Date: Wed, 10 Mar 93 18:46:59 CST From: larry@DUCKTALES.MED.GE.COM(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