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