Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-vision.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!mokhtar From: mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: men dominate net.women (a little more flame-ish) Message-ID: <1027@ubc-vision.UUCP> Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 23:31:18 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.1027 Posted: Fri Aug 16 23:31:18 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 04:03:58 EDT Sender: mokhtar@ubc-visi.UUCP Organization: UBC Computational Vision Lab, Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 84 > After ignoring most this newsgroup for a while, because of the > plethora of male-submitted, uninteresting articles, I decided to go > through some articles and tally up the submitters. Why do these "uninteresting males" have the honor now? > This resulted in some interesting statistics: > Of the first 141 articles: 41 were from women > 100 were from men > Thinking this was rather phenomenal, I did the same thing to > the next 142 articles, this time: 34 were from women > 108 were from men > Don't you men think this is a little peculiar? Yes, it is more than a little peculiar. It used to be 1 to ~10 instead of 1 to ~3 which is what your statistics is suggesting. > ... and most recently and most amusingly, men > (programmers, students, and engineers, not MDs) writing about PMS! Anything wrong with that ????? > What is this, Intro to Women's Liberation, 101?? Why don't *most* of > you guys get some basic women's issues/liberation 1985 knowledge from > your local women's bookstore/coalition, and quit cluttering up the net > with your poorly thought out comments? (Some of you really say some > silly things sometimes.) Not only that but there are some who actually respond with some really silly things of their own! > With less of this juvenile 101 discussion we > could *all* spend more time on more useful discussion like: parenting, > breast cancer treatments, child care, working situations, other women's > health issues, women still earning $0.52 for every $1.00 a man earns, > a woman's right to her body, etc. There are *other* newsgroups to discuss *all* of the topics you just mentioned (Such as net.kids, net.medicine, net.politics, net.abortion). So perhaps net.women *is* the place for "juvenile 101 discussions". > With the exception of Adreienne, Moira, Jeanette, Sophic, S. Badian, > Sunny, and a few others, very few women submit to this group. In other words a small number of women write most articles submitted by women to net.women. > I think > many women read it, (or would read it) but don't want to get involved > in these often trivial discussions (like myself). Well, you just did. > Plus, many of you > guys come off as if you'd chew them up and spit them out. (Some of > you are often *truely* unkind.) But are the guys the only ones who are "often *truely* unkind" ? > I am saying: lighten up and quit taking your every thought so seriously. What *should* I take seriously then? Your thoughts? Are you serious? Are you lightened up? If you are lightened up, then may be *your* thoughts are not so serious? Should *your* thoughts be taken seriously? Why should I not take my thoughts seriously? Maybe we should first decide who is lightened up. I guess this makes me one of the unenlightened, but I still like to take my thoughts seriously. > As has been said recently (by a man with insight), there is no net.men > because men dominate *all* of the newsgroups. (Why do you suppose > net.women.only and a private women's mailing list were started?) Why do I suppose someone like you who is more interested in "useful discussions" is wasting her time in net.women and not sticking to net.women.only or the mailing list? Farzin Mokhtarian ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Where does the wind make its home?" "Where does the wind make its home?"