HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: olmstead@sail.uwaterloo.ca ()
Subject: The Feminist Joke
Originator: olmstead@sail.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 02:44:35 GMT

ehudon@reed.edu writes:

<I'm responding to the postings asking that jokes about feminists not
<be posted to alt.feminism.

<The joke in question went something like this:

<Q:Why do Sumo wrestlers shave their legs?
<A:To distinguish themselves from the feminists.

<In Rachel's posting, she asks that posters

<>. . . MAINTAIN SOME
<>KINDNESS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER PEOPLES POINTS OF VIEW AND LIFESTYLES.

<To me, this implies that the joke was cruel and disrespectful, which
<I simply don't think is the case. It's humor, it's poking fun at the
<*stereotypical* feminist. And, unless this group is simply meant to be
<a cheering squad for feminism instead of an open discussion, the joke
<is not out of place here. This joke is no more hurtful to feminists
<and the feminist community than cynical references to *military
<intelligence* are to soldiers.

<Instead of crying "Foul!" and demanding isolation, laugh for a moment
<(if you find the joke amusing) or dismiss it as crude (if you don't
<find the joke amusing).

<Elizabeth

I am all for humor, in fact Muffy bounced my depiction of Pat Robertson
frying in hell, but stereotypes and jokes about groups of people are
never funny.  I'm sure we can think of other jokes like the one about
Pat Robertson, Anita Bryant and Ozzy Osbourne....

Mike 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Olmstead		| 	olmstead@sail.uwaterloo.ca            
Civ Eng Undergrad	|----------------------------------------------
University of Waterloo	| "I told you two to quit having water fights"
Waterloo, Ontario	|  french foreign legion captain scolding two  
CANADA			|  of his men in the desert..larson's far side
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Laura Blankenship <lblanken@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Animal testing 
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:54:33 GMT
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

In the discussion on cosmetics, someone mentioned that they thought most
companies didn't test their products on animals.  Unfortunately, there are
still many companies that do test their products on animals--Bristol-Meyers,
Clinique Laboratories, Colgate-Palmolive, Estee Lauder, Gillette, Johnson &
Johnson, Maybelline--just to name a few.  These are some of the biggest names
in the cosmetics industry.  So not only are they exploiting the beauty myth,
but they're also being cruel to animals.

By the way, I'm in the camp of women who do not wear makeup for reasons other
than feminism and animal testing is one of them.  For a list of companies
that don't test on animals, consult The Green Consumer by John Elkington,
Julia Hailes, and Joel Makower or contact PETA.

Power to the people,
Laura
From: smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:57:16 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Sep3.092425.22714@leela.cs.orst.edu> petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
>Well, all I know is that *I* certainly would not like to be called anyone's
>"girlfriend" at my age (48).  And at what age would you change that to
>woman?  35?  30?  25?  

I don't think I would change it as I grow older.  If she is 10+ years
older than I am, and I'm involved with her, then I would think of her
as my "girlfriend."

I'm not saying it's the best definition, but my little Webster's says
"girlfriend - A female friend; a regular or frequent female companion
of a boy or man"
"boyfriend - A male companion"

The point is that no ages are given for either definition.

- Seth
From: smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:03:39 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <lyhnhd=.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.142504.13145@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>>I tried taking a women's studies class in college.  I thought it would
>>be interesting to see what I could do to help reduce sexism in our
>>society.
>
>To play devils advocate here, is not the very subject of "women's studies"
>sexist given that there are no 'men's studies". I rather suspect that
>anyone proposing tha latter subject would be laughed out of the room.

What does your reply have to do with my posting?

- Seth
From: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:56:00 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <AWERLING.92Aug31173953@dante.nmsu.edu>, by awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING):
> In article <1992Aug31.174327.17143@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:

> >"Even though [woman's name] didn't understand the technical aspects of the
> > job, we hired her anyhow because she had such a sweet personality".
>
> Okay, now *that* one is obnoxious and patronizing.  Ick.

And sexist?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 22:08:47 GMT
Organization: WeasElectro Productions: Television/Movies/Comics

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

> ...the term bashing in this context (XXXX bashing), refers
> to verbal abuse only.  

Wrong.  "Gay bashing" refers to both verbal and physical bashing. Gays get
bashed -- as in beaten simply because they're gay -- all the time. 

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:48:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug31.015137.27277@NeoSoft.com> jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt) writes:
>In article <s3fnffh.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>> 
>> I plan to, although I already do not agree with her views. Of course,
>> she claims that her views reflect my reality, and I feel that I know
>> more about my reality than she does. I do not speak for anyone else
>> in this.
>
>I too found Dworkin's _Intercourse_ a rich source of ideas even though I
>didn't agree with all of her conclusions.  As a result of reading the
>book, I ended up reading five or six other books cited by her.  For
>example, she presented a very different view of Joan of Arc than I had
>heard before.  So reading Dworkin involved all of these 'detours,' in
>which I would stop and read one or two other books and then eventually get
>back to her book.  She is an original thinker, but I suspect that she 
>would get some of her points across better if she didn't shock the hell
>out of people (you for example) with some of her universal statements.
>On the other hand, if she didn't do that, you probably would have ignored
>her.

Well, you probably percieve the material in a different light than I.
By the standards of Dworkin, I should do all in my power to make this
sexist material go away, I think.

But were I to make the claims about -you- that she makes about all men,
would you take me seriously? Or would you think me sexist and deranged?

>-- 
>Jaclyn Brandt
>jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
>--

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson)
Subject: Re: Last names
Reply-To: ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson)
Organization: LaserMaster Technologies, Minneapolis, MN
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 20:44:30 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.223406.22202@burrhus.harvard.edu>, 
dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
> Let's assume a man
> and a woman have gotten married, and the women kept her last name (i.e.
> no hyphenation).  Then they start having children.  What should the
> children's last names be?

  In my family, the first son & daughter received the same first name
as the same-sex parent, the first name of that parent's same-sex
parent as a middle name, and the family name of the same-sex
parent if the mother didn't take the family name of the father.
For example, the first son get's his father's name for a first
name, and his father's father's name as a middle name.

  Subsequent sons and daughters got various names of relatives,
dead or not, depending upon the whim of the parents.

  Upon reaching the age of majority, the now-adult selects
for themself the name they will go by as an adult.  The new
name either becomes a nick-name, or they legalize it.  Fortunately,
my marriage document had two slots; "Old name, New name", so
I was able to make the change legal and binding rather than
just a pleasant folk tradition.

  So, from my experience, all this fuss about what you
do with last names is just folks scratching around for
something to fuss about.

  Name yourself what 'cha wanna, don't break any laws in 
the process, and stop fussin.

  'Course, it does become a problem with state documents like
drivers liscenses which insist on ONE first name, ONE middle
initial, and ONE last name (thank you, Wisconsin).  In such
cases I just choose one or the other and leave it at that.

  In case you're wondering, my heritage is Swedish, Lithuanian,
whatever Algonquin tribe the Chippewa came from, and Mongolian.
The naming scheme seems to mainly come from Lithuania and
Mongolia, since I've met some other people from that area who
have similar traditions.

  Ciaran.

  $uslinit; include oblig.sig <<
  "...And here, Queen Aphrodite, pour heavenly nectar into gold
   cups, and fill them gracefully with sudden joy."  -- Sappho >>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Proposed Massachusetts legislation H.5194
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:17:37 GMT

In article <7447@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:

>Unfortunately, there's substantial disagreement about what counts
>as degrading, dehumanizing, etc.  Dworkin's position on this seems
>to be pretty far to one extreme, and the sorts of people who usually
>support pornography laws (eg, the religious right) are also fairly
>extreme.

Well in my opinion 'degradation' is irrelevant; content-based 
suppression is wrong no matter where you draw the line.  Feminists 
obviously aren't the first to advocate censorship, but they are the 
first to advocate 'degradation' of women as a criterion for obscenity.  
And they've been remarkably successful in establishing this criterion 
in Canadian criminal law.

>It's hard to believe that any law of this sort would turn
>out to be reasonable.

Yep.  The degradation premise was recently used to remove a 
painting of a menstruating woman from a feminist art exhibit.  I'd 
guess that 90% of those pushing for this law would be appalled by its 
use in this case.  It's ironic that the very people who trust the male-
dominated political system the least should be so happy to grant it 
such paternalistic power over their personal lives.  When the 
Supreme Court upheld the obscenity law this year, women's groups
across the country praised the decision; the only critics were
a few representatives of the ACLU.

-S. Schultz
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Totalitarians" and alt.feminism (Was: proposed vote of confidence)
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:59:29 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep3142609@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
| <In article <DF.92Sep2164954@anableps.berkeley.edu> df@anableps.berkeley.edu (d) writes:
| <In article <1992Sep2.164407.24466@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| <>   It seems rather totalitarian to focus on the only
| <>   newsgroup on the net where mention of feminism does not
| <>   bring down a barrage of flames.
| 
| 	I personally very much doubt that it is totalitarian.
| 	Totalitarians, for one thing, don't generally call
| 	for votes unless they already know how the vote will
| 	turn out; Stalin, for example.

You have a very naive idea of totalitarianism, Nosy.  Think
of what it _means_, not of all the propaganda you've heard.
It means controlling what people can say and think, not whether
you have elections or not.  Stalin had elections.  They have
elections in Iran, but there are a lot of things you better
not bring up in public.

| <It *is* totalitarian... 
| 
| 	Please go look up the word "totalitarian".

Exactly.

| <that's the purpose of these people who want to
| <silence feminists, or denounce them as militant/incoherent lesbians (or
| <some other "awful" label.)  Obviously anyone who won't bow down to the
| <superior wit and force of the ruling party must be silenced, humiliated,
| <or destroyed.  
| 	
| 	This is interesting. Some people feel exactly this
| 	way with respect to "feminism"; that they must bow
| 	down to it or be silenced, humiliated and/or destroyed.

This is something I'd like to get at: your fantasies of
being oppressed by powerful feminists.  Once again, you
cite Dworkin, but in the pragmatics of American politics,
Dworkin is a clown -- a monkey of right-wing fascist
social reactionaries.  What about all the feminists who
oppose Dworkin?  Are they oppressing you, too?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: 31 Aug 92 08:15:33 GMT
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York

In article <1992Aug28.161004.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.052723.8947@news.columbia.edu>, 
>mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>>>makes it even more degrading. Dworkin contends that material depicting
>>>women as enjoying sex is worse than the Nazis' treatment of the
>>>Jews:"The Jews didn't do it to themselves and they didn't orgasm....
>>>No one, not even Goebbels, said that the Jews liked it.
>> 
>> Well, if she believes in God who created human beings, male and female, 
>> then I believe she would say that God is sexist, and the architect of female
>> suffering.  I guess she would have to say that God is a man!
>
>I believe that Andrea Dworkin is an Athiest of Jewish descent.
>
>> I find these spoutings of hers insensitive, offensive, sexist and bigoted, 
>> and they offend me, as a human being, a Jew, and a man.
>> I truly wonder whether she can conceive of a loving relationship with a member
>> of the opposite sex.  
>
>John Stoltenberg would seem to think so...
>I don't know if their relationship is sexual, but it is certainly hetero...

Well, by her own logic, he is oppressing her and dominating her if he has
intercourse with her.  I wonder if she would prefer to penetrate him!
Would that make society any better?

>> How interesting that she brings up Jews in her "argument".  She must not know
>> that in modern Judaism, sex is one expression of the ultimate human
>> relationship that is almost divine:  marriage.  It is *not* at all sinful!
>> That relationship is two-sided and, contrary to Dworkin's view of the world,
>> Jewish men are required to provide sex *for* their wives.  Furthermore,
>> married couples are supposed to enjoy the pleasures of sex on the Sabbath as
>> a way of enhancing the beauty and perfection of the Sabbath, and it presumably
>> also makes the sex more of a Divine experience.
>
>None of this has anything to do with her usage of the treatment of Jews in the 
>Holocaust.

Only in that I don't think she understands the meanings of the subject matter
which she uses as proofs.

 * * * * *  =================== Internet address is  mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * == Meir I. Green == Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
 * * * * *  = mig@columbia.edu= Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@K2KJC.NY.USA.NOAM
* * * * * * =================== Amateur TCP/IP       N2JPG@uhm.ampr.org
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:33:50 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Keywords: Feminism

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>Oddly, while everyone has aggreed that if sexism is the probem, it cannot
>be the answer, almost eveyone seems to think that anti-male discrimination
>is OK. 

What he was talking about was not `anti-male' discrimination..
just discrimination.

>Either they do not understand the statement, or I must not.

You do not.

>payner@netcom.com

>>
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 07:25:40 GMT

Isn't it amazing that Dworkin thinks she knows males better than we know
oursleves?  She thinks she has a less biased view!

She knows little about the current and informed culture.
And she has never read netnews!  :-)

OK, so scratch netnews, but if she is trying to be modern, and factual, where
are the modern studies, articles, and documentaries!?  To a young boy, "Growing
Up in Samoa" makes fascinating reading!  I wonder if Dworkin ever read and
understood any feminist sociologists?

Sigh.
:-)

 * * * * *  =================== Internet address is  mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * == Meir I. Green == Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
 * * * * *  = mig@columbia.edu= Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@K2KJC.NY.USA.NOAM
* * * * * * =================== Amateur TCP/IP       N2JPG@uhm.ampr.org
From: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:17:00 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

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
> do simply because you're a man (such as the diaper changing example I
> just saw posted).  Other things to look for: as above, assumptions that
> you will pay for things; assumptions that you will work on your house or
> car or whatever; assumptions that you do not have to take care of
> children; assumptions that you do not know how to cook or clean;
> assumptions that you are interested in sports; etc.

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 we are aware of them: they are simply "default" assumptions in
the absence of specific knowledge of the individual.  They don't constitute
"sexism", just statistical simplification.  I can and do live with it.
Sometimes it's amusing.  It's nothing to get indignant about.  There *is*
"sexism against men" but it's harder to find.  One example: when I complain
about cases of sexism against men, I am not taken seriously.  Perhaps that's
because my heart isn't in it ...
----
  __   __    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: Sexist Incidents
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:04:13 GMT

In article <!+bn0_p.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In fact, is not one of the tenants of communism that each shall receive
>according to their needs?

And christianity -- see Acts 4:35...

What either has to do with feminism is another question.

-- 
 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: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: 1 Sep 92 11:47:05
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<3895@keele.keele.ac.uk> <nwjnstl@lynx.unm.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: gworrell@carina.unm.edu's message of Tue, 01 Sep 92 17:25:22 GMT

In article <nwjnstl@lynx.unm.edu> gworrell@carina.unm.edu (Gayla M. Worrell) writes:
>In article <3895@keele.keele.ac.uk> csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton) writes:
>>An academic course on "women's studies" should not be a vehicle for working
>>off pent up anger.  Many bitter people, male and female, get off on their
>>own indignation, and those "feminists" who are merely doing that should be
>>discreetly ignored.  There are serious issues to be debated, and anger and
>>rhetoric can set this process back.

>Hey Paul - You wouldn't, by any chance, be saying that women really shouldn't
>be angry, or that if they are angry they should be ignored, would ya. :-)

Well, if he is, I disagree with him.  However, I agree that an academic
course is not a place to direct anger at other students.  The people in
the course are *all* there to learn, both the men and the women.  A
friend of mine in a women's studies course got together with several of
the women *outside* of the class to discuss issues (and express anger,
if desired), which seems much more appropriate to me.

Indeed, I see this as another interesting reason for a single-sex group:
very few men (although I know several who do) feel comfortable around
women who are discovering and expressing their anger at "men."	In a
women-only group, the women don't have to be concerned about the men
around them taking this expression personally.

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: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:07:11 GMT

moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:

...[long whiny post deleted]...

>funny how there isn't a corollary to `misogyny'. Is this the new `problem
>without a name'? 

There is: misandry. It's about as common as misogyny.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: alt.feminism