home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky soc.women:19794 alt.feminism:4620 soc.men:19475
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!bu.edu!transfer.stratus.com!sw.stratus.com!dswartz
- From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
- Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
- Subject: Re: Practise what you preach? (was:what is sexist?)
- Message-ID: <1ebp37INNdch@transfer.stratus.com>
- Date: 17 Nov 92 21:44:07 GMT
- References: <MUFFY.92Nov16145244@remarque.berkeley.edu> <MUFFY.92Nov17113118@anableps.berkeley.edu>
- Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
- Lines: 69
- NNTP-Posting-Host: redondo.sw.stratus.com
-
- In article <MUFFY.92Nov17113118@anableps.berkeley.edu>, muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
- > In article <1ebd05INNdch@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
- > >In article <1992Nov17.162445.28368@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
- > >> But if you are *trying* to be rude -- I don't know why they would be
- > >> off limits. I believe that they are more acceptable to the gentle
- > >> reader than "asshole."
- >
- > >But what the women whose postings I read were complaining about wasn't the
- > >gentility (gentleness? whatever) of the rude male posting, it was the fact
- > >that they resented (and quoted feminist dogma to back it up) men posting
- > >insulting and/or condescending postings against women in soc.women. I find
- > >it more than a little strange that a moderator of soc.feminism engages in this
- > >type of behavior on soc.men.
- >
- > Well, let's look at this. First, I was posting in alt.feminism, not
- > soc.men. I do not know why it is that people keep cross-posting
- > everything to soc.men. I have not cross-posted any of my posts to that
- > group, but I do reply to all the groups that a posting was originally
- > put in. Presumably, while you may consider soc.men to be your personal
- > space, I, as a "well-known net feminist," can consider alt.feminism to
- > be at least partially mine.
-
- I never said I considered soc.men to be my private space. I was just
- pointing out the inconsistency (IMO) of women criticizing men for posting
- insulting and/or condescending stuff to soc.women (said criticism being on
- feminist grounds [ask Barbara Stubna, Cheryl Stewart, etc] and then doing
- the same thing on soc.men. The claim being that ridicule and insult is one
- of the ways men oppress women on the net, by making them reluctant to post.
- The fact that the target of your ire cross-posted to soc.men doesn't in my
- view change anything.
-
- > Second, I have never personally advocated the ideas you give above.
-
- Oh, you're not one of the avowed feminists who feel men shouldn't post to
- soc.women (unless they agree with feminist viewpoints), since soc.women is
- "womyn space"? The problem is that it isn't feasible for me to determine
- which set of feminist opinions you hold, other than those you have explictly
- stated. And when men have (on more than one occasion) been criticized for
- posting to soc.women; and when said reasons are justified using feminist
- dogma, it's hard not to assume that that is a typical view. To anticipate
- your question, said justification was that men posting to soc.women was akin
- to men being in the same classroom (or whatever) as women, and the women end
- up feeling suppressed/oppressed/whatever due to the societal conditioning.
-
- > Third, (and you may not have realized this), there is absolutely no
- > requirement on moderators of soc.feminism to be polite to idiots in
- > other newsgroups, only to be polite to idiots whose posts we receive for
- > approval.
-
- I never said there was such a requirement. And in fact, you folks don't
- even meet the criterion you just described. I seem to recall a post where
- one of said moderators rejected a post using the dreaded "dear" word?
- I suppose it was unreasonable of me to assume that because you enforce a
- policy of reasonableness as a moderator on one group, that you might have
- the restraint to not engage in flame wars on another. My error.
-
- > Muffy
- > --
- >
- > Muffy Barkocy muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
- > ~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
- > discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
- > of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
-
- --
-
- #include <std_disclaimer.h>
-
- Dan S.
-