Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!excelan!unix!maslak
From: maslak@unix.SRI.COM (Valerie Maslak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Soc.feminism
Message-ID: <5970@unix.SRI.COM>
Date: 22 Nov 89 00:13:21 GMT
References: <128159@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <48571@bbn.COM>
Reply-To: maslak@unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak)
Organization: SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
Lines: 30

In article <48571@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes:
>In article <128159@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow) writes:
>>    They didn't want middle of the road rhetoric, or fairness in dealing
>>with men.  As the quoted article you included exemplifed, they wanted
>>a forum for man-bashing without men being allowed to participate (except
>>for those men who had been through retraining and were willing to man-bash
>>as well).
>
>This is utter fantasy, and more than a little paranoid. Perhaps Mr
>Turnbow believes that feminism equals man-bashing; perhaps he believes
>this makes him "middle of the road"; perhaps he believes in Santa
>Claus. Well and good. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with
>soc.feminism, a group which has seen more (MANY more) anti-feminist
>articles than pro-feminist ones. The only bashing has been in your
>imagination, Mr Turnbow.

 Thanks, Richard. I agree. The fact is that there was a small
problem initially in the moderation process, which resulted in some
articles being dropped. I have not been moderating, although I was
proposed as a moderator, for reasons I won't go into, and the other
moderators have picked up my share of articles. There have been no
problems that I have been aware of since the first few weeks of the
group. People are told WHY their articles are rejected.

Men are not only allowed to participate, they are, as Richard says,
the majority posters. Hillel has been a heavy poster, and can
hardly complain that he is being discriminated against from what I
can see.

 Valerie Maslak