saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/23/84)
I think I agree with most of Peter Rowley's suggestions with a few reservations. The first two which I mentioned already are that I think we should use the existing net.social instead of creating a new net.people, and also that I am not convinced that there is no need for a support group for women on the net. I am not convinced there is a need for it either. But net.singles and net.motss have been on the net as support group and seem to be working well and not fostering hate, so maybe net.women might be just as successfull as a support group. What I would like is a group where some kind of axioms are set. I find it very tiring to have to explain why "controlling who women copulate with is and has been very important in most societies". This fact is very clearly reflected in many customs and laws of most countries. Unfortunately, the only book I can think of dealing specifically with this issue is in french "Ainsi soit elle", which I read such a long time ago that I do not remember the name of the author. I did not recommend it as an answer to the person who questioned my assertion as I thought that other people might be able to suggest english reading better than I could. So if anybody has any good suggestions, please send them to him so that we could get on to some more interesting topics. I think that raising that point in net.women is equivalent to questioning the premise that "it has been very important for white men not to let people of colour get access to the same opportunities" in a net.coloured group. If we continue debating such basic questions, we will never get anywhere. The problem is that I am not too sure of what would be appropriate axioms for a net.women group. Maybe a reading list would be better, but that is too complicated. It seems to me that right now, net.women serves more as a forum where some women (and men) have to explain to some men some very basic feminist ideas. It doesn't seem right to me. I would like a discussion place where I do not constantly have to be on the defensive. On the other hand, I think that restricting membership to women would be discriminative and anti-feminist. I do not have any good solutions to this problem. Does anybody?
smann@ihu1g.UUCP (01/24/84)
I agree with most of what you said. I think that net.women.only was created at least in part, for the very reason you state, women get tired of constantly defending the most basic feminist positions. I don't think that net.women.only was the answer, I too would like to see some groundrules, however, don't want to see net.women strangled. Something as basic as respect for the experiences of others would be a start, although I don't want to give the impression that I feel most people who post to the group don't have that respect. I also like your idea of a bibliography, and although I don't know how that would be effectively implemented, would like to suggest the book "Women's Reality" however, I don't know the author. If anyone knows please follow-up, and if anyone knows where I can get a copy for myself, please let me know. Thanks, Sherry Mann ihu1g!smann AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (01/27/84)
This is in response to Sophie Quigley's recent article. The quotes in here are taken from there. > I think we should use the > existing net.social instead of creating a new net.people, I agree. net.people has already been proposed for a totally different purpose, and net.social has zero traffic right now. > I am > not convinced that there is no need for a support group for women on the net. > I am not convinced there is a need for it either. But net.singles and net.motss > have been on the net as support group and seem to be working well and not > fostering hate, so maybe net.women might be just as successfull as a support > group. But net.women clearly *is* fostering hate. When you tell me to stay out, I find that hostile. I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling that way. I *am* interested in women's issues, and I will *not* stay out. All these issues are critical to my future as well as yours, and I demand a say. > What I would like is a group where some kind of axioms are set. I find it very > tiring to have to explain why "controlling who women copulate with is and has > been very important in most societies". I sympathize, honestly I do, but I still have to say, tough. You can't set axioms in a public forum. When you make a controversial statement on this network, you have to expect those who disagree with you to post their opinions. You have to tolerate this, there is no choice. You can't keep them out. > It seems to me that right now, net.women serves more as a forum where some women > (and men) have to explain to some men some very basic feminist ideas. It > doesn't seem right to me. Why not? What's wrong with educating the men? Doesn't that help the feminist cause? You can't change the world by yourselves. By your own admission, men hold most of the power in our society, and you haven't even got all the women helping your cause (witness Phyllis Schlafly et al.) You will need the help of sympathetic males to make things happen. The sooner you realize that the sooner *we* can get some real changes made and stop bickering and quarreling. > I would like a discussion place where I do not > constantly have to be on the defensive. On the other hand, I think that > restricting membership to women would be discriminative and anti-feminist. > I do not have any good solutions to this problem. Does anybody? Yes. Leave net.women the way it is (you can't keep the men out anyway), and start a mailing list. Laura Creighton said a while ago that support groups cannot exist on USENET. I agree with her for the reasons cited above. However, on UUCP you could have a support group. You need one volunteer (Sophie?) to serve as coordinator. Group members mail their submissions to the coordinator, who then mails them out to all group memebers. You have complete control over who is in the group, and you are free to throw out any submissions that do not agree with your group's philosophy, and you can talk all you want about those nasty men you seem to hate so much, and there will be no one to put you on the defensive. By the way, *I* am not a sexist, and *I* do not oppress women. I resent being lumped into the same category with those who did/do these things just because I happen to be male. Yes, I'm not perfect. I'm as vulnerable to social conditioning as anyone else. But I guarantee I am at least as unhappy in my "traditional" sex role as many of the feminists seem to be in theirs, and I am just as anxious to see things change. GREG -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno} !hao!woods