Re: And why. . .? (long)

[from Geof. Riggs; not Eliz. H., my better half]

Julie wrote:
> mpresley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>  
> > Finally, Newsgroups are historically male propagated.  The technology began
> > as an offshoot of arpanet (the male dominated military) and was built by
> > unix geeks for unix geeks--99.9% men.  It was only recently...umm...let's
> > see...probably the ubiquitous rise of MS Outlook Express with it's
> > dedicated newsreader that the masses were first able to easily navigate
> > Usenet. 
>
> Now, are women part of the masses or not? For the purposes of your
> analysis, I mean.
>
> > So, here we have a topic (Wagner) that may appeal mainly to men, discussed
> > on a medium that, until recently, was used mainly by men.  If my analysis
> > is correct then it's not surprising to me why there are few women on this
> > group.
>
> There may be few women posting, but there may be many reasons why.

Such as?

No truly, I'm sincerely curious.

And please be frank if you believe that, in the final analysis, I and my 
wife's painful experience with an offline group's hazing of a friend who 
happened to be a woman should be judged as strictly anecdotal and of 
minimal relevance to online discussions of Wagner.

Respectful thanks,

Geoffrey Riggs
www.operacast.com