From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Alt.feminism
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:55:08 GMT

In article <17gkuuINNa0q@agate.berkeley.edu> Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu> writes:
)ag> = starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) in <6303@ucru2.ucr.edu>
)tj> = tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) in <5001@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
)
)ag> Soc.feminism is a pro-feminist moderated group and basically
)ag> very dogmatic in nature.
)
)=o= While the moderators are indeed pro-feminist, the contention
)that the group is dogmatic is absolutely untrue.  The moderators
)do not reject criticisms of feminism.  This fact is stated in
)their monthly informational postings and can be verified by
)reading messages in the newsgroup.  If anything, the moderators
)are quite liberal about allowing such criticism -- perhaps *too*
)liberal.

Since the moderators do not mention when they are rejecting posts (they
refused my request to notify the readers of soc.feminism that the following
was posted to another group, stating it was not their policy), it's quite
possible and likely that you don't have any idea of *what* the moderators are
rejecting.

The following may be a case in point - it's a response to one of your
own posts to the group that was rejected as 'irrelevant'.  I continue
to feel that the response was just as relevant as your original post.
I don't like the idea where an initial post is posted to the group,
and responses to it are not allowed as 'irrelelvant', but it has happened
several times in my personal experience, and I'm beginning to suspect
that it is in fact quite common.

A casual reading of the group does in fact give the impression that the
moderators are rather lenient.  However, IMO this impression is mistaken.

________________________________________________________________

Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: REJECT (from soc.feminism)
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Keywords: 


In article <sclbuINN5mc@agate.berkeley.edu> jym@mica.berkeley.edu writes:

)=-= While there is no "systematic and organized" group like
)the KKK working against women, that's hardly relevant.  What's
)relevant is that misogynists, as disorganized as they are, are
)so very effective.
)
)=-= Indeed, I'd say they're more effective at achieving their
)goals then organized groups like the KKK are at achieving
)theirs.  There are far more victims of rape and sexual assault
)than there are of cross-burnings.
)    <_Jym_>

/* set parody on */

While there is no "systematic and organized" group like
the KKK working against men, that's hardly relevant.  What's
relevant is that misandrists, as disorganized as they are, are
so very effective.

Indeed, I'd say they're more effective at achieving their
goals then organized groups like the KKK are at achieving
theirs.  There are far more victims of assaults against men than
there are of cross-burnings.

---
Maybe it _is_ relevant that there is no 'systematic and organized' group.
working against men or women.  Jym's statment doesn't directly imply that
men don't suffer from crime, but the sexist languge suggests this even
though it isn't directly stated.  In fact, men are the victims of violent
crime of all most all sorts much more frequently than women.


______________________________________________________________


)=o= Articles are rejected from soc.feminism if they have nothing
)to do with feminism or if they do nothing but repeat something
)that's already been said.  The folks in soc.men who are whining
)about their articles not being accepted are, from what I can
)see, posting such articles.

I think it's rather curious that you feel you can speak so authoritatively
about why moderators reject postings when in fact you don't even *see*
what they reject.

I'm not sure that speculation on the motives of the moderators for their
actions is appropriate - but I for one (and there are several others)
are *very* unhappy with the recent quality of moderation on soc.feminism.

)tj> What concerns me more about moderation (and was the very
)tj> issue that caused me to agree to this group) is the fact
)tj> that "moderators" are entering into the "debate".
)
)=o= There are several moderators for soc.feminism, and they are
)a diverse group.  In instances where a moderator -- let's call
)her Moderator A -- enters into the debate, her article is
)submitted for approval by the other moderators.  And yes, some
)of these articles have actually been rejected by the other
)moderators.  If somebody posts something disagreeing with what
)Moderator A has posted, Moderator A does not have the authority
)to reject it.  Again, you can verify that this is going on by
)reading messages in the newsgroup.

However, the moderators all share a common 'pro-feminist' viewpoint.
And I suspect that they've become personal friends through their association
and shared viewpoints as well.  I'm sure the fact that there are 3 
oderators does help the moderation some, but recently results have been
rather poor (IMO).

)=o= Now if all the moderators were arguing the same things in
)the same thread and rejecting all dissenting articles, you might
)have a case.  But that's never happened.

)=o= You could have found this out yourself if you had had the
)simple courtesy to ask the moderators about their policies
)before posting your criticisms of those policies.  Indeed,
)you could have figured this out yourself by paying attention
)to the articles in soc.feminism.  As it stands, you just
)flamed in ignorance.  You owe an apology to the moderators
)of soc.feminism for so thoroughly misrepresenting them.

I think that you are being rather overbearing here.  I'm quite willing to
believe that you are happy with the moderation in soc.feminism.  There
are many who are not, and there are a few other issues I haven't mentioned
that have happened to me personally, as well as some bad expereineces
other people have had.

I, for one, *have* written the moderators over the  disagreements I
have had with them.  Your assumption that this has not been done by the
particular poster you were replying too (or some of the other posters who are
complaining) seems to have little basis in fact.

After what seemed like me to be a *very* clear instance of a double standard
for what moderators would approve from each other vs. what they would 
approve from me - AND with no redress or apology or even the courtesy of
a reply from my letter acknowledging my complaint - I reluctantly decided
that it would be in my best interests to terminate my participation in that
group, at least until I felt there was some evidence the situation had
changed.  So far I haven't heard a peep from them (in spite of a few
public complaints), and to be frank I don't expect to.

I think the creation of the alt group is a good thing - I hope to be able
to get a mail feed for it, but I support the idea in principle even though
I have no guarantee of being able to benefit from it personally

Actually, I hope that the alt.feminism group can transcent the relatively
transient political issue of the moderation in soc.feminism.  I really hope
that the group will 'take off' in its own right, and become the source of
interesting and free and uncensored discussion.  Perhaps it will take some
time for the current issue of soc.feminism moderation to 'blow off', but I
realy would like to see people post to the group, and would encourage
feminists who feel comfortable in an unmoderated environment to post to it.
I'd like to see the group succed in its own right, on its own merits.

I've added soc.men back into the followup, as I unfortunately do not
get alt.config.
Xref: sparky alt.config:5363 alt.polyamory:1112 alt.personals:17951