Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!peterr
From: peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.news.group
Subject: net.[wo]men[.only] -> net.people
Message-ID: <3138@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Jan-84 00:39:30 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3138
Posted: Tue Jan 17 00:39:30 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Jan-84 10:43:45 EST
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 50

I agree with Laura; the names "net.women", "net.women.only", and "net.men"
are segregatory.  They perpetuate existing social boundaries and seem to
exert a bias on discussions.  In short, these names are not neutral-- they
assume certain perspectives (a pro-woman or pro-man attitude).  Fortunately,
submitters have not been completely governed by these names.
  There is a place for forums that allow or encourage only certain
perspectives, commonly called "support groups".  They build self-confidence in
group members who can freely express their views knowing they will be affirmed.
Armed with self-confidence, they can participate in unsheltered debate.
  Such groups clearly *rely* on excluding contrary opinions, but setting up a
newsgroup which can exclude such opinions isn't possible given the free-for-all
structure of net news.  So, for purely technical reasons, support groups CAN'T
EXIST on USENet.  Worse, if one sets up a name which presumes a certain
perspective, to some people it's like waving a red flag, and they pour
*very* contrary opinions into the group, increasing combativeness and
inhibiting constructive debate.
  There are names that do not presume specific perspectives, that virtually
everyone can agree on.  Sometimes the names are quite obvious, like net.music,
net.books, and net.micro.  But when they aren't obvious, we should take the
effort to find them, in the interests of free and wide-ranging discussions.
Judging by the content of net.women, neutral (and more descriptive) names
include net.human-relations (net.hum-rel), net.people, and net.sex-roles.
Judging by the content of net.women.only, it would more properly be called
net.med.women, to indicate that it deals only with biology specific to women.
If we must have a parallel "men only" group, I suggest it be net.med.men,
but I don't think it will get a lot of traffic, as men (at least of the ages
of most net readers) don't seem to have a lot of gender-specific biological
concerns (circumcision is an example of one, though).
  I certainly agree that, if we follow past convention, net.women.only is NOT
the place to discuss circumcision.  Put the medical aspects in net.med.  But
there are many more aspects to it than medical.  Sophie Quigley started the
discussion with anthropological aspects of such surgery.  Those aspects don't
belong in net.med, but in a new group that encompasses anthropology (maybe
the proposed net.people?  net.anthro?  net.society?).  If we think of
net.women as one of these, which has been recent practice (ref. the
comments above), it could go there.
  So, I suggest: create a net.people, which would encompass inter-personal
relations and anthropology (largely taking over the role of net.women),
create a net.med.women (taking over the role of net.women.only), and
put discussion of medical aspects of circumcision in net.med, other aspects
in net.people.  I believe there is a good deal to be said to leaving
net.women, to discuss the changing role of women and how institutions are
adapting to it, but I can't help but feel that those changing roles have such
an impact on everyone, including men, that most discussions would wind up in
net.people.
  An awful lot to suggest in one message.  But I'd be happy just to see
net.people created.  I believe there is a clear and present need, and
there has been past support.

p. rowley, U. Toronto