kim@emory.UUCP (Kim Wallen {Psychology}) (03/23/84)
I watched while the argument raged about forming net.women.only and wondered what would actually get posted once it was formed. In looking over the news items since its inception I think the content is interesting. A majority of the postings are either complaints about males changing the subject, dominating the postings, or talking about how to form a mailing list. I find this intriguing because it suggests the real function of net.women.only. Let me illustrate my point. The issue of unecessary surgery was raised and eventually the issue of male circumcision entered into the discussion. At this point the issue turned away from any discussion of unecessary surgery to how males were changing the topic to reflect their interests and dominating the discussion. Now it is true that as soon as women in the newsgroup decided to discuss what males were submitting that males had successfully changed the topic, but why did anyone respond in the first place? It seems that a simple way to deal with males changing the topic is to stick to the topic which women have chosen in the first place. If women stop posting articles about hysterectomies does this mean that they have been forced out by the males' postings on circumcision, or that they have said all that they have to say? The notion that any group can force the discussion in one direction makes no sense where every posting occurs in private with no pressure from anyone else. This pattern of starting a topic and then having a spirited discussion about who can appropriately talk about the topic suggests that net.women.only really functions to deal with the issue of power or powerlessness. Some object to it, not because of content, but because of its implicit political message. Some support it, again often not because of content, but because of its political message. I think topics get changed because for some there really is only one topic in net.women.only; who's in charge. Clearly net.women has successfully raised many important issues and resulted in a wide ranging discussion from both boys and women. So the newsgroup itself does not determine the quality of the discussion. The issue of getting rid of net.women.only has come up again and that has led to a spirited defense of the newsgroup. This suggests a real need for net.women.only to provide a continuing catalyst for discussions of the roles of males and females. Until the issue of a mailing list appeared the newsgroup bumped along with a relatively low level of participation. Now that the mailing list is operational it seems that the issues raised in net.women.only can be discussed there with no interference. I am sure that any issues of net-wide interest which develop in the mailing list will eventually end up in the appropriate news group. However, I do think that net.women.only should remain. Its existence serves as a reminder that historically issues which seem to be content oriented are really struggles for power or the appearance of power. As a newsgroup net.women.only has been more successful in defending the view of power gained, which is important, than addressing the issues it was originally created for. Some women are never going to feel comfortable talking about menstruation in a public forum no matter what its name is. So I disagree with Don Stanwyck about getting rid of net.women.only. No one is forced to read it or respond to what is posted there, but if it serves a useful political purpose for some members of the net then why not leave it alone. I will continue to read it because it has raised important issues which should be discussed. If this is the only forum where some users feel comfortable posting then it should stay. Kim !emory!kim