Internet Surfer 2.0

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Internet Surfer 2.0 / Internet Surfer 2.0 (Wayzata Technology) (1996).iso / pc / text / mac / faqs.266 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1996-02-12 | 27.8 KB | 604 lines

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS);faqs.266 Papers never sensationalize or distort, so be sure to point out things like racism and sexism wherever they might exist. Be sure as well that they understand that all things on the net, particularly insults, are meant literally. Link what transpires on the net to the causes of the Holocaust, if possible. If regular papers won't take the story, go to a tabloid paper -- they are always interested in good stories. By arranging all this free publicity for the net, you'll become very well known. People on the net will wait in eager anticipation for your every posting, and refer to you constantly. You'll get more mail than you ever dreamed possible -- the ultimate in net success. ------ Q: What does foobar stand for? A: It stands for you, dear. -- Gene Spafford Software Engineering Research Center & Dept. of Computer Sciences Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1398 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu phone: (317) 494-7825 Xref: bloom-picayune.mit.edu soc.feminism:5679 news.answers:4641 Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!usenet From: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore) Newsgroups: soc.feminism,news.answers Subject: soc.feminism Information Supersedes: <feminism/info_722412017@athena.mit.edu> Followup-To: poster Date: 17 Dec 1992 06:02:13 GMT Organization: University of California at Irvine: ICS Dept. Lines: 312 Sender: tittle Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu,news-answers-request@mit.edu Expires: 25 Jan 1993 06:02:10 GMT Message-ID: <feminism/info_724572130@athena.mit.edu> Reply-To: tittle@ics.uci.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: pit-manager.mit.edu X-Last-Updated: 1992/08/06 Archive-name: feminism/info Version: 1.4 Last-modified: 6 August 1992 This is an informational post about the newsgroup soc.feminism. It is posted every 25 days. Copies of this FAQ may be obtained by anonymous ftp to pit-manager.mit.edu (18.172.1.27) under /pub/usenet/news.answers/feminism/info. Or, send email to mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu with the subject line "send usenet/news.answers/feminism/info", leaving the body of the message empty. Summary of changes: Some further elaboration in the guidelines for submission. An explanation of the implications of multiple moderation. History of soc.feminism This group was formed in late 1989. There was considerable debate over the subject matter of the group, who would be allowed to post, who would moderate, and what the name of the group would be. There was a large contingent of people who were afraid that the purpose of soc.feminism would be to provide a women-only feminist-supportive environment, and they ensured that the charter of soc.feminism would allow pro-feminist and anti-feminist views, and be open to both women and men. In the end, four moderators were selected to moderate the group. As for the name of the group, it was nearly named talk.feminism, but soc.feminism won out. The decision was somewhat political, as it was felt that more sites carried soc. groups than talk. groups. It turns out that the subject matter of the group has evolved toward a basic assumption of the notion that women deserve a basic equality with men, with the disagreement focused on how to best achieve that, or the prices we pay for a certain route. Unfortunately, many of _these_ disagreements overwhelm the group at times, and we are working on ways to tone this down without invalidating different reader's points of views. On the other hand, it has not been a battleground over whether or not women should be considered equal with men, and it is not likely to become one. Women and men both of diverse views have always been welcome to post. The original proposer of soc.feminism was Patricia Roberts, who collected the votes, worked with Greg Woods to set up a program allowing multiple moderators and chose the initial moderators. We were the first multiply moderated group: soc.religion.islam and rec.arts.sf.reviews have followed suit. The four original moderators of soc.feminism were Cindy Tittle [Moore], Miriam H. Nadel, Jean Marie Diaz and Valerie Maslak. Valerie dropped out about a year later when faced with increasing net-connection trouble. Jean Marie Diaz has been inactive since the summer of 1991. Muffy Barkocy became a new moderator in December of 1991, and we are keeping our eyes open for at least one more (send email to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu if interested). Soc.feminism FAQ's Soc.feminism publishes several FAQ's (Frequently Asked Questions) on a monthly basis (this posting is one of them). The others are FAQ's on: References (books and articles on feminism, in three parts), Terminologies (descriptions of different "kinds" of feminism, esp. as used in this newsgroup), and Resources (a compilation of various organizations and groups of, for, and by, women). Two more: a history of feminism and a discussion of violence, are in the works. To obtain these FAQs, ftp to pit-manager.mit.edu (18.172.1.27) and look under /pub/usenet/news.answers/feminism. If you cannot use ftp, send email to the mail server at mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu with no subject line, and any combinantion of the lines below (select the ones to get the FAQ's you're interested in) in the body of your message. send usenet/news.answers/feminism/info send usenet/news.answers/feminism/terms send usenet/news.answers/feminism/resources send usenet/news.answers/feminism/refs1 send usenet/news.answers/feminism/refs2 send usenet/news.answers/feminism/refs3 Note that you must repeat the full path name for each included line. Digest There is a digest version of soc.feminism available. Write to feminism-digest@ncar.ucar.edu for details or to subscribe. It is mailed out about once a week or so depending on volume and consists of what has been posted (no editing). This is NOT automated; you are sending email to a person at feminism-digest. Submissions and Requests addresses To submit an article to soc.feminism, post as you normally do for other, non-moderated groups. This should work for most people. If you have trouble with this, email the article to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu. This will treat it exactly as any other article posted to soc.feminism (in fact, this is the address that your newsreader should email the intercepted article to). If you have questions about the group, you can send your questions to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This address will forward your mail to all active moderators (moderators take vacations, too). Please do not send email specifically to any one moderator unless you have been requested to do so, as email addresses may change. General Guidelines for submission You should first note that these guidelines are just that. They cannot precisely spell out exactly what will be accepted and what will be rejected. Much can depend on context, for example. In addition, there are always new takes on topics, and a set of guidelines could not hope to enumerate them all. That said, there are some specific constraints noted below, and as other problems appear, we will add them here. Articles must be relevant to feminism. They may not contain ad-hominem attacks or flames. Two topics that are of general feminist interest that are severely restricted here are abortion and rape. This is partly because the topics are inherently inflammatory and because there exist talk.abortion and talk.rape newsgroups to carry on full-fledged debates. Some discussion *is* allowed, mostly as long as the articles are not inflammatory and as long as the primary focus is on the topic's relationship with feminism. Informative articles (e.g., about specific groups, or calls for marches, or official positions of feminist organizations, etc) are allowed. You should note that while soc.feminism takes no official position on the question of rape, the majority of abortion-related articles that are approved tend to be pro-choice simply because most of the articles submitted are. This should not be construed to reflect the personal opinions of the moderators, or any individual posting to soc.feminism. Every now and then someone posts a question of the form "This is a feminist newsgroup, but I never see any women posting to it!" This may or may not be accompanied by a plea for men to reduce their posting. In the first place, simple demographics of USENET mean that there are overwhelmingly more men than women with access to USENET/email. The existence, however, of some groups that are almost totally female or balanced more 50-50, points to other problems than simple demographics. Many women have complained that soc.feminism is still "too hostile" for other women; there are undoubtedly many others that refrain from posting because of the negative aspects of being labelled or considered a feminist. If you are a woman and would like to see more women post, the only practical action you can take is ... to post. The last time this question was posted (this topic is now rejected), there were responses from many of the regular female posters, and a good number of lurkers who were motivated to say that they read the group even though they didn't post. We cannot estimate the number of lurkers on this group, but it is probably fairly high. Asking men to refrain from posting is simply unfair, especially given USENET's public nature. There are a number of women-only forums, pointers to which appear in the Resources FAQ. There are many other topics that flare up into prolonged and protracted disagreements. Chief among these are 1) the question of gender neutral language, 2) the actual statistics on spouse-beating or other crimes in comparing which gender is "worse off," 3) the propriety of "women only" events when "men only" are always attacked as sexist (including the question of women-only colleges). These topics have come up many times and most regular readers would be appreciative if you check and even read some of the references given on these topics in the References post before jumping in or starting such a topic. This gives everybody a common basis to discuss from. While these topics are not forbidden, they may be stopped at the moderators' discretion when circularity starts to occur. The notion of "reasonable discussion" has recently come up on this group. The idea is that the discussions should themselves stay reasonable, and overly argumentative dialogues, especially those that simply dismiss the points raised by the previous article, should be excluded as well. We are still experimenting with this. There have also been arguments that "irrelevant" discussions are still pertinent when it is a discussion of a topic from a feminist point of view. Many times when we say that a topic is "drifting," the contention is that it is still relevant to soc.feminism because it is a presentation of a feminist point of view on some topic. We have been experimenting with relaxing this also, but it helps to clearly delineate a feminist slant on some topic to get it past the moderators. The subject of homosexuality is relatively sensitive. We will not post anything we deem homophobic. Many articles on or about lesbianism are considered relevant to feminism because of the close association between feminism and lesbianism. Articles about gay males are accepted if there is a clear relevance to feminism present. Here's a check list: * Gay rights alone are structurally similar to women's rights, black rights, minority rights. They may be acceptable (as would black or minority rights articles) if there are parallels drawn with feminism or some other clearly drawn link. * Because much of the theory of patriarchy revolves around how female sexuality is directed and used for the benefit of the patriarchy, Lesbianism is a direct challenge to the patriarchy. Therefore most articles on Lesbianism are relevant. * Anti-gay rhetoric is not acceptable. Calm and reasoned arguments against homosexuality is not acceptable. Soc.feminism is not a forum for whether or not homosexuality is "right" or "wrong." If the post includes private email, be sure to obtain that individual's permission before posting it. There are no legal rules about this (yet), but it is requested as part of general net.etiquette for this group. If you are posting material that may be copyrighted, please give all information about where it comes from. Partial quotes, newspaper articles, book blurbs and the like are generally OK, but with full source information, we can decide whether such postings potentially infringe copyright law. We will not post articles that violate copyright law: examples include entire newspaper or magazine articles, or substantial portions of books. A review that extensively quotes such a source is OK, a commentary on such a source without as much quoting is better. Posting pointers alone to discussions in other groups is not generally allowed. However, a discussion of such a thread in another group is perfectly fine, eg, summarizing the discussion and adding your thoughts to it. Remember that we do not crosspost any soc.feminism articles. Finally, please edit out all unnecessary quoted text and pay attention to your attributions. We have done some ourselves when it seemed necessary, but we do not feel that this should be part of our job. Therefore, your article may be returned with a request to streamline it if you do not take care to remove old signatures, excess text, unrelated points and the like. Multiple Moderation This group is moderated by several moderators, each working independently. Submissions are sent to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu, where one current moderator is selected, and the article forwarded to that moderator only. This means that there is some variation in what is approved or not, since there is inherent individual variation between different people. We do try to minimize this variation by consulting with each other on the occassional, problematic, article. However, the whole purpose of multiple moderation is to reduce the load on any one individual, therefore we do not consult each other over every posting we get. Please keep this in mind if you have a complaint which may be related to this. Anonymous Posting We have posted articles anonymously for contributors before. In general, you must satisfy us that you have a good reason for remaining anonymous. You will not be anonymous to the moderators, but your article will be posted without identifying material if we consent to posting it anonymously. For articles that you wish to be posted anonymously, you must preface it with your request and your reasons for the request. We will not post it if we think that your reasons are insufficient or deceitful; you will be informed via email of the decision. In any case, your identity will be kept confidential. Mail "handles" are not considered anonymous; anonymity is when there is no email address available to reach the person who posted the article. Soc.feminism has no policy regarding the common practice of using a fanciful name or nickname instead of the real name in the "handle" field. Editorial Policy If the moderator who receives your article thinks that it is generally OK if it is somewhat edited, you will get your article back with comments. At this point, you can change it and send it back directly to that moderator. If you feel that changes are unreasonable, you can appeal to the feminism-request address. Articles that are rejected receive a "rejection notice"; again if you think it was unfounded, drop a note to feminism-request. If you sent an article and it has not appeared nor have you received email about it, you may wish to enquire via feminism-request. Do keep in mind, though, that articles may sit for a while; moderators do not necessarily check their mail over the weekends, and that site connectivity may mean that your site will not receive your article from the moderator's site within the time you expect. However, email is not perfect and has been known to send mail into giant black holes, so bear with us. Minor modifications may be made to articles that have lines that are too long, have their attributions mixed up, or quote excessive material. Moderators will occasionally inject their comments, usually to the effect of advising people where followups are going to, warning of topic drift, or some other explanatory note. Any further modifications are always after consultation with the original author as described in the previous paragraph. -------------- Please mail in comments, additions, corrections, suggestions, and so on to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. Thank you, --Cindy Tittle Moore "The last thing feminism is about is exclusion. Feminists can be defined as those women and men who recognize that the earth doesn't revolve around anybody's son---or around any one group." -- Regina Barreca, _They Used to Call Me Snow White...But I Drifted_ Xref: bloom-picayune.mit.edu soc.feminism:5682 news.answers:4644 Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!usenet From: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore) Newsgroups: soc.feminism,news.answers Subject: soc.feminism References (part 1 of 3) Supersedes: <feminism/refs1_722412017@athena.mit.edu> Followup-To: poster Date: 17 Dec 1992 06:02:30 GMT Organization: University of California at Irvine: ICS Dept. Lines: 1406 Sender: tittle Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu,news-answers-request@mit.edu Expires: 25 Jan 1993 06:02:10 GMT Message-ID: <feminism/refs1_724572130@athena.mit.edu> References: <feminism/info_724572130@athena.mit.edu> Reply-To: tittle@ics.uci.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: pit-manager.mit.edu X-Last-Updated: 1992/08/06 Archive-name: feminism/refs1 Version: 2.3 Last-modified: 6 August 1992 This posting contains useful feminist references for the newsgroup soc.feminism. Copies of this FAQ may be obtained by anonymous ftp to pit-manager.mit.edu (18.172.1.27) under /pub/usenet/news.answers/feminism/refs1. Or, send email to mail-server@pit-manager.mit.edu with the subject line "send usenet/news.answers/feminism/refs1", leaving the body of the message empty. To get the other two parts, substitute refs2 and refs3 for refs1 above. Summary of changes: Marked with |'s at beginning of lines. TABLE OF CONTENTS Prologue. 1. Academia and Sciences. 2. Families and Work. 3. Feminism and Psychology. (incl. sexualization, socialization, gender roles). 4. Education. 5. Feminist Theory and Overviews. 6. Folklore. 7. Gendered Communication and Language. 8. Gender Differences. [9-16 continued in part II, 17-24 continued in part III] Prologue. --------- This post contains commonly cited and/or useful references on various topics that come up in this newsgroup. Because of the nature of these discussions, it is helpful if you are familiar with at least some of the materials listed under the topic. This is NOT a "You Must Read Every Book On This List Before Participating In Soc.feminism" mandate, but be aware that some familiarity with books on a particular topic makes the ensuing discussion less frustrating for our regular readers who have seen many similar discussions before. ********************************************************************** ** In particular, if you have a question along the lines of "What ** ** can you tell me about <topic>?" you would do better to check the ** ** sources listed here first before trying to garner explanations ** ** over the newsgroup. ** ********************************************************************** This list is undergoing continual modification and I welcome additional references for inclusion. In particular, I would like a wide variety of feminist opinion on each topic. I would also like your input on what "must reads" should be included under particular topics. Most of these books focus on feminism in the US; I would love more references to Canadian, British, European, Asian, African and Latin American feminism. If you have any corrections to point out, by all means, let me know if I've misspelled names or misattributed works. References marked with an asterisk are incomplete entries that I was unable to verify in the on-line catalogue. In most cases, I think these are references to articles in magazines or books. Any help with these would be appreciated. Disclaimer: The presence of any particular book in here does not necessarily reflect my views. There are often short blurbs contributed by many people along with the references; no guarantee is made as to their accuracy. If you wish to comment on any entry in here, please feel free to do so. I hope you are inspired to pick up any of these works and start reading! 1. Academia and Sciences. -------------------------- 1989 National Survey of Women Engineers, The Cooper Union. Available on request from the Albert Nerken School of Engineering, 51 Astor Place, New York, NY 10003. "Survey of Graduate Students", Presidential Committee on Women Students Interests, Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1987. "A Celebration of Women in Science," _Discover_, December 1991. Contains eleven profiles of successful women in a wide range of fields including Donna Cox in computer graphics. This is a great thing for us to read, to get young women and girls to read or to give as a gift to anyone you'd like to know about what women are doing. "Still a 'Chilly Climate' for Women?" _Science_, pp 1604-1606. June 21, 1991. Discusses the situation for women in physics and astronomy. It includes some pipeline statistics and results of a survey on the kinds of discrimination women perceive and men notice. Summary: blatant discrimination isn't so much a problem as a "pattern of micro-inequalities". _Notices of the American Mathematical Society_. No. 7, Sept. 1991. A special issue on women in mathematics. A variety of issues are covered. "Women and Computing", _Communications of the ACM_, ( Nov. 1990 vol. 33, no. 11.). "Women in Science and Engineering", Sept-Oct 1991 issue of the "American Scientist" (published by the Sigma Xi Scientific Society) (pp. 404-419). Abramson, Joan. _Discrimination in the Academic Profession_. Jossey-Bass, Inc., San Francisco. 1975. Aisenberg, Nadya and Mona Harrington. _Women in Academe: Outsiders in the Sacred Grove_. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst. 1988. Baum, Eleanor, "Recruiting and Graduating Women: The Underrepresented Student", IEEE Communications Magazine, December 1990, 47-50. Bernstein, D, "Comfort and experience with computing: are they the same for men and women?", SIGCSE, 23(3), 1990. Bernstein, D, "Understanding spreadsheets: Effects of computer training on mental model acquisition", _Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science Conference_, 164-172, 1990. Betz, Nancy E, "What stops women and minorities from choosing and completing majors in science and engineering", edited transcript of a Science and Public Policy Seminar given on June 15, 1990. Copies can be obtained from the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, 1200 Seventeenth St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. (202) 955-7758, fax no: (202) 955-7608, bitnet address: fed@gwuvm. Bruer, John T., Jonathan R. Cole, and Harriet Zuckermann. _The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community_. W. W. Norton & Co, New York. 1991, 351 pp. Presents the status of women in science today, as well as the reasons for this standing. Brush, Stephen G. "Women in Science and Engineering", _American Scientist_ 79, (Sep-Oct).404-419, 1991. This is an ambitious article. In about 12 pages (not including the list of 102 references), Stephen Brush discusses factors relevant to young girls through senior professionals, across a wide range of scientific disciplines. Butcher, D. and W. Muth. "Predicting performance in an introductory computer science course", _Communications of the ACM_, 27(11), 263- 268, 1985. Campbell, P. and G. McCabe. "Predicting the success of freshmen in a computer science major", _Communications of the ACM_, 27(11), 1108- 1113, 1984. Casserly, Patricia Lund. "Helping Able Young Women Take Math and Science Seriously in School", The College Board, New York. 1979. Reprinted, with revisions, from Colangelo Zaffrann, ed., _New Voices in Counseling the Gifted_. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 1979. Dambrot, F., M. Watkins-Malek, S. Silling, R. Marshall, and J. Garver. "Correlates of sex differences in attitudes toward and involvement with computers", _Journal of Vocational Behavior_, 27, 71-86, 1985. Dijkstra, E. "On the cruelty of really teaching computer science", _Communications of the ACM_, 32(12), 1397-1414, 1989. Erkut, Sumru. "Exploring Sex Differences in Expectancy, Attribution, and Academic Achievement", _Sex Roles: A Journal of Research_, 9 (1983) 217-231. Ernest, John. "Mathematics and Sex", _The American Mathematics Monthly_, October 1976, 83:595-615. Ferry, Georgina and Jane Moore. "True Confessions of Women in Science", _New Scientist_ 95 (July 1, 1982), 27-30. Fidell, L. S. "Empirical Verification of Sex Discrimination in Hiring Practices in Psychology", in R. K. Unger and F. L. Denmark, eds., _Women: Dependent or Independent Variable_ Psychological Dimensions, New York. 1975. Franklin, Phyllis, et al. "Sexual and Gender Harassment in the Academy: A Guide for Faculty, Students and Administrators", Commission on the Status of Women in the Profession, The Modern Language Association of America, New York, NY. 1981. Frenkel, Karen A. "Women and Computing", _Communications of the ACM_, November 1990, 34-46. Gerver, E. "Computers and Gender". In Forester, Tom, ed. _Computers in the Human Context_. pp481-501. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1989. Gilbert, Lucia A., June M. Gallessich, and Sherri L. Evans. "Sex of Faculty Role Model and Students' Self-Perceptions of Competency", _Sex Roles: A Journal of Research_, 9 (1983) 597-607. Gornick, Vivian. _Women in Science: 100 Journeys into the Territory_, Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, New York. 1990. Grinstein, Louise S. and Paul J. Campbell, eds. _Women in Mathematics. A Bibliographic Sourcebook_. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut. 1987. Describes ~50 women who were prominent in mathematics. Computer science is considered part of math since Grace Hopper and Ada Lovelace are included. The editors wanted to give a historical perspective of women's role in mathematics so they have only considered women born before 1930. Gries, David, and Dorothy Marsh. "The 1989-90 Taulbee Survey", _Communications of the ACM_, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1992. A survey of professors across the nation. Statistics. In particular, addresses what the survey tells us about women in academia. Gries, David and Dorothy Marsh. "CS Produced 734 Ph.D.s in 1989-90; CE Adds 173 for a Total of 907", _Computing Research News_, January 1991, 6-10. Gross, Jane. "Female Surgeon's Quitting Touches Nerves at Medical School", The New York Times, July 14, 1991, page 10. Hacker, Sally L. _Doing it the hard way_. Unwin Jyman, Boston. 1990.