...Why the fuss...?
What I don't understand is why a group of grown women - many 30+ - are so overly concerned with the idea that there is a group of individuals who seem to have some sort of secret knowledge of the workings of something or anything. Isn't that true of any large group of people? We're a community of 3500+ people - I have to liken that to a small city, or better yet, a small college.

Let's use that example. You're in a college/university of 3500 people. Do you know each and every one of those people individually? Of course not. Should you expect to know each and every one? Not realistic, even if you work in the college bookstore (as I did for 3 years). But you will know *of* people. You'll know of those who are the governing powers and you will know of those who put themselves out there - for community service, or a theatre production, or end up being the feature article in the paper because they are in need of something or are having a particularly rough time of things. You're going to know of the class clown, because *everyone* knows the class clown - how could you avoid them? You're going to know of the head cheerleader, because she's always in front of the crowd.

Are you going to know them personally? Not likely, unless you run with the same crowds they do, or end up rooming with one of them in a strange and random twist of fate. Or unless you're stalking them (or vice versa). You're going to personally know the people that you hang out with - but why do you hang out with them? Is it because they're out there for the world to see (as the examples above), or because you really enjoy their company and have things in common with them?

I'm betting on the latter. You're going to know those people that you work with on a committee, or take a few classes with, or room with in a dorm. These are going to be the people that are your friends. If you're not an athlete (or if you are, say, a champion diver), are you going to know every person on the softball team? Not likely, especially if you don't play softball. What if that softball team was winning game after game, undefeated for months and was the group of people that always was behind the "Toys for Tots" at Christmas and feeding the hungry all around the year, and behind all the silly shows and pranks that were played - like when the captain wears a Santa hat in a St. Patrick's Day Parade or the school newspaper being changed out at Homecoming (with a small credit to the softball team on the paper)? Everyone's going to know of them - especially know of their captain, because he's the motivator (most likely) and the leader of the team. He's the visible figure in the group.

They're going to have their own in-jokes, their own history, their own private discussions, right? Do you begrudge them that? Because they're the vocal and visible majority, should you hold that against them? What about your book group that meets once a week to discuss some great Greek work and the latest gossip from around the school? Should the softball team hold *that* against *you*? While you're pointing fingers at them and accusing them of having secret jokes, they could be doing the same right back to you. It's not because either group actually has secrets - it's just that each group has their own history and friendships, and the two groups might not mix well with each other. Or even consider it because it's just not something that crossed their minds.

Or maybe you come from a third group - should you hold it against the first two groups because they have their own discussions and jokes and history? Should they hold your stories and jokes against you? What about fraternities and sororities... they have their own rules, parties, and in-jokes. Should you hold that against them even though you decided not to pledge to any of them?

...and just who *is* the in-crowd anyway?
Now, what I've explained here might be a little muddled, so let's clear it up a little further. In a large community, you're going to have microcosms of societies that build up and break down and reform over time. You may have your group of friends, and someone else has their group, and there's another one over there. Get-Together's (GTGs) are great examples of this. Just wander that forum and see how many groups there are out there that get together (or attempt to) on a semi-regular basis. I'm sure they have their own jokes that spring out of discussions and outings. Are *they* separate in-crowds?

I think a lot of people are likening the TWBB to high school instead of a college. The "in-crowd" in high school was never filled with nice people, and they always looked down their noses at people. The problem is, most of those people that comprised that crowd really didn't know what life was all about. They were afraid to be themselves, or to let down their guard and be friendly to a new kid (unless they had the right look, the right classes, the right car). They had their comfort zone, and excluding other people was just fine with them. It's hard work to get to know someone new, after all, and people in the "in-crowd" are lazy by nature - coddled into confidence because they have this group that they've cultivated and fear a change in dynamics, or they simply loathe change. One big thing with any "in-crowd" is that you're only *in* if you have good gossip to share. Or can really cut someone down.

Funny, I never saw myself as a gossip or a meanie. Here's the next issue I have with this notion of a TWBB 'in-crowd': many people see me as it's Queen, and that all my friends must be part of this so-called crowd. Frankly, I think that anyone who has ever communicated with me, either quietly or openly, must be part of the 'in-crowd'. So beware, readers of mine who have commented in the past! You've probably been branded a member of the 'in-crowd' whether you like it or not! Now, I work for a living, despite what some people think and I don't have time to communicate with all the active members of the board. I would like to talk with more people, but to be able to do that, I might have to put my existing friends on a schedule so that I could fit someone in, and that's not very friendly, right?

---

Oh, let's see.... I have 15 minutes on the third Tuesday of every month that I can speak with you. But if you miss that, then you're out of luck.

---

Actually, that's not accurate - I have time for all the friendly people who have emailed and IM'd me over the last couple of years. Some of them I talk to regularly - like when you talk to your best friend at school all day, and then hop on the phone with them at night.

But then, if you've never communicated with me, wouldn't that put you in your own little 'in-crowd'? Or those folks who complain so vocally that there *is* an 'in-crowd' and that its insulting to the rest of the community (I see some of the same names over and over again in the debates when they arise) - aren't they an 'in-crowd' too? They speak the same language, have the same complaints and most likely have their own barbs about the people they think are in the crowd.

So, again I find myself asking: what is it that's got some 30+ year old women's knickers in a twist over this when the question arises? Is it because I'm a moderator and they perceive bias' that aren't really there (or do they wish there was bias so that they could knock me down a notch)? Why are they so concerned with whether or not there is an "in-crowd"? Some of those women are probably reading this and saying that they don't really care, but I'd like them to remember this moment when next they complain publicly about it or cry that they weren't invited to the party.

---

At this point I'd like to recommend reading Mercer Mayer's newest Little Critter book called "Just Not Invited" and muse upon the message in that story.

---

Is it that their self-esteem is just so darned low that they have to reach out and punch at those whose self-esteem is in no danger at all? Is it the general feeling of being left out of something that they wouldn't have been a part of anyway because they don't try to communicate more with other people, or because they'd rather talk about Greek poetry than try and play softball (if you're confused, go back and re-read the section about the small college)?

Or is it something more - something about themselves. Why aren't *they* included? Is it a grand "me" complex: What about *ME*? *I* am an important person too, so why don't *I* know about this? Why don't people talk to *ME*? Are some people so self-centered and self-important (or don't see past the end of their noses to the big picture) that they have to openly be angry that they're not friends with someone that they don't see eye to eye with in the first place? Another point: yes, it can be difficult to be friends with someone who is diametrically opposed to many things in your life, but it's not impossible if you both are willing to TRY and willing to keep an open mind.

Is it really critical to someone's well-being, or self-image, that they know absolutely everything that's going on around them? That they must never be left out of *anything*, ever? If I lived my life that way, I'd never get anything done. And I'd probably be considered the biggest busybody gossip that anyone's ever met. Yes, when I'm visiting with a large group of people, I tend to move from group to group and find out what's going on. Sometimes I'm successful; sometimes not. Either way it's no skin off my nose because I know that the world does not revolve around me, and that everyone has their friends, their in-jokes, and the security of things that are around them in daily life.

The TWBB doesn't need another discussion about an "in-crowd" - they *are* an in-crowd - no one's excluded from posting. It's not membership by approval process. It's a community and it's comprised of a whole bunch of little 'in-crowds' because lots of people have their own little groups of friends that they 'associate' with either in person, via email, or IM. They have their own discussions that aren't aired for everyone to share in, and their own in-jokes - either about stitching, television, or other people on the board. Just like the college in my example above - communities don't operate with a hive mentality, like the Borg. It isn't one big collective of people who think the same way and communicate with everyone the same way all the time. It's a collection of very diverse people who have differing opinions and perspectives about all sorts of things - and communicate those opinions and perspectives in the best way that they know how. People who have like ideas and opinions will tend to speak among themselves, while others of other opinions will go speak among others like them. There will still be a class clown, a cheerleader, a class president, the drama queen (or two or three), the pest, the athlete, the wallflowers who don't talk to anyone because either they're shy or they think no one likes them. There are the watchers and the participators and the misfits.

And, of course, subsets of all of them that people consider 'in-crowds'. Notice I say 'consider'... a perception of a situation....

Does it really matter who fills what role? No, of course not. In a changing community, with people who change, roles can rotate and morph all the time. Am I saying that people need to be pidgeonholed with an identity like the one above? No, and if you still think that, then you've missed my point. People's perceptions are what they are - and if you perceive that there needs to be a drama queen, you'll find someone who can fill that role. If you perceive that there is an in-crowd, or needs to be one for whatever venting reason you have, then you're going to find a group that fits the description or your needs at the time. Does there have to be roles? For some people, yes, because it's a feeling of security that some things never change and they have someone to look to, or beat down on.

In a group of 3500+ people, there's no way that there can be just *one* in-crowd. There's multiples. It just seems that one particular group gets picked on and pointed out simply because of the actions and visibility of one alleged member of the group. An accused leader. Me and my "Mindless Minions". The couple of people that I've bounced that one off of laughed when they heard it (and they're people that I have daily contact with too) because of the absurdity that they don't think for themselves. They're the folks that I have some of the most interesting debates or discussions with.

Then again, maybe there really aren't any in-crowds at all, and the idea/perception of one was thought up by a single individual who was upset about something. And mob mentality took over (or it was cheered on by a good friend of the hurt individual) and made it what it is today. Others who think it exists could be insecure, frustrated, feeling left out, feeling unimportant, or feeling envious that there could be a tight knit group of people who love to have fun. Or love to do whatever it is that they do. Whatever the thought, if there is or isn't in-crowds, it's not going to change the person that I am or change the friends that I have. If they haven't figured that out, then they really don't know me (or any other self-assured individual) very well at all.

And maybe that's part of the problem, no? All it takes is a simple email saying 'Hi', or an inbox message asking a question about something that was said that you don't understand because maybe it has history that goes back a few years. Or even a few months, if someone is new. I learned in kindergarten that asking question, listening for answers, and jumping right in to try something new are the only ways to actually learn something.

So... now that I've run out of wind in my sails, I'm going to get some work done for the day, and hope that y'all who are reading haven't fallen asleep, and haven't posted on the board about whether or not there's really an in-crowd. You're going to get a couple of different answers: Yes, Absolutely; No, We're Tired of Discussing This; and Who Cares, Get A Life/Grip? But if you do post, and things get out of hand...

...I might have to pull out the Box O' Fun. *winks at those who happen to know that old joke of hers from long ago*