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: Re: re: net.[wo]men[.only] -> net.people
Message-ID: <3175@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Jan-84 13:02:54 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3175
Posted: Sun Jan 22 13:02:54 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jan-84 13:34:24 EST
Organization: CSRG, University of Toronto
Lines: 83

--

Quoting out of context is occasionally necessary, but it sometimes blurs
points.  To correct the impression from Sherry Mann's article that I'm hostile
to discussion of issues effecting women, and to the existence of net.women
itself, I quote my own article:
-----------
>  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.
-----------
Nowhere have I advocated the abolition of net.women as a newsgroup.
Quoting from the conclusion of Sherry Mann's response:
-----------
>I agree that many things discussed on net.women are not specifically
>women's issues.  They are often posted to net.women because they are
>on subjects which traditionally fell within women's realms, i.e.,
>interpersonal relations,
>childcare, feelings, etc.  Many of these subjects probably would be
>better off elsewhere, but not at the expense of net.women, which I
>believe should deal with the very real subject of women's issues.
-----------
It seems that we both agree that some topics discussed on net.women are not
specifically women's issues.  I believe we differ in the significance we
attach to that poor fit.  I didn't explain my concerns in detail before;
here goes.

  I see many of society's (yes, all of society-- men and women) detrimental
attitudes towards women based on inappropriate discrimination with respect
to sex.  (There *is* appropriate discrimination based on sex; e.g. provision
of maternity leave)  Such discrimination is encouraged by, and reinforces, the
division of topics into "men's issues" and "women's issues"-- a viscious
circle.  But there are *only* historical reasons for the division.  The
cited topics (interpersonal relations, childcare, feelings) are perfect
examples of topics that SHOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH EVERYONE, NOT JUST WOMEN.
Putting such discussion in net.women simply reinforces that illogical and
damaging separation.  Worse, it is symptomatic of an us/them, adversarial,
attitude.
  The horrendous working conditions of the past were resolved by giving power
to the workers through labour unions.  Over time, and through long struggle,
management/worker competition bettered the lot of the worker.  Now, we find
that management and labour must cooperate, and the decades of competition
must *seriously* hurt the chances for that cooperation.
  If we consider the horrendous conditions women as a group are exposed to
(just consider advertising as a lesser example), we might conclude that a
lot of banding-together-to-fight-the-sexists is needed, with the aim of
getting legislation that will change institutions for the better.
One can even assume that this will work.  Will we be left with a
situation similar to management/labour legislated "respect"?  This might
work to get higher pay for women, but I can't see it, of itself, helping men 
and women to get along better.  And improved cooperation seems to be needed
if the truly tragic divorce rate is to be lowered.  And, more fundamentally,
if there is to be the true respect needed to really solve the problem.
  I think achievement of adversarial "equality" such as we see between
management and labour (I use "equality" loosely-- whether mgt or labour
currently has the upper hand is another issue) would be a very hollow
victory indeed.  We have got to stress cooperation and understanding, such
as people are now realizing is needed between mgt and labour.  Needless
separation of issues according to sex is going to hurt this.
  No, I am NOT saying that women should not fight for the rights owed to
them.  I am just pointing out that when the battle is "won", we will all
have to get along, and past statements and groupings won't be forgotten
easily.  Following a moderate course, between fighting for respect and
encouraging cooperation through education, is never easy, nor is arguing
for moderation.  But to expect education alone to work is to be overly
optimistic, and to expect fighting-the-men to leave anything but a
battlefield at the end is to be ignorant of the realities of the situation.  

Let's have net.women for issues that are *objectively* directly concerned
with women and their relation to society, like maternity leave and laws
specifically concerning women (e.g. to redress existing inbalances such
as wage disparities, representation in school faculties).  But
childcare, relationships, feelings, ERA?  I dare anyone to tell me those are
issues that don't concern me as a man.  Putting them in net.women is
an affront.  Let's create net.people and put them there.

p. rowley, U. Toronto