I have been thinking about this for a while now. 
------------------------------------------------
So I do not speak lightly nor in a disrespectful manner.
--------------------------------------------------------

When I was involved with a Men's Group, we were a Men's Group. We spoke with
men about the issues that faces us as men. Men bonding with men. Eventually,
the guards came down, the masks were put on the ground. We share heart. No
need to be other than we were.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I need a place to be with men, to talk with men about the things that affect
me as a man.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to ask those that are not men to see this need, this time lost
in our culture, to honor this confrence for men for what it is. For Men.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I honor woman. Without one or the other, there is no balance in life. My
asking for at time to be with men and to learn from my male elders and equals
is not meant in a disrespectful way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am ruffled when I come here and see that a woman has entered an item, a good
one as it is. I feel that she has walked into a meeting room and sat down and
to join us. I would like to have a meeting of men, for men, by men. As I have
given the woman their space and time to discuss those things that affect them
in their lives. I ask the same with respect and honor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        I have spoken my truth,
                                Johny Moonowl

35 responses total.

This response has been erased.

Right. Not that there isn't a place for what you want, but I
doubt that Grex, with its open-access policies, is that place.

From their inception, the 'homme' and 'femme' conferences have
been places where contributions from both sexes have been
welcomed. I'm a man but do not want this conference to become
a for-men-only forum.

What remmers said.  

 I greatly appreciate the contributions made by the women in this 
conference.  I would hate to have them excluded.

Yes I want the input of women in this conference as well, how will we
truely learn what our gender means if we don't discuss issues across both
genders? Furthurmore how will the genders learn from each other if
we don't discuss the issues across both genders?

I can see maybe having a male bonding *item* in which women are asked to
volunteer to leave, but if the conference were made male only I would take
the issue to staff as a case of a violation of the open access policy.

I can understand moonowl's request, and rather than hear everone say "voilates
open access policy"  would like to hear more suggestions like raven for a male
only item.

Moonowl:  would you be comfortable with women reading but not responding to
men's discussions?

yes, I would.

It's not just a matter of "violating open access policy". There's
also the issue of "how the heck do you know what gender a person
is?" in this medium.

A male-only item could be tried, but how would you know if it
was working? Remember that Grex doesn't require real names. How
would you know if a woman was responding, using a male-sounding
pseudonym? Or how do you that some user with a female-sounding
name isn't really male? For that matter, since to the best of my
knowledge I've never met "Johnny Moonowl" in person, how do I know
that *he* is male? Perhaps he's a female pseudo having some fun
with us. Now he sounds sincere and genuine, so I've been taking
what he says at face value, but I don't *know* that he's genuine,
pseudos do exist, and I've been fooled before.

        Well, to me, honor and respect. If someone wanted to, they could fake
being a man. And voluntary respect of a men's only topic or confrence is not
a violation of policy. As in AA, which is open to both genders, there are Mens
meetings and womans meetings. However, If the opposite gender {needs} a
meeting and help, they are welcome. As AA traditions are concerned, Mens
Meetings are against the traditions. But they have them and their members
respect and honor the need for the men and woman to have time and space from
eachother to discuss issues pertaining uniquely to the gender. Yes, men and
woman have issues that the others tend not to face. At any rate, a voluntary
agreement to respect such aplace violates nothing. Honor and Respect. I think
it would be good for the woman to have a place to discuss hot chat requests
without the men getting into it. Sometimes it is easier to discuss issues with
the opposite sex without the opposite being their. Men and woman do think
differently, both are good and needed for balance in life. Sometimes, though,
I just need to talk with the men without the ladies being around. Honor and
Respect. 

As a matter of fact, a technique that is sometimes used in helping a group
reach consensus is to divide the group into to the (usually) two opposing
groups, and have one group sit outside the circle listenting to the other
group discuss the problem.  Then you switch the groups and require the first
group to listen to the discussion of the same problem by the other side.

The "out" group is required to stay silent during the whole process: no
arguments, no additional information, no requests for clarification, no
comments.  Perhaps we could ask people to try this technique for an item or
two in homme/femme.  

The conclusion of this exercise is to bring the group back together as a
whole, and have them try to find a workable compromise for the whole group.
That might be a third item which was clearly labeled as the joint
discussion item.  

While remmers is right, that there is no way to enforce this, I think most
of the participants in these two conferences have be pretty civilized, and
we could at least ask this of them.  

I wonder how much actual support there is for doing this here.
So far I've heard one voice advocating it, another supporting
the idea of trying it, but no other support so far. You can't
have a discussion without a critical mass of interested parties.

For carrying on restricted discussions electronically, there are
better methods than an open-access conference. How about finding
some other interested people and then starting a discussion via
email? There's more privacy and more control over who gets to
participate.

This response has been erased.

You've as much right as any male to speak up in this item, valerie.  Your
politeness is a virtue, but speak up! 

I agree (with what I think is remmer's conclusion that) moonowl's ideal of
an emotionally open, men-only, man-to-man forum isn't really compatible 
with an open, public-access conferencing system.  e4808mc's idea is about
the closest you could come, and I think that moonowl wants something more
private than that. 

That's one of my points, yes.

The other is that I don't feel the same way that moonowl does
about women responding in this conference. I welcome their
participation, don't see how issues of Honor or Respect come
into it at all, and don't personally feel a need for the kind of
private men-only forum that moonowl wants. But that's a personal
difference between us, and a different issue.

Personally, I'd find talking about "man things" with an exclusive "male only"
group totally uninteresting (footnote: yes, in spite of my female-sounding
first name, I'm a genuine, honest-to-goodness, penis-wielding male of the
species, and have been since I was a zygote).  If the women left this
conference, I'd leave too (I didn't join until I learned that women were
participating here).  Any discussion about "man things" without input from
women would be pretty one-sided and silly.  If your manhood doesn't function
right with women around, then what use is it?  Is it manhood at all, or just
some kind of testosterone fantasy?

That's exactly the point, jan and thanks for making it. Most of us have a
difficult time being men around other men, having emotional conversations,
really getting to know the other as a person, letting the macho bull shti go
and just being who we are. The point of it is that we {are} one way when the
gals are around and another when they aren't. Discussions about "man-things"
without the women around is something that generally doesn't happen, because
of the social conditioning of men in the first place. Perhaps if one needs
the other to have a balanced conversation, perhaps the imbalance is what needs
to be addressed in the first place. Men's groups as such have very little if
anything to do with testosterone. Perhaps your unwillingness to join this
group until you found out that the ladies was here indicates just how hard
it is to really get close to other men and to talk about all aspects of life
without the macho need to appear strong. Getting close to other men in our
society has many homophobic responses that are unfounded. Discussing emotion
topics {with other men} isn't something we tend to do. Usually we sit around
the tv and watch a game or play golf. Not much time discussing fears and
stresses. My father passed in Feb. Can my wife truely understand what I am
going through? I know she does in general, however, the {male} friends that
I have who have also lost their fathers, wow, what a differance that makes
when I talk to them about it, just I can never truely understand the mother
child connection. I understand "around" it if you know what I mean. Perhaps
the is an undiscovered depth with really getting to know other men that you
haven't experienced. Perhaps there are reasons, ancient reasons, for men and
women to have their separate time as well as there together time. 
        Truely being a man is differant than being a women. One is not better
than the other, they are simply different with overlapping commonalities. I
can not learn what it is to be a man from a woman, I can only learn what a
woman expects a man to be and that very well may be different. I was raised
to be the provider of the family. This is a left over from a different time,
however, this idea is rooted in my upbringing. My wife doesn't understand the
stress this attitude causes, this self (societal?) exspectation. She thinks
I'm nuts in this way, and I may be. However, her answer is to say "Well, that
isn't true, I work." So now we have more than one issue. She is feeling
discounted and I need to talk about regaining a balance in my life. The men
in my life understand this conflict that I have and I can learn from them what
they did to unlearn that expectation. There are many women that I hear say
that they want to be treated the same as mean and I believe what they really
mean is that they wish to be treated as equals, to be treated with respect
and not discounted for who and what they are. Men and women are different and
we as men have our unique issues, too. So consider a men's item and see what
comes of it.
        A men's forum for and by men isn't about who's shlong is the biggest,
it's about getting real with other men, talking about the emotional and
spiritual aspects of being men, of the differance between what being a man
is and what society tells us it is. Macho men don't last long in that
environemnt, perhaps because the macho thing is an illussion. There is much
more to the man than the car and the wallet and the muscles.

re #7, #16: essentially, i agree with j m-o -- a "men-only
conference" is something worth giving a try. but as remmers
said, on an electronic forum it is almost impossible. also,
response #7 partially contradicts #16 -- in #7, johnny said
he didn't mind women *reading* this stuff. then people who
are proud of their machismo will assume the best and think
that women *are* reading these reponses, and show off.

in german, there is a term "mannerbund". it is the bond that
connects all men, i think. something which simply will not
happen between a man and a woman. however hard we may try, i guess
there still will be some "man-things" and "woman-things". have
you forgotten newt "men are primarily giraffe hunters who like to
wallow in mud" gringrich? :-)

Re: #16  Are you sure you're not simply looking for
cheap psychotherapy?  

It sounds like moonowl's idea REALLY needs a private cf. - these are lots 
of immature, macho, etc. males who could ruin it as quickly as having women
in it would.
I hope you're his friend to make a comment like that, mary.

Those are some pretty significant issues he is seeking to
resolve.  Issues that (if thay are really bothersome) are 
probably best addressed with professional help.  I see
nothing hurtful in my response.  

I think I have a good sense of what moonowl is saying in #17, I just don't
think a Grex conference is the forum for exploring the issues he raises. I'm
not even sure if psychotherapy would be the venue, Mary.  A men's group
without professional leadership, could serve as an appropriate forum.  The
way Grex is structured, and considering the norms of the group, excluding
anyone from responding is not acceptable to me.

This response has been erased.

Re: somewhere back there regarding knowing if someone is male or female
If said item for men only was limited to men who were members, you'd know if
they were really male.  I believe ID is necessary for becoming a member and
well, it says on my driver's license what gender I am.

Unlike Valerie, I do believe that men and women are different in their
feelings, responses, and how they are treated by the people around them
(society).  So I can see a need for two conferences, Homme and Femme.  

However, you wouldnt expect to have private conversations at a conference
table in the public library, where a large sign is posted on the door
saying "Men's Forum--main floor". Instead, you would invite a few men to
meet at your home and would get to know them a bit before opening up your
heart. 

Let them take it to an email list.  A man who is interested and makes
contributions in this conference could easily be added to the list by any
member of that list.  This conference can focus on male issues, and at the
same time not exclude anyone who thinks they have something to offer.  

I agree with Valerie's #22, 100%.

#17 Atticus, yes some would and do make comments that take the female audience
into consideration.
#18 Mary, thank you for illustrating my point about women not understanding
the "normal" issues of men. The issues that I raise in #16 do not require
a therapy session twice a week. All men will face the death of their fathers
unless the die first. And men in america do have the pressure of being the
prime providers of the family, real or imagined (mostly imagined in this
economy). These are common issues we face as men, not psychotic tendancies
that require professional help.
#22 Valerie, I don't recall saying that men and women are "deeply differant",
I believe (without re-reading my text) that men and women have differances
with over lapping commonalities. If I did say "deeply differant", then I wish
to correct myself here. I do treasure the knowledge and wisdom of my elders,
be they male or female. I especially value those men who have walked life in
front of me, who have felt and experienced life as a man. Their unique male
oriented wisdom is invaluable to my unique male-oriented needs. However, it
is the grandmothers who have taught me to walk a little more gently and with
a little more compassion. I do need both. I'm wondering where to be with just
the men, though.

My being female had nothing to do with my response.  Me thinks
you tend to base a lot of your opinions on gender issues for
some reason or another.  Odd.

If you marry a woman who expects you to be the primary financial
provider then *you* have made the choice to be a primary financial
provider.  This is not necessarily a sign of mental instability
unless you don't want to be in this position but have done
so anyhow for self-destructive reasons.  Society is not to blame.
Women are not to blame.  And if you see this as having been
done *to you* then I really do believe professional help would
be appropriate unless you enjoy the victim role a whole lot
and your angst doesn't get in the way of being a happy and
functional person.

Re #16 and #26:  So I don't agree with you because because I'm a poor
repressed male who hasn't learned to share my feelings with other men, while
Mary doesn't understand you because she's female and women don't understand
these things.  So if anyone who is male or female disagrees with you, it
automatically proves your point.  And, of course, if anyone agrees with you,
that proves your point too.  You've rediscovered the "nobody understands me"
tautology.  Self-pity is a wonderfully unassailable intellectual stance.

I've talked about a lot of those issues you mention, with men and with women
and with mixed groups.  I didn't have an awful lot of trouble expressing
myself, and I got about equal degrees of understanding from both.  The fact
that I don't feel a need for male-only groups does not mean I am uncomfortable
with males or maleness or even groups that just happen to be male-only.  What
I'm uncomfortable with is exclusive groups in general, with the whole concept
of "people like us have to band together and separate ourselves from other
kinds of people."  That's a mindset that I always see as diving head-first
into brain-warp land.  I don't recall ever seeing anything constructive come
out of such a premise.

        RE: #28 I don't recall saying that you were or are a repressed man.
I don't know you, so I have no opinion as to whether or not you are or are
not repressed, or to what degree. Nor have I said that a woman can not
understand because she is female. What I have stated and perhaps I can make
it more clear, is that a woman can not understand some aspects of my life as
deeply as can another man. Everyone can understand everyone. SOme understand
some more deeply, in a more total sense than others can. I can never undrstand
to depth of being black in america because I am not black. That is not to say
that I can not understand it at all. One of the things that I have noticed
about Mainstream thinking is that it tends to be black and white. Things are
either this way or that way. I am not saying that things are this way and that
every one else is wrong, poor me nobody understands. That is fair too
adolescent an attitute for me at this late date. What I am saying is that
there is {something unique} about discussing life with only other men and that
it {has a value}. I am not saying that it is the only valid way to approach
men's issues. It isn't black and white, this way or that. And it isn't that
people like us have to band together. It is that men can relate to one another
in ways that men and women can not. If you have never seen anything productive
come out of such a process, then I understand why you don't see a value in
it. That does not mean that there isn't a value. Nor am I saying that it is
more valuable than men and women talking together. I am saying that it has
a unique value and a unique deepth. Different, not better than. 

RE:#27 It is impossible for you not to reply as a woman, for that is what you
are in part, a woman. Your response is not totally based on that aspect of
self, but to deny that it has anything to do with your response is to deny
in part, who you are. Being a woman is a wonderful way to walk through life.
Be proud of that, not discounting of it.

The issue that I cited as an example, that of being raised with the idea a
being the prime provider is one that a) I have resolved, b) is very common
with men 35 and older due to society, and c) most importantly, illustrates
those things that we learned about ourselves growing up that we didn't even
realize we were learning. We learned how to be husbands and wifes, mothers
and fathers from first watching our parents and other elders act out those
roles. These are basic assumptions about life and are a natural part of simply
growing up. Looking at these basic assumptions is not playing the victom role,
as you have implied, it is rather becoming more aware of way we are the way
we are as individuals. In a shifting society where many of the old norms no
longer apply, we all must re-examine what it means to be who we are from time
to time. No longer can we as a people {expect} to keep the same job for 30
years. This {basic assumption} was something we learned when we didn't even
know we were learning. We simply saw that life was that way. Well, no it isn't
and for many of us, we have had to learn a new way of looking at life. Things
{are} done to us in this life and yet we must not yeild to that reality.

I was wondering, when I first entered this item, if it was possible to carry
on a conversation about this aspect of life without poeple taking things
personnally, or without someone feeling hurt about possible exclussion.

To understand where I am coming from, perhaps I need to make certain things
clearer. I do not hold men above women, nor women above men. We are equal in
life, both required to make a balance for the next generation. I mean this
balance is needed at all levels of societal decission making, not just at home
or at the ballot box. Real balance. Both ways of looking at life is essential
to the balance of life. The main reason there is so much imbalance is due to
the holding of power by mainly men. And I feel sad that many of the women that
find themselves in positions of power tend to take on male attributes in order
to attain and hold power. I for one would love to see a gentle grandmother
become the president. It would do the world much good. This is how I see these
things. I am not a sexist pig, so no implications that way are good. I am not
a sepratist in a sexest way, either. I am simply saying that a men's only
forum has a value that can not be found elsewhere and ditto for a women's only
forum, the same is true. I have meant no harm. That is all I will say about
this.

We had a gentle grandmother for President - Jimmy Carter.

I enjoyed reading that last response.  I still tend to think
you attribute too many of our differences to gender, but
so do a lot of people.  It's a very handy way of forming
comfortable groups.

I'd also suspect that if you did form an all male discussion
group you'd tend to find a lot of like-minded and like-needy
men joining.  It would work nicely.

I dont think anyone has yet had a grandmother who went to Annapolis and was
the commander of a nuclear sub, with nuclear warheads ready to be fired at
her command.  Jimmy Carter may be an officer and a gentleman, but he sure
didnt bring a grandmother's experiences to the Oval Office.  

Your sarcasm about "like-needy men" being the ones who would join an all
male-discussion group is more revealing about your attitude towards people
who are trying to work through difficult issues in their lives, than a
put-down of those who are at that point in their lives.  

Many women learned to deal with social conditioning in consciousness-raising
groups which were explicitly all-female.  Perhaps that generation all needed
profesional therapy instead, but the single-gender discussion group was a
powerful change agent in and of itself.  Many women made life-changing choices
without the intervention of a professional therapist.  Perhaps you have never
needed support from others to make your life more comfortable, or perhaps you
have always relied on paid professionals for that support.  In either case,
like-minded and like-needy people can and have come together to enrich each
others lives, in both mixed and single-gender groups, without professionally
trained conveners.  

There is nothing derogatory about the term like-needy.  We all have needs. 
Some more than others but it's all just a matter of degree. 

There are certainly times when we can all get a better view of a problem
by simply talking it out with friends.  Then there are problems which seem
to relentless, getting in the way of daily living, problems which are
best addressed with the help of a respected professional.  When I
suggested professional help might be an appropriate way to go it was in
the context of the problem being so stubborn or profound that it was
getting in the way of healthy living. 

I stand by that suggestion.

re #32 The phrase "healthy living" always brings to my mind shiny well
scrubed Nazis all marching in a line.  The question is healthy for whom
according to what dictates.
<set linguistic rant=off>

As for the gender issue it seems as though the mailing list is the right
solution.  It keeps the conversation private (for men only woo woo, unless
they be in virtual drag :-)) and it puts an end to this to my mind rather
silly long winded discussion. 

I don't think this is a bad idea, Johnny, but I do think that you'll 
find it more successful through a round-robin e-mail exchange.  

I think, also, that there are many truths to what you say.  (I probably 
surprised quite a few people with that remark <g>)  I don't see the 
differences as *inherent*, but they are nonetheless present in most 
people who grew up in any of the current cultures on this planet.

I was raised in a very misogynistic family, in a very misogynistic 
mileau (the military).  I learnerd to hate myself and to mistrust other 
women.  I went through a two year period of being a lesbian separatist 
in order to heal.  I think, without that period, it would have taken me 
far longer to come to terms with all the things, good and bad, that 
being a woman today in the US Midwest means.  

That may bea more extreme example of the phenomenon you're talking 
about.

Misti,
        Thanks for your openess. I honor your healing process, it's beauty and
it's reaching toward balanceness. Thanks.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss