    BJ

Herb, please don't go.

    
    what a joke this string is...
    
    just "what was done" and "to whom"?
    
    What is going on here anyway?
    

    
    
    re ;-1 
    
    Or, is it really going to matter in ten years?
    
    bonnie

    The discussion is joined in other locations, among the parties
    with the say. Bait is no longer needed.
    I have removed it.
    
    Cindi
    
    You may say it was not needed in the first place...
    But then... It lead to 807.  Catalyst.
    
    

    Oh my.
    
    This string typifies why I am an occasional reader of =wn=, and not a
    frequent and active participant.  A basenote was entered by a man, and
    with blinding speed, the note became a forum for discussion on
    "apropriateness."
    
    This conference concerns topics of interest to women.  Well, I am a
    woman, and this topic interested me.  Yet the outcome was absolutely
    predictable...a stream of entries about "this is a women's conference
    and this topic is not a topic about women, and therefore does not
    interest me, etc..."  Throw in a few invectives, take sides, and the
    whole thing reads worse than a soap opera script.  
    
    Frankly, I take great offense at people who take great offense to
    topics and notes they consider "inappropriate."  I honestly don't give
    a lukewarm damn if you think something is appropriate or not.  If the
    note is entered, and the mods approve and leave it there, then it is
    appropriate.  If you're not interested, then don't contribute.
    
    But this frequent rathole note agenda with repetitive diatribes on
    appropriateness is extremely irritating when it rises above being
    merely boring.  If you have a concern, could you not address it to the
    moderators via e-mail, and let them decide?
    
    The entries in this conference are individual contributions.  I read or
    don't read based on my individual interest. I wouldn't put an entry in
    HUGS or PRIMAL SCREAM or half a dozen others if you paid me.  I'm just
    not interested.  But others are; and it would be petty of me to lobby
    for their removal just because they don't interest me and I happen to
    be a woman, so I ought to know what interests women, right?  
    
    Please feel free to agree or disagree.  This note has been so well and
    thoroughly trashed that it is beyond redemption anyway.
    
    --Judy

    re: .196
    
    Amen. Well said.
    
    Carol

    
>    But this frequent rathole note agenda with repetitive diatribes on
>    appropriateness is extremely irritating when it rises above being
>    merely boring.  If you have a concern, could you not address it to the
>    moderators via e-mail, and let them decide?
>    
>    The entries in this conference are individual contributions.  I read or
>    don't read based on my individual interest. I wouldn't put an entry in
>    HUGS or PRIMAL SCREAM or half a dozen others if you paid me.  I'm just
>    not interested.  But others are; and it would be petty of me to lobby
>    for their removal just because they don't interest me and I happen to
>    be a woman, so I ought to know what interests women, right?  
    
These thoughts are a bit contradictory, no?  I do realize that the discussion
of appropriateness may be irritating to you, but why not do as you do with the
hugs or primal scream and read past them?  Everyone has their spots that they
don't think are worth the entire community's time - which *for me* is why the
discussion of appropriateness is so frequent.  

Barb 

                             
    And I didn't see anyone trying to get this note removed.  At least I
    wasn't.  But what interested me (a woman) about this topic was
    its existence in a conference on women's issues.  I didn't want
    to skip past it (well, part of me did); I wanted to say how angry it
    made me.  And some folks (apparently) found that interesting, and it
    sparked more discussion.  Not such a loss, in my view.
    
    It seems to me that some men want it both ways.  They want to be able
    to participate  in WOMANnotes, but they don't want feedback... (if it's
    negative) oh, but don't ignore them (at least don't announce that you're 
    going to).  Argh...  Given that I have limited time and energy, I think 
    the folks that I give time and energy to (whether it's to agree, disagree, 
    or offer other feedback) are fortunate, just as I feel fortunate when 
    folks give time and energy to me.
    
    Justine - the woman noter
                    

Gimme a break.

You say *we* shouldn't discuss what notes are appropriate, and yet you
yourself put in a long note about why the notes in this string are
inappropriate.

If we can't tell others what notes they can or can't put in here, why are
you trying to tell us?  If you object to notes commenting on the appropriateness
of other notes, then DON'T DO IT!  Simple, isn't it?

I, for one, think that it is okay to write notes about just about any
topic.   *Including* one's feelings about other notes.

I didn't see anyone trying to have this note deleted - I saw people saying
that they didn't like the note.  In fact, it seems pretty clear from the number
of response that discussing the nature of male-oriented notes in womannotes
is obviously a "topic of interest to women".  Therefore, discussion the
appropriateness of the basenote is a very appropriate discussion.

So what's your problem?

D!

    re:.199 and .200
    
    You ask her to next unseen over stuff she doesn't like to read.
    
    I noticed you didn't take your own advice.  See the hypocrisy?
    No, I didn't expect you to.  Why should this be any different?
    
                                     L.J.
    

>    I noticed you didn't take your own advice.  See the hypocrisy?
>    No, I didn't expect you to.  Why should this be any different?

What advice?

I, personally, am quite interested in notes which discuss appropriateness
of other notes, so I read them all. Why should I next unseen over notes
I find interesting?  I think notes discussing the appropriateness of other
notes are quite appropriate.  She put one in, I put one in in response to
hers. 

Instead of making coy remarks about "See the hypocrisy? I didn't think so"
why don't you actually try to show me where hypocrisy is in my note, eh?
Go ahead - I challenge you!

D!

    
    Well, I think we've pretty much covered the appropriateness issue, so
    if folks have other comments to make on this topic, have at it. 
    Otherwise, maybe we (I include myself in this) should move onto
    something else.
    
    Justine

    re:.202
    
    I've decided not to waste my precious time and energy replying
    to dissenting females.
    
                                     L.J.
    

So glad we had this informative and eye-openning discussion.  Thank your for
your enlightening input.

D!