ntt@dciem.UUCP (Mark Brader) (03/08/84)
I just saw this short item by Shelley Heretyk (abnjh!heretyk): For those who suffer from "Static Cling" there's a product called "Static Guard" that works great. You can find it in the laundry section at the grocery store. So where is the sex prejudice in that? Well, she posted it to net.women.only! Mark Brader
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (03/18/84)
I'm not sure, but I think I got a whiff of a dead and rotting issue
when I read this article. oh well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised -
these arguments come in cycles, so now we have to debate the existence of
net.women.only again... and again... and again...
sigh!
Jeff Winslowmazur@inmet.UUCP (03/19/84)
#R:dciem:-77200:inmet:10900061:000:1340
inmet!mazur Mar 19 00:49:00 1984
[ insert appropriate profanity ]
Talk about your no-win situation. Shelley posts a note to .women.only, and
she gets responses from men who (besides not honoring the women-only guide
lines, they're wrong, but they do exist) trivialize the problem and suggest
really practical solutions, like exposing yourself to ionizing radiation.
Now Mark Brader has decided he has to expose this blatant example of "sex
prejudice". I'm sure all the men who don't "spy" on .women.only were really
sorry to have almost missed that piece of information (about static cling).
It's funny that the Madison Ave. people never realized the market out there;
thousands of men whose dresses stick to their nylons! Seriously (oh yes, I
was being sarcastic), I think that .women.only was *the* proper place for
Shelley's article.
It's responses like Mark's that will keep the feminist (and *not* women only)
mailing list thriving (oops, is this a can of worms?). At least within the
contents of the mailing list, the participants can discuss things without
having their words or ideas attacked (with few exceptions). Someone (pardon
me for not quoting you in my anger) mentioned the "vultures" who hover over
net.women. I think a response like Mark's (and probably mine) was exactly
what she had in mind.
Beth Mazur
{ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazurbbanerje@sjuvax.UUCP (B. Banerjee) (03/22/84)
>> she gets responses from men who (besides not honoring the women-only >> guide lines, they're wrong, but they do exist) trivialize the problem >> and suggest really practical solutions, like exposing yourself to >> ionizing radiation. >> Since I am the person who (inadvertently) started this entire discussion vis a vis Static Cling; I'd like to make some comments on the matter. My follow-up was (I think!) rather innocuous. I stated that I had never seen this problem (NOT that it didn't exist) and suggested a solution (grounding oneself to get rid of the static charge). It was subsequently pointed out to me that a surface charge on an insulator (fabric) is not dissipated by grounding. Thanks for the information, to those who replied. As far as your point about honouring the women-only guide line - I don't buy it. The Usenet is by its very nature, a broadcast medium. Excluding some group or the other raises visions of censorship. The news comes into MY machine, and I posted a followup on the same. You are claiming that your posting on a public forum is somehow private and priviledged. I don't see it that way. In the near future, I will be supplying a news feed to 2 new sites in this area. If I decided not to forward net.rec.wood or net.garden on the grounds that they are of no interest to me, and therefore, should not be forwarded; I would be guilty of trying to enforce my own (narrow?) viewpoint of what is appropriate. I feel that this .only business does the same. Thanks to all for the (generally) civil and helpful replies. Regards, -- Binayak Banerjee {allegra | astrovax | bpa | burdvax}!sjuvax!bbanerje