Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sbcs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!sbcs!debray
From: debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.news.group
Subject: Re: net.[wo]men[.only] (guidelines ???)
Message-ID: <582@sbcs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Jan-84 20:19:26 EST
Article-I.D.: sbcs.582
Posted: Tue Jan 24 20:19:26 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jan-84 08:21:43 EST
References: <159@ihu1g.UUCP>
Organization: SUNY at Stony Brook
Lines: 52

ihu1g!smann (Sherry Mann):

	> 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.  

There IS a difference between the guidelines regarding net.motss and those
regarding net.women.only: net.motss was formed to cater to the concerns of a
certain group, and having homophobes vent their spleen didn't serve this
purpose in any way; net.women.only was formed to cater to the needs of
women, so presumably we have (implicit) guidelines saying misogynists
aren't to rant and rave there. In both these cases, the reason for having
these guidelines is clear: "let's get on with meaningful business without
wasting time screaming at each other".

I can't see the analogy between this and the guidelines that restrict men
from posting to net.women.only SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE MALES!  The
presupposition appears to be that if a person is male, he cannot, IPSO
FACTO, have anything meaningful to contribute to a discussion on matters of
interest to women.  That's a pretty strong assumption, isn't it? (When
considering the global population of males, it's tempting to point to all
the gynecologists and hairdressers out there ...!)

Restricting read/write access to a group on such grounds as colour/race/sex
seems to me to be taking a step backwards: I can't see any logical
refutation - given the hypothesis that only women can contribute to
net.women.only - to groups such as net.whites.only (in South Africa they
call it "apartheid"), net.blacks.only, net.men.only ...

Criticize articles for what they *SAY*, if you will, not what the
contributor *IS*.

I dare say I'll get flamed for this! Oh well ...

-- 
Saumya Debray
Dept. of Computer Science
SUNY at Stony Brook

		{floyd, bunker, cbosgd, mcvax, cmcl2}!philabs!
							      \
	Usenet:						       sbcs!debray
							      /
		   {allegra, teklabs, hp-pcd, metheus}!ogcvax!
	CSNet: debray@suny-sbcs@CSNet-Relay