Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A vote *against* net.women.only
Message-ID: <389@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Nov-84 13:02:23 EST
Article-I.D.: watcgl.389
Posted: Fri Nov  9 13:02:23 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Nov-84 09:07:22 EST
References: <224@hocsj.UUCP> <1779@sun.uucp>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 26

> > 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. [.....]
> 
> {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Sunny Kirsten of Sun Microsystems Inc.)

I must take exception to this one comment of Sunny's.  I don't see any
need to interpret the posting as "evidence of male hostility to womens'
private space".  I think "evidence of hostility to being told that he
can't do whatever he pleases" is quite sufficient.

I've found that men in general (and women, for that matter!) do not
take kindly to being told to shut up, even under circumstances where
it is clear to most people that, in fact, they should not be saying
anything (such as a man posting to net.women.only).  I've seen many
flames about people having their "freedom of speech" suppressed when
someone complained about the inappropriateness of an article in any of
dozens of newsgroups; I don't think that the fact that "women" appears
in the newsgroup name necessarily has anything to do with the article
getting posted.

	Never assume malice when simple arrogance suffices,
	Dave Martindale