Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-unix!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ptsfa!ihnp4!cbosgd!cblpf!cblpe!apc
From: apc@cblpe.ATT.COM (Alan Curtis)
Newsgroups: soc.women,news.misc
Subject: Re: }I'm still here.
Message-ID: <505@cblpe.ATT.COM>
Date: Wed, 24-Jun-87 17:57:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: cblpe.505
Posted: Wed Jun 24 17:57:53 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jun-87 07:08:24 EDT
References: <3995@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <492@cblpe.ATT.COM> <4702@sdcrdcf.UUCP>
Reply-To: apc@cblpe.ATT.COM (55212-Alan Curtis)
Distribution: world
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Columbus, Ohio
Lines: 114
Keywords: AbdulRahman, soc.women, credit card, Nazis, pronouns
Xref: mnetor soc.women:5030 news.misc:627

In article <4702@sdcrdcf.UUCP> faigin@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Daniel P Faigin) writes:
>people do not read the article they are replying to. For example:

>>In article <3995@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes:
>>>would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women.
>
>Now, look closely at what Mark said:
>... would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women.
>
>Mark did not say: "I want a faminist to moderate." Mark suggests
>(and quite reasonably) that it does not make sense to have
>someone moderate soc.woman who has the capability to be
>"anti-feminist." I am sure that Mark would not object to a
>NEUTRAL person of either gender serving as moderator.
>

Read it again:
	She says "not a man or an anti-feminist woman".
	She does NOT say "not a anti-feminist man or woman".
This I take (along with everyone else I have asked) to mean:
	not a male
AND
	not a female who is anti feminist.

As for you being sure mark would accept a male moderator, I must
question that. In fact, with further "discussions" with mark,
a male is 100% not-even-considered out.

>>>I'd like Sherry, Pat, aMAZon, Ellen Eades, Cheryl,
>>>Valerie, or any other of the strong feminist women in soc.women to moderate
>>>the group
>
>I've read in soc.women, not ALL of these women are rabid feminists.

To me, the phrase "or other strong feminist women" implies that
                      -----
mark considers these people as what you term "rabid feminists".
This reinforces that idea that marks wants only a feminist moderator.

>>>so ad hominem attacks and postings not of concern to women
>>>could be refused
>
>This is the purpose of any moderator. 

Agreed, but any open minded women could determine what was
of concern to women, as long as they had HEARD of the feminist
theory.  I truely open minded women wouldn't have had to have
heard of the theory before starting to moderate, they would be
illunited real quick.

>Then, in article <492@cblpe.ATT.COM>, apc@cblpe.ATT.COM (55212-Alan Curtis)
>replies:
> 
>>I find it quite interesting that you, of all people, would be
>>so openly hypocritical! 
>
>Don't you just love people who skim articles, pick up one word,
>and then flame. Read what you are replying to closely before you
>post. 

I did, are you sure you did?
I very carefully went over the posting, and even have had
reasons (many) to read it many times over the past few days.
I still stick by my interpretation.

>Mark didn't imply this. Mark felt that a neutral party without
>gender bias (or even with a slightly pro-women bias) would be the
>best to moderate. You read in the feminism, Mark didnt say it.

I still think she did. 

>And only a programmer can determine what is appropriate for
>comp.sources.misc. Or a handicapped person on the handicapped
>newsgroup. Or a lawyer for misc.legal. C'mon. It is, however,
>unlikely that a man could determine what is approprate for a
>women (I know, I'm married and still can't always figure out what
>my wife wants :-)). It is similarly true that a
>traditional-role-oriented female may not approve of the feminist
>postings.
>
and thus also true that a feminist may not approve of the
traditional-role-oriented (TRO) female postings.  I agree it works
both ways, thus making the search for moderator return a null set
for the group as currently chartered.  I see no reason to pick
feminist (ie anti-TRO) over a anti-feminist (ie TRO)

>>If your only motive for wishing that .women become moderated is to stop
>>ad hominem attacks, then why must the moderator be a feminist female?
>
>Read what Mark said:
>... would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women.
>Not Anti-Feminist != Feminist

If you think women should have equal rights then you are a feminist.
If you think women should not have equal rights, then you are anti-feminist.
Thus, (I believe) "Not Anti-feminist == Feminist"

>Read what Mark said:
>... would not like to see a man or an anti-feminist woman host soc.women.
>Not Anti-Feminist != Feminist

I guess saying it twice should convince me?
Din`t work on me, so I won't try it one you.


Is there a better newsgroup for this discussion?
I doubt this is the "right" one,
but I can't think of a better one right now.

-- 
"Are you sure you won't change your mind?"           | Alan P. Curtis
"Is there something wrong with the one I have?"      | AT&T,BTL,CB
-----------------------------------------------------| apc@cblpe.ATT.COM
Kudos to stargate for redistribution rights          | !cbosgd!cblpe!apc