Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Computer Undergroud Digest Vol. 03 Issue 01
****************************************************************************
>C O M P U T E R U N D E R G R O U N D<
>D I G E S T<
*** Volume 3, Issue #3.01 (Januar6 12, 1991) **
** SPECIAL ISSUE: RESPONSES TO CU/SEXISM ARTICLES **
****************************************************************************
MODERATORS: Jim Thomas / Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.bitnet)
ARCHIVISTS: Bob Krause / Alex Smith / Bob Kusumoto
Ubermeister of Political Correctness: Brendan Kehoe
USENET readers can currently receive CuD as alt.society.cu-digest.
Anonymous ftp sites: (1) ftp.cs.widener.edu (2) cudarch@chsun1.uchicago.edu
E-mail server: archive-server@chsun1.uchicago.edu.
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted as long as the source is
cited. Some authors, however, do copyright their material, and those
authors should be contacted for reprint permission.
It is assumed that non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted
unless otherwise specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned
articles relating to the Computer Underground.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent the
views of the moderators. Contributors assume all responsibility
for assuring that articles submitted do not violate copyright
protections.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In CuD 3.00, two short files raising issues about sexism in the CU
generated more response in a three day period than any other recent topic.
Some readers clearly do not feel such issues are appropriate in CuD, so we
have selected representative responses for a single issue. For those who
send comments that we didn't include here, thanks, but we simply didn't
have room for them all.
Our own view is that most social issues are intertwined: We can't discuss
government abuse of power, ethical issues of privacy, or new definitions of
correct/incorrect behavior in isolation from other aspects of society. For
example, the troublesome issues surrounding Sun Devil share with feminism,
racism, and other "isms" questions of civil rights and how they can be
promoted and protected. We do not feel that CuD should be the platform for
the agenda of any particular group, but we do recognize the necessity for
raising, and for allowing others to raise, issues that are of concern to
them.
We *CAUTION* readers to try to minimize the quotes presented in an article
or response. Some editors indiscriminately reproduce an entire post. Please
be sure to edit out what is not needed, or better, don't cite by summarize
in a single sentence or two. Unfortunately, space requires that we edit out
what isn't needed, so *please* exercise restraint. We will not publish
future response comments on the previous sexism/CU articles, but we do
encourage well-conceived *relevant* articles address the topics raised in
3.00 and below.
CuD 3.02 should be out Wednesday. Thanks to the efforts of the people who
put out FULL DISCLOSURE, we have an apparent smoking gun linking the Secret
Service to a sting board whose number, listed in federal documents,
corresponds to that of THE DARK SIDE, a now-defunct board in Phoenix. The
sysop of THE DARK SIDE was, according to a federal seizure warrant, a
*PAID* INFORMANT. According to logs we have received, a person known as THE
DICTATOR claimed to be the sysop of this board. For those who have
forgotten, the 15 hours of video tapes taken by the Secret Service at
Summercon '88 were allegedly taken from THE DICTATOR's room. Full details
in the next issue.
------------------------------
From: wayner@SVAX.CS.CORNELL.EDU(Peter Wayner)
Subject: Re: CU Digest #3.00
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 91 10:51:53 -0500
I would like to register a mild complaint about broadening the CuD to
include discussions of sexism and other "isms". Most of the stuff I saw in
#3.00 would be just as much at home in Time magazine or any other broadly
aimed journal of culture. It would be good if you included articles on this
topic if they were strongly linked with the Underground.
I also find it a bit annoying/hilarious to find one woman telling us that
that they speak in a "nurturing... control-free language" and then
strong-arming us into using it.
------------------------------
From: BIFF@PHOENIX.COM(Izzie Borden)
Subject: Re: Sexism in the CU
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 02:02:43 EST
In CuD #3.00: File 4 (Sexism and the CU), Liz E. Borden writes:
>The voice of the computer
>world reflects a male voice and recreates the subtle patriarchy of the
>broader society through the so-called neutrality of "objective" science and
>the ways of speaking and behaving that, when translated into the
>two-dimensional world of electronic communications, tend to silence women.
There is no "voice of the computer world". There is more to "the computer
world" than two dimensional electronic communications (in fact, a wire is
closer to a one dimensional object than two). Computer use is nowhere near
an objective science. Very few, if any, of the women I have met in the
computer world have been silent. Most of them have been rather outspoken.
Do you have examples of the silence?
>Let's look at just a few areas where cybersexism creeps in. First, The CU
>is made up mostly of males.
This, in itself, is not sexist.
> I'm told by friends, and the facts are
>consistent with those given to me by one CuD moderator, that at a maximum,
>less that five percent of pirates are female, and probably less than one
>percent are phreaks or hackers.
This is also not sexist. Of course, one could claim that women have more
sense than to take part in the criminal activity of piracy or phreaking,
but THAT would be sexist. Feminists, however, are quick to claim that the
world would be better off if only women ruled, but that, of course, is not
sexist at all. (The last sentence measured 5.6 on my sarcasmometer.)
>This skewed participation transports the
>male culture of values, language, concerns, and actions, into a new world
>and creates models that women must conform to or be excluded from full
>membership.
Just as the male members must conform or be excluded. Are there many
hackers or pirates that look and act like Secret Service agents? If women
decide to take no part in forming the culture, they should not complain
about how it turned out. Like, if you don't vote, don't complain about the
politicians. And unlike the vote, there are no laws that kept women from
the CU.
> Like the Europeans, CUites move into a new territory and stake
>out their cultural claim committing a form of cultural genocide against
>those with different cultural backgrounds.
Any group that moves into a new area takes their culture with them. E.g.,
lace curtains in the settler's sod huts. The new territory here had no
indigenous culture, so cultural genocide is an inappropriate term. You
cannot "genocide" something that did not exist. You are attempting to use
white, Anglo-Saxon guilt as a weapon here, and it will not work. If women
choose not move into new areas, their culture will not be a part of the new
territory. This is not the fault of those who DO move in.
>Third, sexism is rampant on the nets. The alt.sex (bondage, gifs,
>what-have-you) appeal to male fantasies of a type that degrades women.
If you object to alt.sex, you are free to start alt.feminist. Come to think
of it, I think there already IS an alt.feminist. And, come to think of it,
some of the comments I have heard from women, and feminists in particular,
are pretty degrading to men. Sauce for the goose?
Are you trying to say that you think those who say what they do in alt.sex
are not free to say what they say?
> No,
>I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe we can raise the gender
>implications of these news groups just as we would if a controversial
>speaker came to a campus.
Whew! I was worried for a minute. A campus speaker is akin to speaking out
in alt.feminist about the actions in alt.sex. You do not have the right,
nor the authority, to drag your controversial speaker to the meeting of the
alt.sex club and demand they listen, just as they do not have the right to
demand you host Larry Flynt at your alt.feminist meeting.
> Most posts that refer to a generic category tend
>to use male specific pronouns that presume masculinity (the generic "he")
"He" referring to a generic antecedent is generic, just as you say. It
does not coerce any gender. When the antecedent HAS gender, then "he" is
male specific, just as "she" is female specific for a gender-laden
antecedent.
>At the two universities I attended, both with excellent computer science
>departments,
At one of the major universities I attended, the Student Union had a room
called "The Women's Lounge". This room was meant FOR WOMEN ONLY. It was a
nice, quiet room filled with nice soft chairs and sofas, and had a terrific
view of the campus. (Those of us not allowed in because of our gender could
see in the door. It was NOT a restroom, nor was there any gender specific
content to the room at all.) It was where all the women went when they
wanted to study. The union staff were quick to escort any males who
wandered in, out.
Just outside this room was a huge generic lounge. It had at least one TV,
on at all times at max volume, and was filled with beat up furniture and
noisy discussions of just about anything. The main entrance to the building
was in this lounge, and almost everyone using the union passed through. In
winter, it was cold and drafty. Studying was almost impossible in the
"Everybody Lounge". Gee, wouldn't it have been nice if the feminists on
this campus had recognized the irony in this situation. No, they were
quite happy to have a special lounge just for them, and cared not a whit
that they had special treatment.
What is the point of this? The world is an imperfect place. Women can be as
sexist as men. All [men|women] are not sexist just because some [men|women]
are. You will not erase all sexism despite your hardest efforts, and those
who decry sexism in others can be as guilty as those they decry. If you
want to solve problems, you solve specific ones.
>Why don't we think about and discuss some of
>this, and why isn't CuD taking the lead?!
CuD is not taking the lead because the CuD is not (and should not be) a
forum for women's issues. Just as the New England Journal of Medicine is
not a forum for debates on the proper wax for surfboards. If there are no
other fora available, then you are just as welcome to create one as the
creators of CuD were to create CuD. Most systems have the capability of
handling mailing lists. And, surprise, if you announce its existance in
CuD, you might find some of us sexist CU people will subscribe.
Just don't walk into the CuD meeting, call us all sexist, and then demand
we do something about it.
------------------------------
From: omh@BROWNCS.BITNET(Owen M. Hartnett)
Subject: Sexism in the CuD
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 01:50:22 -0500
I have some comments relative to the sexism comments which appeared in the
last CuD. Sorry about the length, but I feel pretty strongly about this:
>The Dark Adept's article (CuD #2.10, File 9) on In-House Security Problems
>was informative and insightful. However, I was appalled by the author's
>consistent and flagrant use of masculine pronouns and sex-linked nouns to
>refer to persons (hackers, system operators, employees) who could be either
>male or female. Although hackers and system operators traditionally have
>been men, women also are assuming those roles. Moreover, employees who use
>computers certainly comprise both genders. Therefore, references to users
>as males (e.g., "employees often choose passwords such as their wife's
>maiden name") are particularly inappropriate and sexist.
Inappropriate and sexist?? According to whom? Even the passage you quoted
is hardly either. Please note the use of the word "often" above. By your
own admission, these employees are most often men, thus they would most
often choose their wife's maiden name. Don't you think you've gone a little
too far here? (Besides, husbands usually don't have a "maiden name")
>I am not accusing the author of intentional discrimination against females.
Then why were you "appalled?"
>Rather, I believe that he or she may not be aware of the implications and
>ramifications of gender-biased language. Language has the power to shape
>thought, reinforce biases, and perpetuate stereotypes. Consequently,
>omitting mention of females in a discussion about computer-related
>activities may help to sustain the impression of male domination of that
>area of our lives. Moreover, such oversights may send the covert message
>that some persons wish to maintain such an image, to discount contributions
>by women, and/or to discourage female participation.
Oh, I see. You weren't really appalled, you just thought it would be a
great opportunity to teach us poor, unthinking males your politically
correct way of thinking. Are you just being patronizing, or do you really
expect that your message will cause the authors to write and think the same
way you do?
>Therefore, I encourage everyone to become more thoughtful of their choice
>of words and more sensitive to issues regarding gender. This seems
>particularly crucial in the contemporary forum of electronic discourse. As
>we pave new paths, we must assume responsibility for changing old language
>habits. Also, we should strive to avoid sending implicit and explicit
>messages regarding females and their roles in computer science and related
>fields.
Although you may be convinced of the necessity of changing "old language
habits," others may not - and the particular "new paths" you might personally
be paving may not be the same paths on someone else's agenda, so this
implied "responsibility" is a rather nebulous and uncertain thing, don't you
think?
Besides, in this day and age, it's hard to imagine that females (or anyone
else for that matter) would be swayed in or out of a career by anyone's
choice of grammar, no matter how twisted.
[guidelines for politically correct way of writing omitted]
>Although applying these and other guidelines may be challenging and
>somewhat time-consuming, it is imperative that we make the effort to
>acknowledge the changing shape of our society as women continue to occupy
>positions previously reserved for men.
It may be imperative for you to foist this way of thinking on the world,
but I think you're wasting your time with this political small potato
when you've got much bigger fish you should be frying.
From: Liz E. Borden
[what? another hatchet job?]
>Why, you ask, do I think the CU is sexist? Carol Gilligan wrote that women
>speak in "a different voice" from men, one grounded more in nurturing,
>dialogue, negotiation and control-fee language. The voice of the computer
>world reflects a male voice and recreates the subtle patriarchy of the
>broader society through the so-called neutrality of "objective" science and
>the ways of speaking and behaving that, when translated into the
>two-dimensional world of electronic communications, tend to silence women.
So what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if men talked
(and wrote) more like women then women would not be intimidated against
contribution? Why would you want people to communicate in a manner that
is, at best strange to them, and, at worst, totally foreign?
Actually, this whole paragraph reeks of sexism. "Patriarchy" and so-called
neutrality implies a paranoia that the CU is subtly plotting to exclude
women.
>Computer underground Digest, like the CU in general, is a male bastion.
Do you really believe that this is because of the grammar chosen by the
predominently male constituents, or because its a reflection of the
actual state of society? Are you trying to make us feel guilty because
there are more men here?
>Sexist language, male metaphors, and if I'm counting correctly, not a
>single self-announced female contributor (although it is possible that some
>of the pseudonyms and anonymous writers were women).
Well, congratulations on being the first! I think it would have been
much more exemplary, however, if the first article from the self-announced
female actually pertained to issues of the Computer underground, rather
then feminist political rhetoric.
>that the editors of CuD attempt to be sensitive to the concerns of
>feminists, and have noticed that articles under their name do not contain
>sexist language and tend toward what's been called "androgenous discourse."
>But, they have have not used their position to translate concerns for
>social justice into practice by removing sexist language (or even posting a
>policy preference), by encouraging women, or by soliciting articles on
>minorities, women, and other groups that are invisible and silent.
I don't believe that the editors have any responsibility to promote
feminists or anyone else's agendas. As an admitted feminist, why aren't
you "encouraging women" or soliciting articles *by* (not on) minorities,
women, and other groups that are invisible and silent. We would like to
hear all opinions on the computer underground, as it is an interesting
and dynamic field, populated by peoples of all agendas.
>Let's look at just a few areas where cybersexism creeps in. First, The CU
great word, however!! ^^^^^^^^^^^
>is made up mostly of males. I'm told by friends, and the facts are
>consistent with those given to me by one CuD moderator, that at a maximum,
>less that five percent of pirates are female, and probably less than one
>percent are phreaks or hackers. This skewed participation transports the
>male culture of values, language, concerns, and actions, into a new world
>and creates models that women must conform to or be excluded from full
>membership. Like the Europeans, CUites move into a new territory and stake
>out their cultural claim committing a form of cultural genocide against
>those with different cultural backgrounds. Isn't it ironic that in a new
>world where "a million flowers bloom" and a variety of subcultures emerge,
>that they are for all practical purposes male?
Now you've gone beyond me here! I don't get it. "Pirates,...phreaks"?
Are you saying you think more women should be involved in illegal
activities? Would you be happier if we had a "Send a women to jail
for computer fraud" campaign?
[offensive examples of misogyny cited.]
This behavious is not part of the CU. I have never seen this here. If
you've seen it somewhere else, take it up somewhere else, this is the
computer underground digest.
>Third, sexism is rampant on the nets. The alt.sex (bondage, gifs,
>what-have-you) appeal to male fantasies of a type that degrades women. No,
>I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe we can raise the gender
>implications of these news groups just as we would if a controversial
>speaker came to a campus. Most posts that refer to a generic category tend
>to use male specific pronouns that presume masculinity (the generic "he")
>or terms such as "policeman" or "chairman" instead of "chair" or "police
>officer."
Again, take this up with alt.sex - this isn't behaviour which takes place
here, nor should the CuD be your platform to blast other's behaviour.
>The jokes, the
>language, the subtle behaviors that remind us that we are women first and
>professionals second, and all the other problems of sexism are carried over
>into the computer world.
This is a problem with society, and the computer world is part of society.
You can't cure the problem by isolating parts of society, trying to "cure"
them, and hoping the cure will spread to other parts of society. You can't
cure cancer of the lungs by cutting off a toe. The problems you speak of
are societal problems, not computer problems, and you've got to change
society itself, not a subset of it. You're thinking that the computer
industry is somehow isolated from the rest of society, and that's just not
the case.
Why don't we think about and discuss some of
this, and why isn't CuD taking the lead?!
Well, you've got my thoughts and discussion, but I don't believe any of this
stuff belongs in the CuD, nor should the CuD take the lead in anything other
than what it has been doing, which it does quite well. While I'd be happy
to discuss anything in private email, or another forum, I feel CuD should
be confined to the task for which it was formed, and leave proselytizing
for feminists issues to the feminists.
What should be in CuD is good articles about the computer underground. There
are many excellent women and minorities who are capable of writing these
articles, and I don't care what gender the pronouns are but I'd like to
read them! If you don't like the way the current articles are written, then
write better ones.
-Owen Hartnett
------------------------------
From: Michael P. Deignan <mpd@ANOMALY.SBS.COM>
Subject: Gender-Neutral Language
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 91 16:33:59 EST
In-Reference-To: "Brenda J. Allen (303) 492-0273"
Subject: Re: Gender-Neutral Language
>However, I was appalled by the author's
>consistent and flagrant use of masculine pronouns and sex-linked nouns to
>refer to persons (hackers, system operators, employees) who could be either
>male or female.
[Much more deleted for sake of eyestrain]
People have a tendency to choose sex-linked nouns of their own sex. For
example, I am more apt to say "he" or "him", than "she" or "her", when
speaking in general terms about a situation. Most of the time it has no
bearing on the fact that a person is "sexist" or not.
The last thing we need to worry about in the CU is "PCism", also known as
"Politically Correct"isms. Its bad enough you have to worry about posting a
message containing a clarification on what the Kermit protocol is, let
alone worrying if some macro-hypersensitive special-interest group is going
to take issue with two or three pronouns in your message.
------------------------------
From: Brian Scott Wilson <bwilson@ENG.AUBURN.EDU>
Subject: Feminism in CU
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 91 15:51:23 CST
An Answer to Sexism in the CU
In her article entitled "Sexism and the CU" Liz E. Borden brings up an
obvious point about the computer underground. It is a male dominated,
sexist environment. She notes three separate areas where sexist behavior is
evident. I imagine that those who are unsure of her statements can verify
the truth in little time. This takes us to an important question, Why?
Let's examine the instances in the order of their presentation.
In article 4 of CuD #3.00 Liz E. Borden writes:
"Let's look at just a few areas where cybersexism creeps in.
First, The CU is made up mostly of males. I'm told by friends,
and the facts are consistent with those given to me by one CuD
moderator, that at a maximum, less that five percent of pirates
are female, and probably less than one percent are phreaks or
hackers. This skewed participation transports the male culture of
values, language, concerns, and actions, into a new world and
creates models that women must conform to or be excluded from
full membership. Like the Europeans, CUites move into a new
territory and stake out their cultural claim committing a form of
cultural genocide against those with different cultural
backgrounds. Isn't it ironic that in a new world where "a
million flowers bloom" and a variety of subcultures emerge, that
they are for all practical purposes male?"
This is a good point. Ms. Borden (assuming that's not a pseudonym?)
clearly points out that the vast majority of the underground is Male, and
that a Male dominated computer subculture has been organized. This male
majority may, in part, be due to a "Good Ol' Boy" system of passing
information, that has inherently neglected women.
My own experience in computer science proved that I was unable to
compete against other students that were essentially raised with a
computer. I did not have the background or the contacts that most of the
"top" students did, and therefore was unable to compete acedemically (or at
least I was too lazy to work that hard to catch up.)
In essence, one can expect that without the background of experience
and network of expert contacts, women will have difficulty. Should the
information flow be limited to men, for whatever reason, we will see a male
dominated field.
Ms. Borden:
"Second, BBSs, especially those catering to adolescents and
college students, are frightening in their mysogeny. I have
commonly seen in general posts on large boards on college towns
discussion of women in the basest of terms (but never comparable
discussions of men), use of such terms as broads, bitches, cunts,
and others as synonomous with the term "woman" in general
conversation, and generalized hostile and angry responses against
women as a class. These are not isolated, but even if we were to
concede that they are not typical of all users on a board, such
language use is rarely challenged and the issues the language
implies are not addressed."
Frightening, yes, but a sad reflection of how our society has created
values by way of mass media. Let's take a look for example at the sterotype
computer user (at least the type of user who is likely to voice his opinion
about women in this way). First, when measured against the standards of
todays society, "six foot, 180 lbs of tanned muscle, a full head of perfect
hair, and gorgeous eyes," few computer freaks measure up. Most will lack
the talent/coordination/urge for organized sports, and few will have much
social activity, prefering the "safeness" of their computers to the aspect
of rejection. Computers don't turn you down for a date. As a result, a
growing misogeny appears and manifests itself through computers where the
individual can remain basically formless through either psuedonyms, or just
the relative anonymity that comes from know one knowing what they "look
like". It is this type of social repression/regression that made the
"Nerds" movies such a hit.
Ms Borden:
"Third, sexism is rampant on the nets. The alt.sex (bondage,
gifs, what-have-you) appeal to male fantasies of a type that
degrades women."
This is probably just carry overs from the High School/College group
continuing to manifest itself on larger computer systems. Same game,
frustrated men (or boys) using computers as an aid in escaping what may be
a problem.
As it stands I see little possible help for this situation, other than
attempting to keep gender specific writing out of usage in common
newsgroups. Men who have felt rejected by women will continue to take out
that resentment at the computer, where they can remain safe from any
reprecussions. It is much better, in my opinion, that the alternative of
taking it out on women physically. As Ms. Borden pointed out, these males
are by no means a majority, but enough exist such that any woman using a
BBS or network is likely to face some of their garbage.
Yes, there is a problem. Some of the problem has been explained. The
remaining question is "What route to we take to correct it?" I wish I knew.
------------------------------
From: BIFF@PHOENIX.COM(Izzie Borden)
Subject: Re: Sexism in the CU
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 91 02:02:43 EST
In CuD #3.00: File 4 (Sexism and the CU), Liz E. Borden writes:
>The voice of the computer
>world reflects a male voice and recreates the subtle patriarchy of the
>broader society through the so-called neutrality of "objective" science and
>the ways of speaking and behaving that, when translated into the
>two-dimensional world of electronic communications, tend to silence women.
There is no "voice of the computer world". There is more to "the computer
world" than two dimensional electronic communications (in fact, a wire is
closer to a one dimensional object than two). Computer use is nowhere near
an objective science. Very few, if any, of the women I have met in the
computer world have been silent. Most of them have been rather outspoken.
Do you have examples of the silence?
>Let's look at just a few areas where cybersexism creeps in. First, The CU
>is made up mostly of males.
This, in itself, is not sexist.
> I'm told by friends, and the facts are
>consistent with those given to me by one CuD moderator, that at a maximum,
>less that five percent of pirates are female, and probably less than one
>percent are phreaks or hackers.
This is also not sexist. Of course, one could claim that women have more
sense than to take part in the criminal activity of piracy or phreaking,
but THAT would be sexist. Feminists, however, are quick to claim that the
world would be better off if only women ruled, but that, of course, is not
sexist at all. (The last sentence measured 5.6 on my sarcasmometer.)
>This skewed participation transports the
>male culture of values, language, concerns, and actions, into a new world
>and creates models that women must conform to or be excluded from full
>membership.
Just as the male members must conform or be excluded. Are there many
hackers or pirates that look and act like Secret Service agents? If women
decide to take no part in forming the culture, they should not complain
about how it turned out. Like, if you don't vote, don't complain about the
politicians. And unlike the vote, there are no laws that kept women from
the CU.
> Like the Europeans, CUites move into a new territory and stake
>out their cultural claim committing a form of cultural genocide against
>those with different cultural backgrounds.
Any group that moves into a new area takes their culture with them. E.g.,
lace curtains in the settler's sod huts. The new territory here had no
indigenous culture, so cultural genocide is an inappropriate term. You
cannot "genocide" something that did not exist. You are attempting to use
white, Anglo-Saxon guilt as a weapon here, and it will not work. If women
choose not move into new areas, their culture will not be a part of the new
territory. This is not the fault of those who DO move in.
>Third, sexism is rampant on the nets. The alt.sex (bondage, gifs,
>what-have-you) appeal to male fantasies of a type that degrades women.
If you object to alt.sex, you are free to start alt.feminist. Come to think
of it, I think there already IS an alt.feminist. And, come to think of it,
some of the comments I have heard from women, and feminists in particular,
are pretty degrading to men. Sauce for the goose?
Are you trying to say that you think those who say what they do in alt.sex
are not free to say what they say?
> No,
>I don't believe in censorship, but I do believe we can raise the gender
>implications of these news groups just as we would if a controversial
>speaker came to a campus.
Whew! I was worried for a minute. A campus speaker is akin to speaking out
in alt.feminist about the actions in alt.sex. You do not have the right,
nor the authority, to drag your controversial speaker to the meeting of the
alt.sex club and demand they listen, just as they do not have the right to
demand you host Larry Flynt at your alt.feminist meeting.
> Most posts that refer to a generic category tend
>to use male specific pronouns that presume masculinity (the generic "he")
"He" referring to a generic antecedent is generic, just as you say. It
does not coerce any gender. When the antecedent HAS gender, then "he" is
male specific, just as "she" is female specific for a gender-laden
antecedent.
>At the two universities I attended, both with excellent computer science
>departments,
At one of the major universities I attended, the Student Union had a room
called "The Women's Lounge". This room was meant FOR WOMEN ONLY. It was a
nice, quiet room filled with nice soft chairs and sofas, and had a terrific
view of the campus. (Those of us not allowed in because of our gender could
see in the door. It was NOT a restroom, nor was there any gender specific
content to the room at all.) It was where all the women went when they
wanted to study. The union staff were quick to escort any males who
wandered in, out.
Just outside this room was a huge generic lounge. It had at least one TV,
on at all times at max volume, and was filled with beat up furniture and
noisy discussions of just about anything. The main entrance to the building
was in this lounge, and almost everyone using the union passed through. In
winter, it was cold and drafty. Studying was almost impossible in the
"Everybody Lounge". Gee, wouldn't it have been nice if the feminists on
this campus had recognized the irony in this situation. No, they were
quite happy to have a special lounge just for them, and cared not a whit
that they had special treatment.
What is the point of this? The world is an imperfect place. Women can be as
sexist as men. All [men|women] are not sexist just because some [men|women]
are. You will not erase all sexism despite your hardest efforts, and those
who decry sexism in others can be as guilty as those they decry. If you
want to solve problems, you solve specific ones.
>Why don't we think about and discuss some of
>this, and why isn't CuD taking the lead?!
CuD is not taking the lead because the CuD is not (and should not be) a
forum for women's issues. Just as the New England Journal of Medicine is
not a forum for debates on the proper wax for surfboards. If there are no
other fora available, then you are just as welcome to create one as the
creators of CuD were to create CuD. Most systems have the capability of
handling mailing lists. And, surprise, if you announce its existance in
CuD, you might find some of us sexist CU people will subscribe.
Just don't walk into the CuD meeting, call us all sexist, and then demand
we do something about it.
********************************************************************
------------------------------
**END OF CuD #3.01**
********************************************************************
