nanog mailing list archives
Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls)
From: John Fraizer <nanog () EnterZone Net>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 15:18:02 -0400 (EDT)
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
Current thread:
- OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) rdobbins (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Adrian Chadd (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Randy Bush (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) William Allen Simpson (Jun 09)
- RE: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Alexander Kiwerski (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Shawn McMahon (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) John Fraizer (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Ana Susanj (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) John Fraizer (Jun 10)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Ana Susanj (Jun 09)
- RE: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Rachel Luxemburg (Jun 09)
- Re: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Matt Ranney (Jun 10)
- RE: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Rich Sena (Jun 11)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Richard A. Steenbergen (Jun 09)
- Re: OT: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls) Bradley J. Passwaters (Jun 09)