Steve Kudlak wrote:
> Nicole Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > > There are all my opinions Steve K=Kudlaks chromexa@mry )@) sistrinution without
> > > Comoros; use emvpitrsaged...
> > > Hey prep feral witty Mr. do rot.
> > >
> > > Jab FUn,
> >
> > What language IS this? :o)
> >
> > -nicole
> >
> > ***
Nicole Zimmerman wrote:
> > There are all my opinions Steve K=Kudlaks chromexa@mry )@) sistrinution without
> > Comoros; use emvpitrsaged...
> > Hey prep feral witty Mr. do rot.
> >
> > Jab FUn,
>
> What language IS this? :o)
>
> -nicole
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxch
On Tue, 2 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Constructive bitchiness. And a willingness to take the word 'bitch' as a
> compliment.
> (Oh? You're saying I've learned not to defer to assholes? Why thank you!)
Seize power Jenn! :)
I like this attitude. :)
--
_Deirdre * http://www.linuxca
> There are all my opinions Steve K=Kudlaks chromexa@mry )@) sistrinution without
> Comoros; use emvpitrsaged...
> Hey prep feral witty Mr. do rot.
>
> Jab FUn,
What language IS this? :o)
-nicole
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
In short, I'm not coming down on anyone who wants to keep their chapter
female-only. However, I think it's a shame to exclude people on the basis of
their sex and I wouldn't want to see that happen locally. If it were me (and
it isn't), I would let anyone in, regardless of their gender, and if
Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Aaron Malone wrote:
>
> > You're right, it's a combination of both. Those who engage in this sort of
> > behavior are grabbing the conversation, and from experience they know that many
> > people *will* defer, if for no other reason than they're use
> Well maybe you have a kill file, you npy yjrer hear me again. I I hebe doen my
> nedst tostart a flame war and feel sorry you can't imdermine my points.
I would like to remind folks of the posting guidelines for the LinuxChix
lists:
1) be polite
2) be helpful
I ask that everyone ple
Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
> BTW, I want to say that I'm not singling out Chris so much with my last
> post as it is an expression of frustration with several of the guys here
> that I put into one post. You might say that my tolerance snapped with
> Steve.
>
> --
> _Deirdre * http://www.linuxc
BTW, I want to say that I'm not singling out Chris so much with my last
post as it is an expression of frustration with several of the guys here
that I put into one post. You might say that my tolerance snapped with
Steve.
--
_Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Aaron Malone wrote:
> Right. Or if they do manage to inject something into the conversation, one of
> the Obnoxious will then attempt to twist it back to his (or her) thread.
[snip]
> You're right, it's a combination of both. Those who engage in this sort of
> behavior are
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, curious wrote:
> "Unconscious assumption that women help and defer to men, perhaps?" Jen M.
>
> I don't belive it is anyone's obligation to help another.
This is a difference between men and women's perspective. Women ARE raised
to help. If you don't understand the deference
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Deb Richardson wrote:
> I'm certainly not going to stop you from excluding men from your chapter
> meetings. I will not exclude them from the online forums, but I can see
> situations in which face-to-face meetings may be improved by enforcing
> an all-women rolecall.
I woul
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Aaron Malone wrote:
> Actually, thinking about this (and these observations are pre-coffee, mind you),
> my impressions are a bit different. Most guys (and a few women) I know have a
> tendency to do this, but not because they expect the rest of the conversants to
> defer. T
> Date: Mon, 1 Nov 1999 09:38:21 -0500 (EST)
> From: Ingrid Schupbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [issues] Something I've observed
> {snippage}
>
> Sure, sometimes
> boys say stupid things; but at least here someone will let them know when
> it happens.
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
> For better or for worse, I don't think it's legal to do so. This was
> discussed heavily by Webgrrls a couple of years ago, and the conclusion that
> was reached was that we, ourselves, could be sued for discrimination. This
> applies only to the U
> And do people who value the King-of-the-Hill points less, wind up not having
> their issues and thoughts discussed?
Right. Or if they do manage to inject something into the conversation, one of
the Obnoxious will then attempt to twist it back to his (or her) thread.
> I'm afraid I don't see q
Aaron Malone wrote:
> We do our best. :)
And it's appreciated, believe me!
> Actually, thinking about this (and these observations are pre-coffee, mind you),
> my impressions are a bit different. Most guys (and a few women) I know have a
> tendency to do this, but not because they expect the
> For better or for worse, I don't think it's legal to do so.
Oo. You might have a point (that reminds me to never respond to mail
pre-coffee). This in mind, I withdraw my earlier statement. The last
thing I need is lawyers at my door.
- deb
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL P
Greetings... I'm going to go into lurk mode for awhile(I was planning
to lurk earlyer and let the thread I started die)... but before I do
I want to address this thread... since I some how find myself being
mentioned at the conclusion of each response..
"Unconscious assumption that women help an
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Caitlyn M. Martin wrote:
>
> > So, if you wish to exclude men from your chapter meetings, I think
> > that's fair.
>
> For better or for worse, I don't think it's legal to do so. This was
> discussed heavily by Webgrrls a couple of years ago, and the conclusion that
> was
On Mon, 01 Nov 1999 09:46:20 -0500, "Caitlyn M. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>For better or for worse, I don't think it's legal to do so.
Probably not. U.S. federal sex discrimination laws do not apply to
private clubs[1], and LinuxChix chapters are private clubs as far as I
can tell.
E
Hi, Deb,
> I'm certainly not going to stop you from excluding men from your chapter
> meetings. I will not exclude them from the online forums, but I can see
> situations in which face-to-face meetings may be improved by enforcing
> an all-women rolecall.
>
> So, if you wish to exclude men from
> > But I think it was more the railroading, the getting sidetracked by
> > comments from men. I think that is a problem of female acculturation that
> > I really hadn't even noticed before.
>
> I have. We /defer/. We're usually unconscious of this deference - but it
> happens in all walks of li
I think we need to be careful about assigning the blame for our current
unhappines about the way women are treated to unthinking, insensitive men.
I wish it were so simple; but I fear the cause of the problem is far more
complicated. Here are two illustrative examples from my own life:
1) When
>
> So, if you wish to exclude men from your chapter meetings, I think
> that's fair. It's unfortunate, but it would be
> unrealistic/idealistic/foolish of me to insist otherwise.
>
> - deb
>
True enough. I hope we never do this at the Ottawa meeting, though. I think
the nice thing about the Lin
> As a result, I brought up the issue (rather regretfully) that we exclude
> men altogether from the meeting as it changes the experience.
I'm certainly not going to stop you from excluding men from your chapter
meetings. I will not exclude them from the online forums, but I can see
situations i
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Right. What I'm saying is that unless we recognize that this will happen
> > over and over and over and that we need a better sense of deja vu, we'll
> > have other discussions sidetracked and killed.
>
> I think what we might need to do to resolve
Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
>
> On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Cat wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
> >
> > > Nothing stops the conversation around here faster than some CMOTW [1]
> > > (who obviously doesn't get it) posting a lot of things that create what
> > > is basically noise. And
> > point to make. Then came the adult linux thing, and suddenly I thought,
> > 'Oh, *I* see.' I felt that one was a calculated prelude to the other.
>
> I'm not sure if it was that calculated other than "I need to introduce
> myself first." ::shrug::
(to Deirdre) Given your insight on the mat
On Mon, 1 Nov 1999, Cat wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
>
> > Nothing stops the conversation around here faster than some CMOTW [1]
> > (who obviously doesn't get it) posting a lot of things that create what
> > is basically noise. And then everything stops.
>
> I absolute
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999, Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
> Nothing stops the conversation around here faster than some CMOTW [1]
> (who obviously doesn't get it) posting a lot of things that create what
> is basically noise. And then everything stops.
I absolutely agree with your observation. Notice how we
Nothing stops the conversation around here faster than some CMOTW [1]
(who obviously doesn't get it) posting a lot of things that create what
is basically noise. And then everything stops.
This is all too similar to what happened at our second Bay Area Linuxchix
meeting[2]. In the first meeting,
32 matches
Mail list logo
