Xref: utzoo news.groups:4602 news.admin:2682
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!killer!csccat!loci
From: loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin
Subject: Re: Democracy at work: Big brother is watching
Message-ID: <956@csccat.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jun 88 00:35:54 GMT
References: <56436@sun.uucp> <15613@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <4342@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <44373@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> <4350@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: loci@csccat.UUCP (Chuck Brunow)
Organization: Loci Products
Lines: 78

In article <4350@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes:
>In article <44373@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> rick@seismo.CSS.GOV (Rick Adams) writes:
>>	1) Why comp.women instead of comp.discrimination or some such?
>>		Are women the only ones with these problems? If not,
>>		why exclude the others.
>
>The group is not primarily for discussion of discrimination. The
>moderator has said that.  There have been lists of topics posted
>that would be appropriate and interesting to discuss in the group
>once created that have nothing to do with discrimination.

	Since I had missed the postings which described the potential
	topics, I am glad to see this summary. The posting of topics
	seems to be the most direct way to address the issues and I
	applaud this approach.

>Some examples:
>	How to encourage more women to enter the computing field?
>	How do we encourage a higher percentage of women to go on
>	  for PhDs in the field?

	What is the basis for these questions? It appears to pass over
	the question of intrinsic benefit: why is it desirable to 
	encourage more women to enter the computing field? Why is it
	specifically women who need encouragement? It appears that these
	goals could be applied to most people so I begin to detect
	political motives when others are excluded. 

>	Why aren't there more women hackers?
>	Why aren't there more female backbone admins?

	These questions are awfully artificial. Hackers choose to be
	hackers. There are no restrictions or requirements except
	desire. If women chose to use their time on other things,
	that's their choice. Aren't you grasping at straws to suggest
	that "female backbone admins" are desirable by virtue of their
	gender? 

>	Safety for pregnant women in computing occupations...

	Now here's one I can support. This really is a topic which
	involves computing, is primarily a concern for women, and
	might belong.

>	Can flextime and work-at-home schemes work well when
>	  raising kids? (Question for both spouses, actually)
>	What to do about harassment on the job and on the net.

	These issues aren't restricted to women. Everyone has some
	involvement in harassment, sometimes from women. This isn't
	a specific net problem. Why are we trying to artificially
	and selectively give women a pulpit?

>	Why do so many netters think the name of comp.women
>	  is more important than the content?
>	Do professional organizations like IEEE-CS and ACM show
>	  appropriate amounts and types of support for
>	  women's issues in computing?
>	Ergonometrics and design issues from a female point of
>	  view...(ex. does the choice of the command name "man"
>	  instead of "help" imply something?  Does it matter?)

	Let's just clear the air and say it: This is a politically
	motivated grab for attention. It assumes a negative thesus
	that things are bad, and that women suffer more than anyone
	from problems we all share. Why are so many netters bugged?
	It's easy to see through the rhetoric: I don't look at the
	name on postings, but content. If women don't call attention
	to the fact that they want to be harrassed, it won't happen.

	The real point is that the name "comp.women" generates hostility
	that we don't need. Everyone has quit listening, arguments
	are rampant and that's not good for the net or anyone else.
>
-- 
			CLBrunow - KA5SOF
	Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083
	   clb@loci.uucp, loci@killer.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp