From: "Wallace Polsom" <termite-AT-worker.com>
To: <bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu>
Subject: Re: BHA: misogyny
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 12:40:49 -0600


I sent the following message this message over two hours ago and it still
hasn't been distributed, so I am sending it again via a different email
server. I apologize in advance if everyone ends up receiving two copies.

Wallace

-----Original Message-----
From: Wallace Polsom <wallace-AT-raggedclaws.com>
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
<bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu>
Date: Monday, November 17, 1997 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: BHA: misogyny

In a recent message, Ralph complains that HE thought the Bhaskar list was
for "the discussion of real ideas," and HE is "still waiting for evidence of
devotion to scholarship" among the members of the list, but, honestly, I
have seen precious little evidence that Ralph is interested in either. For
every sentence of good sense that Ralph contributes to the discussion, he
spews forth a half dozen sentences of invective. If you disagree with Ralph,
you are a "craven hackademic"; if your ideas do not comport with what Ralph
KNOWS he KNOWS, they are "crap" and "horseshit"; if you don't like his
behaviour on the list, you are a "P.C. hypocrite." And so on.

Now, I enjoy creative invective as much as the next fellow, but frankly, if
Bhaskar is no Hegel (as Ralph claims), then Ralph is certainly no Juvenal.
Which is to say, Ralph's modus operandi on the list has become VERY tiresome
(and increasingly offensive), and we as a group have no obligation at all to
put up with it.

As a non-academic myself, I am delighted to be able to "listen in" on the
conversation here on the Bhaskar List, and I enjoy the challenge of posting
messages that are substantive enough for others to bother responding. I
would not, however, post at all if I thought that every second message I
sent was merely going to be ridiculed rather than responded to.

But this, essentially, is the situation in which Gary began to find himself.
No wonder he withdrew from the list!

And it is no accident that Hilary has now suggested that perhaps the
"genuine contributors" to the Bhaskar List should band together to create "a
properly moderated list." What reasonable person would WANT to have to read
messages that regularly express contempt for her gender? Furthermore, what
reasonable person would want to belong to a list that doesn't care about
dismantling the very barriers to her participation in the discussion?

Hans D. has said very clearly that his "means of moderating is to allow the
list and its members to moderate itself ... which would include a decsion to
suspend or expel a member.  In general i will continue to *not* support
expulsion.  But my voice is only one of many." So . . . where are the many?
I don't know for certain, but it is entirely possible that they are afraid
to speak lest they too become the targets of abuse. Silence should not be
taken as support for the status quo.

Let me be clear: I do not think that Ralph should be kicked off the list for
his recent behaviour. Under the present rules, his actions are not
actionable, and it will not send the right message if we just make up crimes
and punishments as we go along and then impose our will retroactively.
Instead, I think that we should now seize the opportunity to put in place a
clear protocol for identifying and dealing with unacceptable conduct on the
list, and we should make it clear that everyone is expected to abide by the
new rules effective immediately.

Alan has helpfully outlined such a protocol in his recent message to the
list (quoted below), and I, for one, fully support both his general
initiative and his specific suggestions.

Thanks for listening,
Wallace


-----Original Message-----
From: A.W.Norrie <A.W.Norrie-AT-qmw.ac.uk>
To: bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
<bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu>
Date: Monday, November 17, 1997 7:43 AM
Subject: Re: BHA: misogyny

I think there is a problem when valued and enthusiastic participants on the
list are seriously upset by comments that reveal meanness, aggression and
contempt for others.  The question is what should be done about it.
On a previous occasion when 'netiquette' was raised, a list subscriber
apologised for his comments and, as I recall, stated he would not repeat his
previous conduct.
I think if net behaviour is unacceptable, the group is entitled to point
this out and to ask the person involved to withdraw his comments, to
apologise, and to undertake not to repeat them.  I also think that if the
person concerned does not do this, the group is entitled to suspend him/her
from the list for a period to permit him/her the time to evaluate his/her
behaviour and then after a period of suspension to make his/her apologies
etc. If s/he isn't prepared to do this, then the suspension is maintained.
The list inevitably operates with rules about what is impermissible, and I
don't see why individuals should be allowed to wreck an important means of
intellectual discussion.
Alan Norrie
At 03:25 PM 15/11/97 -0500, you wrote:
>As moderator of the list it is extermely unlikely that Ralph will be
>expelled.  However, my means of moderating is to allow the list and its
>members to moderate itself ... which would include a decsion to suspend or
>expel a member.  In general i will continue to *not* support expulsion.
But
>my voice is only one of many.
>
>In the introductory page there does exist a warning that offensive material
>may appear.  And against Carrol's suggestion, i won't single out any
>particular person in the intro page, for i think that members can decide
for
>themselves who they find offensive.
>
>Certainly one does not have to be female to be offended my Ralph's
misogyny.
> And if his sexist statements and terms were actually racist instead, they
>surely would not be tolerated.
>
>Ralph, did indeed achieve a certain audience and attention with his
attempts
>toward a critique of Bhaskar's Plato Etc., and a number of us have sympathy
>for some of his criticism.  But the effect of his sexist, offensive and
>abusive language has lose both the audience and attention (and including my
>own).  This is quite unfornuate in that i hold Ralph's intellect and ideas
in
>the highest regard.  But i won't engage in discussion when offensive and
>violent language is employed.
>
>Hopefully, Ralph is able to better understand the effect his language has
on
>his audience and he can respond accordingly.  Again, hopefully, Ralph
values
>his particapation and exchange of ideas as much as others of us do ... as
>modertor i will be very sympathic to protests and voices against offensive
>and violent language.  All members deserve to feel welcome and comfortable,
>if a member or a number of members are not ... i will take their discomfort
>very serious! (including my own).
>
>hans d.
>
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
Alan Norrie

     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---