nanog mailing list archives
RE: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls)
From: "Rachel Luxemburg" <rslux () link-net com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 13:33:26 -0700
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.
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)