karla@drutx.UUCP (RikansrudKB) (08/15/85)
After ignoring most this newsgroup for a while, because of the
plethora of male-submitted, uninteresting articles, I decided to go
through some articles and tally up the submitters. This resulted
in some interesting statistics:
Of the first 141 articles: 41 were from women
100 were from men
Thinking this was rather phenomenal, I did the same thing to
the next 142 articles, this time: 34 were from women
108 were from men
Don't you men think this is a little peculiar? Do you all
think that each little passing thought is *so* insightful/unique/clever
/whatever that you *must* post each one to the net? SPARE US!
Stream of consciousness is not appropriate for this forum.
The subjects being discussed are also interesting:
rape/clothing/and asking for it, arranged Indian marriages
where it's consistently the 'girl' and the 'man' being
discussed, pronouns, and most recently and most amusingly, men
(programmers, students, and engineers, not MDs) writing about PMS!
GIVE ME A BREAK!!
What is this, Intro to Women's Liberation, 101?? Why don't *most* of
you guys get some basic women's issues/liberation 1985 knowledge from
your local women's bookstore/coalition, and quit cluttering up the net
with your poorly thought out comments? (Some of you really say some
silly things sometimes.) With less of this juvenile 101 discussion we
could *all* spend more time on more useful discussion like: parenting,
breast cancer treatments, child care, working situations, other women's
health issues, women still earning $0.52 for every $1.00 a man earns,
a woman's right to her body, etc.
With the exception of Adreienne, Moira, Jeanette, Sophic, S. Badian,
Sunny, and a few others, very few women submit to this group. I think
many women read it, (or would read it) but don't want to get involved
in these often trivial discussions (like myself). Plus, many of you
guys come off as if you'd chew them up and spit them out. (Some of
you are often *truely* unkind.) I'm sure I will receive a lot of flames
for this ungenteel submission, but I couldn't keep quiet about male
monopolization any more.
I am *not* saying that men have no right to write to this newsgroup
(or quietly read it and not respond). (Men *are* 47% of the population
and have more jobs in this industry than women and more power in the
world. They play a big part in women's lives, issues, and
problems.) I am saying: spend a little more time thinking and
absorbing and observing, and less time reacting with a quickly written
retort. I am saying: lighten up and quit taking your every thought so
seriously. (A bet: that most of the flames I get as a response to this
posting are from just those men I'm talking about, and that the articles
of support will come from the men I'm not talking about and from some
women.)
As has been said recently (by a man with insight), there is no net.men
because men dominate *all* of the newsgroups. (Why do you suppose
net.women.only and a private women's mailing list were started?)
Please give us a break and dominate everything else, but not
this newsgroup! Thanks.
Very Sincerely,
Karla Rikansrud
AT&T Information Systems
11900 N Pecos, Denver, CO 80234
drutx!karlalmf@drutx.UUCP (FullerL) (08/15/85)
Alright Karla. I couldn't agree more. I used to post more often but being attacked got very old. I still read this group but now I mostly read articles by the people you mentioned and skip a lot of the rest. In fact there are about 5 people whose articles I automatically do not read as soon as I see the name. I'm glad yo spoke up, every so often that needs to happen. Lori Fuller ihnp4!drutx!lmf
amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) (08/16/85)
> I think > many women read it, (or would read it) but don't want to get involved > in these often trivial discussions (like myself). Plus, many of you > guys come off as if you'd chew them up and spit them out. (Some of > you are often *truely* unkind.) I'm sure I will receive a lot of flames > for this ungenteel submission, but I couldn't keep quiet about male > monopolization any more. > > Karla Rikansrud > drutx!karla Well, I think, for the most part, that I have kept my mouth shut here, but now I'm really mad. Out of one side of your mouth you waiving the flag for equal treatment, freedom to compete with men, more power for women, etc., and out of the other side you seem to be saying that you women just don't have what it takes to "dominate" this forum, so we men should "let" you dominate it. Karla, I wish I could say all this to you in person, because I think we would both do a better job of listening, but... If you want power, you have to make it. Yourself. Or in concert with other people who feel the way you do. You do *not* get it by asking others to give it to you, which is what you are suggesting here. If you have to ask for it, you don't deserve it. The only reason net.women is not dominated by women is because the women don't post articles--you admit this yourself. If you want to change the topic to breast cancer, don't ask the men to do it for you, do it yourself. Get all the women that you know to post an article about it along with you. Karla, I am never going to step aside and let someone have what I have worked for, *just* because they are female, or black, or have six toes. You will have to prove that you are equal to me on a level playing field. Affirmative action is a sad excuse for equality; it merely makes discrimination legal. And note that I support fully whatever it takes to create a level playing field, for both of us! But affirmative action is not it, and I think you already have equal opportunity on the net. Best regards, Andy Cohill (A male of the species) {ihnp4|allegra}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (08/17/85)
> After ignoring most this newsgroup for a while, because of the > plethora of male-submitted, uninteresting articles, I decided to go > through some articles and tally up the submitters. Why do these "uninteresting males" have the honor now? > This resulted in some interesting statistics: > Of the first 141 articles: 41 were from women > 100 were from men > Thinking this was rather phenomenal, I did the same thing to > the next 142 articles, this time: 34 were from women > 108 were from men > Don't you men think this is a little peculiar? Yes, it is more than a little peculiar. It used to be 1 to ~10 instead of 1 to ~3 which is what your statistics is suggesting. > ... and most recently and most amusingly, men > (programmers, students, and engineers, not MDs) writing about PMS! Anything wrong with that ????? > What is this, Intro to Women's Liberation, 101?? Why don't *most* of > you guys get some basic women's issues/liberation 1985 knowledge from > your local women's bookstore/coalition, and quit cluttering up the net > with your poorly thought out comments? (Some of you really say some > silly things sometimes.) Not only that but there are some who actually respond with some really silly things of their own! > With less of this juvenile 101 discussion we > could *all* spend more time on more useful discussion like: parenting, > breast cancer treatments, child care, working situations, other women's > health issues, women still earning $0.52 for every $1.00 a man earns, > a woman's right to her body, etc. There are *other* newsgroups to discuss *all* of the topics you just mentioned (Such as net.kids, net.medicine, net.politics, net.abortion). So perhaps net.women *is* the place for "juvenile 101 discussions". > With the exception of Adreienne, Moira, Jeanette, Sophic, S. Badian, > Sunny, and a few others, very few women submit to this group. In other words a small number of women write most articles submitted by women to net.women. > I think > many women read it, (or would read it) but don't want to get involved > in these often trivial discussions (like myself). Well, you just did. > Plus, many of you > guys come off as if you'd chew them up and spit them out. (Some of > you are often *truely* unkind.) But are the guys the only ones who are "often *truely* unkind" ? > I am saying: lighten up and quit taking your every thought so seriously. What *should* I take seriously then? Your thoughts? Are you serious? Are you lightened up? If you are lightened up, then may be *your* thoughts are not so serious? Should *your* thoughts be taken seriously? Why should I not take my thoughts seriously? Maybe we should first decide who is lightened up. I guess this makes me one of the unenlightened, but I still like to take my thoughts seriously. > As has been said recently (by a man with insight), there is no net.men > because men dominate *all* of the newsgroups. (Why do you suppose > net.women.only and a private women's mailing list were started?) Why do I suppose someone like you who is more interested in "useful discussions" is wasting her time in net.women and not sticking to net.women.only or the mailing list? Farzin Mokhtarian ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Where does the wind make its home?" "Where does the wind make its home?"
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (08/17/85)
In article <231@whuts.UUCP> amc@whuts.UUCP (Andy Cohill) writes: [in response to complaints from Karla that men dominate net.women] >Out of one side of your mouth you waiving the flag for equal >treatment, freedom to compete with men, more power for women, etc., >and out of the other side you seem to be saying that you women just >don't have what it takes to "dominate" this forum, so we men should >"let" you dominate it. > >If you want power, you have to make it. Yourself. Or in concert with >other people who feel the way you do. You do *not* get it by asking >others to give it to you, which is what you are suggesting here. If >you have to ask for it, you don't deserve it. > >Karla, I am never going to step aside and let someone have what I >have worked for, *just* because they are female, or black, or have >six toes. You will have to prove that you are equal to me on a >level playing field. Affirmative action is a sad excuse for >equality; it merely makes discrimination legal. And note that I >support fully whatever it takes to create a level playing field, for >both of us! But affirmative action is not it, and I think you >already have equal opportunity on the net. Wait a minute - since when are either men or women engaged in a contest for control of net.women? I believe, and I'm sure I'm not alone, that this USENET group should be used for productive discussion, not arguments nor attempts to "dominate". I would humbly suggest that anyone, male or female, whose interest in net.women has anything to do with domination, should go do it in some other newsgroup. This *isn't* a competition to see who can shout loudest. If we are going to compete, how about everyone trying to make their articles be the most relevant, the most useful to other people, rather than just spouting one's own opinion in order to be heard. a prolific user of the "k" key, Dave Martindale
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (08/19/85)
karla@drutx.UUCP (RikansrudKB) says: > > >With the exception of Adreienne, Moira, Jeanette, Sophic, S. Badian, >Sunny, and a few others, very few women submit to this group. I think >many women read it, (or would read it) but don't want to get involved >in these often trivial discussions (like myself). Plus, many of you >guys come off as if you'd chew them up and spit them out. (Some of >you are often *truely* unkind.) > >As has been said recently (by a man with insight), there is no net.men >because men dominate *all* of the newsgroups. (Why do you suppose >net.women.only and a private women's mailing list were started?) >Please give us a break and dominate everything else, but not >this newsgroup! Thanks. > Very Sincerely, > > Karla Rikansrud > AT&T Information Systems > 11900 N Pecos, Denver, CO 80234 > drutx!karla Being one of those "many women (who) read it ... but don't want to get involved in these often trivial discussions" may I say, Here! Here! Karla! Thank you very much. -- \"\t\f1A\h'+1m'\f4\(mo\h'+1m'\f1the\h'+1m'\f4\(es\t\f1\c _______________________________________________________________________ Terry Grevstad Network Research Corporation {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/19/85)
> From Karla Rikansrud: > > After ignoring most this newsgroup for a while, because of the > plethora of male-submitted, uninteresting articles, I decided to go > through some articles and tally up the submitters. This resulted > in some interesting statistics: > > Of the first 141 articles: 41 were from women > 100 were from men > > Thinking this was rather phenomenal, I did the same thing to > the next 142 articles, this time: 34 were from women > 108 were from men > > Don't you men think this is a little peculiar? Do you all > think that each little passing thought is *so* insightful/unique/clever > /whatever that you *must* post each one to the net? SPARE US! > Stream of consciousness is not appropriate for this forum. > I believe what you should tally is the number of women on the net compared to the number of men. You may find that the response from women is then propor- ionate. If it is not proporionate then it may perhaps show that the male tends to be or get more involved with the issues. And if this is the case, SO WHAT! >
brianc@tekla.UUCP (Brian Conley) (08/19/85)
> > After ignoring most this newsgroup for a while, because of the > plethora of male-submitted, uninteresting articles, I decided to go > through some articles and tally up the submitters. This resulted > in some interesting statistics: > > Of the first 141 articles: 41 were from women > 100 were from men > > Thinking this was rather phenomenal, I did the same thing to > the next 142 articles, this time: 34 were from women > 108 were from men > > Don't you men think this is a little peculiar? Do you all > think that each little passing thought is *so* insightful/unique/clever > /whatever that you *must* post each one to the net? SPARE US! > Stream of consciousness is not appropriate for this forum. > Stop right there Karla. I've been reading this group for a few minutes and I'VE noticed one interesting point already. Authors submit *MULTIPLE* postings to this group. How about giving us ALL the information , such as how many authors are men, how many are women, (how many are both?) who (which author) submits the most articles, do women write fewer, long and clearly thought out stuff while men do 'quickies', etc.? For all I know there could be only ten people out in net.land who contribute to this (I hope not). > > I am *not* saying that men have no right to write to this newsgroup > (or quietly read it and not respond). (Men *are* 47% of the population > and have more jobs in this industry than women and more power in the > world. They play a big part in women's lives, issues, and > problems.) I am saying: spend a little more time thinking and > absorbing and observing, and less time reacting with a quickly written > retort. I am saying: lighten up and quit taking your every thought so > seriously. (A bet: that most of the flames I get as a response to this > posting are from just those men I'm talking about, and that the articles > of support will come from the men I'm not talking about and from some > women.) > > As has been said recently (by a man with insight), there is no net.men > because men dominate *all* of the newsgroups. (Why do you suppose > net.women.only and a private women's mailing list were started?) > Please give us a break and dominate everything else, but not > this newsgroup! Thanks. > Very Sincerely, > > Karla Rikansrud > AT&T Information Systems > 11900 N Pecos, Denver, CO 80234 > drutx!karla OK Karla, you caught me. I fell for the inflamatory opening lines. Now how 'bout the data? ARE men REALLY dominating this newsgroup? Or are we just retorting?
features@ihuxf.UUCP (aMAZon) (08/19/85)
Andy Cohill {ihnp4|allegra}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc writes: > > Out of one side of your mouth you waiving the flag for equal > treatment, freedom to compete with men, more power for women, etc., > and out of the other side you seem to be saying that you women just > don't have what it takes to "dominate" this forum, so we men should > "let" you dominate it.... > > If you want power, you have to make it. Yourself. Or in concert with > other people who feel the way you do. You do *not* get it by asking > others to give it to you, which is what you are suggesting here. If > you have to ask for it, you don't deserve it. > > The only reason net.women is not dominated by women is because the > women don't post articles--you admit this yourself. If you want to > change the topic to breast cancer, don't ask the men to do it for > you, do it yourself. Get all the women that you know to post an > article about it along with you. > Andy, Just where have you been for the last 300 or so years? You talk about taking power, not asking for it. You talk about working in concert with others who share the same concerns. May I give you a historical perspective? Margaret Brent, ca. 1650, demanded the right to vote on the grounds that she was the trustee for her childrens' estate, and, as a property holder, she should be able to vote. She was denied. Abigail Adams, 1775, who informed her husband that the women of America were not to be treated as inferiors. Lucy Stone, 1840, who defied society's conventions and refused to take her husband's name when they married. (Both she and Henry Blackwell must've been pretty neat people!) The attendants at the 1848 convention in Seneca Falls, New York, where they agreed that Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness were to be inalianable rights for men *and women*. Susan Anthony, who was thrown in jail for trying to vote in 1870. Margaret Sanger, who was thrown in jail for giving contraceptive information to poor women. Margaret Mead, who went off to Samoa and learned much from the people she lived with; although she didn't do things quite in the ordinary or expected way. What about the American Woman Suffrage League? The League of Women Voters? The National Organization for Women? etc. etc. etc. It may be true that there are more men posting in net.women. I think it's true that there are more men on the network, period. And I normally keep my comments to private mail or short submissions. But this lack of perspective (blame the victim syndrome again) was too much to let pass by without some kind of response. Angelina Grimke said that she would happily do the work that men do, provided that "our brothers take their feet from our necks and allow us to stand up and occupy the space God meant us to." Not a whole lot has changed in the 140 years since she said it. I guess we have to follow Mother Jones' advice: "Whatever your fight, don't be ladylike" and keep hope going with that slogan from Anthony's paper, The Revolution: "Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less." -- aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/19/85)
> After ignoring most this newsgroup for a while, because of the > plethora of male-submitted, uninteresting articles, I decided to go [ ^ note adjective pairing ^ - JW ] > through some articles and tally up the submitters. This resulted > in some interesting statistics: > > Of the first 141 articles: 41 were from women > 100 were from men > > Thinking this was rather phenomenal, I did the same thing to > the next 142 articles, this time: 34 were from women > 108 were from men > > Don't you men think this is a little peculiar? I'm surprised the proportion of women is so high. I always thought USENET was far more male-dominated than that. But then, this *is* net.women. > Do you all > think that each little passing thought is *so* insightful/unique/clever > /whatever that you *must* post each one to the net? SPARE US! What makes you think that only men do this? Was that the royal WE? And, above all, why do you expect this newsgroup to be so much different than the rest of USENET? Come down off your high horse and mix with the peasants, Karla. It won't hurt you - and sometimes it's a good idea to question your own basic assumptions about things. Although, if you get hooked and wind up posting a lot of articles, you won't be able to pull that "each little passing thought" gag quite so effectively. :-) Jeff Winslow
crs@lanl.ARPA (08/19/85)
> From Karla Rikansrud: > > After ignoring most this newsgroup for a while, because of the > plethora of male-submitted, uninteresting articles, I decided to go > through some articles and tally up the submitters. This resulted > in some interesting statistics: > > Of the first 141 articles: 41 were from women > 100 were from men > > Thinking this was rather phenomenal, I did the same thing to > the next 142 articles, this time: 34 were from women > 108 were from men > > Don't you men think this is a little peculiar? > I suspect that if you were to normalize your data with respect to the number of the respective sex on the net as a whole the results would show that men are showing remarkable self restraint. Ie: 41 articles from women ---------------------- W total # of women 100 articles from men ---------------------- M total # of men Where "articles" is, of course, the number submitted to net.women by the respecive sex. Does anyone have any information about the total numbers of women & men who participate on the net? I think the ratios of net.women posters to totals would be most interesting. The foregoing is not in any way to be construed as suggesting that the noise level in net.women (as in most other groups) is not abysmal. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (08/19/85)
In article <175@drutx.UUCP>, karla@drutx.UUCP (RikansrudKB) writes: > After ignoring most this newsgroup for a while, because of the > plethora of male-submitted, uninteresting articles, I decided to go > through some articles and tally up the submitters. This resulted > in some interesting statistics: > > Of the first 141 articles: 41 were from women > 100 were from men... > Don't you men think this is a little peculiar? Do you all > think that each little passing thought is *so* insightful/unique/clever > /whatever that you *must* post each one to the net? SPARE US! > Karla Rikansrud ...And we should ride in the back of the bus, too. It must be nice to be a sexist; it simplifies everything. Too bad my sexist's uniform doesn't fit me any more. -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (08/20/85)
> Andy Cohill (A male of the species) > Out of one side of your mouth you waiving the flag for equal > treatment, freedom to compete with men, more power for women, etc., > and out of the other side you seem to be saying that you women just > don't have what it takes to "dominate" this forum, so we men should > "let" you dominate it. > > If you want power, you have to make it. Yourself. Or in concert with > other people who feel the way you do. You do *not* get it by asking > others to give it to you, which is what you are suggesting here. If > you have to ask for it, you don't deserve it. > > The only reason net.women is not dominated by women is because the > women don't post articles--you admit this yourself. If you want to > change the topic to breast cancer, don't ask the men to do it for > you, do it yourself. Get all the women that you know to post an > article about it along with you. > > Karla, I am never going to step aside and let someone have what I > have worked for, *just* because they are female, or black, or have > six toes. You will have to prove that you are equal to me on a > level playing field. Affirmative action is a sad excuse for > equality; it merely makes discrimination legal. And note that I > support fully whatever it takes to create a level playing field, for > both of us! But affirmative action is not it, and I think you > already have equal opportunity on the net. Thank you, Andy, for providing the example I need to make a point: Power is the domain of men. Power is the ability to dominate, via physical force or via buying power. Power is seldom used constructively, cooperatively, or for nurturing. The entire net is dominated by men struggling for power. The one area where women *might* have had a chance to talk together, net.women, has from its inception been dominated by men. Not the kind of numerical domination appropriate to equal opportunity... that of there being more articles in the newsgroup submitted by men because there are more men than women on the net. Rather, it is the kind of domination reflective of the male domain.. that of domination by most successful contention. or, to use *YOUR* words: "You will have to prove that you are equal to me on a level playing field" You see, Andy... in this forum, women don't want to prove anything. We don't want to *have* to prove anything. And everytime men enter the forum, it becomes a game of domination, rightness, superiority, power. And that is why there are so few women posting in this forum. Because the kind of communication which is cooperative and sharing, the kind which comes naturally to women, is impossible whenever the men join in too. As for the quantity of articles, I think you'll find that the following is true: Women DO submit most of the articles. Men submit most of the rebuttals. and they submit most of the rebuttals to rebuttals, and all the contentious stuff that women don't really want to deal with here. And that is why, after net.women failed for this reason, that net.women.only was created.. to keep the men from "dominating" the converstaion... from changing the nature of the conversation from sharing to contention. And when men again refused to respect the charter of the newsgroup known as net.women.only... read by all, posted to only by women... the women of the net gave up and left the net. That is why there is a successful moderated mailing list being operated whose main focus is feminist issues. Approximately half of the mailing list is composed of males. They happen to be the warm nurturing cooperative sensitive kind of males who don't dominate the discussion, and become angry and contentious. I love this kind of male. It's the macho assholes like you who have to turn everything into warfare or games of dominace that I can't deal with, and who are destroying this planet. Once again, I'd like to point out that humankind is losing the battle of life. Mankind is becoming more violent and more hostile and more warlike all the time. Soon we will have nuclear winter. Because so many people are filled with hatred and the need to compete and dominate and have power over other people. And most of these people are men. Ones with an overdose of testosterone. POWER over other humans serves no constructive ends. only COOPERATION can be constructive. HATRED, ANGER, DOMINANCE will destroy this planet. LOVE, CARING, NUTURING, SHARING, and LETTING GO of POWER are the only pathways which will support or enhance life. It's not that I hate men, or that there's something wrong with the male sex. It's dominant and powerhungry individuals who are the problem... (Andy) It's the males with an overdose of agression producing testosterone, who are causing the biggest of problems in the world. Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (08/20/85)
(Why do you suppose
> net.women.only and a private women's mailing list were started?)
Would someone please report on how to subscribe to the private
women's mailing list?
Linda Seltzer
ucbvax!ucbdali!seltzer
or ucbvax!amdcad!lindachabot@amber.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/20/85)
Well, Andy, your letter doesn't really treat with the issue that men do dominate net.women. The biggest issue is that females are outnumbered by males on the network. Hence more posters are men than women. Also, more silent readers are men. So what. What is closer to the issue is that many who might post here do not feel comfortable because of the tenor of the net. I'm sure this is true in many other newsgroups, where the rabid anti-foos post to net.foo, and many of the quieter foos just don't feel like participating in all the posting of profanity and ranting, or rather, don't feel like even posting anything nice and calm in the midst of all the mud-slinging. Accusing women of being too chicken to post to net.women, is an idiotic thing to do. I'm mad too. So there. So what. Go suck eggs. What I'm always perplexed by is the ever-recurring attitude by some men that net.women is a place for them to post "How I Think Women Should Act". Look, buckos, women don't give a hoot if you approve of what you think women should dress like--if you want to say what you look for in a motas, go bother the people in net.singles who are likely to be just as bored by your personal preferences. Besides, what do you think women are here for: looking for recognition and approval by Men? > Karla, I am never going to step aside and let someone have what I > have worked for, *just* because they are famale, or black or have six toes. I don't have to prove I'm anyone's equal and I certainly don't care if anyone decides to withhold such approval. Andy, do tell us just how much you've worked for the right to post to the net, but maybe this is rather a topic for net.news or net.news.group. This isn't a football field, and we're not playing a team or competitive sport, and your analogy's stale. Just how does Affirmative Action relate to net.women, other than as a topic of discussion? Has anyone threatened to deprive you of being allowed to post to net.women because of, say, quotas? However, if this is how you (anybody out there) view net.women or any other net newsgroup, then this would explain a good deal. If competition is the way to go, if the idea is not to appreciate the postings of others but rather to post one better, this would explain a lot. This might explain the cheap pot-shots taken at thoughtful articles. This would explain the absurd cycling over and over about who does what wrong in the bathroom or in the office or on the streets, past the point of humor or wit. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
djo@sdchema.UUCP (Denise O'jibway) (08/21/85)
Thank you Karla for your article. It summed up alot of how I feel about net.women. It is more like net.men.about.women and I just haven't been interested in participating. Denise djo@CHEM.UCSD.ARPA
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (08/21/85)
> After ignoring most this newsgroup for a while, because of the > plethora of male-submitted, uninteresting articles, I decided to go > through some articles and tally up the submitters. This resulted > in some interesting statistics: > > Of the first 141 articles: 41 were from women > 100 were from men > > Thinking this was rather phenomenal, I did the same thing to > the next 142 articles, this time: 34 were from women > 108 were from men > If you're annoyed at the low SNR in this newsgroup (a phenomenon not peculiar to this group, by the by), that's a valid reason for complaint: but it's not clear to me that one can reasonably argue along the lines of "75% of the articles here are from males, ipso facto the SNR here is low". Yes, I too wish people were more circumspect about hitting the "f" key -- but I'm not sure males are somehow genetically more predisposed towards thoughtless followups, here or in any other newsgroup. If you're annoyed at the fact that males submit articles to this group at all, that's another story ... and this we can pursue in net.flame! -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet
judith@proper.UUCP (Judith Abrahms) (08/21/85)
In article <> mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP [*APPARENTLY*] writes: >> I am saying: lighten up and quit taking your every thought so seriously. > >What *should* I take seriously then? Your thoughts? Are you serious? Are >you lightened up? If you are lightened up, then may be *your* thoughts are >not so serious? Should *your* thoughts be taken seriously? Why should I not >take my thoughts seriously? Maybe we should first decide who is lightened up. >I guess this makes me one of the unenlightened, but I still like to take my >thoughts seriously. Can anyone provide me with the algorithm with which lines 2-7 were generated from line 1? I first took them for a random selection of combinations of the original 13 words, but a few extra words have been added here and there, which suggest to the careless reader that a human being created the paragraph. I want this code for a rock-lyric generator I'm writing. The programmer will receive $.05 for every single I sell. Judith Abrahms {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!proper!judith ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat. -- Morley ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
barbaraz@tektools.UUCP (Barbara Zanzig) (08/21/85)
> Andy Cohill {ihnp4|allegra}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc writes: > If you want power, you have to make it. Yourself. Or in concert with > other people who feel the way you do. You do *not* get it by asking > others to give it to you, which is what you are suggesting here. If > you have to ask for it, you don't deserve it. This paragraph strikes me as being remarkably like the taunts of a jailer: "Go ahead! Break out! You could get out of here if you *really* wanted to! I'm not stopping you!" -- We're testing MH.5 and sendmail - please acknowledge this message. Barbara Zanzig {allegra, ihnp4, decvax, ucbvax, hplabs, others}!tektronix!tektools!barbaraz
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/22/85)
Caution! The following article contains language suitable only for REAL MEN, and hairy lesbian feminists. In article <2674@sun.uucp> Ms. Sunny Kirsten overgeneralizes: >Power is the domain of men. >The entire net is dominated by men struggling for power. >And that is why there are so few women posting in this forum. Because >the kind of communication which is cooperative and sharing, the kind >which comes naturally to women, is impossible whenever the men join in >too. >And most of these people are men. Ones with an overdose of >testosterone. I refuse to believe that I am incapable of being "cooperative and sharing" just because I don't have a womb. I also refuse to believe it comes naturally to women. Did "nurturing" come naturally to: Queen Victoria The Bitch of Buchenwald .... I don't think so, unless you considering killing innocent people to make their tattoos into lampshades a "nurturing" act. Or maybe the suppression of freedom of expression is your boat? It really gets me when some "liberated woman" tells me I'm a violent, dominating asshole and that she, by virtue of a pair of breasts, is somehow superior to me. Women were given the right to vote in the 20's because it was felt their "cooperative and nurturing" forced would help politics. It's first real demonstration was when the "Women's Christian Temperance Union" managed to push through prohibition. This merely nurtured the mafia and set up decades of fucked-up attitudes and policies concerning alcohol. The point is that women, at most, are equal to men. >They happen to be the warm nurturing cooperative sensitive kind of males >who don't dominate the discussion, and become angry and contentious. I >love this kind of male. I love people who agree with me, too. Does this mean I have to get the "Sunny Seal of Approval" in order to be a "good male?" Kinda makes me wish I'd been born a woman. That way, I could be a murderer and I'd still get it automatically. >HATRED, ANGER, DOMINANCE will destroy this planet. >LOVE, CARING, NURTURING, SHARING, and LETTING GO of POWER >are the only pathways which will support or enhance life. :-( Thankyou for showing me what "LOVE, CARING, NURTURING, SHARING" really means, Sunny. I almost thought you were making an angry attack on the male gender. I guess I was wrong, because you are a "CARING" woman. :-( Seriously, you spewed a lot of HATE in your posting. I don't give a damn whether or not it was "justified" but your stupid generalizations hurt me and made me PISSED OFF. So now, I'm giving you back some hate. That's the way hate works. I subscribed to net.women because of an interest in womens' issues and feminism at large. I am, however, unsubscribing because I don't want to deal with your hatred and resentment. Oh, I'll still be interested in feminism, and I'll still support the same feminist organizations, but I will probably want to deal with fewer feminist women -- I've begun to discover that they are narrowminded assholes as well. Fuck you and the white horse you rode in on, Sunny. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal Have they not suffered enough?" from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/22/85)
In article <2674@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) writes: > >Thank you, Andy, for providing the example I need to make a point: > Thank YOU, Sunny, for such an entertaining article! >Power is the domain of men. I was gonna keep track of the sexist generalizations that Sunny makes, but they quickly exceeded the limits of an unsigned int. > >The entire net is dominated by men struggling for power. The one area >where women *might* have had a chance to talk together, net.women, has >from its inception been dominated by men. Interesting OPINION stated as fact, Sunny. Besides, are you asking for any special privs due to women because they are women? And we've already been over more times than anyone wants to state. > >And that is why, after net.women failed for this reason, that >net.women.only was created.. to keep the men from "dominating" the >converstaion... from changing the nature of the conversation from >sharing to contention. And when men again refused to respect the >charter of the newsgroup known as net.women.only... <Sigh> Most of the people {male-type} who posted to net.women.only did it for one of two reasons: either they didn't understand what that particular group was about, or they resented the fact that women were demanding equality in *this* group, but seeking special privs in others. I recall a lengthy argument I had with a poster of the second class, where I stated that (although I disagreed with the special privs provided to the women based on their sex), he still should have adhered to the net.announce.newusers postings until the group collapsed under its own contradictions. >... I love this kind of male. It's the >macho assholes like you who have to turn everything into warfare or >games of dominace that I can't deal with, and who are destroying this >planet. Uncalled for generalizations,Sunny! If you disagree with a male posting, do they automatically become "macho-assholes"? > >... Because so >many people are filled with hatred and the need to compete and dominate >and have power over other people. And most of these people are men. >Ones with an overdose of testosterone. > I'm sure you have clinical proof of this, right? Perhaps you had a problem with overdoses of testosterone? Perhaps you had a problem with agressiveness which you attributed to testosterone? Perhaps you are over simplifying matters, or at least projecting your perception of yourself (as a male) to men-as-a-class? That would be sexist, which you like to claim you're not. > >It's not that I hate men, or that there's something wrong with the male sex. I disagree with the first point, and affirm the second. Hey!! You and I actually agree on something? Almost by definition, that means that something is wrong. >It's dominant and powerhungry individuals who are the problem... (Andy) >It's the males with an overdose of agression producing testosterone, >who are causing the biggest of problems in the world. Yeah, Andy certainly is power hungry. I mean, all of his postings show this. He doesn't display the love, warmth, and affection that you do. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn
barbaraz@tektools.UUCP (Barbara Zanzig) (08/22/85)
Andy Cohill: > > If you want power, you have to make it. Yourself. Or in concert with > other people who feel the way you do. You do *not* get it by asking > others to give it to you, which is what you are suggesting here. If > you have to ask for it, you don't deserve it. This strikes me as similar to a jailer taunting: "Come on! You can get out if you really want to! If you can't, you don't deserve freedom!" This is blame-the-victim, all over again. As an analogy, do you think black slaves freed themselves? Maybe, but at minimum they had a *lot* of help - from their "oppressors", even. > The only reason net.women is not dominated by women is because the > women don't post articles--you admit this yourself. If you want to On the other hand, if some male readers respected women enough to just listen for awhile, perhaps we wouldn't get into these constant flame fests. -- We're testing MH.5 and sendmail - please acknowledge this message. Barbara Zanzig {allegra, ihnp4, decvax, ucbvax, hplabs, others}!tektronix!tektools!barbaraz
shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs) (08/22/85)
I'll try to be avoid being contentious, and just ask a couple of questions: In article <2674@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) writes: > >You see, Andy... in this forum, women don't want to prove anything. We >don't want to *have* to prove anything. And everytime men enter the >forum, it becomes a game of domination, rightness, superiority, power. >And that is why there are so few women posting in this forum. Because >the kind of communication which is cooperative and sharing, the kind >which comes naturally to women, is impossible whenever the men join in >too. > > >POWER over other humans serves no constructive ends. >only COOPERATION can be constructive. > >HATRED, ANGER, DOMINANCE will destroy this planet. >LOVE, CARING, NUTURING, SHARING, and LETTING GO of POWER >are the only pathways which will support or enhance life. > >It's not that I hate men, or that there's something wrong with the male sex. >It's dominant and powerhungry individuals who are the problem... (Andy) >It's the males with an overdose of agression producing testosterone, >who are causing the biggest of problems in the world. > > Sunny My question: how did this situation come to be? Is the aggressive behavior of males 1) an evolutionary screwup, or 2) is there some value in such behavior? Or (as seems more likely) 3) is the aggression something that had survival value once upon a time, but is now harmful? If alternatives are 1) or 3), the human race is basically doomed (unless some new method of reproduction becomes standard). If 2), then we put up with it with the situation or die. I suppose that some sort of massive restructuring of the race can be done, but how is one to kill off the aggressive men in a non-aggressive fashion? Should people be bred for nonaggressiveness? (I assume that since the problem is said to be testosterone, not any cultural thing, that a biological solution is required) Presumably free enterprise of any sort is out (since it involves competition)? Socialism can only work in the absence of desires for scarce things - would a socialist state of women really be successful? Trying not to be contentious, (but probably failing) stan shebs bcsaic!shebs
moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (08/23/85)
In article <448@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >> Sunny >>Thank you, Andy, for providing the example I need to make a point: > Ross >Thank YOU, Sunny, for such an entertaining article! Ross, of course, needs no provocation to attack Sunny. Any (every?) article is provocation enough. >>The entire net is dominated by men struggling for power. The one area >>where women *might* have had a chance to talk together, net.women, has >>from its inception been dominated by men. > >Interesting OPINION stated as fact, Sunny. Oh, come off it, Ross. Most of the articles posted could be "opinion stated as fact". Indeed, unless a direct attribution is made, it is the default assumption for many. > Besides, are you > asking for any special privs due to women because they are women? What we asked for was a newsgroup where we could discuss what *we* wanted to discuss without certain men twisting the discussions to fit their interests, because our interests were too petty. A newsgroup where we could express ourselves without being blasted to kingdom come by the flames, without being told that our ideas are worthless. But Sunny said all that and you didn't listen to her, so why would you listen to me. What we asked for was the courtesy to allow us our space on the net. But because of a few men like you, Ross, who would rather open our doors (in the name of courtesy) than give us our space, we have retreated to the mailing list. Because only in an atmosphere where we could control submissions have we been able to avoid the domination of power-mongering males. > >> >>And that is why, after net.women failed for this reason, that >>net.women.only was created.. to keep the men from "dominating" the >>converstaion... from changing the nature of the conversation from >>sharing to contention. And when men again refused to respect the >>charter of the newsgroup known as net.women.only... > >I recall a lengthy argument I had with >a poster of the second class, where I stated that (although I >disagreed with the special privs provided to the women based on >their sex), he still should have adhered to the net.announce.newusers >postings until the group collapsed under its own contradictions. net.women.only did not collapse under its own contradictions! It was flat-out abandoned because it didn't work. I did not see one vote for net.women.only in the recent poll prior to its demise. Where do you think all of those women went? Into the woodwork? I'm not sure where you get off calling net.women.only a special privilege. It seems any time we want something for ourselves you deem it a special privilege, and I guess that's the problem. Equality is not a special privilege, dammit. IT IS OUR RIGHT. I never heard any votes about net.men.only. I can't imagine that the women arguing for our space in net.women.only would have denied the space for a net.men.only. There is a mens mailing list and I haven't heard any women denigrating that. (just a hint, Ross. What you represent to me is quickly changing :-) Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/23/85)
Hmmmmmmm.
Survey time.
Please fill out the below, and mail to me:
Sex:__________________
I do/don't post:__________________
I do/don't post original articles:______________________
I do/don't post followup articles:______________________
I do/don't think net.women is dominated my men:_________________
I do/don't post to net.women because:____________________________
I do/don't consider myself a feminist:_________________
My definition of feminist is:_________________
Other comments:_____________________________
-------------
Feel free to add additional stuff as you see fit. I'll compile the
results and post. Please fill in and mail --- especially you lurkers
out there!
Please
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York
--------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<---------
I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson.
---
"You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention."
-- The Last Unicorncrs@lanl.ARPA (08/23/85)
> > I'm not sure where you get off calling net.women.only a special > privilege. It seems any time we want something for ourselves > you deem it a special privilege, and I guess that's the problem. > Equality is not a special privilege, dammit. IT IS OUR RIGHT. > > Moira Mallison > tektronix!moiram Come on, Moira. What would *you* call it? Was there any other group where the *majority* of the people on the net were told that they were not to post to it so that the minority (I assume that what I read on the net is true that there is not equal representation of women in the computer field) could have the group all to themselves? Believe it or not, I supported net.women.only as I support net.women. What I find insufferable is the self-righteous attitude displayed by this and several other postings. I've been reading this group for a long time and only occasionally post to it. When you speak of having a special newsgroup all to your selves, alone, as an example of "Equality ... not a special privilege, dammit" your credibility suffers immensely. Do you *really* believe what you just said? As others have said better than I can, If you, indeed, want to improve the lot of women, like it or not, you will likely need the support of men bsecause you obviously don't have the support of all women (who are, I believe, still the majority in this country). This doesn't mean that you have to bow & scrape, as many of you seem to believe. It just means that it would make sense not to alienate people unnecessarily (what else would you call calling men testosterone poisoned assholes, or words to that effect?). I realize that Sunny has problems that few have and that that has a strong influence on what she posts. That does not alter the fact that some of her postings, reflecting her frustration and bitterness, were of such a nature as to alienate a lot of people. There have been quite a few postings that are just as alienating with less reason than Sunny has. [My apologies to Sunny for bringing her into this but it was Ross's response to her posting that Moira is responding to.] How about if we quit all of this name-calling and invective and get on with some rational discussion? -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/24/85)
Moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) writes: > >Ross, of course, needs no provocation to attack Sunny. Any (every?) >article is provocation enough. > Nope. Only those that seem to generalize, that seem to be sexist, that say that everything that I am is wrong, and that everything that I am not is good. Lemme see....I'll examine Sunny's articles.....yep.....seems like each one fits the mold. Take anyone of Sunny's articles. Use your global replace and replace every "man" with "women", etc. Now read the little gem. Does it get you angry? Does it seem to over-generalize? Does it seem sexist? If *I* were to post some of her stuff, I'd get lambasted all the way to net.wobegon. Yet it seems that if a woman decides to attack men as a class, then it is okay. Oh, I forgot: this is a *women's* newsgroup: >> Besides, are you >> asking for any special privs due to women because they are women? > >What we asked for was a newsgroup where we could discuss what *we* >wanted to discuss without certain men twisting the discussions to >fit their interests, because our interests were too petty. A newsgroup >where we could express ourselves without being blasted to kingdom >come by the flames, without being told that our ideas are worthless. >But Sunny said all that and you didn't listen to her, so why would >you listen to me. > Well, I'm not all that unreasonable. You've posted some pretty thought provoking articles, you seem to be open minded, you can flame with the best of them, you have an exquisite Color Sense....so I can listen to you. I'm open minded, too, although I must admit that some of my more bone-headed pieces don't seem to show it. That still doesn't get around the idea that *you* are asking for special privs due to your genitalia: you want a place where you sit around and discuss things without the aweful interference of men. Well, the world is full of men. Doesn't it seem a little silly to insist upon equality, as long as you get a little special treatment. As I've said before and I'm forced to say again: "If you demand special treatment, due to your sex, then you may get special treatment due to your sex. It may not, however, be the special treatment you had in mind. But it will be just as sexist as what you demand. Just not always to your benefit." >What we asked for was the courtesy to allow us our space on the net. >But because of a few men like you, Ross, who would rather open our >doors (in the name of courtesy) than give us our space, we have >retreated to the mailing list. Because only in an atmosphere where >we could control submissions have we been able to avoid the domination >of power-mongering males. Whoops! Next thing you know, I'll be a "macho-asshole". Some already consider me one or the other, but not both. Oh, well. So when you sense something blatantly wrong posted to the net, and you decide to stand up and yell "HEY! That's bogus", then that makes you a power-mongering woman? Nah....as Sunny will tell you, only men are power-mongering. So what does it make you when you see something blatantly wrong posted on the net that makes you sit up and yell? Righteous? Holier-than-me? What kind of mood does it make you feel if some asshole on the net says "All women suffer from PMS!" (Nobody *I* know), or "Women are inferior to men!"? Probably makes you want to flame the asshole, as my mailbox is witness to. So how come it is wrong for me flame a sexist asshole myself? Oh.....this is net.women. The place where admitting to holding a door open for women is like admitting to a crime against Nature Herself. > >net.women.only did not collapse under its own contradictions! It >was flat-out abandoned because it didn't work. I did not see one >vote for net.women.only in the recent poll prior to its demise. >Where do you think all of those women went? Into the woodwork? > No. Into their own mailing list, where the nasty world won't bite. The reason that net.women.only didn't work (in my opinion) was that it was a public admission of women seeking special privs. So it wasn't posted to very frequently. So the mailing list was built. >I'm not sure where you get off calling net.women.only a special >privilege. It seems any time we want something for ourselves >you deem it a special privilege, and I guess that's the problem. >Equality is not a special privilege, dammit. IT IS OUR RIGHT. > Read the above for yourself. When there is a net.men, and a net.men.only, then it will be equality. Until then --- watch your contradictions. Utilizing the net as anyone else does is your right. Asking me to step down, based on my sex, from whatever position I hold is not your right. It is just sexist. >I never heard any votes about net.men.only. I can't imagine that >the women arguing for our space in net.women.only would have denied >the space for a net.men.only. There is a mens mailing list and I >haven't heard any women denigrating that. > Well, some have said there is no need for net.men.* because the whole net is overrun by men. I disagree --- we just don't seek any special treatment due to our sex. The mens' mailing list just got reborn, so I don't know how long it will last. >(just a hint, Ross. What you represent to me is quickly changing :-) > Hmmmmm. What am I to make of that? I dunno...what did I represent before? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (08/24/85)
I feel like nominating Ross Greenberg as the Ken Arndt of net.women...
--
Plan: To play as much volleyball as possible.
Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPAgreenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/24/85)
In article <3006@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > >I feel like nominating Ross Greenberg as the Ken Arndt of net.women... Who's Ken Arndt? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn
brianc@tekla.UUCP (Brian Conley) (08/26/85)
> I feel like nominating Ross Greenberg as the Ken Arndt of net.women... > -- > Plan: To play as much volleyball as possible. > > Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 Who is Ken Arndt?
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/27/85)
Charles Forsythe > Caution! The following article contains language suitable only for REAL > MEN, and hairy lesbian feminists. > I refuse to believe that I am incapable of being "cooperative and > sharing" just because I don't have a womb. I also refuse to believe it > comes naturally to women. Did "nurturing" come naturally to: > Queen Victoria > The Bitch of Buchenwald > .... > > I don't think so, unless you considering killing innocent people to > make their tattoos into lampshades a "nurturing" act. Or maybe the > suppression of freedom of expression is your boat? Well, I don't know anyone Victoria I killed anyone, although she and Albert did manage to come up with a lot of children. > Women were given the right to vote in the 20's because it was felt their > "cooperative and nurturing" forced would help politics. It's first real > demonstration was when the "Women's Christian Temperance Union" managed > to push through prohibition. This merely nurtured the mafia and set up > decades of fucked-up attitudes and policies concerning alcohol. What a lot of tripe you've been brought up on. Women weren't "given" the vote. And here were many men and women who urged for temperance that were sincere and had no ties to the mafia. > Oh, I'll still be interested in feminism, and I'll still support the > same feminist organizations, but I will probably want to deal with fewer > feminist women -- I've begun to discover that they are narrowminded > assholes as well. Does this mean you're only going to talk to the male feminists when you deal with feminist organizations? Or will you only deal with the women against your will. You want everyone to deal with you as an individual and not like other males (such as, say, Hitler or Genghis Khan), and yet you're more than willing to lump all feminist women together! You spewed a lot of garbage in your posting. Is this what comes out of mit-vax these days? I'm embarassed for us all. L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/28/85)
> Survey time.
You forgot this question:
I do/don't respond to surveys.
L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabotmokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (08/28/85)
Subject: Re: men dominate net.women (flame-ish) > Thank you Karla for your article. It summed up alot of how I > feel about net.women. It is more like net.men.about.women and > I just haven't been interested in participating. > Denise > djo@CHEM.UCSD.ARPA So if I understand you correctly, the "low quality" of net.women discouraged you from posting any articles but not from continuing to read the newsgroup. Seems almost contradictory to me. Farzin Mokhtarian ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Let the scars of the heart be seen, for by their scars are known those who are in the way of love."
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/28/85)
In article <456@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >Hmmmmmmm. > >Survey time. > Only for a very few of you, it appears. Mostly I've been receiving surveys from the "lurkers" -- those that read but don't post. The surprising thing to me (so far!) is that those that are most vocal on the net haven't responded as of yet. Of course, they might have anything posted by me in their kill file :-) Keep those cards and letters coming, folks! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (08/29/85)
> The point is that women, at most, are equal to men. > The point is that there is no penis envy, but there IS womb envy. Every woman is everything any man is, plus she has the ability to nurture a child. This is the reason for men's fear of women, that men are only the spark which ignites the fire of life which burns within woman. Women are, at least, equal to men. Sunny p.s. you don't like my postings here, then why not question why so many men have been spouting off about PMS, something they've never experienced... that's what started this whole controversy, and got me posting. -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (08/30/85)
There ARE too many counter-productive postings from men in net.women. I simply gave up reading the group a couple of months ago because one had to wade through so much junk to get the gems. (I confess that, because August is such a quiet month here, I just read a whole bunch of the articles in net.women) I, too, wonder how a "mod.women" newsgroup would work out. I suspect it might be a lot more successful than other "mod" groups have been -- but then I would have said the same for mod.motss & we sure don't get many articles at wateng in that group! And, while I am sounding off, I'd like to comment on the following: > No. Into their own mailing list, where the nasty world won't bite. > The reason that net.women.only didn't work (in my opinion) was > that it was a public admission of women seeking special privs. > So it wasn't posted to very frequently. So the mailing list was > built. The reason net.women.only didn't work was because there were too many fellows who would not respect the ".only" -- they insisted on ridiculing articles in net.women.only (either there or, more politely, in net.women) or in sending hostile mail to women posting in net.women.only. There may have been women who spurned the idea (not the reality) of net.women.only as "separationist" (choke. gag. what a word!) but quite a few others of us would have loved a little "woman-space" on the net. --from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM ...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!wateng!jamcmullan
friedman@h-sc1.UUCP (dawn friedman) (08/30/85)
> > Andy Cohill {ihnp4|allegra}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc writes: > > If you want power, you have to make it. Yourself. Or in concert with > > other people who feel the way you do. You do *not* get it by asking > > others to give it to you, which is what you are suggesting here. If > > you have to ask for it, you don't deserve it. > > This paragraph strikes me as being remarkably like the taunts of a > jailer: "Go ahead! Break out! You could get out of here if you > *really* wanted to! I'm not stopping you!" > Well, maybe not that spiteful, because he seems actually to believe in this "principle" about power. It may be true that power can't be obtained by asking nicely. But is power really at issue here, or have we, as so often, zoomed off into needless flames and fumes because of the lighthearted use of heavy words? Does "dominate" in the subject line mean "predominate in"? Maybe it did once, to someone, but it clearly has picked up enough implications of whips and chains, and *power*, to make the discussion read like a cross between a bad Heinlein juvenile and The Sheik of Araby. I haven't noticed all this domination, despite the sheer force of numbers involved in all netgroups; I certainly don't see a male viewpoint, or voting block, that threatens to overwhelm (whimper!) us women; and I have often been pleased to realize that I can't tell whether a man or a woman wrote a particular letter. But, this being a newsgroup and neither Camelot nor Meadowlands Stadium, I rather thought that the issue was courtesy, not POWER, and that someone was asking, not threatening, or begging, the multitudinous males of the newsgroup to back off slightly before torching women's opinions. I personally don't think it's necessary; I'm not sure it's quite etiquette, especially as men have been pretty badly carbonized in these articles (of course, they all deserved it :--)) But surely one can ask without being instantly accused of either aggression or gormlessness. I've been wandering so long because I wanted to add some queries about this "aggression: boon or blessing" panel. Would someone please define aggression in some way that does not allow for poetic paroxysms like Robert Ardrey's about aggression being the innate force that causes "the baby starfish to grow out, the infant mamba to grow long", roses to blossom and men (sic) to seek in old dusty books the secrets of stardust? (In fact, I will offer a prize to anyone who can think up ANY "innate force" that causes these four things to occur, and I'm leaving out quite a few.) As Elaine Morgan said (some of you must know I'm cribbing from her quotation of Ardrey, as I couldn't get past page three of any of his books), stardust is not what Ardrey has in mind when he says that male baboons are more aggressive than female baboons. I really think that we can separate aggressiveness from desire, discontent, the sound of the music from behind the moon that lures young poets to their eternal doom, spring fever, and other marvelous and uncomfortable creative forces. In fact, I am not sure that aggressiveness as a personality characteristic (much less an eternal verity) exists at all. I rather think of it as a tendency to let frustration and anger run away with you ( instead of sending you home to write a satirical poem against Boston drivers, or other creative inspirations.) I'm not saying that it is never a useful quality to have in an imperfect world. But if everyone else agreed to, I'd gladly attend disassertiveness classes... It's just that any quality that is strictly dependent, in my case, on the temperature of the room I'm in, doesn't seem terribly axiomatic to me. I don't suppose the people of this newsgroup would agree to drop the word "aggression" and substitute "bitchiness" from now on, to emphasize the petty nature of the subject? I didn't think so. Now I *will* get flamed at last. Only Harvardians see this, right? We've got to fix that; I'm tired of reading a discussion I have no effect on... ^%*^%T*&%^! to all those unseeing *(&)7!'s out there. And I do hope this helps the baby mambas. dsf (dina/shacharah)
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (08/31/85)
> In article <3006@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > > > >I feel like nominating Ross Greenberg as the Ken Arndt of net.women... > > Who's Ken Arndt? > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York Don't tempt me... -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/31/85)
> > The point is that women, at most, are equal to men. > > > The point is that there is no penis envy, but there IS womb envy. > Every woman is everything any man is, plus she has the ability to > nurture a child. This is the reason for men's fear of women, that > men are only the spark which ignites the fire of life which burns > within woman. Women are, at least, equal to men. > > Sunny > Next time you're camping and you have to be in a precarious position near all those bug infested, scratchy leaves to in order to do 'number 1', you'll have penis envy, guarranteed. As a great bugologist once said: "Spiders are ok if you like things whose jaws go sideways instead of up and down.
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/01/85)
> > Women were given the right to vote in the 20's because it was felt their > "cooperative and nurturing" forced would help politics. It's first real > demonstration was when the "Women's Christian Temperance Union" managed > to push through prohibition. This merely nurtured the mafia and set up > decades of fucked-up attitudes and policies concerning alcohol. > -- > Charles Forsythe Wrong. The 19th amendment gave women the right to vote. Prohibition came with the 18th amendment. How could it have been the fault of the women when they weren't even allowed to vote at the time? The 21st amendment, which repealed prohibition, was ratified after women won the right to vote, so it makes more sense give women some credit for the repeal of prohibition than to give them the entire blame for its institution. I understand that you're only trying to show that women as a class aren't perfect (which is true), but you might try choosing examples based on truth. I also feel that your attack on Sunny Kirsten was unwarranted. Why not just say that you disagree with her and let it go at that? The viciousness of your response shows that you feel threatened by her point of view. Now, it happens that I disagree with Sunny about a lot of things, and the way she expresses herself annoys me sometimes. But it's her opinion, and she has a right to it, especially since she's only advocating a point of view and not any sort of action against me or anyone else. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (09/02/85)
In article <2723@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) writes: >> The point is that women, at most, are equal to men. >> >The point is that there is no penis envy, but there IS womb envy. Interesting opinion.....sorta silly, but interesting nonetheless. >Every woman is everything any man is, plus she has the ability to >nurture a child. This is the reason for men's fear of women, that >men are only the spark which ignites the fire of life which burns >within woman. Women are, at least, equal to men. > (Well, I can I word this without coming off silly? Letsee....if I use the phrase "*some* women" people might consider that too broad. I better not use the word "women" at all. I know....I've got it:) Earth Patrol to Sunny.....Earth Patrol to Sunny...Come in Space Cadet... > >p.s. you don't like my postings here, then why not question why so many >men have been spouting off about PMS, something they've never experienced... >that's what started this whole controversy, and got me posting. Trying not to get into *that* discussion again, did you decide to be one more of the people "spouting off about ... something they've never experienced"? Most of the men asked questions. You made statements about *facts* you couldn't possibly know, but could merely extrapolate. But we've been through this already. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (09/03/85)
> > I feel like nominating Ross Greenberg as the Ken Arndt of net.women... > > -- > > Plan: To play as much volleyball as possible. > > > > Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 > > Who is Ken Arndt? Oh, if only ALL of us could ask that question! :-) (try net.religion for an introduction to Ken's writings) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (09/03/85)
> > The point is that women, at most, are equal to men. > > > The point is that there is no penis envy, but there IS womb envy. > Every woman is everything any man is, plus she has the ability to > nurture a child. This is the reason for men's fear of women, that > men are only the spark which ignites the fire of life which burns > within woman. Women are, at least, equal to men. > > Sunny Oh, cut it out, both of you. How can the concept of equality make any sense when comparing things so complex and so marvelously different as men and women? Now if you want to talk about rights, or income, for example, equality has a meaning. But equations such as men<=women or men>=women say much more about those who put them forth than they do about men or women in general. > p.s. you don't like my postings here, then why not question why so many > men have been spouting off about PMS, something they've never experienced... > that's what started this whole controversy, and got me posting. I question both you and them. What is *your* answer? Jeff Winslow
rick@bmcg.UUCP (Rick Yarbrough) (09/04/85)
> > I think > > many women read it, (or would read it) but don't want to get involved > > in these often trivial discussions (like myself). Plus, many of you > > guys come off as if you'd chew them up and spit them out. (Some of > > you are often *truely* unkind.) I'm sure I will receive a lot of flames > > for this ungenteel submission, but I couldn't keep quiet about male > > monopolization any more. > > > > Karla Rikansrud > > drutx!karla > > Well, I think, for the most part, that I have kept my mouth shut > here, but now I'm really mad. > > Out of one side of your mouth you waiving the flag for equal > treatment, freedom to compete with men, more power for women, etc., > and out of the other side you seem to be saying that you women just > don't have what it takes to "dominate" this forum, so we men should > "let" you dominate it. > > Karla, I wish I could say all this to you in person, because I think > we would both do a better job of listening, but... > > If you want power, you have to make it. Yourself. Or in concert with > other people who feel the way you do. You do *not* get it by asking > others to give it to you, which is what you are suggesting here. If > you have to ask for it, you don't deserve it. > > The only reason net.women is not dominated by women is because the > women don't post articles--you admit this yourself. If you want to > change the topic to breast cancer, don't ask the men to do it for > you, do it yourself. Get all the women that you know to post an > article about it along with you. > > Karla, I am never going to step aside and let someone have what I > have worked for, *just* because they are female, or black, or have > six toes. You will have to prove that you are equal to me on a > level playing field. Affirmative action is a sad excuse for > equality; it merely makes discrimination legal. And note that I > support fully whatever it takes to create a level playing field, for > both of us! But affirmative action is not it, and I think you > already have equal opportunity on the net. > > Best regards, > Andy Cohill > (A male of the species) > {ihnp4|allegra}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc I hope those of you on the net will bear with me for a short while. Although I have been reading various nets for quite some time, I have never really had the desire to get into some of the childish (in my opinion) fights, quarrels, or plain out-and-out wars I have seen develop here. However, I just read an article that really got to me. Let me state that I feel anyone who so wishes, has the right to express their opinion on any subject that may cross the net. However, I also feel (notice the word "I") that we each have a responsibility to do so in an adult manner. Some of the (mudslinging) differences sound more like something I would expect to hear in an elementary school yard. I don't claim to be anywhere near perfect, and I have been known to say some very stupid things. However, due to the fact that this is not an immediate response environment; there is really no reason (in my opinion) for some of the remarks. As stated before, I feel everyone is entitled to an opinion; and I have found some very useful information and some very interesting discussions. In most of the cases where I have seen endless arguments, it seems people are no longer expressing their opinions, but more like trying to force their ideas on others. The particular article that upset me was in net.women. I realize that all nets are open to everyone, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this particular net (I believe) was actually created for the discussion of women's ideas and problems. I myself started reading this net to see what women's ideas and feelings were on the various subjects that seemed to be important to them. I don't necessarily think that anyone (male) is wrong for posting to this group, or that their "OPINIONS" aren't valid, but perhaps they would "LEARN" something if they took more time to read and spent less time writing. After all, some of the topics here really are "WOMENS" topics. Some topics may be more of an opinion subject than others, but (in my opinion), there are some things which men can only guess about, and I see very few men on the net willing to admit this. Have any other men besides myself, ever considered the possibility that the ladies might like to discuss things which may be a little embarassing to them considering that everyone has access to the net, and considering the sometimes rather juvenile responses???? I really don't know how the majority of the women feel about this, but I am rather certain that the flames and downright rude behavior of a few don't help them to open up about some subjects. I don't agree with the particular person who wrote the article which upset me. I feel we have a right to submit our opinions, but I really don't feel we have a "RIGHT" to dominate the net. As I stated above, I started reading this net to get women's insight to things. If some of the other men on this net feel they are more qualified to tell me how a woman feels about things being discussed than the women themselves; I really would appreciate your enlightenment. I'm afraid I can't even tell you how other men feel about some topics, as I don't seem to have the same outlook as the man who posted the article I disagreed with or some of the others who have openly stated that they thought women should be back in the home cooking and taking care of the children.
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/05/85)
> > The point is that women, at most, are equal to men. > > > The point is that there is no penis envy, but there IS womb envy. > Every woman is everything any man is, plus she has the ability to > nurture a child. This is the reason for men's fear of women, that > men are only the spark which ignites the fire of life which burns > within woman. Women are, at least, equal to men. > > Sunny I doubt that the question of whether men are superior to women (or vice versa) is even meaningful. What sort of superiority are we talking about: Emotional stability? Physical strength? Intelligence (whatever that is)? Sensitivity? Biological function (e.g. ability to bear children)? Even if you know what sort of superiority you are talking about, why do you believe that your criteria are important? Can you say that your criteria are more important than mine? How will you go about measuring some of the more nebulous criteria in ways that everyone can accept? What it comes down to is that belief in superiority of groups, even in the possibility of superiority, is not based on objective fact, but rather on a hidden assumption that the concept has a meaning. And trying to nail down the meaning is like trying to pick up a globule of mercury with one's bare fingers. Now can we stop this stupid bickering? P.S. Sunny, I mentioned in a previous posting that the way you express yourself annoys me sometimes. This is one of those times. I realize that you are probably just giving the original poster a bit of his own medicine. However, I see evidence here that you are more interested in hitting back than in getting at the truth (unless you really believe the literal interpretation of your above argument, and are not just being sarcastic). You seem to be displaying some of the aggressiveness you claim to abhor, and which you claim to be chiefly due to testosterone (the influence of which you are now happily freer than before). I don't think I'm applying a double standard here, even though there are some men who post here who are truly obnoxious; I think you are more intelligent than this rabble, Sunny, so I'm saying this with the hope that in the future you will not react to every provocation with remarks which seem intended to make me, as a man, feel small. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
judith@proper.UUCP (Judith Abrahms) (09/06/85)
In article <> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >Next time you're camping and you have to be in a precarious position near all >those bug infested, scratchy leaves to in order to do 'number 1', you'll have >penis envy, guarranteed. HOW MY LITTLE SISTER GOT PENIS ENVY by Judith Abrahms One day when I was 10 and my sister was 4, we visited my aunt's house. I was sitting in the living room, getting bored with grownup talk, when my little sister came running out of the bathroom, where she had followed my cousin Teddy without anyone's noticing. "Mommy!" she cried out enthusiastically. "Teddy's got this pee thing that you can aim, like a hose! He can make it go anywhere! Where can I get one?" Judith Abrahms {ucbvax,ihnp4}!dual!proper!judith ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The race isn't always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way you bet." -- Damon Runyon -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
terry@nrcvax.UUCP (Terry Grevstad) (09/13/85)
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) says: >> > The point is that women, at most, are equal to men. >> > >> The point is that there is no penis envy, but there IS womb envy. >> Every woman is everything any man is, plus she has the ability to >> nurture a child. This is the reason for men's fear of women, that >> men are only the spark which ignites the fire of life which burns >> within woman. Women are, at least, equal to men. >> >> Sunny > > I doubt that the question of whether men are superior to women (or vice >versa) is even meaningful.... >the possibility of superiority, is not based on objective fact, but rather on >a hidden assumption that the concept has a meaning. And trying to nail down >the meaning is like trying to pick up a globule of mercury with one's bare >fingers. Loading Mercury With a Pitchfork - Richard Brautigan > Now can we stop this stupid bickering? Why can't people just be "people"? Why do we have to have the I'm-A-Woman-And-I'm-Equal-To-Any-Man syndrome and the I'm-A-Man-And-I'm-Better-Than-Any-Woman syndrome? I've known many men that I will probably never be the equal of. I've also known many women that I will probably never equal either But my goal is to try and be the equal of these people (Note: "people") because I admire them, be they male or female. And the reasons I admire them has nothing to do with agression, or outspokenness, or masculinity, or femininity. The reasons have to do with the myriad of details that go into each person's (Note: "person") soul. Why do people ask first "Is this person male or female?" Why not ask "Is this person of worth?" (Please, no flames on yes-every-individual is-of worth. To me, each individual's worth depends on my evaluation of that person's worth according to my standards. Who is of worth to me, may not be to you, and vice versa.) In conclusion: I've always liked my name. No one can tell if I'm male or female unless someone tells them, or they meet me in person. I've only been disappointed twice in over 30 years when people have finally met me. -- \"\t\f1A\h'+1m'\f4\(mo\h'+1m'\f1the\h'+1m'\f4\(es\t\f1\c _______________________________________________________________________ Terry Grevstad Network Research Corporation {sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry ucbvax!calma!nrcvax!terry