Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tektronix.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!moiram From: moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: men dominate net.women (flame-ish) Message-ID: <5626@tektronix.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 17:07:52 EDT Article-I.D.: tektroni.5626 Posted: Thu Aug 22 17:07:52 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 19:35:28 EDT References: <175@drutx.UUCP> <231@whuts.UUCP> <2674@sun.uucp> <448@timeinc.UUCP> Reply-To: moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 70 Summary: In article <448@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >> Sunny >>Thank you, Andy, for providing the example I need to make a point: > Ross >Thank YOU, Sunny, for such an entertaining article! Ross, of course, needs no provocation to attack Sunny. Any (every?) article is provocation enough. >>The entire net is dominated by men struggling for power. The one area >>where women *might* have had a chance to talk together, net.women, has >>from its inception been dominated by men. > >Interesting OPINION stated as fact, Sunny. Oh, come off it, Ross. Most of the articles posted could be "opinion stated as fact". Indeed, unless a direct attribution is made, it is the default assumption for many. > Besides, are you > asking for any special privs due to women because they are women? What we asked for was a newsgroup where we could discuss what *we* wanted to discuss without certain men twisting the discussions to fit their interests, because our interests were too petty. A newsgroup where we could express ourselves without being blasted to kingdom come by the flames, without being told that our ideas are worthless. But Sunny said all that and you didn't listen to her, so why would you listen to me. What we asked for was the courtesy to allow us our space on the net. But because of a few men like you, Ross, who would rather open our doors (in the name of courtesy) than give us our space, we have retreated to the mailing list. Because only in an atmosphere where we could control submissions have we been able to avoid the domination of power-mongering males. > >> >>And that is why, after net.women failed for this reason, that >>net.women.only was created.. to keep the men from "dominating" the >>converstaion... from changing the nature of the conversation from >>sharing to contention. And when men again refused to respect the >>charter of the newsgroup known as net.women.only... > >I recall a lengthy argument I had with >a poster of the second class, where I stated that (although I >disagreed with the special privs provided to the women based on >their sex), he still should have adhered to the net.announce.newusers >postings until the group collapsed under its own contradictions. net.women.only did not collapse under its own contradictions! It was flat-out abandoned because it didn't work. I did not see one vote for net.women.only in the recent poll prior to its demise. Where do you think all of those women went? Into the woodwork? I'm not sure where you get off calling net.women.only a special privilege. It seems any time we want something for ourselves you deem it a special privilege, and I guess that's the problem. Equality is not a special privilege, dammit. IT IS OUR RIGHT. I never heard any votes about net.men.only. I can't imagine that the women arguing for our space in net.women.only would have denied the space for a net.men.only. There is a mens mailing list and I haven't heard any women denigrating that. (just a hint, Ross. What you represent to me is quickly changing :-) Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram