Nah, it's not so obvious. One of the recurring themes is the question of why so few women participate [⛧]. It's often written off to confrontation or the typical male pattern of simply waiting until it's your turn to talk, etc. But I think there's something deeper lurking, some style at work. What's "obvious" to some will not be obvious to all. This, BTW, is a hallmark of groups where some members are more tightly coupled than others and subtext is rampant. Good ol' boys are called "good ol' boys" for good reasons. (I'm not saying I know what those reasons are, of course. I'm as abusive as the next *guy*. But to sweep it all under the rug as "we know each other and engage in this behavior all the time" or some sort of unwritten standard that identifies abusive behavior, seems inadequate.)
I know almost nobody who reads this will care about such meta-narratives. C'est la vie. [⛧] And I don't intend to be sexist about it. It's just one example. I know at least 1 male participant who feels put off by the implicit style of the group. On 12/8/20 12:16 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Obviously it was not “abuse”. -- ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
