Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    Good Point!!  I agree with you totally.  Men should have the same
    opportunites when it comes to divorce.  With support and where children
    are concerned.  I see it as a social problem.  The way "things always
    are".  I believe that men and women should be looked at equally
    in these cases, Financially, stability, etc.
    
    When we to that point it will be more than just a "small step for
    man" it will definatly be a "large step for man kind".
    
    Kathy
    
    

    Re .0, you do understand by now, don't you, that the reason that
    men have to support women is because it is so much harder for women
    to get high paying jobs.  Not many women earn enough money to support
    a husband and a couple of kids.  Therefore, if a couple does want
    to have a couple of kids, and wants one person to stay home and
    take care of the kids, it makes sense for the person who makes the
    most money to be the one who works.  Until woman get the same job
    opportunities as men - and until jobs that are typically filled
    by women are paid better - it will usually be the man who has to
    work.  
    
    Lorna
    

    <flame on>
    
    AGGGHHHH! .1 and .2 and most of the replies to the note about
    "hating Marilyn" are prime examples of why I an rarely in this
    conference. Do you understand what I'm talking about?
    
    They don't address the base topic in the slightest. The base not
    is not about divorce or women earning more/less then men. It's about
    getting ones agendas into the open. Good grief doesn't anyone pay
    attention any more???
    
    <flame off>
    
    BTW, my agenda in reading this file is trying to learn something.
    I've got no bone to pick and I've thrown out a lot of my old ideas
    and am trying to replace them with some that make more sense.

    I'm learning a lot more through off line conversations with some
    of the members here they I do by reading here. So I don't read as
    much. 

    			Alfred

    My purpose (agenda?) for reading and contributing to this conference
    is to relate and discuss my experiences as a woman.
    
    I especially enjoy the camadaraderie that develops via this medium.
    
    A goal I have for myself is to accept people for what they are,
    not for any lack I see in them...

    
    It is amazing to me that you should think that 'agendas' of the
    form 'Treatment of Men...' should be appropriate to womennotes.
    

    .0 Perhaps your agendas would be better addressed in MENNOTES.
    I am really getting sick of this...

    Re .3, I chose to comment on one of Jim's agendas.  As far as I
    am concerned that applies to the basenote.  Commenting on the basenote
    applies to the basenote.  I didn't see where it said that the only
    replies could be more lists of agendas.  Besides, who are you to
    tell me what I can or cannot say?  It is not as though I replied
    by stating my favorite flavor of ice cream.
    
    Lorna
    

    What I want to know is, why do we continually have some men here
    who want to jam men's issues down women's notesfiles?  Why can't
    they take their issues to mennotes?  Is there something wrong with
    the mennotes notesfile?
    
    This is supposed to be the one notesfile where we can discuss
    womens topics, and I'm darned tired of having my nose pushed in
    mens topics.  In fact, I'm angry and I'm doing something about it.
    IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW AWFUL WOMEN HAVE TREATED YOU, GO AWAY
    AND DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
    
    This isn't the place for any men to set any agendas for any women.
    
    ---                               
    
    There now, ain't I an awful bitch.

    yeah a BITCH
    
    Beautiful
    Independent
    Terrorfying
    Crone or
    Hag......
    
    
    
    Ain't we all....
    
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    			Life's a BITCH and so am I.
    
    

    THANK YOU, Peggy!
    
    I had never heard that before, but you can bet I'm gonna remember
    it!!
    
    Dawn
    

    Maybe I'm missing something here, but I did not get the
    impression that the author of the base note was trying to
    cram men's issues down women's throats here.  I thought
    his intent was to begin a conversation about why people
    are active in this note and what they hope to get out of 
    it.  It would seem to me that issues around divorce not 
    only involve women, but men too and I don't think it's 
    asking too much for some women to consider some men's opinion
    and or experiences regarding the issue.
    
    As for my own reasons for reading this file (I rarely contribute)-
    many of the topics offer some valuable information and are
    generally there for the purpose of learning. 
    
    Christine

RE: .1,.2, 

Is this typical of WOMANNOTES, or of women?  If you have nothing to say,
then say nothing.  Is it impossible to have an intelligent conversation here?
Or are you hiding *your* agenda'?  

RE: .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, .10

I seem to remember the moderators posting something to the effect that if
someone wants to have some impact on what WOMANNOTES is, then to be active, to
write.  I was not aware that that applied only to women.  I ask the moderators
to please clarify their position in light of these objections.

I do not attempt to set your agenda', but I am curious as to what they might be.
If you choose to not share, then fine, that is your decision, but I do request a
certain amount of politeness which I hope that you will grant.  I am aware that
I am not always as polite as possible, but still two wrongs do not make right.
Or perhaps I should say 'welcome to the club' when you put yourself on my/human
level? :-)

I also did not ask for comments on my agenda', especially from those who choose
not to share their agenda'. 

RE: .12

Although 625 & .* do both deal with agenda, I do not think the subjects are
the same.

I ask again; what agenda brings you to Womannotes and/or the * movement?

Jim.

        Jim,
        
        You are absolutely correct that the moderators indicated that
        people who want to affect the direction of WomanNotes should be
        active, and I believe that it was intended to apply to men as
        well as to women. But please keep in mind that the topic of this
        conference is "Topics of interest to Women". As men who are
        active in this conference, it takes a lot of cheek for us to
        presume to speak authoritatively on what consistutes a topic of
        interest of women, or to talk about ourselves as if we were of
        interest to women.
        
        I will admit to a sufficient amount of self-confidence to make
        many people wince. None-the-less, every time I write in this
        conference I have some doubts about whether it is reasonable for
        me to do so or not. At times, no doubt, it has not been
        reasonable. For those I am sorry, and I acknowledge the justice
        of some of the criticism I've taken for some ofthe views I've
        expressed here.
        
        Personally, I take the majority of the replies in this conference
        to be expressions of the view that the agendas that you put
        forth in the topic note are note really appropriate to this
        conference. I suspect that that impression was so strong as to
        overwhelm the notion that laying our agendas on the table is a
        good idea.
        
        Personally, I think that the agressiveness with which you have
        insisted that people participate in this note and the question
        as to whether certain responses were typical of women or
        WomanNoters are at least as inappropriate as the agendas you put
        on the table.
        
        When I read your notes, both the topic note and 781.13 I winced
        at the anticipated response of the women of this file. Being
        well and fully sick of debates about what's wrong with the women
        of WomanNotes or the men of WomanNotes or of the disruptive
        noters of WomanNotes, I dread the responses that your note could
        bring. Personally I'd rather tell you as arrogant man to man
        that you're out of line, then wait for the feminists and women
        to tell you.
        
        JimB.

    Jim (Baranski), what do you expect to get back from the members of this
    conference by stating and discussing the items on your agenda in .0?

    We all have personal agenda items, I think.  We all have some topics we
    would like to discuss/think about because they are interesting, and we
    all have some topics we would like to discuss because we care
    passionately about them.  Some of us also have some agenda items
    that have caused us a great deal of personal pain in our lives,
    and about which we are very angry.  
    
    The first 2 types of discussions work pretty well in a notes file
    like this one because there is room for some rational responses
    by other members.  The third type, in my opinion, doesn't always
    work well in a notes file.  
    
    It doesn't work when one of us is so caught up in our pain and our
    anger that we can't hear anything except what we want to hear.  It
    doesn't work when we are so constantly angry that we keep coming back
    to express our rage.  (That is why we moderators have asked participants
    to try to identify and ask for the kinds of responses they want when
    discussing very sensitive, very personal painful issues, but it's only
    a partial solution.)  It doesn't work when one of us is so angry
    about something that we start to see it in every discussion--even
    when it isn't there.
    
    At the same time, this being womannotes, there is one big exception
    to all of the above.  Here's where I think we start to lose our
    ability to respond rationally sometimes, too.  Part of feminism
    is allowing and encouraging women to express their anger.  Some
    of it's justified; some of it's not.  (I'm furious about some things
    done to me by medical people when I was a young child--but the intent
    of some of it may have been quite good.  I still need to get angry
    about it, and then move on.)  We have opened up a space here for
    women to do this, and to explore these feelings.  At the same time,
    if a woman exploring these feelings starts responding to every
    discussion from inside of her anger and her pain, we will try to
    redirect that too, because it's not fair to the rest of us.
    
    I don't think we have the resources to support men going through
    their version of that process, nor is it appropriate for us to try.
    It's not what we're here for, and it definitely gets in the way
    of our primary goal.  The topics mentioned above will, of course,
    come up from time to time, but I don't think we can make them key
    agendas of this conference.
    
    Holly
    Moderator

    
    But hang on a moment, I don't remember Jim saying that we should
    discuss his Agenda ? Surely he was asking us why we come to Womannotes,
    and what issues concern us most. Perhaps this is not appropriate
    to this notes file, but I do feel that some of the replies to this
    note have jumped on him rather harshly. I personally value the input
    of the men in this conference as I find it very valuable to sometimes
    have a different perspective put to me. That doesn't mean I want
    this conference to be dominated by answers from men, but then again,
    if Jim starts a topic, and you don't wish to reply, you don't have
    to.
    
    Now to answer Jim's question, I don't have a strict `Agenda', I
    come to womannotes because I find it intensely interesting and very
    thought provoking at times.

    While reading the basenote & replies, I had some thoughts which
    Sarah's reply (.16) gave voice to.  At this point I'm wondering
    if I've understood the intent of the topic.
    
    Jim - by "agenda brought to =wn=" (my paraphrase), do you mean the
    general issues which each of us feels are related to =wn= discussions
    and which each of us brings as background to our participation here?
    This is how I read your words (versus an interpretation of "these
    are some issues we should look at here.")
    
    My 2� worth:  seems to me that a little sharing of "what we bring
    to the table" might make for some enlightening discussion.
    
    Steve
    
    P.S.  Since I work part-time for the Dept. of Redundancy Dept, I'm
    moved to observe (once again) that we seem to have some difficulty
    understanding the intent of the written word. . .