RE: His and Her Anarchies

>Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> wrote:
>I'm sure if I look hard enough, I'll find the crypto content in here.
>
>On Fri, 8 Nov 1996 jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:
>
>> Copyright c 1996, The Globe and Mail Company r
>> 
>> U.S. election reveals his and her politics 
>> Educated women have different agenda 

I think it relates to crypto policy via policy in general, also to both the
libertarian and the inevitable cryptoanarchy argument we are currently tossing
about and brought to mind a comment a few months back from Tim about how the
occasional female members of this list tended to not make sense a lot of the
time.

Sorry if it wasn't clear enough. I had expected a comment regarding the smart
bomb message since it would have been better to send to the risks list.

Ciao,
James

At 6:59 PM -0500 11/8/96, jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:

>I think it relates to crypto policy via policy in general, also to both the
>libertarian and the inevitable cryptoanarchy argument we are currently tossing
>about and brought to mind a comment a few months back from Tim about how the
>occasional female members of this list tended to not make sense a lot of the
>time.

Well, I think there clearly _is_ a gender gap on these sorts of issues.
While we certainly have a handful of women subscribers, we have few active
women posters, and none of the "ringleaders" are women.

The woman I am currently seeing is a case in point. She occasionally wants
to hear what interests me, in my "other life," and I have tried to explain
the stuff we talk about here.

Her first reaction was fear, that my life and/or liberty is in jeopardy.
(She started out as a liberal/socialist, but is now more
conservative/libertarian. And the images of Waco burning leave her with
little sympathy for Reno's Raiders and the government goons who burned 80
people because Koresh was Practicing a Religion without a License. But it
makes her want to _avoid_ Reno, Clinton, Freeh, and other such goons at all
costs, not wave a red flag in front of them.)

She wondered to me why I have not been arrested. I asked "And just what
specific laws have I violated?" She couldn't say, and she acknowledged that
Americans are pretty much free to speak their mind, but she felt that the
FBI and Janet Reno _must_ fear and dislike what Cypherpunks are doing. I
agreed.

And as she hears more about what cryptography implies, what it means for
bypassing the usual tax collection and behavior control mechanisms of the
modern state, the more worried she gets.

I suspect there may be a biological component to this. Many males enjoy
adrenaline rushes, whether by bungee cord jumping, robbing houses, or
plotting to smash the state. Many females have _other_ interests. Women I
have known have generally not understood why I would be willing to be so
upfront about my radical views and why I am apparently willing to "risk it
all" for the adrenaline rush of being involved in this battle.

(And saying I am "prepared," and pointing to the loaded .45 I keep in case
the Midnight Raiders hit my house is even less reassuring to them! In at
least one case I never saw the woman again. Rationally, I can't say I
disagree with their reaction, from a payoff matrix standpoint. But
something in we males craves this kind of confrontation. The leaders of the
revolutions in the past were almost always me. The Feminist/Abortion battle
is different, for some pretty obvious reasons, but most revolutions are led
by men. Not altogether surprising.)

So, I'm not surprised that so few women are on the list. For one thing,
it's about computers, and the Net is overwhelmingly male (though the
statistics are changing). Second, it's basically about libertarian politics
(some may disagree, but I stand by this). This cuts the female interest
again. Third, it's "radical and dangerous." Fourth, the list is made up of
a lot of "alpha males" debating and arguing, and is not a "nurturing,
wimmin-friendly, caring environment," such as some of the women-only forums
advertise.

This may sound sexist. But sexism, like other "isms," is often based on
plain old truth, however politically incorrect it may be to some.

--Tim May


"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM
that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology."
[NYT, 1996-10-02]
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May wrote:
> At 6:59 PM -0500 11/8/96, jbugden@smtplink.alis.ca wrote:
> >I think it relates to crypto policy via policy in general, also to both the
> >libertarian and the inevitable cryptoanarchy argument we are currently tossing
> >about and brought to mind a comment a few months back from Tim about how the
> >occasional female members of this list tended to not make sense a lot of the time.

> Well, I think there clearly _is_ a gender gap on these sorts of issues.
> While we certainly have a handful of women subscribers, we have few active
> women posters, and none of the "ringleaders" are women.
> The woman I am currently seeing is a case in point. She occasionally wants
> to hear what interests me, in my "other life," and I have tried to explain
> the stuff we talk about here.

[snip]

> I suspect there may be a biological component to this. Many males enjoy
> adrenaline rushes, whether by bungee cord jumping, robbing houses, or
> plotting to smash the state. Many females have _other_ interests. Women I
> have known have generally not understood why I would be willing to be so
> upfront about my radical views and why I am apparently willing to "risk it
> all" for the adrenaline rush of being involved in this battle.

[mo' snip]

Adrenaline is too simple an explanation for computer gender gap.  Many, many women
like fast cars, motorcycles, etc. to ride in at least, if not to drive themselves.

Some women like being around men, for various reasons, security and so on, but they
don't want to be like men, so they don't try to act the same way.  While many, many
women have harrassed me on the road for my driving, they (unlike men, w/o exception)
have *never* tried to threaten me directly, as have hundreds of men.

As far as the risk goes, men are much more likely to get up and leave a place, and
possibly never come back, as are women.  Maybe this is the domestic instinct thing,
I don't know a whole lot about that.  I would suggest to any man that if he lived
in a society where a whole class of humans (i.e., female) were more aggressive and
confrontational, more domineering, etc. than he and nearly every other man he knew,
he would probably learn how best to get along with that other class of persons without
constantly butting heads with them.

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net> rants:

> (And saying I am "prepared," and pointing to the loaded .45 I keep in case
> the Midnight Raiders hit my house is even less reassuring to them! In at
> least one case I never saw the woman again. Rationally, I can't say I
> disagree with their reaction, from a payoff matrix standpoint. But
> something in we males craves this kind of confrontation. The leaders of the
> revolutions in the past were almost always me.  ...
                                             ^^

Now the cypherpunk crackpot is into reincarnation? He thinks he was
Pancho Villa in a former life? :-)

---

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps