Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!ucivax!gateway
From: jyacc!mydog!gcf@uunet.uu.NET (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Why I Am Not a Feminist
Message-ID: <9104270827.14195@mydog.UUCP>
Date: 2 May 91 00:21:04 GMT
References: <9104231215.aa04821@ics.uci.edu><672612764@lime.cs.duke.edu>
Lines: 65
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

tittle@blanche.ICS.UCI.EDU (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:
| >I haven't seen it before, but it is a position that I disagree with.
| >However, I have indicated before to Mr. Gazit that I disagreed with
| >various similar positions and his reaction has been, in effect,
| >"you're not one of the feminists that count."

gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit) writes:
| What I pointed out was different:
|
| There is the following process on the net:
|
| 1) X expresses some feminist anti-male position Y.
|
| 2) Non-feminists debate with X, feminist stay out of the debate.
|
| 3) *After* the debate someone says "the feminist position is Y".
|
| 4) The same feminists who stayed out of the previous debate make a big
|    debate because they claim that the feminist position is not Y.
|
| As long as you are not willing to debate other feminists about
| anti-male positions, "you're not one of the feminists that count."
|
| Feel free to complain.

In order to play this game properly, however, you have to inform all
the players that they are in it, and when it starts.  It's also
necessary to get their consent, and make sure they're on the playing
field.  I don't think this is impossible, but it can't be done by
posting things on the net.  Or it's very unlikely.  You certainly
can't start it up informally without telling anyone.  For instance, if
a "feminist" says Brownmiller is wonderful, and an "anti-feminist"
writes a scathing critique of Brownmiller and her supporters, I may
feel that my contribution would be superfluous.  That is because I
approach the net for entertainment and enlightenment, not as a
competitive sport.

There is nothing wrong with the latter approach, but those who engage
in it should realize that not everyone is doing the same thing.
Possibly a mailing list could be set up, or a moderated newsgroup, in
which each participant would be required to make a "play" during each
"round" of a discussion.  When the thread was being set up,
participants would be required to identify which "side" or "team" they
were on.  The moderator would then put something into play, like, say,
a quotation from Brownmiller.

During the first round, every player would be required to take a
position on the quotation.  During the second phase of play, the
participants would criticize the positions of the others, and improve
upon their own.  During the third phase, participants would criticize
each other and be scored on the breadth and depth of their capacity
for invective.  Finally, during a fourth phase, players would argue
about what the score was, and who won.

    "I did _too_ oppose Brownmiller's position!"

    "Yes, but you didn't denounce her by name.  You don't
    get any points."

    "Fascist thug!"

    " 'Politically correct' person!"

Now, we've never seen anything like _that_ on the net before,
have we?