956 lines
50 KiB
Plaintext
956 lines
50 KiB
Plaintext
|
||
|
||
Computer underground Digest Wed Apr 28 1993 Volume 5 : Issue 31
|
||
ISSN 1004-042X
|
||
|
||
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@NIU.BITNET)
|
||
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
|
||
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
|
||
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
|
||
Ian Dickinson
|
||
Cyop Editor: Etaoin Shrdlu, Senior
|
||
|
||
CONTENTS, #5.31 (Apr 28 1993)
|
||
File 1--Response to 'Gender on the Nets' (Re CuD #5.29)
|
||
File 2--Re: Gender on the Nets (Re CuD 5.29)
|
||
File 3--Re: Sexual Bias on the Net (Re Cud 5.29)
|
||
File 4--A Female Response to the Gender Question in Cyberspace
|
||
|
||
Cu-Digest is a weekly electronic journal/newsletter. Subscriptions are
|
||
available at no cost electronically from tk0jut2@mvs.cso.niu.edu. The
|
||
editors may be contacted by voice (815-753-6430), fax (815-753-6302)
|
||
or U.S. mail at: Jim Thomas, Department of Sociology, NIU, DeKalb, IL
|
||
60115.
|
||
|
||
Issues of CuD can also be found in the Usenet comp.society.cu-digest
|
||
news group; on CompuServe in DL0 and DL4 of the IBMBBS SIG, DL1 of
|
||
LAWSIG, and DL0 and DL12 of TELECOM; on GEnie in the PF*NPC RT
|
||
libraries and in the VIRUS/SECURITY library; from America Online in
|
||
the PC Telecom forum under "computing newsletters;"
|
||
On Delphi in the General Discussion database of the Internet SIG;
|
||
on the PC-EXEC BBS at (414) 789-4210; and on: Rune Stone BBS (IIRG
|
||
WHQ) 203-832-8441 NUP:Conspiracy
|
||
CuD is also available via Fidonet File Request from 1:11/70; unlisted
|
||
nodes and points welcome.
|
||
EUROPE: from the ComNet in Luxembourg BBS (++352) 466893;
|
||
|
||
ANONYMOUS FTP SITES:
|
||
UNITED STATES: ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4) in /pub/cud
|
||
uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu (141.211.182.53) in /pub/CuD/cud
|
||
halcyon.com( 202.135.191.2) in /pub/mirror/cud
|
||
AUSTRALIA: ftp.ee.mu.oz.au (128.250.77.2) in /pub/text/CuD.
|
||
EUROPE: nic.funet.fi in pub/doc/cud. (Finland)
|
||
ftp.warwick.ac.uk in pub/cud (United Kingdom)
|
||
|
||
Back issues also may be obtained through mailserver at:
|
||
server@blackwlf.mese.com
|
||
|
||
COMPUTER UNDERGROUND DIGEST is an open forum dedicated to sharing
|
||
information among computerists and to the presentation and debate of
|
||
diverse views. CuD material may be reprinted for non-profit as long
|
||
as the source is cited. Authors hold a presumptive copyright, and
|
||
they should be contacted for reprint permission. It is assumed that
|
||
non-personal mail to the moderators may be reprinted unless otherwise
|
||
specified. Readers are encouraged to submit reasoned articles
|
||
relating to computer culture and communication. Articles are
|
||
preferred to short responses. Please avoid quoting previous posts
|
||
unless absolutely necessary.
|
||
|
||
DISCLAIMER: The views represented herein do not necessarily represent
|
||
the views of the moderators. Digest contributors assume all
|
||
responsibility for ensuring that articles submitted do not
|
||
violate copyright protections.
|
||
|
||
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 10:02:35 CDT
|
||
From: rio!canary!chris@UUNET.UU.NET(Chris Johnson)
|
||
Subject: File 1--Response to 'Gender on the Nets' (Re CuD #5.29)
|
||
|
||
In response to Mike Holderness's post in CuD 5.29:
|
||
|
||
> I am told that there were a large number of responses to my
|
||
> piece, and that many took exception to my humorous quotation of
|
||
> the lite Xmas _Economist_ piece, which described the Internet as
|
||
> a "conspiracy" alongside the Masons, Opus Dei and such. The only
|
||
> responses which I have actually seen were those from Larry
|
||
> Landwehr and the response to this from Jim Thomas, who invited me
|
||
> to respond.
|
||
>
|
||
> I began drafting a net-style response to Larry, with quotes:
|
||
> > ... just like in a conversation with a religious zealot, the
|
||
> > feminist dogma just had to surface ...
|
||
>
|
||
> -Oh dear, I thought, reading this. The "men-are-persecuted-
|
||
> by-feminists" dogma, so tediously common on the Net, just had to
|
||
> surface.
|
||
>
|
||
> This exercise in turn became tedious.
|
||
|
||
Oh, woe is you, Mike -- forced to make a tedious response to a well
|
||
thought out criticism by Larry Landwehr.
|
||
|
||
Frankly, I don't think Mr. "M. Holderness" deserves to earn another
|
||
farthing (pound, dollar, whatever) for writing _if_ his response to
|
||
criticism is to respond by using the technique of labeling his
|
||
opponent as yet another example of something "so tediously common on
|
||
the Net". Just because Larry is male, and just because his response
|
||
was on the Net to Mike's article on the Net, Larry's opinion is
|
||
nothing but tedious dogma? Then I'd have to say your writing is only
|
||
so much whining, Mr. Holderness. And get a life. Obviously, neither
|
||
should be true.
|
||
|
||
I thought the LTES article was interesting and thought provoking, and
|
||
I also thought it was seriously flawed by feminist dogma. Actually, I
|
||
thought a different phrase than 'dogma', but that will suffice for
|
||
here.
|
||
|
||
So most of the users of the Net are male. Is it any surprise? Most
|
||
of the computer literate of the world are male, most of the technical
|
||
people of the world are male, most of the scientists are male,
|
||
presumably the higher average incomes are those earned by males, most
|
||
of the sciences, maths and engineering university students are male.
|
||
|
||
Where do you suppose most people get their access to the Net? What
|
||
background gives people the most ability to use the Net? Do you
|
||
suppose there are more computers in the Fine Arts colleges around the
|
||
world or in the engineering and engineering schools?
|
||
|
||
I'm sorry, but blaming the Net for the social and cultural mores and
|
||
conventions of countries around the world, in any fashion or amount,
|
||
just doesn't make sense. Yes, perhaps the Net can lead or enable a
|
||
different set of conventions and standards. But it will be a
|
||
difficult and uphill battle. Looking for conspiracies when something
|
||
is merely reflecting the culture that spawned it seems fruitless.
|
||
|
||
Why aren't there more women in the sciences and engineering programs
|
||
at universities? It was extremely lopsided when I was student
|
||
--perhaps 95% male. It made me feel pretty strange. I always wanted
|
||
to see more women involved. That's only one, although large, facet of
|
||
the problem of male domination of the Net.
|
||
|
||
There could be some obscure psychological reasons for it -- maybe
|
||
women being used to communicating on a more personal and emotional
|
||
basis prefer voice and in-person contact, whereas men used to hiding
|
||
their emotions and detaching themselves personally from conversations
|
||
find electronic communication to be welcome relief from having to put
|
||
on a face all the time. And the whys and wherefores of those
|
||
behaviors are hotly debated in many circles today, right down to
|
||
nature versus nurture, so I'd prefer to avoid even getting into it
|
||
here.
|
||
|
||
In summary, I valued the LTES article for being thought provoking but
|
||
eventually ignored much of its reasoning as being feminist axe
|
||
grinding. I valued Larry's criticism for bringing to light the
|
||
insulting messages sent to males and for warning of how continued
|
||
support of this vein of reasoning could well lead to the end of the
|
||
anarchic free nature of the Net, but I also suspect his reaction was a
|
||
bit paranoiac (at least I sure hope so!).
|
||
|
||
Not copyright 1993 by: Chris (just guess my gender -- want to bet
|
||
first?) Johnson Because it's worth the electrons it was written with,
|
||
spread them where you will.
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 93 09:44:58 EDT
|
||
From: morgan@ENGR.UKY.EDU(Wes Morgan)
|
||
Subject: File 2--Re: Gender on the Nets (Re CuD 5.29)
|
||
|
||
This LTES article was rather interesting. My apologies for the
|
||
untimely response; the birth of my daughter interrupted my normal
|
||
email/news reading for about 2 weeks. 8)
|
||
|
||
Let's get down to brass tacks, shall we?
|
||
|
||
>>For these assumptions to be true, you're quite likely either to be a
|
||
>>member of an academic institution in a Western industrialized country,
|
||
>>or very well-to-do in world terms. You're also likely to be male. And
|
||
>>the public area of the news system bears this out. An high proportion
|
||
>>of messages -- over 90% in an unrepresentative sample of discussions
|
||
>>of physics -- comes from the USA. An even higher proportion (of those
|
||
>>with identifiable senders) comes from men.
|
||
|
||
Never make assumptions about the sender of a particular message. The
|
||
Usenet old-timers among us will recall, perhaps painfully, the
|
||
infamous Mark Ethan Smith; she created quite a stir in some of the
|
||
social newsgroups. With the widespread use of pseudonyms and
|
||
nicknames, I'd like to know just how many messages in their study had
|
||
truly "identifiable" senders. With the advent of anonymous servers,
|
||
it's becoming even more gender-neutral.........
|
||
|
||
Before we start aggravating our heartburn over these assertions, let's
|
||
ask a rather simple question that, apparently, wasn't considered by
|
||
the LTES author(s). Does the gender balance of the net reflect the
|
||
gender balance of the corporate/educational structures behind it? If
|
||
only XX% of Microsoft's net-enabled employees are women, it seems
|
||
logical that roughly XX% of the Usenet postings from Microsoft will be
|
||
from women. If only YY% of bigshot.com's technical staff is women,
|
||
would we be surprised to find that YY% of bigshot.com's postings were
|
||
authored by women?
|
||
|
||
In and of itself, an authorship sample of Usenet articles means very
|
||
little. If the gender profile of a site's postings corresponds to the
|
||
gender profile of its employees, that would seem to be a Good Thing,
|
||
since it indicates that the site is extending net privileges to
|
||
everyone
|
||
in a fair manner.
|
||
|
||
>>"Women in science worry that these 'private' network exchanges of
|
||
>>research results serve to reinforce the 'Old Boy Network' in
|
||
>>scientific research circles, especially given the overwhelmingly male
|
||
>>demographics of e-mail and news-group users," says Ruth Ginzberg,
|
||
>>Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Wesleyan University in the US.
|
||
|
||
"'private' network exchanges?" How did we move from the anyone-can-do-
|
||
anything-they-darn-well-please anarchy of Usenet to 'private' network
|
||
exchanges? I've *never* heard the word 'private' applied to Usenet; I
|
||
suspect that Dr. Ginzberg has been either misinformed or misquoted.
|
||
|
||
If we consider email, I wonder how statistics were gathered to support
|
||
this assertion, since only the most unethical sysadmin would release
|
||
such data to the outside world. I, for one, would *never* give away
|
||
copies of *my* mailer logs.
|
||
|
||
>>Why should there be this preponderance of men?
|
||
|
||
Are we missing a more basic answer? If the percentage of net use by
|
||
women corresponds to the percentage of women in technical fields, the
|
||
problem does NOT lie within the net. I think someone's looking for
|
||
controversy........
|
||
|
||
>>Sarah Plumeridge is
|
||
>>research assistant on a project to study women's use of computers at
|
||
>>the University of East London. She comments that "A lot of research
|
||
>>suggests that women prefer computing when it's for use, as a tool,
|
||
>>when it's not taught as an abstract science." It's clear from the tone
|
||
>>of messages in the public news-groups that the _boys_ see them as a
|
||
>>playground.
|
||
|
||
I wonder what selection of newsgroups was used as the rationale for this
|
||
comment. I strongly urge Ms. Plumeridge to examine newsgroups such as
|
||
comp.unix.admin, comp.sys.att, alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk, and comp.sys.hp;
|
||
she won't find a 'playground' attitude there.
|
||
|
||
I wonder if any of these people realize just how many newsgroups there
|
||
are. The site on which I read Usenet carries, at last count, 1021 news-
|
||
groups; they range from the sewers of alt.* to the carefully moderated
|
||
groups like sci.military. I suspect that these researchers spent a lot
|
||
of time in alt, rec, and soc; they seem to have ignored the sci.* and
|
||
comp.* hierarchies.
|
||
|
||
>>There are more serious issues too. Cheris Kramerae of the Department
|
||
>>of Speech Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana is,
|
||
>>working on the issue of sexual harassment on "the net". This happens
|
||
>>in very specific ways - men sending abusive messages to women, often
|
||
>>having obtained their electronic addresses from the electronic
|
||
>>"personals column".
|
||
|
||
I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the rather obvious point in
|
||
the above paragraph. Notice that the "abusive messages" were received
|
||
*after* the women posted to the "electronic 'personals column.'"
|
||
Within Usenet, the 'personals column' is alt.personals, which is used
|
||
almost exclusively as a dating/encounter service. Let's compare this
|
||
with other, more traditional media. Do women who post personals in
|
||
the newspaper receive a certain amount of harassing replies? Do women
|
||
who write their number on the bathroom wall (I've known a few who did)
|
||
really expect NOT to receive some harassing replies?
|
||
|
||
Let's get real, Ms. Kramerae; *anyone*, male or female, who posts to
|
||
Usenet (and especially to newsgroups like alt.personals) should be
|
||
prepared to receive a certain number of 'nastygrams' in reply. Heck,
|
||
I've received pornographic images, obscene letters, and the like, and
|
||
I don't post to (or even READ) the sexual (or feminist) discussion
|
||
groups. Now, if someone merely picked addresses out of other
|
||
news-groups and started dropping harassing email in their mailboxes,
|
||
*that* would be a valid concern; however, I only know of *two* such
|
||
incidents in my 10+ years of participation in Usenet. If anyone has
|
||
concrete examples of widespread behavior of this type, I'd like to see
|
||
them.
|
||
|
||
>>There is also the problem of socially retarded
|
||
>>students abusing the system to distribute digitized pornographic
|
||
>>images: the direct equivalent of the calendar on the workshop wall.
|
||
|
||
I'm not defending the alt.binaries.pictures.* crowd (again, I don't
|
||
even read those newsgroups), but there's one important difference.
|
||
When an image comes across Usenet, it is NOT immediately viewable;
|
||
the end user must manipulate the raw data before viewing is possible.
|
||
If you are basing your complaint on the mere presence of the material,
|
||
I would compare it to Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, and other traditional
|
||
media; are you as upset about the Playboy down at the convenience store
|
||
as you seem to be about alt.binaries.pictures.*?
|
||
|
||
>>Kramerae concludes, however, that "Obviously it is not the technology
|
||
>>but the policies which are presenting particular problems for women."
|
||
|
||
Uh huh.......and I suppose that the 'pornography' that happens to
|
||
con-centrate on men is posted only by male homosexuals, right?
|
||
|
||
When discussing policies, it's important to remember that the
|
||
"Internet" encompasses the world. If you can create a policy that
|
||
reconciles the cultures of nations like the USA, France, Kuwait,
|
||
Japan, Israel, Ukraine and Saudi Arabia, I'd *love* to see it. If
|
||
you can create a policy that respects the Western, Middle Eastern, and
|
||
Oriental cultural perspectives about women, you're in the wrong
|
||
business; you should be working for the UN. 8)
|
||
|
||
>>Kahn's list is, then, exactly an invisible college. Given the vast
|
||
>>space occupied by anti-feminist men in the open news-groups which are
|
||
>>supposed to discuss feminism, it can only operate if it remains
|
||
>>private and by invitation.
|
||
|
||
Actually, soc.feminism (the premier newsgroup for discussion of
|
||
feminism) is a *moderated* newsgroup. In fact, several people have
|
||
recently argued that the moderators are biased against *men*. The
|
||
"femail" mailing list is moderated; in addition, it *requires* that
|
||
subscribers reveal their gender. (supposedly, this is for "records and
|
||
statistics only") Membership in the "sappho" mailing list, a support
|
||
group for gay and bisexual women, is restricted to women.
|
||
|
||
The noise issue is basically irrelevant. Many, if not most,
|
||
newsreaders support 'killfiles', which allow the user to drop articles
|
||
with subjects or authors they don't like into the bit bucket. For
|
||
instance, a simple "/morgan@engr.uky.edu/h:j", placed in a global
|
||
killfile for the rn news-reader, would kill every article I post;
|
||
you'd never have to see my postings again.
|
||
|
||
Remember, the networked world is an anarchy. If you don't like a
|
||
newsgroup, start your own! Every newsgroup in Usenet started with
|
||
someone who said "I want this"; that person started a discussion,
|
||
collected votes, and (if the vote was affirmative) saw the newsgroup
|
||
created. (alt.* is an exception; any news admin or news-savvy user
|
||
can create an alt.* newsgroup, but they usually suffer from low
|
||
distribution as a result) Anyone can propose (and run a vote for) a
|
||
new newsgroup; if you want to create a moderated newsgroup, go for it!
|
||
Some newsgroups started as 'wide open', but later were voted into
|
||
moderation; feel free to start a discussion to moderate your favorite
|
||
group. If you want a private mailing list, start it up; that's what
|
||
the femail and sappho moderators did. If you want an invitation-only
|
||
mailing list, just set it up; I am a member of one such list. Of
|
||
course, there are probably many such lists; by definition, we wouldn't
|
||
know of their existence.
|
||
|
||
Remember, too, that the "Internet" is not simply "professional people
|
||
and students." The "Internet" encompasses everything from Cray
|
||
supercomputers with fiber optic lines to PCs and PDP-11s in
|
||
individual's homes with 1200 baud modems. Ambitious programs are
|
||
placing K-12 students on the net in ever-growing numbers, and sites
|
||
such as the Cleveland Free-Net are open to (literally) anyone who can
|
||
reach them by telephone. If you assume that all net.users are
|
||
physically/emotionally/intellectually mature, you are making a grave
|
||
error that can (and, in my opinion, will) invalidate most of your
|
||
findings.
|
||
|
||
Without hard data and specific discussion of that data, this article
|
||
seems to be little more than hyperbole.
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1993 23:13:23 -0600 (CDT)
|
||
From: Louis Giliberto <magus@DRKTOWR.CHI.IL.US>
|
||
Subject: File 3--Re: Sexual Bias on the Net (Re CuD 5.29)
|
||
|
||
In CuD 5.29 the gender issues on the internet came up again, and some
|
||
of the statements made truly amazed me. It seemed to me to be a case
|
||
of not being able to see past one's nose. The "statistically skewed"
|
||
data samples were not just skewed, they were intolerable for a lot
|
||
of reasons. I'd like to point out some problems with the comments that
|
||
imply or state gender bias on the net.
|
||
|
||
In the first section the CuD editors bring up this point:
|
||
|
||
>1. DOES THE NET POTENTIALLY CIRCUMVENT CONVENTIONAL PUBLISHING TO THE
|
||
> DETRIMENT OF WOMEN?
|
||
|
||
Part of the conclusion the editors reached was this:
|
||
|
||
>There is abundant research
|
||
>indicating that although women are under-represented in
|
||
>academically-oriented journals, this under-representation appears to
|
||
>be the result of factors in academia rather than the consequence of
|
||
>significant gender bias in editorial gate-keeping procedures.
|
||
|
||
In other words, the alleged under-representation of women in
|
||
academically-oriented journals is a *symptom* of a problem with
|
||
academia, and not a problem of gender bias in allowing access to
|
||
publishing.
|
||
|
||
Why does this same argument not apply to the "Net"? I believe it
|
||
should. If it does, then obviously the author of the original article
|
||
should not be scanning the sci.* categories for male/female names.
|
||
Any person who can see knows that the majority of people involved in
|
||
scientific interests are males. I submit the lack of female presence
|
||
in the sci.* categories and any other categories the author claims are
|
||
a *by-product* of gender distribution in careers and not any type of
|
||
bias created by USENET, discussion/speaking/typing techniques, etc. I
|
||
suggest the author do the same "statistical sample" on rec.crafts.misc
|
||
and he will see the opposite bias: far more women posting than men.
|
||
|
||
Again, I'm not stating that this gender distribution is fair or
|
||
tolerable, or that it's unfair or intolerable, just that it is not
|
||
coming from the "Net" itself. It is coming from society and appears
|
||
on the Net. My point is to refute any type of claim that the Net
|
||
imposes a gender bias.
|
||
|
||
However, I might like to interject one sentence here on gender bias in
|
||
general: isn't it just possible that women are more attracted to
|
||
rec.crafts.misc than men? Isn't it just possible that men are more
|
||
attracted to the science industries than women? On a recent GRE
|
||
distribution, there were by a great majority more women taking the
|
||
subject exam in psychology than men. Does this imply a gender-bias
|
||
toward men in the field of psychology? By the arguments commonly
|
||
used, it should. In most cases, any type of non-uniform distribution
|
||
causes cries of sexual discrimination. Of course sexual
|
||
discrimination exists, I'm sorry to say. However, a non-uniform
|
||
distribution is not conclusive evidence of sexual discrimination,
|
||
gender bias, or what have you. It is a symptom of it, but there are
|
||
other factors to consider as well.
|
||
|
||
I would also like to quote another portion of the editors' text which
|
||
I strongly agree with:
|
||
|
||
>The fact that we might answer the first two questions negatively does
|
||
>not mean that male dominance does not exist on the Nets. Nor does the
|
||
>absence of significant impact in some areas mean that there is no
|
||
>significant impact in others that ultimately makes the Net less
|
||
>hospitable for women than men.
|
||
|
||
I could not have said it better myself. But I must contend with
|
||
the editors' quote from the BAWIT paper:
|
||
|
||
> The experiences of women online are both personal and
|
||
> political. To a certain extent, their causes are rooted in
|
||
> the physical world --economics and social conditioning
|
||
> contribute to the limited numbers of women online.
|
||
|
||
It couldn't perhaps have anything to do with the fact that the male
|
||
and female psyche differ and that a sterile interface such as an ASCII
|
||
terminal is more appealing to the male psyche while a face-to-face
|
||
discussion might appeal more to the female psyche?
|
||
|
||
Damn, I wish I could remember where I saw this study, but there was
|
||
a study where all they did was ask people to sit down at a table. By
|
||
an overwhelming percentage, women sat next to each other, while men
|
||
sat across from each other. The conclusion of this study was that
|
||
women prefer closer contact and tolerate a greater infringement of
|
||
their "personal space" than males. Reasons? Some people might say
|
||
"social conditioning", others might say it's a latent trait left over
|
||
from humankind's nomadic periods where the women reared the children
|
||
and were thus forced to tolerate a closeness while the men were
|
||
hunting and fighting and were thus forced to be more protective of
|
||
their personal space.
|
||
|
||
I would say it's just how men and women are -- deal with it.
|
||
|
||
As a corollary, the same study showed that when men and women were in
|
||
the room together and asked to sit, they grouped together in gender
|
||
clumps. I.e., the men tended to sit with men, and the women tended to
|
||
sit with women. That may further explain the clumping that I described
|
||
earlier when I suggested he try rec.crafts.misc, and why women are
|
||
predominant in psychology: people like to be around things they can
|
||
relate to, and often the easiest thing to relate to is that which is
|
||
most like yourself.
|
||
|
||
Either way, the conclusions of this study, if it's still out there
|
||
somewhere, would explain why males are more predominate on the Net than
|
||
females. A non-contact form of expression seems to appeal more to males
|
||
than females.
|
||
|
||
> Additionally, online environments are largely determined by
|
||
> the viewpoints of their users and programmers, still
|
||
> predominately white men (p. 1).
|
||
|
||
This statement is most inflammatory. It is segregating thought on the
|
||
basis of sex and race. The environment is determined by the viewpoints
|
||
of their users and programmers. True. I agree without a doubt.
|
||
However, isn't it sexist, racist, and prejudiced to say that white men
|
||
think a certain way? I don't think so since that would easily explain
|
||
why there is a predominance of males in engineering and a predominance
|
||
of females in nursing, but the "politically correct" opinion would
|
||
be that you cannot say that one person thinks a certain way because
|
||
of his race, sex, etc. The logic here is unbelievably absent. The statement
|
||
is contradictory and hypocritical.
|
||
|
||
>None of this would necessarily prevent women's access to on-line
|
||
>communication, nor is anybody (to my knowledge) claiming it does. The
|
||
>value of the BAWIT paper is that it reminds us that access cannot be
|
||
>automatically assumed to be equal for everybody, and that the barriers
|
||
>to access may be subtle and complex.
|
||
|
||
So, assuming this is true, what's your point still? I thought the
|
||
topic was gender bias on the net with the net as the cause. I.e.,
|
||
some type of filtration (either consciously or unconsciously) that
|
||
was inherent in the net. As I stated, there is no problem with the net.
|
||
If there is a problem, it is with society.
|
||
|
||
>Illinois/Urbana-Champaign) conducted a small study on African-American
|
||
>educators for use in training adults to communicate over networks.
|
||
>Contrary to her initial expectations, she found that women may feel
|
||
>more "equal" in communicating electronically. She concluded:
|
||
>
|
||
> .....Clearly, for many women, face-to-face communication
|
||
> could find them at a disadvantage, if they feel less
|
||
> powerful or verbally skilled or even feel physically weaker
|
||
> and smaller. In fact, they may embrace e-mail even more
|
||
> enthusiastically than the men, because it is such an
|
||
> "equalizer."
|
||
|
||
Clearly, I have to throw this away completely. The net for the most
|
||
part is not used for professional communications. The net is used
|
||
for personal communications of a recreational/hobbyist form. There
|
||
are no professional papers published in sci.*. There is informal
|
||
discussion, and the other study I mentioned showed that in *informal*
|
||
situations women prefer closer contact with those they are speaking
|
||
to than men. This study was done on using a network in a completely
|
||
different environment. Further, e-mail is addressed to one person
|
||
while a USENET post is addressed to many. The bias may be due to the
|
||
fact that men embrace greater exposure more than women. Women may
|
||
prefer a one-on-one communication rather than blabbing to the world
|
||
like men seem to do (proof that women are smarter than men in many
|
||
ways).
|
||
|
||
It would be interesting to do a study where all posts are tallied,
|
||
and see what percentage of posting is e-mail and what is public on
|
||
a per-gender basis. If females send e-mail most of the time, and
|
||
males publicly post most of the time, the reason may not be that
|
||
it is an "equalizer", but that females prefer intimate conversation
|
||
while males prefer to address a group. Other mediums such as IRC
|
||
should not be ignored, but tallied separate since it is not equivalent
|
||
to e-mail or USENET; it would rather show the initiative on a per-gender
|
||
basis to participate in live conversation on an electronic medium.
|
||
|
||
Now, for harassment, I don't even want to touch the issue since it's
|
||
such a ticking bomb, but I would like to make one point:
|
||
|
||
>When I first began using an electronic network about 1981, I had a
|
||
>gender-neutral logon ID. Before I learned how to set "no-break," I was
|
||
>habitually plagued late at night by young testosterone-laden males who
|
||
>broke in wanting to know if I were an "M or F?" When I flashed "M,"
|
||
>the sender departed, only to be replaced by another flasher with the
|
||
>same question. Only once was the sender a female, as she later
|
||
>revealed in person. On those occasions when I was feeling malicious,
|
||
>I would send back an "F." I was amazed at the simplicity and
|
||
>coarseness of the pickup lines. In discussing this with female
|
||
|
||
Is a pickup line harassment? If you offer to buy someone a drink,
|
||
they say no, and you walk away, is that harassment? If a flasher
|
||
flashes you on the train platform, is that harassment or lewd
|
||
behavior? To me, harassment is a *continual* approaching of someone
|
||
that does not wish to be approached (in a sexual manner or otherwise).
|
||
The editors do not mention if they really were harassed or approached
|
||
with graphic statements. There is a big difference. I can offend
|
||
someone by saying "I want to live in your trousers" (Courtesy of Prince
|
||
Charles), but I can just as easily offend someone by saying "I hope
|
||
you hit a gas truck and taste your own blood" (Courtesy of Sam Kinison).
|
||
If I repeatedly make *either* comment that is harassment, using it
|
||
once would just show ignorance.
|
||
|
||
And some people like that type of sexual attention. I don't mean
|
||
harassment, I mean being continually approached by the opposite (or same)
|
||
sex for dating, romance, a roll in the hay, whatever. Too many young
|
||
women are anorexic and bulemic. Why? To improve their outward appearance
|
||
to attract men (or women, whichever they prefer). They *want* attention
|
||
from men. Same goes for men. They spend a lot of money on health clubs
|
||
too, and some take steroids to improve their bulk in order to "impress"
|
||
women with their bodies. Granted, this is sick and wrong, but it just proves
|
||
that what some people are offended by (constantly being hit on) and view as
|
||
harassment, some people are willing to risk their lives and health for.
|
||
Hopefully most people are in between and 1) aren't stupid enough to want
|
||
someone who would only be attracted to them for their looks, and 2) can
|
||
understand that being hit on 500 times by 500 different people isn't the
|
||
same as being harassed -- harassment is being continually pestered by
|
||
the same person.
|
||
|
||
>The gender games and fears of harassment seem of sufficient concern
|
||
>that some universities cover it in their computer and other policies
|
||
|
||
To me this says that it generates sufficient concern to the universities'
|
||
lawyers that the school may be named in a sexual harassment suit so
|
||
to play it safe they have to make it clear they won't be a party to
|
||
or protect such actions. It does not show me by itself that a problem
|
||
exists.
|
||
|
||
>If there are in fact gender barriers that work to the detriment of
|
||
>women, the first step is to recognize that they exist and then to
|
||
>identify the ways in which they operate. This is nothing that should
|
||
>threaten males. Hard evidence one way or the other would define the
|
||
>nature and extent of the problem. If, as many of us believe, there is
|
||
>a problem, what then should we do? The next step is simply recognizing
|
||
|
||
I agree completely, however, the problem, if existent, hasn't been
|
||
defined yet. Again, I claim there is nothing wrong with the net or
|
||
how it operates. If there is a problem, it is a problem with the
|
||
"real world", and as the real world changes, so will the net.
|
||
|
||
The net is merely a microcosm of the macrocosmic universe. "As above,
|
||
so below. As below, so above." Fix the above world, and the "Computer
|
||
Underground" will follow. Breed wisdom and tolerance on the net,
|
||
and it will carry over to the workplace. But whatever you do, do not
|
||
blame the net. The net is an interactive medium, not a gender biased
|
||
institution.
|
||
|
||
>are gender-shaped, then communication problems can occur. As often as
|
||
>not, the dominant style "wins" and the subordinate style loses--not on
|
||
>the bases of content of ideas, but by the overpowering style of one
|
||
>way of talking that silences the other.
|
||
|
||
Hmm. I have a hard time accepting that. Look at the following names
|
||
and see who "won" (or is winning) and who "lost" (or is losing) and
|
||
see if you can still tell me that the dominant style wins: Jesus Christ,
|
||
Adolf Hitler, Ghandi, Josef Stalin, Buddah, Aleister Crowley, Joe McCarthy,
|
||
Martin Luther King, etc. Most of the ideas differ greatly, but the most
|
||
common thread upon who "won" and who "lost" in the end was who used a dominant
|
||
style (of speech and action) and who used a (I disagree with the word
|
||
subordinate since I think the real point is active vs. passive, and
|
||
passive by no means subordinate) passive approach.
|
||
|
||
Jesus Christ, Ghandi, Buddah, Aleister Crowley, and Martin Luther King
|
||
all used a passive approach and their ideals are more prevelantly accepted
|
||
in society of today than Stalin, Hitler, and McCarthy (which are all about
|
||
as far as you can get from each other on a political scale) who used
|
||
a dominant - oppressive even - approach.
|
||
|
||
Those with a good idea don't have to yell, if it's that good, they'll be
|
||
heard anyhow. If it's a crappy idea, even if it is accepted for a while
|
||
due to the sheer racket they make, it will lose in the end after people
|
||
think about it for a while. Hopefully the whole "politically correct"
|
||
attitude will die out this way.
|
||
|
||
>So, to Larry I would say: I accept your fears, but I'm not convinced
|
||
>that denying the problem is the best solution. Let's take a step back
|
||
>and ask women how *they* feel in engaging in online interaction.
|
||
|
||
To the editors I would say: I'm not convinced there is a problem...at
|
||
least with the net. Why not also ask men how they feel in engaging
|
||
in online interaction? Did you ever stop to think that maybe the
|
||
predominantly male net society doesn't realize there is a lack of
|
||
female involvement because they are not paying attention to the gender
|
||
of the author, but what the author is saying? Maybe some of the
|
||
people crying "net gender bias" should stop counting male and female
|
||
and pay attention to what is being said instead. It seems to me
|
||
that the people complaining the most are also the ones who complain
|
||
that people should judge people for what's inside, not their sex. For
|
||
once it seems to be happening, so now why are they suddenly paying
|
||
attention to the sex of the poster rather than what is being posted?
|
||
|
||
As for Mr. Holderness, I will keep my comments brief since much of
|
||
what he said I addressed above.
|
||
|
||
>_If_ the net is an invisible college, who may it exclude? Last
|
||
>year, for a quite different article in _New Scientist_, I counted
|
||
>the apparent geographical location and apparent gender of some
|
||
>300 news-group articles (most in sci.*). Some 97% had US
|
||
>addresses and over 90% of those with identifiable given-names
|
||
>were male. Many fewer than 97% of all scientists work in the US
|
||
>and fewer than 90% are male; empirically, there's an issue to
|
||
>investigate here.
|
||
|
||
Let me explain it so that even he can understand it.
|
||
|
||
1) If you know there are predominantly males in scientific fields,
|
||
stop biasing your results by sampling sci.*. Either sample
|
||
from 1/2 male dominant fields and 1/2 female dominant fields,
|
||
or sample all the fields. I can go to England and knowing that
|
||
mostly white people live there be conveniently surprised that
|
||
non-whites are in a minority - a parallel to the conclusion you
|
||
reached. It's called "stacking the deck in your favor". While
|
||
your reasearch may apply to the concerns of_New Scientist_, it does
|
||
not apply to the concerns of net users or prospective net users in general.
|
||
|
||
2) As for most coming from the U.S.
|
||
a) The Internet is a U.S. creation, springing from DARPA Internet,
|
||
(Defense dept. Advanced Research Projects Agency). That is also
|
||
why if you look at a network map from as little over a year ago,
|
||
there were no I-net connections into Eastern-Bloc (i.e., USSR
|
||
controlled) countries. The Pentagon is not in the habit of
|
||
allowing foreign countries to plug into their computer networks.
|
||
This is also why you see most posts coming from places that end
|
||
in *.edu, *.com, *.gov, *.mil, etc. Originally, there was no
|
||
public access. You had to be doing work for the defense dept.
|
||
to obtain an internet connection, and even today it is difficult
|
||
and costly to obtain an internet connection if you don't fall
|
||
into one of those groups.
|
||
|
||
The going rate for a non-U.S.-gov't-approved connection (like
|
||
a connection to your house) is $1,000 per month for a 56K connection,
|
||
and $2,000 per month for a T1 connection. That does not include
|
||
leased line fees, just the IP connection. And that is for people
|
||
in the U.S. where the *backbone* is. An overseas connection still
|
||
must eventually route itself to the backbone, and that is even
|
||
more costly.
|
||
|
||
b) The U.S. has by far more computers around than most countries.
|
||
In fact, in a recent issue of PC Magazine, there was a statistic
|
||
given that more electrical power is used by U.S. computers
|
||
in a year than is generated by all the power plants in Switzerland
|
||
in a year.
|
||
|
||
There is no empiric issue to investigate; there is no issue. The sample
|
||
was poisoned, and he doesn't know the history of the Internet or how or
|
||
why it is set up.
|
||
|
||
>I made it clear that this was not a scientific survey. Last week,
|
||
>before being asked for these comments, I was working up a
|
||
>proposal for just such a survey: run the "From:" line of every
|
||
>news-group posting for six months or a year past the ISO 3166
|
||
>country codes and past _Naming Baby_, and see what falls out.
|
||
>Would people on the net object to this? Please take it for
|
||
>granted that I understand the statistical limits on
|
||
>interpretation of the results. Please tell me if someone else is
|
||
>already doing this.
|
||
|
||
I would object on the basis I stated above: Females may be more apt
|
||
to communicate in a one-on-one basis (i.e., e-mail) and males may
|
||
be more apt to communicate in a public forum (i.e., USENET). The reason
|
||
may not be gender bias, just the fact that males publicly post more
|
||
often than females since females prefer one-on-one discussions. You cannot
|
||
draw a pure conclusion from the survey. The survey will give you an
|
||
accurate count (close, anyhow), but the results will not be able
|
||
to be interpreted cleanly without a much deeper examination.
|
||
|
||
>other researchers who will have time to comment. All those I came
|
||
>across working on the issue were, for some reason, women. I
|
||
>always welcome further contacts.
|
||
|
||
Because the majority of the users, men, aren't counting posts
|
||
made by men and women. They're reading the post, not the header.
|
||
|
||
>My personal view is that "the calendar on the workshop wall" is a
|
||
>form of harassment, the effect of which is to contribute to the
|
||
>exclusion of women from mechanical engineering and so forth. I
|
||
|
||
Yeah, those mechanical engineering firms just have tons of near-porn
|
||
plastering their walls. It improves their image, don't you know?
|
||
I'm sure a certain computer company in New York that developed the
|
||
PC's most people use today have tons of "girlie pix" lining their
|
||
walls. Get a clue. The majority of those types of pictures are
|
||
prevalent in an environment where a tie is not required for work.
|
||
|
||
>I appreciated Jim Thomas' thoughtful and tolerant reply to Larry.
|
||
>Jim clearly has more patience than I can muster these days. I
|
||
>regret that he and I have had to put effort into explaining that
|
||
>it is appropriate for articles to appear on the net which are
|
||
>critical of some features of its current, and I hope temporarily
|
||
>aberrant, state. I find it deeply ironic that we have had to do
|
||
>so in response to an article which so vehemently invokes the
|
||
>First Amendment.
|
||
|
||
Bah, humbug. "Aberrant state"? Excuse me, but Mr. Holderness is the one
|
||
who is aberrant. I find it ironic that he questions the fact that
|
||
most posts in sci.* are by men when the scientific field is male
|
||
dominated, and I find it ironic that he wonders why most of the posts
|
||
come from the U.S. when the Internet proper is a U.S. institution
|
||
first and foremost, and has only recently expanded outside the
|
||
50 states.
|
||
|
||
How can you criticize something and call it aberrant if you don't know
|
||
why it exists, who it primarily exists for, and what it's function is?
|
||
Granted, the shape of the Internet has changed much since its first
|
||
inception, but he is asking a question similar to: "Why are most
|
||
of McDonald's customers American?" or "Why are there more phones in the
|
||
U.S. than in other countries?" Because it was developed first and
|
||
foremost for American use, and it gradually expanded outward, and it
|
||
costs more elsewhere at least at first.
|
||
|
||
The lack of depth on Mr. Holderness' part to seek a basic explanation for
|
||
certain "empirical facts" when those explanations are very clear
|
||
and for the most part well-known makes me question his ability
|
||
and integrity as a journalist. I could go into an American nursing
|
||
school, see mostly women, and cry aloud: "Men are being discriminated
|
||
against!" I could look at the railroad industry and seeing more
|
||
supertrains in Europe, Japan, etc. cry aloud: "There's an empirical
|
||
issue here! The U.S. has a lot of miles of railroad, and all of it
|
||
is nowhere near the supertrain capabilities elsewhere!"
|
||
|
||
But none of that would make sense, would it? Why cry wolf before
|
||
looking even at the surface for a possible explanation? That is
|
||
not responsible journalism; that is media hype.
|
||
|
||
To answer his last topic, that of the defense of seemingly
|
||
"stupid" free speech, or bothering to defend "puerile" topics:
|
||
|
||
>It is issues such as this -- the suppression of political comment
|
||
>-- which the drafters of the Amendment clearly had in mind and
|
||
>which exercises people out here. Few here really bother about the
|
||
>free expression aspect of the Mappelthorpe (sp?) exhibition in DC
|
||
>or the current attempt to suppress "adult" (i.e. puerile) movies
|
||
>beamed into the UK by satellite. To be honest, no-one's getting
|
||
>very publicly worked up about the Prime Minister either.
|
||
|
||
I suppose the American stance on Free Speech makes as much sense
|
||
to an Englishman as does figurehead royalty to an American. Neither
|
||
can see the purpose of the other's interest, but to each it means a lot.
|
||
|
||
I have to disagree that the suppression of political comment is what
|
||
the drafters had in mind. Even if it were, there are more types
|
||
of political comment than the written and spoken word: flag burning,
|
||
cartoons, art, and other forms of symbolic expression can make striking
|
||
political comments (often more so than the mere word).
|
||
|
||
Perhaps in the context of "I may not agree with what you say, but I
|
||
will defend to the death your right to say it" (paraphrased), _Civil
|
||
Disobedience_, and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
|
||
underscore the intentions overall more so than a part of the whole:
|
||
an individual may exist in a society and still be an individual; it
|
||
is of many diverse individuals that a society is made. E pluribus unum.
|
||
Those seem to be the intentions floating around at the time of the
|
||
writing of that document.
|
||
|
||
A more relevant and timely example of the importance of the extension
|
||
of free speech is the United States Secret Service pounding on your
|
||
door and confiscating your computer because on-line media isn't
|
||
protected under the auspices of the "free press" premise that is used
|
||
to protect paper copy. Ask Knight Lightning about that.
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1993 08:56 CDT
|
||
From: <BOEHLEFELD@WISCSSC.BITNET>
|
||
Subject: File 4--A Female Response to the Gender Question in Cyberspace
|
||
|
||
A friend of mine has a small sign on her door. It includes statistics
|
||
about wage and salary differences between men and women. Then it says,
|
||
|
||
"Yes, Virginia, there is a gender hegemony."
|
||
|
||
Based on the data I've seen to date (scant, I'll admit), I suspect the
|
||
comment could apply as easily to the nets as to earnings.
|
||
|
||
Larry Landwehr's comments irked me. And, to Larry I would say, we can
|
||
stand the heat; nevertheless, we'd like to get out of the kitchen. But
|
||
I don't want to be flippant in this response because I think there's
|
||
more at stake here than trading feeble witticisms.
|
||
|
||
In his response to Landwehr, Mike Holderness mentions that he's a
|
||
journalist and places much of his response into a journalistic
|
||
context. I share that background, so it's one of several filters that
|
||
should be fairly obvious in my response. Added to that, I am female,
|
||
and I have been looking at gender issues on the nets (among other
|
||
things) for the past few years.
|
||
|
||
First, let me say that my journalism background may make my comments
|
||
unrepresentative of all women. I've talked with feminist scholars in
|
||
face-to-face arenas about First Amendment conflicts with feminist
|
||
agendas (e.g., the elimination of pornography). I've told them that I
|
||
value free speech and free press and am likely to continue to do so,
|
||
lest John Peter Zenger's wife continued to publish a newspaper in vain
|
||
while her husband sat in jail. On that level, I think Larry Landwehr
|
||
(and anyone else) can say pretty much whatever he wants (they want)
|
||
with my support of his (their) right to do so. But I say that while
|
||
fully aware that some feminists would rather risk censorship than
|
||
permit continued degradation of women in speech and the press.
|
||
|
||
But, as Holderness properly notes, freedom of speech and the press is
|
||
not a concept fully understood (or supported) in the rest of the
|
||
world. And there is, indeed, obnoxious and offensive speech. Now,
|
||
here's where I see the gender issues entering in.
|
||
|
||
Landwehr is simply wrong to suggest that it's inappropriate to apply
|
||
feminist theory to the nets. Women are part of the nets (even though
|
||
their participation is apparently less than men's) and feminist
|
||
theorists are among them. Why should they be prohibited from studying
|
||
the interactions there from some feminist perspective? I can think of
|
||
no good reason.
|
||
|
||
Women I've talked to (f2f and via cmc) are sometimes intimidated by
|
||
some males' exercise of their right to free speech. The problem
|
||
becomes one of a "chilling effect," in which speech is inhibited
|
||
because some speakers are afraid to voice their ideas and opinions.
|
||
They are afraid of opening themselves up to harassment, or worse.
|
||
Whether intentional or not comments like Landwehr's "feminist dogma"
|
||
remarks can have that chilling effect. (Not only women are silenced,
|
||
but also some men by such tactics.)
|
||
|
||
Secondly, in Jim Thomas's response, he notes that he sees "no
|
||
significant evidence" that the "old boys" network is being recreated
|
||
in cyberspace. He notes, "The 'old boys' no longer control the
|
||
terrain..." I'm sure he realizes that the "old boys" have *never*
|
||
controlled the entire terrain, but the share allotted women has been,
|
||
and continues to be, small. Although some men seem consciously
|
||
willing to share larger portions of that terrain with women, what
|
||
little evidence we have to date seems to suggest that much of it is
|
||
still dominated by men. Larry Landwehr is obviously one of the men
|
||
unwilling to give up an inch of his cyberspace.
|
||
|
||
Thirdly, Jim Thomas also makes reference to a paper prepared by
|
||
members of Bay Area Women In Telecommunications (BAWIT) for CFP '93.
|
||
In it, they note that women's access to computers and modems, and,
|
||
hence, the nets, is more restricted than men's access. This serves,
|
||
also, to silence many women in this particular communications medium.
|
||
One of the speakers at that CFP '93 session was herself a computer
|
||
professional who talked of other women programmers, systems analysts,
|
||
etc., who found their career advancement impeded because they felt
|
||
intimidated by remarks made by males in their field, both f2f and in
|
||
technical discussion lists. Her response was to found SYSTERS, a
|
||
discussion list limited to women participants.
|
||
|
||
Founding of separate lists can be construed as "equal opportunity."
|
||
The access is obviously there. And I support the notion that women
|
||
(and men) who want to form some separate lists should be allowed to do
|
||
so. But court battles have been fought in the US in the past about the
|
||
fiction of "separate but equal" opportunities. It should come as no
|
||
surprise that some women feel that separate does not always mean
|
||
equal, and that subtle and blatant sexism continues to exist in this
|
||
medium. Making that observation, based on feminist or other
|
||
theoretical perspectives, should not be grounds for further
|
||
intimidation or derision.
|
||
|
||
In a book written in an entirely different substantive arena (third
|
||
world agriculture), Robert Chambers notes: "Male predominance and
|
||
dominance in organisations is so marked and so widespread that to many
|
||
men it is, quite simply, natural, and the question of deliberate
|
||
action to increase the status of numbers of women staff does not
|
||
arise." [1] Chambers suggests that social science (particularly in
|
||
relation to agricultural studies, but I believe also in studies of
|
||
other technical areas) has used as its evaluative standard a white
|
||
male-oriented "dogma" (to borrow from Landwehr). Such use, however
|
||
rooted in history, could stand correction.
|
||
|
||
Donna Haraway further suggests that that white male standard has
|
||
corrupted previous studies because its represents a partial
|
||
perspective. She notes: "No wonder Max [Headroom] gets to have a naive
|
||
sense of humor and a kind of happily regressive, preoedipal sexuality,
|
||
a sexuality that we ambivalently--with dangerous incorrectness--had
|
||
imagined to be reserved for lifelong inmates of female and colonized
|
||
bodies and maybe also white male computer hackers in solitary
|
||
electronic confinement." [2] Her discussion proceeds to the biological
|
||
sciences, and doesn't dwell on computers, but among her points is that
|
||
women's roles, contributions and needs have been largely ignored in
|
||
such studies. Why should the same be true in the burgeoning area of
|
||
computer studies?
|
||
|
||
I have admitted (repeatedly) that the data we have regarding gender in
|
||
computer mediated communication are slim. And I'm willing to admit that
|
||
things change even as academics are studying them and journalists are
|
||
writing about them. But what we do have is rather dismal looking to
|
||
some women (and some men). While some women are silenced, those who do
|
||
speak up risk the kind of harassment Larry Landwehr's remarks
|
||
represent. I suspect those who believe respect is as important as
|
||
equal access and free speech will continue to take the heat.
|
||
|
||
Finally, while the intention may (or may not) be benign, the effect of
|
||
these various "small" problems appears to be a systematic exclusion of
|
||
women from full participation in the net community. We should not
|
||
arbitrarily exclude a feminist perspective from the study of that
|
||
apparently systematic exclusion.
|
||
|
||
And, having said all that, I still support Landwehr's right to say
|
||
what he has said. Personally, I find it offensive, but I can't seem to
|
||
ignore it.
|
||
|
||
++++++++++++++ [1] Chambers, Robert. 1983. _Rural Development: Putting
|
||
the First Last_. Longman Scientific and Technical: Essex, England. (p
|
||
175)
|
||
|
||
[2] Haraway, Donna. 1988. "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question
|
||
in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective," _Feminist
|
||
Studies_, 14(3):575-599. (The quote is from pp 575-6.)
|
||
|
||
------------------------------
|
||
|
||
End of Computer Underground Digest #5.31
|
||
************************************
|
||
|
||
|
||
|