Date: Sat, 1 May 93 09:25:02 EDT
From: morgan@ENGR.UKY.EDU(Wes Morgan)
Subject: File 1--Another response to gender issues

In CuD 5.32, Sharon Boehlefeld wrote:

   >Women I've talked to (f2f and via cmc) are sometimes intimidated by
   >some males' exercise of their right to free speech.

According to some of the men participating in soc.feminism (the
moderated Usenet group concerned with feminist issues), it goes
both ways.  8)

   >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.

Are these same people unafraid to write a letter to the editor (or
guest opinion) for their local newspaper?  Are they afraid to march
in a demonstration?  Are they afraid to sign a petition?  Are these
same people afraid to stand by their beliefs in other forums?  If
so, why does the net deserve special recognition/analysis?  Can you
give an example of a free speech forum that does *NOT* have the po-
tential to cause this fear and/or reticence?

   >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.)

If there is one phrase with which I have become completely disgusted,
it is the dreaded 'chilling effect.'  Have we become so sensitive that
mere words on a screen can inhibit us?  If so, what is the difference
between a computer screen and _The New York Times_?  Are you 'chilled'
by the editorials you read in the paper?   Are you 'chilled' by the
fact that I disagree with you?  Does the mere exercise of free speech
'chill' you?  I notice that most writers seem to have few problems in
using the traditional media, despite the presence of opposing (and,
sometimes, obnoxious) viewpoints.  Why should computer-mediated com-
munication be different?

Perhaps the immediacy of computer communication is part of the problem.
The notion that a Usenet posting of email message will bring responses
within minutes could conceivably generate a bit of concern, but I don't
understand how it inhibits us.  In fact, I would argue that computer-
mediated communication can actually make the airing of potentially con-
troversial opinions *much* easier.  Pseudonymous servers are becoming
more and more popular; if you aren't comfortable signing your real
name to your postings, send them to anon.penet.fi or charcoal.com,
where they will be posted with a unique, but anonymous, identifier
such as "an83498."  If you're dealing with a moderated newsgroup or
mailing list, almost all moderators will strip your postings and/or
submissions of identification before distributing them.

If you really want to do some interesting research, you should do the
following:
   - Pick 20 Usenet participants at random.
   - Read their postings for 2-3 months.
   - Arrange to meet them face to face.
   - After the meeting, marvel at the inaccuracy of your
     mental depiction of each of them.
   - Write and publish a paper on "Mistaken Impressions, or
     'Don't Try to Read Between the Lines.'"

I've met dozens, if not hundreds, of net participants over the last
few years; *none* of them matched the mental image I had constructed
from their words.  One of the most forceful writers I've ever seen
on the net turned out to be a rather quiet, almost mousy, young man;
another, whose writings had always seemed unobtrusive and mellow, was
a young lady with a dominant physical/intellectual presence.

[ OPTIONAL EXERCISE FOR THE READER:
[ Send me a description of the "mental image of me" that you have
[ constructed from reading my postings.  You can retrieve back
[ issues of CuD for past postings; I also participate in many Use-
[ net discussion groups. (look for a return address of either
[ "morgan@engr.uky.edu" or "morgan@ms.uky.edu")  I'd like to see
[ just how accurate your perceptions can be.  Feel free to speculate
[ on my physical attributes, education, sexuality, events in my past,
[ or any other topic that my words suggest to you.  I'll answer pri-
[ vately and tell you how close you are to the 'real me.'  I may post
[ a summary of responses, but identities will be held confidential.

   >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.

Don't you see?  Cyberspace doesn't belong to any one person; none of
us can stake a claim to any part of it.  Anyone who does so is both
uninformed and egotistical.  Take a look at the List of Lists, the
compendium of publicly accessible mailing lists.  *Very* few of them
are managed/controlled by "well-known net personalities"; the vast
majority of list owners are just regular folks.

Some say that the cost of net access are too high for women/minorities
to participate; I cannot agree with that perception any longer.  These
economic arguments against net.participation no longer hold water; if
there is a site within local calling distance, one can establish a
Cyberspace presence for less than $500 (a 286 PC and a modem).  A quick
glance at the UUCP maps shows that the following systems are being used
as net sites:
   IBM PC/AT, PC/XT
   Apple Macintosh Plus
   Amiga 500
   Atari 1040
   Tandy Color Computer, TRS-80
   AT&T 6300, 3B1, 3B2/310
If you can't pick up one of these systems for under $500, you aren't
trying hard enough; I have seen some of these for sale at $200 and
below.  Software exists that simply 'drops in place'; very little
technical expertise is required.

In conclusion, I cannot dispute the fact that there are many obnoxious,
offensive people on the net.  However, I refuse to accept the notion
that computer-mediated communication is significantly different from
any other free speech forum.  I believe that the current rush of gender
issues in CMC -- from 'computer porn' to 'chilling effect' to 'old boy
networks' -- are merely a reflection of the growing expanse of Cyber-
space.  I have yet to see evidence of *any* bias which is unique to
computer-mediated communication.  In fact, I submit that CMC provides
better opportunities to respond to (or ignore) offensive material.  I
readily grant that CMC is far more direct (and timely) than almost any
other form of group communication; however, the problems are neither
based in nor reparable from a computational perspective.

Fix the message, not the medium.

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