239 KiB
239 KiB
MindVox [FORUMS] Syntax
About - Summary of Each Forum Join - Add this Forum to JOIN
Again - Re-Read CURRENT Message List - Display Message Subjects
Back - Back up to Previous msg Load - Post text from Home Dir
Cancel - Delete a msg YOU posted Mail - Send Prv Mail to Author
Catch - Mark ALL Messages READ New - Scan for New Messages
Configure - ReCreate your JOIN file Post - Post a Message to Forum
Download - Download Current Message Quit - Exit and Return to Main
Follow - Post, Including Quotes Search - By Subject or Author
Forward - Mail a Copy of Message UnJoin - Remove from JOIN list
Go - Move to a new Forum Upload - Upload text to a Forum
Index - Complete List of Forums Write - Save Message to a File
[ "+" to the next Forum / "-" to the previous Forum ]
[ ">" to the next Area / "<" to the previous Area ]
You may also type a Message's number to read it, or press [RETURN] for Next
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit: list
001: Ahem.. by luddite@mindvox.phantom.com (Craz
002: Dorks by archer@mindvox.phantom.com (Richa
003: Re: Dorks by thug@mindvox.phantom.com (Murderi
004: You know... by kate@mindvox.phantom.com (Kate Al
005: Hey by dfish@mindvox.phantom.com (Drowne
006: Women, Thug & Luddite by ahmed@mindvox.phantom.com (Ahmed
007: uh yeah by sparc@mindvox.phantom.com (John G
008: yack by vortechs@mindvox.phantom.com (Vor
009: Same Old Shit by czarina@mindvox.phantom.com (Rita
010: Women online by zachs (John Zachs)
011: Women, Men....what's the difference! by pclip (Paper Clip)
012: Babes by doug (Douglas Luce)
013: Purpose of this forum by bwp (Jane Doe)
014: Purpose of this forum by czarina (Rita Rouvalis)
015: Re: Purpose of this forum by bwp (Jane Doe)
016: Re: Purpose of this forum by thug (Murdering Thug)
017: Re: Purpose of this forum by wlnjr (Lee Nussbaum)
018: Re: Purpose of this forum by bwp (Jane Doe)
019: Re: Purpose of this forum by dead (Bruce Fancher)
020: Exactly... by digital (Patrick K. Kroupa)
021: Re: Exactly... by thug (Murdering Thug)
022: Re: Exactly... by bwp (Jane Doe)
023: Re: Exactly... by czarina (Rita Rouvalis)
024: Women Only by czarina (Rita Rouvalis)
025: Clueless computer geeks? by falconer (Steve Copold)
026: Get off our forum! by michelle (Michelle Harris)
027: Re: Get off our forum! by bwp (Jane Doe)
028: Yo Yo's by czarina (Rita Rouvalis)
029: Too late... by falconer (Steve Copold)
030: Re: Too late... by czarina (Rita Rouvalis)
031: Political identity crisis by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
032: Re: Political identity crisis by bwp (Jane Doe)
033: I never by czarina (Rita Rouvalis)
034: A scientist responds by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
035: Parts is parts by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
036: Re: A scientist responds by bwp (Jane Doe)
037: Re: A scientist responds to the resp by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
038: Re: A scientist responds to the resp by bwp (Jane Doe)
039: Falling.... by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
040: Re: Falling.... by bwp (Jane Doe)
041: Prezident by doug (Douglas Luce)
042: Re: A scientist responds to the resp by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
043: etc... by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
044: Re: etc... by bwp (Jane Doe)
045: Women / Clinton / Politics by ahmed (Ahmed Kufuti)
046: Sigh... by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
047: Slick Willie by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
048: Re: Women / Clinton / Politics by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
049: Re: Women / Clinton / Politics by bwp (Jane Doe)
050: by brooks (Jane Brooks)
051: Re: by bwp (Jane Doe)
052: Re: by falconer (Steve Copold)
053: Re: by bwp (Jane Doe)
054: Femine by falconer (Steve Copold)
055: Re: Femine by bwp (Jane Doe)
056: Re: Femine by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
057: famine by doug (Douglas Luce)
058: Re: famine by bwp (Jane Doe)
059: Re: famine by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
060: An Idea-- by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
061: Re: An Idea-- by bwp (Jane Doe)
062: Re: An Idea-- by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
063: Multi-topic forum by bwp (Jane Doe)
064: go for it! by black (Ronald Blackburn)
065: I third that! by klarry (Larry Kessler)
066: Re: go for it! by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
067: Re: go for it! by bwp (Jane Doe)
068: yes! by michelle (Michelle Harris)
069: thug speaks: YES! by thug (Murdering Thug)
070: Re: thug speaks: YES! by bwp (Jane Doe)
071: Re: thug speaks: YES! by falconer (Steve Copold)
072: Why....? by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
073: Re: Why....? by bwp (Jane Doe)
074: Rules for guys with long hair by bwp (Jane Doe)
075: You paranoid twit by czarina (Rita Rouvalis)
076: lnog hair and piercing by czarina (Rita Rouvalis)
077: Re: You paranoid twit by bwp (Jane Doe)
078: cool! by michelle (Michelle Harris)
079: Rock Stars and Long Hair by czarina (Rita Rouvalis)
080: axl????? by diane (Diane Rollings)
081: women on computers by niknak (David Gans)
082: axl by czarina (Rita Rouvalis)
083: Re: women on computers by falconer (Steve Copold)
084: Dman by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
085: Re: Why....? by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
086: Clueless geeks and MY forum by bwp (Jane Doe)
088: Re: Why....? by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
089: militant fem zone by black (Ronald Blackburn)
090: rating women by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
091: Re: militant fem zone by bwp (Jane Doe)
092: yow by doug (Douglas Luce)
093: Awwright iz everybuddy rede 2 rok & by digital (Patrick K. Kroupa)
094: Re: Gans by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
095: Gentleness by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
096: ya know by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
097: Re: ya know by zachs (John Zachs)
098: Re: ya know by michelle (Michelle Harris)
099: Re: ya know by klarry (Larry Kessler)
100: Re: ya know by diane (Diane Rollings)
101: Re: A scientist responds by terminus (Len Rose)
102: Gad by terminus (Len Rose)
103: Re: lnog hair and piercing by composer (Jeff Kellem)
104: Re: A scientist responds by bwp (Jane Doe)
105: Re: A scientist responds by terminus (Len Rose)
106: Re: A scientist responds by bwp (Jane Doe)
107: Re: A scientist responds by doug (Douglas Luce)
108: Re: A scientist responds by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
109: Re: lnog hair and piercing by jvance (Joachim Vance)
110: Re: lnog hair and piercing by bwp (Jane Doe)
111: Re: lnog hair and piercing by cudigest (Jim Thomas)
112: Re: lnog hair and piercing by doug (Douglas Luce)
113: Re: lnog hair and piercing by bwp (Jane Doe)
114: Re: lnog hair and piercing by czarina (Rita Rouvalis)
115: Long hair.. by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
116: Re: A scientist responds by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
117: Re: lnog hair and piercing by doug (Douglas Luce)
118: Re: lnog hair and piercing by ahmed (Ahmed Kufuti)
119: Re: lnog hair and piercing by terminus (Len Rose)
120: Re: lnog hair and piercing by bwp (Jane Doe)
121: Re: lnog hair and piercing by doug (Douglas Luce)
122: Re: lnog hair and piercing by bwp (Jane Doe)
123: Re: lnog hair and piercing by doug (Douglas Luce)
124: Re: lnog hair and piercing by bwp (Jane Doe)
125: Re: lnog hair and piercing by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
126: Re: lnog hair and piercing by doug (Douglas Luce)
127: Re: lnog hair and piercing by thug (Murdering Thug)
128: Re: lnog hair and piercing by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
129: Bulges by czarina (Rita Rouvalis)
130: Re: Bulges by falconer (Steve Copold)
131: Re: Bulges by paulk (Paul Kerrios)
132: abortion by alibaba (Nick Mordanzo)
133: Re: abortion by paulk (Paul Kerrios)
134: Marquez by it (In Tense)
135: let me guess by deadboy (The Dead)
136: Gender/Orientation by simonm (Simon Moon)
137: Re: Gender/Orientation by doug (Douglas Luce)
138: Nope, no women online around here. by simonm (Simon Moon)
139: Re: Nope, no women online around her by holly (Holly Rothman)
140: Re: Nope, no women online around her by falconer (Steve Copold)
141: Re: Nope, no women online around her by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
142: Re: Nope, no women online around her by thug (Murdering Thug)
143: Re: Nope, no women online around her by bwp (Jane Doe)
144: Re: Nope, no women online around her by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
145: yes there are. by bird (Madamme Butterfly)
146: Re: Nope, no women online around her by simonm (Simon Moon)
147: Re: Nope, no women online around her by enzyme (David Pincus)
148: Re: Nope, no women online around her by cindy (Cindy Celinas)
149: Re: Nope, no women online around her by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
150: Mating Rituals by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
151: Re: Mating Rituals by reive (Racheline Maltese)
152: Re: Mating Rituals by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
153: Re: Mating Rituals by simonm (Simon Moon)
154: Re: Mating Rituals by reive (Racheline Maltese)
155: Re: Mating Rituals by falconer (Steve Copold)
156: Re: Mating Rituals by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
157: kieran by chemist (The Chemist)
158: Re: Mating Rituals by hayden (Hugh Appet)
159: Re: Mating Rituals by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
160: Re: Mating Rituals by simonm (Simon Moon)
161: Re: Mating Rituals by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
162: Re: Mating Rituals by hayden (Hugh Appet)
163: Re: Mating Rituals by newt (Dana Bettinger)
164: why so few chix? by sassy (Sassy Magazine)
165: Re: why so few chix? by reive (Racheline Maltese)
166: Re: why so few chix? by bwp (Jane Doe)
167: Re: why so few chix? by hayden (Hugh Appet)
168: Re: why so few chix? by bwp (Jane Doe)
169: Re: why so few chix? by heather (Heather Anderson)
170: Re: why so few chix? by simonm (Simon Moon)
171: Re: why so few chix? by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
172: Re: why so few chix? by bwp (Jane Doe)
173: Re: why so few chix? by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
174: Re: why so few chix? by simonm (Simon Moon)
175: Re: why so few chix? by newt (Dana Bettinger)
176: Re: why so few chix? by bwp (Jane Doe)
177: Re: why so few chix? by thug (Murdering Thug)
178: Re: why so few chix? by simonm (Simon Moon)
179: Re: why so few chix? by toxic (Toxic Avenger)
180: Re: why so few chix? by bwp (Jane Doe)
181: Re: why so few chix? by reive (Racheline Maltese)
182: Re: why so few chix? by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
183: Re: why so few chix? by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
184: Re: why so few chix? by drow (Doug Rau)
185: Re: why so few chix? by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
186: Re: why so few chix? by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
187: Re: why so few chix? by reive (Racheline Maltese)
188: Re: why so few chix? by falconer (Steve Copold)
189: Re: why so few chix? by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
190: Re: why so few chix? by alibaba (Nick Mordanzo)
191: all girls schools by thug (Murdering Thug)
192: Re: all girls schools by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
193: Re: all girls schools by simonm (Simon Moon)
194: Re: why so few chix? by simonm (Simon Moon)
195: naahah.... by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
196: Re: why so few chix? by toxic (Toxic Avenger)
197: Re: why so few chix? by hayden (Hugh Appet)
198: Re: why so few chix? by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
199: Re: why so few chix? by reive (Racheline Maltese)
200: Re: why so few chix? by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
201: Re: why so few chix? by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
202: Re: why so few chix? by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
203: Re: why so few chix? by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
204: Re: why so few chix? by newt (Dana Bettinger)
205: Living in the violent spaces... by falconer (Steve Copold)
206: Re: why so few chix? by chemist (The Chemist)
207: Re: why so few chix? by chemist (The Chemist)
208: Re: why so few chix? by reive (Racheline Maltese)
209: Re: why so few chix? by alibaba (Nick Mordanzo)
210: chill alring by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
211: Re: why so few chix? by bwp (Jane Doe)
212: Re: why so few chix? by reive (Racheline Maltese)
213: Re: why so few chix? by newt (Dana Bettinger)
214: Re: why so few chix? by falconer (Steve Copold)
215: Falconer's M/C post by bwp (Jane Doe)
216: Re: Falconer's M/C post by simonm (Simon Moon)
217: Re: Falconer's M/C post by sassy (Sassy Magazine)
218: Re: Falconer's M/C post by falconer (Steve Copold)
219: Re: Falconer's M/C post by toxic (Toxic Avenger)
220: Re: Falconer's M/C post by newt (Dana Bettinger)
221: Re: Falconer's M/C post by scoundrl (Renal Boy)
222: Re: Falconer's M/C post by falconer (Steve Copold)
223: Re: Falconer's M/C post by scoundrl (Renal Boy)
224: girls schools by reive (Racheline Maltese)
225: Re: girls schools by sassy (Sassy Magazine)
226: Re: girls schools by simonm (Simon Moon)
227: Re: girls schools by reive (Racheline Maltese)
228: Re: girls schools by newt (Dana Bettinger)
229: change of subject by sassy (Sassy Magazine)
230: Re: change of subject by newt (Dana Bettinger)
231: Re: change of subject by scoundrl (Renal Boy)
232: change of change of subj. by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
234: Re: change of subject by newt (Dana Bettinger)
235: Re: hmmm...... by newt (Dana Bettinger)
236: Re: hmmm...... by reive (Racheline Maltese)
237: Re: hmmm...... by scoundrl (Renal Boy)
238: Violent Spaces Revisited... by falconer (Steve Copold)
239: Re: Violent Spaces Revisited... by newt (Dana Bettinger)
240: Re: hmmm...... by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
241: Re: hmmm...... by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
242: Re: Violent Spaces Revisited... by falconer (Steve Copold)
243: Re: change of change of subj. by simonm (Simon Moon)
244: icky boys in the classroom by sassy (Sassy Magazine)
245: Re: icky boys in the classroom by deckard (Mike Gwertzman)
246: Re: icky boys in the classroom by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
247: Re: icky boys in the classroom by reive (Racheline Maltese)
248: Re: hmmm...... by hayden (Hugh Appet)
249: Re: hmmm...... by newt (Dana Bettinger)
250: Re: representing your sex by deckard (Mike Gwertzman)
251: Re: representing your sex by reive (Racheline Maltese)
252: Representative Men (nice Emerson ref by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
253: Re: Representative Men (nice Emerson by deckard (Mike Gwertzman)
254: gender gap?? by amada (Amy Dona)
255: Re: gender gap?? by dsharp (david sharp)
256: Re: change of change of subj. by scoundrl (Renal Boy)
257: Re: change of change of subj. by newt (Dana Bettinger)
258: Re: change of change of subj. by newt (Dana Bettinger)
259: Re: change of change of subj. by enzyme (David Pincus)
260: Re: change of change of subj. by nancykay (NancyKay Shapiro)
261: Re: change of change of subj. by newt (Dana Bettinger)
262: Re: change of change of subj. by scoundrl (Renal Boy)
263: Re: change of change of subj. by newt (Dana Bettinger)
264: squelch that goofiness by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
265: Re: change of change of subj. by enzyme (David Pincus)
266: Re: change of change of subj. by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
267: Re: change of change of subj. by scoundrl (Renal Boy)
268: Re: change of change of subj. by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
269: Re: change of change of subj. by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
270: Re: change of change of subj. by newt (Dana Bettinger)
271: Re: change of change of subj. by newt (Dana Bettinger)
272: Re: change of change of subj. by amada (Amy Dona)
273: Re: change of change of subj. by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
274: discussion by sunday (Amy Emke)
275: Re: discussion by gearhead (Sean Hamilton)
276: Re: discussion by sleuth (Reuben Radding)
277: Re: discussion by falconer (Steve Copold)
278: Re: discussion by gearhead (Sean Hamilton)
279: Re: discussion by newt (Dana Bettinger)
280: Re: discussion by falconer (Steve Copold)
281: Re: discussion by gearhead (Sean Hamilton)
282: Re: discussion by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
283: Re: discussion by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
284: Re: discussion by bwp (Jane Doe)
285: absence of meat by sunday (Amy Emke)
286: Amy's Ranting... by falconer (Steve Copold)
287: Re: Amy's Ranting... by sherman (Lloyd Hopkins)
288: Re: Amy's Ranting... by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
289: Re: Amy's Ranting... by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
290: Re: Amy's Ranting... by bird (Madamme Butterfly)
291: lurk/post? by sassy (Sassy Magazine)
292: Re: lurk/post? by elan (Elan Portnoy)
293: Re: lurk/post? by drow (Doug Rau)
294: Re: lurk/post? by sherman (Lloyd Hopkins)
295: Re: Amy's Ranting... by sulam (James Waldrop)
296: gender is burning by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
297: Re: gender is burning by newt (Dana Bettinger)
298: Re: gender is burning by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
299: Re: gender is burning by newt (Dana Bettinger)
300: Re: gender is burning by kurtphil (Kurt Phillips)
301: Re: gender is burning by reive (Racheline Maltese)
302: Re: gender is burning by sulam (James Waldrop)
303: Re: gender is burning by reive (Racheline Maltese)
304: Re: gender is burning by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
305: Re: gender is burning by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
306: Re: gender is burning by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
307: Re: gender is burning by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
308: PC Assholes! by falconer (Steve Copold)
309: Re: PC Assholes! by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
310: Re: gender is burning by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
311: Re: gender is burning by kieran (Aaron Dickey)
312: Re: gender is burning by sheldon (Jeremy Day)
313: Re: gender is burning by falconer (Steve Copold)
314: Re: gender is burning by newt (Dana Bettinger)
315: Re: gender is burning by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
316: Re: gender is burning by sassy (Sassy Magazine)
317: Re: gender is burning by bwp (Jane Doe)
318: Re: gender is burning by falconer (Steve Copold)
319: Margie/Sassy/TV by thug (Murdering Thug)
320: Re: Margie/Sassy/TV by bwp (Jane Doe)
321: Re: Margie/Sassy/TV by thug (Murdering Thug)
322: Re: Margie/Sassy/TV by lyre (Lyre)
323: Sassy; culture of hatred-- by kurtphil (Kurt Phillips)
324: sassy; ethic of hatred-- by kurtphil (Kurt Phillips)
325: me-TV by sassy (Sassy Magazine)
326: Re: me-TV by scoundrl (Renal Boy)
327: Re: me-TV by ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
328: Re: me-TV by sassy (Sassy Magazine)
329: Re: me-TV by deckard (Mike Gwertzman)
330: Re: me-TV by newt (Dana Bettinger)
331: Re: me-TV by scoundrl (Renal Boy)
332: Re: me-TV by deckard (Mike Gwertzman)
333: Re: me-TV by reive (Racheline Maltese)
334: Re: me-TV by sherman (Lloyd Hopkins)
335: Re: me-TV by hayden (Hugh Appet)
336: Re: me-TV by sassy (Sassy Magazine)
337: Re: me-TV by deckard (Mike Gwertzman)
338: Re: me-TV by sherman (Lloyd Hopkins)
339: ok, ok by sassy (Sassy Magazine)
340: Re: ok, ok by deckard (Mike Gwertzman)
341: 4/28 is "Take Our Daughters to Work by magoo (Kevin M. McGrath)
342: Re: 4/28 is "Take Our Daughters to W by hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit: 164+
Post: 164 of 342
Subject: why so few chix?
From: sassy (Sassy Magazine)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 19:25:36 EST
In-Reply-To: <0qJ4yB5w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
On Echo, an on-line service here in NYC, there are two women-oriented
forums. One's for topics of interest to chix, (hope that word don't
offend nobody) and one is for women ONLY to talk about whatever. Men are
locked out, I believe. Don't know how. Oh geez, am i inviting all kinds
of panty-check humor from the guys who are the majority of
of folks here? --margie
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 165 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: reive (Racheline Maltese)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 19:40:16 EST
In-Reply-To: <DP65yB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Actually awhile ago there was discussion about making this forum a women
only space-- it's somewhere in all the old messages if you'd care to
bother, but seeing as only, or mostly guys seem to post on here we'd
probably loose most of the action on this forum if that were instituted.
-reive
*******************************
* reive *
* reive@mindvox.phantom.com *
* zs840c@gwuvm.gwu.edu *
*******************************
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 166 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: bwp (Jane Doe)
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 93 22:35:32 EST
In-Reply-To: <TD75yB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
As soon as I clued in that the only reason for the existence of this
forum is to flush the females out of the bushes, so they can be
mercilessly hassled and preyed upon by these skanking sexless lamers, I
gave up. Even if they did make this a women-only space, the sysadmins
could still read the messages, and they're all male, and you know how men
always stick together.
-3j
just a wacky, zany babe
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 167 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: hayden (Hugh Appet)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 01:00:56 EST
In-Reply-To: <XHe6yB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Janes,
(Arnold Schwazennger rendition of your name). You seem to be one of the
few flushable women on this board. But c'mon, why do you act like men or
rather us, was it skanking?, sexless lamers want to be the dominant
species online?
Git ur amazon sisters to form a circle and come on out. There are plenty
of places women post and almost thrive on the crass commercial services.
Haydens
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 168 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: bwp (Jane Doe)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 07:21:32 EST
hayden (Hugh Appet) writes:
> few flushable women on this board. But c'mon, why do you act like men or
> rather us, was it skanking?, sexless lamers want to be the dominant
> species online?
It took a few minutes trying to parse that sentence. At first, I thought
you were asking why I act like men. And with Scoundrl calling me Butch in
BwF, I've had quite enough of those insults, thank you. I may be mean and
tough, but mean and tough in a nurturing, caring way. So get your skanking
lameness out of my face! erm...sorry, thought I was talking to Scoundrl
again...
> Git ur amazon sisters to form a circle and come on out. There are plenty
> of places women post and almost thrive on the crass commercial services.
Lissen, darlin', da sistas don't form no circle for no *man*. We're mad,
bad, and dangerous to know. Phear us.
And, finally to answer your question, I don't have to act like men *want*
to be the dominant species online, they already dominate this space. Other
areas in thypherspaZe aren't quite so chromosomally-advantaged, but this
one is. However, for reasons entirely personal and private, I happen to
enjoy hanging with testosterone-fueled punks. It's wacky and zany, but
it's true. Da sistas aren't down with it, and they've got a point, and
sometimes I geel guilty, like I ought to go on and lop off one breast like
the rest of them, but I keep putting it off. But then I also keep putting
off getting another ear pierce, so go figure.
Hayden, your point is well-taken, but it's coming from one who has the
luxury of asking such questions. As the great poet-philosopher said in
_Total Recall_, "c'mon, don't boolshit me."
-3j
I just feel so disempowered
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 169 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: heather (Heather Anderson)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 09:46:16 EST
In-Reply-To: <Lu36yB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
I'd vote that this is made women only. I've been on mindvox for almost 3
months or 4 and like it here a lot, I don't post most of the time because
I like to read the forums and use this mostly for mail to my friends. I
think it would be cool to have a place to say something that is a opinion
without having a lot of geeky guys get all upset when it wasn't to them
personally that you said star trek is boring or something like that. There
are only like 50 other forums they can argue about it on here, why not 1
where we dont need to hear it.
just my opinion if its unpopular I can live with it.
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 170 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: simonm (Simon Moon)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 11:12:24 EST
In-Reply-To: <TJ06yB3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Well, if y'all want this phorum to be only posted to by women, I'm more
than haapy to restrain myself in the future; just make that clear. Or do
you want non-women-type-folk to not be able to read it either? Just askin'.
- Simon
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 171 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 11:28:49 EST
In-Reply-To: <DJD7yB5w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Feerst off
i think men reading womens posts would put the idea to bunk
because that way they cant go around saying
that simon dude is such an asshole
hes always asking to hot chat me
or some such thing
Secoondly
YOU may restrain yourself,
but there are too many weenies somewhere who wont
MOST IMPORTANTLY
where can you check for gender status?
i mean sheeeit, i got called lady watanabe after talking
about getting my dick pierced
and when this board first started off a LOT
more people thought it was female
and if nothing else
just so i dont have to get a fake account just to post here
it wouldnt work
i really wish it could
mainly cuz id like to rag on some of the women in here in a mens only
forum :)
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 172 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: bwp (Jane Doe)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 14:29:28 EST
In-Reply-To: <qae7yB3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
I would also vote to have this forum locked down for women only. Read
only-write only, no males, whether they call themselves female names or
not pbbbbbth. But yeah, what dana said, how do you gendercheck in
thypherspaZe? We'd never really be *sure*...
-3j
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 173 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 14:53:20 EST
In-Reply-To: <TNm7yB3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
well you could have everyone take pictures of their genitalia and
scan it adn send it in
and you knwo that anyone who does
no matter what the picture is
is probably male and go by that
oh yeah
and 3jane i still have as yet to take/scan that pic for ya :)(
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 174 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: simonm (Simon Moon)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 16:49:41 EST
In-Reply-To: <LRN7yB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Or y'all can just go by guesswork, and take everyone who's prolly female.
If you accidently pick up a male or two, and the manage to fool you into
thinking that they're women, even after repeated posts, I figure they're
woman enuf. Afterall, it seems like, in cspace, its the female identity
that counts, not the female genetalia.
Or is this just another example of fucked-up male thinking?
- Simon
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 175 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 17:12:56 EST
In-Reply-To: <i6s7yB3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
NOOOOO!!!!
NO NO NO NOOO!
I was lead to believe, hopefully NOT incorrectly, that this was a
TOLERANT OPEN-MINDED ETC place....
locking the men outta this place because their genetalia is different
than ours will
a) not accomplish much at all
b) severely cut down the number of responses
c) sorta undermine that wacky zany "tolerant" idea
d) really annoy me (like you care, but...)
besides, the guyz are right...we'd never know.
*whoosh*
*sigh*
sorry, that really made me kinda mad...I don't think that we should ever
make this women-only because the name of the phorum happens to have
"women" in it...
I'd be really pissed if I were locked out of a place called "men....."
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 176 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: bwp (Jane Doe)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 18:14:14 EST
newt (Dana Bettinger) writes:
> I'd be really pissed if I were locked out of a place called "men....."
But newtt, we have been all our lives, only they never bother to post a
sign saying "men...", they just make it so that we can't be a part of it.
At least we would be up front about it.
But you're right, in here it would never work, because this is a
male-dominated place, and lots of girls would not want to be caught
associating with the rebellious underclass [mutter mutter], and WE CAN'T
PISS MASSAH OFF, CAN WE?!#
-3j!
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 177 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: thug (Murdering Thug)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 19:30:26 EST
hotblack (Dana Watanabe) writes:
> well you could have everyone take pictures of their genitalia and
> scan it adn send it in
> and you knwo that anyone who does
> no matter what the picture is
> is probably male and go by that
>
> oh yeah
> and 3jane i still have as yet to take/scan that pic for ya :)(
>
Nope, that wouldn't work. Any guy can open up an issue of Hustler and
scan in his favorite genetals and upload them to prove that he's a
"female".
How about mailing in a used tampon? I guess that would be proof enough.
What do you think?
Thug
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 178 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: simonm (Simon Moon)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 20:17:36 EST
In-Reply-To: <FL17yB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
bwp (Jane Doe) writes:
> But newtt, we have been all our lives, only they never bother to post a
> sign saying "men...", they just make it so that we can't be a part of it.
> At least we would be up front about it.
Not that women aren't discriminated against, but it's not like all of Vox
is controlled by men, as you would know, O Bandwidth Queen.
I think it has more to do with internalized feelings than with outright
exclusion; in fact I think most vox boys -- er, men -- are generally
supportive of women when they post (correct me if I'm wrong). They may not
be inviting, but they don't seem particularly willing to enforce gender
aprtheid (with a few exceptions).
All I'm trying to say is that it's not as simple as "the male voxers
control everything". I thas a lot to do with how both men and women are
raised to view social interaction.
Or am I just a typical male, blindly unnoticing the descrimination that
occurs in front of my very (virtual) eyes?
- Simon
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 179 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: toxic (Toxic Avenger)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 20:28:40 EST
bwp (Jane Doe) writes:
> newt (Dana Bettinger) writes:
>
> > I'd be really pissed if I were locked out of a place called "men....."
>
> But newtt, we have been all our lives, only they never bother to post a
> sign saying "men...", they just make it so that we can't be a part of it.
> At least we would be up front about it.
Bullshit!
3j, usually I believe what you type, but when I saw that this came out of
your mouth, I threw a piece of pimento loaf on my screen. Please cite and
example. I have NEVER seen a place that expressly forbit women from
entering (except possibly for a mens room, but that rule gets broken far
more often that does the reverse (men entering the ladies room)) There
are more than a few places where they may not want to be (strip club) but
I rather not see the chippendales dancers. etc. etc. etc.
-Tox
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 180 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: bwp (Jane Doe)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 21:59:27 EST
In-Reply-To: <Ha47yB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
You want an example of a place that excludes women? Oy vey...
The White House. Bill Clinton promised us an administration that "looks
like America," and we got one. Women and minorities in the lower
positions, but the top controlled by white males.
Apple Computer. Every now and then they put a woman in some bean-counting
position, like Comptroller, but look at the heads of all the major
divisions.
Microsoft, IBM, Compaq, Dell, etc etc. If women really are not being
excluded, where's the evidence? Why is an "all-woman" company still worthy
of cute feature stories in the Sunday paper?
To state that women aren't still kept down because men don't want to go to
Chippendales is the most arrogant form of pretense. It's that kind of
reducing the whole question to a superficial sexual level that makes men
feel free to whisper that an all-woman company is "a bunch of dykes" and
makes women afraid to seek out help from one another for fear of being
spoken about that way.
I'm against quotas, against special set-asides, against any type of
treatment that singles out women to receive jobs or promotions they
haven't earned. But anyone who believes that we can relax, that the fight
is over and justice has been served, is hereby invited to walk with me
down W. 57th St., so we can visit the board rooms of all the networks and
check out the pictures of the women in control of the mass media in this
country.
I dunno, what reason do I have to think thypherspaZe will be any different?
-3j
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 181 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: reive (Racheline Maltese)
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 93 22:18:13 EST
In-Reply-To: <Ha47yB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
I don't think the issue is about Vox so much as the on-line world in
general. This place doesn't tend to be exclusionary, nor have I ever
been harrassed by any guy on here because I was female (although
certainly no one ever hesitated when I said something way out of line).
In general though women have to deal with a lot of shit on bbs's and
other computer-type things. It's amazing to go to a 2600 meeting or
something and be one of the only girls there (or usually _the_ only girl)
It's not that that's intimidating, but it's annoying. It's annoying to
be in situations like that and ask questions, 'cause you don't understand
something and have people ignore you 'cause you're just so-and-so's
girlfriend. Not everybody does it, and it doesn't ahppen all the time,
but it pisses me off. It's stuff like that that make women say, maybe we
should have a women-only space on vox. Personally I don't think we
should. First, it's not needed here, and two, if we hide from the guys,
things aren't gonna get any better. (also there's that amusing gender
test issue). The point is, (I think there was one somewhere) whether the
men/boys think so or not women in cyberspace aren't always made to feel
comfortable. Granted some of that is in our own heads, 'cause of various
things in our own lives, some of it comes from just being out-numbered
and some of it comes from hostility, objectification and all the other
nicities some people treat us too. Mind you, in the end it really
doesn't matter, I deal with the on-line assholes the same way I deal with
the rl ones-- and it's usually not very friendly. I just wish people
would stop assuming that women on-line either don't have a clue or aren't
"serious about technology. I don't understand a lot of the real
techy stuff a lot of you people or my rl friends talk about, so I ask
questions. That doesn't make me clueless, it makes me smart, and
curious. I think frequently a lot of women don't want to ask for help or
information 'cause they are afraid of being called a lamer (or whatever
the word is this week) or being seen as some sort of net-bimbo.
You all have to remind me to use paragraphs, this stuff is getting
difficult to read.
-reive
*******************************
* reive *
* reive@mindvox.phantom.com *
* zs840c@gwuvm.gwu.edu *
*******************************
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 182 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: kieran (Aaron Dickey)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 00:47:24 EST
bwp (Jane Doe) writes:
> I would also vote to have this forum locked down for women only. Read
> only-write only, no males, whether they call themselves female names or
> not pbbbbbth. But yeah, what dana said, how do you gendercheck in
> thypherspaZe? We'd never really be *sure*...
Exactly. Until/unless Vox starts using Voice ID for access, I say
everything should stay open to everyone. The last thing this place needs
is a bunch of little giggling cliques.
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 183 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: kieran (Aaron Dickey)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 00:50:22 EST
thug (Murdering Thug) writes:
> How about mailing in a used tampon? I guess that would be proof enough.
> What do you think?
What, don't you have a mother?
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 184 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: drow (Doug Rau)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 00:52:53 EST
In-Reply-To: <NeF8yB4w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
thug (Murdering Thug) writes:
> How about mailing in a used tampon? I guess that would be proof
enough.
> What do you think?
no good thug...we all know you're really a 40-something year old woman,
remember? hey, howabout a 'menzoberranzan' forum where only dark elves
are admitted? <ok ok, maybe a couple of others, you know who you are,
and no i didn't mean you or you>
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 185 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: kieran (Aaron Dickey)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 00:53:02 EST
In-Reply-To: <sH87yB3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Walking along W 57th won't cut it if you care to visit ABC or NBC, though
I'm sure they'd be more than happy to see you at Potamkin Cadillac. (Of
course, only CBS's *studios* are there anyway..."Black Rock" is blocks away.)
And yeah, women suffer, tough shit. Care to explain why all-female
schools are allowed to exist, while all-male schools are sexist and
Unconstitutional? And what about the overweight? What about the ugly?
Those two groups suffer a hell of a lot more than women in general. We're
all bigots, and we ALL suffer. Life's tough, ain't it?
--Kieran
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 186 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 01:13:06 EST
kieran (Aaron Dickey) writes:
> The last thing this place needs
> is a bunch of little giggling cliques.
>
if youre being sarcastic, hah!
if not
fuck you
dont evne bother to go off on how tough life is
wr whaatever shit you want to blow
out your your ass
so if i took a shotgun to your head,
then oh well, life sucks that what happens
shit i mean sure blacks are treated as slaves adn
shit thats tuff so why dont they stay that way?
and shit women dont deserve the right to vote
its all just cuz life sucks
i hate it when i get this pissed
so if that was your only goal
congratulations
you live in new york right?
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 187 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: reive (Racheline Maltese)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 01:22:34 EST
In-Reply-To: <Jgg8yB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
About all girls schools:
I went to one for 10 years (not my idea) and it sucked. Overall a really
bad idea, and I don't think they should exist, the rational for their
existence though is this:
In coed schools studies have shown boys get called on more, are
encouraged in technical disciplines more, etc.. i.e. girls don't get a
fair shake-- this is probably true, but isolating girls isn't gonna solve
it. There is an association of American girls-schools that will tell you
that girls who attend them are happier, healthier people (I wrote an
article on these folks once).... and despite what their data says, I
don't quite believe them (after all this is not independant researcher
data). Maybe girls in single-sex schools do get a better academic
chance. Socially though, I think it's a terrible idea. Especially if
you put a kid in an all-girls school since she's really young. Talk
about not knowing how to deal with guys normally. Try to remember
though, in a lot of countries almost no schools are co-ed, because they
feel having students of both genders in a class room would cause
distractions from learning (I take it they've never heard of
homosexuality). I think this is pretty lame too (but me ranting about
people and their fears of teens having sex will just have to wait for
another post on another forum). Oh, and by the way I've never met anyone
who considered all male school sexist, but that may jst be because most
people I grew up with went to single sex schools.
Argh, no paragraphs again.....
-reive
*******************************
* reive *
* reive@mindvox.phantom.com *
* zs840c@gwuvm.gwu.edu *
*******************************
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 188 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: falconer (Steve Copold)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 10:14:50 EST
reive (Racheline Maltese) writes:
> Oh, and by the way I've never met anyone
> who considered all male school sexist.....
Oh really! Then can you tell me what the BFD was about West Point,
Annapolis, The Air Force Academy, and V.M.I.?
-Falconer
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 189 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 12:21:29 EST
In-Reply-To: <FJ68yB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
there is a differnece between
singel sex high schools and lower
and single sex colleges
AND single sex military instituions
big differnece there
i dont know anyone who reallyt carteas about
single sex high schools
except maybe the people who go to them
and i know lots of girls happy to have gone to a
all girl school
ou just need to a haave an all guy
school near by wiht decent guys
in college its a lot different
i think that depnding on what you want to do with your life
female only colleges are stupid
i mean sure if youre going to become a housewife
then fine, or do something in women's studies
or do something academic
but the way society works,
you need to make connections with other people
something hard to do when the
business or whatever else field is male dominated
and all your connections are female
but of course, saying that something should work that way is really stupid too
as far as military institutions go...
well i guess if you go from the stand point
that
women shouldnt be in the military
then sure..
women should be in places like West Point
but if you want women in the military
or are allowing women in the military
you need to give them a fair shot
and for some reason i would bet West Point graduates
get farther in the military than those who arent
of course this could go on into my personal
stink on how women should have to be in the selective service
before they get into the military or its schools
but thats another issue
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 190 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: alibaba (Nick Mordanzo)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 13:34:44 EST
In-Reply-To: <ieB9yB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Not to burst any bubbles but every system I've ever seen has
those women only and men only sections. Coimpuserve, Delphi,
America Online, The Well even, all of them.
Maybe its because the majority if poeople wnat them,
I'm not fixing my typos today either,
$%$%$%$%$%$%$%
($) Ali Baba ($)
%$%$%$%$%$%$%$
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 191 of 342
Subject: all girls schools
From: thug (Murdering Thug)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 13:50:54 EST
In-Reply-To: <Lse9yB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
You know what I really like about all girls schools, including private and
religous ones? Well, these girls don't get much contact with guys for
like four years in high school, and then when they go to college in their
freshman year, they wind up crazy drunk at the first party they go to and
give away their virginity to the first guy they meet. Hey, I've seen
it...
This kind of thing doesn't happen with girls who have gone to coed and public
schools because they are much wiser as to the ways of men, life, etc..
So what's the point of parents sending away their precious little girl
away to an all girls high school for four years, when all it does is make
them horny as hell, and they wind up screwing the first thing they see in
college? You can't hide sex from people, and then hope they won't want to
do it, you have to be open about it, and educate and inform, instead of
trying to repress these girls and hide them away from where they might
actually interact with males long enough to see that we're basically scum.
Thug
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 192 of 342
Subject: Re: all girls schools
From: hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 14:10:41 EST
In-Reply-To: <JJF9yB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
again i say it depends on the school
but i do agree that education
not misinformation is the answer
to all things
speakign of misinforrmation im going to quote someone quoting someoen
quoting some magazine im assuming USA today
but you neve know
it said that asking women whterther they would rather see a guy dance naked
or doing the dishes
61% said they woudl want him to do the dishes
24% would go for the naked dancing dude
does this sound right?
and what woudl the women on Vox think?
and men
woudl you rather see a woman dance naked or see a woman hacking out
some funky ass virtual reality program?
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 193 of 342
Subject: Re: all girls schools
From: simonm (Simon Moon)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 19:38:52 EST
In-Reply-To: <igg9yB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
I'd rather see a naked man doing the dishes, and a naked women
programming. Or vice versa.
Of course.
- Simon
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 194 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: simonm (Simon Moon)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 19:40:06 EST
kieran (Aaron Dickey) writes:
> The last thing this place needs
> is a bunch of little giggling cliques.
Kieran, try checking out BwF.
No, but really: if that was supposed to be a reference to the giggling
women on Vox, I'm afraid you've just been put on the list for reeducation
aftewr the revolution.
> And yeah, women suffer, tough shit. Care to explain why all-female
> schools are allowed to exist, while all-male schools are sexist and
> Unconstitutional? And what about the overweight? What about the ugly?
> Those two groups suffer a hell of a lot more than women in general. We're
> all bigots, and we ALL suffer. Life's tough, ain't it?
Duh! All-male schools are not unconstitutional, except in cases like West
Point, where women can not get an equal education somewhere else.
OK, you're right. Lots of people suffer, and it's pretty worthless to
debate who suffers most. But that's not an excuse for complacency.
I think the point is not so much a female-only space, as a space where
women (and men, damnit) can be without seeing bullshit like the above.
I used to think Vox as a whole was a place like that.
Debate's all fine and swell, but it's important to have a space without
debate. For example, I was over at some friends' house last night, making
dinner, when one of them suddenly flipped out and started screaming about
unconscious sexist oppression. I had to leave. Of course, she's got a
point, but the thing is to be able to have that discussion in a sensible
way, and not have it invade your entire life.
In other words... perhaps there should be a [Gender-Debate] forum for
discussions of feminism, and whatever Kieran calls his point of view. But
there should also be a place where people refrain from that kind of debate.
- Simon
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 195 of 342
Subject: naahah....
From: hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 20:40:42 EST
you should debate everythign everywheree
well not really
i just think there needs to be a line between
emotional debateing/yelling/screeming/ whateveriring
and having rational discussions
and some people handle that more than others
not better
more
i personally love to be stupid and emotional adn deny
all concepts of reality just for the sake of arguin
or calmy talking about htings
but aint no point in preaching to the converted about why they shoudl
ya knopw?
and besides
nothig on vox is posted in the wrong area
cuz there really isnt a right area
i mean shit, hacking ethics adn the brownies
makes sense to me
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 196 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: toxic (Toxic Avenger)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 20:41:47 EST
simonm (Simon Moon) writes:
> Duh! All-male schools are not unconstitutional, except in cases like West
> Point, where women can not get an equal education somewhere else.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That statement sounds an awful lot like the "seperate but equal" clause of
Plessy v. Fergesun (something every high schooler should learn) which is
obviously unconstitutional. Saying "well, she can get the same education
somewhere else" just doesn't cut it.
Actually, it had nothing to do with the fact that it was a military
school, It had to do with the fact it was a public (state or federal)
college. The precident set by the case says that male -only public
colleges can not exist.
Female-only publkic schools are fine by this ruling, as are male-only
private schools.
> I think the point is not so much a female-only space, as a space where
> women (and men, damnit) can be without seeing bullshit like the above.
> I used to think Vox as a whole was a place like that.
I see this as a fourm to discuss women's issues (especially as they have
to deal with cyberspace) I don't see a need to lock men out of that, do
you? I took a women's studies class last quarter, and learned quite a bit
that I would never have been exposed to had it not been offered to males
(as some other schools women's studies programs are)
If the females on 'vox want a place where only they can congregate, thats
fine, if you provide a MEN'S one as welland keep something liek this to
discuss gender issues, that is oben to both.
-Tox
BWP: point taken about corporate america, but only to the extent that it
is de facto discrimination (discrimination that is not through legislation
and fact) there is nothing that says a woman couldn't head Apple, or the
white house for that matter (look at Nancy Reagan)
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 197 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: hayden (Hugh Appet)
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 23:05:13 EST
bwp (Jane Doe) writes:
> I would also vote to have this forum locked down for women only. Read
> only-write only, no males, whether they call themselves female names or
> not pbbbbbth. But yeah, what dana said, how do you gendercheck in
> thypherspaZe? We'd never really be *sure*...
>
> -3j
You know, once, loooong ago, a bunch of us left CB on CIS for a place
called People Link after Time did an article on CSex which brought an
invasion of kids w/Commodores and 12" aparatuses. Happily a large
inserted line: a large percentage of the emigres from CIS
percentage of them were women or at least feminine personalities. One of
them, well, that's another story. The point is we had a fun 'community'
while Plink lasted and it would not have been much fun if it had been all
guys.
I have been thinking about it and my major problem w/there being a women
only forum is that it might be the only place they ever post the way it
is working out here.
Less ur willing to carry the whole burden urself.
Hayden
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 198 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 00:53:24 EST
In-Reply-To: <e859yB7w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
well a black amn can become president too
sure
yeah
right
dont say it cant happen in the constitution
but i didnt know that about public schools not being able to be all male
but hey can be all female
thtas bunk
but i still want women to sign up for selective service
OR more preferably
for me not to ahve to
of course i also think women should have salaries equivalent to males
not 68 cents to the dollar
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 199 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: reive (Racheline Maltese)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 01:14:32 EST
In-Reply-To: <P809yB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Actually there are only 2 all-girls public schools in the country from
what I was told by the girls school assosciation. And both of them are
special schools for girls who are pregnant or in trouble with the law or
something (yes, the woman assosciated these two things on the phone).
About women in the draft: did you know that if you're female and you fill
out a draft registration card and send it in you'll get a letter back
saying how you could get in all sorts of legal trouble for this. They
make you sign something saying you recognize you are not eligible for the
draft and will not continue to try to break these laws. Pretty fucked up
if you ask me.
*******************************
* reive *
* reive@mindvox.phantom.com *
* zs840c@gwuvm.gwu.edu *
*******************************
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 200 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: kieran (Aaron Dickey)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 01:51:44 EST
hotblack (Dana Watanabe) writes:
> shit i mean sure blacks are treated as slaves adn
> shit thats tuff so why dont they stay that way?
> and shit women dont deserve the right to vote
Call me back when
you're ready to handle debate
in a
LOGICAL manner, d00d
>
> its all just cuz life sucks
> i hate it when i get this pissed
> so if that was your only goal
> congratulations
> you live in new york right?
It wasnt my goal
at all
but i'm happy to
have obliged
and yes, i live in New York
at least
part of the year
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 201 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: kieran (Aaron Dickey)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 01:55:24 EST
reive (Racheline Maltese) writes:
> chance. Socially though, I think it's a terrible idea. Especially if
> you put a kid in an all-girls school since she's really young. Talk
> about not knowing how to deal with guys normally.
I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. Throughout my life, the only
girls/women who have been willing to enter into any sort of relationship
with me are those who attended all-girl schools. Maybe "normal" as it's
currently defined needs a major change.
> another post on another forum). Oh, and by the way I've never met anyone
> who considered all male school sexist, but that may jst be because most
> people I grew up with went to single sex schools.
Well, I was just pissed because a day or so ago, the same issue of USA
Today had two separate articles, one talking about how wonderful all-girl
colleges are, and another chronicaling this poor girl who isn't being
allowed to enter The Citadel because she's female, and how sexist that is.
Let's make up our minds here, America. Enough with the double-standards.
--Kieran
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 202 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: kieran (Aaron Dickey)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 02:13:05 EST
alibaba (Nick Mordanzo) writes:
> Not to burst any bubbles but every system I've ever seen has
> those women only and men only sections. Coimpuserve, Delphi,
> America Online, The Well even, all of them.
I don't know about the Well (never used it), but AOL doesn't have any
forums that are closed to certain groups based on gender or anything else.
They have sections devoted to male and female issues, yes, but anyone can
participate in them.
As for CompuServe and Delphi, the few areas that are "restricted" only
require you to email a note saying you're a member of the group you want
to join, so in reality they're just as open as anywhere else. Besides,
the closed "custom forums" on Delphi make money or are charged based on
how many people use it and how often, so they'll take just about anyone
just to keep their rates low.
--Kieran
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 203 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: kieran (Aaron Dickey)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 02:17:10 EST
simonm (Simon Moon) writes:
> No, but really: if that was supposed to be a reference to the giggling
> women on Vox, I'm afraid you've just been put on the list for reeducation
> aftewr the revolution.
That's NOT what I meant; if there were a closed all-male forum here, it
too would be filled with a clique that would deal almost entirely in
gossip. Don't infer things that aren't there.
> Duh! All-male schools are not unconstitutional, except in cases like West
> Point, where women can not get an equal education somewhere else.
Well, I'm not arguing over things like West Point, even though the reason
they were all-male is quite obvious: WOMEN AREN'T ALLOWED IN COMBAT.
Thus, why waste money training them?
> OK, you're right. Lots of people suffer, and it's pretty worthless to
> debate who suffers most. But that's not an excuse for complacency.
I think it is; it's the converse of the old "When the came for the Jews, I
said nothing" argument. They "come" for people like me every single day,
and everyone says nothing. Thus, I'm not too inclined to go out of my way
to fight whatever battle is currently in vogue amongst the PCers.
> I think the point is not so much a female-only space, as a space where
> women (and men, damnit) can be without seeing bullshit like the above.
> I used to think Vox as a whole was a place like that.
Wow, you disagree with one guy's opinion, and thus all of Vox has a major
problem? Chill out. And as for the above being, IYHO, "bullshit", that's
just your opinion, and I know for a fact that Patrick doesn't take kindly
to proposals of censorship in ANY form.
> Debate's all fine and swell, but it's important to have a space without
> debate. For example, I was over at some friends' house last night, making
> dinner, when one of them suddenly flipped out and started screaming about
> unconscious sexist oppression. I had to leave. Of course, she's got a
> point, but the thing is to be able to have that discussion in a sensible
> way, and not have it invade your entire life.
Yeah, well, perhaps this argument would have a little more weight to it if
there were ever any activity in this forum BESIDES when we're debating.
I'm sorry your friend flipped out and ruined your dinner, but people on
Vox can just do what you did...walk away or just hit the "n" key and
forget about any post you don't like.
> discussions of feminism, and whatever Kieran calls his point of view. But
I call it "moderate", actually.
--Kieran
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 204 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 02:41:24 EST
In-Reply-To: <B4D0yB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
first of all, WHY are we ragging on kieran again? (It kinda looks like
we're back to the old idea of "you don't have to like it, you just have
to tolerate it fora little while...?)
reive: PARAGRAPHS!!! :)
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 205 of 342
Subject: Living in the violent spaces...
From: falconer (Steve Copold)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 09:35:20 EST
In-Reply-To: <P8e0yB3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Perhaps it's just the fact that I'm the only one on here that's seen the
high side of 40, but the perspective you choose to view an issue like
sexism from, more often than not, depends on your own ability to sort
through history rather than the raw facts of the current social
environment. Let me state right up front that I don't believe for a moment
that women get a fair shake as things stand today. I also believe,
however, that it will not change significantly in any of our lifetimes.
I rant and rave about this and that, and so does Kieran and almost
everyone else that hangs in here...The key difference (other than its
virtual nature) between Vox and the rest of the world is the mean IQ
around here. We are all capable of reason. I hate to break the news to
you, but it's my experience that most of the rest of the world's
population is not. Additionally, we all carry lots of baggage and tend to
not have a very deep understanding of its contents.
I grew up in very violent spaces...In fact, from 12 to 28 I lived almost
exclusively in violent spaces. It has altered my views of the world. It's
not something I deliberately chose to have. It's simply the hand I managed
to draw and I work everyday to live with it and make the very best of it
that I can. To deny, however, that it alters my view of the world (and for
our specific discussion, my view of women) is sheer folly. It was also for
the most part, a world where women were viewed to a large extent as
chattel. I fully realize what an ugly concept that is, but nonetheless it
is a concept I coexisted with for many years.
The bottom line is that I have expectations for women that are
signifcantly different than for men. They change constantly, but they also
change very slowly. I have two daughters. I want them to have equal
opportunities with the men with whom they'll have to compete all their
lives. I know that will not happen. Thus, I've done my best to alter the
game. I can't change the rules overnight, but I can change the players
that I've had the chance to raise. And, I suppose by many standards
they're not very "sweet" girls. They're smart, they're educated not in the
simple secular way, but in the school of hard knocks as well. They are
agressive, they can be absolutely ruthless and they are not merely
survivors, but competitors with the skills they need to win in any
environment life throws at them.
It would be easy to say, "I'm tired of trying to change the world." I
think most people do get tired of it because you never live long enough to
see the results. Getting tired, however, doesn't mean you should roll over
like some whipped dog and urinate on yourself in despair. If you have the
depth of your convictions, it means you'll get back up dust yourself off
and take another swing at things. No one ever said life was all fun!
An example: I have a friend that happens to be female. A few years back I
decided that I had done my bit as the responsible father and that it was
now okay for me to begin doin' insane things on motorcycles again. My
friend took an interest and she also bought a bike. Now these were very
fast bikes...and we regularly rode them at speeds hovering around 115 to
130 miles an hour. (We just happen to live in a place where we can get
away with that sort of behavior.) She became expert at this sort of thing
and before long was regularly waxing the teenaged "squids" that would
accompany us on these little cafe racing sessions...And, then something
happened...I bought a couple of 2-stroke dirtbikes (off-road motorcycles)
and encouraged my friend to learn to ride them. One afternoon we took them
out and as we were riding along I managed to take her line in an attempt
to get to a canal bank before she did. We had a fairly spectacular crash.
The next thing I knew she was lying on the ground with the bike on top of
her and I was sitting on mine grateful that the engine had not died. It
just never occurred to me that she might have been injured or in shock,
both of which turned out to be the case. This was a person that I had
become convinced had learned to live in the "violent spaces" and could
cope with this sort of thing...I was wrong. And, not in the result of the
wreck itself, but in how it ultimately affected her view of the activity
itself.....NOW, BEFORE YOU START YELLING AT ME.....I don't believe this
had anything to do with gender, but with personal history. This person did
not really understand the possible outcomes involved with hanging in the
violent spaces until that very moment...Then, it arrived with startling
clarity.
Now, I do believe, for better or worse, that more men are raised with the
skills and the edges required to survive in the truly hostile environments
than are women. That can be changed. But, be very careful...You may just
get what you ask for. If want to hold the gun, then be prepared (And, I do
mean this figuratively.) to stare down the muzzle when it's someone else's
turn at the trigger..."Most" people will pull it and never even blink!
-Falconer
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 206 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: chemist (The Chemist)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 21:10:57 EST
kieran (Aaron Dickey) writes:
> reive (Racheline Maltese) writes:
>
> > chance. Socially though, I think it's a terrible idea. Especially if
> > you put a kid in an all-girls school since she's really young. Talk
> > about not knowing how to deal with guys normally.
>
> I'm not so sure this is a bad thing. Throughout my life, the only
> girls/women who have been willing to enter into any sort of relationship
> with me are those who attended all-girl schools. Maybe "normal" as it's
> currently defined needs a major change.
Dude, maybe you just need to invest in a copy of "how to pick up girls"
its around .50 at any good used book store and whatever you look like, it
can't be any stupidier looking then the guy who wrote it :)
-tC
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 207 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: chemist (The Chemist)
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 93 21:12:46 EST
kieran (Aaron Dickey) writes:
> alibaba (Nick Mordanzo) writes:
>
> > Not to burst any bubbles but every system I've ever seen has
> > those women only and men only sections. Coimpuserve, Delphi,
> > America Online, The Well even, all of them.
>
> I don't know about the Well (never used it), but AOL doesn't have any
> forums that are closed to certain groups based on gender or anything else.
> They have sections devoted to male and female issues, yes, but anyone can
> participate in them.
The Well has a closed Women's forum, it made people get angry so they
added a closed men's forum too. Then again the Well has a lot of truly
stupid conferences like granola and 15 overlapping nearly-identical
grateful dead forums.
-tC
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 208 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: reive (Racheline Maltese)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 09:25:15 EST
In-Reply-To: <ZNuaZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Um, was "dude" just a generic reference thing, or did you miss the fact I
went to an all girls school for like 10 years? And in regard to that
thing about picking up girls.... I have a bf at the moment (sort of one of
those long term type things), but I have dated girls, so like thanks,
I'll spend my $.50 on a candy bar (not like you can get them that cheap
anymore).
-reive
not as hostile as she sounds
*******************************
* reive *
* reive@mindvox.phantom.com *
* zs840c@gwuvm.gwu.edu *
*******************************
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 209 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: alibaba (Nick Mordanzo)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 11:28:46 EST
reive (Racheline Maltese) writes:
> Um, was "dude" just a generic reference thing, or did you miss the fact I
> went to an all girls school for like 10 years? And in regard to that
> thing about picking up girls.... I have a bf at the moment (sort of one of
> those long term type things), but I have dated girls, so like thanks,
> I'll spend my $.50 on a candy bar (not like you can get them that cheap
> anymore).
> -reive
> not as hostile as she sounds
if you read his quote he was talking to kieran and kieran quoted part of
your post. I've never dated guys, don't plan to either.
$%$%$%$%$%$%$%
($) Ali Baba ($)
%$%$%$%$%$%$%$
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 210 of 342
Subject: chill alring
From: hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 16:49:08 EST
not everyone out here is trying to be obnoxious just to you
funn ything i just assume any negative post quoting kieran
has to be agaisnt him
dunno why
its not how to pick up girls
its the one that is how to get into bed with them that you want
i think the main theory in that book was if you ask 10 women to sleep with you
1 shoudl say yes
of course he ma ahve kept asking 9 women adn then headed down to sunset
with some cahs
a friend of mine is a guy who does lighting effects and other visual candy
for undergrounds and shit like that
he kind runs off that theory
i was hanging out with him painting on a wall
when some girl wwalked in
and he was like
'hey, do you want to be painted?'
'sure.. why not?'
'where do you want it?
hwo bout my cheek?
naah.. we need more room than that.. take off your clothes
sounds stupid?
well i feel asleep and woke up to find a naked girl getting painted
at another point in time that nite
people are peopl
not men and women
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 211 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: bwp (Jane Doe)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 17:33:15 EST
alibaba (Nick Mordanzo) writes:
> your post. I've never dated guys, don't plan to either.
So what do you want, a sympathy card, or a free year's subscription to
Boardwatch?
-3j
Stupid people shouldn't breed
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 212 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: reive (Racheline Maltese)
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 23:22:10 EST
In-Reply-To: <56ecZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
okay, so like i was vaguely confused... i don't care, i enjoyed that post
:)
*******************************
* reive *
* reive@mindvox.phantom.com *
* zs840c@gwuvm.gwu.edu *
*******************************
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 213 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 00:54:08 EST
In-Reply-To: <NBVcZB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
yeah, reive, i kinda liked it too... :)
and falconer: wow. besides the fact that i think that was terrifically
written, it also kinda made me wish that more women were brought up that
way..."sweet" has never been particularly appealing to me, and tho I
dont' know that I'd totally fit into your description of your daughters,
I do know that whatever parts DO fit are due mainly to ME, not to my
up-bringing...
dont know if that's a good or a bad thing...(i'm just talking as i watch
my thoughts ramble on by)
yeah, whatever...
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 214 of 342
Subject: Re: why so few chix?
From: falconer (Steve Copold)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 08:48:43 EST
newt (Dana Bettinger) writes:
> and falconer: wow. besides the fact that i think that was terrifically
> written, it also kinda made me wish that more women were brought up that
> way..."sweet" has never been particularly appealing to me, and tho I
> dont' know that I'd totally fit into your description of your daughters,
> I do know that whatever parts DO fit are due mainly to ME, not to my
> up-bringing...
>
> dont know if that's a good or a bad thing...(i'm just talking as i watch
> my thoughts ramble on by)
That's the real rub Newt...Who really knows what is good and what is bad?
At best they're usually judgment calls...At worst they can be completely
undecipherable...IMHO, the important thing is that you do your very best
to discern which is which and then be true to your beliefs.
-Falconer
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 215 of 342
Subject: Falconer's M/C post
From: bwp (Jane Doe)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 11:13:53 EST
Newtt,
Just who do you think that was under that crashed motorcycle, hm?
-3j
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 216 of 342
Subject: Re: Falconer's M/C post
From: simonm (Simon Moon)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 12:32:42 EST
In-Reply-To: <u0RDZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
falconer (Steve Copold) writes:
> I have two daughters. I want them to have equal opportunities with the
> men with whom they'll have to compete all their lives. I know that will
> not happen. Thus, I've done my best to alter the game. I can't change the
> rules overnight, but I can change the players that I've had the chance to
> raise. And, I suppose by many standards they're not very "sweet" girls.
> They're smart, they're educated not in the simple secular way, but in the
> school of hard knocks as well. They are agressive, they can be absolutely
> ruthless and they are not merely survivors, but competitors with the
> skills they need to win in any environment life throws at them.
Word.
Falc: sounds like you're doing an excelent job raising your kids. I'm impressed.
- Simon
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 217 of 342
Subject: Re: Falconer's M/C post
From: sassy (Sassy Magazine)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 13:58:35 EST
In-Reply-To: <8wVDZB6w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Agreed. Falconer sounds like an A-1 dad.
Unfortunately, girls are still being raised by most parentals to be NICE,
first and foremost. To be good girls. We're still the ones who are
responsible for makin nice and building bridges btwn folks, all that
sheet. Note, pls, how often its girls--even tho they're such a minority
on here--who try to put an end to a long fruitless thread of
flaminhostileragin posts. Okay, not to come off as a hairy-legged man
hater or anything *giggle*.
That was sarcasm. Just to head off certain people at the pass, idiotic
post-wise.
I think girls schools are excellent. Reive, it's true they're not for
everyone, and i definitely think it's valid to try both single sex and
coed schools, but study after study shows that women's college grads are
successful way out of proportion to their numbers in the population. That
even when teachers are female they call on boys more, that boys talk more
in coed classes, that girls raise their hands less (so if they're not
called on, they'll just sit more). That more womens college grads go on
to get doctorates in the sciences. Don't get me stahhhted, but it's all
in the last Am Assoc of University Women study (and in the Nov. 92 ish of
Sassy *modest, dainty, feminine blush*.
So if women's schools are sexist, are historically black colleges racist?
Oh feh, like I wanna get into more of an "Eat My Rotting Uterine Wall"
fest with kieran.
Now I really want to go have lunch. SOmeone's dick on a plate? Nah. Maybe
a sandwich. 68 cents don't go as far as it used to...
--Margie, cranky
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 218 of 342
Subject: Re: Falconer's M/C post
From: falconer (Steve Copold)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 14:40:21 EST
sassy (Sassy Magazine) writes:
> Agreed. Falconer sounds like an A-1 dad.
Thank you for that...I would like to think so.
> ...but study after study shows that women's college grads are
> successful way out of proportion to their numbers in the population. That
> even when teachers are female they call on boys more, that boys talk more
> in coed classes, that girls raise their hands less (so if they're not
> called on, they'll just sit more). That more womens college grads go on
> to get doctorates in the sciences. Don't get me stahhhted, but it's all
> in the last Am Assoc of University Women study (and in the Nov. 92 ish of
> Sassy *modest, dainty, feminine blush*.
Entirely true...Another factor, however, which should not be overlooked is
that the focus at "most" single-sex schools tends to be far more academic
in bent than their coed counterparts. Universities with sexually balanced
populations usually wind up with a far higher "party factor" than
single-sex institutions. The same is true to some extent for commuter
colleges.
> So if women's schools are sexist, are historically black colleges racist?
Based on the contacts I've had with HBCU's (Historically Black Colleges
and Universities), the answer is no. It is, however, a qualified no. To
contend that racism and sexism do not cut both ways is pure folly.
Separatism of any type promotes bias...That is just human nature. The UT
component I work at is 93 percent Hispanic in its student makeup. Is there
racism here? You bet there is! The key is in remembering that it can take
many forms. Whether it is a presumption of ignorance when dealing with a
student raised in a non-English speaking home, or some white-boy having to
honk the horn when he picks up his date because her parents will not
permit her to date an Anglo, it is still racist behavior. Can it be fixed?
Yeah, I think it can...Unfortunately, I doubt that I'll live long enough
to see it.
-Falconer
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 219 of 342
Subject: Re: Falconer's M/C post
From: toxic (Toxic Avenger)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 16:00:22 EST
sassy (Sassy Magazine) writes:
> So if women's schools are sexist, are historically black colleges racist?
Nope, If I (as a white male) can apply and get into a historically black
college, and go there, then it is not racist. However, I am being locked
out of all-female schools because I have a penis. This is questionable.
I'm not sure what to think about the whole situation, and Im not sure if I
believe that a all-women's high school or college isn't better for a woman
(education wise at least) but it definately varies from person to person.
I still want to know WHY public all-female schools are ok, but all-male
public schools are unconstitutional. Thats what bugs me.
> --Margie, cranky
--Tox, glad to see you out there.
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 220 of 342
Subject: Re: Falconer's M/C post
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 16:27:49 EST
In-Reply-To: <BJ6DZB3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
jane: yeah, i kinda guessed. ouch. sorry.
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 221 of 342
Subject: Re: Falconer's M/C post
From: scoundrl (Renal Boy)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 17:28:14 EST
In-Reply-To: <3s7DZB5w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
first off i wanna commend falconer because i think that its really kool
about his daughters, BUT:
'niceness', no matter how putridly uneffective and counterproductive it
is, is still an ok attribute. it shouldn't be limited to women. i would at
any time rather be with someone who is nice than not. you can sdtill have
your swagger, your too-fucking-kool-for-you glare and be nice if your a
guy, and you can be competiitive. shurning out a bunch of hardened robots
might be the right choice if you think that the prupous of human existance
is getting ahead, and making a fast buck, but i maintain that more of it
lies in inter-human relations.
i don't think that many people would necessarily call me the nicest or
sweetest person around and i like to think that im competitive, but i also
have spent a long time trying to learn how to get along with people, and
and i am STILL learning, and i honestly think that that is far more
important than my acedemics.
the world isn't fair to women, i think it sucks and i think we should do
all we should, and you are rigtht to raise your ids to be competitive. if
you want, make them forget that they are girls. just never make them frget
they are human beings.
qthe Scoundrl
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 222 of 342
Subject: Re: Falconer's M/C post
From: falconer (Steve Copold)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 17:56:53 EST
scoundrl (Renal Boy) writes:
> ...if you want, make them forget that they are girls. just never make them
> frget they are human beings.
I don't think there's a real big chance of that. As someone pointed out
early on in the life of this system, the older one is a Phoebe Cates
knock-off with real long hair, and the younger one looks a lot like Cindi
Crawford did at 18 years-old. Let's just say that I've given them a
realistic outlook on life and prepared them for the little inequities that
are sure to come their way.
Treat'em fairly and you'll get the same in return...Mess with'em and
they'll bust your balls in a flash...nuff said!
-Falconer
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 223 of 342
Subject: Re: Falconer's M/C post
From: scoundrl (Renal Boy)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 18:11:43 EST
>
> I don't think there's a real big chance of that. As someone pointed out
> early on in the life of this system, the older one is a Phoebe Cates
> knock-off with real long hair, and the younger one looks a lot like Cindi
> Crawford did at 18 years-old.
now _where_ did you say you live, again!?
>
> -Falconer
the Scoundrl
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 224 of 342
Subject: girls schools
From: reive (Racheline Maltese)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 19:08:32 EST
Just a note:
I recognize the need for girls schools, I just think a lot of them aren't
doing the jobs they should be. I realize many women who attend them excel
in areas women are not generally encouraged to. Many girls schools are
also similar to the one I attended, where although they encouraged us
academically we also learned how to curtsey to people of different social
stations(real useful, let me tell you) and play a little piano and dance
a little and discuss effectively current events without being too
opinionated. I didn't go to a finishing school, but where I went was
pretty damn close at times. That's where the hostility comes from. I
think that girls schools that are helping their students to be more
assertive and to study fields that women are generally not encouraged too
are great; the world I grew up in wasn't very much like that though. I
also think when a girl makes a choice to attend a single-sex school that
is much more positive for her than if she has grown up in one. If I had
gone to a real school that had also happened to be a girls school, I'd
probably have a different attitude. Plus most people hated junior high
anyway, who knows maybe the fact that it was all girls had nothing to do
with the fact that the place drove me nuts, but I don't think so.
Oh well, whatever, just explaining where the hostility comes from (yes,
there are reasons for it :)
-reive
*******************************
* reive *
* reive@mindvox.phantom.com *
* zs840c@gwuvm.gwu.edu *
*******************************
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 225 of 342
Subject: Re: girls schools
From: sassy (Sassy Magazine)
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 23:37:28 EST
In-Reply-To: <X9DeZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
brava. standing o for reive. i was thinking more along the lines of
women's colleges, tho the finishing school aspect is a prob there too,
often. oh well. elitism hither and yon. chickie steotyping.
miss margie, wearing white elbow-length gloves
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 226 of 342
Subject: Re: girls schools
From: simonm (Simon Moon)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 05:26:57 EST
In-Reply-To: <6oqeZB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Reive! What happened to the paragraphs? I liked them so much...
- Simon
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 227 of 342
Subject: Re: girls schools
From: reive (Racheline Maltese)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 11:01:37 EST
In-Reply-To: <mJ2gZB9w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Damn, I knew someone would notice....
-reive
*******************************
* reive *
* reive@mindvox.phantom.com *
* zs840c@gwuvm.gwu.edu *
*******************************
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 228 of 342
Subject: Re: girls schools
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 01:06:11 EST
In-Reply-To: <e2gHZB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
para
g r a p h z . . . you R E A L L Y
d o n ' t n e e d p a r a
g r a p h z . e x c e p t occasionally,
when you don't wanna m a k e US go
nuts . . .
ya K N O W ???
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 229 of 342
Subject: change of subject
From: sassy (Sassy Magazine)
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 15:30:47 EST
In-Reply-To: <15JiZB3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
I just saw Sommersby.
Does Richard Gere remind anyone else of a hairless rat. Yick. . Love
that Jodie, tho. Daniel Day-Lewis is among the tastier men in film and
his snub by those Oscar-nominating dickwads was an OUTRAGE. I was psyched
that they recognized The Crying Game people. Anyone else care to weigh in
on the foxy male topic?
margie, sensing a conversational lull and leaping into the breach
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 230 of 342
Subject: Re: change of subject
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 06:00:43 EST
In-Reply-To: <1TiLZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
dfinitely a lull..
heh
but yeah, ddl is a fantastic actor as well...
(hmmm, concept)
TO EVERYONE
GO SEE FLIRTING
it is amazing
it is fantastic
i adored it
it is one of the best i've seen in a ges.
(nice women-online stuff here...)
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 231 of 342
Subject: Re: change of subject
From: scoundrl (Renal Boy)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 10:31:44 EST
In-Reply-To: <wRHoZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
newtt: do you read the movies phorum?
didn't think so.
cuz its been said.
the Scoundrl
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 232 of 342
Subject: change of change of subj.
From: ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 14:50:46 EST
In-Reply-To: <LBuoZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Okay, here's an example of this "women's only" space-issue that recently
came up for me and I've been thinking about...
I'm a women's studies major. And in my senior seminar there are like, 3
men (including me) and about 17 or 18 women (including the prof.). The
subject of the seminar is something like "women, Sex, and Power" or sex,
gender and power" or something. Anyway, so the other week in addition to
whatever theory stuff we had, we read part od the Story of O--the class
was on romance, dominance, submission, s/m, etc.
Okay, now,w, this one total toad of a guy kept referring to various
specific scenes in the Story of O and going into fairly lurid detail while
describing them to us. Like "So he's coming in her mouth and she's
enjoying it and thinking 'I love him'" and so forth. Actually more
graphic details than that. I mean, this guy was obviously making the
entire class incredibly uncomfortable with his foamy-lipped recountings of
these pornographic scenes. Now, I am not like incredibly prudish, nor, I
think, are the other class members. But there seemed to be something in
his manner which suggested that he was perhaps *participating* in the
pornographic imagination he was discussing. I mean, sure, to a certain
extent I'm sure that part of the reason any of us did the reading was some
sort of thrill or erotic interst. But the fact of the matter is that this
guy was making the sort of primary students in the class incredibly
uncomfortable by presenting himself so thoroughly as like, the classic
example of the participatory male spectator.
And I got to thinking, "should there be men in this class? Would I be
helping a feminist agenda more by simply removing myself from this
discussion (and taking this goob [wink to sassy] out with me?"
I dunno what to think about this... I can never make up my mind. I mean,
for example, until now I have always avoided posting heere for exactly the
reason that maybe it's better not to be invasive. On the other hand,
maybe my reading the posts here is enough of a voyeuristic intrusion that
I might as well at least be visible to the people who post here...
Hmm sorry for all the soul searching and all, but I just wonder about this
*constantly* and I am looking for other opinions.
(And hey, if you are a man reading this and feel the urge to spout off
some crap about sensitive Alan Alda-clone women's studies men, just keep
it to yourself, because that shit is tired). <--ooh, defensive, aren't we?
Ethan
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 234 of 342
Subject: Re: change of subject
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 15:25:45 EST
In-Reply-To: <LBuoZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
oh hush up,
i'm QUITE aware of that.
and i don't care.
margie mentioned movies, so
dammit,
i can too!
besides, i like dit!
:)
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 235 of 342
Subject: Re: hmmm......
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 15:29:38 EST
In-Reply-To: <2y7oZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
amy?
hmm...i don't know about the competition thing
i think that males are difinitely encouraged to ignore the sort of "care
about others feelings" to an extent....
but i know a lot of girls that are JUST as competitive as guys (KC
people, think Knighton?) and so what does one make of that?
is it an individual thing?
or a "product of your society and environment" thing?
what??
actually, looking at that "males are encouraged..." comment, i don't
think that was exactly what i meant to say, or how i meant to say
it...but i guess you can re-inerpret it or something...
and i n fact, i know a lot of girls who are a lot MORE competitive than
many of the guys i am friends with...which is also reflective on the type
of people i'm friends with...killer WIN WIN WIN WIN NO MATTER WHAT WIN
WIN WIN attitudes don't really rub me the right way...
ethan: (this is obviously just my opinion, but...) please, keep reading
and posting...
i know somepeople wanted to make this women-only...i dunno, i suppose
that i just feel that would not accomlish anything, and that if someone
is going to write a post that is as obviously aware and totally
unobnoxious as this one was, then by all means, do it!
anyway, as far as the dilemma goes...i can see where it's coming from...
i wouldn't leave the class...maybe someone talk to the other guy? because
it seems that more than just acting the typical "male" or whatever, he's
just acting like an immature 16 year old who can't handle the unit (think
sex-ed in elementary and middle school???)..
but again, i don't really feel that leaving would accomplish anything.
for you, or for the class.
hmmm...
ok
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 236 of 342
Subject: Re: hmmm......
From: reive (Racheline Maltese)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 16:48:11 EST
In-Reply-To: <448oZB8w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Ethan:
You know a girl probably could have said the same thing in the same way
probably made the class just as uncomfortable; It may not be as likely a
situation, but still. Also that's just the way the world is, if you
can't deal with it in class, what's the point (not directedat you, but
the girls). Thing is I probably would've gone off at the guy at length
in class, and enjoyed it intensely. BTW I read that book-- kinda
impressed that it would actually be used in a class; that professor has
guts.
*******************************
* reive *
* reive@mindvox.phantom.com *
* zs840c@gwuvm.gwu.edu *
*******************************
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 237 of 342
Subject: Re: hmmm......
From: scoundrl (Renal Boy)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 19:36:45 EST
In-Reply-To: <1qBPZB3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
ethan: this is meant in an absolutely harmless, just-out-of-curiosity way,
but just _what_ does one do with a women's studies degree (male or female)???
i know lots of people who are studying/or are gog to study in that field
and i just wanna know then what?
thanx, no offense.
the Scoundrl
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 238 of 342
Subject: Violent Spaces Revisited...
From: falconer (Steve Copold)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:36:48 EST
In-Reply-To: <yJJPZB4w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Amada & Newtt...
I absolutely did not mean to imply, and this was in fact the point of the
original posting, that there are sexually based differences in attitudes
or behavior that are rooted in some biological basis. Au contraire...I
believe they are the results of social conditioning and the societal
"norms" (whatever those are at any given period in time) that are imposed
on the children of both sexes that result in the different responses and
behaviors we may manifest later in life.
All of those conditioned responses can be overcome, but not without major
efforts in many cases. My point was that if you succeed in reversing the
conditioning you had better be damned sure you are ready to live with the
consequences of your choice. The cliche that "the grass is always greener"
may have a lot of subliminal appeal, but the realities of your neighbor's
lawn may be a serious infestation of very surly weeds!
-Falconer
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 239 of 342
Subject: Re: Violent Spaces Revisited...
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 93 23:56:39 EST
In-Reply-To: <2NuPZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
HUH???
falconer: uhm, i wasn't arguing with you...??!?...rather, i agree with
both the social conditioning idea AND the
you-better-be-ready-to-deal-with-the-consequences
part.
hmmm...
ok.
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 240 of 342
Subject: Re: hmmm......
From: ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 01:28:18 EST
scoundrl (Renal Boy) writes:
> ethan: this is meant in an absolutely harmless, just-out-of-curiosity way,
> but just _what_ does one do with a women's studies degree (male or female)???
>
Do Alan Alda impersonations, of course... Ha ha ha. (not) Um, gee, I don't
know, probably about the same thing I would do with any other liberal arts
degree, I spose. Life is short: slack hard. You know? Just something, I
guess. (actually my secret desire that I'm kind of afraid to mention here
is someday to be a writer for sassy, just like Margie--no kidding. That,
for the moment, is pretty much my goal in life...)
> i know lots of people who are studying/or are gog to study in that field
> and i just wanna know then what? ^^^^^^^^^^^^
and gettin' groggy...
> thanx, no offense.
none taken, ([muttering under breath] f^%#@& jerky!!! <-hee)
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 241 of 342
Subject: Re: hmmm......
From: ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 01:37:47 EST
reive (Racheline Maltese) writes:
> Ethan:
> You know a girl probably could have said the same thing in the same way
> probably made the class just as uncomfortable; It may not be as likely a
well, the only thing about that is that we were discussing a book that was
specifically about male pleasure in the objectification of the female
body/sexuality, etc. So that when this man appeared to be so
unselfconsciously participating in that dynamic by getting into these
descriptions, it seemed incredibly unnerving and weird--much more so, I
think, than if a woman had said the same thing.
I think it's usually pretty important to try to contextualize people's
statements as much as possible, esp. in a discussion of some book to see
how they are relating to the text, etc. I actually think that it would
*not* have been received the same way if a woman had said it... Then
again, your average woman wouldn't be so clueless that she would say that
stuff...
> situation, but still. Also that's just the way the world is, if you
good point. I spose I probably have some tendency to sort of
ivory-tower-ize some of these issues and think it's weird, for example,
for someone to think it's weird for a man to be a feminist, or whatever
(just as an example, I mean). On the other hand, we had our fair share of
*that* world in the Story of O without this goofy guy's help.
And yeah, that teacher has guts galore. She's the coolest (I think that
about all my teachers, though)
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 242 of 342
Subject: Re: Violent Spaces Revisited...
From: falconer (Steve Copold)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 11:46:41 EST
newt (Dana Bettinger) writes:
> hmmm...
> ok.
Okay!
-Falconer
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 243 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: simonm (Simon Moon)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 13:33:14 EST
In-Reply-To: <PcXqZB5w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Ethan: just shoot him. It's that simple.
- Simon
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 244 of 342
Subject: icky boys in the classroom
From: sassy (Sassy Magazine)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 16:34:48 EST
In-Reply-To: <4DXqZB6w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
I always think how a class--women's studies or any other--responds to
sexist/bigoted statements is interesting. Did anyone actually SAY what
you posted, or did people informally after class disect what the nebbish
said. How confrontational do people (other than him) get? One doesn't
wish to silence people like that--heaven forfend--but you also hope for a
comfortable enuf atmosphere that you can slug back (SIMON), I mean
figuratively, without descending to a personal level (you know, like
"eat me."
ANd if I may be so bold and objectify you for just one moment--Ethan,
you're the foxiest.
margie, YOUR biggest fan (acshully that's debateable)
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 245 of 342
Subject: Re: icky boys in the classroom
From: deckard (Mike Gwertzman)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 18:23:45 EST
In-Reply-To: <Ps6qZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
I don't want to sound like a fool, but I don't think a women's studies
class should be all-women.
At my high school, there is a American Women's course. From my lady
friends they tell me that it is a basically a "let's gang up on the evil
men" class. Although there are a few man in the class (I shouldn't be
surprised actually.) I fear that they are put in the uncomfortable
position of being asked "Well, YOU are a man, what do YOU think about
it?" You know, as if they were representing the entire sex?
At school, we are supposed to be diverse. I don't think a women's
studies class with all women would get the whole picture. I dunno.
-mike
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 246 of 342
Subject: Re: icky boys in the classroom
From: ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 20:02:54 EST
Margie (Phunk Kween) writes:
> I always think how a class--women's studies or any other--responds to
> sexist/bigoted statements is interesting. Did anyone actually SAY what
> you posted, or did people informally after class disect what the nebbish
> said. How confrontational do people (other than him) get?
The thing about Williams Colege is that people are very very *polite*. To
the point of wussiness sometimes. So, no, nobody said anything in class
to satanboy (he's not really *that* bad, actually...I mean, he would
*like* to be a feminist, which is a [plus). Yeah, so I dunno.
One doesn't
> wish to silence people like that--heaven forfend--but you also hope for a
> comfortable enuf atmosphere that you can slug back (SIMON), I mean
> figuratively, without descending to a personal level (you know, like
> "eat me."
>
Yeah, see that would be a pretty ideal situation. But the thing is (I
don't want to drag this out too long, but hey) that it would kind of have
to be personal, in a way, since whoever would say something to him would
be diverting the discussion from whatever he thought the topic at hand was
to his personal discursive/rhetorical style, you know? Which doesn't
necessarily excuse us other class members from being politely offended
sheep, but does explain perhaps our group reluctance to speak up...
> margie, YOUR biggest fan (acshully that's debateable)
Yeah, after all, there was ALL that fan mail for me after the December
issue...
(hee hee hee. ***Action: E. blushes so hard he bursts a blood
vessel in his face and has to be rushed to the hospital by his friend Jose
who is conveniently located close at hand.)
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 247 of 342
Subject: Re: icky boys in the classroom
From: reive (Racheline Maltese)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 21:26:59 EST
In-Reply-To: <JFFRZB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Interesting point about "well you're a man, what do you think?" and guys
being stuck representing their whole gender in a mostly female class.
I was in a similar situation once. I used to be really active in the
L/G/B on campus, and I was the only woman who was really active. We used
to have these weekly discussion groups and at every meeting it was, "and
now for a woman's point of view...." it was so annoying, especially
because I don't think I am typical of most women of any sexual
orientation. And my guess is that the guys in a woman's studies class
wouldn't give a typical male opinion, with the possible exception of that
dude in the class reading Story of O. Why are we so obsessed with
viewing people in terms of their gender? (I know, I know human nature,
but it still strikes me as weird).
-reive
*******************************
* reive *
* reive@mindvox.phantom.com *
* zs840c@gwuvm.gwu.edu *
*******************************
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 248 of 342
Subject: Re: hmmm......
From: hayden (Hugh Appet)
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 23:12:31 EST
In-Reply-To: <D2NRZB1w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
So Ethan,
Was this guy the only one to comment on the book? What did the other
people in the class think?
Hay
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 249 of 342
Subject: Re: hmmm......
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 00:03:07 EST
In-Reply-To: <k8NRZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
yeah, why DO we keep stressing gender ALL the time?
sure, it comes into play in more situations than one...
but??
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 250 of 342
Subject: Re: representing your sex
From: deckard (Mike Gwertzman)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 00:01:23 EST
In-Reply-To: <k8NRZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Well I have mixed feelings regarding "Werll you're a man, what do you
think?" When someone is active in the l/g/b as you were reive, and stands
out, they can't help but be labeled as their leader or something. Their
spokesperson. In an ideal society, when everyone is equally represented
and we can have rational discussions, there shouldn't be any stereotypign
or gender typing. But I can't blame them. In the women's history class
for example, when they want a man's perspective, who else are they going
to ask but one or two vocal males? They are forced to represent a sex.
Just as I'm sure you were called on to do, because you seemed to be an
active campus member.
-mike
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 251 of 342
Subject: Re: representing your sex
From: reive (Racheline Maltese)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 01:00:05 EST
In-Reply-To: <1gqRZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
I'm not bitching about having to be a representative of, just the way
people handle it. Yeah okay, if the one guy is the only person in the
women's studies class than of course you're gonna ask him for opinions,
but assuming he represents all guys is lame. It should be more like
"what do you think about this? what do you think most guys would think
about this? do you think gender affects how you view this?" If you ask
questions like that it makes the opinions more imporatant than the gender
which in most cases is how it should be.
I know rambling runn-on's but whatever.
-reive
*******************************
* reive *
* reive@mindvox.phantom.com *
* zs840c@gwuvm.gwu.edu *
*******************************
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 252 of 342
Subject: Representative Men (nice Emerson reference, huh?)
From: ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 19:39:18 EST
In-Reply-To: <u7sRZB3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
You know, the thing about men being called on to present a "male
perspective" is kind of you know whatever, shoddy pedagogical method and
all, and politically suspect and a pain in the butt. The thing is, how
often does it happen? Probably like 4 times a year nation-wide.
It's really much much more heinous etc. for say a black woman to be called
on out of a class of white men to give the "oppressed minority"
opinion/perspective. (This was actually totally happening just the
other day in this intro. level political theory clas that I t.a.--very
dodgy. The teacher was being cool about it and saying "Nicole, of course
you don't *have* to speak for *all* black women, by any means" etc. But
people in the class--mostly white, mostly men--were regarding her word as
the definitive one on the so-called "black woman's perspective"--identity
politix coopted and perverted to the most nastyest of all ends, no?)
I don't want to come off as some foamy-lipped p.c.er, because I'm not, I
don't think. But it's important to keep in mind when a man is complaining
about some infringement on his status as a man that chances are he's
surprised because this has never happened to him before--no one has ever
questioned or examined his authority to speak from an "objective" stance,
you know?
As for the reason people seem to focus on gender? Well, I for one think
it's important because gender-roles have been used to legitimate or
explain away the oppression or domination of half the human race at one
time or another--for no good reason. Sure sure it's true that inherently
(what does that word mean most of time anyway?) there's no reason to
privilege gender as a category on which to base your analysis, but you
often have to start somewhere, it seems like.
Also, for the most part, in a women's studies class, you often spend a lot
of time deconstructing (oh oh oh the hated "d" word--but it's *true*!
[giggle!]) the logics that subtend our sex-gender system, or
at least how these structures come about and how they function.
And (I forget who asked about this), as far as other responses to The
Story of O, sure there were plenty--a whole range. The thing is, we
weren't really just reading it and saying "Oh, I thought that bit on page
45 was extra spicy!" or extra offensive or whatever. We were reading in
conjunction with this book called The Bonds of Love by Jessica Benjamin
that does a sort of psychoanalytic reading of the origins of domination
and submission in adult erotic life. So I mean, that's why it was so
weirdly inappropriate for there to be lurid details from the book being
discussed in the class--it just really was not very relevant.
That Jessica Benjamin is pretty cool in her own way, btw (if anybody
here's into psychonanlytiic feminism that sort of uses "the master's
[i.e. Freud's] tools" to tear down the master's haus, so to speak. She
goes beyond that mere pleasure/pain thing to get a pretty cool reading of
f'rinstance, mother-infant dynamics).
Ay ayay!!! Too durn much b.s.!!!! AAaaaggh! I'm drowning in it!!!!
end this damn post!!!
Gotta hot date with Freud and Dora...(schwing!!!)
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 253 of 342
Subject: Re: Representative Men (nice Emerson reference, huh?)
From: deckard (Mike Gwertzman)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 23:02:21 EST
In-Reply-To: <8Z9sZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
When I brought up the point about men being called on to represent men I
was using it because we were discussing women's studies, and whether or
not there should be no men in it or what.
Every day I see people called on to speak for their race. I was trying
to keep some continuity going. Oh well.
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 254 of 342
Subject: gender gap??
From: amada (Amy Dona)
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 93 23:44:51 EST
In-Reply-To: <meiTZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
did it strike anyone else that why gender is SO important ...why is it
stressed overly much, in a forum named "Women On-line"
I'm not contraditing anyone it just strook me as amusing
It is unavoidable for woman to be united a bit by the common attitude
taken against them at times... When I run up against it It infuriates
me!!
I want to yell in their faces " WHY CAN'T YOU TAKE ME FOR WHATY I AM W/O
ANY PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS???"
I realize that this is unrealiatic though...there will always be ideas in
thepeople's minds.....just let them be less less all-defining
In all honesty I have never really had a problem because i am female. I
always find a way to work around those who would stand in my way but
there it is always invading...the idea of whata good girl" should be
like...innoecent, unthinking, social, concerned w/ little else than her
appearance
I know this sounds exaggerated but in my HS there are those teachers left
over from the early 60's who still have these exact ideas
luckily i have avoid them at all costs...adn my school is advanced enough
to keep them out of the truly influential positons for fear of parental
actions
I was lucky enough to be raised in an enviroment where it made little
difference if I were female or male and I have never seen being female as
never seen being female as a limitation and have proved to those w/
doubts that I can do all that a male can and sometimes more
this turned into another long babbling post...(I went back and read the
last onthis turned out to be anoth long babbling post (I went back and
deleted the last on,...it didn't say what i wanted it to)
though there are no main points to this i hope you get the general
feeling
there are prejudices that unite woman but there are ways to work around
most and it's not always that bad....
amada
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 255 of 342
Subject: Re: gender gap??
From: dsharp (david sharp)
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 93 00:47:09 EST
In-Reply-To: <gDkTZB3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
>Every day I see people called on to speak for their race...
Yeah, you know many groups - genetic/cultural/political - have
professional 'spokespeople' some of whom make a decent living at it.
you just gotta find your spokes-niche in this world, son
dsharp
spokesperson fer dorks n doofuses
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 256 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: scoundrl (Renal Boy)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 93 04:36:23 EST
simonm (Simon Moon) writes:
> Ethan: just shoot him. It's that simple.
>
yeah! and taht way you can show him taht you're a man!
the scoundrl (shhhh!)
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 257 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 93 19:07:20 EST
In-Reply-To: <cJsVZB6w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
oh, there we go.
the right ideas, they flow so easy!
(yeah, so i'm incoherent.
so what??)
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 258 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 93 17:15:13 EST
In-Reply-To: <cJsVZB6w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
nahk we know he's a man.
err nah.
yeah, whatever.
heh
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 259 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: enzyme (David Pincus)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 93 19:57:06 EST
newt (Dana Bettinger) writes:
> oh, there we go.
> the right ideas, they flow so easy!
>
> (yeah, so i'm incoherent.
> so what??)
>
> newtt
newt: we (at least I) love you when you babble, you actually make more
sense than me usually (which in an of itself is not so difficult).
enzyme enzym3 3nzym3 3nzyme enzyme
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 260 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: nancykay (NancyKay Shapiro)
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 93 20:17:36 EST
In-Reply-To: <VTD5ZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Hi all. Just announcing my presence. New here.
*************Perpetual Dawn. . . .Infinite Sunrise********************
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 261 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 93 23:38:09 EST
In-Reply-To: <2Re5ZB4w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
(ni nancykay who announces herself to us. welcome!)
wow, thanks enz! i feel warm and fuzy now.
not that you're normally that incoherent, but...)
heh
(go read randy's bashing of our (me, amada, whoever) methods of signoff.
it's amusing.)
indeed.
btw, that was "hi nancykay..."
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 262 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: scoundrl (Renal Boy)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 03:48:09 EST
In-Reply-To: <aqi7ZB6w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
what is this shit? want to get eh newbies on 'your side'?
there are NO sides here.
for god's sake, it was not a bash. it ws a comment.
does EVERYTHING here have to be uppitty and positive. can't someone just
make a relatively innocent comment without being condemned as a characer
assassin?
just because i know you in real life, dana, does not mean:
a) you have any idea who i am, or what i think, or that i even give a
flying shit about you AT ALL
b) EVERYTHING i say toyou has some deeper, hidden meaning rooted in real life.
the scoundrl (shhhh!!)
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 263 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 18:36:12 EST
In-Reply-To: <yau7ZB6w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
randy, i never ever SAID i knew you.
and to be honest, from what i see of you quite often,
i don't really know if i'd ever WANT to.
so i'm not exactly sure where you're coming from, but it seems to be
putting a rather large questionmark in my brain...
and sides? what the hell?
and i couldn't care less about "getting the newbies.."
I was SAYING HELLO you moron!
sheesh.
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 264 of 342
Subject: squelch that goofiness
From: ehsmith (Ethan H. Smith)
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 19:15:31 EST
In-Reply-To: <2eZ8ZB7w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Damn Mr Renal boy (or should I say "venal boy"?) That sounded rather hostile!
Lemme just give you some quotes from one of my fave new zines, "Hermenaut"
to cool you out:
Hermenaut of the Month:
NOVALIS (1772-1801). Born Friedrich von Hardenberg, Novalis lived slow
and died young on the cusp of the Romantic era. He was a slick guy, who
looked a lot like Johnny Dep, and his interests included poetry, fictions
(Hesse's 'Journey to the East' features a cameo by Novalis' character
Henry von Ofterdingen), philosophy, chemistry and mathematics. Like Elvis
[and, I might add, Jerry Lee Lewis], when Novalis was in his early
twenties, he became obsessed with a thirteen-year-old girl: Sophie.
Sophie died soon after, and Novalis spent the few remaining years of his
life managing a salt-mine and feverishly writing aphorisms, or
'fragments.' He died at twenty-eight of tuberculosis and a broken heart.
"[Novalis'] poetic subject is entirely *intersubjective*, or
being-in-relation, fractured by alterity and loving it. The poetic
subject remains in a constant state of existential tension."
"The ever-dynamic poet is...truly moral. Novalis' Symposie can 'point
forward to a better world," and that is why Novalis is our HERMENAUT OF
THE MONTH."
Hot for Nietzsche (like van Halen's "Hot for Teacher" get it?)
"I went slightly crazy...":
[cartoon thought-bubble]:
"What a bunch of squares... Mediocre, like the "Last Men" HE predicted."
[...later...]
"Ohne day I picked up Twilight of the Idols and had a frightening revelation."
Oh my God, Nietzsche is just like every boyfriend I've ever
had--brilliant, but an emotional cripple. Heuses bizarre theories to
justify feelings he can't control or understand."
Intrigued? writ eto
Paradise Enterprises
17 Lourdes Ave. #2
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130.
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 265 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: enzyme (David Pincus)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 00:33:44 EST
scoundrl (Renal Boy) writes:
> what is this shit? want to get eh newbies on 'your side'?
you calling me a newbie? lessee, I got my first computer when I was 10,
that would have made you 2 years old!
> there are NO sides here.
>
> for god's sake, it was not a bash. it ws a comment.
randy, it was a bash ( as an objective bystander you have to learn to
temper your net text).
> does EVERYTHING here have to be uppitty and positive. can't someone just
> make a relatively innocent comment without being condemned as a characer
> assassin?
>
> just because i know you in real life, dana, does not mean:
>
> a) you have any idea who i am, or what i think, or that i even give a
> flying shit about you AT ALL
hmmm... sour grapes?
>
> b) EVERYTHING i say toyou has some deeper, hidden meaning rooted in real life
>
Oh please the bullshit is getting too thick, where are my waders?
> the scoundrl (shhhh!!)
>
>
Ease up scoundrl, you're a young and intelligent person. Don't let others
step on you, but that doesn't mean you should get a larger pair of combat
boots.
Peace and love and all that granola nut crunch shit.
enzyme enzym3 3nzym3 3nzyme enzyme
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 266 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: kieran (Aaron Dickey)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 01:39:37 EST
newt (Dana Bettinger) writes:
> randy, i never ever SAID i knew you.
> and to be honest, from what i see of you quite often,
> i don't really know if i'd ever WANT to.
This had better be a reference to his personality instead of his looks...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Dickey It's three AM, You're wide awake,
Internet: kieran@mindvox.phantom.com And you're not wearing pants,
So grab your World News Now mug
And everybody Dance!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who is 'The Lonliest Monk'?" -- Tabitha Soren
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 267 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: scoundrl (Renal Boy)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 04:13:22 EST
In-Reply-To: <q1i9ZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
ok look...i should have been mad at amy, anway...i misread the headers
onthe posts in bandwidth, yours was relatively innocent. i'm sorry, dana.
butecho what i said to amada.
here, it sounded like you were saying , hi ther. i'm newt, and check out
the assholw on bandwidth.
enzyme: i wasn't making any reference to you.
and i maintain...i was making an observation...not a particularly positive
one, yet nto a chaaracter assassination, either.
and keiren: hah! she's secretly in love with me. its sour grapes.
(and yes, i'm joking! lots of :)'s)
the scoundrl (shhhh!!)
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 268 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 93 17:27:48 EST
scoundrl (Renal Boy) dreams:
> and keiren: hah! she's secretly in love with me. its sour grapes.
children, go kiss and make up before i make you go to bed without supper
okay..
first things first
im a soon to be womens studies major but i am NO
a feminist or anything of the sorty
fuck if anythign im a male chauvinist pig
but hey, who cares
kieran-shutup
ethan et all- i understand what youre saying i think
well maybe not
from what i hear a lot of guys take womens studies courses
to pick up on women (straight outa Class of '96)
and they are the ones likely to not say something stupid
unless they dont think it is such
or to try to make more sense, usually they will try to be
a bit more intellignet about the things they say
of course the fact that lesbians and feminists who dont want to be
icked up on or more likely to be in theses courses indicates that they are
already stupid
human sexuality is the class to pick up the babes in
you look around and see their reactions to the pornos
and go for the ones that seem really into it
but anyhow.. i think men and women need to talk about it not just women
i mena there should be spaces of privacy where ggroups of people who think
they can identify with each other can do so
with out the invasion of groups of people who cant identify but wnat to learn
about them or just want to insult them
but there also needs to be open forums where people talk and
anbd can ask questions and you can mnever be tired of answering question
becasue learning is what its all about
or something like taht
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 269 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: kieran (Aaron Dickey)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 02:21:11 EST
hotblack (Dana Watanabe) writes:
> kieran-shutup
I wasn't talking to you, and you obviously can't follow a thread worth
shit, so fuck off.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Dickey It's three AM, You're wide awake,
Internet: kieran@mindvox.phantom.com And you're not wearing pants,
So grab your World News Now mug
And everybody Dance!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Who is 'The Lonliest Monk'?" -- Tabitha Soren
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 270 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 02:36:06 EST
In-Reply-To: <q1i9ZB2w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
kieran, of COURSE it was.
so i suppose it shoulda been more like:
and from what i KNOW of you...
however, after the post to dan, he's risen several notches in the
maturity ladder.
congrats randy. that was really cool.
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 271 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: newt (Dana Bettinger)
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 93 02:38:18 EST
In-Reply-To: <Vaga1B4w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
UGH.
please.
newtt
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 272 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: amada (Amy Dona)
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 93 16:13:30 EST
In-Reply-To: <Jega1B5w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
ok randy...peace??
cool with me if it is w/ you?
I probably overreacted...it has not been a good week (make that month)
and I just didn't wan to deal w/ any shit no matter how mild or where it
came from
not the greatesr apology i know but I'm sorry
(hey...if there is more to it than overreacting, catch me at school or
rehearsal and talk to me...I don't want negative vibes betweeen us)
amada
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 273 of 342
Subject: Re: change of change of subj.
From: hotblack (Dana Watanabe)
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 93 22:10:31 EST
In-Reply-To: <8scD1B3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
hah
ill show you who cant follow a thread
wait
whats a thread
isnt the whole point just to babble endlessly about nothing
fuck
maybe im in the wrong place
i should stop being childish
but maybe not
cuz i am a child and dammit i should act my age
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 274 of 342
Subject: discussion
From: sunday (Amy Emke)
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 93 23:54:56 EST
In-Reply-To: <9NiH1B3w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
Hi, I'm new here, and I couldn't help but notice that the forum has
deteriorated into petty arguements for the last few days. I dig this
forum though, and I would like to hear other's opinions on a variety of
topics. I joined this bbs specifically, because I get hassled on most of
the other bbs's in NYC. I quit bbsing for a couple of years, because I
got bored by the meat market mentality. If there is a genuine interest
in attracting more women online, then spaces must be created where women
can get into discussions, projects, etc. without too much overt
hostility, flirtation, etc. The dating spaces should also exist as usual
for those who want it. Asking about why there should be all-female
colleges, although all-male colleges are now illegal is like saying,
"Duh, why don't they have a MEN'S studies major?"
Nice meeting y'all.
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 275 of 342
Subject: Re: discussion
From: gearhead (Sean Hamilton)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 00:23:31 EST
sunday (Amy Emke) writes:
> Hi, I'm new here
Hello
> If there is a genuine interest
> in attracting more women online, then spaces must be created where women
> can get into discussions, projects, etc. without too much overt
> hostility, flirtation, etc.
The so-called Cybersalons (Mindvox, Echo, Well) seem to do a better job
of attracting and serving female members than free boards. I guess
social retards who think "Hey,baby, nice bits." is a kewl line can't
afford the fifteen-bucks-a-month cover charge.
> Asking about why there should be all-female
> colleges, although all-male colleges are now illegal is like saying,
> "Duh, why don't they have a MEN'S studies major?"
Most colleges do have a men's studies major but they just call it "the
curriculum". heh
I have to say that I think both genders are entitled to private spaces.
The Well and Echo both have a women-only forum and a men-only forum and
I think that's equitable.
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
Post: 276 of 342
Subject: Re: discussion
From: sleuth (Reuben Radding)
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 93 18:44:03 EST
sunday (Amy Emke) writes:
> "Duh, why don't they have a MEN'S studies major?"
Well. . . ?
Why DON'T they?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-
sleuth@mindvox.phantom.com |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[ Area: Zones / Forum: Women-Online ]
[Return] 1-342, [Q]uit:
NO CARRIER
NO CARRIER