ecl@hocsj.UUCP (11/06/84)
I've just read David DiGiacomo's article on []'s rationale(?) for net.women.only. (Whether or not David DiGiacomo should have posted what was obviously a personal reply to the net is a moot point now. I will refrain from naming the original respondee, however.) I've also just read Tim Maroney's discussion of freedom to post to the net. A comparison is in order. [] says: >The group net.women.only was formed to allow some women some space to chat >without being dominated by the men, but again, the men intruded and >prevented any woman-space. I resent the use of the word 'intruded'--this implies that men were prohibited from reading from/posting to this newsgroup. This is discrimination without a doubt. (I also dislike the connotations of 'chat', but that's another story.) And why only *some* women? If she wants a private group, then for *****'s sake, make it a *private* group--like the BPOE or the Jaycees :-). >Therefore an underground mailing list was created for a moderated group >whose focal interest is feminist issues. A FEW men are included. "Some of my best friends are..." (If you don't recognize the sarcasm in my statement, think back to Archie Bunker.) >net.women.only is the last vestige reminding us what assholes men are >with their itchy rmgroup fingers, and their dominant attitudes to control >everything! Back off! It still serves for women to request to be >included. Their replies are answered by mail, not by news. Get it? >Please go play in net.women, >and stay out of net.women.ONLY ONLY, get it? Geesh!! <PUT ON ASBESTOS SUITS> If the supposed purpose of net.women.only is to villify and castigate men for being men (which they can't avoid without sending a *lot* of money for a trip to Sweden :-) ), then trash it now! If someone claimed that net.religion.jewish was there to "remind us what assholes Christians are," they would be rightfully considered a danger to society. Well, [] is also a danger to society if she thinks that the proper use for Usenet is to tell 51% of the people what assholes the other 49% are because they are members of a certain minority. I read net.religion and net.motss. In the former, evangelicals persist in damning the unbelievers. In the latter, heterosexuals condemn the homosexuals. I am by no means supporting their opinions in these attacks, but they are at least attacking something than their opponent has *some* control over. (No flames from gays here please--for the most part, the attackers are attacking your actions. If you were a celibate homosexual, that would probably be okay with them.) But [] wants to condemn people because they were born of the wrong sex. Hell and damnation, woman, are you stupid or just dense? What the **** have *you* been complaining about all along?!?! Tim Maroney points out: > However, in the USA it is illegal to discriminate against anyone > on the basis of religious or political affiliation, or to deprive them of > access to a medium without due process. If [] supports the ERA, then she should quit trying to undermine its goals. (If she doesn't, I'd be curious to know why not.) "You can't just talk the talk, you have to walk the walk." I have rarely been as appalled at someone's attitude towards the "proper" use of newsgroups as I am towards []'s. As far as intolerance goes, she takes the prize! <You can take off the asbestos suits now.> And the sole purpose of a public newsgroup should not be to let people get on private mailing lists. Evelyn C. Leeper ...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl