From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.config
Subject: Re: Alt.feminism
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:41:32 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: alt.config
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <6303@ucru2.ucr.edu>, starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:

> In article <1992Aug17.214630.5682@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>>In article <4855@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:

>>>Alt.feminism is an unmoderated group for the discussion of feminism and
>>>issues relating to feminism.

>>   I, for one, am against it. In brief, I don't see how this group would be
>>any more than Yet Another Flamewar Group. With s.men and s.women, and also
>>talk.rape and talk.abortion, I don't see the need for alt.feminism. It 
>>seems to me that a.f will have pretty much an overlapping content with these
>>groups and others. What aspect of the content of alt.feminism will be
>>different from these groups?

Soc.men is trying to focus on men's issues and the men's movement.  For the
most part, the men's movement is not about feminism.  However, there is
no group on the net that one can debate the pros and cons of feminism and
so the debate ends up in soc.men.  I can understand the annoyance of the
readers of soc.men when this (and the talk.abortion) stuff ends up there.

Also, as one of my customers have pointed out to me, it must be difficult to
debate in soc.feminism when the "moderator" chooses to enter into the debate
as your opponent.  Not only can the "moderator" choose not to post your
replies, she is free to post whatever she pleases about your article without
anyone "moderating" her posts.  It is like having Dan Quayle as the
"Moderator"/"Commentator"/"Question-Asker" at the League of Women Voter's
Presidential Debates.

As for "flamewar groups" -- I must say that soc.men and soc.women seem to be
more of "debate" groups.  To disagree with someone is not "flaming" them.
To debate someone is not "flaming" them.  Calling into question the marital
status of someone's parents before their birth or what breed of dog their
mother happens to be is flaming them!

Soc.men/women are a far cry from this.  They may debate things, but flame
attacks are hardly the norm.  In fact, such attacks are frowned upon as much
in soc.men/women as anywhere else on the net, with the possible exception of
alt.flame of course!

The discussion of Abortion, Rape, Feminism are really fringe discussion
topics of soc.men/women.  They really don't belong to the focus of the
groups and I can understand that.  The users don't really appreciate it when
the rejects of soc.feminism are posted in the soc.men/women groups.  But
what are people to do?  I hate to suggest misc.misc, as this is quite lame!

But the merits of soc.men/women are not the issue here.  Also abortion and
rape are not the issue here.  What is at issue is the name of the group and
whether or not you wish to carry it at your site.  If you don't like the
name, please feel free, as always, to suggest a new name.  If the name is OK
but you don't want the traffic at your site, then certainly don't carry it.
If you feel a group is being duplicated (such as alt.graphics) then you are
free to either not carry the group or to alias it to the "proper" group.

In the case of "alt.feminism", I was originally opposed to it and told my
customer so.  I was then persuaded by the arguments presented above and
agreed to carry it here if it was discussed in alt.config.  I don't believe
that this group is a duplication of effort or another flame group.  If I
did I'd tell those requesting this group to "take a hike" in a minute!

This is the ALTnet, where alternative groups are offered.  If you feel you
don't want to carry a group, then please don't carry it.  But please allow
the ALTnet to be an alternative to the "mainstream".

I hope to have this issue resolved soon (before the new term starts) as I'm
sure that you, like me, have a lot to do before then.  If you don't like the
name please suggest an alternative.

> Every group is a flame-war group at one time or another.  It cannot
> be any other way as long as there are no restrictions on who may and may not
> post.  In a moderated group like soc.feminism the moderators do censor
> articles from a subjective viewpoint.  Many people feel that they are
> not fair.  

Groups erupt into flames when people lose control.  I've seen it happen in
rec.folk-dancing!  It's not the norm however.  I think the net is mature
enough to debate issues such as feminism without the need for a "moderator"
to weed out the flames.  People who flame are quickly disregarded these
days as morons and/or idiots and aren't taken seriously.  (Witness the
demise of the "spelling flame" for instance.  Anyone invoking it is thought
of as a "weenie").

What concerns me more about moderation (and was the very issue that caused
me to agree to this group) is the fact that "moderators" are entering into
the "debate".  You can't be an objective moderator if you have a vested
interest in the debate.  The moderation suffers when this happens.  At that
point I'd rather see no moderation.


> There is an interest, there is need for an unmoderated group and I for
> on support the creation of alt.feminism now.

At first glance I can understand why this group would appear to be an
unnecessary duplication of effort.  I do sympathize with the readers of
soc.men/women who don't see this issue as the primary focus of their groups.
I will newgroup this as soon as it seems appropriate to do so.

Thanks to both of you for your input.

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.config