abs at squig.org

[codehead at ix.netcom.com]

"Alex B. Shepardsen" <abs at squig.org> wrote:
> 
> Does this list have any male members who aren't misogynists? Sheesh.
> Aimee's post seems to have flushed them out of the woodwork.
> 
> Alexandra

You are confusing misogyny with insufferance for fools and trolls.

The nominal purpose of the cypherpunks list is to discuss 
cryptography, privacy, and social issues relating to them.  Ms. Farr 
has done pitifully little of that, instead choosing to introduce silly 
"gender correctness" tests and the like.  In spite of Ms. Farr's "I 
am a cypherpunk" statement, she doesn't appear to "get" the 
rudiments as reproduced below.

I suppose it's to be expected from someone who got her bachelor's 
in "environmental studies" (Baylor, 1993) and then went on to a law 
degree.  It can take a long time to repair the damage from such 
indoctrination.

Alexandra, what you're interpreting as misogyny is merely 
contempt for anything that smacks of stupidity and political 
correctness.  When the people on this list--some of whom *are* 
female--treat an equally clueless male in a similar fashion (and 
there have been many, many instances of this), why do you not 
then complain about misandry?

Despite some politically correct ideas to the contrary, defending 
women who are clueless simply because they are female does 
_not_ help the status of women.  To the contrary, it degrades those 
who do have a clue, forcing them into the same category with the 
inept.  If you want to see a level playing field in terms of equality of 
opportunity, lumping all women together into one lowest-common-
denominator class will not achieve that.  Neither will making knee-
jerk accusations of "misogyny" when somebody makes a fool of 
herself and is called on it.

Frankly, Alexandra, Ms. Farr was given considerably more latitude 
than most men on the list ever see.  Even Tim May was quite civil 
to her for an unusually generous period after her initial tortured-
English introduction.  Rather kid-glove treatment, I'd say, for a list 
that has a well-known reputation of being tough on bullshit.  
Perhaps you should accuse at least some of the men on the list of 
"excessive gynophilia" instead.  That makes about as much sense.

Emily Sandblade

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date sent:      	Sat, 1 Feb 1997 06:19:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject:        	Welcome to cypherpunks

Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were 
more of it.  Cypherpunks acknowledge that those who want privacy 
must create it for themselves and not expect governments, 
corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant them 
privacy out of beneficence.  Cypherpunks know that people have 
been creating their own privacy for centuries with whispers, 
envelopes, closed doors, and couriers.  Cypherpunks do not seek 
to prevent other people from speaking about their experiences or 
their opinions.  

The most important means to the defense of privacy is encryption. 
To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy.  But to encrypt with 
weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy. 
Cypherpunks hope that all people desiring privacy will learn how 
best to defend it.  

Cypherpunks are therefore devoted to cryptography.  Cypherpunks 
wish to learn about it, to teach it, to implement it, and to make 
more of it.  Cypherpunks know that cryptographic protocols make 
social structures.  Cypherpunks know how to attack a system and 
how to defend it.  Cypherpunks know just how hard it is to make 
good cryptosystems.  

Cypherpunks love to practice.  They love to play with public key 
cryptography.  They love to play with anonymous and 
pseudonymous mail forwarding and delivery.  They love to play with 
DC-nets.  They love to play with secure communications of all 
kinds.  

Cypherpunks write code.  They know that someone has to write 
code to defend privacy, and since it's their privacy, they're going to 
write it.  Cypherpunks publish their code so that their fellow 
cypherpunks may practice and play with it.  Cypherpunks realize 
that security is not built in a day and are patient with incremental 
progress.  

Cypherpunks don't care if you don't like the software they write. 
Cypherpunks know that software can't be destroyed.  Cypherpunks 
know that a widely dispersed system can't be shut down.  

Cypherpunks will make the networks safe for privacy.