HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: You are responsible for everything that happens to you
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:54:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct11.021042.18943@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>>I've heard the "line" used to get people, who blame everything that happens
>>to them on someone else, to take responsibility for their lives.  It's a
>>generalization and (generally) most generalizations will not hold up in the
>>general case.

> One of the most idiotic applications of this "line" is one I saw on
> the net earlier this year.  One man wrote of being mugged.  Another
> poster wrote in to say that he was responsible for his being mugged
> (in some lopsided fashion).  Eventually, it became a claim that
> everyone is responsible for everything that happens in her/his life
> since one can always kill oneself and not have to worry about life at
> all.  That made about as much sense as channeling does to me.

I will now channel the "spirit" of Cheryl Stewart into my postings....

(Actually, I just hear from Cheryl, so she must be back from France)

Seriously, I can understand the "you are responsible" concept up to a point.
One does have many choices in life and can often make more of a difference
with these choices than we tend to believe.  Wayne Dyer's books speak of
this, if I'm not mistaken.  There is real power in understanding that we
do have choices.  Of course, not all choices are easy ones.

You could argue that if you are mugged, you are responsible for the "mugging".
You chose to be in "that" part of town, that activity, that situation.
One of your choices is to never go out in the world or to always carry a
sub-machine gun when you do go out.  However, this does not guarantee that
you will not be mugged!

Frankly, unless the person decided to get stoned/drunk and/or sleep on a
park bench at 3 in the morning in Central Park, I'd have a hard time
believing that they were "responsible" for a mugging.  And even then,
I call them "stupid" before "responsible".

Taking responsibility for one's life is important.  But you do have to
remember that no matter how "good" ones choices are, you still can run
up against "bad luck".  You have to make reasonable choices and take the
risks associated with living in a free society.

As my first posting pointed out, generalizations are generally incorrect.
Generally, I maybe right about this!

Terry


> BTW, do you really want your sig file to appear twice?  It's cute, I
> suppose, but to appear twice?

Yea, I'm trying to be the BIFF of alt.feminism! ;-)

I'm trying out some features of a newsreader that I modified.  One of them
is "repost".  I didn't realize that it would try to put my .sig on the
file I was reposting.  Think of it as SHOUTING my .sig!

-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger)
Subject: The word 'woman'
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:00:45 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 10-09-92 10:57
On Oct 7, baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:

B(H>|> What exists:
B(H>|> A whole class of words derived from man.

B(H>I have it from scholarly sources here on the net that woman was not derived
B(H>from the word man. It does seem to be a point of debate though.

From 'The Concise Oxford Dictionary' - the word 'woman' derives from 'Old
English "wif-mon" (as wife, man) a formation peculiar to English, the
ancient word being "wife"'.

It's even worse than we thought - according to this, it seems that there
has never been a word in English for the human female as an entity in
itself, but always as an adjunct to the human male.

                                                Cheers,
                                                Greg.

Greg Grainger in Toronto, Ontario.
8:23:49 am on Fri 10-09-1992.
greg.grainger@rose.com
greg.grainger@bville.gts.org

Personal policy statement:
Neither flames nor flame-bait will be be responded to.
---
   OLX 2.2   An accommodating vice is better than an obstinate virtue.
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
From: ah897@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Lai)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze
Date: 9 Oct 1992 05:10:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



I am taking a feminist theatre class, and there was a mention of
a phenoMENon called the "male gaze".  Is this necessarily
when a male looks at a woman?  Is this "male gaze" the reason
for breast implants, cosmetic sales, plastic surgery?

-- 
This is Robert Lai's "Signature File," and the reader is reminded
that 'tis the season to be Jolly - Falla La La La...la la la la.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:21:18 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>%Here we see the feminist solution for men's oppression:
>%change the name or the oppression, but leave the situation as is.
>%MacKinnon and Rini are pretty good in using the technique....
 
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
 
>>...while, Hillel, on the other hand, specializes in misrepresentation.

>>                                                   You just tell
>>me, why don't you, where I even remotely suggested that we should
>>leave the situation as is.  You just tell me where I have ever
 
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>You suggested that the phrase "deadbeat PARENTS" has any meaning when
>the no choice for men && the discrimination against men in the divorce 
>systems cause a situation where *most* of those "deadbeat PARENTS" (and all 
>those who have a good reason to be deadbeat, in *my* opinion), are men.

Well, sorry if I touched a nerve with you Hillel.  I merely suggested
that Clinton was trying to meet your objections with words.  I thought
it seemed appropriate for you to meet his tactic head on.... to talk
about what on earth he could have meant by "deadbeat *moms*", for 
example...

>%Demanding choice for women is feminists' way to demand equality,
>%and demand no choice for men is just another feminists' way to 
>%demand equality.  You saw these two in the same article and it 
>%did not bother you, but my response did bother you.
>
>>Seeing those two in the same article certainly did not *suprise* me, no.
>
>I did not say surprise, I said bother.

Okay, then you lied.   I was merely trying to make a friendly
ammendment to your non-factual ascription of my motivation.

>I care about the message, not about the exact words you use.
>Debating the wording is just a way not to talk about the message

I agree completely.

>The meaning is pretty clear, and I don't care that much about the
>exact wording; the meaning is much more important, in *my* opinion.

I agree Hillel.  Why don't you go fight with somebody who disagrees
with you, eh?  It's a much better idea than trying to set me up as
your opponent when I'm not willing to play.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 13:47:54 GMT

In article <1bfsf1INNdsq@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>But if their child was born after 1973, they (and not a single man) 
>>had the right to choose whether to assume that duty after a 
>>birth-control failure.
>
>Yep.  That's right.  He made that choice *before* the birth
>control failure when he decided to take his dick out of his 
>pants and stick it into a woman.
>
>						--  Michal

Your view of sex is enlightening.

You are in favor of banning abortion, I suppose?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Censorship
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:15:09 GMT

In article <718404069@lear.cs.duke.edu>
     gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>According to Dworkin and MacKinnon even all men gay porno is an
>exploitation of women.  (And Gordon, if you'll ask then I'll 
>quote the appropriate paragraph, so be careful.)  

   Feel free, Hillel.  As I recall, though dimly, gay male pornography
wasn't seen so much as "exploitation" of women, but as "violence
towards" women, because it depicts a sexually charged world devoid of
any feminine qualities whatsoever, and therefore inures gay men to the
sexuality of women (like they care).

   In other words, feminists don't like gay men 'cause gay men can
enjoy themselves without feminists.  :-)

            Elf !!!
-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why Gordon Is a Feminist
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:26:57
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
Distribution: world
	<1992Oct12.213531.15389@ils.nwu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: peippo.cs.tut.fi
In-reply-to: lynch@ils.nwu.edu's message of 12 Oct 92 21:35:31 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.213531.15389@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

> If nothing else, feminism has had a large part of "liberating" men from being
> forced into the stereo-typical macho image...

Isn't that more like the opposite way. When the amount of feminists
increases, the amount of conservative women drop. And since there is no
similar drop in the amount of men who will like to have a long term
relations with women, they must act more macho like to attract the
remaining women that think similarily.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: A fish w/out a bike
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:37:09 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <BvyLvt.7oJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.005631.16323@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>In article <718690599@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>>>"A woman without a man is like a fish without bicycle."
>>
>>I have never seen this as a slam on men.
>>I see this as challenging the assumption that people are only
>>valued when they are paired up in neat little boy-girl boy-girl
>>boy-girl rows, from here to eternity.
>
>
>Maybe I'm wrong -- but that was my impression of the meaning, anyway: 
>
>   Women have no use for men.
>
>Hence it's a slam.  In either direction.
>
>Don

So, Don, do you thereby conclude that all single people LACK 
something that they intrinsicly NEED and CANNOT be WHOLE PEOPLE
without???

If you are single, do you assume that you are INCOMPLETE???

I (obviously :-) reject that conclusion. I do not NEED a man to
live my life, just as I do not NEED friends. A partner COULD make
me happier in some ways (and I could make a partner happier too :-)
but I am not going to slit my wrists because I don't have a man.

-jen
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism is NOT hatred!!  So what IS it, already?
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:32:50 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct16.180511.4943@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

> Note, your are not asserting your right to express your views here,
> but attempting to censor those with differing views, or at least this
> is what I see. That is, if I do not like what you say, I sould be quiet about
> it. Opposing views generate heated debate (or flame wars). In my experience
> that is just the way things are.

When you have differing opinions, there will be debate.  When you have debate
it will be heated at times.  If one doesn't like the heat, they can get out
of the kitchen.  We already have a place where feminists can avoid the heat.
People can always go there!

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: 7 Oct 92 07:27:06 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Oct6.170150.20324@midway.uchicago.edu> 
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Are you sure about NOW?  I know for a fact that NOW's NY and CA chapters
>have taken a definite position against the Pornography Victim's 
>Compensation Act.

In 1980 NOW passed a resolution condemning pornography and S&M
as exploitation and violence.  Assuming that you are right about
the situation today, what, in your opinion, has caused the change?

>Did you notice, btw, that the committee that drafted the PVCA are all
>men, mostly conservative republicans, and already on feminists' 
>shitlists after the Anita Hill spectacle?  

Dworkin and MacKinnon wrote the first "new" anti-porno laws - in Minneapolis.

Are they men?

Is Minneapolis a conservative city?
(Hint: who won in 1984 in Minn., but lost in 49 other states?)
From: isar@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism is NOT hatred!!
Date: 16 Oct 92 10:49:10 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <719034134@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> # It's been said 10,000 times before, and after reading some posts
> # today I feel the need to say it again - feminism is NOT about hatred
> # of males! 
> 
> %But what about hatred of Men? ;-)  Some "Men" hate to lumped in with male
> %dogs, cats, etc.
> 
> %It's time to overcome the "sexism" of the use of "males" when people mean MEN!
> 
> In article <carol.719014805@ee.uts.EDU.AU> carol@ee.uts.edu.au 
> (Carol Gibson) writes:
> 
>>Anyway how nit picking can you be - men, males .. big deal.... at least if
>>I use males I don't get some other dickhead like you saying "but don't you
>>know that 'men' means 'humans'?"
> 
>>I think in future I will refer to all males as boys.. ;)
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating once again how "moderate" feminists behave.

8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888


  Continuing on this FOWL theme, here's another quack gem.  Somehow, whenever
a person makes the perfectly valid and very germaine point that feminism
does NOT equal hatred of or contempt for men (whoever started that rumour knew
what he was doing) someone else issues a few inflammatory comments, provoking
a well deserved flame and ...PRESTO!  There! See that!  She got angry at me!
she got angry at my asinine comments! There, SEE!! Feminists are bitches!

  Get a clue, people.  I have the right to be assertive about my views and
to flame inanities w/out being considered a belicose psychoslut from hell.
If you want us to be nice, start by showing some respect for our views.
Sheesh... and they wonder why there is so much racial tension in America...


Isabel R.
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Feminist Mailing List
Date: 8 Oct 92 23:21:06 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

The following found it's way to my mailbox.  I thought it might be of
interest to all of you:

*Subj:	Fwd: Feminism in/and Science and Technology (from NEW-LIST)


>From: mmurrain@hamp.hampshire.edu
>Subject: NEW LIST: Feminism in/and Science and Technology e-mail list
>To: Multiple recipients of list NEW-LIST <NEW-LIST@VM1.NoDak.EDU>

FIST@hamp.hampshire.edu
   Feminism in/and Science and Technology, the e-mail list.

   Because of the recent interest generated, a new list has been
   created.  This list is for discussion of feminism and science and
   technology.  This will be an unmoderated list.  If you are a
   scientist and a feminist this list is for you.  If you are a
   feminist, and interested in science and technology, check it out.
   The idea of this list is to discuss critiques of science and move
   beyond these critiques into the realm of how do we create a feminist
   science?  What do we need to pay attention to?  How does one do this
   and get tenure?  How do we teach science?

   To get on this list, send a message to
      FIST-request@hamp.hampshire.edu.
   Send all adminstrivia there too (getting off the list, changing
   addresses, etc.)

   *** Please include a paragraph introducing yourself and what you do. ***

   Please be patient with the list subscription requests (I need to
   teach and do research, too, besides answering email!)

   To send a message to the whole list, send to
      FIST@hamp.hampshire.edu

   Michelle Murrain, School of Natural Science
           Hampshire College Amherst, MA 01002
               Voice:(413) 549-4600 x688
           email: mmurrain@hamp.hampshire.edu
      co-editor, Feminists in Science and Technology
     (for sub info send snail mail address by e-mail)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gleason Sackman                           BBS:       sackman@sendit.nodak.edu
Coordinator                               Internet:  sackman@plains.nodak.edu
SENDIT - NoDak's K-12 Telcom Network      Bitnet:    sackman@plains.bitnet
BOX 5164,  NDSU Computer Center           Voice: (701)237-8109
Fargo, ND  58105                          Fax:   (701)237-8541
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: AA (was Re: Women as Victims (was: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )))
Date: 8 Oct 92 10:21:05
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Oct8.094759.1@cc.curtin.edu.au>
	<1992Oct8.081218.26583@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Oct8.144805.17521@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:48:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.144805.17521@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.081218.26583@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>Read what Fitch wrote:  "...this corporation's being busted severely
>>several years ago for never giving women..."  Doesn't this seem that
>>selective treatment dependent on a person's gender had indeed been
>>going on before the women received the jobs--that men were receiving
>>preferential treatment? 

>AT the time, this -was- socially acceptable, and indeed, the right (tm)
>Thing to do. It is no now. You are comparing things that are unequal as
>if theey were the same.

At which time was this "right"?  5 years ago?  10?  100?  When did it
stop being "right"?  If it is not "right" now, then do you agree that
something should be done about it, if companies are still doing it
(which they are)?

>You claim that this "preferential treatment" is wrong, and yet you seem
>to demand it (It seems that you support it, correct me if you do not)
>through AA. So the basic stance is that it is wrong when you do it to
>me, but right (tm) when I do it to you.

I can't answer for ljf, but I want to *stop* preferential treatment by
gender.  Now, if the goverment comes along to a company and finds that,
for example, 50% of their applicants are women, but only 1% of the
people they hire are women, where do they go from there?  Do they just
say, ah, well, it would be "preferential treatment" to insist that you
hire a more reasonable percentage of women, so go for it, discriminate
all you want?  If not, what do *you* (Rich) propose that they do to
correct this situation?  Or do you believe that it is "right" for them
to not hire women?

>You might as well compare conditions here with those in Rome during the
>middle ages, you will get a comparison with about as much validity.

You're saying that discussing what is going on today, right now, is
invalid?  Or that saying that someone is not only doing it now, but has
been doing it consistently for the last year, 10 years, 20 years, etc?
If I had owned slaves for the last 200 years, would it be irrelevant to
even discuss my slave-owning now, since when I started, it was "right"?

Muffy

--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~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: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: On Responsible Consumerism
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:47:13 GMT

In article <7OCT199208050756@deimos.ucc.umass.edu>,
sfadden@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (Steve Fadden) wrote:

> An example that I read this morning is on a package of brown sugar that I and 
> my housemate had bought.  It's called "Jack Frost Sugar - Dark Brown" and is 
> manufactured by Refined Sugars, Inc. in New York.
> 
> The message on the back panel is as follows:
> 
>      "Jack Frost sugar is the pure sweet sugar your mother relied on 
>       to create some of your most mouthwatering childhood memories...
>       Today, you can rely on the same fine quality sugar to turn all
>       that you touch into memories as sweet as your own.  
>       Memories are made with Jack Frost."
> 
> I am publically and personally offended by the sexist content...

> Please send any personal opinions or flames to me directly. 


Steve, get a grip, or a job, or something !
I'd go on, but your article is really some tricky psychologists stunt,
right ?
BTW, you missed the racism inherent in Dark Brown.  
 
> - Steve

Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dave@lynx.mn.org (David Messer)
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
Organization: Lynx Data Systems
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 11:10:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.032041.19421@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
 >In article <1ai1l5INN604@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
 >>Besides, if our society really believed that sexy clothing *caused*
 >>rape, wouldn't one expect rape victims to be able to turn around and 
 >>sue clothing stores for selling and advertising those sexy clothes
 >>in the first place?

I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen.  We will probably see
the day when miniskirts have warning labels...  1/2 :)

 >	But seriously:  of course the "sexy clothes" defense if hooey.  You
 >might as well claim that a male robbery victim was "asking for it" by wearing
 >a Rolex.

Exactly.  Also rape is generally more about power than sex in the
first place so wearing sexy cloths has little to do with it.  I
think that the main reason that this defense is used is the same
reason that the rape occurs in the first place:  by degrading the
woman, one gets power over her in our society.
-- 
Vote for Bush!                       | David Messer       dave@lynx.mn.org -or-
    He's been sick.                  | Lynx Data Systems  ..!tcnet!lynxds!dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men