skyler@ecsvax.UUCP (Patricia Roberts) (02/10/89)
Several people have asked me about the discrimination/harassment distinction. I'll try to explain: Most people said that they didn't think women are discriminated against on the net. Several people said that they thought women are treated differently in soc* groups--women's postings are perceived as more hostile, responded to in a much more hostile manner, treated with more condescension. Several people also said that they felt intimidated by what was described in terms ranging from "lonely hearts mail" to "sexual harassment." (For more than one person, such mail led to extremely unpleasant situations.) That is, just the possibility of receiving such mail meant that some women didn't want to post. And, as I said before, women seemed more concerned that men about how co-workers would perceive them. I found four things interesting about the "survey." 1) That people seem to have a clear sense of "discrimination" and that they limit that term to mean "restricting access to something." Hence, since women have equal access to the net, there is not discrimination. 2) I had assumed that many women were intimidated and they were intimidated by the possibility of receiving hostile mail. But few women mentioned that. Women don't seem to think that the net is a hostile place for them. Thus, women's equal access is not restricted by hostility. 3) Women are intimidated, however. I think it's fascinating that some (many?) women are more intimidated by the possibility of receiving suggestive mail than hostile mail. 4) That women do seem to operate under a double-standard. I don't think it's projected, either. I think women really do have to stay much more within "acceptable" behavior. Women told me several stories along the lines of someone showing their postings to co-workers, supervisors, and so on. (I'm sure that happens to men as well, but I got the sense these were pretty mild postings.) I'm still not sure what any of this means. -Trish
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (02/14/89)
There's an article on the front page of the Times today that reports the results of a study into why there is such a gender gap in the computer industry. It about boils down to the thesis that men get a big jump on woman because they were computer nerds in high school and college (hanging around playing with computers at all hours rather than having any real friends). It sort of partially reinforces my theory, which is that women lose out because they don't get started at an early enough age, and that we ought to encourage their growth. I had neglected in my theory, to hypothesize why women aren't likely to get involed at an early age. Of course, the article does reinforce some of Trish's observations about lonely hearts pestering women over the net. -Ron Lucky for me I found a computer nerd woman :-).
brs@lzfme.att.com (B.SCHWARTZ) (02/14/89)
>In article <6394@ecsvax.UUCP> ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >There's an article on the front page of the Times today that reports >the results of a study into why there is such a gender gap in the >computer industry. It about boils down to the thesis that men get >a big jump on woman because they were computer nerds in high school >and college (hanging around playing with computers at all hours rather >than having any real friends). It sort of partially reinforces my >theory, which is that women lose out because they don't get started >at an early enough age, and that we ought to encourage their growth. >I had neglected in my theory, to hypothesize why women aren't likely >to get involed at an early age. I read the article too, and most of what you say is an accurate representation of what is in it. I would just like to clarify one point that the article made. It saidthat women (girls) start getting involved at an early age, just like boys, but they become socialized in a different way, and tend to spend less time with the machines as they approach adolescence. The article also said, that women are generally not a part of the "hacker" culture. They tend to spend more time socializing with people, and less time playing with video games and other computer toys. It also went on to stress the importance of role models. Most successful women in the computer field have parents, or other mentors who work in the field and introduced them to computing (with encouraagement) at an early age. -- --Betsy R. Schwartz --aka-- Kinyan Cattery------------------------- (201) 576-3632 Ruddy and Red Abyssinians att!lzfme!brs Home of Ch. Yavapai Isis of Kinyan & Kinyan's Ramsette & some people too!
slf@lll-crg.llnl.gov (Sharon Lynne Fisher) (02/16/89)
I was very disappointed by the Times article on female hackers. As far as I could tell, he didn't talk to any. Also, he went to places like the Women's Computer Literacy project to talk about hackers, which is like going to Weight Watchers to find models. Sigh.
lsc@Sun.COM (Lisa S Chabot) (02/16/89)
In article <6405@ecsvax.UUCP> brs@lzfme.att.com (B.SCHWARTZ) writes: > >>In article <6394@ecsvax.UUCP> ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: > >>There's an article on the front page of the Times today that reports >>the results of a study into why there is such a gender gap in the > >I read the article too, and most of what you say is an accurate >representation of what is in it. >... It also went on to stress the importance of >role models. Most successful women in the computer field have >parents, or other mentors who work in the field and >introduced them to computing (with encouraagement) at an early >age. Hrmph! How about a local survey of successful women in this newsgroup: Did you have mentors at an early age? Were they your parents, or others? Me: nope. I created my first compiler error at the tender age of 18. I've an uncle who works in computers, and at the time he offered that a degree at MIT might prepare me for a nice position as a technical secretary (yeah, well, it was the mid-70's, but still). To think that wysiwyg editors have doomed me to a life of software engineering! :-) ++lsc++ All power corrupts, but we need electricity.
bc@purdue.edu (w.j.cambre) (02/16/89)
In article <6394@ecsvax.UUCP>, ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: > > There's an article on the front page of the Times today that reports > the results of a study into why there is such a gender gap in the > computer industry. It about boils down to the thesis that men get > a big jump on woman because they were computer nerds in high school > and college . . . > -Ron Wait a minute. I am 29 years old and there were NO computers in my high school back in the mid 70's. Most of the high schools in the area (Daytona Beach, FL) had no computers what-so-ever. I got into computers in college, when I just decided to try a computer course. 90% of the people in all the computer courses were men, but it wasn't because of previous experience in High School. - Bill Cambre
hunt@alpha.CES.CWRU.Edu (02/17/89)
In article <6425@ecsvax.UUCP> lsc@sun.com writes: >In article <6405@ecsvax.UUCP> brs@lzfme.att.com (B.SCHWARTZ) writes: >>... It also went on to stress the importance of >>role models. Most successful women in the computer field have >>parents, or other mentors who work in the field and >>introduced them to computing (with encouraagement) at an early >>age. I had a slightly different impression of the article. The difference was not so much that boys had the jump on using computers in high school, but in the different ways that people deal with computing. The first sentence in the Times article is very telling: "Women and girls use computers; men and boys love them." It goes on to say that while many women are successful computer scientists, etc, "they are almost without exception bystanders in the passionate romance that men conduct with these machines, whether in computer science labs, video game parlors, garages, or dens." It seems that this need to master the computer takes the place of sports for many boys, perhaps fulfilling some need for competition. What develops among groups is then such a culture that many women find it difficult to break into the culture. I have often walked into a terminal room or bullpen area and had the feeling that I went into the wrong locker room! This can be very unsettling, to say the least. > >Hrmph! How about a local survey of successful women in this newsgroup: >Did you have mentors at an early age? Were they your parents, or others? > Well, I had no role models as such. I always loved math, knew that I would major in math at college, had some exposure to Basic in H.S. (on a time shared system in 1970), and ended up with a double major in Math and Comp Sci for my B.S. After 2 years working in industry, I went back to grad school in C.S. to work on a Ph.D. There was one woman professor in the department who left a few years after I was there, and another that was an adjunct with the Math department. I don't think I really saw them as role models, since I knew at that point that I could make it. They didn't cultivate that image (of being mentors) either, so that probably contributed to my not seeing them as such. I am now one of two women professors out of a faculty of 12 in our Computer Eng and Sci department. I try to interact with as many women students as possible, especially through the student chapter of SWE. Unfortunately, these kinds of things are not recognized at tenure time, so I may not be able to continue the same level of visibility if I lose my job this year. I feel very strongly about trying to be a role model for the women that I see, at least to give them some reassurance that they can make it through the system. Actually, I think the visibility of successful women in the sciences is much more important at the younger levels. By the time my students see me, they have already decided that they have the "right stuff"! I would like to be able to interact with girls in junior high and thereabouts to get them thinking about technical careers at an earlier age. Francie Hunt Assistant Professor, Computer Engineering and Science Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106 hunt@alpha.ces.cwru.edu
ayers@Alliant.COM (Susan C. Ayers) (02/17/89)
>...How about a local survey of sucessful women in this newsgroup: >.........Mentors.....Parents... My career has been quite sucessful so far, I am quite pleased at the distance covered in my 23 years of computers/engineering and management. I am 42, manager of research/scientific marketing for a supercomputer company... I travel extensively to Europe and Asia, visit and lecture at notible Universities and research labs...meet visionaries that push the boundries of technology...challanging and very educational in what I learn and discover. Mentor's, fortunate to say I have had many...presently two. A man in Washington DC on staff to Baker, who shares his motivational, and management skills with me....the other a close woman friend, a few years younger, but is wise and talented in the art of technical selling, we are equally strong in different areas...we cross mentor each other. My grandmother most influenced my life...she was a strong,fiercly independent woman, who came from Russia. In her youth, she came from the Steppe's, her family and group lived on horseback, moving, grazing,and trading horses over the Russian Georgia plaines. As a child, she taught me to be self sufficent, industrious, responsible and creative...in essence, my first Mentor. Computers...we had none when I was studying for my BSEE in the 60's. I was the only woman EE to graduate my class...with a professor that told me my goals were to marry and engineer, not be one. I wish he lived so that I could have shown him my 2 patents and many technical papers. He might have been amazed and proud of my reluctance to quit, given his opinion of my future. Susan Ayers Alliant Computer Systems Corp. UUCP mit-eddie!alliant!ayers Phone 508-486-1454 "a man of quality is never intimidated by a woman of equality"
rch@pyrtech.pyramid.com (Robin Humphrey - SE Denver) (02/18/89)
>>>In article <6394@ecsvax.UUCP> ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >> >>>There's an article on the front page of the Times today that reports >>>the results of a study into why there is such a gender gap in the >> >>I read the article too, and most of what you say is an accurate >>representation of what is in it. >>... It also went on to stress the importance of >>role models. Most successful women in the computer field have >>parents, or other mentors who work in the field and >>introduced them to computing (with encouraagement) at an early >>age. > >Hrmph! How about a local survey of successful women in this newsgroup: >Did you have mentors at an early age? Were they your parents, or others? > I grew up with 3 brothers very close in age and my parents treated us all equally. From them I was encourged to take an aptitude test at age 15 and the results pointed me towards computer engineering work. They encouraged me to find out if I liked it, so I went to 2 years of technical school while I was in high school. My father was a lifetime IBM'er and felt women made excellent additions to any field and that I to could succeed at anything that I wanted if I set my mind to it. I was *NOT* however encouraged by school counselors or teachers :-( . It wasn't until I hit the real world that I found women were so scarce and men were often not accepting me. I now work in an office of 7 professional men, 1 female receptionist and myself a systems engineer :-) - rch
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (02/18/89)
Our high school didn't have any computers either. Just some keypunch machines and such. I spent a lot of time hanging around the computer science building at the University of Maryland. Playing with the teletypes and begging accounts from students at the end of the semester when they were done with them. -Ron
mapike@PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU (Mary Ann Pike) (02/21/89)
In article <6394@ecsvax.UUCP> ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >There's an article on the front page of the Times today that reports >the results of a study into why there is such a gender gap in the >computer industry. It about boils down to the thesis that men get >a big jump on woman because they were computer nerds in high school >and college (hanging around playing with computers at all hours rather >than having any real friends). It sort of partially reinforces my >theory, which is that women lose out because they don't get started >at an early enough age, and that we ought to encourage their growth. >I had neglected in my theory, to hypothesize why women aren't likely >to get involed at an early age. It would be interesting to know if this difference is the result of some inborn male/female differences, or if it is the result of social conditioning. I find the observation in the Times to be true from personal experience...I would consider myself to be just as good or better at programming than many of the men I know, but I've never been one to 'hack' and spend large amounts of my free time playing with the computers (and many of my friends in their 30's still do this with their home computers). Also, although I enjoy video games, most of the men I know are much more into games than the women I know. My husband likens this to men's fascination with sportscars (particulary the work-on-it-yourself types), although I'm not sure what the significance of that is. Is there some reason why men enjoy taking things apart and putting them together for the fun of it, and women don't? Is it some type of power trip to prove that you can control a machine? I am the first one to use a computer when it's to my advantage (I do all of my correspondance on one, I produce my club's monthly meeting notice, and maintain their membership database with one). But sometimes I feel that some men feel it necessary to reinvent the wheel by doing something themselves which has been done many times before, and probably better (gee, I think I'll write a C compiler tonight). I've even found this attitude from the managers at some of the companies I've worked for. I'm all for hobbies, after all, I have a pretty time consuming one myself (horses), but interacting with horses (hopefully) teaches you patience, sensitivity to another living being's feelings, responsibility to another living being, and things that, in general, are useful in your daily life. Sport-type hobbies are good for your health. A lot of people have hobbies that involve volunteering their time to community projects. As you can see, I believe in hobbies that are also beneficial. It seems that a lot of men prefer hobbies that do not involve interaction with another living being, and that border on being obsessions. Perhaps social interactions are not stressed as being important to men when they are growing up, and many of them feel uncomfortable in activities that require them to be with other people socially. Or perhaps men are made to feel that they must be in competition all the time (with the emphasis on boys to participate in sports, compete for dates, etc.), and that to interact socially is to fail in competition. This has been rambling some, but my main point was that men seem to get seriously involved with machines (cars or computers), and even women who have the same education don't seem to develop this tendency. I can honestly say that I don't know one female hacker, and I do know at least a dozen female programmers. Mary Ann Pike (mapike@cs.cmu.edu) Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA P.S. I don't think that the difference is at all related to men 'getting started at an early age'. Our high school had just gotten a very primitive computer when I was a junior, and about 25 percent of our computer club was women. But none of those women were what I would call hackers, and many of them did better academically than the men, so it wasn't a case of the women not being at the same scholastic level as the men.
lance@logicon.arpa (Lance Browne) (02/23/89)
I have to disagree with the Time article reasoning as to why women don't go into computer science. I didn't read the original Time article, but it seems agreed among the group that the reasoning presented, was that women don't hack as much, ie, women have other social activities as they grow up instead of playing with the computer. First off, does this theory even make sense. The personal computer didn't even come into existence until the mid-seventies. With the initial prices making it prohibitive for most *children* to play with. If the children of that time could afford the computer or get to use one somehow, how old would the oldest of this group of hackers be? Somewhere less than thirty, for the oldest group. The BULK of the hackers would be younger than that, barely entering the job market. Then why is the field dominated by males? If it is, some much more down-to-earth practical reasons follow: One reason is that this new field is not as free from old social dogma as originally thought. After all, who are the managers within this field? They didn't originate with the field - most came from engineering or math backgrounds. How do people get a job in the computing industry, IF they have not had a computing job yet? All computing job descriptions I've seen require a degree. To get a computer science degree requires a lot of courses from engineering or math, a perceived male-ruled area. The engineering department of my college was very male-oriented. A case in point, one instructor gave a women a B, who had a higher score than a man, who got an A. He didn't believe that women should be taking his course. Generally, society views Computing as a field that requires engineering and math skills, which it does to get a computer science degree. --- Lance ---> +--------------+------------------------------------------------------------- | \/ \/ | Internet: lance@logicon.arpa | /\ /\ | UUCP: {nosc,ucsd}!logicon.arpa!lance | \ / | | \/ | Selling skin, selling god, | /\ | the numbers look the same on the credit card. | / \ | - Queensryche +--------------+-------------------------------------------------------------
colwell@uunet.UU.NET (Robert Colwell) (02/23/89)
In article <6405@ecsvax.UUCP> brs@lzfme.att.com (B.SCHWARTZ) writes: ==In article <6394@ecsvax.UUCP= ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: = ==There's an article on the front page of the Times today that reports ==the results of a study into why there is such a gender gap in the ==computer industry. It about boils down to the thesis that men get ==a big jump on woman because they were computer nerds in high school ==and college (hanging around playing with computers at all hours rather ==than having any real friends). = =Most successful women in the computer field have =parents, or other mentors who work in the field and =introduced them to computing (with encouraagement) at an early =age. Betsy and Ron, I've been in this industry for about 14 years and I've never noticed a correlation between successful engineers (or any other kind) and role models, male or female. Why do you think this? In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of *any* cases where the parents were engineers or technical role models. Not to say that it wouldn't be nice, and that it might help improve the contributions of women to the technical fields, but I can't see the correlation you're asserting. Bob Colwell ..!uunet!mfci!colwell Multiflow Computer or colwell@multiflow.com 175 N. Main St. Branford, CT 06405 203-488-6090
julian@uunet.UU.NET (Julian Elischer) (03/02/89)
In article <6558@ecsvax.UUCP>, mapike@PROOF.ERGO.CS.CMU.EDU (Mary Ann Pike) writes: > In article <6394@ecsvax.UUCP> ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: > >There's an article on the front page of the Times today that reports > >the results of a study into why there is such a gender gap in the > >computer industry. It about boils down to the thesis that men get > >a big jump on woman because they were computer nerds in high school > >and college (hanging around playing with computers at all hours rather [text deleted] [text likening hacking to playing with cars] > But sometimes I feel that some men feel it necessary to reinvent the wheel > by doing something themselves which has been done many times before, and > probably better (gee, I think I'll write a C compiler tonight). I've > even found this attitude from the managers at some of the companies I've > worked for. > An interresting point, though I find that my desire to fix my car myself is for 2 reasons.. 1/ Men are supposed to be able to fix cars, so I need to do so for my own self esteem.. yeh I know I sound silly.. so? 2/ I learned how to do it as a kid and like to know I can still do it. I think women often don't play with cars because they are told not to as kids, and that in the adalescent (sp?) years when they MIGHT just do it anyhow, the same forces come into play that stop them from being hackers.. (see below) [text deleted] > > It seems that a lot of men prefer hobbies that do not involve interaction > with another living being, and that border on being obsessions. Perhaps > social interactions are not stressed as being important to men when they > are growing up, and many of them feel uncomfortable in activities that > require them to be with other people socially. Or perhaps men are made to > feel that they must be in competition all the time (with the emphasis on > boys to participate in sports, compete for dates, etc.), and that to > interact socially is to fail in competition. > I think you are very close in this. I find it hard to put my finger on it but I think it has a lot to do with 'dates' though the competition bit I'm not so sure about. Women are drawn into the social activities in their teen years by their peers and by the males as well. To be passive as a female will very often still result in social activity. For a male, passivity will not, because a male must actively FORCE himself into the social scene. I remember that as a "high school computer nerd" I was absolutly besotted by a girl at a nearby girls school, (for 3 years), yet I never got up the courage to talk to her.. I wanted desperatly to go to films and parties etc. but I knew she would never talk to ME. and I put my energies into experimenting with the marvelous new toys. Those of us that weren't really sports types, really exiled ourselves to activities such as computers because we believed we were failures as men (well boys) and that our salvation lay in other directions. I still believe to this day that if a bunch of girls had had the gumption to look past the rules of 'coolness' and had showed any interest in us guys, the school would have run out of 'hackers' in about twenty seconds flat. Basically, most hackers are interested for sure in computers, but nearly all of those that I have met, (lots) only have that fanaticism when they are using it to stave off their fear of failure, and lonelyness. > This has been rambling some, but my main point was that men seem to > get seriously involved with machines (cars or computers), and even > women who have the same education don't seem to develop this tendency. > I can honestly say that I don't know one female hacker, and I do know > at least a dozen female programmers. I know I've rambled a bit too, but it's hard sometimes puting a nebulous idea into words.. > > > Mary Ann Pike > (mapike@cs.cmu.edu) > Carnegie-Mellon University > Pittsburgh, PA > > P.S. I don't think that the difference is at all related to men 'getting > started at an early age'. Our high school had just gotten a very > primitive computer when I was a junior, and about 25 percent of > our computer club was women. But none of those women were what I > would call hackers, and many of them did better academically than > the men, so it wasn't a case of the women not being at the same > scholastic level as the men. As I said, these women would I would think all have their social worlds as well as that in the club.. They would have other focuses (focii?) in their lives, often helped along by what society expected from them. Life can be tough being a guy too you know! julian@acp.oz.au <- if your network takes full domain names this is the one. UUCP: uunet!munnari!acp.oz!julian
gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) (03/15/89)
In article <6656@ecsvax.UUCP> you write: >Those of us that weren't really sports types, really exiled ourselves >to activities such as computers because we believed we were failures >as men (well boys) and that our salvation lay in other directions. I had a little different experience in high school. I was not a "real sports type" (ie. not on varsity, but I did train with the team) but I didn't feel like a failure. I found some time to play sports after school with friends, I sang in my high school choir, I wrote for magazines and I was a math tutor. I never felt compelled to be a hacker. There was a computer in our high school with hackers, but I didn't become one of them. I wanted to learn how to submit my own jobs, but I never had a burning desire to spend all my time with the computer. >I still believe to this day that if a bunch of girls had had the >gumption to look past the rules of 'coolness' and had showed any >interest in us guys, the school would have run out of 'hackers' in >about twenty seconds flat. The thing that is bothering me in this thread of discussion is the fact that being a hacker is looked upon as some socially undesirable thing. This is a view portrayed by the media that casts hackers in a highly unfavorable light. Hackers are not the one-dimensional beings that the movies and TV would have us believe. I know quite a lot of hackers. Some are as have been described here, but not the majority. I know hackers that are skiers, keep pets, spend afternoons at amusement parks, sing in choirs, roller skate, compose music, and do a number of other things non-hackers do. I'm not even limiting myself to computer hackers -- hackers come in all disciplines. In my opinion, what sets computer hackers apart from people who use computers for their job or research is that they really have fun with them, enough so that they choose to spend time interacting with them whereas other people would do other things. Perhaps they are not as socially interactive as other people but it is up to them. As long as they are not being self-destructive or destructive to others I don't see what is so bad about what they are doing. --gregbo
warw@uunet.UU.NET (Anthony R. Wuersch) (04/04/89)
gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: > The thing that is bothering me in this thread of discussion is the > fact that being a hacker is looked upon as some socially undesirable > thing. This is a view portrayed by the media that casts hackers in a > highly unfavorable light. Hackers are not the one-dimensional beings > that the movies and TV would have us believe. Is the US image of hackers really so negative? What shaped it so? Did Sherry Turkle go on Nightline? Maybe someone could send me e-mail and explain it. I'm second-generation American (parents from Switzerland), but out of the US since '86. I've worked in Switzerland in computing since '86, and now work primarily with Swiss and Germans. I know no US popular idea of a hacker. I don't recall any public image of hackers from before I left the US other than Matthew Broderick showing off his hacks to a girlfriend in *War Games*. Hardly asocial. Nor undesirable. The Federal Republic of Germany has many hackers, some more newsworthy than in the US. The FRG Chaos Computer Club has published two books on its history and political philosophy. A group of hackers (unrelated to the Club) will soon go on trial for espionage. Articles say the hacker spies needed money for their coke habits. Big coke habits don't fit a US hacker stereotype. They suggest an intense social life. I've read *nothing* about German hackers or "computer freaks" which suggests an unhappy or different or outsider adolescence. A good rule to follow in a second culture is to value what people tell you over your own intuition. So I directly asked some people here if the US image of hackers and scientific people as social outsiders sounds right to them. I got queasy asking this question. People gave me astounded looks, made me rephrase it ten different ways, then asked me am I serious, is this *really* what I'm asking?? Am I joking? Even more disturbing --- do I really believe this myself? Going into science because one feels like an outsider is plainly and simply *ridiculous*, here. No one's heard of the idea before. Perhaps the idea is just as unusual in other European countries. Toni Wuersch ( warw@cgch.UUCP , mcvax!cernvax!cgch!warw ) By the way, a typical hacker behavior in the US --- *very* heavy use of electronic mail and news networks --- is reproduced in France on a larger scale by screen networks supported by the French PTT. Their biggest load is sex talk. Switzerland's PTT started a similar experiment recently. Same result. -------------- End of first article ------------------- -------------- Begin of second article ---------------- Usually I try very hard to stay factual. But sometimes I see something that is so *representative* and *well-meaning* and *misguided* that I blow my top. I have no disagreement with the author as a person, just with the words. One could interpret them as lending passive support to some disgusting and obnoxious causes. As Milton said, "He also serves who only stands and waits." gds@spam.istc.sri.com (Greg Skinner) writes: >In my opinion, what sets computer hackers apart from people who use >computers for their job or research is that they really have fun with >them, enough so that they choose to spend time interacting with them >whereas other people would do other things. Absolutely right! Now I thought the next sentence would be "So what?" or "Isn't it sad how they get persecuted for having fun?" A good close to a timely and good article. Instead: >Perhaps they are not as socially interactive as other people but it is >up to them. As long as they are not being self-destructive or destructive >to others I don't see what is so bad about what they are doing. I could not be so bland. That sounds like abandonment. People are being blackballed and attacked; others are learning the wrong lesson from their adjustment, namely that persecution works. Don't you think it's revolting how hackers and so *many* other US people get persecuted for achieving and leading creative lives? Isn't there bigotry both in the condemnation and in its acceptance? Why do people take media witchhunts seriously? Why do people take part in witchhunts, but deny that this is just what they are doing? What is happening today in the US with regard to hackers and people who enjoy computing in general is a pure witchhunt. Hackers stomp on the flag by interrupting ARPA, and they could let the Russians win if they look into NASA. Total junk. Even the *NSA* will tell you so, when asked point-blank. Hackers also played a role in the *making* of ARPA. Prudent young people will avoid a deep plunge into computers because they heard that a right-wing demogogic label will mark them as a freak. Unless enough people say this is junk and stick to their resistance. If it's true that scientific people in high school cower in their science clubs, then they should either start a social committee for some partys or reconsider their sexual preference. We should help them do so. That means defending them, giving them sanctuary, intervening in their behalf. When you see junk, tell people it's junk. Don't accept it or adapt to it. Junk is heroin. A good dictionary will tell you this. Again, I apologize for my strong reaction and want to emphasize that I liked and agreed with most of Greg's article. Toni Wuersch ( warw@cgch.UUCP , mcvax!cernvax!cgch!warw )