Hacker 2/HACKER2.mdf/cud/cud529a.txt

Text File | 1995-01-03 | 14KB | 390 lines

Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 18:46:59 CST
From: [e-mail](Larry Landwehr)
Subject: File 1--LTES article and Gender on the Nets (Re: CuD 5.18)

    Some comments on the "London Times Educational Supplement"
article

                        Written by Larry Landwehr

Overall, the "London Times Educational Supplement" article (LTES)
had  some
interesting  points  to  it - a little bit of net history, some
examples of
the growing importance of the net to the academic community,  and
some  of
the problems encountered by newcomers to the net.

After you've been on the net for a while, it is easy to lose sight
of  just
how  wonderfully amazing the net is. If anything, the article
deeply under-
stated just how profoundly the net will change the future of
humanity. It's
like trying to predict back in 1910 the impact of the automobile on
society
- the highway system, gasoline refineries, motels instead  of
hotels,  new
dating  patterns,  increased social mobility, commuting to work,
the impor-
tance of the rubber industry, smog, drive-thru restaurants,
mechanized war-
fare,  and on and on. The net will bring more than quantitative
changes, it
will bring *qualitative* changes. Things that were impossible will
now  be-
come inevitable.

The LTES article is to be commended for pointing out some of the
new  uses
for  the  net,  but  somehow,  just like in a conversation with a
religious
zealot, the feminist dogma just had to surface and this is where
the  arti-
cle  does  a  disservice  to its readers. Instead of sticking to
verifiable
facts and projecting from that into  reasonable  speculation,  the
article
wanders into the morass of attempting to apply feminist theory to
human in-
teraction on the net.

This attempt to view and understand the nature of the net through
the  re-
fractive,   narrowly   focused theology of a fringe group flaws the
article
very badly and it is done rather poorly as well.  Facts  that
support  the
author's   view  point  are proudly held on high. Facts that do not
fit the
author's world view are glossed over or not  even  mentioned.  Even
worse,
the author descends to the  level  of  denigrating those whose
behavior the
author does not like. Let's examine the article point by point:

The author states that the majority of the people on the net are
men, which
is almost certainly true at this point in time. There is even an
attempt to
supply some evidence to support this conclusion although  the
evidence  is
somewhat anecdotal and the sampling methodology is rather skewed.
Still, an
attempt is made:

 > 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.

In the next paragraph, the author's feminist leanings start to
show:

 > "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.

Apparently "women in science" are worried about being shut out of
the main-
stream  of scientific communication by a cabal of scheming men.
What's next
- eastern bankers, the tri-lateral  commission,  the  red  menace,
or  the
international Jewish conspiracy?

Has the author ever thought that maybe some men feel more
comfortable talk-
ing  to  other  men?  Has  the author ever thought that many men
have esta-
blished working relationships with other men  that  predate
women's  entry
into  some  scientific fields? Has the author ever thought that as
the "new
kids on the block" that it's up to women to make the  first  move
if  they
want  to  get involved? Or does the author assume that women should
be wel-
comed with open arms just because they have lately decided that
they  want
in?  Do  "women  in  science"  expect to get everything handed to
them on a
platter?

Next the author goes on to try to explain why there are so  many
more  men
than women on the net:

 > Why should there be this preponderance of men? 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.

Here the feminist bugle really starts to be heard. First  of  all,
someone
studying  "women's  use of computers" is cited as an authority.
What!? Does
this "expert" (research assistant) only study  women's  use  of
computers?
Isn't  this  person (not a personal friend of the author, one
hopes) at all
interested in how men use computers? Is this myopic,
hyper-specialized  in-
vestigator with a one sided interest to be considered an expert?

What is especially revealing in this paragraph is the "expert's"
derogatory
use  of  the word "boy" to refer to men. The mere fact that the
author uses
this offensively toned quote shows how entrenched and pervasive the
femin-
ist  dogma  has become in the author's mind. Either the author
doesn't care
that the quote is offensive or, even worse, it may even be that the
author
isn't  even aware that the  quote is offensive.  At this  point the
article
starts to lose credibility, but an even more egregious paragraph
soon
follows:

 > 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".  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.
 > Kramerae concludes, however, that "Obviously it is not the
technology
 > but the policies which are presenting particular problems for
women."

First, why is it that every expert cited is a woman? Is the author
engaging
in  a  bit of "Old Girl Networking"? Could it be that the author
prefers to
converse with women? Could the pot be calling the kettle black?
Hmmmm?

Now let's deal with the sexual harassment part of this paragraph.
Frankly,
the author's reason for bringing this up is rather unclear. Does
the author
contend that sexual harassment is wide spread on the net?
Apparently  not,
because the author states that it only occurs "in very specific
ways"; i.e.
in response to placing a personals ad. Apparently the author's
intent is to
warn  women  that men can harass them on the net. Whether or not
women ever
harass men on the net is apparently of no interest to the author.
The  au-
thor  of  what you are reading right now can personally attest that
it does
happen, but the author of the LTES article seems to only be
concerned  with
problems that *women* face on the net.

Next, the author uses the wonderfully worded phrase "socially
retarded"  to
refer to people whose actions the author doesn't like.  This is
really out-
standing journalism - if you don't like what someone does, then
call  them
names.  This style of writing may be understandable in a
heat-of-the-moment
flame, but not in what purports to be an objectively  written
article  in-
tended to educate the general public on what the net is like. Such
personal
bias, such a judgemental attitude is totally uncalled for.

The fact is that men (or "boys", the author's preferred term) like
to  look
at  women. They always have, and they always will. Apparently this
biologi-
cal fact of male human nature distresses the author greatly, either
for fe-
minist  theological  reasons  or because of an inherent dislike of
the male
sex drive. One can't help but suspect that the author would be
greatly  in
favor of censorship to stop this affront to the author's
sensibilities. The
author's use of the phrase "abusing the system" and referring to
it  as  a
"problem" speaks volumes about the author's unspoken bias.

The quote, "Obviously it is not the technology but the policies
which  are
presenting  particular  problems  for women", is plain, flat out
wrong. The
net has virtually no policies because it is so deeply
decentralized. It  is
not  "the  policies" which are presenting particular problems for
women. It
is the net culture. And the net culture  presents  challenges  (not
"prob-
lems")  to *all* newcomers. This quote reminds me of the old
Saturday Night
Live skit where this guy comes on and  says,  "And  I  suppose
you're  all
wondering  how  this is going to affect Al Franken." The author's
viewpoint
seems to be, "Now how is this going to affect women?", which  is
extremely
self-centered.

Finally, let's briefly examine the following paragraph:

 > 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.

The most notable thing about this paragraph is the  author's
unspoken  as-
sumption  that  feminist  groups can only operate if the only posts
allowed
are those in favor of feminism (i.e. the only  good  post  is  a
favorable
post). Such an attitude might be said to display a rather closed
mind and a
propensity toward censorship.

Summary:

The LTES article is anti-male.  If  the  overwhelming  majority  of
CUD's
readers are male, then why does CUD publish articles that attack
men?

The LTES article is one of those pieces that will be seized upon
by  those
who  want  to establish censorship on the net. Sexual harassment
(why don't
they call it "gender harassment"?) must be stopped! Men must  be
prevented
from  looking at pictures of nude women! Let's clean up the net and
make it
safe for women! Take back the net!

It's coming folks.  Censorship  and  governmental  restrictions
are  right
around   the   corner if articles such as the LTES one are
propagated.  The
next steps will be letter writing campaigns to  system
administrators, law
suits   against   companies,   and   new  governmental laws - how
about two
years in prison for an improper post? It's coming.

Here's a word of advice for the women on the net:

  If you can't stand the heat, ladies, then get out of the kitchen!

Stop whining about how unfair the world is. Stop hiding behind
paternalis-
tic  (maternalistic?)  governmental  laws.  Stand  on your own two
feet and
*earn* some respect!

Sexual harassment on the net, with no possibility of physical
contact,  is
nothing  but  another  type  of flame. Learn to handle it. Learn to
give as
good as you get.

Use a little common sense and realize that much of what  you  think
of  as
sexual  harassment  is  simply unclear communication. Why do you
think that
"similies" have become universally  adopted  on  the  net  as  a
means  of
minimizing misinterpretation?

The feminist lemma that "men suppress women" should be known as
"The  Great
Excuse".

Forget the fact that men enjoy technology because they like gadgets
and na-
turally gravitate to the net. Forget the fact that women are late
comers to
this and many other fields. Forget the fact that men are  naturally
adven-
turous  and  are  usually in the forefront of exploration. Forget
all these
logical reasons. Let's just say that men are  oppressive.  Let's
not  talk
about  paying your dues and taking your knocks until you manage to
ensconce
yourself on the net. Let's not talk about getting a thick skin so
you don't
get blown away by the first flame that's directed at you. Let's
blame those
rotten, bad, insensitive men, instead.

The net is a beautiful anarchy, just about the only one left on the
face of
the earth. Don't kill it with censorship, laws, and lawsuits.

Women of the net, conduct yourselves professionally, and,  over
time,  you
will  get the respect you want and will then deserve.   Don't
subscribe  to
the false religion that simple human nature can reasonably be
ascribed  to
the  pervasive  misogyny  of men. Don't expect immediate
gratification  as
the  feminist  movement  so  glaringly  expects (the name "NOW" is
no coin-
cidence).

If CUD truly believes in "electronic freedom", then it should stop
publish-
ing  articles that lay the groundwork for censorship and
governmental  res-
trictions. Instead, it should use its editorial discretion to
promote posi-
tively  written  articles that will benefit the net and lead to its
further
expansion into the mainstream of human culture.

Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253