Re: [issues] YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article)
On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 07:41:01AM +0100, steph wrote: > Um, unless I'm missing something, *most* gay male friends don't end > up in the sack with people named Claudine for some other reason. Yes, and that's *exactly* why I feel 'safe' (safe from the danger of getting romantically involved with somebody ... it's not right for me). Cheers, C. -- Claudine Chionh [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: (0418) 592 269 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re; YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article)
> Don't treat me as if I'm handicapped because I > have a vagina ... and don't embellish my accomplishments for the > same reason either ... just treat me as an equal! > > - Mary; feeling like an extremist feminist sometimes. Hi, Mary, That is exactly it! Why am I, a "Senior Network Engineer" who happens to be female any different of one who happens to be male? I don't get it. Guys tend to find my feminist views extreme, with the exception of a few open minded ones like my current beau. I don't think asking for such things as equal treatment at work, equal pay for my work, respect for my views, knowledge, and experience, and not being condescended to or treated like the "little lady: is extreme, and that really is the core of it, isn't it? Oh, and I have this radical idea that men have no right to tell a woman what to do with her own body. No man will ever carry a child for nine months and know what that means, so they should not have the right to dictate to a woman that she must. Yes, I am very ardently pro-choice. Radical? Maybe. I guess the idea that I don't need to be this obedient, submissive little creature is radical to some of the more patriarchal elements in our society. If so, I'll wear that label proudly. Regards, Caity (who can't help being little, but can at least influence the rest) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re; YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article)
> Radical? Maybe. I guess the idea that I don't need to be this > obedient, submissive little creature is radical to some of the more > patriarchal elements in our society. If so, I'll wear that label > proudly. Reminds me of the saying "Feminism is the radical concept that women are people," or Gloria Steinem's "Women have two choices, to be a feminist or a masochist." Unfortunately, I think "some of the more patriarchal elements in our society" describes over half of our society. Some days I'm amazed women put up with us at all. Jeramia [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re; YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article)
Caitlyn Martin wrote: > > Guys tend to find my feminist views extreme, with the exception of a few > open minded ones like my current beau. I don't think asking for such > things as equal treatment at work, equal pay for my work, respect for my > views, knowledge, and experience, and not being condescended to or > treated like the "little lady: is extreme, and that really is the core > of it, isn't it? > > Oh, and I have this radical idea that men have no right to tell a woman > what to do with her own body. No man will ever carry a child for nine > months and know what that means, so they should not have the right to > dictate to a woman that she must. Yes, I am very ardently pro-choice. > > Radical? Maybe. I guess the idea that I don't need to be this > obedient, submissive little creature is radical to some of the more > patriarchal elements in our society. If so, I'll wear that label > proudly. > it is sad when an open minded perspective is considered extreme. On a somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious? In my experience, organized religion is a very patriarchial and constrictive environment, which I would imagine, would put off most people here. Is there a near mutual exclusion between open minded women (or men) and the church? i personally have a rather ill view of common christian religion; the power struggle and opression that I see there annoys me to no end. -- .oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo.oO()Oo. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://cubicmetercrystal.com/ "You are the product of a mutational union of ~640Mbytes of genetic information." [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re; YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article)
> it is sad when an open minded perspective is considered extreme. On a > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious? In my > experience, organized religion is a very patriarchial and constrictive > environment, which I would imagine, would put off most people here. Is > there a near mutual exclusion between open minded women (or men) and the > church? In my personal experience, no. I would consider myself a deeply spiritual person, and Christian. My partner and I have frequent discussions on the nature of God as female, as well as the ties between Christianity and Buddhism. In the Old Testament, the male component of God the Father had an equal female component called Wisdom. She is "replaced" by the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, reflecting the politics of the time more than anything else. For anyone interested in such things, the book of Wisdom is fascinating reading, though you won't find it in a "typical" Bible. That being said, I find it hard to be involved in the Church these days, and am frequently angry at either the non-inclusive language or the exclusions of gays and lesbians from the ministry. It is unfortunate, because my partner and I deeply believe in the philosophy and theology. It is dumbfounding to me how a belief that stresses love for others above all else can cause so much suffering and blind hatred. The recent attention and pandering to Bob Jones University by political types lately sickens me. In my opinion, the Christian Right is neither. Hmmm, it's like you hit a nerve or something. Jeramia [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re; YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article)
On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 11:11:36AM -0600, Snarfblat wrote: > In my > experience, organized religion is a very patriarchial and constrictive > environment, which I would imagine, would put off most people here. Is > there a near mutual exclusion between open minded women (or men) and the > church? No. Christianity started out as a splinter group within Judaism -- a minority group within a minority group (the Roman Emperors weren't terribly kind to their Jewish subjects). Jesus preached liberation to the poor, the crippled, the politically oppressed, and foreigners. Admittedly the Bible's record on women's rights isn't exactly spotless. But Christianity began as a radical movement, questioning the status quo in every way. Then after three hundred years the Roman Emperor adopted it as the state religion, and it was all downhill from there. So *organized* religion is generally (IMNSHO) a dangerous thing and almost a self-contradiction. It wasn't always thus. (Hmm. It's 5 in the morning. I'll probably regret this message when I wake up. Actually, this is a real hot button issue of mine, and my Christian, socialist and feminist friends all have trouble with my opinions, for different reasons. I'm trouble all round!) HTH, Claudine (hoping that this isn't *too* off-topic for 'issues'!) -- Claudine Chionh [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: (0418) 592 269 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
[issues] Religion (was: YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article))
Snarfblat wrote: > > On a > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious? Yes. > In my > experience, organized religion is a very patriarchial and constrictive > environment, which I would imagine, would put off most people here. I'm not a member of an organised religion. > Is > there a near mutual exclusion between open minded women (or men) and the > church? In a statistical universe of one (me), yes. > i personally have a rather ill view of common christian religion; the > power struggle and opression that I see there annoys me to no end. Religion != Christianity. I'm not christian. I am religious. Jenn V. -- "We're repairing the coolant loop of a nuclear fusion reactor. This is women's work!" Helix, Freefall. http://www.purrsia.com/freefall/ Jenn Vesperman[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.simegen.com/~jenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article))
> Snarfblat wrote: > > On a > > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious? Yes > > In my > > experience, organized religion is a very patriarchial and constrictive > > environment, which I would imagine, would put off most people here. > > Is > > there a near mutual exclusion between open minded women (or men) and the > > church? Organized does not always mean Christian. I'm Wiccan; it's somewhat organized, legally recognized, and varies from quite traditional to quite liberal. It's not patriarchal at all, though; sometimes gender-balanced, sometimes tending more toward women. It's also not constrictive. In general it encouarges learning about other things, understanding the world, looking at new information with an open mind, and supporting people as they grow and learn. The focus is primarily on the positive; being happy and helping others be happy. There is no such thing as Hell or Heaven; some varieties have a concept of a summer-land where souls rest between incarnations. As far as specific to Christianity... there's more of a correlation between "loud" and "close minded" than between that and the church... Meaning... it's the loud people who are insistent about their views that you hear. The people who are open minded or more relaxed or whatever often don't speak up as much, so you just don't notice that they are there. At least, until you go looking; the Unitarian Universalists are a good place to look for open minded people. It focuses more on studying religion and humanity than on preaching it. Jenny --- Skywind - Jenny Brown - http://www.imsa.edu/~jgable/ Friendly spiritual psychic bisexual polyamorous wiccan photographer computer programmer country girl musician --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA...)
Snarfblat wrote: > > On a > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious? I am spiritual but not religious. Principally, and in my understanding, religion is the organizational strucure of people and practices/rituals, while spirituality is a way of being open to/part of the mysterious and creative forces of life (put simply). I have undertaken to learn about various religions and religious practices, in pursuing knowledge and understanding. I endeavour to draw parallels between the spiritual values of different religions, extracting what is of value to expanding my own spiritual perspectives and adding to my ongoing critique of what is/has been oppressive in religious structures/practices. How does this relate to being a woman of *nix-y persuasions? I'd say a good part of my experience with computers is a "sense of wonder" apprehension of the infinite complexity which is entirely built upon the basis of 1 and 0. Erin 8) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article))
dont know if anyone else has read terry pratchets "Small Gods" but the one of the things said in the book rings true for me namely that organisation of a 'religion' tends to kill the escense (sp?) of it. ( it is a comedic fantasy tho ) things said in jest etc. Sean -- "Real Programmers dont work 9 to 5. If a Real Programmer is in at 9 in the morning, its because they haven't left from the night before." Sean Garrett Crow Data (PTY) LTD DarkFlame @timewiz.zanet.net http://www.icon.co.za/~df [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA...)
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Erin wrote: > Snarfblat wrote: > > On a > > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious? > > I am spiritual but not religious. I am a mix of spiritual and religious, which is probably best explained by the fact that I'm an agnostic polytheist. Thus, I consider it from not likely to very likely that there are deities (depending on the day). In practice, I have more of a religious practice than a spiritual rigor. -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "That doesn't make sense in any meaning of 'sense' with which I'm familiar" -- Aaron Malone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article))
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:57:25 -0600 (EST), "Jenny Brown (was Gable)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >I'm Wiccan; it's somewhat organized, legally recognized, and varies >from quite traditional to quite liberal. I don't accept the tag "Wiccan" as defining anything. There are so many types of "Wiccan" that I think the term itself is useless. It's also not true that "Wiccan" is "legally recognized"; rather, there are some Wiccan-like churches that have gained recognition in some states (I know, or at least knew, the high priest of one such church, in Lafayette, Indiana). However, gaining recognition in most states is not difficult; all you have to do is get a proper charter registered with the state, profess a religious belief, and prove to the state that you maintain records of ordination that the state can have access to upon request. I would never be a member of any church which sought recognition with the state as a church, except for a church whose sole reason for existing is to obtain recognition from the state. IMO, the act of seeking recognition imposes hierarchy and patriarchy onto the organization simply because the state expects those things. There are better ways to obtain legal recognition of marriages (and the other state benefits of legal clergy) within your religious group, the easiest being getting all your members ordained by an ordination mill. Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
[issues] Bilateral Dominance (was: YAFGA...)
At 10:57 PM 2/22/00 -0500, you wrote: >> #if Dan McGarry >We-ell, I've always been ruled by *both* hemispheres of my brain. I write >left-handed, but throw right-handed. I love geekly topics like hardware and >software architectures, and am just as passionate about creating art. I wonder how many of us are like this (bilaterally dominant, that is)... I write left-handed, play pool left-handed, but throw better and hold a hockey stick right-handed. I can write with both hands in different directions, backwards and upside-down. I can also wiggle my ears and curl my tongue but I don't think that factors into this discussion. ;^) >I put myself through my last couple of years of University clambering on >scaffolds, working as a lighting technician, a job in which Ohm's law becomes >a very practical concern. I also acted in about 3 dozen plays. Most of my post-secondary education was in Fine Arts (majoring in Integrated Media), yet I met my first unix machine in 1979, took electronics and rocketry when I was 11 years old, when I liked cars and Lego and Star Wars. Being the only girl in those classes didn't bother me much then. Being among the few women in my electronics-for-artists classes in art college didn't bother me much, either. Harkening back to the previous thread about when women get "socialized" out of their interests in computers (and other 'hard' sciences), I'd have to say High School is when that happened to me and it had a lasting impact. I took computer science in grade 11 (SPK on punch cards 1st term, BASIC on Commodore PETs 2nd term), one of 2 girls in the class. I was definately self-conscious in that class and didn't speak out much at all. There were numerous issues that contributed to my eroded self confidence in HS and that contribute overall to the complex reasons why women, in general, often have a harder time eking out a path for themselves in a predominantly male-occupied field. This falls under the "Feminism 101" category, but its important to understand that, among other considerations: 1. Women/girls experience sexual abuse, assault, harassment, domestic violence far more often and regularly than men/boys, which is damaging to the core of a person's self and which takes a great deal of time and personal strength to heal. 2. Women are far more likely to be lower down on the economic ladder than men. 3. Women are far more likely to be single parents than men. All of these issues had a head-start on my lack of self-esteem long before I ever met a computer. Just so you know where my perspective comes from - in addition to my own life experience, I spent 7 years working in a shelter for homeless women and children in downtown Toronto (relief staff while in Art College, full-time staff for one year). Add to that much socio-political activism... Back to the hemispheric discussions of the mysterious human brain: >In short, I feel happiest when I'm applying detailed techniques to bring >abstract aesthetics to life. I thrive, intellectually and spiritually, on a balance of applying my creative and mental energy to technical explorations and artistic expressions (regular and irregular expressions? =^D), with an understanding that these overlap more than most people (including myself) might think. >Problem is, Canadian theatre, TV and film is >more or less moribund, and high tech work locally (Ottawa, Canada[*]) is not >very creatively demanding -- not, at least in the artistic sense. I haven't tried to find work in theatre, TV or film, but CBC does seem to be committed to their 'digital presence'... http://cbc.ca/insidecbc/media/newmedia.html I actually know a unix admin who works in this dept. (in Toronto) so it is *possible* to find technical work in this area. The jobs just aren't all that abundant (yet - we can hope for improvements!) Erin 8) (sitting at an NT machine today - %^6) -- Erin Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Networks Systems Administration http://community.web.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Bilateral Dominance (was: YAFGA...)
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:04:42 -0500, Erin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Harkening back to the previous thread about when women >get "socialized" out of their interests in computers (and other >'hard' sciences), I'd have to say High School is when that happened >to me and it had a lasting impact. I took computer science in grade >11 (SPK on punch cards 1st term, BASIC on Commodore PETs 2nd term), >one of 2 girls in the class. I was definately self-conscious in that >class and didn't speak out much at all. Oddly enough, this didn't happen as much at my high school; our computer programming classes had a good split. Notably, however, the instructional computing department at my high school had four people, three of them women. >1. Women/girls experience sexual abuse, assault, harassment, domestic >violence far more often and regularly than men/boys, which is >damaging to the core of a person's self and which takes a great deal >of time and personal strength to heal. As far as assault, harassment, and domestic violence goes, I don't think this is true. Boys get beaten as often if not more often than girls, in part because they're supposed to "be able to take it". I know a _lot_ of men who have been severely damaged by parental, sibling, or classmate abuse. The evidence for sexual abuse is inconclusive, especially in light of recent admissions that many of the sexual abuse stories that were all the rage in the early 90s were in all probability invented by therapists, confabulated, or just plain fraudulent. I'm not saying that sexual abuse doesn't occur -- clearly, it does -- but I do believe that we have no good figures on its incidence, or on which sex is more likely to be a victim. Victim groups (and those who work for them) are, unfortunately, not good sources of information because they are extremely biased and have very powerful motivations to make the problem to be as large as possible. Again, no criticism of the value of those groups is intended; they serve a valuable purpose. They're just largely worthless as a source of unbiased factual information. Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Bilateral Dominance (was: YAFGA...)
Erin wrote: > I wonder how many of us are like this (bilaterally dominant, that is)... I > write left-handed, play pool left-handed, but throw better and hold a > hockey stick right-handed. I can write with both hands in different > directions, backwards and upside-down. I can also wiggle my ears and curl > my tongue but I don't think that factors into this discussion. ;^) I'm _very_ like this. I'm basically left handed, but I do enough things right handed that for a while I wondered if my teacher made a mistake when I was 5 and that's why I wrote so badly. But then I realised there are a lot of things I do left handed too. I write left handed, I eat dessert left handed, I use a mouse right handed (but I can use one left handed), I throw right handed, I favour the right hand when catching, I wash dishes left handed, I hold beer cans left handed, I eat mains (ie, with a knife and fork) right handed, I use a joystick right handed, I turn book pages right handed, etc... :-/ Hmm, just re-positioned my glasses on my nose and I did that with my right hand :-) -- Phone: +64-9-373-7599 x4679 Room: 2.316, School of Engineering Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 5632563 or shout loudly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re; YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jeramia Ory wrote: >> Radical? Maybe. I guess the idea that I don't need to be this >> obedient, submissive little creature is radical to some of the more >> patriarchal elements in our society. If so, I'll wear that label >> proudly. > >Reminds me of the saying "Feminism is the radical concept that women are >people," or Gloria Steinem's "Women have two choices, to be a feminist or a >masochist." Unfortunately, I think "some of the more patriarchal elements >in our society" describes over half of our society. Some days I'm amazed >women put up with us at all. I'm probably misquoting slightly, but I like the quote by Rebecca West(?) which goes "I don't know what a feminist is; I only know that I am accused of being one whenever I express opinions that differentiate me from a doormat." K. -- Kirrily 'Skud' Robert - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://netizen.com.au/ Sysadmin (n): The untrained being underpaid for doing the impossible with the obsolete. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA...)
#if Erin > Snarfblat wrote: > > > > On a > > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious? > > I am spiritual but not religious. I am neither. Sometimes I wish I was religious. Then perhaps I wouldn't have to think about the Universe so much. > Principally, and in my understanding, religion is the organizational > strucure of people and practices/rituals, while spirituality is a way of > being open to/part of the mysterious and creative forces of life (put simply). Hmm. Still don't see what 'spirituality' means. Can you explain further ? [...] > How does this relate to being a woman of *nix-y persuasions? I'd say a > good part of my experience with computers is a "sense of wonder" > apprehension of the infinite complexity which is entirely built upon the > basis of 1 and 0. Somewhere I read (probably misquoted) : "UNIX is a simple system, but it takes a genius to understand that simplicity." IMO it doesn't take a genius to understand UNIX. I'm no genius and I get it. I remember being in awe of the sheer simplicity. Rik -- To change what things mean, redescribe them. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article))
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote: > I would never be a member of any church which sought recognition with > the state as a church, except for a church whose sole reason for > existing is to obtain recognition from the state. IMO, the act of > seeking recognition imposes hierarchy and patriarchy onto the > organization simply because the state expects those things. There are > better ways to obtain legal recognition of marriages (and the other > state benefits of legal clergy) within your religious group, the > easiest being getting all your members ordained by an ordination mill. Recognition isn't all bad. It does allow a church the ability to do many things important. Tax free contributions, marriage under law, etc. When you get ordained by mail, you are `joining' another officially recognized church. Catch22? Personally. I am not religious. I simply am. I have many beleifs and they are not bound into any simple package some might term a religion. Many of my beliefs are (actually) a subtle melding of *NIX, Zen, and Christianity. I'm always searching for others with similar belief structures or similar ideas on how the world works. Bad Mojo ICQ:4722638|AIM:BadMojo000|http://www.rps.net/mojo "When I need to I hit people with the largest weapon I can find: the Earth." [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article))
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:53:46 -0500 (EST), Bad Mojo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >Recognition isn't all bad. It does allow a church the ability to do >many things important. Tax free contributions, marriage under law, >etc. You can get the tax free thing without being a church. >When you get ordained by mail, you are `joining' another officially >recognized church. Catch22? I was ordained over the Internet, actually. I am aware that by doing so I joined a church. The church I joined has no doctrine and exists only to ordain people. It is a deliberate thumbing of the nose at the way the state chooses to recognize religious organizations. I feel no spiritual or religious attachment whatsoever to that church, and I don't expect they expect me to either. Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article))
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote: > I was ordained over the Internet, actually. I am aware that by doing > so I joined a church. The church I joined has no doctrine and exists if you are referring to the ULC they do have a few select doctrines, that all basically can be summarized as "the priesthood of all believers"... i.e. if you feel you are called by whatever God you believe in then you are allready ordained, so the state should recognize it... alt.religion.universal-life (sadly degenerated into romping ground for ultra-conservatives and other annoyances) -andross http://technopagan.dhs.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA...)
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 07:36:38AM +1100, Jenn V. wrote: > > > Snarfblat wrote: > > > > On a > > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious? Yes. I am a kibologist (all of you familiar with a.r.k are cringing right now...). Actually, to be serious, I am religious/spiritual -- whatever you wish to call -- in the sence that I look at the world, and I see more than just science acting on things, and I do such things as commune with nature, among other beliefs. I guess the best way to sum it up, is I walk my own path to `enlightenment'. I know of about two other people who *might* be considered to have the same `religion' as me, but that might is a big one (we bounce ideas, theories and philosophies off each other, but we are by no means consistent). > > In my > > experience, organized religion is a very patriarchial and constrictive > > environment, which I would imagine, would put off most people here. > > I'm not a member of an organised religion. Organized religion gives me the heebie-jeebies, no real good reason for it, just a gut feeling that there is something inherently wrong about it (primary reason why I refuse to put a name on my beliefs and rather just say kibology if someone asks). > > i personally have a rather ill view of common christian religion; the > > power struggle and opression that I see there annoys me to no end. > > Religion != Christianity. I'm not christian. I am religious. > Thank you Jenn. -- Jeff -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GCS/M/>P d-(pu) s+:- a17>? C++() L+++ UL@>$ P+ E--- W++@ N+ o? K++ w--- O? M V- PS+ PE(--)@ Y+@ PGP++ t+ 5 X++@ R++@ !tv@ b++ DI D- G e- h! r% y? --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- My Public Key -- http://24.5.73.229/pubkey.txt PGP signature
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article))
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:36:00 -0800 (PST), TeknoDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >if you are referring to the ULC they do have a few select doctrines, >that all basically can be summarized as "the priesthood of all >believers"... ULC does have a "doctrine" but it's only there because the states require one. Their doctrine is contentless. :) >i.e. if you feel you are called by whatever God you believe in then >you are allready ordained, so the state should recognize it... Well, I think the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. That would take away a large part of the desire of religious organizations to be recognized by the state in the first place. (The other reason is probably priest-penitent privilege.) Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article))
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Jenny Brown (was Gable) wrote: > sometimes gender-balanced, sometimes tending more toward women. It's also > not constrictive. In general it encouarges learning about other things, generally speaking this is one reason that I decided that I wasn't wiccan, rather my/our own brand of neo pagan... there are so many individuals and groups that I have met who are terribly constrictive, and a few orginizations that I've not heard good things about (CAW to be one, wether these claims are substantial or not I'm not sure) I personally also tend to be on the skeptical end of neopaganism, i don't necessarily refute claims of spirituality/magick.. but I like to play with definitions and approach such concepts anthropologically... and there are plenty of things we don't know about the human mind... for instance (and as a reply) On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Erin wrote: > How does this relate to being a woman of *nix-y persuasions? I'd say a > good part of my experience with computers is a "sense of wonder" > apprehension of the infinite complexity which is entirely built upon the > basis of 1 and 0. this is one of the ways that I approach the historical concept of "magic"... events and things that in the past exceeded human understanding likie magnets and eclipses where magical, this is not to say that a belief in the mystic or spiritual is an indication of "primitive" beliefs or culture... recently technology has advanced so much that I seriously doubt there are many individuals who understand every detail of the operation of the systems that we are working with right now (from application to OS to hardware to network and back...) and certainly noone could concieve of it as a whole, it is easier to abstract in terms of some kind of metaphysical paradigm (ownership of files, processes, etc etc...) that is steadily becoming more complex, but like the universe founded on very simple principles (or so we think) this concept of magic cooperates with a few persional ideas about divinity, and form a working beliefs system that I think falls into a category of beliefs that could be described as "technopagan" (considering fixing majordomo if interest in such a discussion list perks, hard to come across individuals with this specific belief system that think the label fits them) -andross http://technopagan.dhs.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
[issues] generally off topic technical difficulties...
Hi, okay so Im REALLY confused as to whats going on I *thought* i was subscribed to techtalk, issues, grrltalk, and announcements. Ive been getting emails lately telling me (something like this, I didnt save it so Im not exactly sure...) that mail from the issues list isnt able to reach my email address and so Im no longer subscribed to it, but that the bouncer program (or something like that...) is letting me know so that I am aware that Im no longer subscribed. (Yes, I DID confirm the message I got to join the list initially, and it told me I was signed up for the list) I got the undeliverable message earlier today. The thing is, since this afternoon, the only messages Ive received have been FROM the issues list (and over the past few weeks Ive gotten all of the religion/yet another article thread...) so Im not sure how it is saying the issues list is undeliverable to me, and I also find it pretty odd that Im not receiving anything from the other lists all afternoon given how much people have been posting as of late... So anyways, I dunno what I do now? should I resubscribe to the lists and see what happens? or wait until tomorrow morning and hope I have fifty million messages to go through again? or is there some way I can figure out whats going on? (Im new to the mailing list scene...) I realize this shouldnt be on the issues list, but right now its the only list that appears to be coming through :) And just for my sake, if you have an answer maybe you could email it to me directly instead of posting to the whole list so I am sure to get it, who knows if Im even receiving all the issues posts:) Thanks in advance, and sorry this was an off-topic post, Vanessa __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Religion (was: YAFGA...)
On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 12:54:50AM +, Rik Hemsley wrote: > #if Erin > > I am spiritual but not religious. > > I am neither. Sometimes I wish I was religious. Then perhaps I wouldn't > have to think about the Universe so much. I thoroughly enjoy thinking about the Universe... > > Principally, and in my understanding, religion is the organizational > > strucure of people and practices/rituals, while spirituality is a way of > > being open to/part of the mysterious and creative forces of life (put simply). > > Hmm. Still don't see what 'spirituality' means. Can you explain > further ? Um, only for me and my experience and understanding of spiritual - and even then, it is a non-static and ever-evolving/shifting non-linear experience. By its very nature, spiritual experience defies conventional linear modes of communication, but I'll list a few things off the top of my head: - standing on the Cliffs of Moher - the warmth of the sun - rock formations, rippling waves - the beauty of a processor's internal silicon-etched circuitry viewed under an electron microscope - an act of selfless kindness - contemplating Life and the Universe -> how is it that all these particles and molecules have clumped together to produce life as we know it, consciousness, etc...? It is about paying full attention in the moment, being aware of as much as possible, noticing the details and how they are part of the kaleidescopic bigger picture (pattern matching!)... It is more than I can ever hope to encompass in any one email reply... [=^J > > How does this relate to being a woman of *nix-y persuasions? I'd say a > > good part of my experience with computers is a "sense of wonder" > > apprehension of the infinite complexity which is entirely built upon the > > basis of 1 and 0. > > Somewhere I read (probably misquoted) : > "UNIX is a simple system, but it takes a genius to understand > that simplicity." > > IMO it doesn't take a genius to understand UNIX. I'm no genius and > I get it. I remember being in awe of the sheer simplicity. I'm not sure what point you're making in relation to what I wrote, but you appear to have assumed that my stating "experience with computers" meant my experience with unix (an easy assumption to make when connected to the part where I say "of *nix-y persuasions") - BUT! In referring to complexity built upon "the basis of 1 and 0", I was not merely considering some instance of a *nix-y operating system, but rather, of the limitless possibilities of what has been / is being / could be done with multiple, networked, machines - the OS, the hardware, the software, the imaginations and minds of those people involved in making them all work and do something... beholding the simplicity with awe *is* part of grooving on the complexity that can be built with it... And, well, I haven't written my own kernel recently so there still are plenty of mysterious and cool things for me to discover and learn in my ongoing *nix-y explorations. [=^J Erin 8) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Bilateral Dominance (was: YAFGA...)
On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 06:30:00PM -0500, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote: > On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 18:04:42 -0500, Erin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Harkening back to the previous thread about when women > >get "socialized" out of their interests in computers (and other > >'hard' sciences), I'd have to say High School is when that happened > >to me and it had a lasting impact. > > Oddly enough, this didn't happen as much at my high school; our > computer programming classes had a good split. Notably, however, the > instructional computing department at my high school had four people, > three of them women. Then I'd say you are among the more fortunate and I certainly hope that this experience becomes more common among an increasing number of girls and women. > >1. Women/girls experience sexual abuse, assault, harassment, domestic > >violence far more often and regularly than men/boys, which is > >damaging to the core of a person's self and which takes a great deal > >of time and personal strength to heal. > > As far as assault, harassment, and domestic violence goes, I don't > think this is true. Boys get beaten as often if not more often than > girls, in part because they're supposed to "be able to take it". I > know a _lot_ of men who have been severely damaged by parental, > sibling, or classmate abuse. I probably could have been clearer if I'd used dashes instead of commas. What I meant was sexual abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment... and what I meant by domestic violence was "spousal assault"... > The evidence for sexual abuse is inconclusive, especially in light of > recent admissions that many of the sexual abuse stories that were all > the rage in the early 90s were in all probability invented by > therapists, confabulated, or just plain fraudulent. I'm not saying > that sexual abuse doesn't occur -- clearly, it does -- but I do > believe that we have no good figures on its incidence, or on which sex > is more likely to be a victim. Victim groups (and those who work for > them) are, unfortunately, not good sources of information because they > are extremely biased and have very powerful motivations to make the > problem to be as large as possible. Again, no criticism of the value > of those groups is intended; they serve a valuable purpose. They're > just largely worthless as a source of unbiased factual information. H, did the part where I mentioned 7 years of shelter work and more of socio-political activism somehow deregister as a valid source of "evidence"? Let's see, I worked in one shelter in one major urban centre, where I counselled, advocated and made referrals for something in the vicinity of a few thousand women from all manner of circumstances that lead to their need for shelter. I have worked with other shelters, committees and advocacy groups, conducted research, collected and compiled information, read numerous reports produced by government, medical, community, institutional groups and which included ample statistical data. There are thousands of women working in thousands of shelters (not to mention the thousands more living in them) all over the world, carrying out this work. The accumulated experience, information and knowledge can not be ignored or so easily refuted. I feel neither the need to go into any of it in detail here nor the inclination to elaborate further on my experience, but I certainly feel compelled to express my lack of appreciation for the manner in which you (Kelly) have so casually dismissed the "evidence for sexual abuse" as "inconclusive". By what scientific method did you arrive at such conclusions yourself? I'm not interested in getting into a big off-topic debate here, but I do ask that folks have some respect for others' experience. TIA, Erin 8) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
[issues] Religion (and govt recognization/hierarchy? - Falun Gong)
On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin wrote: > ULC does have a "doctrine" but it's only there because the states > require one. Their doctrine is contentless. :) talk to brother Daniel, I think he'd disagree ;-> > Well, I think the state should get out of the marriage business > altogether. That would take away a large part of the desire of > religious organizations to be recognized by the state in the first > place. (The other reason is probably priest-penitent privilege.) I agree, the ULC is a rather extreme solution to a bad system, one that institutionalizes religion through traditional accredidation (that if I'm not mistaken started with the Church) i think that Canada or Germany have some good ideas, afaik in Canada you have to have a sizable congregation before you can be considered a "church", and Germany is kinda restrictive of what they consider a church (no idea about wicca etc, but they've not accepted Scientology as a religion)... as it's kind of related what does anyone think about Falun Gong and them being banned in China? A few "practitioners" showed up on campus the other day so I did a few quick searches. I'm not sure, but I'm theorizing that 98% of what you see and hear is colored by the U.S.'s characterization of "RED CHINA" and their "evil oppression" of Falun Gong... I do agree that China's actions in this matter are extreme and oppressive, however there are quite a few reports (allthough perhaps unsubstantiated) that this group forbids their members from using modern medicine (certainly an issue the US has dealth with in Christian Science groups) I initially looked at some articles at rickross.com which appeared somewhat negative... I haven't seen many 3rd party reports that talk about falun gong itself (and not its persecution) positively, but i'm not convinced that any of this is conclusive untill I talk with one of their members... the have a national number, but it's just a machine that asks for your name, state, city, and phone number... (not going there) i think this article might present the issue in a fair light: http://www.rickross.com/reference/fa_lun_gong/falun149.html strangely the first 100 of a google search didn't turn up any articles like those at ross's site... -andross [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
[issues] Re; Religion (Was YAFGA...)
Snarfblat asks; > are very many of you religious? In my experience, organized > religion is a very patriarchial and constrictive environment, > which I would imagine, would put off most people here. > Is there a near mutual exclusion between open minded women > (or men) and the church? First off, as many have already pointed out, organized religion need not mean Christianity. That said, it seems you are asking if very many people are put off by mainstream organized western religion (i.e.; Christianity in its various forms). Speaking for myself... I've recently unplugged from The Matrix (Christianity). As a child and into early adulthood, I went to church like a good little sheep and believed what I was told because I'd always been told to believe it. It took a long time to be able to step outside of myself and my upbringing and look at the Church objectively. x = Christian doctrine states clearly that Christianity is the only path to righteousness; that it is a sin to practice, or acknowledge any other religion, god, or practice, including non belief / atheism. y = Nearly every creed and tradition in Christianity is plagiarized from the very pagan religions it abhors, including many details of Christ's life as celebrated in the cannon bible. Where then do x and y intersect? How does one practice a religion built on other religions that it is a sin to practice? I have spoken to people who claim to be fully aware of these facts, yet have somehow found an intersection. I have not. x = I believe in equality of all peoples, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. y = The Christian Bible and especially Church doctrine is filled with themes of racism, sexism and homophobia. Again, I personally fail to find an intersection between x and y. Add to that the horrifying amount of violence, bloodshed, war, oppression, and persecution found in and advocated by Christianity, and -my- answer to your question is yes; I see open mindedness and the Church as mutually exclusive. Note the word -I-. I know people whom I consider very open minded and whom also claim Christianity (I'd like to think that -I- was pretty open minded while I was still going to Church like a good little sheep). But now, having been unplugged from The Matrix, when I hear the phrase "Open minded Christian" I can't help but think "Black Klansman" ... "Jewish Nazi" ... *** Note also, I am referring to organized Christianity, not Christ the person. Of what little is known about Yeshua of Nazareth, I find pretty cool. He was a street preacher, preaching equality between race class and gender (and speaking -against- organized religion, ironically) during a time when it was extremely dangerous and unpopular to do so. I find very little commonality between Yeshua, and the religion that his executioners eventually formed in his Greek name. - Mary; hoping she threw enough disclaimers and qualifiers on this post to avoid total barbecue. -- "The dream dreams the dreamer" - Talaxian proverb [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Bilateral Dominance (was: YAFGA...)
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:26:22 -0500, Erin Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >H, did the part where I mentioned 7 years of shelter work and >more of socio-political activism somehow deregister as a valid source >of "evidence"? No, in fact it motivated my reply. >Let's see, I worked in one shelter in one major urban centre, where I >counselled, advocated and made referrals for something in the >vicinity of a few thousand women from all manner of circumstances >that lead to their need for shelter. I have worked with other >shelters, committees and advocacy groups, conducted research, >collected and compiled information, read numerous reports produced by >government, medical, community, institutional groups and which >included ample statistical data. There are thousands of women working >in thousands of shelters (not to mention the thousands more living in >them) all over the world, carrying out this work. The accumulated >experience, information and knowledge can not be ignored or so easily >refuted. I quite clearly said that I did not believe that abuse does not occur. What I was trying to say (and probably badly) is that good evidence of the relative incidence of abuse by sex, especially in children, is lacking: we really don't know which sex gets more of it. I'm a trained child advocate and have served as a court-appointed guardian ad litem for three children in two cases. I am well aware that sexual abuse takes place (fortunately, not in either of my cases, although it had taken place in one of the cases in our office while I was there). It is the considered experience of the professionals in the office where I worked (specifically, an attorney with a dozen years of experience in child advocacy and a clinical social worker with at least ten years experience working with neglected and abused children) that crisis centers have severely biased points of view on abuse. Crisis centers are without a doubt valuable services, but not valuable sources of unbiased statistics: their clientele is not representative of the population, and statistics within their clientele almost certainly do not generalize to the population as a whole. Of course, I said all of this in my prior message (although in not as much detail), so I imagine it will be ignored this time as well. Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re; YAFGA (Yet Another Female Geeks Article)
Hi, everyone, It may be time to move this thread to grrltalk. I am cross posting this one... Care to follow me over there? Snarfblat wrote: > it is sad when an open minded perspective is considered extreme. Yep. I think you hit upon why in the next question and comments... > On a > somewhat similiar tangent, are very many of you religious? Once upon a time I was. I have a major problem with all organized religious, including the one I was raised with. > In my > experience, organized religion is a very patriarchial and constrictive > environment, which I would imagine, would put off most people here. Is > there a near mutual exclusion between open minded women (or men) and the > church? Church, synagogue, mosque, temple... I think the answer is yes, at least in the orthodox or fundamentalist form of most all religions. I think some denominations (such as Unitarianism and Reform Judaism) are more open minded, but stricter, more literal minded, ancient scripture as literal law type sects tend to discourage free thought and any form of questioning, and tend to be very patriarchal. My main problem with most of the organized religions is that they think they have the one true path to (G-d, Allah, the Almighty, and so on) and that everybody else who does not agree is to be condemned. The Muslim concept of "infadel" bothers me no end, and do the Born Again Christians who will tell me, right to my face, that I am going to burn in hell. I remember a "Contemporary Christian" song that started off... "Oh Budda was a man and I'm sure that he meant well but I pray for his disciples lest they wind up in Hell." That kind of view really bothers me. I don't think any one religion has the absolute, true, irrefutable path to G-d, or an exclusive pipeline. I think different views need to be respected. > i personally have a rather ill view of common christian religion; the > power struggle and opression that I see there annoys me to no end. I'd have to limit it to conservative Christian denominations to agree with you. There are over 400 Christian denominations, and an amazing degree of diversity between them. I also really like to live by Matthew 7:7, "Judge lest not ye be judged." My complaint is that some people in some denominations are *SO* judgmental, and it is so foreign to what Jesus preached in the sermon on the mount. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." In the biblical story, nobody could throw a stone after he said that. In modern America the rocks fly. Take care, Caity [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
