notes@ucbcad.UUCP (09/05/83)
#N:ucbesvax:10300020:000:1922 ucbesvax!turner Sep 4 07:25:00 1983 We have had exactly zero netnews since August 20th at our site--some weirdness in the (slow) campus conversion from 4.1c to 4.2 is undoubtedly to blame. And I've been up ALL NIGHT (it's 7 am now) catching up on my more favorite groups. "w" is rather late in the alphabet, but here I am, finally. (distant booing...) So the whole net.women.only issue passed without a peep from me. (Some of you are glad--be quiet.) The newsgroup has been created. Fine. Here's a late vote in favor. Some of the controversy raised (rhetorically) the question of net.men.only. Well, guys, how about it? I'm not ashamed to admit that, when my POxSSLQ is off on a night-out, I like to get together with some REAL men, around a Party-sized deep-dish quiche and frosty mugs of Grey Riesling, and like, totally RELATE! Offhand, I don't know how the concept would carry over into netland. I suspect that it would bomb--after all, how many men will come right out and admit that they just don't get as horny as they used to, but that somehow they're enjoying sex more? Or that they actually admire women being able to do stuff like sew on buttons, and wanna learn how? (Hey: Rosie Grier is STILL doing needlepoint. Dig it.) Well, I exaggerate. Still, for the vindictive (but educable) males, it's a fair-play turn-about. And for the rest of us, I think it could be...well...a real *learning* and *nurturing* experience, y'know? It really is late. I'm not expressing myself well. So how's this for a trial topic: why do men use ritual verbal abuse and heavy sarcasm in their expressions of affection and solidarity, by comparison to most women, who, I think, express such things more directly? Is it because of a higher tolerance for ambiguity? A fear of direct expression? Or are these both true, in some sense, and related? But one thing at a time. net.men.only: yes or no? Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)