HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:54:06 GMT

In <1992Aug31.194731.20698@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>No, she's not arguing it's true.  She's arguing that given the
>overwhelming misogyny in the last two thousand years, it's impossible
>for vaginal intercourse to be a loving sexual act for women now.  I
>think she hopes it can be when we've rid the world of sexism.  (In
>some ways, I find Dworkin endearingly naive wrt that.)

	First, I appreciated ljf's calm reply to M. Green.
	Second, I would like to respond specifically to some of it.

	Perhaps, it would be naive to hope to rid "the world" of
	sexism but, for me personally, all it takes for "vaginal
	intercourse to be a loving sexual act" is one enlightened
	man. In other words, we don't need to be able to clean up
	the whole world in order to be justified in hoping for
	individual loving acts of vaginal intercourse.

	I haven't read Dworkin so I don't know if this opinion
	jives with her theories or not.

>Where in the quote is there anything about what the woman wants?

	It's in the "traditional interpretation" which we are apparently
	supposed to accept as more valid than our own feelings because
	those traditions are based on "science and logic". The fact
	that they are also male views is just a fluke of history. ;)

>What studies should she quote?  Studies that suggest something like
>30% of college men in a study said that they'd rape a woman if they
>knew they wouldn't get caught?

>A study of 12 year olds where something like half of the boys and
>girls felt that a boy has the right to rape a girl if he takes her out
>and spends a lot of money on her, but she won't have sex with him?

>Well, you might try reading one of her books, you know.  And Dworkin
>has never stated that she's a scientist.

>Hmmm...  So, if she is a fanatic, what then?  Instant dismissal of all
>her ideas?

	I think you've really gotten to the core here. So often,
	there is disagreement between a group that depends entirely
	on science, logic and tradition for "the truth" and "reality",
	and a group that allows other experiences and feelings to
	have validity or even dominate their perceptions.

	The "traditional approach" is so ingrained in this society
	that people base their arguments on these premises and never
	notice that the ideas they are trying to invalidate are not
	dependent on those male-biased foundations.
	
	Bev
-- 
Bev Huntsberger		bev@grover.csd.scarolina.edu
			The University of SOUTH Carolina
Personally, I have nothing against incumbents.
I'm simply exercising my right to vote.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  4 Sep 1992 10:02 EST  

In article <0vlnwl=.dchuk@netcom.com>, dchuk@netcom.com (Denise Chuk) writes...

>It annoyed me to no end when everybody within the department would
>address the two men as Dr. so-and-so, but never failed to simply call me 
>either "Denise Chuk" or just "Denise".  This happened not only in informal
>occasions (which I didn't mind at all) but formal meetings, departmental
>functions, and written reports.            ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And you put up with it??!?  

Actually, I'm sure that the addressers were not used to female PhDs.  I 
wonder, did you correct them before choosing to leave?  Perhaps a cutting 
remark here or there would have straightened them out.  Just once, when 
being introduced as "Denise", I'd have said, "that's DOCTOR Denise Chuk."

                                                  James S. Zakany
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex is sexist? (was Re: Dworkin...)
Date: 30 Aug 92 13:36:12 GMT
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

In article <=qfn-2.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>[...] And as I am unclear as to what you mean
>by "monosexual", I really do not understand what you are saying.

Monosexual - Not bisexual; either exclusively homosexual or exclusively
heterosexual.
-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Makeup
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 05:41:53 GMT

Ok-To solve this crazy makeup business once and for all-
Why do you transvestite males out there wear makeup?

				J. Wagner

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 07:34:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.105414.18422@hellgate.utah.edu> dpugmire%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (David Pugmire) writes:
>I think the only really solution is to stop trying to force everybody.
>I think a better solution is to let business owners run their business anyway
>they want.  If someone decides to only hire whites, or only give non-whites
>janitorial jobs or use sexist language, let the community get together, protest outside of the business, organize boycots, etc.  Then they'll realize that in order to do business in this town, they'd better be fair.  
>Again you try to force someone to run their business a certain way, or eliminate
>certain words from their vocab, they are going to get mad.

Let me guess.  I'll bet you're white, Anglo, heterosexual, probably
Gentile, and male.  Right?
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:38:41
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1bbnqca.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug26180417@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<l9cnk5b.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug27185934@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug29124118@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Aug29123017@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Aug29.230523.26475@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca's message of Sat, 29 Aug 1992 23:05:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.230523.26475@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
[Where to send newsgroup-content-relevant rather than feminism-relevant
stuff]
> I just could not find this in there.  If you could, I would like to see this 
> pointed out.

Here's the section from the FAQ:

> If you
> have questions about the group, you can send your questions to
> feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This address will forward your
> mail to all active moderators (moderators take vacations, too).
> Please do not send email specifically to any one moderator unless
> you have been requested to do so, as email addresses may change.
    
Here's the signature that we append to every post:

>Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
>Questions and comments may 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.

If this is not sufficiently clear, we can add a section to the FAQ.
Which part of it are y'all having trouble understanding?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: equality
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:45:05 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation

malu@imdpy1.im.se (Mats Luthman) writes:


>Actually, biologist say that men are bigger and stronger than women
>because they fight EACHOTHER, as with most polygamic mammals (which
>man untill recently has been (and still is claimed to be in a great
>deal of the different societies on earth)).

>I guess this will start a flame war, but, the moral aspects of this
>put aside, it seems quite reasonable, doesn't it?

No..it doesn't seem reasonable at all to me.. with the exception of
boxers and wrestlers, I know of very few men who fight each other on
a regular basis ( physically ) and it does not make any sense at all
to me why the next generation would be bigger and stronger, by in large.
If anything, men should be getting smaller and weaker since the
majority of men sit in offices most of the day and sit on the couch
all night.
/al


>--
>Mats Luthman
>Systecon AB (A subsidiary of Industri-Matematik AB)
>Stockholm, Sweden
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Proposed Massachusetts legislation H.5194
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:06:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.183857.23603@plx.com> asgard@plx.com (J.R. Stoner) writes:

>My impression that a law drafted by Dorkin/MacKinnon was upheld in Canadian
>courts.  Makes me _truly_ wonder whether Canada's percieved bastion of
>personal conscience can be maintained in the face of this legal malpractice.

Dworkin/MacKinnon didn't write the Canadian law, but their ideas 
were instrumental in its passage.  A Federal inquiry headed by Paul 
Fraser in the early 1980s drew a distinction between 'erotica' and 
'pornography' for purposes of censorship of the latter, and the two 
categories were defined according to feminist critiques of sexual 
entertainment, including Dworkin's book _Pornography: Men 
Possessing Women_ and others.  Widespread feminist activism after 
the publication of this book ultimately led to criminalization of all 
sexually 'degrading' materials under obscenity law, and the Supreme 
Court upheld this portion of the law in March of this year.

Here are the remarks of His Honour Judge Shannon in a lower court 
case in 1984 in Calgary: R. v. Wagner:

   ...both sexually violent pornography and degrading and 
   dehumanizing pornography convey the message that women enjoy 
   abusive and anti-social behaviour.  Men who are repeatedly exposed 
   to such films become more sexually aggressive in their relations with 
   women and tolerant of such behaviour in others.  This leads to 
   increased callousness towards women on a personal level and less 
   receptiveness to their legitimate claims for equality and respect.
      
These comments could also be considered a precis summary of the 
main thesis of Dworkin's book.

-S. Schultz
From: alyoung@raisin.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:47:56 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

In article <EJH.92Aug25144711@khonshu.khonshu.colorado.edu> ejh@khonshu.khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett) writes:
[...]
>of interpretation). No one really cared about this groping professor,
>because he only did it to boys. In particular the members of the
>Women's Studies Committee did not seem very interested at all. That
>was the most blatent case of sexual discrimination I ever wittnessed.

There seems to be the belief and driving login behind instinces like
this that somehow, men are more "capable" of putting up with such
stuff, which to me makes no sense, for that implies that the women in
the same situations needthat "special protection" because they can't
help themselves whereas the males can... 

Bullshit.  Harassment is harassment.  At this point in time it can be
seen as more dangerous when it's male:male because it's taken so much
less seriously.  No one is likely to take it seriously.

An incident here at IU, or rather an ongoing situation, that gets
me... we used to have a service called "Women's Wheels" which was a
volunteer group, supplied with vans by the university, who would
provide rides around campus to women from dusk until 2am.  The
"problem" started when males started requesting rides, because they
were uncomfortable walking home after dark.  (To me it seems that
crime levels at IU are rather high... nothing to be proud of, to be
sure.)

The end result is that they were going to be hurting for funding if
they kept it as "Women's Wheels", and I imagine part of this was due
to people yanking contributions or bitching to the university because
of discrimination.  Which, I think is right.  It's stupid to limit
safe transportation which is supported by campus money and resources
to a single sex.  

So, now it's called "SafeRide."  There are four vans, and one of them
is going to be available for males to ride in.  But the kicker is, if
a male calls for a ride, all females are dropped off, and then the
male(s) is/are picked up and dropped off, and then they return to
servicing women.  So in other words, no more than one sex in each van
at a time. 

I asked why the HELL this was, and someone said, "Because that's the
whole purpose of the service, to provide women with transportation
where they will be safe from men."  

Perhaps she didn't mean to phrase it this way, but good lord, sounds
like the "men are evil and we need protection!!!!!" bullshit to me. 

amy

-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
		  I'm on my own time.  I only speak for myself.
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Ways to respond to criticism of men
Date: 2 Sep 92 03:58:57 GMT
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep1152443@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
><In article <1992Sep1.060249.8502@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>
><One of the question men face in dealing with feminism is how to
><respond to criticism of men as a group.
>
>	Somehow, I was struck by this paragraph...let's
>	play a little word substitution....
>
>        "One of the questions Jews face in dealing with Nazis is how
>	to respond to criticism of Jews as a group".
>
>	Educational, no?

Considering the relative power balance; I'm not sure if this is the 
correct analogy.  When feminists goon squads start rounding up men
and putting them in concentration camps, I will conceed you are on target.

However, this is likely just one of the laws of USENET (from Tom L.?)
"all USENET debates eventually involve comparison to Hitler" in operation
- this is entropy in action folks...

 ;)

[...serious reasoned response deleted since it illustrates what I'm
saying rather than being in real disagreement...]

><I sometimes wonder if we should number our responses to save bandwidth ;)
>
>	On an ALT group? 

We could call it the Frequently Questioned Answers List...

;)

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 29 Aug 92 18:32:41
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 29 Aug 92 08:55:29 GMT

In article <LYNCH.92Aug29035529@flubber.cc.utexas.edu> lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch) writes:

   First, this is not appropriate for feminism but for feminism-request.

*snicker*...so, you folks are all hot about people posting personal
e-mail, eh?  I eagerly await your flaming this guy to hell for posting a
letter (my response to his rather bizarre allegations).  Honestly,
though, I don't expect to see it...instead, I expect to see a bunch of
justifications about how it's okay for him to do it.  Well, let's hear
'em. 

*GRIN*

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:36:46 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <3899@keele.keele.ac.uk>, by csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul
Singleton) (yes, that's me):

> From article <MUFFY.92Aug31114640@remarque.berkeley.edu>, by
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy):

>>... 
>> As you have probably seen from the other examples posted, there is a lot
>> of blatant sexism against men, too.  You, as a man, might start to
>> notice this more if you look for assumptions about what you can or can't
>>...
 
> More seriously sexist, perhaps, is this assumption that men don't yet
> "notice" these things: really, that is patronising and way off the mark.

Of course, it was no such assumption: Muffy was addressing the individual
poster and not men in general (I misinterpreted her in order to make some
rather inconsequential points of my own).  I apologise to her for my
accusations of being "sexist" and "patronising".

Paul
----
  __   __    Paul Singleton (Mr)           JANET: paul@uk.ac.keele.cs
 |__) (__    Computer Science Dept.        other: paul@cs.keele.ac.uk
 |  .  __).  Keele University, Newcastle,    tel: +44 (0)782 621111 x7355
             Staffs ST5 5BG, ENGLAND         fax: +44 (0)782 713082
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Well, what should I do?
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: world, na, usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:35:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.013521.24908@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>There has been a lot of conversation about "womens studies" courses,
>and how men shouldn't take "men bashing" personally, etc...   Some
>people have questioned other people's ability to be feminists.   There
>has been a fair amount of negative talk.
>
>How about a little positive talk?  I am a male.  I tend to think
>of myself as a feminist.  I know I have eliminated a lot of sexism, but
>of course I haven't rooted it all out.   As a male, let me ask;
>instead of calling me an appressor, etc...  help me improve instead.
>What 10 things should concerned males try to improve in themselves?
>
 1 - Listen to women's experiences.

 2 - Try not to interrupt

 3 - Take sexism seriously in personal relationships; try to adjust
     your behavior to reduce it.

 4 - Take sexism seriously in social institions; work for political
     change.

 5 - Examine the idea of male priviledge (advantages men have without
     seeking them directly; which can be difficult to renounce.)

 6 - Examine how you participate in sex role stereotypes; consider
     how you fit into and differ from conventional "masculine"
     expectations. Consider adopting un-"masculine" behaviors.

 7 - Compare sexism with others ways to divide people from each other:
     Racism, heterosexism, nationalism ....

 8 - Re-examine your ideas of what is "normal" .

 9 - Don't just think...

 10 - Avoid making numbered lists, as this shows linear patriarchial
      thinking.  

 ;)

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: honna@cs.concordia.ca (SEGEL honna)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: equality
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:30:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

In article <3885@keele.keele.ac.uk> csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton) writes:
>From article <26AUG199213531937@vx9000.weber.edu>, by kkidman@vx9000.weber.edu (Kent Kidman):
>
>> I am talking about evolution here.  Usually small improvements are made in
>> times and distances every year.  It is unusual to see a record really wiped
>> out.  The women of today are beating the times of the best men in the world of
>> 30 years ago. Women are improving at a faster rate than men are in many cases.
>
>Classical evolution doesn't happen in 30 years (30,000 maybe), if it happens
>at all in modern societies.
>
>Also bear in mind that
"most accidents happen within 1.67 miles of your own home" ... they must!
You have found your magic number - "20 - 30 years ago". So what?
You went looking for it, didn't you?  Haven't you overlooked the fact 
that men's times have improved over that period; that the largest part
of the Olympian's effort is directed toward surpassing previous records;
that this drive is integral (even defining with respect) to the Olypmics;
that even as women's times (etc....) improve, so will men's...? 

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics"


HS/ Michael


-- 
***************************************************************
honna segel
department of computer science
concordia university  *****************************************
From: smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:50:50 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

I really don't know why calling a female a girl is offensive.  I don't
take offense at being called a boy.  Is it wrong for someone to call
their SO a "girl/boyfriend"?

- Seth
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: ERA question
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:07:51 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug25.160036.26747@cs.rochester.edu>, 
hitzeman@cs.rochester.edu (Janet Hitzeman) writes:
> Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does the ERA say?
> People were arguing about it while I was growing up,
> but I only heard the arguments and never the actual text
> (not that I was interested, being perhaps twelve at the time).
> Since then I've heard women say how important it is, but
> never WHAT it is.  Some rumblings about equality, but
> what SORT of equality, in what areas?  I've also
> heard counterarguments that say that all the ERA would do is
> to change the wording of the Constitution to say
> "All persons are created equal", rather than "All men",
> and therefore I should be against the ERA and wait
> for a better written proposal to come along.

If noone else prints the text of the ERA, I will look it up for you.

The words "All men are created equal" do not appear in the Constitution, but in
the declaration of independance.  The ERA is *not* about rewording the
constitution.
-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.