Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site wateng.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!wateng!jamcmullan
From: jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: men dominate net.women (flame-ish)
Message-ID: <2783@wateng.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 29-Aug-85 18:00:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: wateng.2783
Posted: Thu Aug 29 18:00:09 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 11:48:20 EDT
References: <175@drutx.UUCP> <177@drutx.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 28

There ARE too many counter-productive postings from men in net.women.
I simply gave up reading the group a couple of months ago because one had to
wade through so much junk to get the gems. (I confess that, because August is
such a quiet month here, I just read a whole bunch of the articles in net.women)

I, too, wonder how a "mod.women" newsgroup would work out. I suspect it might
be a lot more successful than other "mod" groups have been -- but then I would
have said the same for mod.motss & we sure don't get many articles at wateng
in that group!

And, while I am sounding off, I'd like to comment on the following:

> No. Into their own mailing list, where the nasty world won't bite.
> The reason that net.women.only didn't work (in my opinion) was
> that it was a public admission of women seeking special privs.
> So it wasn't posted to very frequently.  So the mailing list was
> built.

The reason net.women.only didn't work was because there were too many fellows
who would not respect the ".only" -- they insisted on ridiculing articles in
net.women.only (either there or, more politely, in net.women) or in sending
hostile mail to women posting in net.women.only.
There may have been women who spurned the idea (not the reality) of
net.women.only as "separationist" (choke. gag. what a word!) but quite a few
others of us would have loved a little "woman-space" on the net.

   --from the sssstickkky keyboard of JAM
   ...!{ihnp4|clyde|decvax}!watmath!wateng!jamcmullan