HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pw@panix.COM (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Turnabout
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:53:17 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <7010@transfer.stratus.com> lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.COM writes:
>Paul Wallich writes
>>The other night I was accosted in my favorite dive. That is
>>to say, I got in a conversation with a woman who had apparently
>>had too much to drink, and she started getting physically
>>closer to me than I wanted and suggesting I go home with her. While
>>this was happening, I couldn't help thinking that this was something
>>that various women friends have complained about men doing, and
>>here it was happening to me. Time for walking in the other gender's
>>shoes briefly, and finding them not at all comfortable.
>
>It is OK to assert yourself.  You could have said "I don't want to
>be touched."  You could have moved your seat.  You could have...

Well, it's nice to know that blaming the victim is a gender
neutral phenomenon :-) Ascribe it to my excessive politeness
in front of strangers, or the beers, or the late hour (after
a Bogart double bill, no less) or the fact that this person
started out being interesting, and furthermore knowing that
you are desirable can be an ego boost, or just to me being
sorta dumfounded and stupid. Why should _I_ have had to do
anything?

>Nearly ten years ago, the "Big Dan's" gang rape happend (later
>highly fictionalzed in a famous Jody Foster movie).  Two nights
>later, I was doing laundry and decided to go to the bar next to
>the laundromat.  I had bearly sat down when not one but two
>men tried to buy me drinks.  I bolted.  Maybe I was being overly
>paranoid, the people's behavior in bars can be really invasive.

Now even though the dive has a pool table, this kind of worry
was not even at the back of my mind. Does this make the way
that a guy feels under these sorts of circumstances (unwanted
advances) qualitatively as well as quantitatively different
from the way a woman feels? I don't know. If it does, that
may be a bad thing for mutual understanding, but perhaps maybe
not as bad as trying to imagine that it doesn't.

paul



--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: bickis@skmath3.pa.dec.COM ("M. Bickis")
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women warriors and male myths (WAS: Military Quote)
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:52:34 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

In article <1an2kbINNdm1@agate.berkeley.edu> Michael Wasson
<mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> writes in reply to me:
>>To be feminine
>>is to be nurturing, nourishing and *non-threatening*.  To be masculine
>>is to be protective and agressive. [...]   These attributes are naturally
>>linked to one's biology, and are found throughout the animal kingdom,
>>almost universally among mammals.
>
>Oh, *no*, the sociobiology argument again. The problem with this
>sort of claim is [at least] three-fold:
>
>1. Nature is more diverse than one tends to think. It uses the
>strategies that happen to work for a given species in a given
>ecological niche. So you can pick whatever example fits your claim.

And for Homo sapiens the strategy that has worked has been with the
females being the nurturers and the males the protectors.  I don't
have to look at another species to make that point.  The reason I
mention other mammals is to point out that this division of labour is
nothing peculiar to us, it is quite common.  Now, it is quite possible
that we are entering a different "ecological niche", and thus the
strategy will change.  Only time will tell.

>Biology determines the set of potential behaviors an individual or
>a species will manifest. Humans have evolved to be extremely flexible
>-- just look at the diversity of human cultures.

But in all that diversity, where are the women warriors?

>>There are some (like myself) who really do want to protect women.
>
>There are some (like a lot of women) who really aren't *asking* you to
>to protect them.

Well, presumably they can take care of themselves.  But I am sure there
are lots out there who would appreciate a little protection.

>>Lack of courage can be forgiven in a woman because she has other
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>burdens to bear.

>Who here is doing the forgiving?

Whoever has been wronged by it.  I used the passive voice deliberately.
I am not suggesting it is my prerogative to do the forgiving.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@math.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: vanhoek@bend.UCSD.EDU (Karen van Hoek)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Vulvas = Vaginas -- Not!
Date: 13 Oct 1992 05:46:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Excuse me for pickings nit, but I read the discussino of Judy Chicago's
piece, The Dinner Party, which consisted of abstract (more or less)
representations of women's _vulvas_, and one of my irritation buttons
was pushed.  Posters talked about the paintings of women's _vaginas_.
As far as I know, vaginas weren't represented in Chicago's designs.
The designs represented vulvas, women's external genitals.  The
general habit of referring to women's genitals as "vaginas" irks me,
as it seems to reflect a bias towards thinking of women's genitals
solely in terms of their reproductive function and/or their ability
to give pleasure to men.  The vagina is the part a man's penis most
saliently interacts with during intercourse, and it's the tube the
babies coem out of; it is _not_ where most of a woman's nerve endings
are, and for most women, mere vaginal stimulation is not sufficient
for orgasm.  

Referring to the internal, relatively insensitive tube as if it were all
there is to the female genitals (would anyone say "The male sex organ is
called the urethra"?) seems to reflect an ideology in which female
genitals exist solely for reproduction and male pleasure.  That ideology
reaches its logical conclusion in Africa, where the "extra parts" -- the
clitoris and much of the vulva -- are cut off.  I think we need to
change the way we think about female genitals; we can start by referring
to the vulva by its proper name.

Karen


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: rberlin@birdland.Eng.Sun.COM (Rich Berlin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Offensive Jokes
Date: 15 Oct 1992 06:18:52 GMT
Organization: SunPics -- A Sun Microsystems Business
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct12.155158.5981@panix.com> mara@panix.COM (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>I have neither time nor interest in debating this further with
>anyone who doesn't understand that the premise in the flasher joke
>is one of defusing a threat.  If you set up the prostitue joke so
>that she's using her breasts as a threat to the guy who makes the
>remark to her, I'll look at it again.

I interpreted the premise just as I think you did, Mara.  I think as
feminist humor, it's rather "therapeutic;" it depicts a woman who
maintains calm confidence, demonstrating that she is in control by
using a "minimum force" response.  And in fact I'll go farther than
you do; I don't think she's defusing a threat because I believe this
hypothetical woman treats the flasher's presence and his behavior as a
minor affront and not threatening in the least.


I found the joke funny (though predictable) and not personally
threatening; it doesn't seem to hit at any particular vulnerability
*in* *me*.  Nevertheless, I can see how a professor's habitually
telling thematic jokes at the expense of males--even jokes which can
be interpreted as positively as this one from a feminist point of
view--can make the environment feel uncomfortable or inhospitable to
men.  Even if only a few of them "hit home" for me personally, I think
the knowledge that every meeting would start with one would have a
cumulative effect that would wear me down.

I think that for some males this experience could be an "educational"
aspect of a feminist studies class, provided it was done WITHOUT
RANCOR.  But I empathize with Dave's point in that the professor's
behavior could be seen as insensitive or even hypocritical.

-- Rich
--
===============================================================================
Richard.Berlin@Eng.Sun.COM   |   The significant problems we face cannot be
			     |   solved at the same level of thinking we were
			     |   at when we created them.  -- Albert Einstein


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women warriors and male myths (WAS: Military Quote)
Date: 9 Oct 1992 17:55:23 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: anableps.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Oct7.161851.19494@access.usask.ca> bickis@skmath3.pa.dec.COM ("M. Bickis") writes:
>In article <BvpFyy.FDJ@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> alubiw@maytag.uwaterloo.ca
>(Anna Lubiw) writes in reply to me:
>>>I did not suggest that *any* person's ideal or myth is a good or positive
>>>thing.  I was talking about a particular gender myth---that men are to
>>>be courageous and protective whereas women are to be nurturing and
>>>nonthreatening.  Burned "witches" and battered wives are not the
>>>consequence of this myth.
>>
>>On the contrary, if women are to be "nurturing" and men are to be
>>"aggressive"  [ ... ]  The myth says that a man's ideal
>>response to a problem is to act aggressively to solve it.  If a woman is
>>not suitably nurturing, that is a problem, and is to be met with agression.
>
>That's a corruption of the myth.  Only threats are to be met with agression.
>Since women are not threatening, there is no justification in being agressive
>towards a woman.

If we are capable of defending ourselves, is aggression then justified?
Why is it that you are so incapable of caring about someone enough to
defend them only if they are weaklings?  Is there something about a very
strong and physically capable woman that makes you unable to defend her
life?

Saying, "Oh, but that's just a corruption of the myth," is like telling
someone to hold a lit firecracker in their hand and let it go off.  When
it does, and burns them badly, you say, "But, you see, you did it
wrong."

If the myth is so perversely prone to being abused, GET A NEW MYTH.

Regards,
Janis C.




-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: mahadeva@point.cs.uwm.edu (Aruna Mahadevan)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: harrassment on public transit?
Date: 15 Oct 1992 00:55:44 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

[Moderator's note: subject line changed.]

Hello,

This request is out of curiosity -- I will summarize any responses if
there is interest.  I am interested in hearing from women who have used 
and continue to use public transportation such as subways, buses, trains
etc; from women who travel within the US and those who travel abroad about
their experiences.  Specifically, I am interested in knowing how many women
have experienced sexual harrassment on the buses/trains/subways; things
like being whistled at, or groped or any kind of unwanted attention from
the men.  If you have travelled outside US, was it worse/same/better in
the foreign country?  Also, if you noticed, what would you guess to
be the education level of these men?  Have you felt like you couldn't
step out of the room/house without attracting unwanted attention?

Thank you,
Aruna



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: alubiw@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Anna Lubiw)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women warriors and male myths (WAS: Military Quote)
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:58:04 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo

In article <1avolkINN49k@agate.berkeley.edu> bickis@skmath3.pa.dec.com (M. Bickis) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.021905.15091@leland.Stanford.EDU>
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>  . . .                      Why not have 100% of us being nurturing
>>and protective?
>
>Because everybody can't do everything.  . . .
>  . . .               Rather than having to agonize over what kind of
>person one is going to be, or having it defined by some arbitrary
>authority, it is better to know from the start what kind of commitment
>is expected.  Think of it as drawing straws-- long straw you fight,
>short straw you comfort.  Except instead of straws we draw chromosomes.

Your arguments that male-female chromosomes *determine* fighting versus
comforting have been debunked by a previous poster.

What's left is just arbitrary authority.

I don't hear you advocating going back to the days when a male child
knew from the start that the commitment expected of him was to
follow in his father's footsteps--a son of a blacksmith would be a
blacksmith, and a son of a peasant would be a peasant.  Biology could be
used to support that just as well.  And it eliminates the agonizing that
teenagers currently go through to figure out what they want to be.

Anna Lubiw

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: Pegasus@aaa.uoregon.EDU ("Laurie E. W. Brandt")
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: women warriors (soc.feminism)
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:19:01 GMT
Organization: The Polyhedron Group

In article <1bis2rINN9kn@agate.berkeley.edu>, Michael Wasson
<mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> writes:
>
> In article <1992Oct10.205636.215@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pmw2c@csissun12.ee.Virginia.EDU (Paul Michael Wayner) writes:
> [...]
> >|> |> But in all that diversity, where are the women warriors?
>
> >					Paul Wayner
>
> Check out "The Encycolpedia of Amazons" (Jessica Amanda Salmonson,
> Paragon House, NY, 1991) for plenty of examples from antiquity (some
> sem-i-legendary or mythological) to the present day, including the
> Trung sisters (who led a rebellion against the Chinese in 1st-C Viet
> Nam), Flora Sanders (fought in the Serbian army in WWI), Calamity Jane,
> etc etc.
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Mike Wasson  ---  U.Hawai'i, Manoa  --- Fat Messiah Games
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
"The Encycolpedia of Amazons" (Jessica Amanda Salmonson, Paragon House, NY,
1991)

Must be used with extream care i.e.
     "Eleanor of Aquitaine . . . Eleanor had been inspired by Tasso's
Jerusalem Delivered and the character of Clorinda . . ."  Problem Eleanor
of Aquitaine 1122-1203 Tasso wrote Jerusalem Delivered in 1575.
   Marjory Bruce was Roert the Bruces daughter not sister.
   Isobel MacDuff Countess of Bachan was not the Bruce's sister.
   Sir Philip Sidney was not a resoration playwrite his play Arcadia was
written in 1590 during the height of the reign of Elizabeth I of England.
If she had read the play arcadia she would have found out that the
charactor of Zelmane is very much like Charles Aunt in intent and in the
fact that Zelmane in a man dressed up to look like a women.
   Her use of source texts is limited to a hand full of writings of fiction
for the period and three historical documents Saxo Gemanicus, Petrach,
Aeneas Silvanus and Gilbert Nugent. Except for Saxo they are mentioned in
passing in the text.
     If she makes errors like these with medieval women what other errors
does she make with other periods of time.


Laurie E. W.
Brandt

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Mutant for Hire)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women warriors and male myths (WAS: Military Quote)
Date: 14 Oct 1992 17:58:55 GMT
Organization: Mutant for Hire, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu (Mutant for Hire)
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1b4lmeINN3gk@agate.berkeley.edu>, blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN) writes:
>A trait is feminine if it is possessed by a female.  Period.  Oh I know,
>you'll probably go running off to old Webster's Dictionary and state:
>"The word feminine means...."  I am not talking about some dictionary-
>defined term here.  Those definitions are outdated.  They are
>not defined by us as women.  As a woman, I vote for my definition
>above.

Hmmm. Well, I hang out with people who don't fall into mainstream
sexuality, in different manners. Some are homosexual, others are into
things like crossdressing, and various other types of alternative
approaches to sexuality.

>From my observations, you have just taken the word "feminine" and made
it so overgeneralized that it is now a null and meaningless term. If
that is your intention, fine and well, but I'm not sure about the
usefulness so such an action, especially since while you may define a
word to mean such-and-such, everyone else is going to use the older
definitions whether you want them to or not. It is possible to change
the definition of a word, but whether or not others will go along
depends on the usefulness of the new definiton.

I know of some people who deliberatley try to decouple gender from
masculine/femminine traits, both male and female. Of course, they do
it in opposite directions depending on their gender. How do
transexuals fit into your classification. Are the men who become women
qualifying as femimine in this case, what if they exhibited identical
behavior before that?

I tend to associate feminine with a much of personality
characteristics that have been traditionally associated with women in
the past. Especially before the 60's and so forth. Ditto with
masculine traits. Of course, people have both of these sets of traits
in varying degrees, so that I try to avoid associating them with a
specific gender anymore. The hard part is trying to get other people
to decouple feminine traits from being the exclusive domain of women,
and likewise for masculine traits and men.



-- 
    Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Mad Scientist, Priest of Shub-Internet
    Disclaimer: Nobody else takes me seriously, why should you be the first?
mfterman@phoenix.princeton.edu mfterman@pucc.bitnet terman@pupgga.princeton.edu
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Redux On Bigots & Children
Date: 15 Oct 1992 22:49:25 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

  I recently posted some distress I had about the unwillingness I thought
some people had in admitting certain realities surronding women's issues.
  In my post I used sarcastic exxagerations of the way I thought these
people thought to show them how silly I thought they were being.

  For example if someone tells you being alone in the dark is dangerous.
  They try it and nothing happens.  You reply. "there did monsters eat you?"
  You never believed they believed in monsters, you are exxagerating to
  make a point.


  This sarcasm was a mistake on my part as I have recently learned that
it could easily be misinterpeted.  The sacrastic views I wrote were not
ones that I shared.  I was exxagerating what I thought was going on in
the minds of people I was trying to mock.


  This was a mistaken way to communicate.  If I offended anyone it was
inadvertant and you have my apologies.

Steve R

-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: gee@col.hp.com (Ken Gee)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Women's Empowerment Seminar
Date: 9 Oct 1992 02:39:47 GMT
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Seminar Announcement:

	Womens Empowerment: Coping in the Age of Tailhook
	  Develop Self-Protection as a Lifestyle

sponsored by Colorado NOW

Issues:
	Sexual Harassment
	Physical Self-Protection
	Gender Communications

Location:
	First Baptist Church
	14th & Grant
	Denver,CO

Time:
	9 AM - 1:30 PM
	Saturday, Oct.,17

Cost:
	Advanced registration:  (by Oct.14)
			Single: $40.00
		With a Friend : $70.00 for 2

	At the door: $50.00

Advanced Registration:
	Name, Phone number, and Check to:
					Colorado NOW
					1552 Pennsylvania St.
					Denver, CO
					80203
	Check payable to Colorado NOW

Proceeds go to EPOCOLORADO to defeat Amendment 2




-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.