Internet Surfer 2.0/Internet Surfer 2.0 (Wayzata Technology) (1996).iso/pc/text/mac/faqs.266

Text File | 1996-02-12 | 28KB | 604 lines

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQS);faqs.266



Papers never sensationalize or distort, so be sure to point out things
like racism and sexism wherever they might exist.  Be sure as well
that they understand that all things on the net, particularly insults,
are meant literally.  Link what transpires on the net to the causes of
the Holocaust, if possible.  If regular papers won't take the story,
go to a tabloid paper -- they are always interested in good stories.

By arranging all this free publicity for the net, you'll become very
well known.  People on the net will wait in eager anticipation for
your every posting, and refer to you constantly.  You'll get more mail
than you ever dreamed possible -- the ultimate in net success.

                ------
Q: What does foobar stand for?

A: It stands for you, dear.
--
Gene Spafford
Software Engineering Research Center & Dept. of Computer Sciences
Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-1398
Internet:  [e-mail]    phone:  [phone]
Xref: bloom-picayune.mit.edu soc.feminism:5679 news.answers:4641
Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism,news.answers
Subject: soc.feminism Information
Supersedes: <feminism/[e-mail]>
Followup-To: poster
Date: 17 Dec 1992 06:02:13 GMT
Organization: University of California at Irvine: ICS Dept.
Lines: 312
Sender: tittle
Approved: [e-mail],[e-mail]
Expires: 25 Jan 1993 06:02:10 GMT
Message-ID: <feminism/[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: pit-manager.mit.edu
X-Last-Updated: 1992/08/06

Archive-name: feminism/info
Version: 1.4
Last-modified: 6 August 1992

This is an informational post about the newsgroup soc.feminism.
It is posted every 25 days.

Copies of this FAQ may be obtained by anonymous ftp to
pit-manager.mit.edu (18.172.1.27) under
/pub/usenet/news.answers/feminism/info.  Or, send email to
[e-mail] with the subject line "send
usenet/news.answers/feminism/info", leaving the body of the message
empty.

Summary of changes: Some further elaboration in the guidelines for
submission.  An explanation of the implications of multiple
moderation.


  History of soc.feminism

    This group was formed in late 1989.  There was considerable
    debate over the subject matter of the group, who would be allowed
    to post, who would moderate, and what the name of the group would
    be.  There was a large contingent of people who were afraid that
    the purpose of soc.feminism would be to provide a women-only
    feminist-supportive environment, and they ensured that the charter
    of soc.feminism would allow pro-feminist and anti-feminist views,
    and be open to both women and men.  In the end, four moderators
    were selected to moderate the group.

    As for the name of the group, it was nearly named talk.feminism,
    but soc.feminism won out.  The decision was somewhat political, as
    it was felt that more sites carried soc. groups than talk. groups.

    It turns out that the subject matter of the group has evolved
    toward a basic assumption of the notion that women deserve a basic
    equality with men, with the disagreement focused on how to best
    achieve that, or the prices we pay for a certain route.
    Unfortunately, many of _these_ disagreements overwhelm the group
    at times, and we are working on ways to tone this down without
    invalidating different reader's points of views.  On the other
    hand, it has not been a battleground over whether or not women
    should be considered equal with men, and it is not likely to
    become one.  Women and men both of diverse views have always been
    welcome to post.

    The original proposer of soc.feminism was Patricia Roberts, who
    collected the votes, worked with Greg Woods to set up a program
    allowing multiple moderators and chose the initial moderators.  We
    were the first multiply moderated group: soc.religion.islam and
    rec.arts.sf.reviews have followed suit.

    The four original moderators of soc.feminism were Cindy Tittle
    [Moore], Miriam H.  Nadel, Jean Marie Diaz and Valerie Maslak.
    Valerie dropped out about a year later when faced with increasing
    net-connection trouble.  Jean Marie Diaz has been inactive since
    the summer of 1991.  Muffy Barkocy became a new moderator in
    December of 1991, and we are keeping our eyes open for at least
    one more (send email to [e-mail] if
    interested).

  Soc.feminism FAQ's

    Soc.feminism publishes several FAQ's (Frequently Asked Questions)
    on a monthly basis (this posting is one of them).  The others are
    FAQ's on: References (books and articles on feminism, in three
    parts), Terminologies (descriptions of different "kinds" of
    feminism, esp.  as used in this newsgroup), and Resources (a
    compilation of various organizations and groups of, for, and by,
    women).  Two more: a history of feminism and a discussion of
    violence, are in the works.

    To obtain these FAQs, ftp to pit-manager.mit.edu (18.172.1.27) and
    look under /pub/usenet/news.answers/feminism.  If you cannot use
    ftp, send email to the mail server at
    [e-mail] with no subject line, and any
    combinantion of the lines below (select the ones to get the FAQ's
    you're interested in) in the body of your message.

      send usenet/news.answers/feminism/info
      send usenet/news.answers/feminism/terms
      send usenet/news.answers/feminism/resources
      send usenet/news.answers/feminism/refs1
      send usenet/news.answers/feminism/refs2
      send usenet/news.answers/feminism/refs3

    Note that you must repeat the full path name for each included line.

  Digest

    There is a digest version of soc.feminism available.  Write to
    [e-mail] for details or to subscribe.  It is
    mailed out about once a week or so depending on volume and
    consists of what has been posted (no editing).  This is NOT
    automated; you are sending email to a person at feminism-digest.

  Submissions and Requests addresses

    To submit an article to soc.feminism, post as you normally do for
    other, non-moderated groups.  This should work for most people.
    If you have trouble with this, email the article to
    [e-mail].  This will treat it exactly as any other
    article posted to soc.feminism (in fact, this is the address that
    your newsreader should email the intercepted article to).  If you
    have questions about the group, you can send your questions to
    [e-mail].  This address will forward your
    mail to all active moderators (moderators take vacations, too).
    Please do not send email specifically to any one moderator unless
    you have been requested to do so, as email addresses may change.

  General Guidelines for submission

    You should first note that these guidelines are just that.  They
    cannot precisely spell out exactly what will be accepted and what
    will be rejected.  Much can depend on context, for example.  In
    addition, there are always new takes on topics, and a set of
    guidelines could not hope to enumerate them all.  That said, there
    are some specific constraints noted below, and as other problems
    appear, we will add them here.

    Articles must be relevant to feminism.  They may not contain
    ad-hominem attacks or flames.

    Two topics that are of general feminist interest that are severely
    restricted here are abortion and rape.  This is partly because the
    topics are inherently inflammatory and because there exist
    talk.abortion and talk.rape newsgroups to carry on full-fledged
    debates.  Some discussion *is* allowed, mostly as long as the
    articles are not inflammatory and as long as the primary focus is
    on the topic's relationship with feminism.  Informative articles
    (e.g., about specific groups, or calls for marches, or official
    positions of feminist organizations, etc) are allowed.  You should
    note that while soc.feminism takes no official position on the
    question of rape, the majority of abortion-related articles that
    are approved tend to be pro-choice simply because most of the
    articles submitted are.  This should not be construed to reflect
    the personal opinions of the moderators, or any individual posting
    to soc.feminism.

    Every now and then someone posts a question of the form "This is a
    feminist newsgroup, but I never see any women posting to it!"
    This may or may not be accompanied by a plea for men to reduce
    their posting.  In the first place, simple demographics of USENET
    mean that there are overwhelmingly more men than women with access
    to USENET/email.  The existence, however, of some groups that are
    almost totally female or balanced more 50-50, points to other
    problems than simple demographics.  Many women have complained
    that soc.feminism is still "too hostile" for other women; there
    are undoubtedly many others that refrain from posting because of
    the negative aspects of being labelled or considered a feminist.
    If you are a woman and would like to see more women post, the only
    practical action you can take is ... to post.  The last time this
    question was posted (this topic is now rejected), there were
    responses from many of the regular female posters, and a good
    number of lurkers who were motivated to say that they read the
    group even though they didn't post.  We cannot estimate the number
    of lurkers on this group, but it is probably fairly high.  Asking
    men to refrain from posting is simply unfair, especially given
    USENET's public nature.  There are a number of women-only forums,
    pointers to which appear in the Resources FAQ.

    There are many other topics that flare up into prolonged and
    protracted disagreements.  Chief among these are 1) the question
    of gender neutral language, 2) the actual statistics on
    spouse-beating or other crimes in comparing which gender is "worse
    off," 3) the propriety of "women only" events when "men only" are
    always attacked as sexist (including the question of women-only
    colleges).  These topics have come up many times and most regular
    readers would be appreciative if you check and even read some of
    the references given on these topics in the References post before
    jumping in or starting such a topic.  This gives everybody a
    common basis to discuss from.  While these topics are not
    forbidden, they may be stopped at the moderators' discretion when
    circularity starts to occur.

    The notion of "reasonable discussion" has recently come up on this
    group.  The idea is that the discussions should themselves stay
    reasonable, and overly argumentative dialogues, especially those
    that simply dismiss the points raised by the previous article,
    should be excluded as well.  We are still experimenting with this.

    There have also been arguments that "irrelevant" discussions are
    still pertinent when it is a discussion of a topic from a feminist
    point of view.  Many times when we say that a topic is "drifting,"
    the contention is that it is still relevant to soc.feminism
    because it is a presentation of a feminist point of view on some
    topic.  We have been experimenting with relaxing this also, but it
    helps to clearly delineate a feminist slant on some topic to get
    it past the moderators.

    The subject of homosexuality is relatively sensitive.  We will not
    post anything we deem homophobic.  Many articles on or about
    lesbianism are considered relevant to feminism because of the
    close association between feminism and lesbianism.  Articles about
    gay males are accepted if there is a clear relevance to feminism
    present.  Here's a check list:
      * Gay rights alone are structurally similar to women's rights,
        black rights, minority rights.  They may be acceptable (as
        would black or minority rights articles) if there are
        parallels drawn with feminism or some other clearly drawn
        link.
      * Because much of the theory of patriarchy revolves around how
        female sexuality is directed and used for the benefit of the
        patriarchy, Lesbianism is a direct challenge to the
        patriarchy.  Therefore most articles on Lesbianism are relevant.
      * Anti-gay rhetoric is not acceptable.  Calm and reasoned
        arguments against homosexuality is not acceptable.
        Soc.feminism is not a forum for whether or not homosexuality
        is "right" or "wrong."

    If the post includes private email, be sure to obtain that
    individual's permission before posting it.  There are no legal
    rules about this (yet), but it is requested as part of general
    net.etiquette for this group.

    If you are posting material that may be copyrighted, please give
    all information about where it comes from.  Partial quotes,
    newspaper articles, book blurbs and the like are generally OK, but
    with full source information, we can decide whether such postings
    potentially infringe copyright law.  We will not post articles
    that violate copyright law: examples include entire newspaper or
    magazine articles, or substantial portions of books.  A review
    that extensively quotes such a source is OK, a commentary on such
    a source without as much quoting is better.

    Posting pointers alone to discussions in other groups is not
    generally allowed.  However, a discussion of such a thread in
    another group is perfectly fine, eg, summarizing the discussion
    and adding your thoughts to it.  Remember that we do not crosspost
    any soc.feminism articles.

    Finally, please edit out all unnecessary quoted text and pay
    attention to your attributions.  We have done some ourselves when
    it seemed necessary, but we do not feel that this should be part
    of our job.  Therefore, your article may be returned with a
    request to streamline it if you do not take care to remove old
    signatures, excess text, unrelated points and the like.

  Multiple Moderation

    This group is moderated by several moderators, each working
    independently.  Submissions are sent to [e-mail],
    where one current moderator is selected, and the article forwarded
    to that moderator only.  This means that there is some variation
    in what is approved or not, since there is inherent individual
    variation between different people.  We do try to minimize this
    variation by consulting with each other on the occassional,
    problematic, article.  However, the whole purpose of multiple
    moderation is to reduce the load on any one individual, therefore
    we do not consult each other over every posting we get.  Please
    keep this in mind if you have a complaint which may be related to
    this.

  Anonymous Posting

    We have posted articles anonymously for contributors before.  In
    general, you must satisfy us that you have a good reason for
    remaining anonymous.  You will not be anonymous to the moderators,
    but your article will be posted without identifying material if we
    consent to posting it anonymously.  For articles that you wish to
    be posted anonymously, you must preface it with your request and
    your reasons for the request.  We will not post it if we think
    that your reasons are insufficient or deceitful; you will be
    informed via email of the decision.  In any case, your identity
    will be kept confidential.

    Mail "handles" are not considered anonymous; anonymity is when
    there is no email address available to reach the person who posted
    the article.  Soc.feminism has no policy regarding the common
    practice of using a fanciful name or nickname instead of the real
    name in the "handle" field.

  Editorial Policy

    If the moderator who receives your article thinks that it is
    generally OK if it is somewhat edited, you will get your article
    back with comments.  At this point, you can change it and send it
    back directly to that moderator.  If you feel that changes are
    unreasonable, you can appeal to the feminism-request address.
    Articles that are rejected receive a "rejection notice"; again if
    you think it was unfounded, drop a note to feminism-request.  If
    you sent an article and it has not appeared nor have you received
    email about it, you may wish to enquire via feminism-request.  Do
    keep in mind, though, that articles may sit for a while;
    moderators do not necessarily check their mail over the weekends,
    and that site connectivity may mean that your site will not
    receive your article from the moderator's site within the time you
    expect.  However, email is not perfect and has been known to send
    mail into giant black holes, so bear with us.

    Minor modifications may be made to articles that have lines that
    are too long, have their attributions mixed up, or quote excessive
    material.  Moderators will occasionally inject their comments,
    usually to the effect of advising people where followups are going
    to, warning of topic drift, or some other explanatory note.  Any
    further modifications are always after consultation with the
    original author as described in the previous paragraph.

--------------

Please mail in comments, additions, corrections, suggestions, and so
on to [e-mail].

Thank you,

--Cindy Tittle Moore

"The last thing feminism is about is exclusion.  Feminists can be
defined as those women and men who recognize that the earth doesn't
revolve around anybody's son---or around any one group."
  -- Regina Barreca, _They Used to Call Me Snow White...But I Drifted_
Xref: bloom-picayune.mit.edu soc.feminism:5682 news.answers:4644
Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!senator-bedfellow.mit.edu!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism,news.answers
Subject: soc.feminism References (part 1 of 3)
Supersedes: <feminism/[e-mail]>
Followup-To: poster
Date: 17 Dec 1992 06:02:30 GMT
Organization: University of California at Irvine: ICS Dept.
Lines: 1406
Sender: tittle
Approved: [e-mail],[e-mail]
Expires: 25 Jan 1993 06:02:10 GMT
Message-ID: <feminism/[e-mail]>
References: <feminism/[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
NNTP-Posting-Host: pit-manager.mit.edu
X-Last-Updated: 1992/08/06

Archive-name: feminism/refs1
Version: 2.3
Last-modified: 6 August 1992

This posting contains useful feminist references for the newsgroup
soc.feminism.

Copies of this FAQ may be obtained by anonymous ftp to
pit-manager.mit.edu (18.172.1.27) under
/pub/usenet/news.answers/feminism/refs1.  Or, send email to
[e-mail] with the subject line "send
usenet/news.answers/feminism/refs1", leaving the body of the message
empty.  To get the other two parts, substitute refs2 and refs3 for
refs1 above.

Summary of changes:
Marked with |'s at beginning of lines.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Prologue.

 1.  Academia and Sciences.
 2.  Families and Work.
 3.  Feminism and Psychology.
     (incl. sexualization, socialization, gender roles).
 4.  Education.
 5.  Feminist Theory and Overviews.
 6.  Folklore.
 7.  Gendered Communication and Language.
 8.  Gender Differences.
[9-16 continued in part II, 17-24 continued in part III]


Prologue.
---------

This post contains commonly cited and/or useful references on various
topics that come up in this newsgroup.  Because of the nature of these
discussions, it is helpful if you are familiar with at least some of
the materials listed under the topic.  This is NOT a "You Must Read
Every Book On This List Before Participating In Soc.feminism" mandate,
but be aware that some familiarity with books on a particular topic
makes the ensuing discussion less frustrating for our regular readers
who have seen many similar discussions before.

**********************************************************************
** In particular, if you have a question along the lines of "What   **
** can you tell me about <topic>?" you would do better to check the **
** sources listed here first before trying to garner explanations   **
** over the newsgroup.                                              **
**********************************************************************

This list is undergoing continual modification and I welcome
additional references for inclusion.  In particular, I would like a
wide variety of feminist opinion on each topic.  I would also like
your input on what "must reads" should be included under particular
topics.  Most of these books focus on feminism in the US; I would love
more references to Canadian, British, European, Asian, African and
Latin American feminism.  If you have any corrections to point out, by
all means, let me know if I've misspelled names or misattributed
works.

References marked with an asterisk are incomplete entries that I was
unable to verify in the on-line catalogue.  In most cases, I think
these are references to articles in magazines or books.  Any help with
these would be appreciated.

Disclaimer: The presence of any particular book in here does not
necessarily reflect my views.  There are often short blurbs
contributed by many people along with the references; no guarantee is
made as to their accuracy.  If you wish to comment on any entry in
here, please feel free to do so.

I hope you are inspired to pick up any of these works and start reading!


1.  Academia and Sciences.
--------------------------

1989 National Survey of Women Engineers, The Cooper Union.
Available on request from the Albert Nerken School of Engineering, 51
Astor Place, New York, NY 10003.

"Survey of Graduate Students", Presidential Committee on Women
Students Interests, Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1987.

"A Celebration of Women in Science," _Discover_, December 1991.
    Contains eleven profiles of successful women in a wide range of
    fields including Donna Cox in computer graphics.  This is a great
    thing for us to read, to get young women and girls to read or to
    give as a gift to anyone you'd like to know about what women are
    doing.

"Still a 'Chilly Climate' for Women?"  _Science_, pp 1604-1606.  June
21, 1991.
    Discusses the situation for women in physics and astronomy.  It
    includes some pipeline statistics and results of a survey on the
    kinds of discrimination women perceive and men notice.  Summary:
    blatant discrimination isn't so much a problem as a "pattern of
    micro-inequalities".

_Notices of the American Mathematical Society_.  No. 7, Sept. 1991.
    A special issue on women in mathematics.  A variety of issues are
    covered.

"Women and Computing", _Communications of the ACM_,  ( Nov. 1990
vol. 33, no. 11.).

"Women in Science and Engineering", Sept-Oct 1991 issue of the
"American Scientist" (published by the Sigma Xi Scientific Society)
(pp. 404-419).

Abramson, Joan.  _Discrimination in the Academic Profession_.
Jossey-Bass, Inc.,  San Francisco.  1975.

Aisenberg, Nadya and Mona Harrington.  _Women in Academe: Outsiders in
the Sacred Grove_.  University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst. 1988.

Baum, Eleanor, "Recruiting and Graduating Women: The
Underrepresented Student",  IEEE Communications Magazine,
December 1990, 47-50.

Bernstein, D, "Comfort and experience with computing:  are they the
same for men and women?", SIGCSE, 23(3), 1990.

Bernstein, D, "Understanding spreadsheets: Effects of computer
training on mental model acquisition", _Proceedings of the American
Society for Information Science Conference_, 164-172, 1990.

Betz, Nancy E, "What stops women and minorities from choosing and
completing majors in science and engineering", edited transcript of a
Science and Public Policy Seminar given on June 15, 1990.  Copies can
be obtained from the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and
Cognitive Sciences, 1200 Seventeenth St., N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036. [phone], fax no: [phone], bitnet address: fed@gwuvm.

Bruer, John T., Jonathan R. Cole, and Harriet Zuckermann.  _The Outer
Circle: Women in the Scientific Community_.  W. W. Norton & Co, New
York. 1991, 351 pp.
    Presents the status of women in science today, as well as the
    reasons for this standing.

Brush, Stephen G. "Women in Science and Engineering", _American
Scientist_ 79, (Sep-Oct).404-419, 1991.
    This is an ambitious article.  In about 12 pages (not including
    the list of 102 references), Stephen Brush discusses factors
    relevant to young girls through senior professionals, across a
    wide range of scientific disciplines.

Butcher, D. and W. Muth. "Predicting performance in an introductory
computer science course", _Communications of the ACM_, 27(11), 263-
268, 1985.

Campbell, P. and G. McCabe.  "Predicting the success of freshmen in a
computer science major", _Communications of the ACM_, 27(11), 1108-
1113, 1984.

Casserly, Patricia Lund.  "Helping Able Young Women Take Math and
Science Seriously in School", The College Board, New York. 1979.
Reprinted, with revisions, from Colangelo Zaffrann, ed., _New Voices
in Counseling the Gifted_. Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque,
Iowa.  1979.

Dambrot, F., M. Watkins-Malek, S. Silling, R. Marshall, and J. Garver.
"Correlates of sex differences in attitudes toward and involvement
with computers", _Journal of Vocational Behavior_, 27, 71-86, 1985.

Dijkstra, E. "On the cruelty of really teaching computer science",
_Communications of the ACM_, 32(12), 1397-1414, 1989.

Erkut, Sumru. "Exploring Sex Differences in Expectancy, Attribution,
and Academic Achievement", _Sex Roles: A Journal of Research_, 9
(1983) 217-231.

Ernest, John. "Mathematics and Sex", _The American Mathematics
Monthly_, October 1976, 83:595-615.

Ferry, Georgina and Jane Moore. "True Confessions of Women in
Science",  _New Scientist_ 95 (July 1, 1982), 27-30.

Fidell, L. S. "Empirical Verification of Sex Discrimination in Hiring
Practices in Psychology", in R. K. Unger and F. L. Denmark, eds.,
_Women: Dependent or Independent Variable_ Psychological Dimensions,
New York. 1975.

Franklin, Phyllis, et al. "Sexual and Gender Harassment in the
Academy: A Guide for Faculty, Students and Administrators",
Commission on the Status of Women in the Profession, The Modern
Language Association of America, New York, NY. 1981.

Frenkel, Karen A. "Women and Computing", _Communications of the
ACM_, November 1990, 34-46.

Gerver, E. "Computers and Gender". In Forester, Tom, ed. _Computers in
the Human Context_. pp481-501.  MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989.  Basil
Blackwell, Oxford, 1989.

Gilbert, Lucia A., June M. Gallessich, and Sherri L. Evans. "Sex of
Faculty Role Model and Students' Self-Perceptions of Competency",
_Sex Roles: A Journal of Research_, 9 (1983) 597-607.

Gornick, Vivian. _Women in Science: 100 Journeys into the Territory_,
Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, New York.  1990.

Grinstein, Louise S. and Paul J. Campbell, eds. _Women in Mathematics.
A Bibliographic Sourcebook_.  Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.
1987.
    Describes ~50 women who were prominent in mathematics. Computer
    science is considered part of math since Grace Hopper and Ada
    Lovelace are included.  The editors wanted to give a historical
    perspective of women's role in mathematics so they have only
    considered women born before 1930.

Gries, David, and Dorothy Marsh.  "The 1989-90 Taulbee Survey",
_Communications of the ACM_, Vol.  35, No. 1, 1992.
    A survey of professors across the nation.  Statistics.  In
    particular, addresses what the survey tells us about women in
    academia.

Gries, David and Dorothy Marsh.  "CS Produced 734 Ph.D.s in 1989-90;
CE Adds 173 for a Total of 907", _Computing Research News_, January
1991, 6-10.

Gross, Jane. "Female Surgeon's Quitting Touches Nerves at Medical
School", The New York Times, July 14, 1991, page 10.

Hacker, Sally L. _Doing it the hard way_. Unwin Jyman, Boston. 1990.