Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!daemon
From: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: net.women/.men
Message-ID: <5024@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Jan-84 10:05:39 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.5024
Posted: Tue Jan 17 10:05:39 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Jan-84 06:40:14 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Western Research Lab, Los Altos, CA
Lines: 26

From: akov68::boyajian
	Laura:

	Well, I'm new to the net, but I think that your looking at this
net.women/net.men thing a little cockeyed (I didn't mean it *that* way!).
I tend to support the idea of a net.women.only; it doesn't bother me any more
than women friends of mine leaving the table at a restaurant, for example,
to have what they often referred to as a "b.c" (bathroom conference).
	What I think is cockeyed about your viewpoint (N.B. I'm not saying
it's invalid, just cockeyed from my own perspective) is that you seem to
think that net.women is a newsgroup *for* women (and I'll admit that it
might have been formed for that reason), while I was under the impression
that it is *about* women, just as net.religion is about religion, or that
net.sf-lovers is about sf. I read to net.women so that I could read about
women's issues, and didn't give it a thought that I might not "belong"
because I'm male. Hell, I'm straight, too, but I also subscribe to net.motss
to read about homosexual issues. It never occurred to me that the gays
would want their own newsgroup and keep straights out.
	I agree that forming a net.men would be a bad idea. Who knows
where it would stop? Net.blacks? Net.midgets? Net.italians? Net.wombats?
The mind boggles...

					---jayembee
					   (Jerry Boyajain @ DEC Maynard)
					   (decvax!decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian)