rburns@csi (Randall Burns) (08/20/85)
net.women.only already exists for the purpose Karla described. If she doesn't like it, she should considers started a moderated newsgroup rather than browbeat people. I think Lori & Karla's remarks smack of sexism & seperatism.
features@ihuxf.UUCP (aMAZon) (08/26/85)
> > net.women.only already exists for the purpose Karla described. If she doesn't > like it, she should considers started a moderated newsgroup rather than > browbeat people. > > I think Lori & Karla's remarks smack of sexism & seperatism. It's not separatism to demand freedom from harrassment. -- aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL; ihnp4!ihuxf!features
gkloker@utai.UUCP (Geoff Loker) (08/26/85)
In article <40@csi> rburns@csi (Randall Burns) writes: > >net.women.only already exists for the purpose Karla described. If she doesn't > like it, she should considers started a moderated newsgroup rather than >browbeat people. > >I think Lori & Karla's remarks smack of sexism & seperatism. net.women.only is dead and gone, thanks to a lack of willingness on the part of men to respect the group's name (i.e. -- leave it at "women only"). Or so I heard. It would appear that certain men would post to it complaining about the topics women wanted to discuss. Apparently they felt that women should discuss rape, feminine hygiene products, and matters dealing with a certain time of the month, rather than such mundane topics as how to clean panty-hose, inter-personal relationships from a woman's point of view, etc. (Sounds a lot like net.women, doesn't it, where some men seem to try to dictate what topics get talked about, rather than treat this group as a meeting-place to learn about each other and what is important to each other. [DISCLAIMER: This is not to say that *all* men contributing to this group are like this; this is not to say that *all* women contributing to this group are not like this. It seems to me, though, that the women do a better job of this.]) Fortunately, there are enough posters who believe that this is a good spot to try to come to an understanding about men and women to make it worth- while wading through the drivel/garbage/crap that comes from viewing this group as an arena for combat. You may be right -- maybe there should be a mod.women newsgroup in addition to/instead of the mailing list? Any opinions out there on this? -- Geoff Loker Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Toronto, ON M5S 1A4 USENET: {ihnp4 decwrl utzoo uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!gkloker CSNET: gkloker@toronto ARPANET: gkloker.toronto@csnet-relay
chabot@miles.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/28/85)
> net.women.only already exists for the purpose Karla described. If she doesn't > like it, she should considers started a moderated newsgroup rather than > browbeat people. Good Grid, every time anyone posts to net.women.only soon thereafter there is a general uproar on the topic as to whether even just posting to net.women.only (AND indicating one is a woman) is sexist. Men post to net.women.only about as often as women; folks of all genders post letters stating that it be eliminated (and *my* memory tells me it's usually more m than f, but oh well). Browbeating goes on all over the net. I don't know why we can expect to be different here. >sigh< L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (08/28/85)
> > net.women.only already exists for the purpose Karla described. If she doesn't > like it, she should considers started a moderated newsgroup rather than > browbeat people. > > I think Lori & Karla's remarks smack of sexism & seperatism. Learn your history. Net.women.only failed because some men insisted on posting to it, despite its charter. The mail.feminists mailing list was created to take its place. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
wdm@ecn-pc.UUCP (William D Michael) (08/31/85)
In article <616@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >> >> net.women.only already exists for the purpose Karla described. >> >> I think Lori & Karla's remarks smack of sexism & seperatism. > >Learn your history. Net.women.only failed because some men insisted on posting >to it, despite its charter. The mail.feminists mailing list was created to >take its place. >-- >Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) Why was a newsgroup even created in the first place? Mail -> private and exclusive; newsgroup -> public and open. bill michael. "Woe to he who tries to teach men faster than they can learn."
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/01/85)
> > net.women.only is dead and gone, thanks to a lack of willingness on the > part of men to respect the group's name (i.e. -- leave it at "women only"). > Or so I heard. It would appear that certain men would post to it > complaining about the topics women wanted to discuss. I remember men posting to it complaining that they weren't allowed to post to it. > You may be right -- maybe there should be a mod.women newsgroup in addition > to/instead of the mailing list? Any opinions out there on this? > -- > Geoff Loker Take a look at the moderated newsgroups. Most of them are virtually unused. For some reason, they don't work, probably because it's too hard to post to them. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff