The future of the list -- nanny time?

[andrew at cee.hw.ac.uk]

vaska at geocities.com writes:
[re the low ratio of female to male posters]

For one thing, I believe the low ratio more than anything else
reflects the low ratio of women with net access and the low ratio
subscribed to the list rather than some psychological block. If few
women have access (not just a connection but time and opportunity to
play - and the latter, men's idleness and irresponsibility vs women's
diligence and honesty, is where sexism really bites in the world of
computers) hardly surprising their posts are in the minority.
Moderation is incidental to this issue.

For two, the women on this list who do post are no shrinking violets.
On the contrary, they are almost all intelligent, articulate, forceful
and successful at fighting sexism, almost inevitable for woman who
have attained a position to voice their thoughts. Moderation can
hardly be such a bogey given the other forces at play.

For three, my experience is that women posters tend to stick to
subject more and write more thoughtful and considered notes than men.
Moderation, if performed fairly, will be far less likely to constrain
them than male list members. Perhaps this reflects the fact that they
are already self-moderated, which I take to be your point. But that
self-moderation has its virtues. If more posters paid closer attention
to what has already been written and considered more carefully the
merits of their own writing before posting, women's voices might be
listened to, considered and respected - not as women but as posters
with something worthwhile to say (the latter point is offered gratis
to the Diana York Blaine memorial fund for her to use as she sees
fit). This whole argument is about applying self-moderation or
adopting the sledge-hammer of an appointed moderator, not about
avoiding moderation.

For four, ultimately it's not whether someone is male or female that
matters but that they have something worthwhile to say, preferably
about Pynchon. If this is the issue then I think the major problem is
not whether women get a rawer deal under a moderator but whether
everyone gets a rawer deal. How do you guarantee that a moderator does
not abuse his/her power, whether it be down to sexism or anything
else. I think your point re women is special pleading, which I am not
averse to in principle, particularly when it comes to the treatment of
women, but which I think clouds the issue in this case, viz: `quis
custodes custodiet'.


Andrew Dinn
-----------
We drank the blood of our enemies.
The blood of our friends, we cherished.