carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/26/85)
Nancy Parsons writes: > So, the question, it seems to me, is "What is the common interest for which > net.women exists?" Is it supposed to be a forum for saying anything one > wishes about women? For slinging mud at those with whom we disagree? For > women to share experiences and encouragement? Many of us think it should > be the latter, with, perhaps an opportunity for others to "listen in" to > what women are thinking, feeling, and doing. The description of net.women in the list of newsgroups posted in net.announce.newusers reads in its entirety, "Women's rights, discrimination, etc." This isn't a terribly clear description of the purpose of net.women. I think it should be clarified whether this newsgroup is intended to be: A. A support group for women, to which (primarily or exclusively) women post articles to share experiences and encouragement, and for others to listen in to educate themselves about what women are thinking, feeling, etc.; or B. A forum for discussion of topics related to the feminist movement, the position of women in society, the oppression of women in history, sexism and patriarchy and their effects on the lives of women, the differences between men and women and to what extent the differences are to be attributed to biology or culture, and so forth. I am all in favor of having both kinds of newsgroup on the net, but I don't think a SINGLE newsgroup can reasonably be expected to serve BOTH purposes very well. Similarly, if a "net.blacks" is created, it must be clear from the outset whether it is supposed to be a support group for blacks or a forum for discussion of racism, etc. If net.women is supposed to fulfill purpose B, it is to be expected that articles will often be posted by males expressing anti-feminist views, and they have a right to do so as long as they are courteous, just as anyone has a right to express anti-Semitic views in net.politics, however odious one may consider those beliefs. Also, loudmouths will by definition post more frequently than the thoughtful quiet types. > This is not women asking for special privileges. It is a group of people > (male and female) who share a particular interest asking that the group not > be dominated by people who are not contributing to that interest. OK -- my point is that this interest should be well-defined: the purpose of net.women should be made clear to all readers of Usenet. If that interest is defined as "feminism, women's position in society, and related topics," I think that the anti-feminists are just as interested in this subject as are feminists. > It is a group of people frustrated because it really does appear that we > are being discriminated against on the net...we are not accorded the > same courtesy that other "minorities" (subscribers to net.politics, > net.religion, etc.) are given. Net.politics and net.religion were never, as far as I know, intended to serve as mutual-support groups for adherents of a particular political philosophy or religious belief; they were intended to be discussion groups for anyone with an interest in politics or religion. So I don't see an analogy here. I am a male who is interested in learning more about feminist theory and politics and how this relates to my own life, and particularly in feminism from a left perspective (Engels, Juliet Mitchell, etc.). I would regret having to confine such discussion to net.politics with its low signal-to-noise ratio. Be that as it may, expecting net.women to fulfill both purposes A and B above can only lead to frustration. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (08/28/85)
> The description of net.women in the list of newsgroups posted in > net.announce.newusers reads in its entirety, "Women's rights, > discrimination, etc." This isn't a terribly clear description of the > purpose of net.women. I think it should be clarified whether > this newsgroup is intended to be: > > A. A support group for women, to which (primarily or exclusively) > women post articles to share experiences and encouragement, > and for others to listen in to educate themselves about what > women are thinking, feeling, etc.; or A very nice ideal, but impractical. Aside from the issue of whether we SHOULD have a newsgroup from which some people and/or viewpoints are barred from posting, the FACT is that WE CAN'T. net.women was originally set up with a charter very similar to this. It failed. So, net.women.only was created. It failed. YOU CANNOT STOP ANYONE FROM POSTING WHATEVER THEY WANT. This is a fact of the net. If you want a support group, you have to create a moderated newsgroup or a mailing list. Wake up and smell the coffee. Asking people who oppose your viewpoint to stay out of a newsgroup is just inviting the flames. This is the primary reason why the MODERATED feminist mailing list was created. It has proven quite successful, and from what I understand, there hasn't even had to be much censoring done. The fact that there IS a moderator who COULD prevent flames from getting posted keeps most of the flames out. If you want a group composed solely of people who share the same viewpoint, you have to have a moderator. And that's the way it is, Tuesday, August 27, 1985... :-) --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@NCAR ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY "Comes a time, when a blind man takes your hand, says don't you see..."
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (08/30/85)
> Nancy Parsons writes: > > > So, the question, it seems to me, is "What is the common interest for which > > net.women exists?" > > The description of net.women in the list of newsgroups posted in > net.announce.newusers reads in its entirety, "Women's rights, > discrimination, etc." This isn't a terribly clear description of the > purpose of net.women. I think it should be clarified whether > this newsgroup is intended to be: > > A. A support group for women, to which (primarily or exclusively) > women post articles to share experiences and encouragement, > and for others to listen in to educate themselves about what > women are thinking, feeling, etc.; or > > B. A forum for discussion of topics related to the feminist movement, > the position of women in society, the oppression of women in history, > sexism and patriarchy and their effects on the lives of women, > the differences between men and women and to what extent the > differences are to be attributed to biology or culture, and so > forth. > > I am all in favor of having both kinds of newsgroup on the net, but I > don't think a SINGLE newsgroup can reasonably be expected to serve > BOTH purposes very well. > ... > expecting > net.women to fulfill both purposes A and B above can only lead to > frustration. > > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes I don't see how option A is even possible. For such a group to exist, it would be necessary to screen out certain types of postings (e.g. ones which attack feminism or women). This can't be done in normal newsgroups. The fact that anyone can post anything to any unmoderated newsgroup is both USENET's greatest strength and its greatest weakness. It means that one can read a wide variety of opinions. It also means that discussions on controversial topics can't become very productive, because there are always those who will drag such discussions down to childish levels. Mail.feminists already exists, and it seems to me that this would serve better as a support group for women. It's possible for such a group to exist as a mailing list, and it would almost certainly fail as a normal newsgroup. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff