Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Laura, please don't shut the men of this conference out.  Insensitivity
    knows no gender.  Many of us are genuinely interested in bettering the 
    relationship between the sexes.  I feel that nothing can be gained
    by refusing to keep the lines of communications open.  We all must
    learn that the world if filled with bores, know-it-alls, clods,
    in other words real jerks.  We all stand to lose so very very much
    by refusing to talk. Don't let the jerks out there win.  Stay with
    us.
    
    

    
    Re .-1
    
    I would agree with that.  Not all men are jerks and not all jerks
    are men.  You don't change things by walking away and closing the
    door.
    
    I've known some pretty insensitive women in my time, my own mother
    for instance, but it didn't make me give up on women as a sex.
    
    Val

re: .1

I get the impression that Laura intends to stay very much with us and 
that she is not closing the lines of communication at all -- merely 
concentrating them on women.  This is a choice about how she wants to 
use the limited resources of her life energy. There are others who may
wish to concern themselves with bettering the relationships between the
sexes.  Although that is a laudable goal, so are saving the baby seals
and curing cancer; not all of us are called to do the same thing. 

    RE: .2
    
    I do not get the impression that Laura has "given up" on men
    "as a sex". (Correct me if I'm wrong, Laura) I get the impression
    that she chooses to use her energy in concentrating her communications
    with women - in a space which she (me too, bTW) percieves as having
    been INTENDED to serve primarily, those same women.  
    
    One of the things one learns as one ages (I hear. I don't know 
    from experience.) [;-)] is "picking your battles" - i.e., where
    and how you will use your energy. This is merely one choice of an
    individual as to how she chooses to use her energy - all of which
    she said quite nicely, so there's no need for *me* to rehash it.
    
    --DE
    
    
    

    CONGRATS LAURA!
    
    I have been doing this on a more or less subconsious level.
    I too have limited energy and while I firmly believe that ignorance
    can be cured by education-stupidity can't.
    
    

    re: .1 and .2
    
    I have not said that I am giving up on men or closing the door.
    I did say that I am restricting the energy I give away in *this*
    file.  In this file, I will give energy to women, which is not to
    be interpreted as 'against' men.  And maybe there are unkind women
    floating around this file, but to date, I haven't felt abused by
    any woman in this file.
    
    In fact, I received one very lovely mail message of support from
    a male member of this file, a male member who does respect this
    file as a woman's space, and I sent him a mail message in return.
    So there is a difference.
    
    And to Ann Marie, Catherine, Dawn and Mary...
    
    Thanks for your support. And to the women who have contacted me
    through mail, thank you, too, for your support.
    
    No, PRYDE::ERVIN is not going away, just very carefully and consciously
    deciding who she will give her energy to within this file. 
    
    So, keep noting, sisters!!
    
    In solidarity,
    
    Laura
    

    I understand your decision and certainly have seen the pattern you've
    described.  Makes sense to me...
    
    -Tracy
    

    Laura, Marge and others....
    
    EXACTLY!!  That is precisely why I do not reply to too many
    topics.....I don't have the energy and as Marge said..I am ignoring
    a lot of it.
    
    Thanks!
    
    -Dotti.

	Actually, I think of what I do when I note in =wn=
as listening and responding to *women*, rather than
ignoring and/or not responding to men.  


However, I can't deny that the abusiveness _does_ get to me 
sometimes, even if I don't expend my energy on it after the 
initial hit.

My new acronym:

	BWWSRI  - Before We Were So Rudely Interrupted.

And, BTW to whichever woman said, "well, aren't some of the women 
abusive", my response is: yes, but I can take that, since I come 
to this file to hear what women have to say.

Bobbi "what do you mean the deadline was October 15th??!!" Fox

(OK so I said I was going to be read-only for awhile.)

This is an important issue for women to face - for us to set
OUR OWN agendas.  That is what Laura is doing - she is taking
care of herself so that she can be there if someone else needs
her support.  Is that what being sisters is all about.

_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The amount of energy I have to give to you
			is equal to the amount of energy I have to
			give to me.

			(The following is really bad French.)

			Tu donnez moi et je donnez tu.

			You give to me and I give to you.

			(This is from a bad translation I did in 
			first year French over 10 years ago and it 
			has been corrupted even more by me so 
			forgive the syntax errors.)

I have been thinking about the responses in 258 and 259.  For those who 
understood what I was saying vs. their interpretation of what I was saying, 
thank you.

It seems that the biggest generalizations that were made were:

1. I was bothered by dissenting opinions from men and
2. Men's responses (or men in general) were not valued by me.

Now I can understand why some may make such generalizations, but these 
interpretations are really putting words into my original statement that 
never were there.

My concern about this file was that women's *experiences*, not opinions, 
were being ridiculed and devalued.  There is a difference.

The other motivating concern that prompted me to such extreme measures was 
the fact that I view men as 'visitors' in this file, just as much as I am a 
'visitor' in blacknotes or mennotes.  Behaviour that is fine in my own 
house cannot be assumed to be o.k. in someone elses.  At home, I put my 
feet on the coffee table (with or without shoes on), but I would never do 
this at someone elses home.  So I have an expectation, that has yet been 
spelled out clearly, that the active male noters in this file should 
display their 'visitor' manners.  Other noters have begun to articulate 
this sentiment so maybe part of the problem is that this expectation was 
never clear before.  I do not view expecting men to have 'vistor' manners 
as a slap in the face, I view it is ettiquette.

The second part to this is that when I first read through the introductions 
from the men of the community, a lot of them said that they were here to 
learn.  I feel that the ones who make less of their presence known in this 
file are the ones who are truly here to learn.  

The other thing that concerns me, especially from some of the women's 
responses to my base note, is the assumption that giving energy to women or 
Wanting a woman's space is automatcially interpreted as anti-male, wrong 
and bad.  Now, I'll have you know that some of my best friends are
male (:-), <---- is that how you make a smiley face? (Just to prove that 
strident feminists have a sense of humor.)

It seems that no matter what happens, we're damned if we do and damned if 
we don't.  I think back to the discussions about battered women, and people 
said, "why didn't they fight back or just get out if they didn't like the 
treatment."  So when I take action of 'fighting back equivalent or getting 
out' people say, "oh, you're wrong to do that."  Well, what's it going to 
be folks.  It is too easy to blame the victim, and our culture has a long 
and deeply engrained tradition of it.  We said about black people, "they 
wouldn't have allowed themselves to be taken from Africa and made slaves in 
the U.S. if it weren't in their nature to *like* oppression."  We said 
about women, "she wouldn't have been raped/battered/abused if she hadn't 
been *asking* for it."  We said about gays/lesbians, "we really wouldn't 
mind them except that they want to be so *blatant*."  We said about 
Hispanics/Asians/Laotians, "no one *told* them to come here."  We said 
about the Jews, "they wouldn't have been murdered by Hitler if they didn't 
go *willingly*."  We said to deaf people, "you would make life so much 
easier for yourselves if only you would *learn* hearing people's language."
We said to people in wheel chairs, "you shouldn't *expect* access to all 
buildings everywhere, it's just not realistic."  There is a lot of blaming
the victim activity that happens in this notes file.

I view those kinds of statements as a cop-out and as an excuse to say, not 
my responsibility, I don't have to challenge/change my assumptions or 
prejudices.  If people really want to learn and change, they are not going 
to put forth the beligerent challenge of 'prove it to me. They will seek 
out information and challenge themselves.  

                         

re: .12

I think you're confusing Digital with real life.  Digital doesn't have
men or women or blacks or whites: it has collegues.  You may not like
someone's sex, race, religion, or sexual habits, but *inside Digital*
you don't have the right to devalue someone for those aspects of their
existance.

Please try to understand that "Valuing Differences" doesn't mean that
you have to invite your collegues into your home, or into your private
life, but it does mean that you have to treat them with the same
respect you wish for yourself.

    re .14  Thank you Martin.  Very well said.
    
    
                                                  Russ P.

    re .13, .14 .15:
    mike, martin and russ,
    
    i'm not sure if you meant to write in an FWO string or not. if you
    wrote in 258 inadvertantly, would you consider moving your notes to
    string 259? (no obligation, of course).
    
    thanks
    liz 

    re .16   Whatever merits FWO/FGD have, it is clear that the magnitude
             of the present dilemma transcends such a preferred
             arrangement.
    
             The fact of the matter is that the gist of .0 says:
    
             Men s*ck.
    
             It has been rationalized as meaning something else, but
             the redundant barbs made in reference to the male sex,
             and I mean this, involve nothing short of a poisonous
             negativity for which this Conference has acquired a deserved
             reputation.
    
             There are simply no excuses for such negativity to be brought
             into the DEC workplace.
    
             I'm surprised the note has not been --- hidden, and I suspect
             it will be very shortly.
    
             I am very deeply offended by it, and believe that this
             sort of thing undermines the purposes of this notesfile.
    
             ( you may move *this* note to 259 if you wish ).
    
    
                                                      Russ P

    Ditto, ditto and more dittos.

    	RE:  .18
    
    	"Men s*ck"??  Good grief, Pollitz!  By next week, you'll be
    	telling people that the basenote advocated "hit squads" for
    	men.
    
    	By next month, you'll be saying the note involved suggestions 
    	about an "AIR STRIKE" (with nuclear weapons.)
    
    	Some folks in this topic (and .259) are over-reacting on
    	a Zen level.

    	Try coming back down to Earth for a second, will ya?  (Sheesh!)
    

Since the request for a woman-space in this note string has been 
violated, I would like to suggest that women consider no longer writing 
in this topic.  I think it is best to acknowledge reality, which is that 
we do not have a woman-safe space in this file and it is men who are 
not permitting it.  I can think of no better illustration of the base 
note that what has been demonstrated here.  It looks like whether a 
woman wants it or not, all her interactions are FGD.

    
    
    Boy, if this isn't a case of "Play by my rules or I'll take my
    ball and go home."  Some women are in a snit because some men
    had the adacity to reply in a FWO string (which is totally dis-
    criminatory as far as I"m concerned) and decide "Fine, we just
    won't talk to you anymore."  Frankly I think the men in this
    file should be relieved.  With friends like that, who needs
    enemies?
    
    I'm outraged at the concensus that this conference was created
    "as a safe place for women".  If you want a safe place, go home
    and lock your doors.  This is a public conference for the dis-
    cussion of issues pertinent to women.  Period.  Mennotes is not
    designated as the place where guys get together and chat.  Women
    are not 'guests' in that conference, and men are not 'allowed'
    here out of the generosity of the hearts of women.  
    
    Geez, no wonder there is a gender-gap.
    
    Deborah
    
    

    This string is closed for a 24-hour cooling-off period.
    
    						in Sisterhood,
    						=maggie

OK folks, it's been 24-hours. We'll find out if that's been enough and, if it
hasn't, try to cool down again. I find the cool-down periods useful to remind
me that I should; when I'm mad, I rarely think of cooling down (and I'm in awe
of those of you that do).

Many of us believe in community and family; try to hold those good thoughts
while participating. As a co-moderator said to me 'this seems hard because it
_is_ hard'. Let's try to listen, learn, give space, and value differences, even
in opinion.

Hugs to all,
	Mez

OK, here's my 2 cents:

When I came back to =wn= (just before V2), for the most part, I did not read
notes by men. I left =wn= because I couldn't control my anger. I wanted to come
back and communicate with women in =wn=. I have never felt uncontrollable anger
for any woman, no matter how badly we disagreed (and we have), in =wn=. I have
for men. I'll bet there are a whole bunch of reasons for that. I would ask
anyone feeling they needed to psychoanalyze me to do it off line by mail, or
gently. You can all see this is a touchy subject :-).

I did not, however, announce this fact. I also did not announce my leaving,
though at that time many people did announce their leaving. That's just not my
style. It is others'.

I felt pretty lousy about this, but it was the only way to come back, and I'm
glad I'm back. I can now read, and sometimes even appropriately respond, to men
in =wn=. Of course, I still do better interacting with men everywhere else,
because I'm still here _primarily_ to interact with women.

I'm feeling a lot less lousy about having not read men for a while now. That's
because I've heard several women say 'I did it' or 'It's OK to do'. Validation.
That's good stuff.

I submit that it's better to tell the truth then to hush it up. I submit it's
better to be nice than to be rude. Implementation of these hypothesis is left
as an exercise to the reader[s].
	Mez