Is it just me that feels that there is still a patronising element to the
following remarks? I wonder if Wood goes and tells the men what they 'have
to' do, and what their 'real work' is?
miriam
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is what I meant by futher complicating the problem. It may not
> be a good way to put it, but I'm not `blaming the victim' here, as
> some might have thought. As one netter already said, "It depends on
> whether you want to get work done, or you just want to vent your
> anger/frustration/..." (something to this effect). You may prove
> (probably just to yourself since, as you point out, many of your
> male colleagues probably can't hear you anyway) that you are as good
> as them at `their game,' but are you `getting work done'? My guess
> would be not since you have likely alienated yourself.
> .. this is what gets the work done! And what I meant by helping your
> male colleagues along. Of course opportunities do not always present
> themselves readily. Like you said, it's no use just telling them in
> their face that their style is no good. You have to be creative and
> create/look for opportunities, be able to adapt like you do to take
> advantage of opportunities. In the long run, the bridge building
> will result in a different climate, one which may be more receptive
> to different styles.
>
> This has nothing to do with `being the victim and then being told that
> it's your fault also' and having to bend over backwards to improve
> things. It's a matter of whether you want to fight fruitless battles
> butting heads, or you want to do real work. The obstacle is
> considerable (which is the case with almost any real problem I
> know of) so the real work is hard and tiring, but I believe it's the
> best way to get results, as slow as they may come by. It's always
> the case that pioneers would sow the seeds so that the progeny may
> harvest. Expecting `instant satisfaction' (relatively speaking)
> would only result in disappointment. We are in effect talking about
> raising the level of human conscience here, and that's a tall order.
> I wouldn't take things like that for granted.
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 24 09:58:27 MDT 1995
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 11:57:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wood Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: on patronizing and other issues
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 24 Apr 1995, Wood Lee wrote:
> Another example, from something that Jayne Docherty wrote (no offense
> here, Jayne):
>
> > Much better, Wood! B- or B at least; good learning curve! ;-) If you
> > want an A, you'll have to try to understand the posts which were in a
> > language that was hard for you to understand and then try to use "our"
> > language yourself.... Then we'll know you "get it"....
>
> Can this be taken as patronizing? I would only take it as a good
> will gesture. When a language gets too difficult to use, I think
> people would tend to abandon it, esp those who don't already know the
> language.
No offense taken, Wood. I will point out, however, that this was
intended as a light hearted and encouraging comment and was sent
off-line so as not to be read as a put down. I have no problem with you
posting it However, I believe that had I posted it
publicly, the implications would have been significantly different. All
of which points to the very powerful role of two things in any
communication process:
1) context -- the arena within which a particular message is placed,
2) the identity of the speaker.
Jayne
