pxs@machaids.UUCP (07/11/83)
Concerning the "born-again" discussion of abortion:
First, a little history:
Several months ago, net.general,followup,misc were ensconsed in a prolonged
discussion of the rights and wrongs of abortion. As the debate wore on,
reasoned arguments grew thin, unreasoned harangues grew thick ("...and thicker
in a ticking thicket of bickering crickets..."), and the 'n' keys in the land
were sore afflicted.
Also several months ago, someone came up with the idea of a new newsgroup to be
called net.women, that would discuss topics concerning women, or of special
interest to women. A great idea, with one minor problem: the person suggesting
the idea made a small, but grievous tactical error: she mentioned, among many
other topics which might be of interest to women, the subject of abortion.
Right. You guessed it.
For the first ten weeks in the life of net.women, 85% of its articles were on
the subject of abortion. Of those, 85% were written by *men*.
"Wait," I hear you cry, "that would mean that over 70% of the articles in
net.women's first ten weeks were articles by men on the subject of abortion."
Go to the head of the class...
At this time, net.general,misc,followup were also besieged by evangelistic
submissions from Christian fundamentalists (and vituperative counter-flames
thereto), and an interminable discussion of the origin of the Universe in
general, and of the human species in particular. (Yes, someone *did* raise
the possibility that the Earth is a giant computer devised to find the
Question to the Ultimate Answer. No, no one defended the Great Green
Arkleseizure Theory...)
At some point, everyone got fed up. I mean, fed UP. Wailings and lamen-
tations were heard everywhere, ritual offerings were made to net.news.group,
and the abortion debate, the fundamentalist/atheist debate, and the
creation/evolution debate were all banished to a new newsgroup, net.religion.
This is an important point, so I'll belabor it a trifle more: net.religion
was *not* formed by people interested in religion seeking a forum for their
discussions. They already had one --- net.general,misc,followup and the new
net.women. Net.religion was brought into being by people who wanted one group
to which they could unsubscribe.
(Also created at this time was net.philosophy, which occasionally aspires to
better things, though it still gets caught in the vile crosswinds from
net.politics and net.religion. Just as in real life, I guess...)
In any case, the abortion, fundamentalist/atheist, and creation/evolution
debates slowly gravitated to net.religion. Though the f/a and c/e debates
rage to this day, the abortion debate finally fizzled and faded away.
Until now.
I would be going too far to call the return of the abortion debate an entirely
bad thing. Freedom of speech means freedom for unpopular speech. HOWEVER:
1 - The discussion should be kept to net.politics and net.religion as far as is
possible. I say this not because the abortion issue is particularly
political or religious in nature, or because the subject has no in-
herent interest to women, but because the level of debate and decorum we
can expect in this debate is roughly equal to the level of debate and
decorum which exists in net.politics and net.religion. (In either of
of these groups, the words "Jane, you ignorant slut..." would seem
a tame, almost friendly greeting...)
2 - Any article, in any newsgroup, that deals with the subject of abortion
should have the word "abortion" in the subject line. This is a small
but important courtesy. (Note --- if you're responding to an article
posted by someone else, *change* the subject line if necessary.
FLAME ON --- Twenty wrongs do *not* make a right. Flame off.)
3 - Think twice before posting an article about abortion. Yes, I know, we
should all think twice before posting any article at all; but in the
case of abortion it is especially important to realize that all the
simple arguments have been *made*. People of opposing viewpoints aren't
unaware of simple opposing arguments: they simply aren't convinced
by them. Automatically gainsaying an opposing viewpoint is *not*
an argument.
"Yes, it is." "No, it isn't!" "Yes, it is."...
Oh well, this is where I came in...
Peter Squires,
ihnp4!machaids!pxsgcsherwood@watcgl.UUCP (Geoffrey C. Sherwood) (07/13/83)
I am sick of the plaintive cry that most articles submitted to net.women are be men. I am quite fond of the fairer sex, but let us be realistic. Most of those pounding terminals out there in netland are MEN. Expecting a newsgroup which is of interest to people in general (women because the group is about them, and men because, well, women are interesting!) to have mainly female correspondants seems a bit foolish. - geoff sherwood - - U. of Waterloo - (all flames cheerfully read and ignored)