NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/alt/comp/acadfre/talk/2730

Text File | 1992-09-09 | 5.6 KB | 129 lines

Newsgroups: alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!eff-gate!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Sharon Fisher)
Subject: more on harrassment of women on the Internet
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: eff.org
Organization: EFF mail-news gateway
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:03:43 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 115


>>      I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I think most men do
>> not understand the climate of fear in which women live in this
>> country.  And that fear restricts their freedom of expression.
>> Violence against women is so prevalent in this society, women are
>> not able to act and speak with the dignity and freedom that all
>> persons deserve.

>1 in 20 black men is murdered in his life time.  1 in 100 white men is
>murdered.  1 in 400 white women is.  The disparity in the figures is
>growing, not shrinking.  But black men do not have a reputation for
>silence, and it is usually white, female feminists who most often
>complain of having been silenced.  Am I missing something, or is this
>fear of violence just an excuse for seeking to muzzle views that make
>you feel uncomfortable?

I'm not sure where your figures come from.  But leaving that aside, I
doubt that many women are particularly afraid of being murdered
because of posting to the net.

On the other hand, I'm not sure I know of a woman who has posted to
the net for any length of time who hasn't gotten some form of abusive,
threatening, or harassing email from guys.  Simply for the sin of
having a female name, a woman can count on getting a regular supply of
messages inviting her, in the most crude ways possible, to have sex
with the sender.

Women who post to soc.women or soc.feminism, or on topics such as
child support and abortion, get even more hateful mail.  Ask any woman
you know who posts.  We hate this, but we accept it as the price for
making use of the net's resources, in the same way that we accept a
constant stream of whistles and catcalls for the price of walking downtown.

> I really don't see that
>violence against females is greater than violence against males.

How would you?  Would you presume to tell a black man that your
experience as a white man invalidated his?

>It's
>just that men learn from an early age that they will experience
>violence.  No special protection will be given to them against the
>rough and tumble of life.  I find the assumption that violence against
>women should receive some special attention not given to violence
>against men rather sexist.

Agreed.  I think that "wannafuck" messages sent to guys are just as
heinous as those sent to women.  Tell me, how many have you gotten?

>I have never seen any indication that women are subject to violence
>for things which they say in a public forum.  Almost all violence
>against women occurs in rape, robbery, or domestic conflicts.  (These
>also make up a large share of violence against men.)  For all the
>problems we have in this country, we are fortunate that violence based
>on political views is pretty rare.  Where it has occurred, it has
>typically involved one man beating another -- no women involved.
>Worries about expressing one's political views because of violence
>aren't very rational.

Depends on how you define "violence."  Email death threats and other
forms of harassment are not unheard of.

>>However, I _know_ that women are
>> fearful of posting messages like "I need a ride to the Michigan
>> Womyn's Music Festival."  What kind of psychopath is going to
>> see that message, look up the poster's name in the phonebook,

>But the psychopath's actions (if indeed such a psychopath exists),
>would take place outside Internet.  In fact, you would be better
>off letting such a psychopath blow off steam on the Internet, than
>muzzle him and have him track you down and....

I think perhaps you misunderstood Patt's original posting, because
your reply doesn't make any sense.  What she's suggesting, if I'm not
mistaken, is that someone will make use of the information she posted
to track her down -- after all, anyone going to a women's music
festival is probably some man-hating dyke, right?

>Has anyone ever heard of a psychopath reading Usenet postings and
>wreaking vengeance?

Depends on how you define 'vengeance.'  As I've said, I've heard of
harassing email, harassing phone calls, calls to a poster's mother, etc.

>>      I'm not saying we have to delete the alt.sex groups from
>> the Usenet, but I would like to make men aware of how I feel when
>> I am attending a lecture by a visiting computer scientist, and
>> he throws in a gratuitous references alt.sex.pictures, and the

>He could make a reference to a pornographic magazine if the newsgroup
>didn't exist.  Sexual crudity is hardly reserved to computer users
>or computer scientists.

Agreed.  The point she's making, though, is that it's still
alienating.  Now, I'm hardly in favor of zapping the alt.sex
newsgroups, but if the existence of the groups is used to denigrate
women, then perhaps the participants of those groups who would like to
see them become a safer place for women to post should do something --
like complain when they see a particular woman harassed.

>> men in that room, because they are so insensitive and unaware
>> of what their chortles say to me.

>Would you be happier if they were just as insensitive, but hid it
>from you?  Don't you think it's better to know what attitudes
>you're dealing with, so you can criticize them?

Are those our choices?  Men being insensitive is a given, and our only
choice is whether they're open about it or not?  I would like to think
better of most men on the net.




:e