Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihu1g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!ihu1g!smann
From: smann@ihu1g.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women,net.news.group
Subject: Re: net.[wo]men[.only] -> net.people
Message-ID: <159@ihu1g.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Jan-84 14:27:41 EST
Article-I.D.: ihu1g.159
Posted: Fri Jan 20 14:27:41 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Jan-84 07:19:13 EST
References: <3138@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 80


 >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.  

I disagree with these statements.  Women's issues is a very real
and controversial subject.  Most people (men and women) have very
definite ideas about the subject.  Net.women is a place to debate,
examine, and discuss those ideas.

 >In short, these names are not neutral-- they
 >assume certain perspectives (a pro-woman or pro-man attitude).

Pro-woman is not assumed when speaking of women's issues.
Or rather, I believe most people do consider themselves to be
pro-woman - whether to them that means that a woman's place
is in the home, with a strong dependable man to look after her,
or that women are capable, strong,
dependable.  What view you take of women is as worthy of discussion
as any other, and if I disagree with you (and if in fact, my life and
career are affected by your beliefs - which I believe they are), I want
to know what you are thinking, so welcome your discussion of it.

 >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.

I have to take issue with the above.
Even if net.women.only is a "support group"
(I don't think it is),
I must disagree that such a group cannot exist on the net.
Net.women.only was started for the benefit of those who
felt that any discussion of women's issues generated the
same old arguments, and some women get tired of having a bunch
of men jump in and tell them what they feel is wrong or not important.
(My perception entirely)
Net.women.only was formed then to set certain guidelines
on what would be discussed (or in this case, who would do the
discussing).  This worked very well with net.motss,
another issue that raises strong emotional responses in people.
I did not agree with the need for net.women.only,
but am not surprised that the guidelines (no men should post to the group)
are frequently ignored.  If net.motss can effectively set guidelines that moral
judgements not be posted to the group, then there is no reason why
net.women.only cannot effectively set guidelines.  
However, as is often the case,
what can work very well in the area of sex, politics or religion,
somehow does not work at all in the area of women's rights.

 > 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.

Net.women presumes not a certain perspective (as dealt with above), but
a certain issue.  Women, women's rights, women's roles, perceptions of
women are legitimate concerns to a great many people and worthy of
discussion on their own merits.  Because the subject "waves a red flag"
for some people, is no reason to bury it within other issues.

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.

	Sherry Mann
	ihu1g!smann