Ujwala,

We very much need men to come,  what we can do is keep on a woman's 
agenda.  I think this would give women a chance to work on reaching 
-out-to-men skills.  I wonder if  we  need to be able to have women's 
discussions in the presence of men.  What do you think?

Andrea

On Mar 24, 2006, at 10:13 AM, Andrea Wilder wrote:


> Ujwala--

>

> We're probably keeping men out.  Also, women are devalued, so going to

> a woman's conference would I think be seen as slightly icky and

> crossing a line..  Hard to say this, but I think this is true.

>

> Also,  as women we tend to pull into shells in "mixed" situations.

>

> There are MEN on this list, so maybe they will speak up--THANKS SAMUEL

> for asking your question!  You kind of opened a floodgate!!

>

> Andrea

>

>

>

> On Mar 24, 2006, at 9:57 AM, Ujwala Samant wrote:

>

>> Andrea,

>>

>> I have been thinking about something. Are conferences

>> with Women in the title perceived as different and

>> exclusive? I am sure all the men on this listserv work

>> with women and have research issues etc with women.

>> Why then do we see such few men at conferences that

>> look at one half of the population? Are we (as

>> women)keeping men's participation out when we organise

>> such conferences? Are we deliberately maintaining the

>> distance?

>>

>> We see men at conferences with "Family Literacy",

>> "Children's literacy" etc in the title....

>>

>> Just curious...

>> Regards,

>> Ujwala

>>

>> --- Andrea Wilder <andreawilder at comcast.net> wrote:

>>

>>> Ujwala and Samuel--

>>>

>>> I thought about this topic deeply yesterday.  I am

>>> so glad that Ujwala

>>> has said what she said, otherwise I'm like a voice

>>> crying in the

>>> wilderness, as scripture would have it.

>>>

>>> The language is different and meanings are

>>> understood differently by

>>> men and women. The "presentation of self" is

>>> different.

>>>

>>> I'm usually on the emotional/analytic side of

>>> discussions, and this is

>>> a different female way of responding in discussions.

>>>  My impression is

>>> that the standard mode of discussion as experienced

>>> by men, and as put

>>> forward in psychology  textbooks, is for

>>> emotions/analysis to be put

>>> at two ends of a spectrum.  Men and women are then

>>> placed somewhere on

>>> this line.

>>>

>>> I have often/many times/some times been thought of

>>> as overly emotional

>>> and consequently not listened to by men.   True

>>> story.  That male way

>>> of listening lost me a bundle of money once..  The

>>> lawyer didn't listen

>>> to me, was surprised by an outcome, and had to admit

>>> he had been wrong.

>>>    This has happened also on NIFL list servs.  It's

>>> DEEPLY DEEPLY

>>> STUPID, especially in a field with many women, not

>>> to access women's

>>> way of seeing, observing, and concluding.  I was

>>> once ridiculed for

>>> this by a man, and I had to deck him, verbally, to

>>> get him to listen to

>>> me.  Fortunately, neither a job nor money nor

>>> romance  hinged on this

>>> encounter.

>>>

>>> I just looked for an article(Chronicle of Higher Ed)

>>> about Laurel

>>> Ulrich, 67, a history scholar and now a university

>>> professor at

>>> Harvard--the top place  in Harvard's academic

>>> hierarchy.  She is

>>> married, has 5 children and  grandchildren.  She

>>> speaks as a woman,

>>> illustrating how by following a woman's way she made

>>> it to the top of

>>> the heap at the University just down the street from

>>> me. Example:  she

>>> took her  dissertation topic from the surrounding

>>> countryside of New

>>> Hampshire, because she didn't want to be away from

>>> her children.   On

>>> one of my trips around the neighborhood I saw where

>>> she and her husband

>>> live, and I will write her a letter.  Believe, me,

>>> she will immediately

>>> be asked for speeches on the  women's lecture

>>> circuit.

>>>

>>> That's enough for now.  Thanks, Ujwala, and thanks

>>> Samuel.

>>>

>>> Andrea

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> On Mar 24, 2006, at 2:59 AM, Ujwala Samant wrote:

>>>

>>>> Andrea and Samuel,

>>>>

>>>> I agree with what Andrea says.

>>>>

>>>> 1. It's not even looking for men's attention, but

>>> more

>>>> than that the 'space' is more evenly distributed.

>>> In a

>>>> mixed/male-directed conference, floor space is

>>> often

>>>> taken over by men. And since adult education has a

>>> lot

>>>> of male gurus, women's space is clearly

>>> delineated.

>>>>

>>>> 2. Very few true 'minglers' are organised. The

>>> evening

>>>> drinks and cheese receptions are so outdated and

>>> de

>>>> passe, that I end up trying to organise something

>>>> myself which involves meeting people I want to

>>> meet

>>>> and talk to. It is always a pleasure to meet and

>>> talk

>>>> to people one knows as names on the various

>>> listservs.

>>>> Our field is dwindling even if the need for our

>>> work

>>>> is on the rise, and the better we know our

>>> colleagues

>>>> (male and female), the better for the longevity of

>>> our

>>>> profession and our learners.

>>>>

>>>> 3. Even the kind of food served is different. When

>>> we

>>>> had a female president of an organisation in NJ

>>> whose

>>>> board I was on organised lunch we could tell the

>>>> difference: The meat heavy or premade sandwiches

>>> were

>>>> gone. In their place was a smaller, but nicer

>>>> selection of hot and cold platters to choose from

>>> and

>>>> vegetables and fruit were not mere garnishes or an

>>>> unrecognisable green mass to be sidelined. Over

>>> food,

>>>> people actually find the time to sit down and talk

>>> to

>>>> their colleagues and find out what is happenening

>>> in

>>>> the field. In the case of We Learn, such mingling

>>> and

>>>> catching up with old friends was encouraged and

>>> space

>>>> was provided to do just that. Most times our

>>>> conferences are packed (as We Learn was) and the

>>>> inclusion of such time was invaluable.

>>>>

>>>> 3. I think more of us (men and women) ought to

>>> attend

>>>> We Learn, they would enjoy it and see a different

>>> sort

>>>> of conference, one on which future (and larger)

>>>> conferences could be modelled. The only other

>>> meeting

>>>> that came close to We Learn was one organised in

>>>> Portland.

>>>>

>>>> 4. There were some 'greats' there at last year's

>>>> conference. And despite that, there was less/no

>>> top

>>>> down hierarchy one sees when conferences are

>>>> male-focused.

>>>>

>>>> 5. Another important point: the serious inclusion

>>> of

>>>> adult learners. As someone pointed out, We Learn

>>>> includes adult learners. I've made this point

>>> before

>>>> that we tend to now pay lip service to our adult

>>>> learners. We either romanticise them or distance

>>> them.

>>>> We do not really listen to them. And a lot of it

>>> is

>>>> because of the circumstances our field is in:

>>> policy

>>>> dictates it, funding demands it. At We Learn,

>>> awards

>>>> were not important: their voices and opinions

>>> were.

>>>>

>>>> These are my impressions from last year and which

>>> is

>>>> why I regret having missed it this year. Just to

>>> be

>>>> clear, this was not a wishy washy, coffee klatch

>>>> conference. I'd recommend more people attend it to

>>>> find out.

>>>>

>>>> Warm regards,

>>>> Ujwala

>>>>

>>>> --- Andrea Wilder <andreawilder at comcast.net>

>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Wow, Samuel, that's a hard one!

>>>>>

>>>>> I bet an all male conference would seem

>>> different,

>>>>> too--let's trade

>>>>> observations

>>>>>

>>>>> OK--female conference-others chime in.

>>>>>

>>>>> 1)	flowers, music, food

>>>>> 2)	A sense of being sisters--there are givens

>>> that

>>>>> we all share, so

>>>>> laughter can be shared laughter.  Mothers  and

>>> their

>>>

>> === message truncated ===

>>

>>

>> __________________________________________________

>> Do You Yahoo!?

>> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around

>> http://mail.yahoo.com

>> ----------------------------------------------------

>> National Institute for Literacy

>> Women and Literacy mailing list

>> WomenLiteracy at nifl.gov

>> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to

>> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/womenliteracy

>>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------

> National Institute for Literacy

> Women and Literacy mailing list

> WomenLiteracy at nifl.gov

> To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 

> http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/womenliteracy

>