http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0?format=rss Tribe.net. Local Connections http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#25d1fc3e-9a2c-4e52-b537-a1a1f4b597a1 l rest my case. Tue, 27 May 2008 22:09:15 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#25d1fc3e-9a2c-4e52-b537-a1a1f4b597a1 ali 2008-05-27T22:09:15Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#813cbe2b-dc3d-4f19-9352-015b5f87e397 ali >> You may have said that, except then you followed it up with statements to the effect that my example (or anyone else who might have similar ones) was wanting to exclude out of fear. That directly contradicts your attempts to assert that you are somehow only speaking for yourself. << I am speaking for my own perspective of what you have described. From my perspective of what you have described, your examples appear to be based on fear. Apparently, from your perspective they do not. Our perspectives are different in that regard. You appear to be upset by that. I do not wish to upset you, but my perceptions are what they are, so it would probably be best to simply drop this conversation. "My sole reference to intention is to my own in this quote." ali >> Really? You sure about that? << ""There is the fear of not being able to catch up without distractions and the fear of not being able to discuss certain things in private. These fears drive the desire to exclude." "I understand that there could be a desire for a particular outcome without fear, but as soon as you try to manipulate the outcome (i.e. exclude) to be what you want, that *is* fear."" There is no reference to intention in those quotes. Thu, 22 May 2008 19:15:12 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#813cbe2b-dc3d-4f19-9352-015b5f87e397 saddha 2008-05-22T19:15:12Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#5cdca5e4-0c3d-42f0-bcba-5f936e5fffa6 People should have the right to congregate with like minded people. If people want to be surrounded by ONLY people who feel what they feel, should be nothing wrong with that. If someone is offended, let them make and opposing group of people who want to include anyone. Just how I feel on the topic. Take the Mason's for example, I'm not a Mason, but I'm not forcing my way in. If I wanted I could start my own group, call it..."The Pineapples." Now me and my Pineapples are gonna go bitch about the Mason's and get some shit done :P Thu, 22 May 2008 18:49:00 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#5cdca5e4-0c3d-42f0-bcba-5f936e5fffa6 Tinkles 2008-05-22T18:49:00Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#e1d4329b-0676-4bae-8e2f-458b79186e08 "Ali >> l can assert that all gay men take it up the ass just cuz a bunch of em said they did, but that doesn't mean it's always true. << That’s why I stated my assertion this way. saddha >> I have not yet seen exclusion that was not based on fear << " You may have said that, except then you followed it up with statements to the effect that my example (or anyone else who might have similar ones) was wanting to exclude out of fear. That directly contradicts your attempts to assert that you are somehow only speaking for yourself. "My sole reference to intention is to my own in this quote." Really? You sure about that? ""There is the fear of not being able to catch up without distractions and the fear of not being able to discuss certain things in private. These fears drive the desire to exclude." "I understand that there could be a desire for a particular outcome without fear, but as soon as you try to manipulate the outcome (i.e. exclude) to be what you want, that *is* fear."" These seem to be clearly telling me my intentions. ln my above gay example, although crude, the difference is that if l don't actually know for a fact that all gay men are plundering the booty, l can't very well assert then that just because in my experience, they always have been, that they must all do so, including the ones telling me quite specifically they don't. (And the actual truth is that not all of them DO engage in that particular act. Which is sort of my point.) IOW, you can't be certain about your theory of fear, for the precise fact that you certainly can't apply it to me or anyone else you don't know, and you certainly can't challenge someone on this spurious theory who claims to have a different experience of it without implying them to be liars. You don't have any evidence to back up that theory, and if this were a scientific experiment, you'd lose. So to pretentiously inform me that the simple decisions l make in the name of privacy-and-nobody's-bidness l must acknowledge are fearful acts on my part is, in and of itself, enough to convince ME that by simple lack of evidence on your part (or at least a psych degree), you cannot assert with any finality that your theory IS correct. But hey, if it makes you feel better, you're well on your way to the next act in the Psychic Dave saga. Congratulations on your newly found telepathy! Have some bubbly. Thu, 22 May 2008 17:32:55 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#e1d4329b-0676-4bae-8e2f-458b79186e08 ali 2008-05-22T17:32:55Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#ee0537a8-be87-49a4-961a-fdfc53f4b53e Ali >> l can assert that all gay men take it up the ass just cuz a bunch of em said they did, but that doesn't mean it's always true. << That’s why I stated my assertion this way. saddha >> I have not yet seen exclusion that was not based on fear << Ali >> l'll let you believe whatever you want. << My beliefs are not yours to let. Ali >> l'm confident that you don't know enough to speak for my intentions, or those of anyone else here. << My sole reference to intention is to my own in this quote. saddha >> I do feel some personal responsibility to refrain from intentionally hurting another person’s feelings, though I am not always successful in that endeavor. It is also a matter of personal choice not a moral indictment from me. << Wed, 21 May 2008 13:24:24 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#ee0537a8-be87-49a4-961a-fdfc53f4b53e saddha 2008-05-21T13:24:24Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#89ecc237-fc6b-4d44-9a3a-e98f682c730d See, that so did not occur to me. And here l thought my dirty mind was fine tuned. Tue, 20 May 2008 23:21:02 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#89ecc237-fc6b-4d44-9a3a-e98f682c730d ali 2008-05-20T23:21:02Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#c89962e1-265b-4795-a84e-caba7ef4cbc0 <<I put forward the idea that exclusion is based on fear, and you provided a couple of examples that you felt refuted my hypothesis. As far as I can tell, your examples do not contradict my assertion, but apparently, we disagree on that. >> NEWS FLASH TO ALL VOYEURS ! Saddha says it is okay if you want to go around and watch him having sex with his partners - he is not scared to let you watch ! hehehe - I just could not resist.. :) Tue, 20 May 2008 10:48:34 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#c89962e1-265b-4795-a84e-caba7ef4cbc0 Bloke. Trivia Pimp 2008-05-20T10:48:34Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#3799792e-001b-4b5c-94f2-cc9ddf897444 Okay. Well, l can assert that all gay men take it up the ass just cuz a bunch of em said they did, but that doesn't mean it's always true. However, l'll let you believe whatever you want. l'm confident that you don't know enough to speak for my intentions, or those of anyone else here. Mon, 19 May 2008 21:38:28 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#3799792e-001b-4b5c-94f2-cc9ddf897444 ali 2008-05-19T21:38:28Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#e3cacd56-9c8c-4016-935e-c16543d78231 Ali, I put forward the idea that exclusion is based on fear, and you provided a couple of examples that you felt refuted my hypothesis. As far as I can tell, your examples do not contradict my assertion, but apparently, we disagree on that. As far as I am concerned, that’s all there is to it. No personal judgment of you on my part, just a difference of opinion. Mon, 19 May 2008 19:45:32 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#e3cacd56-9c8c-4016-935e-c16543d78231 saddha 2008-05-19T19:45:32Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#bed54b8e-1044-4865-8793-d4e690979faa l acknowledge that the first couple of statements you made were correct, so just want you to know that, and why l'm not quoting and responding to them. "Ali >> That doesn't change the fact that fear isn't a factor in the example. << I disagree." Well, then thank the dear and fluffy lords you're not me, cuz boy, you'd feel dumb! And cannot therefore speak for me based on your own subjective experience. "There is the fear of not being able to catch up without distractions and the fear of not being able to discuss certain things in private. These fears drive the desire to exclude." You know, maybe l'm just superficial, but my desire to have a nice, private dinner with a close family member really doesn't go that deep. lf l felt fear about such small things all the time, l reckon l'd be a basket case. The fears l do have pack way more of a punch than this piddly stuff. Apologies to my mother, since our time together isn't piddly by any means, but in comparison, this ain't nothin. "I understand that there could be a desire for a particular outcome without fear, but as soon as you try to manipulate the outcome (i.e. exclude) to be what you want, that *is* fear." "Manipulate the outcome"?? Gimme a break. lt's a "hey, l'm in town, wanna get together?" and a "yes, when and where?" and that's it, dude. Seriously, you're breaking this down to components that have nothing to do with the context at hand. There's no manipulating of the outcome when the outcome is set. When my mother lives outside of the country and l see her maybe once a year and twice if l'm lucky, l won't accept that my desire to have a nice private dinner with her (and my subsequent decision to inform someone that l'd like that private time and will be available later) is out of some misplaced, weird sense of fear. l'd appreciate it if you'd keep your judgments about my motivations in any situation to yourself, since you don't know me and cannot presume l'm operating out of fear based on a few words and opinions. Just because you "haven't met anyone who wasn't excluding out of fear" doesn't mean your experience is so broad or accurate that it includes me or anyone else here, for that matter. "I think there is something to be said for not taking action on one’s own desires in order to make someone else happy. " l never said there wasn't. l was simply pointing out that there need to be limits, and where those lines are drawn are our prerogative first and someone else's afterwards. lf we always lived by someone else's happiness, we'd never have an opportunity to build character and have boundaries. ln the example of the porn party or private meals with my mother, sorry, but if someone else is hurt by the exclusion, then they are way too neurotic and spoiled to be my bud in the first place. My needs come first; it's biologically wired. My natural preservation doesn't always dictate (or take priority over) another's happiness, so please don't imply that it does, or insinuate l'm some sort of asshole because l didn't include a disclaimer to that effect. lt's juvenile. l have a tendency to believe that anyone hellbent on telling someone who they are and what they think based on crappy pop psychology is likely trying to make up for their own insecurities and attempting to foist them on everyone else so they don't have to feel quite so bad about their own shortcomings. See? See how annoying that is? Fri, 16 May 2008 21:57:10 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#bed54b8e-1044-4865-8793-d4e690979faa ali 2008-05-16T21:57:10Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#aca93f0a-057e-4917-b608-fc8b88b30a97 (i.e. exclude) should be (e.g. exclude) Wed, 14 May 2008 20:03:14 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#aca93f0a-057e-4917-b608-fc8b88b30a97 saddha 2008-05-14T20:03:14Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#617e3daa-c46f-4572-bb4e-1487c8900fe5 Ali >> But in context, then, you are the one asserting that it's a bad thing in that it's motivated by fear. << I asserted the latter but not the former. This is what I stated: Saddha >> Most likely, exclusion will have both good and bad qualities, but it is always based in fear. Fear is not always bad. << Ali >> l get where the confusion happened now, but l guess l still have to disagree that exclusion, depending on the circumstances, isn't always a bad thing, nor that it's always based on fear. << As I self-quoted above, I did not say that exclusion is always bad, but that it is always based on fear, which I later amended to refrain from using the absolute term “always”. "In your example, you desire to exclude someone else from the conversation for the following favorable outcomes: 1. to “catch up without distractions” 2. to discuss things that you don’t want someone else to hear" Ali >> That doesn't change the fact that fear isn't a factor in the example. << I disagree. There is the fear of not being able to catch up without distractions and the fear of not being able to discuss certain things in private. These fears drive the desire to exclude. Ali >> lt's possible to simply exclude someone in order to attain a particular outcome without that exclusion being based in fear. << I understand that there could be a desire for a particular outcome without fear, but as soon as you try to manipulate the outcome (i.e. exclude) to be what you want, that *is* fear. Ali >> www.rightuseofwill.com/ << Thank you for the link. Have not had time to look at it though. Ali >> Why should l limit my own desires just to make someone else happy? << I think there is something to be said for not taking action on one’s own desires in order to make someone else happy. Wed, 14 May 2008 17:01:14 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#617e3daa-c46f-4572-bb4e-1487c8900fe5 saddha 2008-05-14T17:01:14Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#21ef57ea-deca-4fe3-98b6-0f199656197c "I would try to tell myself that I needed to simply take it on the chin and move on unless the action was vindictive" l think this is a key phrase right there, and the question to whether it's harmful is precisely, "ls it vindictive?". ls it done in a nasty manner, followed by snickers and snorts a la middle school, or is it a 'hey, we're going to go over here for a little while, do our thing, and we'll be back soon"? l think if it is done kindly and without malice, then any harm that is done in such a situation is probably due to an oversensitivity issue on the part of the one being excluded, and that may be his responsibility alone. Sun, 11 May 2008 00:39:55 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#21ef57ea-deca-4fe3-98b6-0f199656197c ali 2008-05-11T00:39:55Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#919948e7-f2f7-4c9d-8f1f-1c5260240c17 "Hi Ali :-) Don’t think we know each other. Probably still qualify as ‘newer nut’ (relatively speaking), though it’s going on nearly five months." Well, l haven't been on Tribe much at all in the last four or so (and most here can attest to my previous Tribe attendance being daily), so l wasn't sure. :) "Used to live in Aus? Wow! I’m in NSW." l was in Sydney from '80-'84. "Your Ali posts are fab! I’d have liked to give u more to sink your teeth into because I just loved u fleshing out the issues." Thank you! l really do appreciate that. "It’s not something I expect to solve overnight. I often tend to ’place myself in another’s shoes’, but, I think, your point highlights that she may have totally different motivations etc…" Just want to be very clear that those other motivations could simply be a possibility, so l don't want to give the impression that l think that is the case, only that it's worth considering. Oh, and l'm a Pisces; it's practically my fucking job to put myself in others' shoes, lol! l know that place from which you come. "Truthfully, Ali, I get your post and I’m not, by any means, at a definitive resolution, but I do feel I’m not here to ’save’ her. When u rephrase my issue as ‘"Would it be more helpful for her”’ it actually obscures my issue: Is it more helpful to me?" Okay, let's look at the situation again. There is a person you don't feel comfortable around (and don't necessarily like all that much) inviting herself to your group get-togethers. lt doesn't matter that others in the group share your feelings; clearly, it's enough of an issue for you to speak up about it. You have repeatedly allowed her to come along because you didn't want to be the one responsible for hurting her feelings and speaking your mind on the matter - even though you have every right to say, "We'd just really like to do our own thing", when that's precisely how you feel. You didn't bring this on yourself; she chose to try and come along. For all l know, this girl is younger and/or a subordinate, and maybe she just simply looks up to you and admires you. That would certainly make it harder if that's the case, but regardless, you didn't ask for the intrusion, and as long as it's there, you won't feel comfortable being yourself, and talking about the things you normally have the freedom to discuss. On top of all *that*, you're stressing yourself out by putting yourself in her shoes (which is a kind thing to do, l want you to know that), but by doing so, it's effectively preventing you from making *any* decision about it, so you're at an impasse - she's still coming along, you're unhappy and uncomfortable, and there it stands. Now, after all that, don't you think it would be beneficial for you to take action on this issue by gently letting her know where you stand and why? lf you can find a way to do THAT in a manner that doesn't make her out to be an asshole, then what you might very well get is a woman who, understanding the issues, strives to make changes and therefore makes herself truly acceptable within the group, and your problem is solved. lt's also fairly likely she *will* be hurt and offended no matter how gentle you are, but then your question is, how long are you willing to avoid risking that hurt and putting up with this uncomfortable situation? l think in this case, telling her will be doing you both a favor. And right now, all you're doing is pretending, which isn't honest to her or yourself. Nobody ever said honesty brings gratitude and sunshine, but it's almost always better than the alternative, as long as you toss in a healthy dose of tact and empathy. One other thing. lf you do this, it doesn't matter who in the group tells her, but make sure whoever it is has that tact and empathy down. DO NOT DO IT AS A GROUP. Ever. lt will look like you're ganging up (and a bunch of women who get together to tell one other woman they have an issue with her can turn into a very, very ugly thing, with all due respect to you and your friends) and will only hurt her worse. You aren't here to save her. But you can let her down as gently as you can, and that's the very best you could do. Sat, 10 May 2008 01:36:34 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#919948e7-f2f7-4c9d-8f1f-1c5260240c17 ali 2008-05-10T01:36:34Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#1efc3777-5351-47de-b0dd-0c23beac1d37 "My point was that it does makes sense in the context of things being both good and bad, more so than to debate how much good or bad there is." Ah, okay. But in context, then, you are the one asserting that it's a bad thing in that it's motivated by fear. l get where the confusion happened now, but l guess l still have to disagree that exclusion, depending on the circumstances, isn't always a bad thing, nor that it's always based on fear. "In your example, you desire to exclude someone else from the conversation for the following favorable outcomes: 1. to “catch up without distractions” 2. to discuss things that you don’t want someone else to hear" That doesn't change the fact that fear isn't a factor in the example. lt's possible to simply exclude someone in order to attain a particular outcome without that exclusion being based in fear. "I am not familiar with the term RUOW. What does this mean?" http://www.rightuseofwill.com/ Basically every person l've run into who follows this stuff is a fanatic, and insistent upon the fact that EVERY response has some hidden trigger or some ulterior motive behind it. The idea that l must be fearful when l choose not to include someone fit right in with their general philosophies. lt was a bit rude to say that, so my apologies. l just don't respond very well to people who tell me what l'm feeling about anything when they don't know me. "I agree that not inviting someone is not exclusion, unless the person asks to be included. At that point, if you tell them no, then you have excluded them. I don’t see where the disagreement is." ln the BDSM example, l probably wouldn't dedicate a whole lot of time to anyone who said "l don't want to be included", and then asked for precisely that invitation. l don't see why it's a bad thing to say, "This group focuses on things that you don't have any interest in, so it probably isn't for you". The only exceptions would be people who were curious about it, or doing some sort of documentary. l still don't understand how it's fearful to choose not to include someone who doesn't belong or want to be there to begin with. l can understand they might disrupt the group and people might not want that, but to call that fear? Not necessarily. Keeping the peace for the greater good, maybe. l certainly wouldn't want someone joining a group of mine if, say, their primary goal was to tear us down. lt's not a *fear* of an undesired outcome, it's the desire to not actively allow someone to disrupt or otherwise foil that outcome. lt's the word 'fear' that l'm having trouble with here. "Fair enough. “Always” was an inaccurate statement on my part. How about, “I have not yet seen exclusion that was not based on fear”?" Better. Keeps it limited to your experience only. l've seen exclusion that l felt was pretty rational. Sat, 10 May 2008 01:04:13 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#1efc3777-5351-47de-b0dd-0c23beac1d37 ali 2008-05-10T01:04:13Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#2a890f56-469d-477e-a8d8-bb0e9d8a5d57 Ali >> l might be willing to say that and its opposite are true, but l'm not sure l'm comfortable with making such a concrete statement when l think there are exceptions. Sometimes, a thing is nothing but good, and sometimes a thing is nothing but bad, and that's just how the dice roll. << My comment was in response to your assertion: Ali >> So in other words, you think it's a good thing, even though it's a bad thing? That makes no sense. << My point was that it does makes sense in the context of things being both good and bad, more so than to debate how much good or bad there is. Ali >> Sometimes l need to hang out with someone alone because we have some very not-so-favorable things to discuss, and it's nobody's business but our own. ln the quoted example, wanting to be alone with my mom has nothing to do with any expectation of a favorable outcome. "l haven't seen you in a year. l'd like to see you for a bit to catch up without distractions." There's no guarantee about how that might go, since my mother and l occasionally butt heads, rare though it might be, and the last thing l consider a 'favorable outcome' is going at it with my mom. But it doesn't change the fact that l simply want to hang out with her, and we both deserve that time together. lt's not born of fear, it's just the nature of any close relationship. << In your example, you desire to exclude someone else from the conversation for the following favorable outcomes: 1. to “catch up without distractions” 2. to discuss things that you don’t want someone else to hear Ali >> With all due respect, this is the type of RUOW stuff that chaps my ass, << I am not familiar with the term RUOW. What does this mean? Ali >> l say l think it would be ridiculous for a person who is not remotely interested in BDSM to complain when they aren't invited to a BDSM-specific group. You say if the group just doesn't invite you, it's not exclusion. That's precisely the type of example l provided; IOW, they're upset because they weren't invited to a group they didn't want to be part of in the first place. So you essentially just supported my very point that you seemed to originally be disagreeing with. << I agree that not inviting someone is not exclusion, unless the person asks to be included. At that point, if you tell them no, then you have excluded them. I don’t see where the disagreement is. Ali >> l'm sorry, but l don't think you have the authority to make statements about what is "always" based in fear for anyone here, much less me. l don't accept that kind of flat-out "lt is this way or you're wrong if you disagree" kind of statement. lt's superior and pompous. Sorry. But it is. << Fair enough. “Always” was an inaccurate statement on my part. How about, “I have not yet seen exclusion that was not based on fear”? Ali >> l will resist the strong urge to start flinging Dune quotes around. << No need to resist that on my account. One of my favorite series. Fri, 09 May 2008 14:45:24 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#2a890f56-469d-477e-a8d8-bb0e9d8a5d57 saddha 2008-05-09T14:45:24Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#e7779708-4335-464d-b0f6-7b8d31f28c82 >>"Ali, really enjoyed reading your post." Thank you! Sorry, didn't see that til just now. <lays chin on hands confidentially> So who are you? Do we know each other? Or are you one of the newer nuts around here? :) l used to live in Australia. What part are you in? << Hi Ali :-) Don’t think we know each other. Probably still qualify as ‘newer nut’ (relatively speaking), though it’s going on nearly five months. Used to live in Aus? Wow! I’m in NSW. Your Ali posts are fab! I’d have liked to give u more to sink your teeth into because I just loved u fleshing out the issues. I appreciated that u rephrased my issue. That’s cool. >>"I judged it so. So did my friend. We discussed it (because we also liked to coffee in a dyad and she invited her self to that as well.) I tended to ‘place myself in her shoes’ and imagine that it would be very hurtful to be excluded. On the other hand I’m starting to question the validity of this approach. Can I be in her shoes when I would not push my way into a coffee circle in the first place?" l'm not entirely sure that's the relevant question. Maybe something generally along the lines of, "Would it be more helpful for her in the long run to explain some of the challenges we have hanging out with her so she can change them, or would it be more helpful to allow her to continue being a fifth wheel in other groups, and not knowing why she's never quite fit in?" lf she really were a manipulatively and willfully ignorant type, the answer to that would be yes, not because you'd be telling her something she didn't know, but because *she'd* know she'd been tagged, and might very well see value in a more honest approach. l think the answer would be yes regardless, but l don't know the girl, so l can only state that as my personal opinion. l only know that if l were a thorn in someone's side for whatever reason, l'd surely want to know about it, because l'd still be feeling the perfunctory inclusion over the genuine one. << It is an issue for me so it’s good to have another’s perspective on it. It’s not something I expect to solve overnight. I often tend to ’place myself in another’s shoes’, but, I think, your point highlights that she may have totally different motivations etc… Truthfully, Ali, I get your post and I’m not, by any means, at a definitive resolution, but I do feel I’m not here to ’save’ her. When u rephrase my issue as ‘"Would it be more helpful for her”’ it actually obscures my issue: Is it more helpful to me? Fri, 09 May 2008 10:48:14 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#e7779708-4335-464d-b0f6-7b8d31f28c82 $item.owner.firstName 2008-05-09T10:48:14Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#2e678fc4-ef4d-42db-aec7-a60b2d152086 "Ali, really enjoyed reading your post." Thank you! Sorry, didn't see that til just now. <lays chin on hands confidentially> So who are you? Do we know each other? Or are you one of the newer nuts around here? :) l used to live in Australia. What part are you in? Thu, 08 May 2008 01:54:38 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#2e678fc4-ef4d-42db-aec7-a60b2d152086 ali 2008-05-08T01:54:38Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#11f2d2ca-18e4-46bf-992b-cb57152ad8ad "First, let me say that I appreciate when you quote exactly what you are referring to and ask specific questions. That is refreshing." Thank you. Most people think l'm trying to be nitpicky and doing so to take their words out of context. So it's nice to have someone appreciate this method of response for once. :) "Sure it does. There is very little in the world that is all good and no bad." Hmm. l might be willing to say that and its opposite are true, but l'm not sure l'm comfortable with making such a concrete statement when l think there are exceptions. Sometimes, a thing is nothing but good, and sometimes a thing is nothing but bad, and that's just how the dice roll. "Whenever you want something, you have an expectation that the outcome will be more favorable than not. If that were not true, then you wouldn’t want it. When you want to be alone or with a particular person, then you have an expectation of a favorable outcome from that particular arrangement." Not necessarily. Sometimes l need to hang out with someone alone because we have some very not-so-favorable things to discuss, and it's nobody's business but our own. ln the quoted example, wanting to be alone with my mom has nothing to do with any expectation of a favorable outcome. lt's simple: "l haven't seen you in a year. l'd like to see you for a bit to catch up without distractions." There's no guarantee about how that might go, since my mother and l occasionally butt heads, rare though it might be, and the last thing l consider a 'favorable outcome' is going at it with my mom. But it doesn't change the fact that l simply want to hang out with her, and we both deserve that time together. lt's not born of fear, it's just the nature of any close relationship. "The desire to exclude someone from your experience is because you are worried that the presence of another will detract from the experience you are hoping for, and you are trying to prevent that imagined detraction by excluding them." l'm sorry, but l call bullshit. With all due respect, this is the type of RUOW stuff that chaps my ass, that l must be afraid of *something* if l simply want to have one on one time with someone....or myself, even. ls my desire to take a break from the world and have a night to myself expressing some sort of fear when l tell that to people who want to hang out? No, l don't think so. lt's a "hey, we hung out yesterday, and l'll give you a call tomorrow, but l'd like some time for myself today." Nothing fearful or worried about it. lt just IS. "Ali >> lt would get a little ridiculous if people who weren't into BDSM started bitching … << The words “ridiculous” and “bitching” seem dismissive to me. I assume you would not use these words towards something which you respected, which leads me to believe you would rather not be bothered with the responses of the people in your example." l have no use whatsoEVER for someone who says to me, "Oh, it's okay, go to your dance group, l don't really like or have any interest in dance.", and then when l go, gets pissed off at me for not inviting them. lt's essentially the same example, and you know what? That's needy, and confused, and neurotic, and hypocritical, and just flat out WEEEEIRD to do that. Yeah, you got it right. l'm dismissive....if that means l'm not going to put up with that kind of manipulation. Seriously, what are we, 2? Gimme a break. That doesn't mean l don't value opinions. lt means l am not going to break my back trying to figure out what someone else *really* wants if they are going to flip-flop every time they don't like the outcome. l value opinions, l just tend to prefer the sane ones. "I do not believe that exclusion should always be avoided, nor do I believe that one person is responsible for another’s feelings. That said, I do feel some personal responsibility to refrain from intentionally hurting another person’s feelings, though I am not always successful in that endeavor. It is also a matter of personal choice not a moral indictment from me." Okay. lt's not exactly my style to deliberately go out and hurt someone's feelings either. But frankly, when l know l'm doing my very possible best to be diplomatic (and l'm often pretty damn successful in that endeavor), if someone continues to take offense no matter what l say, at some point, it becomes their issue, not mine. l do not think, however, that the example of having a group to which someone has voluntarily chosen not to join (or a group to which they simply don't belong by virtue of lacking anatomy/interest/whatever) falls under the category of my responsibility. l mean, really. lt's like me going, "l like porn. l'm gonna have a porn party, goshdarnit, and that's what we're gonna do. We're gonna watch porn, and lots of it." Then my friend goes, "l don't like porn." lf l'm having a porn party, does that mean that just because of ONE opinion to the contrary, l should accommodate that, even though it's my decision, my home, and my theme? Why not have a "non-porn" party for those others who won't be coming to mine? Why should l limit my own desires just to make someone else happy? Hell, l'd never have my porn party ever, if that's the case. l ain't gonna hold it against somebody. Go do your thang; l get that it doesn't jive with mine, but next month, we'll have a pool party and everyone loves that shit. Finis. Done. No offense to either one. ">> Okay, so my first question is, if you think l would "prefer people not to verbally express their feelings" because l mention people getting upset over not being part of a group that they're voluntarily not a part of by choice (or not being invited to because they don't share that particular goal or preference), in exactly what way is that different from "the group just not inviting you"? lt seems you're still speaking in contradictions. >> "If I had made the statement or implied the conclusion you are suggesting above then, yes, that would have been contradictory." You didn't make the statement, but you did imply it. Let's clarify. l say l think it would be ridiculous for a person who is not remotely interested in BDSM to complain when they aren't invited to a BDSM-specific group. You say if the group just doesn't invite you, it's not exclusion. That's precisely the type of example l provided; IOW, they're upset because they weren't invited to a group they didn't want to be part of in the first place. So you essentially just supported my very point that you seemed to originally be disagreeing with. You're welcome to read my original statement over for reference, if you like. l'll wait. "Most likely, exclusion will have both good and bad qualities, but it is always based in fear. Fear is not always bad. " l'm sorry, but l don't think you have the authority to make statements about what is "always" based in fear for anyone here, much less me. l don't accept that kind of flat-out "lt is this way or you're wrong if you disagree" kind of statement. lt's superior and pompous. Sorry. But it is. And personally, l think anger (without violence) is often far more motivating and healthy than fear. l will resist the strong urge to start flinging Dune quotes around. Thu, 08 May 2008 01:48:22 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#11f2d2ca-18e4-46bf-992b-cb57152ad8ad ali 2008-05-08T01:48:22Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#bab48521-16fa-4128-8f78-152a174edcb8 >>Sounds like the 'harmfully excluded' people were too busy thinking of themselves, I will wade in. If my partner wanted to do something for a few hours without me - I would certainly feel it was a product of selfishness or insecurity if I wanted to stop her doing so.. and would feel I should support her participation in this without making her feel guilty in any way. And I think an important thing to note is we are not talking about excluding partners from the actual birth which indeed would be really sad and probably "harmful exclusion".. Essentially we are talking about allowing partners time to have a private conversation with their peers. AND.. even if I was hurt in some way - I would try to tell myself that I needed to simply take it on the chin and move on unless the action was vindictive - but I would be shocked and devastated to be having a child with such a person. .*shudder* Mon, 05 May 2008 18:43:30 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#bab48521-16fa-4128-8f78-152a174edcb8 Bloke. Trivia Pimp 2008-05-05T18:43:30Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#812b1d88-30c0-4edf-942b-8b9b28ff6d74 >>Do you really think the point was to separate the new mothers from their partners?<< As stated I don't think there was harmful exclusion, but the point of a women's only ritual IS to seperate the women from their partners for it. My comment was only meant to point out the inaccuracy of the statement I quoted below. >>Sounds like the 'harmfully excluded' people were too busy thinking of themselves, rather than those whom the women's circle concerned the most; mother,and infant {& partners} involved in their unique & amazing experience<< I am not making a serperation is good or bad value judgement and I think it was fine here, but don't write that the ritual considered the "partners involved in their unique and amazing experience". It excluded the partners is all i'm saying although i'm sure that they were supportive of the new mother's involvement in the ritual. Just calling it like I see it and again NOT making a positive or negative stance about the the ritual. Mon, 05 May 2008 16:11:57 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#812b1d88-30c0-4edf-942b-8b9b28ff6d74 Rich 2008-05-05T16:11:57Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#04cd81f3-a6e5-403d-9dea-646237aafce4 <<since the point seems to be to seperate the new mother's from their partners for this ritiual.>> Do you really think the point was to separate the new mothers from their partners? Could there possibly have been any other point for this ritual, perhaps a more positive one than what you posted above? Are you sure you aren't projecting some of your personal feelings onto what the point of it was? Knowing the fathers in this particular situation as I do. I know for a fact that not a single one of them wanted anything to do with the circle. And like I said before, at this particular gathering people can make their own groups for whatever thing pleases them. Hell, at the one where my baby shower happened someone else had a knife sharpening group later in the day (we got a lot of jokes out of those two things happening on the same day). I am pretty sure you needed to show up with a knife to sharpen to participate but I doubt the point of that gathering was to separate the knife holders from the non-knife holders. Sat, 03 May 2008 18:22:25 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#04cd81f3-a6e5-403d-9dea-646237aafce4 Xiomara 2008-05-03T18:22:25Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#c705ba5a-1e52-4e00-89d1-83d8a520c667 >>Sounds like the 'harmfully excluded' people were too busy thinking of themselves, rather than those whom the women's circle concerned the most; mother,and infant {& partners} involved in their unique & amazing experience<< While I don't necesarily think there was "harmful exclusion" here, I also don't think that women's circle concerned itself in the least with the mother's partners. Agaon, i'm not saying that should be an issue but don't paranthetically put in an assumption that the partners were involved, thought of, or included in any way, since the point seems to be to seperate the new mother's from their partners for this ritiual. Sat, 03 May 2008 16:54:47 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#c705ba5a-1e52-4e00-89d1-83d8a520c667 Rich 2008-05-03T16:54:47Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#844212ca-dd39-43c0-a49e-311e08273991 bravo, ha li, i Fri, 02 May 2008 20:07:11 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#844212ca-dd39-43c0-a49e-311e08273991 candy cain 2008-05-02T20:07:11Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#28646c36-ff91-4c97-b25a-ca12b7e16c5d "Towards the end of our pregnancies one of the ladies arranged a woman's circle on the beach (away from the camp) to bless the pregnant ladies in their journey into motherhood and discuss issues of birthing and womanhood. A little hippy dippy for me usually but these are people I dig so I totally support their good intentions. Anyway cutting the story short, after the weekend wrapped up some of the men complained on Monday that they were not invited into the women's circle and that it was gender and sex exclusion and how would we women feel if that was done to us?" When part of the all divides & congregates, there is an integral iota of obvious information left behind for other 'outsiders' to consider. Sounds like the 'harmfully excluded' people were too busy thinking of themselves, rather than those whom the women's circle concerned the most; mother,and infant {& partners} involved in their unique & amazing experience. By doing this they consciously chose to selfishly & immaturely 'baby' themselves, rather than understand & accept that they were not only still free to include themselves in the spirit of the initial gathering, but to continue the conceptual conversation among themselves! Humanity seems to have largely forgotten that emotions should be treated as the nervous system of our non~physical selves, and duly attended to as they speak up... questioning, looking within, and accepting the chance to change... growing UP, not maintaining the same old stale stagnant ideologies. Despite myriad shades of gray & personal experience, it seems to me as though harmful exclusion would not merely be leaving others out, but intentionally imposing upon a society or group whom can or cannot be members of any or all events within said society. There is much more to prove this point, but unfortunately requires a trip to politics & much digression. Fri, 02 May 2008 19:35:42 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#28646c36-ff91-4c97-b25a-ca12b7e16c5d ha li,i 2008-05-02T19:35:42Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#1c34b896-becb-4e44-9d72-013ebfd8e6e4 First, let me say that I appreciate when you quote exactly what you are referring to and ask specific questions. That is refreshing. Ali >> So in other words, you think it's a good thing, even though it's a bad thing? That makes no sense. << Sure it does. There is very little in the world that is all good and no bad. Ali >> Say l haven't seen my mother in a while, and when someone says they'd like to meet her when she and l get together for lunch, and l say, sorry, but we have some catching up to do and want to hang out just by ourselves. ln what way is that fear based, versus an expression for privacy and individual time? << Whenever you want something, you have an expectation that the outcome will be more favorable than not. If that were not true, then you wouldn’t want it. When you want to be alone or with a particular person, then you have an expectation of a favorable outcome from that particular arrangement. The desire to exclude someone from your experience is because you are worried that the presence of another will detract from the experience you are hoping for, and you are trying to prevent that imagined detraction by excluding them. "This sounds as if you would prefer that people not verbally express their feelings. Is that true?" Ali >> No. Where on earth did you get THAT interpretation from THAT statement? << Ali >> lt would get a little ridiculous if people who weren't into BDSM started bitching … << The words “ridiculous” and “bitching” seem dismissive to me. I assume you would not use these words towards something which you respected, which leads me to believe you would rather not be bothered with the responses of the people in your example. >> You seem to believe, based on your statements here, that one should not only avoid exclusion, but if it happens, then they are responsible for that person's hurt feelings. Which one is it? << I do not believe that exclusion should always be avoided, nor do I believe that one person is responsible for another’s feelings. That said, I do feel some personal responsibility to refrain from intentionally hurting another person’s feelings, though I am not always successful in that endeavor. It is also a matter of personal choice not a moral indictment from me. >> Okay, so my first question is, if you think l would "prefer people not to verbally express their feelings" because l mention people getting upset over not being part of a group that they're voluntarily not a part of by choice (or not being invited to because they don't share that particular goal or preference), in exactly what way is that different from "the group just not inviting you"? lt seems you're still speaking in contradictions. << If I had made the statement or implied the conclusion you are suggesting above then, yes, that would have been contradictory. >> My second question is actually more of a statement, or rather, both. ls deliberately excluding someone a bad thing? << Most likely, exclusion will have both good and bad qualities, but it is always based in fear. Fear is not always bad. Fri, 02 May 2008 13:13:39 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#1c34b896-becb-4e44-9d72-013ebfd8e6e4 saddha 2008-05-02T13:13:39Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#f9ded31d-fab0-42d0-8607-5dc6825675f4 "I do think it’s good to spend time with your gender. I also think that excluding the other gender is based in fear, the fear that you will not have the kind of experience that you are looking for. That is the whole point of exclusion." So in other words, you think it's a good thing, even though it's a bad thing? That makes no sense. You'll forgive me if l call bullshit on the second and third statements. You can't qualify exclusion on the whole as a fear based concept. Sorry. You just can't. Say l haven't seen my mother in a while, and when someone says they'd like to meet her when she and l get together for lunch, and l say, sorry, but we have some catching up to do and want to hang out just by ourselves. ln what way is that fear based, versus an expression for privacy and individual time? No. Your logic doesn't work, unless you're willing to go into the specifics of exclusion and what does or doesn't fall under that category and why. "As indicated above, there is no conflict in my mind. Do you still see a conflict?" Yep. "This sounds as if you would prefer that people not verbally express their feelings. Is that true?" No. Where on earth did you get THAT interpretation from THAT statement? "It could be said that nothing is ever personal." That's stating the obvious. Anything could be said about anything. You seem to believe, based on your statements here, that one should not only avoid exclusion, but if it happens, then they are responsible for that person's hurt feelings. Which one is it? "Similar interests getting together can be exclusionary or not. If the group says, “you are not allowed”, then it is deliberately excluding. If the group just doesn’t invite you, it is not." Okay, so my first question is, if you think l would "prefer people not to verbally express their feelings" because l mention people getting upset over not being part of a group that they're voluntarily not a part of by choice (or not being invited to because they don't share that particular goal or preference), in exactly what way is that different from "the group just not inviting you"? lt seems you're still speaking in contradictions. My second question is actually more of a statement, or rather, both. ls deliberately excluding someone a bad thing? l'm still not clear on your opinion on this. l personally (and probably obviously) don't think it is. The exception to that is, IMO, if it's done so out of spite or malice, or to deliberately hurt someone. Fri, 02 May 2008 03:02:58 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#f9ded31d-fab0-42d0-8607-5dc6825675f4 ali 2008-05-02T03:02:58Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#7a60b17b-24fd-4290-8ea5-efe4ea8c5260 <wildapache: and if men don't like it, maybe they should examine why they don't. << saddha: I agree with this a well. It’s always a good idea to examine your emotional responses. I don’t see any contradiction with exclusion being fear-based. The desire to be included is often fear-based as well. It’s not an either / or kind of thing. wildapache: sometimes, it's good to spend time with your gender (purpose or not), and there's not a damn thing wrong with doing so. << saddha: I agree with this as well.> I do think it’s good to spend time with your gender. I also think that excluding the other gender is based in fear, the fear that you will not have the kind of experience that you are looking for. That is the whole point of exclusion. saddha: "2. Exclusion is an expression of fear and insecurity, a strategy to protect the group from a perceived threat. " Ali >> l'm curious as to how you marry these two conflicting ideas. << As indicated above, there is no conflict in my mind. Do you still see a conflict? Ali >> lt would get a little ridiculous if people who weren't into BDSM started bitching about not being included in that tribe because it was targeted specifically for the BDSM crowd, or if those who weren't burners got upset that there were tribes specifically related to Burning Man. This sounds as if you would prefer that people not verbally express their feelings. Is that true? Ali >> Exclusion happens EVERY DAY, in a variety of situations and contexts, and there's never been a rule that exclusion is a strictly personal matter. << It could be said that nothing is ever personal. Ali >> Maybe my boyfriend likes poker and l don't, and l like gardening and he could give two shits about it. Does that imply either group is deliberately excluding others, or does it simply mean people of similar interests getting together? << Similar interests getting together can be exclusionary or not. If the group says, “you are not allowed”, then it is deliberately excluding. If the group just doesn’t invite you, it is not. Thu, 01 May 2008 14:31:58 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#7a60b17b-24fd-4290-8ea5-efe4ea8c5260 saddha 2008-05-01T14:31:58Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#3e7ff96d-2512-4b66-8aa5-1a216187e7d7 Ali, really enjoyed reading your post. Thu, 01 May 2008 10:54:30 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#3e7ff96d-2512-4b66-8aa5-1a216187e7d7 $item.owner.firstName 2008-05-01T10:54:30Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#c00a8b14-ae66-4b3c-9773-6ff798945a07 To edit: Delayed *short term* complaints are often last minute issues rather than ongoing ones. That clarification is necessary, since some people simply don't speak up about ongoing issues unless it's come to a head, and that can take forever. :) Thu, 01 May 2008 00:35:51 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#c00a8b14-ae66-4b3c-9773-6ff798945a07 ali 2008-05-01T00:35:51Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#bcdc839c-67c7-4d15-a90a-1271a39f57c6 Okay, so then the question is, even if it IS deliberately exclusive, does THAT mean that it's personal? That obviously depends on context and the type of exclusion happening based on what criteria, but going with the example of the Mamas Tribe, my answer is no. As you've said, it involves discussion you don't want men to know about because it's too personal, topics they know little to nothing about, and topics they probably *wouldn't* want to know about once they got in there and realized what all's being discussed. ln other words, it's not so much an exclusive issue, l don't think, so much as the fact that men who want in on that kind of stuff are in a serious minority - kinky freaks included - or excluded, as the case may be - so the next logical step is that if men aren't likely to break down the door trying to get in, then why not make it female only? Re: the beach gathering, l doubt there was anything personal about it, and as you said, the papas-to-be weren't among those who were unhappy about it. You also said that they didn't complain until after it wrapped up. This brings to mind several things: 1. Why weren't they upset about it at the time of the mama get together? Delayed complaints often tend to be last minute decisions rather than ongoing issues. Unless they were just pansies and didn't want to bring it up unless they had backup. 2. lf they didn't bring it up until afterwards, there's a pretty good likelihood they were being brats, and/or wanted to get in on the luv for kinky/nameyourfreakyhere purposes, rather than really being part of the experience. 3. They didn't respect your desire and right to form your own little assembly. What, you want us to wipe your ass for you too? Please. Would they have complained when you decided to go off with one friend? No? Then why with several? What makes them so freakin special? lt wasn't harmful exclusion. lt was a bunch of overly emotional and inconsiderate men throwing a hissy fit and acting like fools under the poorly constructed (and somewhat twisted) guise of community, support, and ironically discrimination. Thu, 01 May 2008 00:29:25 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#bcdc839c-67c7-4d15-a90a-1271a39f57c6 ali 2008-05-01T00:29:25Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#0aefe1d7-1419-4865-a828-8e8cfea729a4 In the case of the beach gathering I do agree it was more of a gathering of people with similar interests and experiences. The men never actually voiced their dismay at not being invited until a few days after the gathering was all wrapped up. Perhaps if they had asked before the beach circle happened they actually could have been welcomed in. Who knows? Maybe not but we don't know at this point. The Mama's tribe on the other hand has chosen to practice exclusion. A man joined and was told he could join any of the parenting tribes or papa tribes but this one was specifically for Mamas especially since a lot of the threads are about physical body issues that we experience post birth and during breastfeeding. A lot of women want to discuss that only with other women and not with some guy lurking around. (By the way there is a history on Tribe of fetishist joining breastfeeding discussions and trying to get kinky - not saying this guy was one of those) Ultimately his presence interfered with the communication that many of the women sought in that specific space. It definitely was exclusion but was it harmful exclusion? I don't feel it was because there were other places for him to go to and many of the same women are in those tribes. Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:54:49 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#0aefe1d7-1419-4865-a828-8e8cfea729a4 Xiomara 2008-04-30T21:54:49Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#76316320-1e9e-477f-9447-ee72d691ecb8 "Overall I just had better time without her than with her. In the final analysis I decided that the trade-off in pleasure was worth it not to hurt her feelings or cause her offence…." l can understand this example; in the case of a coworker, we often have to see or include them in things we may not want to - lunches, company get togethers, work groups, training sessions, etc. lt's a fact of life, and it seems to be choosing your battles wisely by simply dealing with it and not making a big deal. l think most (at least if they value their jobs and a drama-free workplace) can identify with this. "It caused me to really question my feelings on inclusion/exclusion. I wondered about how much of it was brought on by her own insensitivity to social cues. For example ,on another occasion, we were at a training session together where a friend and former colleague of mine was also present. The friend and I planned to lunch together. She came and hovered around us as we packed to go and asked about our plans. I made a point of saying that I was lunching with my ‘good friend’ who I wanted to catch up with. IN Private was the big unsaid. She forged ahead and asked to be included. Again I felt I couldn’t say no." See, now THIS one you could've (and should've) politely said, "Well, you know, we'd like to spend some time together and we have some private matters to discuss.", and that should've been the end of it. lt's one thing to put up with them in a situation where they are the *only* odd man out (if she had been one of two or three you didn't invite to coffee l'd be more inclined to say you don't have to invite her), or are forced to include her through work stuff. lt's yet another if you want to take a personal, one on one lunch with someone. She has no right to expect inclusion in that case. "Another time she parked herself in my friend/colleague’s office when she was working to deadline on an assignment. She just talked and sat there as my friend sent out all these piss off messages. Of course she could have just told her to get out (I think she did, can’t recall) but it was part of an overall pattern where her obliviousness to social cues forced us into either copping it or becoming much more blunt than we were comfortable with being." l'm tempted to say this is isn't obliviousness on her part, but willful ignorance. lf it *is* deliberate, it's usually a pretty good method to employ; in this day and age where people are so concerned to offend or step on someone's toes (even if they're the one currently being offended and have a right to be upset), this method is *perfect*! You get what you want because you know they simply won't turn you down. And after the first, second, third time of the group allowing you to join in, you're in. You know they won't say anything, and it doesn't matter that they don't want you there, because you're still there and you managed to worm your way in. Some people are truly oblivious, this is true. But l'm less likely to think this is the case when women generally tend to be more intuitive, and often tend to be more subtly manipulative as well. This sounds like a ploy to me, frankly. Have you ever tried actively saying, "Sorry, but this is an A&B conversation"? (Well, maybe with a little more tact, but you get my drift.) "I was thinking about it today because I think that people have a role, as well, in greasing social wheels by politely reading cues and not being pushy. I recall a time, for example, when I was ‘included’ in a coffee invite but I sensed that the pair preferred to be alone and declined. (They didn’t press.) Everything worked well. I was not hurt or excluded and they were able to enjoy some private time….If I run into people going for coffee I never just invite myself. " l will occaaaaaasionally invite myself to things, but ONLY if l don't get the feeling you describe. The fact of the matter is, if you run into some people who are on their way somewhere, and you ask where they're going, and their answer - "Oh, we're going to McDonalds" - isn't *immediately* followed by some variation of "Wanna come?", then it's prudent to assume there is a reason they're not asking. The only time l invite myself along to things is when l meet up with other locals in the area we *all* hang out in and it's fairly regular that we all hang together anyway. lf for any reason they were to say, "Well, we'd like to chat privately", hey, no problem. lt's not like l'm not going to see them around the hood the next day, or the day after that. Fuck it, we'll hang then, no bones about it. "I judged it so. So did my friend. We discussed it (because we also liked to coffee in a dyad and she invited her self to that as well.) I tended to ‘place myself in her shoes’ and imagine that it would be very hurtful to be excluded. On the other hand I’m starting to question the validity of this approach. Can I be in her shoes when I would not push my way into a coffee circle in the first place?" l'm not entirely sure that's the relevant question. Maybe something generally along the lines of, "Would it be more helpful for her in the long run to explain some of the challenges we have hanging out with her so she can change them, or would it be more helpful to allow her to continue being a fifth wheel in other groups, and not knowing why she's never quite fit in?" lf she really were a manipulatively and willfully ignorant type, the answer to that would be yes, not because you'd be telling her something she didn't know, but because *she'd* know she'd been tagged, and might very well see value in a more honest approach. l think the answer would be yes regardless, but l don't know the girl, so l can only state that as my personal opinion. l only know that if l were a thorn in someone's side for whatever reason, l'd surely want to know about it, because l'd still be feeling the perfunctory inclusion over the genuine one. Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:53:08 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#76316320-1e9e-477f-9447-ee72d691ecb8 ali 2008-04-30T21:53:08Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#73bdaa24-ab6c-43d9-8845-91648604a8bb Sorry l'm bumping this one a bit, but l haven't been around much lately. lt's also likely the person to whom this is addressed is off frolicking elsewhere at this point, but just in case.... There's this part... <wildapache: and if men don't like it, maybe they should examine why they don't. << saddha: I agree with this a well. wildapache: sometimes, it's good to spend time with your gender (purpose or not), and there's not a damn thing wrong with doing so. << saddha: I agree with this as well.> Then this one: saddha: "2. Exclusion is an expression of fear and insecurity, a strategy to protect the group from a perceived threat. " l'm curious as to how you marry these two conflicting ideas. Unless you intended the latter quote to include exceptions. Which would be kinda funny-ironic, but whatever, it's beside the point. Anyway. Just curious. As far as my thoughts on the original post and exclusion in general. Let's take Tribe or any other group-specific community forum. Every single tribe has a particular goal (even if it's neutral and not gender-specific). lt would get a little ridiculous if people who weren't into BDSM started bitching about not being included in that tribe because it was targeted specifically for the BDSM crowd, or if those who weren't burners got upset that there were tribes specifically related to Burning Man. Exclusion happens EVERY DAY, in a variety of situations and contexts, and there's never been a rule that exclusion is a strictly personal matter. Maybe my boyfriend likes poker and l don't, and l like gardening and he could give two shits about it. Does that imply either group is deliberately excluding others, or does it simply mean people of similar interests getting together? Maybe the problem here is where people start equating exclusion with a gathering of similar interest, which seems to be the case in at least a couple of examples offered here. Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:30:50 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#73bdaa24-ab6c-43d9-8845-91648604a8bb ali 2008-04-30T21:30:50Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#48b8d715-0f44-4080-8b0a-79abe0341ef7 I watched the interview of the man in Bend and I think he made some very valid points about gender indentity. 1) Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation. 2) Having a child of one's own is a human right afforded to both males and females so the desire to have a child does not make him a woman. The process could have happened any number of ways, it just so happens that he is able to be the surrogate for his wife. (an option I wish I'd been able to choose with my ex-husband) 3) Pregnancy is a physical process and does not make him "feel" inwardly feminine. 4) Gender identity often does not exert itself until after puberty. Other considerations related to gender identity - Intersexed people have existed from the beginning of human reproduction, they have simply never been recognized in our society. Many Native American societies viewed this as a gift. Nepal has begun to legally recognize people who are one gender but who identify with both male and female (or intersexed) gender roles as "both" and have the legal recognition under the law as both genders. Intersexed people have been defined as having a birth defect due to societal gender roles but considering the frequency with which it occurs in the natural course of reproduction, it should more correctly be viewed as a normal human varient and those who wish to embrace their inherent gender ambiguity should be allowed to do so. http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency "Both" or intersexed *is* a gender identity but there is no box on the birth certificate application which recognizes this. Wed, 09 Apr 2008 04:31:23 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#48b8d715-0f44-4080-8b0a-79abe0341ef7 *B* 2008-04-09T04:31:23Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#002e684b-7aee-40cb-bcc2-9c60da931075 Lily - In some ways this is perhaps an example of a case where "inclusion" is harmful. While the majority of doctors who did and do sex assignment surgery on babies (and the parents who made or are making the choice to have the surgery done) think they'd doing something good by making sure a child is one sex or the other so therefor "normal" and "included", more and more incidences of intersex children being assigned a sex (and body) they don't feel comfortable and natural in seem to be popping up. For whatever reason, a lot of people in our culture are very, very freaked out about gender and actual difference (as opposed to the often highly conformist "rugged individualism"). Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:19:51 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#002e684b-7aee-40cb-bcc2-9c60da931075 Fifi 2008-04-05T13:19:51Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#0c252e50-82b0-4efa-9422-9372522c7007 I know someone who's undergoing sex reassignment (from M to F), has been for awhile, and while she has male equipment still, she never had much of it. Typical case of feeling female and wanting to be female entire life, but physically male. In doing the legal stuff involved as part of her process, she got hold of her original birth certificate. Guess what!! Born FEMALE. Then only a week or so later a new one was issued: MALE. So obviously developments occurred right after birth that weren't visible at birth. I guess at first it looked like she had nothing: neither vagina nor obvious penis, so they went with female. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:30:24 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#0c252e50-82b0-4efa-9422-9372522c7007 $item.owner.firstName 2008-04-04T17:30:24Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#8f53305a-4f23-4854-905b-73041a99a3a0 FIDO - Within modern times, the majority of intersex babies born into technology rich cultures have usually been assigned a sex at birth and are medically intervened upon. Most wouldn't even know they were born intersex since its the kind of thing parents and doctors tend to hide. My understanding is that the person in question is legally a man, so he can legally marry a woman. He underwent a sex change but opted to keep his uterus (masectomy and testosterone treatment). He opted to keep his uterus specifically because he was aware he may want to have his own children one day. It's all pretty damn cool if you ask me and they've gone about the process with a great deal of forethought and intelligence, more than most parents. Fri, 04 Apr 2008 13:05:06 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#8f53305a-4f23-4854-905b-73041a99a3a0 Fifi 2008-04-04T13:05:06Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#b47de0f6-a4b5-4d1c-908e-4685098136ce In or out indeed. Someone's pre-op therapy obviously didn't go quite far enough. Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:32:49 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#b47de0f6-a4b5-4d1c-908e-4685098136ce kalsang 2008-04-03T19:32:49Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#8e945560-0b06-418b-bc5f-c4e48707d919 <<I think that denial of marriage rights is hamful exclusion.>> Hear hear! Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:02:06 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#8e945560-0b06-418b-bc5f-c4e48707d919 Xiomara 2008-04-03T19:02:06Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#71352ec9-11c2-4abb-b4a9-04e7f3338c83 This case brings up an angle of the 'same-sex' marriage issue that has always facinated me; what sex are you? This 'guy' is married to a woman, correct? Yet, 'he' has a vagina and a uterus. His breasts have been removed (as have lots of breast cancer survivors) so is this a same sex marriage? In nature there is a wide variation of sexual identity including indistinct genitals, and chromosones that do not match with the physical sexual characteristics. I don't see how the 'marriage is between a man and a woman' crowd will be able to get past equal protection laws when those laws would deny people born with inderminate sex (a handicap?) any chance of marriage. So would they just say you can't marry eachother if you look like you are the same sex? How is it decided what is listed on your driver's license, for instance? I think that denial of marriage rights is hamful exclusion. Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:18:25 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#71352ec9-11c2-4abb-b4a9-04e7f3338c83 $item.owner.firstName 2008-04-03T18:18:25Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#a519d7d2-9bf8-4fa7-9387-ed8cf9cdb0eb That Stroy just hit our news services.. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=441662 Thu, 03 Apr 2008 05:21:56 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#a519d7d2-9bf8-4fa7-9387-ed8cf9cdb0eb Bloke. Trivia Pimp 2008-04-03T05:21:56Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#c1e3f8ea-2b78-45ac-adba-bb140a8812fa Well, he does have a uterus. I saw the Oprah promo was thought it was an April Fools joke too. I'm still a bit skeptical. Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:19:00 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#c1e3f8ea-2b78-45ac-adba-bb140a8812fa Xiomara 2008-04-03T03:19:00Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#16db1f35-0f7c-4f70-9f6f-dd848d67461f In or out? Pregnant man says bearing child a "human" desire http://au.news.yahoo.com/080401/15/16c0o.html?f=mv Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:27:39 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#16db1f35-0f7c-4f70-9f6f-dd848d67461f $item.owner.firstName 2008-04-03T02:27:39Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#7c1cfb52-dcd2-4ac3-b24c-dec157170ad5 I find groups with a relatively clear inclusion/exclusion criteria generally acceptable (depending on the group and it’s objective.) The issue I struggle with is the inclusion/exclusion criteria on the work coffee circle. It became acute last year although it’s always an issue lurking in the background. Four of us got along very well and relished the opportunity to grab a cuppa together. There was fifth, however. We would have liked to have excluded her, but found it impossible. Just not inviting was not enough - she’d ask to be included. Of course I could have said ‘No,’ but I found that I just couldn’t. There was no valid reason except that I didn’t particularly like her (also we bitched about a hated boss and she was not simpatico - part of the reason I didn’t like her, actually.) I didn’t dislike her, either, so I didn’t want to hurt her feelings by excluding her. Overall I just had better time without her than with her. In the final analysis I decided that the trade-off in pleasure was worth it not to hurt her feelings or cause her offence….It caused me to really question my feelings on inclusion/exclusion. I wondered about how much of it was brought on by her own insensitivity to social cues. For example ,on another occasion, we were at a training session together where a friend and former colleague of mine was also present. The friend and I planned to lunch together. She came and hovered around us as we packed to go and asked about our plans. I made a point of saying that I was lunching with my ‘good friend’ who I wanted to catch up with. IN Private was the big unsaid. She forged ahead and asked to be included. Again I felt I couldn’t say no. Another time she parked herself in my friend/colleague’s office when she was working to deadline on an assignment. She just talked and sat there as my friend sent out all these piss off messages. Of course she could have just told her to get out (I think she did, can’t recall) but it was part of an overall pattern where her obliviousness to social cues forced us into either copping it or becoming much more blunt than we were comfortable with being. I was thinking about it today because I think that people have a role, as well, in greasing social wheels by politely reading cues and not being pushy. I recall a time, for example, when I was ‘included’ in a coffee invite but I sensed that the pair preferred to be alone and declined. (They didn’t press.) Everything worked well. I was not hurt or excluded and they were able to enjoy some private time….If I run into people going for coffee I never just invite myself. Anyway I left that workplace and the coffee circle continues (without the fifth - though she doesn‘t know). >>Would the exclusion have been harmful to her?<< I judged it so. So did my friend. We discussed it (because we also liked to coffee in a dyad and she invited her self to that as well.) I tended to ‘place myself in her shoes’ and imagine that it would be very hurtful to be excluded. On the other hand I’m starting to question the validity of this approach. Can I be in her shoes when I would not push my way into a coffee circle in the first place? These are the issues that plague me… Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:23:35 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#7c1cfb52-dcd2-4ac3-b24c-dec157170ad5 $item.owner.firstName 2008-04-02T00:23:35Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#1117ad3d-ecc0-497f-9603-e6db12101c40 "Two things came to mind when I read this statement. 1. Are you aware, Josh, that you (being a man) just stated that you still feel threatened by empowered women? 2. Exclusion is an expression of fear and insecurity, a strategy to protect the group from a perceived threat." 1. After all this time on EH discussing generalities I hoped - naively, it would seem - that people should by now be able to identify when a generality is in effect and assume that for the purpose of a given discussion, said generality would indeed have exceptions. I guess I can put a disclaimer on EVERYTHING I SAY (Disclaimer: I will not actually put a disclaimer on everything I say. Maybe some things, but not all of them. I have just used a general statement which will, undoubtedly, have exceptions.) but that seems a little ridiculous. 2. It CAN be all of the things you just said, but it doesn't have to be. This is the same hand-holding, rainbow crap I mentioned earlier. Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:36:27 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#1117ad3d-ecc0-497f-9603-e6db12101c40 Josh 2008-04-01T17:36:27Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#b5f8de5c-bbb8-48db-82a3-5b6009ca9af7 Marx sent the club a telegram, saying: "Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member. Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:53:47 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#b5f8de5c-bbb8-48db-82a3-5b6009ca9af7 Edward 2008-04-01T16:53:47Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#9d38867d-296a-4ded-b072-9af60b1425e9 Josh >> Men still feel threatened by empowered women: << Two things came to mind when I read this statement. 1. Are you aware, Josh, that you (being a man) just stated that you still feel threatened by empowered women? 2. Exclusion is an expression of fear and insecurity, a strategy to protect the group from a perceived threat. Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:52:39 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#9d38867d-296a-4ded-b072-9af60b1425e9 saddha 2008-04-01T16:52:39Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#0b534a89-9a5f-47e6-b33f-3b9b0e479b21 Don't apologize for that response! I thought it was great! Thanks for taking your time to say what you were thinking. Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:39:08 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#0b534a89-9a5f-47e6-b33f-3b9b0e479b21 Xiomara 2008-04-01T13:39:08Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#21746418-a47b-47a5-bd7b-d37ed686ee4d I totally support the idea of woman (or other specific groups) being able to get together without men in order to share their common experiences, feelings and thoughts (or whatever else they want to share or do..) I am a Freemason and the particular type of Freemasonry I belong too is very traditional and is "men only".. Not to accept my exclusion of the "Woman Circle" would be total hypocrisy and a double standard on my part. I guess I am claiming I have some direct experience of working in a protected and protective gender based group. Men might be able to be central participants in a pregnancy and birth - but their experience of this wonderful event is different from a woman's because a man does not have the same physical experience and at best can show empathy rather than directly experience the associated physical sensations (and perhaps emotions?). Being male - I might know what it is like to hold my children, and watch them being born - but I can't experience actually giving birth the way a woman does. I think there is value in being in a group who all have direct experiences of something - without having to explain it to those who don't. I cant draw on being in a "Woman's Circle" so I have to draw on own experience. In my lodge you can (occasionally) see some really intimate moments where men open up to each other. Unlike other male environments I have experienced where status and competitiveness imbues the interaction - in a lodge you (can) meet as equals and share common experiences. A male lodge can be a unique environment where men feel very secure and open up to each other with honesty and frankness - about common experiences and especially deep emotions and fears. . This improves our relationships with each other and everyone around us. Being behind closed doors where discretion is demanded allows a sense of security that many need in order to open up and you see some special exchanges that other social setting do not afford. Another spin on this might be to discuss it from gender specific private tribes - because they certainly exist. I know of two woman only tribes (I encouraged one to go private) and one male only tribe.. <<So I have to wonder is this really harmful exclusion?>> I don't think so.. but I think it might be worth the effort to try and understand why it is important to meet like this so you came explain it to those who are not invited but want to attend... I think a key thing to consider about "harm" is related to if those excluded are disadvantaged, but particularly threatened, by this exclusion - and the latter has a lot to do with how secure the excluded feel and the treatment, respect and explanation they receive from the "exclusive" group. << Can it be compared to segregation and all kinds of other historic ills of the world? >> I am sure it could... I guess any "segregation" or "exclusion" is this instance is only temporary and artificial and not based on a superiority over others (which is bad).. It is more a question of privacy and trust and bonding through common experiences and feelings.. peoples right to do that is something I want to respect and perhaps even encourage. <I have friends that belong to tribes about being gay. Should I feel excluded if I am not totally wanted there? > Depends why. If they see themselves better than you for some reason that is a different proposition than you being "different". If they want to privately discuss things that you have no experience with (and that they feel uncomfortable discussing with you)- then I would be willing to respect that privacy. <<Does being equal and wanting a just world mean we have to give up special communications or bonds we have with others because they leave someone else out? Where is the line? Thoughts? >> Equality and sameness are not synonymous. On some level - all people are the same because they share a human existence - and the more of that human existence which is examined and shared the better say I... but in order to see that reflection between people who have shared experiences - they might want to close their group to facilitate it. I think the key thing is are you hurting anyone by leaving them out and why are you doing this ? Is the reason valid ? Can there be a valid reason ? I think there can be -- but that anyone being left out deserves a explanation why and that such a physical and social exclusion should not be constant. . Excluding anyone from your life should be the exception rather than the rule. Shit.. sorry for such a long response.. Tue, 01 Apr 2008 06:43:34 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#21746418-a47b-47a5-bd7b-d37ed686ee4d Bloke. Trivia Pimp 2008-04-01T06:43:34Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#2ad80c4b-5986-4622-8132-fb6ff44cf7c0 "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." --Groucho Marx. Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:58:08 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#2ad80c4b-5986-4622-8132-fb6ff44cf7c0 Marpa 2008-03-31T22:58:08Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#5622c848-31bf-4413-8a69-bc103d523945 "...attitude that permeates everywhere..." I'm just tired of it! This kind of stuff INSTANTLY gets me irate. The insecurity and sense of entitlement just makes me want to shake a bitch. Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:43:48 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#5622c848-31bf-4413-8a69-bc103d523945 Josh 2008-03-31T22:43:48Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#dc6469ff-1773-48ef-8b8e-491adde53101 Josh your post just cracked me up! And yeah, the everyone must be included in everything with out at all considering the situations or conditions attitude that permeates everywhere cracks me up sometimes as well as drives me batshit. Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:17:48 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#dc6469ff-1773-48ef-8b8e-491adde53101 Xiomara 2008-03-31T21:17:48Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#96a30d92-65b3-4277-9abd-e7099c3af307 There are a lot of situations where it works better for women if it's only women in the situation -- like women-only high schools and colleges, for example. In fact in a lot of learning situations I think this is true. In fact, despite my father being a drummer, and always being attracted to the drums, I never pursued learning drums because every time I did, I felt intimidated, dissed and dismissed by the men teaching the classes and leading the drum circles. I have very little competitiveness -- and certainly wouldn't want to take someone on in a challenge unless I had really solid skill in what we were doing - and I felt very clearly, very quickly -- the guys are in charge of this, this is their turf, it's totally competitive, and I really do not have the balls to wade in there and somehow get what I want. All that changed when two years ago (finally!!!) a woman conga drummer moved to town and started giving lessons for women only. She had decided very seriously that she didn't want to teach mixed classes any more, and she wanted to empower women to do something that few women do. And she felt she knew the reason why few women do it! So I signed up, just to see -- did I really have a drummer in me? And it turned out that I do. It turned out that despite strongly resembling a little fairy in every other aspect of life, get me on a drum and I become strong and powerful and I kick ass and love it. And we're really all very good - from OK good to amazingly good. Not only that -- the groupness of the thing, the fact that when women learn and play drums together, they look at each other all the time, they smile, they laugh their heads off, they support each other and never hesitate to answer any question or help another in the group figure something out. We perform together, rehearse together, party together, are all tight friends, and there is an absolutely magical and powerful and fun energy to it and I know that every woman in there values it like crazy. Performances are very high energy, because there is obvious connection and enjoyment going on. Nobody's grandstanding. Women understand the concept of "ensemble playing" very well. Now she teaches 5 classes a week and women drive from far away to come - and at our next performance, there will be 15 of us playing, and I am really not sure we can get all the drums on that stage. And every single woman has said, I could never have done this if I hadn't done it with just women. Including one woman who actually is married to a musician -- so you'd think she'd had the opportunities. But no! Now we do have confidence to deal with men in drumming situations - like when we were asked to perform at an event a year ago (a half hour set) -- and so we were set up in the front row of the musicians section -- but guys showing up for the usual drum circle held at the end of this event every year kept moving our drums and stuff to the back and plunking themselves down instead. Even the crew for the event kept saying, no, you guys sit in back, there's going to be a drum group in this row -- not understanding that *we* were the drum group even though we kept telling them, we were. And even when we started playing, a dude who'd made it clear to everyone that he was the drum messiah of the universe climbed over the chairs, sat down next to me and started playing dumbek with our congas. In 4. When we were playing in 6. I felt great confidence and satisfaction in telling him to stop. Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:51:05 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#96a30d92-65b3-4277-9abd-e7099c3af307 $item.owner.firstName 2008-03-31T19:51:05Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#f9e173bc-d34c-4890-a828-78c25a7d0a8a i agree with Josh... and i laugh at those people. Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:53:03 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#f9e173bc-d34c-4890-a828-78c25a7d0a8a Nicole♫ 2008-03-31T17:53:03Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#63f6cf2b-947d-42a3-a145-8826f936de46 I think there are a couple of issues involved with this that drive me batshit. 1. Everybody needs to be included now: It's part of the bullshit hand-holding that I think is occurring more and more in this country. People can't seem to admit or understand that not everything is for everybody. It's selfish and arrogant. 2. Men still feel threatened by empowered women: This isn't as obvious as it used to be but I see the scenario Yuni laid out as a passive-agressive attack. Without having the juevos to actually say it, the male protesters are really sending the message, "If you get to play the Gender Equality card then why shouldn't we be able to?" Well fuck you, buddies! While a small portion of women may occasionally wave this card when they shouldn't - to be manipulative or after having chosen the wrong time to make a point - they're mostly doing it because they're actually being treated unfairly, i.e. lower wages for the same job, etc. etc. Both reasons are actually non-reasons, as far as I'm concerned. They don't deserve compassion or understanding. Just a good dose of "shut the fuck up and go back to the party". But I'm no Burner so perhaps that's just not the aire attitude one can sport at such an event. Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:49:42 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#63f6cf2b-947d-42a3-a145-8826f936de46 Josh 2008-03-31T17:49:42Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#6901b4f8-07a1-4ff7-8dcf-2dd5929b4c46 wildapache >> i don't think any woman should feel the need to explain herself for wanting to gather with other women, no matter what the reason. << I agree. Though when someone’s feelings are hurt, they tend not to think too rationally. Sometime’s just listening to someone else’s side of the story, uncritically, can go a long way towards smoothing over those hurt feelings. wildapache >> and if men don't like it, maybe they should examine why they don't. << I agree with this a well. wildapache >> sometimes, it's good to spend time with your gender (purpose or not), and there's not a damn thing wrong with doing so. << I agree with this as well. Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:28:49 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#6901b4f8-07a1-4ff7-8dcf-2dd5929b4c46 saddha 2008-03-31T14:28:49Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#85bafa27-a002-4ad0-a77c-fda19a4fa05c hear hear, wild. Mon, 31 Mar 2008 02:22:33 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#85bafa27-a002-4ad0-a77c-fda19a4fa05c kalsang 2008-03-31T02:22:33Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#f494d7d5-2430-4656-8794-33e61598cb87 i don't think any woman should feel the need to explain herself for wanting to gather with other women, no matter what the reason. and if men don't like it, maybe they should examine why they don't. i, for one, could care less about men doing "men's only" things good for them. sometimes, it's good to spend time with your gender (purpose or not), and there's not a damn thing wrong with doing so. Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:48:20 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#f494d7d5-2430-4656-8794-33e61598cb87 candy cain 2008-03-31T01:48:20Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#8a8e0bea-6fec-4cd0-afd5-552b945ebb26 Rich, I hear you but the woman's circle didn't take away from the event as a whole anymore than any of the woman's camps take away from Burning Man as a whole. Part of the gathering is that people would come and do as they please. Lots of different types of smaller gatherings occurred there all the time. There were only about 20 women in the circle out of the 200 or so people who were at the camp gathering. Percentage wise that isn't a whole lot. There were certainly women who just were not interested in being in the birth oriented support circle so they just didn't go. Most of the men didn't give a hoot because there was plenty else to do. Only a few men cared enough to complain. Plus to be frank birth is not a gender issue, it is a sex issue. Gender and sex are not the same thing and no matter what gender one identifies with birth only happens to those who sport a uterus. Yes, men can be involved and men are absolutely needed to get the process started but birth itself happens to one sex only. I see this coming up again recently in a tribe I am in for Mamas and a lot of the conversations are about our birth experience and yeast infections and Post Partum depression and lochia and all sorts of stuff. Men may not like it but sometimes women want to talk about their leaking breast, how they shat during the birth and menstrual cramps with just other women. Is that really a harmful exclusion? Baby showers on the other hand I am all for being mixed gender. My other baby shower which was held at my house had more of Bruce's male friends than anything else! It was hilarious. One guy came up to me and said it was the best shower he had ever been to. Probably because I refused to do the sit around and have everyone do stupid baby games thing. Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:38:32 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#8a8e0bea-6fec-4cd0-afd5-552b945ebb26 Xiomara 2008-03-31T01:38:32Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#c97a77df-5eb4-4b39-9bcf-a23cb991290d OK Saddha, I got what ya meant now. Thanks for explaining. Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:20:15 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#c97a77df-5eb4-4b39-9bcf-a23cb991290d Xiomara 2008-03-31T01:20:15Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#7ba2ac72-8aa9-40d1-8f47-02254a004da8 >>I have friends that belong to tribes about being gay. Should I feel excluded if I am not totally wanted there?<< I think this cuts to the heart of the matter. A tribe that is set up specifically for mamas or gay members or even tribe moderators has an intentionally limited pool of members. For example it would be sort of odd to have a gender restricted only thread here in this tribe. Maybe there would be less resistance to a gender specific gathering if it wasn't presented as part of a mixed gender group camp out? As a part of the bigger gathering I'm not sure if it is non-harmful exclusion. We need more details to talk about that. How long was the womens circle, what is the gender breakdown of the entire group and what percentage of the entire group went to the circle? It seems trite but , as some of you may remember, gender stereotyping is a major pet peeve of mine, so I sort of understand those comments from some of the men as well. And by the way...I happily attended a friends baby shower just last weekend. Mon, 31 Mar 2008 01:12:40 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#7ba2ac72-8aa9-40d1-8f47-02254a004da8 Rich 2008-03-31T01:12:40Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#e9920381-660a-4641-9f1a-4a18f28857af Why >> Do you feel issues like segregation and arpartheid are subjective emotional experiences? << I appreciate that you are interested in understanding where I am coming from. I would say that segregation and arpatheid are policies or events, which give rise to emotional experiences, but are not emotional experiences in and of themselves. Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:42:13 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#e9920381-660a-4641-9f1a-4a18f28857af saddha 2008-03-30T23:42:13Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#815698a4-c23f-4266-82ff-3d9982dac8dc Wasn't there a discussion a few years back about this from the other aspect, when someone posted something about some poor little white bloke who got all pissed because some black people had a black group, to talk about black issues and he got all wigged cos he wasn't invited and stood on a box and squawked about racism? Anyway, I think there's always some idiot ready to bitch about anything, and sometimes they use the values we really care about, and turn them around and reverse what they really mean, in order to catch more attention for themselves. My advice: for real inclusion, next time don't have a forum for pregnant women, have one for "people in their third trimester of gestation, whatever their gender". That way any men with a uterus not far off birth can also attend. Sun, 30 Mar 2008 23:25:41 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#815698a4-c23f-4266-82ff-3d9982dac8dc kalsang 2008-03-30T23:25:41Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#9de74e05-ef4c-4724-896d-9eab1e265e6d Ok, sincerely I am trying to understand you. I may be missing something. Do you feel issues like segregation and arpartheid are subjective emotional experiences? Sun, 30 Mar 2008 20:15:28 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#9de74e05-ef4c-4724-896d-9eab1e265e6d Xiomara 2008-03-30T20:15:28Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#14a50bc0-c32a-4fa4-9296-870fa7eb9d19 Why >> Yes, but things like segregation are not about one person's emotional pain. << Whether it is a group or one person does not change the subjectivity of emotional experience. Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:54:58 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#14a50bc0-c32a-4fa4-9296-870fa7eb9d19 saddha 2008-03-30T19:54:58Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#02534fdb-964e-4c01-8629-51868337183c <<There is no objective way to compare one person’s emotional pain to another’s. It’s all subjective. >> Yes, but things like segregation are not about one person's emotional pain. Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:39:17 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#02534fdb-964e-4c01-8629-51868337183c Xiomara 2008-03-30T19:39:17Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#389db212-8404-44fe-8d89-861771e10f66 Why >> So I have to wonder is this really harmful exclusion? << If I were to ask to be invited to a group and was turned away, I would presume that what I was turned away for was more important to the person turning me away than the possibility of hurting my feelings. There is no right or wrong to it, and no harm done, but I would not spend my time with someone who did not honor my feelings. Why >> Can it be compared to segregation and all kinds of other historic ills of the world? << There is no objective way to compare one person’s emotional pain to another’s. It’s all subjective. Why >> Should I feel excluded if I am not totally wanted there? << Whatever feelings are there are there. Whether they should or should not be there doesn’t change that. Why >> Does being equal and wanting a just world mean we have to give up special communications or bonds we have with others because they leave someone else out? Where is the line? << There is no right answer. It’s entirely subjective. Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:31:19 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#389db212-8404-44fe-8d89-861771e10f66 saddha 2008-03-30T19:31:19Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#b0ed2bae-e1c9-4679-86cb-ee72d07d4d5c <<(BTW am I allowed to post, or is this thread women only? :-). >> *Snerk* Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:09:23 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#b0ed2bae-e1c9-4679-86cb-ee72d07d4d5c Xiomara 2008-03-30T18:09:23Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#0e809de6-57da-4422-b623-5d7a312198a1 I think it is pretty silly of the men to complain in this instance (BTW am I allowed to post, or is this thread women only? :-). Would they have wanted you to include Zero Population Growth activists at the baby shower too? I think it's a dangerous thing for us as individuals to always surround ourselves with people who think like we do, but there is a time to relax with friends that share your point of view and values. Not even I like to argue or have my way of life challenged 24/7! I feel the same way about men's clubs or woman's only gyms. Unfortunately, with the men's clubs there is a history of back-door deal making and an unfair competitive edge in the corporate world (at least I'm told) and the KKK did some horrible things, so there are limits to exclusion or surrounding yourself with like minded people. When is exclusion harmful? No simple answer, it's case by case. Which, sadly, leaves it up to the courts to decide. In purely social situations, it's the court of your friends and they will not lay down a definitve answer, but each will argue their side until they are tired of talking about it. In law, the harm will already be done by the time the answer is settled. Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:04:43 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#0e809de6-57da-4422-b623-5d7a312198a1 $item.owner.firstName 2008-03-30T18:04:43Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#d6b461a3-7992-4d3c-a9ac-af517ded6074 I think you're probably right. Kind of like how trying to change the word "menstruation" because "mense" sounds like "men" is not only retarded (sorry "otherwise mentally abled") but totally missing the point. But, whatever, the whole PC thing is waaaay too many people's excuse for being an oppressive idiot (both on the pro and anti sides). Though I still think it's a really good general question - and one I've run into in feminist tribes quite a bit (well, and here in EH obviously). In my books there are sometimes very reasonable and legitimate reasons to exclude someone at times (that context thing again). Clearly stuff like an 8 year old not being invited to the same party as all his/her friends is another situation all together. But speaking of adults, I'd say exclusion is harmful when it actually harms someone. So when it means that one doesn't have equal access to jobs, healthcare, education, food and so on it's clearly harmful to be disenfranchised. When we're talking about social exclusion and hurt feelings, it gets a bit more complex and I certainly have no quick or easy answers. Nor do I assume my perspective on this is shared by everyone. Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:40:22 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#d6b461a3-7992-4d3c-a9ac-af517ded6074 Fifi 2008-03-30T17:40:22Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#dba5ef08-b2a3-418a-973c-d7112f1f3053 I think in many ways this is an example of when PC goes awry. Sun, 30 Mar 2008 17:17:08 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#dba5ef08-b2a3-418a-973c-d7112f1f3053 Xiomara 2008-03-30T17:17:08Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#7c4700bc-07bc-420e-9d23-21adedcbfd66 <<Kinda says how much it was about real interest in joining and how much had to do with just wanting to belong to a club that wouldn't have 'em, it seems to me. Eh, but I'm just guessing over here. >> Heh. Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:36:04 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#7c4700bc-07bc-420e-9d23-21adedcbfd66 Xiomara 2008-03-30T16:36:04Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#023e7956-d313-4dfc-bced-838749989dd6 Yuni - "The only men who did show up though were the expectant dads and only my guy stuck around for more than a few minutes. I was happy with who were there but I did notice that none of the guys who complained about gender exclusion showed up." Kinda says how much it was about real interest in joining and how much had to do with just wanting to belong to a club that wouldn't have 'em, it seems to me. Eh, but I'm just guessing over here. I didn't mean to infer that men have nothing to contribute or the right to a perspective or opinion on any subject under the sun that may take their fancy. As always, for me, how much weight I give to an opinion has to do with who's offering it up and all that entails...it's context specific. So I'd never deny anyone the right to their opinion, I just might not take their opinion about something very seriously in terms of it impacting or informing my perspective. I'm not seeing any cut or dried general answer to the question from where I sit. To address the particular situation you've described, I don't see there being a big issue with saying "go create a new space and invite us" when we're talking about a rather loose social situation and talking circles....but I tend to believe in a right to privacy and to choose who we congregate with too (and some people even think keeping one's own thoughts and feelings to oneself is excluding them and feel "harmed"). When we start talking about exclusion on institutional levels it's a bit of a different situation. Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:32:19 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#023e7956-d313-4dfc-bced-838749989dd6 Fifi 2008-03-30T16:32:19Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#6864523d-6cd9-4a25-939f-d8812f2900fa I do think men can have something valid to contribute and perhaps these men did but do we women have to feel like we have to hear it in THAT particular circle or tribe? Is there anything wrong with saying "OK, so if you don't like our choice then go create a new space and say what you have to say. Send out invites and perhaps some of us will join you" It is interesting to note that at the beach camp a month later one of the ladies had a baby shower for me. It was pretty laid back and non-traditional and all were invited. The only men who did show up though were the expectant dads and only my guy stuck around for more than a few minutes. I was happy with who were there but I did notice that none of the guys who complained about gender exclusion showed up. I don't blame them though, I can barely stand too much baby stuff and "aaaaw" everytime someone holds up a little outfit, and I am the mom! Sun, 30 Mar 2008 16:07:05 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#6864523d-6cd9-4a25-939f-d8812f2900fa Xiomara 2008-03-30T16:07:05Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#1870c30c-51df-44bb-9f34-0341f7fa994a Yuni - Good question. Particularly when partnered with "When is it harmful inclusion?". I can also certainly see some instances where inclusion could shut down communication or even the intended purpose of a group so it's a knife that cuts both ways. I'll admit that my own biases against guys who paint themselves of victims of gender oppression for this kind of thing (real gender oppression, no problem, this doesn't look or smell like it to me). I'm not saying there isn't very real gender oppression of boys and men that goes on, but this seems to me to be really reaching to don the cloak of oppression and victimhood (not to mention, pretty ignorant regarding historical and contemporary oppression). I don't know, have any of these dudes noticed the Mama Nature herself excluded them from the "ladies having babies" group (as it does some women). Did they actually have something to contribute or were did they just feel someone else was getting something they weren't? Damn you for posting such a rant inducing topic! Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:51:44 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#1870c30c-51df-44bb-9f34-0341f7fa994a Fifi 2008-03-30T15:51:44Z http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#170b8a32-6e54-4888-b5df-3c0392987e15 So recently this issue has come up for me again and I am wanting to explore it a bit and hear what others think. People seem to have a wide range of opinions of what constitutes exclusion. I think literally anything that doesn't include anyone and everyone is exclusive but doesn't that mean we all practice exclusion? To me it is a question of whether or not what we do can be defined as harmful exclusion. Example: I used to go to a beach camp out up north to gathering of friends that happened once a month - mostly Burners but not just Burners. There was usually at least 100-200 of us each time. When I was pregnant there were two other friends who were as well. Towards the end of our pregnancies one of the ladies arranged a woman's circle on the beach (away from the camp) to bless the pregnant ladies in their journey into motherhood and discuss issues of birthing and womanhood. A little hippy dippy for me usually but these are people I dig so I totally support their good intentions. Anyway cutting the story short, after the weekend wrapped up some of the men complained on Monday that they were not invited into the women's circle and that it was gender and sex exclusion and how would we women feel if that was done to us? Of course most of us women said, "next camp you should totally do a men's circle if you want to, we support it! and also make a both gender circle if you want to." Some dudes totally accepted this answer, some dudes want nothing to do with any type of circle but the response from some of the guys was, "that is not the point why should we have exclusive circles at all? Exclusion is wrong yada yada! Your are enforcing stereotypical gender roles" This went on and some of us just felt like it was a bit ridiculous while others seem to take it all too seriously. Interestingly enough none of the expectant dads expressed feeling left out. Recently I have seen a similar issue come up in a tribe that was specifically for mamas. A man showed up, not all mamas wanted him there and discussions of exclusion arose. Of course again there are plenty of tribes for both parents and nothing stopping a man from starting a dad tribe. So I have to wonder is this really harmful exclusion? Can it be compared to segregation and all kinds of other historic ills of the world? I have friends that belong to tribes about being gay. Should I feel excluded if I am not totally wanted there? Does being equal and wanting a just world mean we have to give up special communications or bonds we have with others because they leave someone else out? Where is the line? Thoughts? Sun, 30 Mar 2008 15:31:37 GMT http://extremehonesty.tribe.net/thread/e9ed6897-7284-4412-a8d4-106fb220eac0#170b8a32-6e54-4888-b5df-3c0392987e15 Xiomara 2008-03-30T15:31:37Z