From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Some examples (Was Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?))
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:27:11 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

# Gordon, there was a big debate about the subject in soc.men, and I posted
# quite a few examples of the kind of articles that get posted and the kind
# of articles that get rejected.  Quite a few people agreed with my opinion,
# that's why alt.feminism was created.  Nor you, neither the moderators had
# anything to say in this debate, but you reject the conclusions.

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...

>I suspect that, since the debate was undertaken in that hotbed of
>feminism, soc.men, that it's not surprising that the vote was in favor
>of alt.feminism.  

The moderators knew about the debate (I mentioned it when I asked
for permission to post their rejection notices), and part of the
debate was cross-posted to soc.women.  *I* play fair.

>Besides, it doesn't take a "real" vote to create an
>alt group anyway -- any bozo can do it.  

But it takes some effort to keep it alive.
See the death of comp.society.women if you miss the point.

>It would mean more if a group
>had been created in the standard net manner (votes tallyed, etc.)  For
>those of us not in the know, what kinds of articles were rejected?

I put several examples in the end of this post.

>Seems like the only difference between soc.feminism and here is that
>there are about an order of magnitude more flames and incoherent posts
>here than there.  What kind of seriously thought out posts appear here
>that would not appear in soc.feminism, except discussions of how fucked
>up the moderation is on soc.feminism 

It is so nice of you to have an opinion about the rejections
without even seeing them!  I'm really impressed.

>  How do you know how much he's been rejected or not?  

Check the first example in the end of this article.

Gordon's claim that censorship's goal is not moral values but
control was perfectly fine for soc.feminism.  My claim that
feminism, as a political movement, is mostly about controlling
other people was rejected.  Regardless of the validity of my
claim (we had a long discussion in soc.men about the rejected
article), the claim itself is relevant to feminism.

>You claim that this new group is so great, 

Please quote where I said that.

>Personally, I'd rather have the moderators filter out your drek, 

Feel free to press "u" to alt.feminism and subscribe to soc.feminism.
(I have never suggested to rmgroup soc.feminism.  It is better to
give Muffy, and people like her, a personal sand-box, so they will
keep their drek there.)

>if your
>writing here is anything like what you try to post to soc.feminsim.  

Feel free to put me in your KILL file.

>For
>that matter, if you post things like this to soc.feminism, why do you
>think your posts are being rejected?  

I had a discussion about that with Susan Garvin.  She thinks that it
is a personal bias, I think that they dislike Politically Incorrect
opinions.  The one experiment we did so far seems to support her thesis.

>  How about some proof with your accusations?  

Ten lines down.

>Not that we'll see any.

No doubt that you will not see any...

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


Well.  After checking with the other two moderators, we came to the
conclusion that this really is no longer relevant to feminism.  This
seems much more appropriate for alt.censorship at this point.

Comments were:
>It seems like he isn't saying anything at all, certainly not anything 
>relevant to feminism.  I think I would suggest alt.censorship might be
>more appropriate.

and
>The only relevance to feminism that Hillel's article contains is the
>quotes from Gordon Fitch, which aren't completely relevant anyway.  More
>than that, he chooses to drag in some pet peeves without really saying
>anything (much less anything *new*).  Ayn Rand is not a feminist, as far
>as I can tell.  AA is irrelevant, and he does not make it relevant, he
>just wants to talk about it.  Tell him "irrelevant to feminism."

both of which confirmed my initial opinion.

--Cindy

 > 
 > In article <1992May13.143737.22182@aero.org>gcf@panix.com(Gordon Fitch) writes:
 > >Most discussions of censorship start out with the 
 > >assumption that it is possible to practice it.  
 > 
 > NO.
 > 
 > You got that one wrong.
 > 
 > Even Dworkin knows enough history to know about the Prohibition.
 > 
 > I quote here a paragraph from "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand that I
 > read for the first time long ago; she got it right.
 > 
 > #"Did you really think that we want those laws be observed?" said Dr.
 > #Ferris.  "We *want* them broken.  You'd better get it straight that
 > #it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know
 > #that this is not the age for beautiful gestures.  We're after power
 > #and we mean it.  You fellows were pickers, but we know the real trick,
 > #and you'd better get wise to it.  There's no way to rule innocent men. 
 > #The only power any government has is the power to crack down on 
 > #criminals.  Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one *makes* them.
 > #One declares so many things so many things to be a crime that it 
 > #becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.  Who wants
 > #a nation of law-abiding citizens?  What's there in that for anyone?
 > #But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor 
 > #enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-
 > #breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.  
 >  
 > >One form of censorship _might_be_ possible, but it has 
 > >nothing in particular to do with sex or other supposedly 
 > >obscene interests.  That is censorship for the pure sake of 
 > >censorship, as an exercise of power for the satisfaction of 
 > >controlling and subjugating others.  It does not seem like
 > >a good thing for feminists, or any other group of people
 > >working for political change, to get into, since the
 > >exercise of force generally favors those already in power.
 > 
 > If they have the will to do so.
 > 
 > E.g. it was not a big deal to get rid of the Nazi party after the
 > Beer Hall Putsch, but those in power had not the will to do so.
 > 
 > >Andrea Dworkin may have, or imagine she has, an under-
 > >standing with such people; I know that I do not.
 > 
 > Dworkin may have the understanding, and her side even may
 > win because it is more ruthless.
 > 
 > Before you dismiss all the idea please think about all the affirmative
 > action laws.  Methinks that they are the "kind of laws that can neither 
 > be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted," but they help
 > liberals, especially in EEO departments, to gain power.
 > 
 > What's your opinion?
 > 
 > >Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | cmcl2.nyu.edu!panix!gcf
 > 
 > Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu
 > 
 > "WAVMP has yet to make any public statements in support of gay rights, sex
 > education in schools, birth control and abortion, children's right to sexual
 > information and freedom, decriminalization of prostitution or civil rights of
 > sexual minorities.  They continue to grow larger to grow larger, more powerful
 > and more pro-censorship and antisex in their positions.  Few members of the
 > liberal press will risk opposing or criticizing them because they travel under
 > the protective, self-applied label `feminist'.  It is obvious that no one in
 > the conservative press will oppose them, either - unless they get too public
 > about having a large lesbian membership." 
 >    --  ("AMONG US, AGAINST US the new puritans", Pat Califia)

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

Subject: rejected soc.feminism article
Status: O


I am rejecting this because it's a flame.  If you want to comment on another
person's character, do it in alt.flame or by email.

Miriam Nadel