North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: net-loss (was RE: attention net-grrls)

  • From: Rich Sena
  • Date: Sun Jun 11 06:42:39 2000

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! - [email protected]

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            [email protected]
> Visit SoundAmerica
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:58 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> 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.