daemon@decwrl.UUCP (01/17/84)
From: akov68::boyajian Laura: Well, I'm new to the net, but I think that your looking at this net.women/net.men thing a little cockeyed (I didn't mean it *that* way!). I tend to support the idea of a net.women.only; it doesn't bother me any more than women friends of mine leaving the table at a restaurant, for example, to have what they often referred to as a "b.c" (bathroom conference). What I think is cockeyed about your viewpoint (N.B. I'm not saying it's invalid, just cockeyed from my own perspective) is that you seem to think that net.women is a newsgroup *for* women (and I'll admit that it might have been formed for that reason), while I was under the impression that it is *about* women, just as net.religion is about religion, or that net.sf-lovers is about sf. I read to net.women so that I could read about women's issues, and didn't give it a thought that I might not "belong" because I'm male. Hell, I'm straight, too, but I also subscribe to net.motss to read about homosexual issues. It never occurred to me that the gays would want their own newsgroup and keep straights out. I agree that forming a net.men would be a bad idea. Who knows where it would stop? Net.blacks? Net.midgets? Net.italians? Net.wombats? The mind boggles... ---jayembee (Jerry Boyajain @ DEC Maynard) (decvax!decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian)