peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (01/17/84)
I agree with Laura; the names "net.women", "net.women.only", and "net.men" are segregatory. They perpetuate existing social boundaries and seem to exert a bias on discussions. In short, these names are not neutral-- they assume certain perspectives (a pro-woman or pro-man attitude). Fortunately, submitters have not been completely governed by these names. There is a place for forums that allow or encourage only certain perspectives, commonly called "support groups". They build self-confidence in group members who can freely express their views knowing they will be affirmed. Armed with self-confidence, they can participate in unsheltered debate. Such groups clearly *rely* on excluding contrary opinions, but setting up a newsgroup which can exclude such opinions isn't possible given the free-for-all structure of net news. So, for purely technical reasons, support groups CAN'T EXIST on USENet. Worse, if one sets up a name which presumes a certain perspective, to some people it's like waving a red flag, and they pour *very* contrary opinions into the group, increasing combativeness and inhibiting constructive debate. There are names that do not presume specific perspectives, that virtually everyone can agree on. Sometimes the names are quite obvious, like net.music, net.books, and net.micro. But when they aren't obvious, we should take the effort to find them, in the interests of free and wide-ranging discussions. Judging by the content of net.women, neutral (and more descriptive) names include net.human-relations (net.hum-rel), net.people, and net.sex-roles. Judging by the content of net.women.only, it would more properly be called net.med.women, to indicate that it deals only with biology specific to women. If we must have a parallel "men only" group, I suggest it be net.med.men, but I don't think it will get a lot of traffic, as men (at least of the ages of most net readers) don't seem to have a lot of gender-specific biological concerns (circumcision is an example of one, though). I certainly agree that, if we follow past convention, net.women.only is NOT the place to discuss circumcision. Put the medical aspects in net.med. But there are many more aspects to it than medical. Sophie Quigley started the discussion with anthropological aspects of such surgery. Those aspects don't belong in net.med, but in a new group that encompasses anthropology (maybe the proposed net.people? net.anthro? net.society?). If we think of net.women as one of these, which has been recent practice (ref. the comments above), it could go there. So, I suggest: create a net.people, which would encompass inter-personal relations and anthropology (largely taking over the role of net.women), create a net.med.women (taking over the role of net.women.only), and put discussion of medical aspects of circumcision in net.med, other aspects in net.people. I believe there is a good deal to be said to leaving net.women, to discuss the changing role of women and how institutions are adapting to it, but I can't help but feel that those changing roles have such an impact on everyone, including men, that most discussions would wind up in net.people. An awful lot to suggest in one message. But I'd be happy just to see net.people created. I believe there is a clear and present need, and there has been past support. p. rowley, U. Toronto
saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/18/84)
Why create net.people? We could use net.social which is already there instead. Does anybody disagree?
smann@ihu1g.UUCP (01/20/84)
>I agree with Laura; the names "net.women", "net.women.only", and "net.men" >are segregatory. They perpetuate existing social boundaries and seem to >exert a bias on discussions. I disagree with these statements. Women's issues is a very real and controversial subject. Most people (men and women) have very definite ideas about the subject. Net.women is a place to debate, examine, and discuss those ideas. >In short, these names are not neutral-- they >assume certain perspectives (a pro-woman or pro-man attitude). Pro-woman is not assumed when speaking of women's issues. Or rather, I believe most people do consider themselves to be pro-woman - whether to them that means that a woman's place is in the home, with a strong dependable man to look after her, or that women are capable, strong, dependable. What view you take of women is as worthy of discussion as any other, and if I disagree with you (and if in fact, my life and career are affected by your beliefs - which I believe they are), I want to know what you are thinking, so welcome your discussion of it. >There is a place for forums that allow or encourage only certain >perspectives, commonly called "support groups". > They build self-confidence in >group members who can freely express their views knowing they will >be affirmed. >Armed with self-confidence, they can participate in unsheltered debate. > Such groups clearly *rely* on excluding contrary opinions, but setting up a >newsgroup which can exclude such opinions >isn't possible given the free-for-all >structure of net news. >So, for purely technical reasons, support groups CAN'T >EXIST on USENet. I have to take issue with the above. Even if net.women.only is a "support group" (I don't think it is), I must disagree that such a group cannot exist on the net. Net.women.only was started for the benefit of those who felt that any discussion of women's issues generated the same old arguments, and some women get tired of having a bunch of men jump in and tell them what they feel is wrong or not important. (My perception entirely) Net.women.only was formed then to set certain guidelines on what would be discussed (or in this case, who would do the discussing). This worked very well with net.motss, another issue that raises strong emotional responses in people. I did not agree with the need for net.women.only, but am not surprised that the guidelines (no men should post to the group) are frequently ignored. If net.motss can effectively set guidelines that moral judgements not be posted to the group, then there is no reason why net.women.only cannot effectively set guidelines. However, as is often the case, what can work very well in the area of sex, politics or religion, somehow does not work at all in the area of women's rights. > Worse, if one sets up a name which presumes a certain >perspective, to some people it's like waving a red flag, and they pour >*very* contrary opinions into the group, increasing combativeness and >inhibiting constructive debate. Net.women presumes not a certain perspective (as dealt with above), but a certain issue. Women, women's rights, women's roles, perceptions of women are legitimate concerns to a great many people and worthy of discussion on their own merits. Because the subject "waves a red flag" for some people, is no reason to bury it within other issues. I agree that many things discussed on net.women are not specifically women's issues. They are often posted to net.women because they are on subjects which traditionally fell within women's realms, i.e., interpersonal relations, childcare, feelings, etc. Many of these subjects probably would be better off elsewhere, but not at the expense of net.women, which I believe should deal with the very real subject of women's issues. Sherry Mann ihu1g!smann
peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (01/22/84)
-- Quoting out of context is occasionally necessary, but it sometimes blurs points. To correct the impression from Sherry Mann's article that I'm hostile to discussion of issues effecting women, and to the existence of net.women itself, I quote my own article: ----------- > So, I suggest: create a net.people, which would encompass inter-personal >relations and anthropology (largely taking over the role of net.women), >create a net.med.women (taking over the role of net.women.only), and >put discussion of medical aspects of circumcision in net.med, other aspects >in net.people. I believe there is a good deal to be said to leaving >net.women, to discuss the changing role of women and how institutions are >adapting to it, but I can't help but feel that those changing roles have such >an impact on everyone, including men, that most discussions would wind up in >net.people. ----------- Nowhere have I advocated the abolition of net.women as a newsgroup. Quoting from the conclusion of Sherry Mann's response: ----------- >I agree that many things discussed on net.women are not specifically >women's issues. They are often posted to net.women because they are >on subjects which traditionally fell within women's realms, i.e., >interpersonal relations, >childcare, feelings, etc. Many of these subjects probably would be >better off elsewhere, but not at the expense of net.women, which I >believe should deal with the very real subject of women's issues. ----------- It seems that we both agree that some topics discussed on net.women are not specifically women's issues. I believe we differ in the significance we attach to that poor fit. I didn't explain my concerns in detail before; here goes. I see many of society's (yes, all of society-- men and women) detrimental attitudes towards women based on inappropriate discrimination with respect to sex. (There *is* appropriate discrimination based on sex; e.g. provision of maternity leave) Such discrimination is encouraged by, and reinforces, the division of topics into "men's issues" and "women's issues"-- a viscious circle. But there are *only* historical reasons for the division. The cited topics (interpersonal relations, childcare, feelings) are perfect examples of topics that SHOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH EVERYONE, NOT JUST WOMEN. Putting such discussion in net.women simply reinforces that illogical and damaging separation. Worse, it is symptomatic of an us/them, adversarial, attitude. The horrendous working conditions of the past were resolved by giving power to the workers through labour unions. Over time, and through long struggle, management/worker competition bettered the lot of the worker. Now, we find that management and labour must cooperate, and the decades of competition must *seriously* hurt the chances for that cooperation. If we consider the horrendous conditions women as a group are exposed to (just consider advertising as a lesser example), we might conclude that a lot of banding-together-to-fight-the-sexists is needed, with the aim of getting legislation that will change institutions for the better. One can even assume that this will work. Will we be left with a situation similar to management/labour legislated "respect"? This might work to get higher pay for women, but I can't see it, of itself, helping men and women to get along better. And improved cooperation seems to be needed if the truly tragic divorce rate is to be lowered. And, more fundamentally, if there is to be the true respect needed to really solve the problem. I think achievement of adversarial "equality" such as we see between management and labour (I use "equality" loosely-- whether mgt or labour currently has the upper hand is another issue) would be a very hollow victory indeed. We have got to stress cooperation and understanding, such as people are now realizing is needed between mgt and labour. Needless separation of issues according to sex is going to hurt this. No, I am NOT saying that women should not fight for the rights owed to them. I am just pointing out that when the battle is "won", we will all have to get along, and past statements and groupings won't be forgotten easily. Following a moderate course, between fighting for respect and encouraging cooperation through education, is never easy, nor is arguing for moderation. But to expect education alone to work is to be overly optimistic, and to expect fighting-the-men to leave anything but a battlefield at the end is to be ignorant of the realities of the situation. Let's have net.women for issues that are *objectively* directly concerned with women and their relation to society, like maternity leave and laws specifically concerning women (e.g. to redress existing inbalances such as wage disparities, representation in school faculties). But childcare, relationships, feelings, ERA? I dare anyone to tell me those are issues that don't concern me as a man. Putting them in net.women is an affront. Let's create net.people and put them there. p. rowley, U. Toronto