mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) (08/05/87)
[This is an update on modifications I am making to the guidelines for posting to soc.women that I posted a couple of weeks ago. If you haven't seen these guidelines and would like to comment on them, please send me e-mail. So far I have heard from about 20 people. Some have raised questions that I wanted to get a better idea on how to deal with in this document and if they should be dealt with at all. Please respond by e-mail, rather than posting.] 1) In my introduction I referred to the articles in news.announce.newusers. One suggestion was that I should specifically point out the "How to Use the USENET Effectively" document which is provided with the 2.11 news release. I personally don't think that's necessary, but would like to know if others think it is or isn't a good idea. 2) Some responses suggested that the guidelines should discourage men from posting - this was phrased with various levels of vehemence. I have decided to include the following paragraph in the "Purpose of soc.women" section: >Both women and men are welcome to participate in soc.women. However, men >should be particularly sensitive to the anger that many women feel, even in >response to discriminatory episodes which may seem relatively minor. >Many men are not aware of the pain associated with how women are often >treated and should be careful to avoid belittling our concerns. Is this too harsh? Is it strong enough or too strong or about right? Does it sound insulting? Do you have any ideas on how I might say it better? I'm not quite sure exactly where to put this. I'm leaning towards putting it at the end of the "Purpose" section but am open to suggestions. 3) One paragraph I included in the "netiquette" section drew a lot of commentary and I agree it was poorly phrased. The original paragraph read as follows: >7) It is a good idea to cite references when stating facts. It is not >a good practice to discuss a personal experience that differs from >facts or statistics. For example, the issue of child support has risen >several times and someone always has a horror story that they claim >contradicts the figures given. Bear in mind that we are usually discussing >a general social issue, not your specific case. I am planning to modify this to say: >7) It is a good idea to cite references when stating facts. Discussion >of personal experiences is welcome, but one should be wary of excessive >generalization based on personal experience. For example, your >ex-wife's alimony demands do not imply that most women want men to support >them. 4) I am adding a paragraph to the "netiquette" section regarding how to deal with abusive e-mail. I realize the legal issues are not well defined in this matter so this paragraph may be excessively conservative. Feedback is always welcome. >8) Some posters to soc.women have received abusive e-mail in response to their >postings. The legal issues associated with this problem have not been >resolved. If it is an isolated incident, it is probably best to ignore the >abusive message. Repeated abusive mail from an individual may call for >action. In general, it is a good idea to contact the system administrator >of the offender's system, who may be able to verify the offender's identity >and take appropriate disciplinary actions. Under extreme conditions, posting >the offending material may be appropriate as a means of warning other >readers about the offender. However, this is an extreme measure and is not >generally advisable. 5) Two responses suggested including information on how to use the news software. For example, when suggesting response by e-mail instead of posting, I could include the information "in rn, you may do this by typing 'r';typing 'R' will include the article you are responding to." My feeling is that inclusion of this information would make the guidelines article too long and discourage people from reading it. However, I have thought about suggesting that one should ask their system administrator for information about how to use the news software. Do people think this would be helpful? 6) Someone suggested that I include some basic information sources on feminism for those with no background whatsoever. Again, I think this might make the article excessively lengthy. However, we now have a "basic feminist reading list" (a collection of my references and the ones Darci compiled) and I suppose mentioning its existence and my willingness to send a copy to anyone requesting one by e-mail wouldn't hurt. Comments? 7) There has been a suggestion that the guidelines be posted quarterly instead of monthly. Opinions are welcome. 8) I will send a copy of the revised guidelines to the appropriate backbone types approximately a week before the first "regular" posting (which will be on 1 Sept.). I assume that means chuq and Gene Spafford. Is this correct? Is there someone else I should send it to, what with Gene changing jobs and uunet growing and the alternate backbone, etc. ? Miriam Nadel -- "Did Beethoven do the dishes? Did Mozart sweep the floors?" - Ginny Reilly INTERNET: mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!mhnadel UUCP: {philabs, trwrb}!cadovax!gryphon!mhnadel
mbr@aoa.UUCP (Mark Rosenthal) (08/06/87)
I am posting this as a followup rather than sending E-mail because I can't find a path to gryphon. I will probably get flamed to high-heaven for suggesting some balance here, but here goes anyway. In article <1129@gryphon.CTS.COM> mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) writes of her proposed guidelines for soc.women: >I am planning to modify this to say: > >>7) It is a good idea to cite references when stating facts. Discussion >>of personal experiences is welcome, but one should be wary of excessive >>generalization based on personal experience. For example, your >>ex-wife's alimony demands do not imply that most women want men to support >>them. Fine with me, if you modify the last sentence to read: For example, your ex-wife's alimony demands do not imply that most women want men to support them, just as your ex-husband's failure to make child support payments do not imply that most men abandon their children. If you fail to make your example cut both ways, the clear implication is that only men "should be wary of excessive generalization based on personal experience", and that women should feel free to make such excessive generalizations. -- Mark of the Valley of Roses ...!{harvard,ima}!bbn!aoa!mbr ...!{wjh12,mit-vax}!biomed!aoa!mbr
gtaylor@astroatc.UUCP (that wierdo in the 5-sided shoebox office) (08/07/87)
In article <1129@gryphon.CTS.COM> mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) writes: Just a suggestion on this one.... >>7) It is a good idea to cite references when stating facts. Discussion >>of personal experiences is welcome, but one should be wary of excessive >>generalization based on personal experience. For example, your >>ex-wife's alimony demands do not imply that most women want men to support >>them. It certainly seems sound to have the previous paragraph (which I'm not including here) make reference for the need on the part of some male posters to be sensitive to the anger that some women may feel, but it seems to me that the above referenced section suggests by the chosen example to suggest or imply that excessive generalization on the basis of personal experience is a "male" trait. Is it possible to express this entirely appropriate point in a way which is more gender-neutral? As Skyler pointed out in her recent posting on informal logical fallacy in soc.women discourse, the tendency to fallacy and sloppy rhetoric is not limited to the beneficiaries of the Patriarchy. Unless you'd care to argue that the charge of excessive generalization from experience as a criticism is just another way that men seek to oppress women, or that such a fault only applies to discourse by men. Thank you, Greg -- the reach of the arm. Gregory Taylor Astronautics the sweep of the eye. 5800 Cottage Grove Rd. Madison the stones thrown at the darkness WI 53704 608-221-9001,x232a outside the fire's circle of light. ...uwvax!astroatc!gtaylor
ellene@microsoft.UUCP (Ellen Eades) (08/07/87)
In article <389@astroatc.UUCP> gtaylor@astroatc.UUCP (that wierdo in the 5-sided shoebox office) writes: > >Just a suggestion on this one.... > >It certainly seems sound to have the previous paragraph (which I'm not >including here) make reference for the need on the part of some male >posters to be sensitive to the anger that some women may feel, but it >seems to me that the above referenced section suggests by the chosen >example to suggest or imply that excessive generalization on the basis >of personal experience is a "male" trait. Is it possible to express >this entirely appropriate point in a way which is more gender-neutral? >[...] the tendency to fallacy and sloppy rhetoric is >not limited to the beneficiaries of the Patriarchy. Unless you'd >care to argue that the charge of excessive generalization from >experience as a criticism is just another way that men seek to oppress >women, or that such a fault only applies to discourse by men. I disagree. I think the paragraph should stand as it is. The fact is that whether or not excessive generalization on the basis of personal experience is a "male" trait, IN THIS NEWSGROUP excessive ignorance of women's angers is a male trait. What many of the women in this group are objecting to is not excessive generalization about males but exces- sive usurpation of soc.women BY males. I certainly agree that sloppy rhetoric is quite gender-neutral. The point Miriam, and I, and many others, are trying to make BY THESE GUIDELINES is that this is not soc.gender-neutral, this is soc.WOMEN, and male generalizations about women are simply going to be much less readily accepted here. This is not soc.bash-men either -- but there has been MUCH less need to emphasize THAT fact than that this is not soc.bash-women. -- Fresh may the breezes blow, cool may the rivers flow Blue above and green below, when I'm far away. -- Ellen Eades ...uw-beaver!microsoft!ellene
jeffw@midas.TEK.COM (Jeff Winslow) (08/08/87)
In article <635@microsoft.UUCP> ellene@forward.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes: > This is not soc.bash-men either -- but >there has been MUCH less need to emphasize THAT fact than that this >is not soc.bash-women. It might be noted here that there is a wide range of opinions among soc.women readers on this issue. Jeff [the imp] Winslow
cas@mtuxo.UUCP (C.STEVENS) (08/08/87)
Well, I guess I'm way off base, but most/all of these Guidelines just seem to be common sense! ____________ The handsome guy in the wheelchair! (201)957-3902 -- Work (201)671-7292 -- Home Cliff Stevens Jr. Cliff Stevens Jr. rm. MT 1E228 1307 Knollwood Dr. AT&T -- End User Organization Middletown NJ 07748 Laurel Ave. ...!inuxc!mtuxo!cas Middletown NJ 07748 ...!ihnp4!mtdcb!cas
mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/14/87)
Ellen Eades writes: > The fact is that whether or not excessive generalization on the basis of >personal experience is a "male" trait, IN THIS NEWSGROUP excessive ignorance >of women's angers is a male trait. What many of the women in this group are >objecting to is not excessive generalization about males but excessive >usurpation of soc.women BY males. I have a hard time believing that anyone can read such a group and have such an ignorance, but at any rate, the problem I keep seeing is that the anger escalates all out of control. It seems to me that the anger of women is quite obviously a subject of the group. But the kind of discussions that keep cropping up are "my anger is more valid than your anger" and "you keep forgetting about my problems" (I especially plead guilty to the last). These are obviously invitations-- if not challenges-- to flaming. The next passage is of critical importance: >I certainly agree that sloppy rhetoric is quite gender-neutral. The >point Miriam, and I, and many others, are trying to make BY THESE >GUIDELINES is that this is not soc.gender-neutral, this is soc.WOMEN, >and male generalizations about women are simply going to be much >less readily accepted here. This is not soc.bash-men either -- but >there has been MUCH less need to emphasize THAT fact than that this >is not soc.bash-women. Less accepted by whom? The problem is that, in point of fact, generalizations about male treatment of women are made, and men are naturally going to object to them-- in the same group in which the claims were made. A symmetrical situation exists with respect to male claims about women. There seems to be a strong sentiment that women want to be able to express these kinds of feelings, so it seems to me that either they need to moderate out men's responses or direct the guidelines in the direction of controlling flaming exchanges-- particularly the "my anger is more worthy than yours" argument. C. Wingate