MJ Ray,

OK, ctrl+F did not work, because the email said "for just" but you said
"just for".  Actually, no two words in your quote were in sequence in the
email you tried to quote.  So much for ctrl+F.

Casual discrimination against women and disabled doesn't mean you get a
pass to say none of this matters.  Interacting specifically with other
people who have to live your issues and don't just look at them
intellectually (this interaction is what the women here are trying to do)
is not quite the same as denying that other people face issues (what both
of us have experienced at some point).

If it helps, I use Webbie and Thunder to audio browse websites I work on,
because then I am more likely to notice glaringly obvious things like the
recaptcha.  But, yeah, going into pretty much any subscription database
with only audio from a screen reader is a lost cause.

-Wilhelmina Randtke

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 7:30 PM, MJ Ray <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Wilhelmina Randtke asked:
> > When you say someone referred to "a group just for women", did you mean
> > when Bohyun Kim said "interests in a space for women"?
> >
> > Because if you did, then you should not have used quotes, since you were
> > not quoting.  If that language you don't like came from somewhere else,
> > then please be more specific, because I didn't see it at the start of
> this
> > thread that I'm emailing on.
> That language is in the second paragraph of the email dated Fri, 7 Dec
> 2012 16:13:47 +0000 from Bohyun Kim, but I apologise for having put
> the a in the quote marks.  It should have been outside them, as I cut
> part of "a small support and discussion group for just women".  I
> guess I hit the editing keys badly on Friday.
> It's very disappointing that no-one else seems willing to challenge
> that behaviour and so many are actively supporting it.  I feel like
> we're still in the dark ages.  Two wrongs do not make a right and two
> discriminations - one unconscious and one conscious - does not make
> equality.
> Joshua Gomez suggested:
> > [...] And I don't think that reverse discrimination is the true
> > concern of most of those that have voiced opinions against a
> > sub-community for women (at least I hope not).
> I don't think that suggesting everyone who disagrees with one's view
> is insincere or dishonest or something is a good idea.
> Personally, my concern isn't that it is reverse discrimination - it's
> that it is still discrimination.  I don't feel that past sins excuse
> further ones.
> > [...] And since I am not a member of the group that has been
> > discriminated against I don't think I or anyone else not in that group
> > should try to dissuade them from doing what is in their best interest.
> I am not a member of *that* group that has been discriminated against,
> but I am a member of one minority that is routinely discriminated
> against in a pretty direct way - code4lib's wiki suggests we are not
> human, as I mentioned in another mail on Friday:
> - and I am not dissuading women from doing what is in their best
> interest, but I believe setting up another discriminatory group is not
> in anyone's best interests.  The best thing would be to do similar as
> we do for accessibility and have mixed groups like
> working together to dismantle the barriers.
> Regards,
> --
> MJ Ray (slef), member of, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
> supporter, web and library systems developer.
> In My Opinion Only: see
> Available for hire (including development) at