Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!sunny
From: sunny@sun.uucp (Sunny Kirsten)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A vote *against* net.women.only
Message-ID: <1779@sun.uucp>
Date: Wed, 7-Nov-84 18:22:29 EST
Article-I.D.: sun.1779
Posted: Wed Nov  7 18:22:29 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 19:31:36 EST
References: <224@hocsj.UUCP>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 46

from net.news.group:

net.women               Women's rights, discrimination, etc.
net.women.only          Postings by women only (read by all).

Historically, this was the charter for net.women.only.
HIstorically, it only worked a little while before the men intruded on this
ONE bastion of women space on the net, and dominated the women's discussions.
Since the charter alone had not been sufficent to keep the men from dominating,
the underground mail list was created to keep them from dominating the
discussion which women wanted to carry on without being dominated by men.
It fell into disuse, and now only serves as a painful reminder of the battle
of the sexes.  I didn't ever claim that this is how it should be.  Nor that
that is the function it should serve on USENET.  I was just relating the
historical development of it.  I don't like the situation either.  David
merely was the n'th male to come and hassle women in net.women.only.
Read the damn charter, and then get lost.  The point of it is not to put
down men, but that they have to be put down for their continued intrusions
on space they were asked to leave inviolate.  As far as which men are 
included in the feminist newsgroups, any who don't attempt to dominate the
discussions have been included.  
 
> I've just read David DiGiacomo's article on [Sunny's] rationale(?)  for
> net.women.only.  (Whether or not David DiGiacomo should have posted what was
> obviously a personal reply to the net is a moot point now.

It is not a moot point.  It is further evidence of male hostility to womens'
private space.  In fact, he requested permission to post that private reply,
and against my wishes, posted what was intended as a private reply, obviously
for the purpose of stirring up trouble.  Why?  Because when he insisted on
quoting me, he chose to quote my original private mail to him, rather than
to use a nicer version I offered him which would have been more constructive
and helpful to the network community, explaining the history of net.women.only,
rather than incendiary.  His intent is clear.  So is yours.  I refuse to
participate any further than this.  This is exactly why the feminist mailing
list was started.  So we don't continually have to defend our space against
male hassling, intrusions, attempts to deprive us of same, etc.  We have the
right to assemble freely, and you shall not deny us.  Our purpose is NOT to
put down men, but to have them stop putting US down and dominating us.

Naturally, I represent only my own opinions of the moment, which are rather
angry and likely to evidence hostility otherwise absent.

-- 
exit
{ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems Inc.)