nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (08/26/85)
> ...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... > ...could have the group all to themselves? It was my understanding that, except for the "general" groups, each group is intended for a minority of people on the net who share a particular interest. Hence, the answer to the question is "Yes, the majority is told not to post to a newsgroup so that the minority for whom it was created can have it all to themselves." So, the question, it seems to me, is "What is the common interest for which net.women exists?" Is it supposed to be a forum for saying anything one wishes about women? For slinging mud at those with whom we disagree? For women to share experiences and encouragement? Many of us think it should be the latter, with, perhaps an opportunity for others to "listen in" to what women are thinking, feeling, and doing. This is not women asking for special privileges. It is a group of people (male and female) who share a particular interest asking that the group not be dominated by people who are not contributing to that interest. It is a group of people frustrated because it really does appear that we are being discriminated against on the net...we are not accorded the same courtesy that other "minorities" (subscribers to net.politics, net.religion, etc.) are given. Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/26/85)
Nancy Parsons writes: > So, the question, it seems to me, is "What is the common interest for which > net.women exists?" Is it supposed to be a forum for saying anything one > wishes about women? For slinging mud at those with whom we disagree? For > women to share experiences and encouragement? Many of us think it should > be the latter, with, perhaps an opportunity for others to "listen in" to > what women are thinking, feeling, and doing. The description of net.women in the list of newsgroups posted in net.announce.newusers reads in its entirety, "Women's rights, discrimination, etc." This isn't a terribly clear description of the purpose of net.women. I think it should be clarified whether this newsgroup is intended to be: A. A support group for women, to which (primarily or exclusively) women post articles to share experiences and encouragement, and for others to listen in to educate themselves about what women are thinking, feeling, etc. B. A forum for discussion of topics related to the feminist movement, the position of women in society, the oppression of women in history, sexism and patriarchy and their effects on the lives of women, the differences between men and women and to what extent the differences are to be attributed to biology or culture, and so forth. I am all in favor of having both kinds of newsgroup on the net, but I don't think a SINGLE newsgroup can reasonably be expected to serve BOTH purposes very well. Similarly, if a "net.blacks" is created, it must be clear from the outset whether it is supposed to be a support group for blacks or a forum for discussion of racism, etc. If net.women is supposed to fulfill purpose B, it is to be expected that articles will often be posted by males expressing anti-feminist views, and they have a right to do so as long as they are courteous, just as Don Black has a right to express his anti-Semitic views in net.politics, however odious one may consider his beliefs. Also, loudmouths will by definition post more frequently than the thoughtful quiet types. > This is not women asking for special privileges. It is a group of people > (male and female) who share a particular interest asking that the group not > be dominated by people who are not contributing to that interest. OK -- my point is that this interest should be well-defined: the purpose of net.women should be made clear to all readers of Usenet. If that interest is defined as "feminism, women's position in society, and related topics," I think that the anti-feminists are just as interested in this subject as are feminists. > It is a group of people frustrated because it really does appear that we > are being discriminated against on the net...we are not accorded the > same courtesy that other "minorities" (subscribers to net.politics, > net.religion, etc.) are given. Net.politics and net.religion were never, as far as I know, intended to serve as mutual-support groups for adherents of a particular political philosophy or religious belief; they were intended to be discussion groups for anyone with an interest in politics or religion. So I don't see an analogy here. I am a male who is interested in learning more about feminist theory and politics and how this relates to my own life, and particularly in feminism from a left perspective (Engels, Juliet Mitchell, etc.). I would regret having to confine such discussion to net.politics with its low signal-to-noise ratio. Be that as it may, expecting net.women to fulfill both purposes A and B above can only lead to frustration. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/26/85)
> This is not women asking for special privileges. It is a group of people > (male and female) who share a particular interest asking that the group not > be dominated by people who are not contributing to that interest. > > It is a group of people frustrated because it really does appear that we > are being discriminated against on the net...we are not accorded the > same courtesy that other "minorities" (subscribers to net.politics, > net.religion, etc.) are given. I see your point, but you should probably be careful with your analogies. I'm sure there's at least as much crap flying on net.politics and net.religion as there is on net.women. And somehow I don't think that's what you meant by "courtesy". Jeff Winslow
crs@lanl.ARPA (08/27/85)
> > > ...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... > > ...could have the group all to themselves? > > It was my understanding that, except for the "general" groups, each group > is intended for a minority of people on the net who share a particular > interest. Hence, the answer to the question is "Yes, the majority is told > not to post to a newsgroup so that the minority for whom it was created can > have it all to themselves." I'm sorry, Nancy, but I think you are wrong about this. The following is a quote from net.announce.newusers, Subject: Rules for posting to Usenet: net.women.only Men are discouraged from participating, and are forbidden from criticizing a topic or person in this newsgroup. I think you are confusing being "told they were not to post to it" with the statement of the specialty for which a group is formed. Saying that net.blivets is for the discussion of blivets is not the same thing as telling a large segment of the net that they may *NOT* post to net.blivets. Net.women.only was most certainly a *special* privilege for women (as opposed to the *general* privilege of Usenet in general. How anyone can claim this is not so escapes me. > > So, the question, it seems to me, is "What is the common interest for which > net.women exists?" Is it supposed to be a forum for saying anything one > wishes about women? For slinging mud at those with whom we disagree? For > women to share experiences and encouragement? Many of us think it should > be the latter, with, perhaps an opportunity for others to "listen in" to > what women are thinking, feeling, and doing. This is another issue entirely. From net.news.group, Subject: List of active newsgroups (August, 1984): net.women Women's rights, discrimination, etc. While mud-slinging is not expressly forbidden, one would hope that common courtesy and good taste would apply to *both* men and women. And hope and hope and .... > This is not women asking for special privileges. It is a group of people > (male and female) who share a particular interest asking that the group not > be dominated by people who are not contributing to that interest. Fair enough... But not always obvious from some of the posting (again by *both* men and women); it certainly was not obvious (to me and apparently to others) in the article that began this particular discussion. The principle complaint that I perceived in that posting was that more men than women posted to net.women. That doesn't surprise me as much as the fact that the ratio isn't more extreme than it is. There are, I suspect, more than three times as many men as women on the net as a whole, but that is another (earlier) article. > It is a group of people frustrated because it really does appear that we > are being discriminated against on the net...we are not accorded the > same courtesy that other "minorities" (subscribers to net.politics, > net.religion, etc.) are given. Perhaps there isn't as much interest in politics and religion as there is in women on the net as a whole. As to courtesy, see above. > Nancy Parsons > AT&T ISL -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
shebs@bcsaic.UUCP (stan shebs) (08/28/85)
In article <962@druxo.UUCP> nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) writes: > >So, the question, it seems to me, is "What is the common interest for which >net.women exists?" Is it supposed to be a forum for saying anything one >wishes about women? For slinging mud at those with whom we disagree? For >women to share experiences and encouragement? Many of us think it should >be the latter, with, perhaps an opportunity for others to "listen in" to >what women are thinking, feeling, and doing. > >Nancy Parsons >AT&T ISL It was my understanding that net.women is for "women's issues", which is of equal interest to both men and women. Where else can men participate in discussion of women's issues? Where else can men observe other men being sexist in such a blatant fashion (I've seen some real eye-openers myself!)? net.women.only was created as a place "for women to share experiences and encouragement", which is why I supported it at the time. Presumably the mailing list now serves that function. As for "those slinging mud", it's very easy to overflow file systems via mail in /usr/spool, and there are more than a few men who deserve it... stan shebs