Filia,
Thank you for explaining your side of the story.
As regard Point 1, I am sorry that you have found the title of my email to Stephen “Filia den Hollander” offensive.
As regard Points 2 to 6, I apologize for my incompetence. You have asked me for help and I did what I thought was best in good faith.
As regard Point 7, I did not use all the adjectives to describe you, except "impulsive". My actual word was "impulsiveness". See copy of relevant email below.
For the record, the 3-person email exchanges were actually your exchanges with Stephen. I was involved because both of you cc me the emails. I responded only when there was a request for comments and had to put urgent things aside.
____________________________________________________
"Note that you also presumed a “neutral” position of “moderator” when you published all 3-person emails to the WDDM. This was inappropriate because you were the charged person. In this context, also note that you published Stephen’s backstage one-to-one remarks to you about me. This was unnecessary because all you needed was his consent. In doing so you could stay the “gentle” man and attempt to indirectly intimidate me with Stephen’s remarks about how incompetent I am etc. (it’s the good-guy, bad-guy game)."
As I have stated in my email to Stephen seeking his consent to make public the relevant emails that that was the best defence I had to your serious public accusations that I did not understand at all. There is no question that I am entitled to this defence of stating or publishing facts. All relevant emails were published in full to avoid possible accusations of quoting out of context or suppressing material information.
_____________________________________________________
"Note also that I offered to explain things one-to-one to you and to apologize publicly for having brought things up to the WDDM (I’m clever enough to make sure that there were “witnesses” to my proposal). You did not answer, i.e. accept my proposal but sent all the 3-person emails to the WDDM forum. You then asked me to come forward with my explanations, as if you’re the nice and open guy, but as you had already ignored my proposal, I refused to play this game. Hence I refused to answer."
I did not respond to your offer because it is irrelevant. I have already committed myself to make public the revelant emails pending Stephen's consent and after your serious public accusations against me, one-to-one or private email exchanges with you are no longer possible.
Your surprise, wild personal attacks against me were overwhelming causing me much anguish, bewilderment and damage. I had to defend myself. I was not playing game at all.
_________________________________________________
"I think this suffices as an explanation.
I don’t think your email to Stephen, the one which was named “Filia den Hollander” was an active or conscious attempt to discriminate me. You probably genuinely meant well. However this is common practice how women are discriminated by men and not acknowledged for their work. I decided to not accept it to happen in this case, especially because this whole combination (the whole verbal jiu-jitsu) was so vicious and really put me in a non-position (hence my accusation that my sovereignty was damaged and that this is unacceptable). As I said, you may not have done this consciously — nevertheless you are responsible for your actions. (Most people do not consciously harm other people. Nevertheless they sometimes do and are thus responsible for it.)"
This is no reason to luanch wild public accusations, especially after I had told you that if you were angry with my email to Stephen (cc to you), I was indeed very, very surprised. I could have understood, if you told me off, chided me, screamed at me or said whatever you liked or even used abusive words in front of Stephen.
Anyway, you have already destroyed the confidentiality and trust in our private email exchanges by bcc your email to the Dutch Network of Women Organization Advisors.
And I was further surprised when you luanched public accusations against me with escalating seriousness at the WDDM.
I hope that this is the last email I have to write to WDDM on your accusations. Some WDDM members have already shown impatience with 'irrelevant' emails that irritate them.
Eric
===================================
Please note that my following email to Stephen cc Filia was written in response to her request for help: "It could be of help if you publicly support me, write “Filia has a point” or something like that. See what you can do."
===================================
| Date: |
Fri, 15 Apr 2005 05:42:28 -0700 (PDT) |
| From: |
"lpc1998" <lpc1998(at)lpc1998.com> |
| Subject: |
Filia den Hollander |
| To: |
"Stephen Neitzke" <stephen(at)ddleague-usa.net> |
| CC: |
"Filia" <fkdh(at)xs4all.nl> |
Hi Stephen,
I was about to send you a note enquiring about your health when I saw your interesting response to Bruce on Mark Morford's column yesterday.
As regard Filia, you and me, we are 3 very different individuals with very different experiences and approaches to the issues of common concern to us. We have plenty to learn from each of us and our challenge is how to cooperate with each other without being overwhelmed by our differences.
I do understand how you feel when Filia becomes very pushy with what concerns her most without realizing the personal problems and limitations of her partners. However, she is basically a very nice and warm lady whom I am glad to have made friends. And without her implusiveness, she would have made a great friend indeed.
As regard your TRG proposal, I have been to your website and made some Google searches, but I am still unable to locate a full comprehensive text of the latest Nebraska Constitution. Only I have more time, I would be able to do a better job.
Best Regards
Eric
____________________________________________________
| Date: |
Sat, 16 Apr 2005 12:00:27 +0200 |
| Subject: |
Re: Filia den Hollander |
| From: |
"Filia den Hollander" <fkdh(at)xs4all.nl> |
| To: |
"Eric Lim" <lpc1998(at)lpc1998.com>, "Stephen Neitzke" <stephen(at)ddleague-usa.net> |
Dear Eric,
Our one-to-one emails included into considerations too, where you evaluated Stephen and said not to want to go into arguments with him because of his bad medical condition, as well as that I at least twice had stretched out my hand to Stephen, not the other way around, this below message is at the cost of me, it’s macho and it’s manipulative.
It’s a good example of contemporary suppression of women by men, and I’m happy to bcc it to some members of the NVOA (Network of Woman Organization Advisors). We have a work-group there which investigates on how we can give emancipation a new swing. Whether intentionally or unintentionally done by you, the result is the same —and so is your responsibility for it— and we need to analyze these matters in order to be able to adequately rebuke them. For I’m a strong believer that silence, or ignoring, is in fact approval or in any case not helping development to take place.
Trying to
turn this into a moment where we all can learn, as well as genuinely angry,
Regards,
Filia
_________________________________________
| Date: |
Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:46:28 -0700 (PDT) |
| From: |
"lpc1998" <lpc1998(at)lpc1998.com> |
| Subject: |
Re: Filia den Hollander |
| To: |
"Filia den Hollander" <fkdh(at)xs4all.nl> |
| CC: |
"Stephen Neitzke" <stephen(at)ddleague-usa.net> |
Dear Filia,
Are you angry with my email to Stephen (cc to you)? If you do, I am indeed very, very surprised.
Apparently, you have found it macho, manipulative and a good example of contemporary suppression of women by men.
Since you have referred it to the Network of Woman Organization Advisors for investigation into your charges, I am reserving further comments until the results of their investigation are known.
Cheers!
Eric
___________________________________________________
| Date: |
Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:32:53 +0200 |
| Subject: |
Re: Filia den Hollander |
| From: |
"Filia den Hollander" <fkdh(at)xs4all.nl> |
| To: |
"Eric Lim" <lpc1998(at)lpc1998.com> |
| CC: |
"Stephen Neitzke" <stephen(at)ddleague-usa.net> |
I don’t accept peace-making at my expense.
Kind regards,
Filia
==================================
Filia den Hollander <fkdh(at)xs4all.nl> wrote:
Eric,
Just to eliminate the chance that you genuinely do not understand why I became so angry.
- in the Subject of your email to Stephen you wrote “Filia den Hollander” - as if I were some object to analyze
- I did not ask for assistance as a personal favor or to save me or something. I asked for your assistance in an objective, i.e. rational discussion point, namely that it is better to collaborate than to stay separate. I had addressed Stephen about this, and had specifically addressed his rational abilities (he never answered this email). Note that I wrote to you backstage: “Write “Filia has a point” or something like this”. I was not at all inviting you to evaluate me on my qualities as a friend but on my “objective” qualities, i.e. my contribution(s) to the DD community. I asked for you to contribute as an engaged member of our 3-person community
- backstage you had written not to want to lock into some argument with Stephen because of his health — yet at the same time you also criticized his behaviour (or whatever term) in your one-to-one email to me. You never backstage commented my behaviour — which would have been a gesture of a genuine friend. In doing so (both keeping your comments on Stephen backstage and stating to not want to enter any argument with him because of his health) you attempted to prevent me from referring to your backstage comments regarding Stephen
- by using the word “impulsive” you put me in the position of a lesser species. As if I am only able to act impulsively, not rational and considerate
- by the word “impulsive” I was prevented to comment on anything. For if I did, I would have been regarded as “impulsive” exactly
- you didn’t criticize Stephen but started a chat with him about me (the stuff about being 3 different personalities is self-evident and therefore had no real meaning), i.e. you did not at all take up a neutral, bridging position
- “impulsive” is also exactly a word to qualify women, as is the later so often used word “emotional” (as are “over-emotional” and “furious” and “desperate” and “emotional tirades” and “twistings” and “inability to recruit the right people” et cetera). This is an often used method by men to make women numb
Note that you also presumed a “neutral” position of “moderator” when you published all 3-person emails to the WDDM. This was inappropriate because you were the charged person. In this context, also note that you published Stephen’s backstage one-to-one remarks to you about me. This was unnecessary because all you needed was his consent. In doing so you could stay the “gentle” man and attempt to indirectly intimidate me with Stephen’s remarks about how incompetent I am etc. (it’s the good-guy, bad-guy game).
Note also that I offered to explain things one-to-one to you and to apologize publicly for having brought
things up to the WDDM (I’m clever enough to make sure that there were “witnesses” to my proposal). You did not answer, i.e. accept my proposal but sent all the 3-person emails to the WDDM forum. You then asked me to come forward with my explanations, as if you’re the nice and open guy, but as you had already ignored my proposal, I refused to play this game. Hence I refused to answer.
I think this suffices as an explanation.
I don’t think your email to Stephen, the one which was named “Filia den Hollander” was an active or conscious attempt to discriminate me. You probably genuinely meant well. However this is common practice how women are discriminated by men and not acknowledged for their work. I decided to not accept it to happen in this case, especially because this whole combination (the whole verbal jiu-jitsu) was so vicious and really put me in a non-position (hence my accusation that my sovereignty was damaged and that this is unacceptable). As I said, you
may not have done this consciously — nevertheless you are responsible for your actions. (Most people do not consciously harm other people. Nevertheless they sometimes do and are thus responsible for it.)
Again, to make the fact undeniable that I try to bridge the situation, I include some witnesses. I don’t mind fights. They are facts of life. But I do think that I’m obligated to try to explain my points in the fight (that is, as long as I trust that it will help bring things forward and to an improved mutual understanding). It might also be that some of the witnesses didn’t understand what (“the heck”) that was “all about”.
The future will show if this was a constructive fight or a destructive fight.
Kind regards,
Filia
PS If some of the other cc’s (apart from Stephen) did not want to be informed about all this, my apologies.
PPS I bcc’d my email to the Dutch Network of Women Organization Advisors for analysis, because
usually, when something like this happens to a woman, she feels somehow screwed up without knowing why. This sense of disempowerment is what causes the “emotional” outcries, i.e. unexplained (and sometimes unexpected) anger. It’s because you-guys do this kind of stuff so clever and so fast and we are too slow to understand and analyze all the jiu-jitsu (and their implications) to adequately be able to rebuke them. We need to develop language for this — hence the whole undertaking was also “practice”, or, exercise for me — for we need to start to challenge the, what is called: “glass ceiling” in our careers.