edhall@randvax.ARPA (Ed Hall) (01/24/84)
------------------------------------------------- I guess there would be a certain symmetry in having a net.men as well as a net.women. But I don't see a very good argument for it on other grounds. I know it's been said before, but the entire net is sort of a net.men, simply because an overwhelming number of those submitting to it are men, and because of the predominently male-oriented nature of the technical professions. (Put that flame-thrower down! I'm not saying I *support* this orientation--I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.) Except for certain matters of biology and social tradition, women's issues are *people* issues, seen from a perspective of sex roles. And the reason that these issues have been considered women's issues is because it has been women who have been traditionally discriminated against and placed in `special' positions relative to the male-oriented establishment. This doesn't mean that men don't have anything to do with it any more than racial discrimination has nothing to do with whites. So keep net.women the way it is; I don't think net.men would lower the percentage of male submissions to it anyway. It has been frag- mentation and intolerance that have kept us in our mess of ill-fitting sex roles. Isolation only enhances the insecurities that created the roles in the first place. Women and men can only work these things out together, not separately. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall (UUCP) edhall@rand-unix (ARPA)
phipps@fortune.UUCP (Clay Phipps) (01/27/84)
I've only been really aware of the net for a few months,
but I have noticed an asymmetry:
There's a "net.women", but no "net.men".
Was there once one that died a death of inactivity ?
It seems to me that "net.women" ought to be renamed
"net.battle_of_the_sexes". Is it possible that the "net.women" name
was a deliberate disguise, analogous to "net.motss",
so as to keep some people's employers from shutting it down
(the idea being that a newsgroup with "sex" in the name was out, but
that few employers would dare deny activist women a newsgroup of their own) ?
With "net.women" bearing a new name mora accurately reflecting its subjects,
the name "net.women" would be available to assume the role
I suspect it was intended for. Is it also possible that "net.women.only"
was created as a refuge for women who had to flee from "net.women"
after it was overrun by men (I assume that there are more men than women
on the net, reflecting the proportions in technical fields in general) ?.
To allow equal justice, "net.men" could then be created and used for voicing
male-only concerns like those suggested elsewhere.
Naturally, an occasional perusal by women on the network has to be expected.
By the way (in case flame throwers are at the ready),
I, too, was once curious about "net.women.only",
but when I saw the first header: "Menstrual question", I decided that I
didn't belong there, hit the big "N", and have left it alone ever since.
-- Clay Phipps
--
{allegra,amd70,cbosgd,dsd,floyd,harpo,hollywood,hpda,ihnp4,
magic,megatest,nsc,oliveb,sri-unix,twg,varian,VisiA,wdl1}
!fortune!phippsjcz@ncsu.UUCP (John Carl Zeigler) (01/27/84)
I thought that the title of a newsgroup gave a hint as to its contents, not who could subscribe or submit.