era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (06/26/87)
In article <4009@sri-unix.ARPA> maslak@sri-unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes: >How about a quick consensus-posting about moderation for this group? >Not formal, just how do we feel about the idea? ALL NOTE: I would NOT >support prohibiting men from posting. I would support limiting postings >from men to those directly concerning the subject at hand and not >containing ad hominem (ad feminem?) attacks or female bashing or >gratuitous rambling. You know I'm all for it, but in her continuous postings, Alan Curtis has proven that it won't work. She can post to moderated groups, and if her only purpose is to attack a woman, disrupt soc.women, or malign feminists, nobody can stop her. The simple fact is that all usenet sites are either privately owned by or under the de facto control of males, and except for sexualizing, trivializing, or harassing women, they have no use for women at all. They either don't notice, or don't care about the hostile, intimidating atmosphere that keeps most women from participating. While people are quick to write to SA's if a woman responds with justifiable anger to a personal attack, and most SA's are quick in such cases to remove the offending woman's access, either nobody has complained to Alan's SA, or her SA felt that since she was only attacking a woman, no problem existed even though she posted an unauthorized article to a supposedly moderated group. Had the moderator of comp.risks, Peter Newman, taken his responsibilities seriously, he'd have written to Alan's SA, requesting that Alan's access be removed. But as a male, Peter is well aware that the site adminstrator will also be male, and will simply laugh off all breaches of netiquette by males, while severely punishing women who "might," but actually haven't committed any breach of netiquette. There is nothing to be done. We are in a patriarchy, and if soc.women were moderated, Alan and her friends, with the permission and consent of her SA, would continue to post whatever she wished directly to the moderated group without authorization and without penalty. I wish it were otherwise. I wish women musicians could participate in music groups without receiving obscene death threats, and women doctors could post to sci.med without receiving obscene death threats, and women of all walks of life could post to soc.women without being subjected to personal attacks, but in a patriarchy, that's not how things are. There MIGHT be some possibility of attacking the problem from the area of the use of federal funds and common carriers to perpetuate discrimination, but with the Reagan Administration still in power, and males in control of the courts and regulatory agencies, there's not really much hope there either. I'd like to see Pat Schroeder run for President in '88. I'm sure that if Representative Schroeder was elected, we'd have more women appointed to policy positions, and we could begin to hope for the right to participate in "public" forums on an equal basis. We happen to be half the "public" and the majority of computer users in industry, although you sure wouldn't know it from usenet. The boys are running the show, and as Randy Seuss said in another posting, "That's the biz, sweetheart." --Mark
wvbris@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (Wilhelmina von Bris) (06/26/87)
In article <4117@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet writes: > But as a male, Peter is well aware [...] I strongly object to this unwarranted invasion of Peter's genital privacy. ucbvax!brahms!wvbris Wilhelmina von Bris/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
randy@chinet.UUCP (Randy Suess) (06/27/87)
In article <4117@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: > >The boys are running the show, and as Randy Seuss said in another posting, That's Suess >"That's the biz, sweetheart." Remo Williams, Shiva, the Destroyer.. > >--Mark -- that's the biz, sweetheart..... Randy Suess ..!ihnp4!chinet!randy
rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (06/27/87)
In article <4117@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > The simple fact is that all usenet sites are either privately owned by > or under the de facto control of males, and except for sexualizing, > trivializing, or harassing women, they have no use for women at all. Site "pcrat" is owned by PC Research, Inc. whose shareholders consist of 1 male and 1 female. All votes must therefore be unanimous, and neither sex has control. QED, the first part of your statement is false. Now, the female shareholder is also an employee of PC Research, Inc., and she creates income for PC Research, Inc. Therefore, PC Research, Inc. does have a use for women other than those you listed. QED, the second part of your statement is false. -- Rick Richardson, President, PC Research, Inc. (201) 542-3734 (voice, nights) OR (201) 834-1378 (voice, days) seismo!uunet!pcrat!rick
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (06/27/87)
So you have two shareholders, one male and one female. Your site is not privately owned by a male. That does not yet make my statement false. Who are the actual site administrators? Who, in the past, has made decisions as to who is permitted or denied access to the net at your site? What percentage of postings at your site have been from males? From females? Would you consider this last statistic due to chance? If your site is under the de facto control of a male or males, my statement is still true. --Mark
flak@slovax.UUCP (06/28/87)
I am using this article as an example only. I don't intend this to be a flame against a specific poster. The attitude is prevailent in many other postings. > The simple fact is that all usenet sites are either privately owned by ^^^ > or under the de facto control of males, and except for sexualizing, > trivializing, or harassing women, they have no use for women at all. > They either don't notice, or don't care about the hostile, intimidating > atmosphere that keeps most women from participating. ... > group. Had the moderator of comp.risks, Peter Newman, taken his > responsibilities seriously, he'd have written to Alan's SA, requesting > that Alan's access be removed. But as a male, Peter is well aware that > the site adminstrator will also be male, and will simply laugh off all > breaches of netiquette by males, while severely punishing women who > "might," but actually haven't committed any breach of netiquette. > > There is nothing to be done. We are in a patriarchy, and if soc.women > were moderated, Alan and her friends, with the permission and consent > of her SA, would continue to post whatever she wished directly to the > moderated group without authorization and without penalty. ... > > There MIGHT be some possibility of attacking the problem from the area > of the use of federal funds and common carriers to perpetuate discrimination, > but with the Reagan Administration still in power, and males in control > of the courts and regulatory agencies, there's not really much hope there > either. > > The boys are running the show, and as Randy Seuss said in another posting, > "That's the biz, sweetheart." > Seems to be a rather pessimistic and defeatist outlook. Several points: (1) The perception is that men are the root of *all* problems. That is, if there's a problem, the first place some people go to is their favorite scapegoat. As Jean P. Satre wrote in his book, "Jew and Anti-semite", "If the Jew didn't exist, the anti-semite would invent him". For a particular problem, in a particular situation, a man, or all men may be responsible. But then again, there may be some other cause. (The most likely cause is the person her/him self - but how many people are willing to admit that *they* may be the source of their own problems?) If you are convinced of your answer before checking the facts, you will find what you are looking for. One could say that all women (Jews, Blacks, <fill in your favorite stereotype>) are intellectually (physically, racially) inferior to <fill in whatever group you identify with>. And one could find the "facts" to back it up. (2) This particular posting doesn't even cite specific "facts". It posts a general perception. There's nothing wrong with that. The net exists, in part to air opinions. However, that's exactly what I consider it - opinion, and not necessarily fact. (Nazis had the opinion that Jews were the root of all evil - they did a pretty good job "selling" it, too! :-( ) (3) Make a postive recommendation. For the most part, we're all aware of the problem. As was said in "Fiddler on the Roof", "Send us the cure, the disease we've already got". (4) Before shooting off your flame thrower, make sure you have the correct target. Who knows what a particular SA will do? I don't know for a fact that most system administrators are male. I suspect that they are. I won't even suspect that most of them will discriminate against users solely on the basis of sex. That would take an extreme jump in the logical process, and make some very tenuous assumptions. (I am not a system administrator - I don't like to see them discriminated against either :-). (5) There are, and will always be some system administrators who will abuse their postion. (This is human nature, and not limited by gender). If the day came where almost all of the system administrators were female, the problem would still persist. On whom, then, will our poster place the blame? But then again, this is just my opinion. P.S. I've leaned heavily on examples of anti-semitism. I am not Jewish, therefore, it doesn't affect me "personally". (Which doesn't mean that I don't take offense to discrimination against a group simply because I'm not a member). -- {psivax,ism780}!logico!slovax!flak : {hplsla,uw-beaver}!tikal!slovax!flak Dan Flak-R & D Associates,3625 Perkins Lane SW,Tacoma,Wa 98499,206-581-1322
ghoti+@andrew.cmu.edu (Adam Stoller) (06/28/87)
*sigh* not again......
stephena@microsoft.UUCP (Stephen Arrants 3/1011) (06/28/87)
In article <4117@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > [.....] I wish women musicians could participate in music groups > without receiving obscene death threats, and women doctors could post to > sci.med without receiving obscene death threats, and women of all walks > of life could post to soc.women without being subjected to personal attacks, > but in a patriarchy, that's not how things are. > > --Mark Can you point out the specific articles in sci.med where women doctors have received obscene death threats? I've gone back through quite a lot of them and can't find a single one. Please point out the specific message ID. If you don't have that handy, a rough date will suffice. -- Steve Arrants ...!uw-beaver!microsoft!stephena UserEd/APPS Microsoft Corp. Opinions posted are mine, not my employer's. So there. SAVE THE BLIBBET!
ccjoan@ucdavis.UUCP (ccjoan) (06/29/87)
Please remove these discussions regarding Mark Ethan Smith and all associated brouhaha from news.misc. It is inappropriate for this group, irritating to many readers of this group and expensive to transmit. Those individuals who are interested in the subject can read soc.women. Joan Gargano
billw@ncoast.UUCP (Bill Wisner) (06/29/87)
My sincerest apologies for posting this in news.groups. I felt I had to respond to Mark's ridiculous article, though, so here it is. Follow-ups are directed to soc.women, which I never read, so I doubt if I will ever be saying another word on the subject. [It's a long article; but my, it's fun bashing on this pompous, deluded twit.] In article <4117@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >>How about a quick consensus-posting about moderation for this group? >>Not formal, just how do we feel about the idea? ALL NOTE: I would NOT >>support prohibiting men from posting. I would support limiting postings >>from men to those directly concerning the subject at hand and not >>containing ad hominem (ad feminem?) attacks or female bashing or >>gratuitous rambling. >You know I'm all for it, but in her continuous postings, Alan Curtis >has proven that it won't work. She can post to moderated groups, and >if her only purpose is to attack a woman, disrupt soc.women, or malign >feminists, nobody can stop her. And the same thing happened recently in comp.sources.misc. An inflammatory faction has decided to take matters into its own hands and post "self- moderated" articles with a phoney Approved: line. Nobody ever claimed that moderation is one hundred percent, but if you dispute that it cuts down on garbage postings, pull your head out of the sand. >The simple fact is that all usenet sites are either privately owned by >or under the de facto control of males, and except for sexualizing, >trivializing, or harassing women, they have no use for women at all. >They either don't notice, or don't care about the hostile, intimidating >atmosphere that keeps most women from participating. While people are >quick to write to SA's if a woman responds with justifiable anger to a >personal attack, and most SA's are quick in such cases to remove the >offending woman's access, either nobody has complained to Alan's SA, or >her SA felt that since she was only attacking a woman, no problem existed >even though she posted an unauthorized article to a supposedly moderated >group. Had the moderator of comp.risks, Peter Newman, taken his >responsibilities seriously, he'd have written to Alan's SA, requesting >that Alan's access be removed. But as a male, Peter is well aware that >the site adminstrator will also be male, and will simply laugh off all >breaches of netiquette by males, while severely punishing women who >"might," but actually haven't committed any breach of netiquette. What is life like, living in constant paranoia of the male sex? And where do you get your "facts"? Every usenet site I have ever been on has had a very understanding administrator (and one of them was a female!) who made every attempt to make women feel just as welcome as men. If the woman decides she doesn't like the system or its users, that's up to her. There's not a whole lot the SA can do about it, correct? (Oh, of course there is. He could ban all males from the system. He could even ban himself and hand the root account over to the first female to come along.) Perhaps Alan's SA felt that everybody, regardless of what they say, has an equal right to say it. This is known, by the way, as the First Amendment. The only infraction committed was forging an Approved: line in an article header. For all we know, maybe her SA did reprimand her via mail. How are we to know? She has just as much of a right to attack a woman as you have to to post your blind flames against all men. You suggest Peter Newmann doesn't take his responsibilities seriously. You seem to assume that he did not write to Alan's SA (or Alan) about the article. Then, you go on to implicate that Peter is involved in some kind of fantastic male conspiracy. What kind of a fantasy world are you living in? Again, you jump to many conclusions. And, even if Peter did NOT make any response, who are you to interpret his motives? >There is nothing to be done. We are in a patriarchy, and if soc.women >were moderated, Alan and her friends, with the permission and consent >of her SA, would continue to post whatever she wished directly to the >moderated group without authorization and without penalty. I wish it >were otherwise. I wish women musicians could participate in music groups >without receiving obscene death threats, and women doctors could post to >sci.med without receiving obscene death threats, and women of all walks >of life could post to soc.women without being subjected to personal attacks, >but in a patriarchy, that's not how things are. Oh, so now all men have repressed psychotic urges, and wish to send women musicians obscene death threats? Only a few actually overcome their inhibitions and do so? Refer to my previous comments about fantasy worlds. No matter what you post to on usenet, you better expect flames ("personal attacks") from people who may not agree with your opinions. Unless you stick completely to facts in your postings, don't expect sympathy after people send you personal flames in the mail. I'm not well versed on sci.med. Please, give me an example of a woman doctor posting an article and receiving a death threat. I will, in turn, give you an example of a usenet user with serious psychological problems. I'm sure they're out there -- and I am sure there are some females that fit, as well. All of this assuming, of course, that the supposed death threat was not meant in jest. [By the way, I will not be posting inflammatory articles to news.misc regarding anybody who might flame me as a result of this article.] >There MIGHT be some possibility of attacking the problem from the area >of the use of federal funds and common carriers to perpetuate discrimination, >but with the Reagan Administration still in power, and males in control >of the courts and regulatory agencies, there's not really much hope there >either. Ronald Reagan, his cabinet, and the Supreme Court are obviously part of the aforementioned male conspiracy. And I am very democrat -- I'm NOT defending Raygun's politics. >I'd like to see Pat Schroeder run for President in '88. I'm sure that >if Representative Schroeder was elected, we'd have more women appointed >to policy positions, and we could begin to hope for the right to >participate in "public" forums on an equal basis. We happen to be >half the "public" and the majority of computer users in industry, >although you sure wouldn't know it from usenet. I don't know a thing about Pat Schroeder. If she is a reasonable candidate, then I'm all for it. But if she has attitudes similar to yours, then the day she becomes president is the day I pack my bags and get an account on a usenet site down under. A president like that may even try to make the US like the world detailed in Margaret Atwood's THE HANDMAIDEN'S (handmaid's?) TALE, but in reverse. I think this here country would lose population quite quickly. >The boys are running the show, and as Randy Seuss said in another posting, >"That's the biz, sweetheart." This is what I get for twenty-five minutes of banging around in vi? Fooey. Well, that's my one point five million dollars worth. Now I think I'll go play with my news.misc kill file... -- Bill Wisner ..{cbosgd,decvax}!cwruecmp!ncoast!billw
mike@turing.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (06/29/87)
AAAUUUUGGGHHH!! Mark does it again. Golly, if the SA of a system is male, then the system is being run with an anti-women bias. Of course, if the SA were female, everything would be fair....right. I really don't think it enters in to most people's minds. Sorry. I just don't think conspiracy theories hold much water. Michael I. Bushnell a/k/a Bach II mike@turing.UNM.EDU --- I always have fun because I'm out of my mind!!! -- Zippy the Pinhead
nancym@pyrtech.UUCP (Nancy McClelland) (06/29/87)
In article <601@ucdavis.UUCP> ccjoan@ucdavis.UUCP (ccjoan) writes: >Please remove these discussions regarding Mark Ethan Smith and >all associated brouhaha from news.misc. It is inappropriate for >this group, irritating to many readers of this group and >expensive to transmit. Those individuals who are interested in >the subject can read soc.women. > >Joan Gargano I agree wholeheartedly! Please do something so that the rest of us don't have to continually get stuck reading this stuff. If it was up to me, I give her her own newsgroup. Then I could just unsubscribe. nancym
frank@wacsvax.OZ (Frank O'Connor) (07/02/87)
In article <4135@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> era@killer.UUCP writes: > > !$@&%#%@((#^#% ... > >--Mark I have held my breath long enough! If this waste of time and resources must continue, then please restrict this discussion to the usa where it belongs if anywhere, or at least put it back in soc.women which we don't receive. There are many other articles which should also have their distribution restricted. Is it possible to educate these people? Think about the distribution before you let fly. It costs real money to send this junk to Australia, and I guess Europe also cops a lot of it.
gdelong@cvbnet.UUCP (Gary Delong) (07/02/87)
In article <1031@pyrtech.UUCP>, nancym@pyrtech.UUCP (Nancy McClelland) writes: > In article <601@ucdavis.UUCP> ccjoan@ucdavis.UUCP (ccjoan) writes: > >Please remove these discussions regarding Mark Ethan Smith and > >all associated brouhaha from news.misc. It is inappropriate for > >this group, irritating to many readers of this group and > >expensive to transmit. Those individuals who are interested in > >the subject can read soc.women. > > > >Joan Gargano > > I agree wholeheartedly! Please do something so that the rest of us don't have > to continually get stuck reading this stuff. If it was up to me, I give her > her own newsgroup. Then I could just unsubscribe. > > nancym The motion has been made and seconded; Call the question.... Please... I've now 17 lines in my kill file for news.misc just for good ole Mark, I cann't bring myself to search for either/or Mark/Smith in an article in my kill file as there is a Mark Smith out there who posts articles of interest. Help.... Please.... Give us a break. I will stipulate that Mark E. Smith is correct in every point if only it will keep this out of news.misc. Thank you for you consideration. -- _____ / \ / All spelling errors | Gary A. Delong, N1BIP | \ / intentional for testing | linus!raybed2!cvbnet!gdelong \____\/ rn spellcorrector v1.02A. | (617) 275-1800 x5232
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu.UUCP (07/07/87)
> From: gdelong@cvbnet.UUCP (Gary Delong) > > Please... I've now 17 lines in my kill file for news.misc just for good ole > Mark, I cann't bring myself to search for either/or Mark/Smith in an article > in my kill file as there is a Mark Smith out there who posts articles of > interest. Help.... Please.... Give us a break. > Thank you. Smitty -- Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance, 61 Tenafly Road that you do not miss what is right under your nose." Tenafly, NJ 07670 msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu, msmith@remus.rutgers.edu (Good luck getting there!)