OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls)
Gee, I thought that IP, BGP, DNS, ACLs, and so on worked the same for women as for men. One of the main reasons I'm on this list is to learn from the experiences and expertise of others - male -and- female. You're of course free to do as you wish, but I personally think the whole idea of a 'Women in Networking' list is absurd, revanchist, and sexist (to use the politically correct terminology currently in vogue amongst those who claim to be striving for 'equality', yet who seem to do everything they can to claim that they themselves have 'special needs' and so on, which of course undermines the rationale their supposedly egalitarian agenda). Technology works the same for everyone, regardless of gender, race, creed, or color; that's one of the beautiful things about it. Consciously erecting artificial boundaries where none need exist strikes me as being laughably archaic, and ultimately counterproductive. But, hey, what do I know? After all, I'm just a member of the oppressive patriachy, dedicated to keeping females barefoot, naked, and in the wiring-closet, right? Talk about your stereotyping. Sorry for the rant, but this sort of thing strikes me as being inimical to the spirit of the Net in general, and this list in particular. I'll shut up, now. --------------------------------------------------------------- Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@netmore.net> // 818.535.5024 voice -----Original Message----- From: abha [mailto:ahuja@wibh.net] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 1:56 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: attention net-grrls Hi NANOG! Sorry for the spam, but this seemed like the best place to post this message.... :) Some of us have been talking about this for years.... And it has been a long time in the making, but it is finally here... A mailing list for Women in Networking... Whoohoo... :) I hope this list develops into a useful forum and resource for all of us... A place to discuss, network, complain, vent, coordinate... Whatever... :) Thanks to many gracious folks, this list is now possible (Thanks, Steve. Thanks, Paul. And to my co-conspirators... Hi Cathy! Hi Eve!) Send "subscribe net-grrls" to Majordomo@wibh.net Please send me any comments, complaints, etc.... //abha ;)
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000, rdobbins@netmore.net wrote:
Gee, I thought that IP, BGP, DNS, ACLs, and so on worked the same for women as for men.
One of the main reasons I'm on this list is to learn from the experiences and expertise of others - male -and- female.
You're of course free to do as you wish, but I personally think the whole idea of a 'Women in Networking' list is absurd, revanchist, and sexist (to use the politically correct terminology currently in vogue amongst those who claim to be striving for 'equality', yet who seem to do everything they can to claim that they themselves have 'special needs' and so on, which of course undermines the rationale their supposedly egalitarian agenda).
Technology works the same for everyone, regardless of gender, race, creed, or color; that's one of the beautiful things about it. Consciously erecting artificial boundaries where none need exist strikes me as being laughably archaic, and ultimately counterproductive.
But, hey, what do I know? After all, I'm just a member of the oppressive patriachy, dedicated to keeping females barefoot, naked, and in the wiring-closet, right? Talk about your stereotyping.
Sorry for the rant, but this sort of thing strikes me as being inimical to the spirit of the Net in general, and this list in particular. I'll shut up, now.
You could argue that all artificial boundaries that exist are counter- prductive. I think the whole point behind this women in networking list is just to create another fun social group. Thats why these lists exist. I doubt that the members of this list are going to conspire against us. Yet. :-P Adrian -- Adrian Chadd Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the <adrian@creative.net.au> rest of the evening. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- rdobbins@netmore.net wrote:
Technology works the same for everyone, regardless of gender, race, creed, or color; that's one of the beautiful things about it. Consciously erecting artificial boundaries where none need exist strikes me as being laughably archaic, and ultimately counterproductive.
While technology works the same for everyone, there's no need to join a mailing list to use technology. We join a mailing list to learn and interact with people. People do not work the same regardless of <attribute>. When I've attended meetings, I've seen that the vast majority of participants are white males. It seems reasonable to expect that those without the same immutable characteristics might feel different or even excluded. Although several of the outstanding leaders in our field have been female (kc, Radia, Sally, the Sues of Merit, etc. etc. etc.), those who desire to follow in their footsteps may very well join together for mutual encouragement and mentoring. In which case, joining another list or organization for "networking" with each other might be a stimulus to greater productivity. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.1 iQCVAwUBOUEsEdm/qMj6R+sxAQH8YQP+PHh23+bKIODpUgqsgDkk4BehWxzaR+sP K3r/KxvIs/X3wx8u+xyepZbzyLGbLNXFwkz1IKuSEaZwLEWUCgCmoxBMCpvoZHWP T4J/pHs5/VKuqVD4XlDVvwTmdqqEhYMFrDbGnlKF0hmcpveb8olEIxrtPtP0n8x6 Z8umH1cipPg= =qCS9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I believe the simple fact that the existence of a "women in networking" mailing list is being debated in any way, shape or form speaks volumes in and of itself............. ========================== Alexander Kiwerski Senior Network Engineer Winstar Network Operations - West Desk: 206-574-3121 Fax: 206-574-3055 -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of William Allen Simpson Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 10:41 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- rdobbins@netmore.net wrote:
Technology works the same for everyone, regardless of gender, race, creed, or color; that's one of the beautiful things about it. Consciously erecting artificial boundaries where none need exist strikes me as being laughably archaic, and ultimately counterproductive.
While technology works the same for everyone, there's no need to join a mailing list to use technology. We join a mailing list to learn and interact with people. People do not work the same regardless of <attribute>. When I've attended meetings, I've seen that the vast majority of participants are white males. It seems reasonable to expect that those without the same immutable characteristics might feel different or even excluded. Although several of the outstanding leaders in our field have been female (kc, Radia, Sally, the Sues of Merit, etc. etc. etc.), those who desire to follow in their footsteps may very well join together for mutual encouragement and mentoring. In which case, joining another list or organization for "networking" with each other might be a stimulus to greater productivity. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.1 iQCVAwUBOUEsEdm/qMj6R+sxAQH8YQP+PHh23+bKIODpUgqsgDkk4BehWxzaR+sP K3r/KxvIs/X3wx8u+xyepZbzyLGbLNXFwkz1IKuSEaZwLEWUCgCmoxBMCpvoZHWP T4J/pHs5/VKuqVD4XlDVvwTmdqqEhYMFrDbGnlKF0hmcpveb8olEIxrtPtP0n8x6 Z8umH1cipPg= =qCS9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 01:41:10PM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
When I've attended meetings, I've seen that the vast majority of participants are white males. It seems reasonable to expect that those without the same immutable characteristics might feel different or even excluded.
And making a new list will make them less excluded? Seems to me it involves codifying their exclusion.
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 rdobbins@netmore.net wrote:
Gee, I thought that IP, BGP, DNS, ACLs, and so on worked the same for women as for men.
No. When it doesn't work for a man, we scream "BITCH!" When it doesn't work for a woman, they scream "BASTARD!" I know it's a subtle difference but, it's STILL a difference.
You're of course free to do as you wish, but I personally think the whole idea of a 'Women in Networking' list is absurd, revanchist, and sexist (to use the politically correct terminology currently in vogue amongst those who claim to be striving for 'equality', yet who seem to do everything they can to claim that they themselves have 'special needs' and so on, which of course undermines the rationale their supposedly egalitarian agenda).
Wow dude. They're going to be pissed at you. You used their words against them! Watch out! They have those black helicopters you know!
Technology works the same for everyone, regardless of gender, race, creed, or color; that's one of the beautiful things about it.
Not true. Ever see what a G-suit does to a woman? *EVERY* girl can have a chest that would make the baywatch girls green with envy if they're willing to endure a few G's. (OK. More than a few but, it's still pretty cool and it does NOT work the same on men!)
Consciously erecting artificial boundaries where none need exist strikes me as being laughably archaic, and ultimately counterproductive.
Dude, you said "erecting"... uh-huh uh-huh-huh-huh ... cool...
But, hey, what do I know? After all, I'm just a member of the oppressive patriachy, dedicated to keeping females barefoot, naked, and in the wiring-closet, right? Talk about your stereotyping.
Talk about your visual... I prefer to have them answer the NOC phones with that voice that noone can really explain but everyone knows about. If there's a problem on the other end, they forget about it while they fumble for their credit card or whatever they're fumbling with. If there's not a problem, it's not likely that they mind anyway. Only joking. We don't have any female employees. But, I know where to find them now. <grin>
up, now.
Isn't that special. <grin> Sorry. Couldn't resist. Send complaints for this obvious "meant in fun" email to: Majordomo@wibh.net Please include the identifier "subscribe net-grrls" at the beginning of the message. ---- John
* John Fraizer (nanog@EnterZone.Net) [000609 21:22]: :) :) :)On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 rdobbins@netmore.net wrote: :) :)Not true. Ever see what a G-suit does to a woman? *EVERY* girl can have :)a chest that would make the baywatch girls green with envy if they're :)willing to endure a few G's. (OK. More than a few but, it's still pretty :)cool and it does NOT work the same on men!) I must find out what these things are and where to get them from :) as for the rest of the email, *laugh* I agree with what Roland wrote though. By making a females-only list, 'grrrrls' seem to only be alienating themselves from the 'men' when I thought the whole point of the feminist movement was to have equal rights and be able to share thoughts.. ana. -- ~ it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out ~ it doesn't matter much to me ~ Strawberry Fields Forever ~
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Ana Susanj wrote:
* John Fraizer (nanog@EnterZone.Net) [000609 21:22]: :) :) :)On Fri, 9 Jun 2000 rdobbins@netmore.net wrote: :) :)Not true. Ever see what a G-suit does to a woman? *EVERY* girl can have :)a chest that would make the baywatch girls green with envy if they're :)willing to endure a few G's. (OK. More than a few but, it's still pretty :)cool and it does NOT work the same on men!)
I must find out what these things are and where to get them from :)
Ana, G-suits are "equilization" suits that are typically worn by fighter pilots. When a pilot pulls positive G forces (N+ "G's" or Gravity x N) the suite squeazes their legs to force the blood into their upper torso, hopefully preventing what is referred to as grayout and in worst cases, blackout. (Your brain doesn't have any blood/oxygen so, it blue-screens, hopefully, not the blue screan of death.) The phenomenon of what it does to females is a closely guarded secret and I doubt that it will ever catch on in mainstream fashion because I'm quite sure that the pain I endured was far above that endured by wearing a WonderBra.
as for the rest of the email, *laugh*
Great. I was hoping not to offend anyone with a little Friday afternoon humor. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
Until you've spent a couple of years being the only woman in the room at meetings and other business events, you really don't understand how different the feeling is to be someplace, even virtually, where everyone is like you. I suspect that men who hold or have held jobs in overwhelmingly female fields have the best chance of grokking this issue. Or, of course, other minorities (you could count the number of black employees at my employer's HQ on one hand). If you feel threatened or offended by the fact that some women feel a need to have some space for themselves, I'm sorry for you. But to call it sexist or counterproductive just shows how little you understand the issue. ============================================== Rachel Luxemburg rslux@link-net.com Visit SoundAmerica http://soundamerica.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of rdobbins@netmore.net Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:58 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: ahuja@wibh.net Subject: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Gee, I thought that IP, BGP, DNS, ACLs, and so on worked the same for women as for men. One of the main reasons I'm on this list is to learn from the experiences and expertise of others - male -and- female. You're of course free to do as you wish, but I personally think the whole idea of a 'Women in Networking' list is absurd, revanchist, and sexist (to use the politically correct terminology currently in vogue amongst those who claim to be striving for 'equality', yet who seem to do everything they can to claim that they themselves have 'special needs' and so on, which of course undermines the rationale their supposedly egalitarian agenda). Technology works the same for everyone, regardless of gender, race, creed, or color; that's one of the beautiful things about it. Consciously erecting artificial boundaries where none need exist strikes me as being laughably archaic, and ultimately counterproductive. But, hey, what do I know? After all, I'm just a member of the oppressive patriachy, dedicated to keeping females barefoot, naked, and in the wiring-closet, right? Talk about your stereotyping. Sorry for the rant, but this sort of thing strikes me as being inimical to the spirit of the Net in general, and this list in particular. I'll shut up, now.
Ya know I thought of trying to snap off yet another funny quip, quiping is of course what I do best (well there are other things but typing gets.... nevermind) , and to my dismay I actually thought about what she and later Danielle were saying - and then I parsed the list of female co-workers I've had in the field to date (no pun - cut it out now - man this serious stuff is killing me - so much *good* material here - so much immaturity wasted on this serious stuff - anyway...) I thought of each of them and to be honest I can only recall 1 or 2 that was really *any* good (what definitions I'm using for good actually seems to be the problem here that we're all missing). However as I sat down and hummed my 'Opressions, suppression, it's OK...' mantra at my keboard - I then also parsed the men that I have worked with/hired - and to be honest they weren't all that much better - especially if dismissed the way that some of the grrls ( to borrow the term) were, and if applied to that same moshed up definition I tried to use whenI parsed the ladies... Cmon lets be honest - the same tags get applied - though the linguistics change - our terms were just as stoopid as any other of the Nerdolution's: the ole booth babe at trade shows, one of my favortie has always been 'pincushion' (you do the math) - but the point is I'm leaning toward these 'grrls' as having a point here - they have had it rougher than the us over thirty stalky pony-railed red-heads... and all the rest of you neo-hippie wanna-be's too... they started out in the hole catching deuces (man I love using that line in a sentence) - sure we usually trash the new *guy* but at some point the new *guy* becomes one of the company squaler - but the new *grrrl* is usually not allowed in all the reindeer games (mostly because they invlove the gents huddled around the big NOC monitor critiquing the latest mpeg - ah to be young, dumb and full of gum... Man am I an hr nightmare - this actually set out to make a point... Anyway - keep the faith sistahhhhs... -- I am nothing if not net-Q! - ras@poppa.thick.net On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Rachel Luxemburg wrote:
Until you've spent a couple of years being the only woman in the room at meetings and other business events, you really don't understand how different the feeling is to be someplace, even virtually, where everyone is like you.
I suspect that men who hold or have held jobs in overwhelmingly female fields have the best chance of grokking this issue. Or, of course, other minorities (you could count the number of black employees at my employer's HQ on one hand).
If you feel threatened or offended by the fact that some women feel a need to have some space for themselves, I'm sorry for you. But to call it sexist or counterproductive just shows how little you understand the issue.
============================================== Rachel Luxemburg rslux@link-net.com Visit SoundAmerica http://soundamerica.com
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of rdobbins@netmore.net Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:58 AM To: nanog@merit.edu Cc: ahuja@wibh.net Subject: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls)
Gee, I thought that IP, BGP, DNS, ACLs, and so on worked the same for women as for men.
One of the main reasons I'm on this list is to learn from the experiences and expertise of others - male -and- female.
You're of course free to do as you wish, but I personally think the whole idea of a 'Women in Networking' list is absurd, revanchist, and sexist (to use the politically correct terminology currently in vogue amongst those who claim to be striving for 'equality', yet who seem to do everything they can to claim that they themselves have 'special needs' and so on, which of course undermines the rationale their supposedly egalitarian agenda).
Technology works the same for everyone, regardless of gender, race, creed, or color; that's one of the beautiful things about it. Consciously erecting artificial boundaries where none need exist strikes me as being laughably archaic, and ultimately counterproductive.
But, hey, what do I know? After all, I'm just a member of the oppressive patriachy, dedicated to keeping females barefoot, naked, and in the wiring-closet, right? Talk about your stereotyping.
Sorry for the rant, but this sort of thing strikes me as being inimical to the spirit of the Net in general, and this list in particular. I'll shut up, now.
participants (10)
-
Adrian Chadd -
Alexander Kiwerski -
Ana Susanj -
John Fraizer -
Rachel Luxemburg -
Randy Bush -
rdobbins＠netmore.net -
Rich Sena -
Shawn McMahon -
William Allen Simpson