Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!cca!ima!inmet!mazur From: mazur@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Sex prejudice, what else? - (nf) Message-ID: <1118@inmet.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Mar-84 05:55:53 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.1118 Posted: Mon Mar 19 05:55:53 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Mar-84 01:38:21 EST Lines: 29 #R:dciem:-77200:inmet:10900061:000:1340 inmet!mazur Mar 19 00:49:00 1984 [ insert appropriate profanity ] Talk about your no-win situation. Shelley posts a note to .women.only, and she gets responses from men who (besides not honoring the women-only guide lines, they're wrong, but they do exist) trivialize the problem and suggest really practical solutions, like exposing yourself to ionizing radiation. Now Mark Brader has decided he has to expose this blatant example of "sex prejudice". I'm sure all the men who don't "spy" on .women.only were really sorry to have almost missed that piece of information (about static cling). It's funny that the Madison Ave. people never realized the market out there; thousands of men whose dresses stick to their nylons! Seriously (oh yes, I was being sarcastic), I think that .women.only was *the* proper place for Shelley's article. It's responses like Mark's that will keep the feminist (and *not* women only) mailing list thriving (oops, is this a can of worms?). At least within the contents of the mailing list, the participants can discuss things without having their words or ideas attacked (with few exceptions). Someone (pardon me for not quoting you in my anger) mentioned the "vultures" who hover over net.women. I think a response like Mark's (and probably mine) was exactly what she had in mind. Beth Mazur {ima,harpo,esquire}!inmet!mazur