The future of the list -- nanny time?

[Meg Larson]

>Andrew responds to Vaska: 
> [re the low ratio of female to male posters]
> 
> For one thing, I believe the low ratio more than anything else
> reflects the low ratio of women with net access and the low ratio
> subscribed to the list rather than some psychological block. If few
> women have access (not just a connection but time and opportunity to
> play - and the latter, men's idleness and irresponsibility vs women's
> diligence and honesty, is where sexism really bites in the world of
> computers) hardly surprising their posts are in the minority.
> Moderation is incidental to this issue.
> 
And let us not forget that one of the reasons for this list is Pynchon
himself.  I don't know about the rest of y'all, but while I can't count the
men I know who read Pynchon on _two_ hands, I can count the women I know
who read Pynchon on one finger--me.  The women who do have access to the
Internet just might not be on this list.  

> For two, the women on this list who do post are no shrinking violets.
> On the contrary, they are almost all intelligent, articulate, forceful
> and successful at fighting sexism, almost inevitable for woman who
> have attained a position to voice their thoughts. Moderation can
> hardly be such a bogey given the other forces at play.
>
Well, the "almost" qualifier aside (for all I know he's referring to
me--gasp!), the women who are on this list read Pynchon in different ways,
perhaps, than the men; I can't comment on all the scientific stuff because
it's not my area and I could be referring to myself alone in this regard. 
And the men on the list who do tackle the science do it well enough that I
look for other spaces to insert my voice.

Meg


<snip>