ecl@hocsj.UUCP (10/10/84)
Some interesting statistics: Of the 53 articles in this newsgroup reaching my site this week, 30 were written by men 13 were written by women 10 were written by people whose gender could not be determined (Determination was generally made on the basis of signature, though internal evidence--such as saying "we women"--or external knowledge--such as I know the person--was also used.) Of the 26 posters: 19 were men 8 were women 9 were people whose gender could not be determined Now someone will undoubtedly complain that "men are taking over net.women." This is not what *I'm* saying. I am sure that the proportion of female posters in this group is higher than that in the Usenet as a whole. I just started to notice how most of the discussion here was being carried on by men. What was interesting was how much they disagreed with each other. Anyone who thinks it's "men versus women" either hasn't been reading this group. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl
stank@uiucdcs.UUCP (10/13/84)
<>
Given that many women justifably want men to become aware of
women's porblems, attitudes, etc., I'd say that the obvious interest
some men have in net.women is a good sign. At least topics which
used to do unmentioned are now discussed (albeit by a relatively few people).
I also think (based on observation of my fellow note readers here at the
U. of I.) that a good number of men regularly read net.women, even if they
don't choose to participate in the discussions.
Stanley Krolikoski
U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
..!pur-ee!uiucdcs!stank