laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/16/84)
If you create a group "net.men" (or "net.women" which I was opposed to remember gang) you perpetuate the idea that it is okay to not listen to what somebody has got to say on the basis of their sex. This is discrimination, folks. I don't like it when men refuse to listen to women because they are women, and I sure as hell don't like it when women do the same thing to men. Women who pull this tactic generally try to hit you with a big guilt trip "oh we have been so opressed and we need this space" to justify their discrimination. Clearly, these tactics are going to work on men better than they are on me. Net.women was a stupid idea. Net.men is a worse idea. Stop humouring the people that want to discriminate. Especially stop humouring the ones that are manipulating you out of guilt. You aren't responsible for the shitty things your grandfather did to women. Are you trying to not discriminate against women? yes? Fine, then feel no guilt. For heavens sake don't feel guilt because you aren't perfect -- nobody is perfect and people who hate you because you aren't perfect are the ones with the problem. Having to be perfect is a real heavy load -- don't let them give it to you 'cause it is easier to get than to get rid of. Life is tough. I know that. Good luck with it. I have compassion for everybody because I know life is tough. But I'm not going to condone discrimination because i have compassion. I just won't hate you for being imperfect. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/16/84)
The last article was marred in that I contrasted "net.women" with "net.men". More properly, that should have been "net.women.only" with "net.men", but I trust you got the idea. Personally, I think that "net.women" is a lousy name. If the issues are only of interest to women, then feminism=discrimination. If the issues aren't only of interest to women, then I know what should have been called "net.people". laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/18/84)
I vote no. With what I suspect the male/female ratio of netters to be, you
may as well create net.USeSENET_users.
Jeff Winslowinc@fluke.UUCP (Gary Benson) (01/18/84)
Let's hear it for Laura! I'd like to relate an experience that I had back around 1970, when the "Women's Movement" was just starting to get off the ground: I was living with a my spouse equivalent in a house with 4 other people (no other couples). There were 2 other men and 2 other women. Well, one of the women got involved in starting up a women's group, and I was fascinated when she informed the house at dinner one evening that it was her turn to have the meeting, and that she desired the men to disappear for the evening. I didn't immediately object, however, because I wanted to sort out how I really felt, and also wanted to discuss it with my "roommate". As the day approached, I became more and more certain that I was insulted by being asked to leave my home (in the middle of a Wisconsin winter, no less) so that a "consciousness-raising" group could hold a meeting. I finally told her so, saying, "Now look here, Nancy, I really don't see why I should leave the house. I live here; all my activities that occur here are open, and if your group can't understand that, I would suggest that they hold there meeting someplace where people won't be insulted if they are asked to leave." She argued that the purpose of the meetings was to discuss topics of little interest to me, that the other men had agreed, and that by insisting on staying, I was just being a troublemaker. Well, we went around and around for the last several days before the meeting, and one time I volunteered to serve cookies and tea if she'd let me stay. I knew she would react as she did, and that's why I said it. She was incensed! She didn't speak to me again, but made it clear that if I stayed, I'd be in big trouble. I did leave, but it has left me with a wierd feeling. I am interested in what women have to say to each other, and I respect their right to do so. However, the network is a *public* forum, and I will not leave, nor promise not to submit this male's view when I feel I can contribute. Given the second chance at 1970, I would steadfastly refuse to leave my home for the simple reason that what happens in my house is my business; if you choose to live there, you'll have to put up with me. Enough. Please send all flames direct to me. I have no desire to clutter this newsgroup with an unending debate. !fluke!inc -- --- Gary Benson John Fluke Mfg. Co. Everett, WA, USA
twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) (01/22/84)
I think Laura Creighton has her head screwed on straight. But I do disagree with one point. I think the existence of net.women is a good thing because women's issues are important, BUT, as I think Laura would agree, ONLY IF MEN AND WOMEN ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE DISCUSSIONS!! Otherwise, I think we should all pay attention to her arguments concerning descrimination. Hooray Laura! Tom Twiss ...!ihnp4!stolaf!twiss
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (01/23/84)
Net.men would only encourage and perpetuate separatism and sexism,
as net.women.only already does. No to both of them. Net.women may be
ill-named, but being only one newsgroup for the discussion of sexual
politics rather than two segregated by sex, it does serve a purpose
in that it draws everyone interested into the same forum.
The creation of net.men would detract from what value net.women has
by promoting arbitrary division of discussions by the sex of the
poster, even as net.women.only does now.
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq