era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (03/12/88)
Ever notice that in rec.humor you can avoid offensive postings because there is a warning in the header, but in soc.women there is no freedom of speech, and you cannot choose what you wish to read and avoid abusive postings, because the headers deliberately do not contain warnings? Ever wonder why? The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain it, are the majority of net readers, and are the only ones with the power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving women or human rights. These are the same kind of guys who take time off from developing nuclear weapons to molest children or harass women, but are mostly incapable of human relationships. And the offensive postings are not always from sexist males. Sometimes they are from lesbian sadomasochists, women who emulate only one aspect of stereotypical male behavior, that is, the absolutely worst behavior of the absolutely worst men in society, those who abuse women, in order to prove how women-identified they are, and because men will not permit them equality in any other arena. If you can't avoid abuse here, I don't believe you can avoid abuse in any other aspect of your life. And there is absolutely no way to enforce the same standards here that are enforced in comp. and rec. groups because the patriarchy considers computers and recreation worthwhile but does not consider women worthwhile. Well, you can always use your 'n' key to avoid abusive postings, IF you were warned by the header, which is NEVER the case in this group. And there is no way to establish a group where women would not be subjected to abuse, because the techies are so good at breakins, forgeries, using pseudos and copying people's writing styles, etc. They're good at it because nothing is more important to them than abusing women. In the Spring/Summer '88 issue of _Changing Men_, John Stoltenberg, cofounder of Men Against Pornography, explains that, "You can't fight homophobia and protect the pornographers at the same time." Stoltenberg defines porn as the exploitation and eroticism of sexual discrimination, and argues that you cannot fight homophobia while leaving male supremacy and misogyny in place. I've often wondered why people defend porn with such hysteria, but are not equally angry when the rights of women are denied. Maybe they could live very well without women, so long as they had porn, but cannot survive in a world where women exist unless they have porn to perpetuate stereotypes and make them feel superior. --Mark
spaf@cs.purdue.EDU (Gene Spafford) (03/12/88)
In article <7614@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) laments: > >The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain >it, are the majority of net readers, and are the only ones with the >power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards >in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving >women or human rights. > >These are the same kind of guys who take time off from developing >nuclear weapons to molest children or harass women, but are >mostly incapable of human relationships. Ooops, you forgot to mention that we beat old people, ridicule the handicapped, and direct an international movement to enslave women and minorities. We also kick puppies and kittens and spit on our parents. Yeah, that's the ticket! We even litter sometimes -- on purpose! Once again, Mark, you alone with your unbiased, clear vision of reality have seen to the heart of the matter. We are exposed at last! (Oh my, that was obviously a thinly veiled sexist comment, yet more proof of the vile cunning of the international male conspiracy!). Gee, I'm so embarassed that Mark has recognized the true nature of the majority of people maintaining and using the net and that I'm one of them. We're obviously cruel, evil, sick individuals -- why, we don't agree with MES! Now that we're exposed, we'll have to call the cabal together to find another way to deny Mark an account. There is no way to discredit those balanced, rational, fact-filled postings Mark makes so often, so we must deny Mark the forum to make them! After all, the net *is* real life, and we don't want any more postings showing how Mark has discerned our true nature, right? I'd abase myself and my colleagues more, but I've got to go molest some children and degrade some women (and vice versa). It's the only way I can relax -- I get so peevish trying to teach those juniors and seniors how to use semaphores and critical sections so they can construct fusion devices for their homework. If only I didn't alienate every human being I've ever met.... maybe it's the sadomasochistic lesbians I hang out with? (See, another thinly veiled dangler remark!) -- Gene Spafford Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf
mazur@inmet (Beth Mazur) (03/13/88)
# And the offensive postings are not always from sexist males. Sometimes
# they are from lesbian sadomasochists, women who emulate only one
# aspect of stereotypical male behavior
Like the lesbian masochist said "Beat me, whip me", and the lesbian sadist
said "no"?
--
Beth Mazur
{ihnp4, ima, mirror}!inmet!mazur
mazur@inmet.combrunner@sri-spam.istc.sri.com (Thomas Eric Brunner) (03/13/88)
In article <7614@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: > <lots of stuff about how rotten people are, motivation for design of current and past news software, etc, deleted> > >These are the same kind of guys who take time off from developing >nuclear weapons to molest children or harass women, but are >mostly incapable of human relationships. > >--Mark Dear Mark, There are two of us on the net (Bay Area) who are in real life accused of molesting children, our own in fact, by our former spouses. To you the issue is a play thing, to us it is not. We don't get to see our kids, ever. I assume that you are trying to think of the vilest behavior, citing weapons, molestation, and sexual harassment. To be frank, using a child as an object to injure via custody denial seems more depraved to me than the acts of an uncontrolled, ill mind, male or female. Please try again to make what ever socio-software point you have, without making the tastless gaff you blithly tossed off in cross posting to news.admin. Do also see Gene's remarks. If you wish to persist in making public allegations that the "backbone cabal" are child molesters, I want you to know that at least two people on the net will be deeply and personally upset. -- (if UK, reverse domains). \teb spam's news administrator in gds' absence (Germany)
matt@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (Stop calling me Fred) (03/16/88)
Mark E. Smith has lost an adherent. I used to think Mark was an
abrasive person with some good points to make. Now I think Mark is
living in some other world.
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) writes:
) Ever notice that in rec.humor you can avoid offensive postings
) because there is a warning in the header, but in soc.women there
) is no freedom of speech, ...
This is eiher a non-sequitur or a new meaning of "freedom of speech".
Whom exactly has been prevented from speaking freely in soc.women?
) ... and you cannot choose what you wish to read
) and avoid abusive postings, because the headers deliberately do not
) contain warnings? Ever wonder why?
Doesn't selecting on the basis of author work?
) The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain
) it, are the majority of net readers, ...
You cannot possibly subscribe to the same reality that I do if you
think that the majority of net readers have helped to write or
maintain the usenet software.
) ... and are the only ones with the power to enforce standards, ...
NOBODY has the power to enforce standards, unless they can forbid
all usenet access to all violators. For instance, if standards were
enforceable in news.admin, your article could not have been posted
there.
) ... are not willing to enforce any standards
) in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving
) women or human rights.
Wake up - there are groups that have what you call "technical status"
and which do involve women; women who are unix-wizards, women who
study AI, women who use C, Prolog, or Lisp, and so on.
I think you are disgruntled because you didn't get to create the
newsgroups you wanted. (I am one fascist repressive male pig-dog
taking time off from developing nuclear weapons who voted FOR one of
your two newsgroups. What do you make of that?) Why not do what
many others in your situation have done? Create a mailing list.
________________________________________________________
Matt University matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Crawford of Chicago {astrovax,ihnp4}!oddjob!mattbob@acornrc.UUCP (Bob Weissman) (03/16/88)
Can we all please stop following up and replying to postings of a
purely inflammatory nature? It only enourages the flamer to flame
all the more.
I believe -- read "hope" -- that if we all stop paying attention to
immature, inflammatory rantings, the ranter will eventually lose
interest.
We all agree that such postings are juvenile and worthless; to post
a message saying so is preaching to the choir.
"Just Hit 'n'".
--
Bob Weissman
Internet: bob@acornrc.uucp
UUCP: ...!{ ames | decwrl | oliveb | apple }!acornrc!bob
Arpanet: bob%acornrc.uucp@ames.arc.nasa.govsteve@slovax.UUCP (Steve Cook) (03/16/88)
in article <7614@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu says: > Xref: slovax soc.women:14965 soc.motss:4767 soc.men:4860 news.admin:1728 > > The answer is that the techies who wrote the usenet software, maintain > it, are the majority of net readers, and are the only ones with the > power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards > in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving > women or human rights. > > These are the same kind of guys who take time off from developing > nuclear weapons to molest children or harass women, but are > mostly incapable of human relationships. > > --Mark So much hate is not good for the soul. Just what do you consider a techie?? Obviously in your mind they are all men. A little bit of gender stereotyping on your own ??? No wonder you changed your name. And obviously every woman in the world is perfectly capable of carrying on human relationships - only men are incapable of such an act. Thankfully your ideas do not represent even a tiny minority of the people in the world, else hate would surround us all. -- Steve Cook Hah... try to find me at {psivax,ism780}!logico!slovax!steve or at {hplsla,uw-beaver}!tikal!slovax!steve I dare you to, RDA will disavow all knowledge of me.
trudel@topaz.rutgers.edu (Jonathan D.) (03/17/88)
In article <7614@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > power to enforce standards, are not willing to enforce any standards > in noise groups, or to permit technical status to a group involving > women or human rights. By default, a noise group contains noise. To expect anything else from them is pointless. If, however, you or anyone else, wish to form a moderated forum to discuss women's issues, you are welcome to propose such a group. The guidelines for creating a new group ARE available to all. I'm surprised that you, Mark, neglected to mention the feminist mailing list. Why not? You WERE an active member. It is run by a woman, so you shouldn't be fearful of censure by men. There you already have a place where women can post without fear of direct intimidation. Why not use it? > And there is no way to establish a group where women would not be > subjected to abuse, because the techies are so good at breakins, > forgeries, using pseudos and copying people's writing styles, > etc. Once again, I mention the mailing list. Heather is a great moderator. Heather is wonderful at keeping the abusive and nasty people at bay. Jon
tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith, Knowledgian) (03/19/88)
trudel@topaz.rutgers.edu (Jonathan D.) writes:
< I'm surprised that you, Mark, neglected to mention the feminist
< mailing list. Why not? You WERE an active member. It is run by a
...
...
...
< Once again, I mention the mailing list. Heather is a great moderator.
< Heather is wonderful at keeping the abusive and nasty people at bay.
Uh, if Heather keeps abusive and nasty people at bay, then how will
Mark get on the mailing list? Many of the postings of Mark seem to
be nasty and abusive.
--
Tim Smith tim@ism780c.isc.com
"History is made at night. Character is what you are in the dark"gds@spam.istc.sri.com (03/23/88)
Mark, if you are the recipient of harrassment from male netnews administrators, and you firmly believe that they are abusing their spouses, children, etc., I suggest you take it up with the police and/or the employers of said administrators, with carefully gathered evidence. If you are correct in your beliefs, these persons will be legally removed from the net and/or the public, and will no longer be a threat to the rest of us. Otherwise, just complaining about it on the net, with seemingly unfounded accusations, is a waste of net bandwidth, and will undoubtedly provoke those who disagree with you to engage in flames with you, provoking others to flame, ad nauseam, whether these flames are deserved or not. In addition, it won't solve anything. --gregbo