| gabriel rosenkoetter on Mon, 12 May 2003 23:41:06 -0400 |
|
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 09:06:25PM -0400, Chris Hedemark wrote: > I was in another LUG that had a pretty surprising number of lady > members, and one of these things got started in that area. It siphoned > off all but a couple of our female members, and then when that group > went away the ladies never found their way back to the main LUG. Um. There's room for subgroups, don't'cha think? And intersecting groups? A whole Venn Diagram of Unix-like operating system interest groups? I mean, there's already PADS, phl.pm... and those folks SHOW UP at meetings, Chris. On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 10:22:23PM -0400, Paul wrote: > Not that it counts, but I have mixed feelings about the concept of such > an exclusive group. Exclusive, bah. Separate for interests or methods of expression common to the small group but distinct from the large, perhaps. PLUG's had meatspace attendence upwards of 30, and the mailing list is *way* larger than that. There's room enough for small pockets of specific interest. I *wouldn't* want to see this sort of thing manipulated into the kind of false-feminism I've seen out of certain women-in-science groups. (This is feminism in label alone that is, in fact, detrimental to women by suggesting they need to be somehow sheltered and protected, which is seldom more true of one gender than t'other and only even less true across the board on the Internet, where, to quote the esteemed Mr. Larson, no one knows you're a dog. That kind of thing leads to separatism, elitism, and irrelevance.) But nothing I see on that web page nor know of the people involved suggests that that's even remotely likely. So, maybe we could avoid bad-mouthing stuff like this that has a chance of being a positive influence given the opportunity? -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgpJ9GFga0m09.pgp
|
|