3.503 e-mail, with feminist comment (157)
Willard McCarty (MCCARTY@vm.epas.utoronto.ca)
Wed, 27 Sep 89 17:17:38 EDT
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 3, No. 503. Wednesday, 27 Sep 1989.
(1) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 89 21:00:37 CDT (16 lines)
From: Amanda Catherine Lee <ALEE@MSSTATE>
Subject: JODONNEL about e-mail
(2) Date: Tue, 26 Sep 89 22:43:28 EDT (19 lines)
From: sdm@cs.brown.edu
Subject: Feminist discussion groups
(3) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 89 09:18 EDT (11 lines)
From: "Tom Benson 814-238-5277" <T3B@PSUVM>
Subject: FEMINIST discussion group
(4) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 89 08:48:39 -0400 (29 lines)
From: lang@PRC.Unisys.COM
Subject: nature of e-mail
(5) Date: Wed, 27 Sep 89 10:05:47 EDT (48 lines)
From: Ken Steele <KSTEELE@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: In the privacy of your own home...
(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 89 21:00:37 CDT
From: Amanda Catherine Lee <ALEE@MSSTATE>
Subject: JODONNEL about e-mail
In reply to his comment about the nature of e-mail:
If there isn't a net called FEMINIST, it looks like one needs to be
created! Especially since it appears some subscribers to HUMANIST assume
the -MAN- part of the word excludes those of the opposite sex. Rest
assured, there are a few female humanists out there, and we are EVEN
capable of handling a computer. Even so, I doubt any of us will be
interested in playing the dating game with Mr. O'Donnel after his asinine
remark.
Amanda C. Lee
ALEE@MSSTATE
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------27----
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 89 22:43:28 EDT
From: sdm@cs.brown.edu
Subject: Feminist discussion groups
I don't know what kinds of discussion groups exist on Bitnet, but Usenet
certainly has newsgroups for things like feminism. A sample:
soc.feminism
soc.singles
talk.rape
soc.women
alt.sex
soc.men
There are zillions of others.
Scott Meyers
Brown University
sdm@cs.brown.edu
(3) --------------------------------------------------------------16----
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 89 09:18 EDT
From: "Tom Benson 814-238-5277" <T3B@PSUVM>
Subject: FEMINIST discussion group
In response to speculation about whether there is a feminist
discussion group on the network. Yes, actually, there is.
It has been in existence for some years, and is currently moderated
by Heather Emanuel (hxe@rayssd.uucp).
Tom Benson
Penn State
(4) --------------------------------------------------------------48----
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 89 08:48:39 -0400
From: lang@PRC.Unisys.COM
Subject: nature of e-mail
James O'Donnell <JODONNEL@PENNSAS> writes:
> 3. True of e-mail generally and not just HUMANIST: this is not an activity
> anybody would ever get involved in (to put this as crudely as possible) as a
> way to meet girls. That is worrisome. (Unless there is a net called FEMINIST
> whirring away somewhere I don't know about: I hope so.)
I'll ignore Prof. O'Donnell's sexist bent here, but I can't let his
contribution pass without making a few comments of my own. The claim
that electronic mail is not used as a forum for socializing, or of
socializing whose principal intent is meeting girls (or boys, for that
matter), is just plain wrong. I personally know several people who
have formed significant relationships with e-mail correspondents whom
they originally "met" electronically. Perhaps O'D just
doesn't know what he's missing! The simple fact is that electronic
communication, including both e-mail and electronic bboards such as
USENET newsgroups, is a very viable forum for forming friendships and
"relationships" (for the right sort of person). Also, if O'D is looking
for "a net called FEMINIST", he should look into the soc.* USENET
newsgroups, including soc.singles, soc.feminism, soc.couples,
soc.singles, soc.men and soc.women.
--Francois Lang
(5) --------------------------------------------------------------56----
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 89 10:05:47 EDT
From: Ken Steele <KSTEELE@vm.epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: In the privacy of your own home...
Surely the ability to correspond in whatever state of (un)dress
one desires is not new with electronic mail. The telephone, the
typewriter, and the quill pen all share that virtue (vice?). Many
Humanists no doubt compose their contributions in the same word-
processor they use for more conventional publications (certainly I
do).
E-mail correspondence can be carried on between two parties
who have never met face to face, but I have often been in that
situation when writing conventional letters too. The revolutionary
element of e-mail, it seems to me, is that reasoned, well-written
correspondence can now be transmitted with the speed of a
telephone call. The nature of my correspondence has not changed,
but its frequency has. Kentucky is now as close as Etobicoke (or
vice-versa, for many of you).
Moderated electronic forums such as Humanist are essentially,
whether we like it or not, a new form of scholarly journal. Back
issues are preserved in at least one repository, and a global
readership is developing. One difference is the immediacy with
which submissions are published: there are no typescript, proofs,
binderies, or distribution routes. More crucial is the immediacy of
response: all readers are potential contributors, and because a single
function key addresses and mails a reply, the readership is more
active than that of more conventional journals (compare the
circulation figures with the letters pages of the _Times Literary
Supplement_, or _Shakespeare Quarterly_).
Perhaps the speed, ease, and affordability of e-mail are its
primary differences: the trouble of hard copy, envelopes and stamps,
coupled with the lengthy delivery time, discourages me from
responding to most publications in writing.
Ken Steele
University of Toronto
P.S.
Why do so many people dislike reading books on-screen,
anyway? I find it easier than reading from bound books, as well as
considerably faster. Perhaps I'm just part of a new generation whose
attention span is greater when its attention is directed toward an
electronic box?