ecl@hocsj.UUCP (11/06/84)
I've just read David DiGiacomo's article on []'s rationale(?) for net.women.only. (Whether or not David DiGiacomo should have posted what was obviously a personal reply to the net is a moot point now. I will refrain from naming the original respondee, however.) I've also just read Tim Maroney's discussion of freedom to post to the net. A comparison is in order. [] says: >The group net.women.only was formed to allow some women some space to chat >without being dominated by the men, but again, the men intruded and >prevented any woman-space. I resent the use of the word 'intruded'--this implies that men were prohibited from reading from/posting to this newsgroup. This is discrimination without a doubt. (I also dislike the connotations of 'chat', but that's another story.) And why only *some* women? If she wants a private group, then for *****'s sake, make it a *private* group--like the BPOE or the Jaycees :-). >Therefore an underground mailing list was created for a moderated group >whose focal interest is feminist issues. A FEW men are included. "Some of my best friends are..." (If you don't recognize the sarcasm in my statement, think back to Archie Bunker.) >net.women.only is the last vestige reminding us what assholes men are >with their itchy rmgroup fingers, and their dominant attitudes to control >everything! Back off! It still serves for women to request to be >included. Their replies are answered by mail, not by news. Get it? >Please go play in net.women, >and stay out of net.women.ONLY ONLY, get it? Geesh!! <PUT ON ASBESTOS SUITS> If the supposed purpose of net.women.only is to villify and castigate men for being men (which they can't avoid without sending a *lot* of money for a trip to Sweden :-) ), then trash it now! If someone claimed that net.religion.jewish was there to "remind us what assholes Christians are," they would be rightfully considered a danger to society. Well, [] is also a danger to society if she thinks that the proper use for Usenet is to tell 51% of the people what assholes the other 49% are because they are members of a certain minority. I read net.religion and net.motss. In the former, evangelicals persist in damning the unbelievers. In the latter, heterosexuals condemn the homosexuals. I am by no means supporting their opinions in these attacks, but they are at least attacking something than their opponent has *some* control over. (No flames from gays here please--for the most part, the attackers are attacking your actions. If you were a celibate homosexual, that would probably be okay with them.) But [] wants to condemn people because they were born of the wrong sex. Hell and damnation, woman, are you stupid or just dense? What the **** have *you* been complaining about all along?!?! Tim Maroney points out: > However, in the USA it is illegal to discriminate against anyone > on the basis of religious or political affiliation, or to deprive them of > access to a medium without due process. If [] supports the ERA, then she should quit trying to undermine its goals. (If she doesn't, I'd be curious to know why not.) "You can't just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk." I have rarely been as appalled at someone's attitude towards the "proper" use of newsgroups as I am towards []'s. As far as intolerance goes, she takes the prize! <You can take off the asbestos suits now.> And the sole purpose of a public newsgroup should not be to let people get on private mailing lists. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (11/07/84)
Wow, Evelyn! Which side of bed did *you* get out of today? (I know-- through the ceiling...) Who said *anything* about net.woman.only having to do with man-hating? Or the mailing list, for that matter. Just the facts, ma'am. As West-coast archivist of the feminist mailing list, I can state that no man-hating has ever gone on in any of the couple-hundred messages exchanged so far. All I see is women and men sensitive to feminist ideas exchanging experiences and mutual support, and having discussions where respect for the opinions of all involved is the rule and not the exception. Our hard-working moderator reports remarkably few problems with hostile, off-the-wall postings. (The number rejected is probably no more than one percent.) Evelyn, I'm having a hard time understanding your hostility. Could you tell me and the net just what it is you are so angry about? -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
hollis@ucf-cs.UUCP (William ) (11/07/84)
When I first started reading the net, it was understood (by the introduction) that net.women.only was ONLY for women. There is already a net.women for discussion of ideas with women. I do not believe that net.women.only is discriminitory, but put there for a specific purpose. Since others didn't agree with that purpose, and chose to ignore 'the rules', ie social agreements between people on the net, we can see how little traffic there is in net.women.only. Why do people always want to screw things up? I duuno, just rambling again. The social agreement was broken, and now everybody is mad. Oh well. Ken Hollis
sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) (11/08/84)
from net.news.group: net.women Women's rights, discrimination, etc. net.women.only Postings by women only (read by all). Historically, this was the charter for net.women.only. HIstorically, it only worked a little while before the men intruded on this ONE bastion of women space on the net, and dominated the women's discussions. Since the charter alone had not been sufficent to keep the men from dominating, the underground mail list was created to keep them from dominating the discussion which women wanted to carry on without being dominated by men. It fell into disuse, and now only serves as a painful reminder of the battle of the sexes. I didn't ever claim that this is how it should be. Nor that that is the function it should serve on USENET. I was just relating the historical development of it. I don't like the situation either. David merely was the n'th male to come and hassle women in net.women.only. Read the damn charter, and then get lost. The point of it is not to put down men, but that they have to be put down for their continued intrusions on space they were asked to leave inviolate. As far as which men are included in the feminist newsgroups, any who don't attempt to dominate the discussions have been included. > I've just read David DiGiacomo's article on [Sunny's] rationale(?) for > net.women.only. (Whether or not David DiGiacomo should have posted what was > obviously a personal reply to the net is a moot point now. It is not a moot point. It is further evidence of male hostility to womens' private space. In fact, he requested permission to post that private reply, and against my wishes, posted what was intended as a private reply, obviously for the purpose of stirring up trouble. Why? Because when he insisted on quoting me, he chose to quote my original private mail to him, rather than to use a nicer version I offered him which would have been more constructive and helpful to the network community, explaining the history of net.women.only, rather than incendiary. His intent is clear. So is yours. I refuse to participate any further than this. This is exactly why the feminist mailing list was started. So we don't continually have to defend our space against male hassling, intrusions, attempts to deprive us of same, etc. We have the right to assemble freely, and you shall not deny us. Our purpose is NOT to put down men, but to have them stop putting US down and dominating us. Naturally, I represent only my own opinions of the moment, which are rather angry and likely to evidence hostility otherwise absent. -- exit {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems Inc.)
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (11/09/84)
> > I've just read David DiGiacomo's article on [Sunny's] rationale(?) for > > net.women.only. (Whether or not David DiGiacomo should have posted what was > > obviously a personal reply to the net is a moot point now. > > It is not a moot point. It is further evidence of male hostility to womens' > private space. [.....] > > {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems Inc.) I must take exception to this one comment of Sunny's. I don't see any need to interpret the posting as "evidence of male hostility to womens' private space". I think "evidence of hostility to being told that he can't do whatever he pleases" is quite sufficient. I've found that men in general (and women, for that matter!) do not take kindly to being told to shut up, even under circumstances where it is clear to most people that, in fact, they should not be saying anything (such as a man posting to net.women.only). I've seen many flames about people having their "freedom of speech" suppressed when someone complained about the inappropriateness of an article in any of dozens of newsgroups; I don't think that the fact that "women" appears in the newsgroup name necessarily has anything to do with the article getting posted. Never assume malice when simple arrogance suffices, Dave Martindale
ag5@pucc-k (Henry C. Mensch) (11/10/84)
<> >from Ed Hall <decvax!randvax!edhall> > >Who said *anything* about net.woman.only having to do with man-hating? >Or the mailing list, for that matter. Just the facts, ma'am. . . >. . . . . . . . . . All I see is women and men sensitive to feminist >ideas exchanging experiences and mutual support, and having discussions >where respect for the opinions of all involved is the rule and not the >exception. Ed, I hate to break the bad news to you, but Sunny Kirsten <whom Evelyn defines as []> made an awfully nasty posting which is downright *violent* toward men... It noted that we (men) were all assholes and the like.. This kinda sounds like man-hating in my book. She also noted that only a few men who wouldn't dominate the discussion in the mailing list would be included... Having been on the list only a short time, it appears to me that this isn't the intent of the mailing list. Even you state this above. >Evelyn, I'm having a hard time understanding your hostility. Could >you tell me and the net just what it is you are so angry about? It isn't Evelyn's hostility to worry about, but Sunny's . . . It definitely indicates a horrible attitude toward the other half of human creation.. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services {ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|seismo|allegra|cbosgd|harpo}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5 ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ackphft!"
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (11/11/84)
Reference: <224@hocsj.UUCP>, <2095@randvax.UUCP> Ed Hall says: > Who said *anything* about net.woman.only having to do with man-hating? > Or the mailing list, for that matter. > Evelyn, I'm having a hard time understanding your hostility. Could > you tell me and the net just what it is you are so angry about? Since I quoted the original article before, I won't repeat it. (The original article did not make it to all sites, which is why I quoted it.) There was someone who did say those things. Whether they are true or not I can't say, but they were the *only* reasons I had seen for net.women.only up to that point. I stand by my belief that a public newsgroup is for everyone who is interested in the subject and who is responsible (a.k.a. reasonably polite). If net.women.only is for everyone it's a hell of a poor choice for a name. I am a firm believer in the reasoned argument/debate being much more productive than virulent attacks on other people. I believe that even in my incensed state, I gave some rational arguments against the comments I was responding to. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
ecl@hocsj.UUCP (11/11/84)
Reference: <224@hocsj.UUCP>, <1779@sun.uucp>
("> > " is my original posting, "> " is Sunny's reply)
> from net.news.group:
> net.women Women's rights, discrimination, etc.
> net.women.only Postings by women only (read by all).
>
> Historically, this was the charter for net.women.only.
Historical reasons for discrimination are no excuse. Historically, women were
not able to vote in this country. So what does that prove?
> The point of it is not to put
> down men, but that they have to be put down for their continued intrusions
> on space they were asked to leave inviolate.
This is still a generalization (and an unfair one) on men.
> > I've just read David DiGiacomo's article on [Sunny's] rationale(?) for
> > net.women.only. (Whether or not David DiGiacomo should have posted what was
> > obviously a personal reply to the net is a moot point now.
>
> It is not a moot point. It is further evidence of male hostility to womens'
> private space.
It is a moot point because it can't be undone. And I know just as many women
who betray confidences as men.
> His intent is clear. So is yours.
My intent was/is to show that reverse bigotry is still bigotry.
Evelyn C. Leeper
...ihnp4!hocsj!ecldavid@bragvax.UUCP (David DiGiacomo) (11/13/84)
In article <1779@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten) writes: >> I've just read David DiGiacomo's article on [Sunny's] rationale(?) for >> net.women.only. (Whether or not David DiGiacomo should have posted what was >> obviously a personal reply to the net is a moot point now. > >It is not a moot point. It is further evidence of male hostility to womens' >private space. In fact, he requested permission to post that private reply, >and against my wishes, posted what was intended as a private reply, obviously >for the purpose of stirring up trouble. Why? Because when he insisted on >quoting me, he chose to quote my original private mail to him, rather than >to use a nicer version I offered him which would have been more constructive >and helpful to the network community, explaining the history of net.women.only >,rather than incendiary. His intent is clear. As I recall, Sunny gave me her (reluctant) permission to quote her original message, but requested that I post the "nicer" version. I did not, mainly because I found the original funnier and more interesting. My (conscious) intent was to avoid net.boredom. Although I can't really disagree with any of Sunny's comments, I still think net.women.only should be removed. Would a net.woman like to step forward to do the honors? -- David DiGiacomo, BRAG Systems Inc., San Mateo CA (415) 342-3963 (...decvax!ucbvax!hplabs!bragvax!david)
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (11/20/84)
I'm posting this rather than mailing it since the error I am trying to correct was also made publically. Quoted from an earlier posting of mine, concerning the feminist mailing list: > >. . . . . . . . . . All I see is women and men sensitive to feminist > >ideas exchanging experiences and mutual support, and having discussions > >where respect for the opinions of all involved is the rule and not the > >exception. > And Henry Mensch's reply: > Ed, I hate to break the bad news to you, but Sunny Kirsten > <whom Evelyn defines as []> made an awfully nasty posting which is > downright *violent* toward men... It noted that we (men) were all > assholes and the like.. This kinda sounds like man-hating in my book. Henry, I have every posting sent to that list (all 360+ of them). Although Sunny is a reader, she has yet to post anything. Furthermore, I doubt that Sunny made such a posting to net.woman or net.woman.only. About the only problem I've had with her postings is overgeneralization. (Is there anyone among us who isn't guilty of it?) Perhaps you are thinking of a couple of postings from ``trish@sun'' that raised such a ruckus several months back. These were to net.women, and certainly wouldn't be the only examples of man- or woman-hating so posted (if you wish to call it such). Keep your facts straight, please. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall