Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site hocsj.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!hocsj!ecl
From: ecl@hocsj.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A vote *against* net.women.only
Message-ID: <247@hocsj.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Nov-84 10:18:10 EST
Article-I.D.: hocsj.247
Posted: Sun Nov 11 10:18:10 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Nov-84 05:33:36 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 37


Reference: <224@hocsj.UUCP>, <1779@sun.uucp>

("> > " is my original posting, "> " is Sunny's reply)
> 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.

Historical reasons for discrimination are no excuse.  Historically, women were
not able to vote in this country.  So what does that prove?

>                                            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.

This is still a generalization (and an unfair one) on men.

> > 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.

It is a moot point because it can't be undone.  And I know just as many women
who betray confidences as men.

>                          His intent is clear.  So is yours.

My intent was/is to show that reverse bigotry is still bigotry.


					Evelyn C. Leeper
					...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl