Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!uci-ics!gateway From: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Soc.feminism Message-ID: <1989Nov20.114024.22394@paris.ics.uci.edu> Date: 20 Nov 89 19:40:24 GMT References: <21323@usc.edu> Reply-To: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) Followup-To: news.groups Organization: University of California, Irvine: ICS Department Lines: 117 In-reply-to: gazit@seer.usc.edu (Salit) This is a little long. I included excerpts from Hillel's postings to reply to his accusations. I am one of the moderators of soc.feminism, so there is, of course, some bias; however, I have tried to be fair. To put a little context behind Hillel's posting, it is necessary to realize that the last 4 or 5 of his postings, he has asked us to put different newsgroups as followups (which we did) and/or commented at the end of his posting that he felt discussion should continue in another newsgroup (and these postings were accepted). This last posting which was rejected came on the tail end of a thread where he had already tried to redirect it elsewhere. And he cannot hold us responsible for the soc.feminism readers that refuse to take the thread elsewhere and direct their postings back to s.f. Hillel writes: |The moderators rejected to above article [a one liner statine where a followup is going] |but accepted articles like: | |$This is typical of the 80s style of rhetoric where image is more |$important than substance. The white male with the big mouth who is |$still in college acts as if his observations are superior to the quiet |$woman who has had over 12 years of job experience. I know I need AA | |In *their* opinion there is no personal attack in the above lines... Technically, there isn't. It's a generalized attack on "white males". If you go back to Hillel's postings, you will see many similar expositions of his that we also posted. Some examples (all culled from the (publically available) October Archive): ----- $From: gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) $Subject: Re: Affirmative Action is Temporary $Message-ID: <15796@duke.cs.duke.edu> $ $>Should we simply give up, realizing that no solution is truly fair, thus $>writing off as hopeless the current imbalance and praying that everything $>works out on its own after two or three generations? I say we must fix the $>problem now, for not doing anything is also unfair. $ $Do you know how to solve the problem? $ $Why don't you start you experiment in one state and if it works (fat $chance...) move on? Why is it so important to you that if your sociological $theory is wrong you would screw up *everybody*? ----- $From: gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) $Subject: Re: how to bash feminism without really trying $Summary: You don't hear our suggestions because you keep your ears closed... $Message-ID: <15799@duke.cs.duke.edu> $ [In reply to Richard Shapiro] $When you have several people with similar qualification, $hire the one with the *lowest* current income. $ $If the feminist claim that a woman with the same qualification as a man $earns less then a law like this will give the same results as AA. $ $This idea was not very popular between the feminists, I hope that you're $smart enough to guess why... ----- $From: gazit@lear.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) $Subject: Re: Is Affirmative Action Sexist? $Message-ID: <15828@duke.cs.duke.edu> $ $In article <8910200344.AA29498@uunet.uu.net> writes: $>However, as one begins to think about the problem, there $>are certain taboos. For instance, one can conclude that, $>in a highly competitive society which also maintains rights $>of inheritance and other strong familial connnections, it $>is almost certain that inequality between categories of $>families will persist for many generations. $ $Let's assume that what you say is true (fat chance...) do you $see the main stream of feminism as part of the solution? [...] $>much. Most specifically, the power of existing elites may $>not be seriously disturbed. $ $The poor Jews who came 60 years ago succeeded in the American society. $The asians refugees who come today seem to have a similar success. $But people who know all the political theory can ignore these facts... [...] $>Thus, the surface fix which may work for racial minorities may $>not work for women, because it demands acceptance of an existing $>structure of things which some of them may be unwilling, or $>unable, to accept. $ $Would mind to start writing *clearly*? $How many is "some of them"? What can't women accept? ----- Hillel writes: |I think that the moderators don't apply uniform standards. They posted |personal attack against me, but reject even a two lines pointer to |my article. Hillel is, of course, unaware of the number of articles we have rejected that contained personal attacks on him. Of which there have been a good number. Soc.feminism is a place for debate and discussion, not a clearinghouse for listing the destination for arguments. And, as I have already mentioned, Hillel had already made it clear he was trying to move the discussion somewhere else. |I would like to debate their policy in alt.flame. I think this alone speaks volumes... I refuse to become engaged in a flame war. --Cindy -- "Why do they call it a word processor?" | ARPA: tittle@glacier.ics.uci.edu "Well, you've seen what a food processor | UUCP: ucbvax!ucivax!tittle does to food, haven't you?" | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet