From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Some examples (Was Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?))
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:57:08 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <ZEN.92Sep3202122@death.corp.sun.com> 
zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

>In article <715566430@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>> In article <ZEN.92Sep3134228@death.corp.sun.com>
>> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

>> >  I never heard of the debate until after alt.feminism was created.  

>> And therefore it has never happened...

>  Logic was never your strong point, I guess.  I didn't say it never
>happened, I was pointing out that since it happened in a notorious place
>where feminists fear to tread, it probably was a fairly one-sided
>debate.

1) I was pointing out that the question if you've heard about
   the debate or not is irrelevant.

2) Nobody prevents you from posting in soc.men.

>  It was interesting to note that muffy didn't reject *any* of the
>articles that you posted.  

I have given soc.feminism a try every now and then.  I had just one
rejection since Muffy joined, and she agreed with the rejection.  (The
first rejection I posted in my previous article had agreements from
*three* moderators.  Please read again if you missed that.)

[Gordon]
>  One article being posted doesn't mean that he was *never* rejected, or

I claim that the ideas he likes get censored less often.

Feel free to disagree.

>  Well, it is a feminist topic, I suppose... but I never said it wasn't.
>I personally don't think feminism is about women controlling anyone --
>but I suppose a large part of women's problems is that there lives are
>so unfairly and unequally dominated by society, which has been
>traditionally and currently been controlled by men.

Talk sometimes with men who went through a divorce and get a clue.

Talk sometimes with men who have to pay child's support for 18 years 
because of a birth control failure and get a clue.

Talk sometimes with men who were drafted and get a clue.

Talk sometimes with men who lost a job and/or university
admission to less qualified women and get a clue.

>> >You claim that this new group is so great, 

>> Please quote where I said that.

>  Excuse me -- I should have said that you have made it clear that you
>think that this unmoderated group is vastly superior to soc.feminism

That's not so very hard to achieve...

>  Well, I underestimated your tenacity, and though you didn't prove
>anything about muffy's censorship and abuse of moderation in your
>examples, 

I think that the moderators have a collective responsibility.
(If one of them does not like the party line she can ask
people to mail their articles directly to her, you know.)

>  So these were all rejected because you were flaming, 

They were rejected because the moderators claimed that they were
flaming.  You take that as given, without any questions.  I
wonder how you reach your conclusions, so here is an exercise.

Please explain why the following article was rejected, and
please write more than "it is a flame.  Period."

########################################################################

In article <1991Nov08.223304.288882@cs.cmu.edu> jdravk+@cs.cmu.edu (Jeanette Dravk) writes:
>Considering the fact that I have found many, many people (I'd call them
>mainstream) who define feminism as something inherently against men then
>I have to say (quite proudly) that I am NOT a mainstream feminists.

Please tell us what kind of person says something like:

"Y'know .. REAL equality, REAL paybacks to women for being turned into
what they are by society would involve switching places and making men
the 2nd class citizens for the next 3000 years or so."  --  Jeanette Dravk

Please also tell us what prevents you from defining yourself
as a "mainstream feminist".

########################################################################

>  Again, a moderator doing their job -- saying that she thinks that your

Do you have anything more original to say then "what the
moderators said is the truth, all the truth, and nothing
but the truth.  Case closed"?

>  Your point seems to that you object to any moderation at all -- that
>you feel that your articles should be posted regardless of whether or
>not the moderator thinks it should be or not.  

Being a good moderator is a very tricky business, and no
moderator at all is better than soc.feminism.moderators.

> -- d

Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Recently there were some statistics posted in alt.child-support about how 
good fathers who got joint custody were at paying their support.  I don't 
know if anybody else noticed What's Wrong with This Picture."
                                               --  Eric Pepke