HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: charter for alt.feminism
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:46:50
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<5396@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu's message of 2 Sep 92 21:46:41 GMT

In article <5396@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>And if you actually read it, you'll find the charter specifies talking about
>feminist issues.  Not issues about soc.feminism.

*And* issues relevant to feminism.  Which, as I pointed out, many of the
posters on this group seem to feel is true of the moderation of
soc.feminism.

>You feel threatened.  Too bad.

No, I feel *flamed*.  That is very different indeed.  I don't fear any
harm from anything that has happened.

>Alt.feminism is here to stay and there isn't anything you can do about it.

I have not *TRIED* to do anything about it.  In fact, I have publicly
stated my support for this group, on this group.

>If you continue to send me e-mail with swearwords in it,

I have not sent you any such mail.  Indeed, I don't think I have sent
you *any* mail.

>I'll send it back
>to your system administrator.

Go for it.  Since I didn't send any such thing, I can then complain to
*your* sysadmin about you forging mail in an attempt to injure me.

>I've met few people on the USENET that are
>as childish as you.

I guess you can honestly say that you haven't met yourself.

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: spzkny@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  4 Sep 1992 15:55 EST  

In article <mcline.1cgs@terapin.com>, mcline@terapin.com
 (Matthew Cline) writes...

[deleted test description]
>So it seems that language can have an affect on what people think, and
>it should thus be changed.

Why?  So that everyone will think the way you wish them to?  By the way, 
agreeing with your conclusion above, do you really want language to be 
regulated by a specific political/social group?  I don't.

                                                  James S. Zakany
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:08:01
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<715513655.17428@minster.york.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk's message of 3 Sep 92 09:47:35 GMT

In article <715513655.17428@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>Ron Graham (ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>: Her contention was (and this another topic altogether) that the term "lady"
>: is also sexist, in that it has negative connotations ("lady of the night,"
>: etc.) with no male gender-specific analog.
> How about 'gentleman' - but none of the negative connotations present
> as for 'lady'

You could make an argument for "gentleman" having similar negative
connotations - the adjective "gentle" might well imply that most men are
not "gentle" or something like that.

I think the connection of "lady" with "lady of the night" is tenuous at
best...it's pretty ridiculous, actually.  The problem with both "lady"
and "gentleman" is not any connection to prostitution.  The problem is
that they are used to refer to people who adhere to certain societally-
defined codes of conduct.  In the case of a "lady," that means to stay
under the protection of a man (your father, husband, or brother), not
complain about inequities (since this would be criticizing society), not
make a lot of noise, not do anything that's really "man's work" (it is
"unladylike" to be, for example, a construction worker), etc.

The word "lady" is used to describe women who adhere to this code and
the idea that someone is "not a lady" is meant to criticize them for
stepping outside the behavior expected of women.  At some points, the
idea that a particular woman was "not a lady" was used to justify
maltreating her.  I don't see too much of that today, but that idea is
certainly still around.

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: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:40:49 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) complained that soc.feminism
moderators favored "politically correct" articles.

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch):
> >This simply isn't so.  

hg:
> Gordon, there was a big debate about the subject in soc.men, and I posted
> quite a few examples of the kind of articles that get posted and the kind
> of articles that get rejected.  Quite a few people agreed with my opinion,
> that's why alt.feminism was created.  Nor you, neither the moderators had
> anything to say in this debate, but you reject the conclusions.

Had I known about the debate -- I gave up reading soc.men
a long time ago -- I probably would have regarded it as
illegitimate.  In any case, I have no objection to the
creation of alt.feminism.  You have stated at least twice
to my recollection that you preferred the freer give-and-take
of an unmoderated newsgroup.  You have it.  In fact, you are
free to try a vote on soc.anti-feminism or soc.equalism or
soc.misogyny or whatever you like, moderated or unmoderated.
Given what I've seen on the net, the vote ought to be a
walk-over.

The significant fact in this whole discussion is that you
and many others cannot _stand_ to have a single newsgroup
on the net where ideas you don't like can't be submerged in
flames.  Or at least that appears to be what's going on.

gf:
> >If you doubt me, you can get the
> >whole soc.feminism contributions file, and check it out
> >for yourself.  Plenty of what Hillel calls "politically
> >incorrect" articles appear in soc.feminism, approved
> >by none other than Muffy.  The standard seems to be
> >coherence, not correctness, so Hillel may be getting 
> >things mixed up.

hg:
> They don't reject Gordon, therefore it is not a censorship...

As a matter of fact I have had serious differences of 
opinion with the moderators as to what the scope of the
newsgroup should be, and with some of the feminists as
well as the anti-feminists -- as you would know if you
read the group with any frequency.

Unfortunately, due to the fact that the moderators
take such care to cater to the 50% of the contributors
who are antagonistic to feminism in one way or another,
the group has never become a forum where feminism is a
given and subjects outside the question of the validity 
of feminism can be discussed from a feminist viewpoint.
We're always in third grade, and every discussion starts
by explaining everything all over again.

If _I_ were the moderator, I would simply take all the
questions of the validity of feminism off the board.
There are several newsgroups where feminism is attacked, 
derided, and calumniated day in and day out.  I would
think they would suffice, if not gratify, your desires.

Why do you want everything to be the same?  Isn't it
boring?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The trashing of alt.feminism
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:21:09
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Aug31085410@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<5353@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu's message of 1 Sep 92 21:19:54 GMT

In article <5353@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:

>While I'm not surprised that the first few postings in alt.feminism are about
>the *reason* why we now need an alt.feminism, I am somewhat surprised that
>the biggest violator of the charter of alt.feminism is the MODERATOR of
>soc.feminism.

What charter?  I have not seen one posted, nor has anyone shown one to
me.  My being the MODERATOR of soc.feminism has nothing to do with my
posts to alt.feminism (except when I am attacked here for being a
moderator elsewhere) any more than it does my posts to rec.food.cooking.

>The new group is turning into a flaming ground by the very person who should
>know better.

I really think it is unfair of you to "blame the victim."  Do you
complain about how the dead victims of a massacre "turned the area into
a charnel house?"

>It makes one wonder if she isn't trashing the group because
>she is jealous?

Actually, I'm attempting to defend myself against flames.  If you have
been reading, you should know that I did not START flaming anyone, they
started flaming me.  I will not stop defending myself; it would be
better for you to encourage people to stop attacking me (including
posting email...*snort*).

>I call upon Muffy to stop flaming and post articles that are relavant to
>feminism.

I *have* posted such articles.  Look again.  Check out threads such as
the one on sexist incidents.

>Never in my wildest dreams did I expect that the person who'd
>trash the new group would be one of the supposedly "solid" citizens of
>USENET.

Who said that?  I have certainly never claimed to be a "solid" citizen
of ANYTHING.  I am no different from any other poster, beyond our
individual differences.

Send me this charter, please?

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: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:13:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.213536.17806@athena.mit.edu> standish@athena.mit.edu (Mark S Farrar) writes:


>   First off, I work in a library and I know that there is
>   an area of research commonly referred to as "Men's Studies".
>   More progressive book stores also have Men's Studies areas.
>   And, some would argue that everything that hasn't been 
>   specifically set forth to be Women's Studies could be 
>   considered tainted to the point of being automatically
>   Men's Studies.

But that's more than vaguely propagandist.  Would not "Men's Studies"
be more nuetral than that?  ANYTHING "studies" should not have an
agenda.  Women's Studies should not be politically oriented, but
geared towards understanding women, in society and otherwise.  The
same for Men's Studies.  

While academic fields of most natures may or may not be specifically
male-centered, that does not make these fields "Men's Studies."

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"now we find sodom strange take it out put it in your mouth how do you like
gomorrah now a taste of this swallow that feel the fish hide the hat ezekial
where's your wheel you better grease it GREASE GREASE GREASE GREASE! ROCK!!!"
       --Chainsaw Kittens, "Ezekial Walks Through Sodom and Gomorrah"
From: dewind@acsu.buffalo.edu (Idbil Fubar)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Keywords: bathrooms
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:16:09 GMT
Organization: UB

kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:


>Since it takes women approximately 1.32 seconds to pee, and men
                                    ^^do you mean 1min32sec?  Otherwise your
					math is way off.

>approximately 30 seconds, why not just put 3 times as many toilets in the
>womens room than the mens?

>Theory 1.
>Because men (for the most part) do the designing and building, and don't
>think about it. 

Not necessarily.  Think also of the fact that ladie's rooms have fun
stuff like Mirrors that men's rooms often do not.  If you don't like it 
because of this reason become a fucking designer and build them your way.
As far as I know there is nothing stopping you from doing that except your
own inhibitions.

>Theory 2.
>?

>Most mens rooms have 2 urinals and one toilet, which can service 360 men
>an hour - OK, say 200).
>Most womens rooms have two toilets.  This will service 90 women an hour -
>OK, say 50.

For the reason that two toilets, a GIANT mirror and several vanaties take up
as much space (if not more) than A toilet two urinals and a sink with a tiny
mirror if you're lucky.

So basicaly you want a ladies room with EIGHT toilets????????????
I'm sorry but most places don't have room for that kind of stuff.  

I still don't understand why you wouldn't want unisex bathrooms.  But then
equality does suck doesn't it?

>Get the point  8-).  

*BzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzT*  :)

>By at least putting the urinals behind a door, women can use the mens room,
>if necessary, and it would be less embarassing to all involved.

I've seen places like that.  Someone runs in having to go badly and smashes
the door in to the buttocks of who ever is hanging a hose causing them to...
well...lets just say that them things aren't too sterile most of the time.

Do you want equality or segregation?  You can't have both at the same time.

-Idbil Fubar

ps.  You do realize it is illeagal for me to take a piss in the woman's room
yet you can waltz in to the men's room as if nothing is going on...even though
urunals don't have doors
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Comparisons to Hitler
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep2.035857.3204@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:27:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.035857.3204@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:

> 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...
>
>  ;)

Comparisons to Hitler = reminders of Hitler = critical thinking
regarding the validity of said comparisons = good healthy wariness of
all political movements, no matter whose side you're on.

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"now we find sodom strange take it out put it in your mouth how do you like
gomorrah now a taste of this swallow that feel the fish hide the hat ezekial
where's your wheel you better grease it GREASE GREASE GREASE GREASE! ROCK!!!"
       --Chainsaw Kittens, "Ezekial Walks Through Sodom and Gomorrah"
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminists (Was: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:50:31 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| In article <1992Sep3.025311.11936@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) flogs Dworkin yet again.  If Dworkin
| >did not exist, people like Nosy would have to invent her.
| >
| >In article <Btz0M4.Erx@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
| >| I can see that if the above statements are a reflection of what most
| >| here feel to be the feminist `party line' why there is so much
| >| animosity. Whew..what a bunch of hate flying here.. Does anyone out 
| >| there feel that the above 2 statements ARE correct or lend any
| >| credibility to them at all? Baffled.
| >
| >You're getting a the soc.men version of feminism.  Besides
| >that, there are hundreds of books, articles, and postings
| >that reflect another kind of feminism.

In article <gpln9r+.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
| So which is the REAL (tm) version of feminism? And why do those others
| lie to us and claim to be feminists?  ( half a smiley here)

Note: answer follows...
|  
| >Just study the texts, and notice out of those millions of
| >sentences which Nosy finds important, and you'll see where
| >he's at.

Read the stuff for yourself.  Lots of people call themselves
things because it makes them feel good, or because they can
make a living by doing it.  Nosy is evidently tuned in to
one kind of "feminist"; there are plenty of others.

By the way, Nosy, if you're out there: why don't you 
explain to us why you focus on Dworkin?  You like her
stuff?  Find it fascinating?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: branch@cs.cornell.edu (Mary Ann Branch)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:06:50 GMT

mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:

>In article <AWERLING.92Aug31173953@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug31.174327.17143@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
>>
>>>"Women can't comprehend mathematics".
>>>"Women don't understand complicated, technical subjects"
>>tailgator).

>Now this is interesting!
>My Dad's insurance company insists that women are *better* drivers!
>Also, that *more aged* drivers are better drivers.

>The insurance company uses statistics to generalize that male drivers under
>25 are poor risks, and prejudges me, an *individual*, as a poor risk.

I believe that you have slightly misconstrued here. It's not
they think that women are *better* drivers, but that men are
poorer risks (as you later say).  Then the reasoning behind this
goes is that men drive more than women, and in more treacherous 
situations (so the idea is that if a male/female couple climbs into 
a car, it is more likely that the man drives.  If there is a blizzard
going on at the time, it is even more likely that the man drives).
Supposedly the statistics support this idea of men being higher
risks because they drive more often--I do not know these statistics
personally, I'm only passing on the explanation I usually hear.

>Change the word male to black, and see if *that* would stand up in court!

So now this part isn't going to fly: they aren't likely to
claim that if a black person and a white person climb into a car,
that the black person is more likely to climb into the
driver's seat.  

>Incidentally, my insurance company need not assume that I am a high risk
>driver.  They know that I have not had a single accident in my 5 years of
>driving.  If I had, they would use that fact to raise my rates, even though
>the probability obviously doesn't change!

>Is this not unfair and unnecessary discrimination?
>Women get better insurance rates, here, than men do.
It would be difficult to prove
that you usually let another person drive you around and so you should get
the cheaper rate.  It's not just based on your record, it's also
how often they think you put yourself at risk by driving.

>By the way, this has been the situation in New Jersey and, to my knowledge,
>in other local states, such as New York, and Pennsylvania.
It is my understanding this is standard across the states. 

I didn't address the age difference, but from what my brothers
tell me, that at 25 your rate will drop, and if you get married
it will also drop.  So in that sense, there is a claim
that young single females are less of a risk in terms of car
accidents than young single males.  So you have to pay higher
car insurance.

Is it discrimination?  Let's see.   You would have to argue
that the statistics were somehow discriminatory.  Are they?
Hmmmm...would someone else care to comment at this point?

--Mary Ann
branch@cs.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: england@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (julie england)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Summary: sexist comparisons
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:45:30 GMT

> In article <1992Aug25.183639.16010@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
> 
>    Has anyone had any experience with blatant sexism?  By this I mean some
>    decision making that was OBVIOUSLY based on sex where sex had no logical
>    part in the decision.  I am trying to find out what this is, because all
>    through school, university, and now graduate school I have never really
>    witnessed what I thought was sexist (other than on TV, books, etc).  I
>    am particularly interested in sexism in universities.
> 
>    I guess I'm either blind or lucky.  If the former, please open my eyes.
> 
>    Paul

I had an statistics (econ) instructor who was fond of giving us
homework and exam questions that compared women to men.  Such as:
Joe is a Looker, and he sits at the bottom of the stairs and rates
women from 1 to 10.  If 90% of the women he rates are 8, and ...(and
so on).  Or another great example was comparing women's test scores
to men on homework problems, and he would consistently rate women's
scores well below the mens. For instance, if Mary scores a 40 on
the exam and Peter scores a 75 on the exam, then....or, when we
were studying averages he would group women in one group and men
in the other and show the group of women making lower scores.

This got to be real annoying.  One day someone in class asked him
why he did this, and in front of the entire class, he said, "Well,
I really don't think women are as intelligent as men".  In front
of everyone! The women in the class just couldn't believe it.  I
couldn't believe it!  I'd never run across such a blatent statement
before, though I had suspicions that that was how most men felt.

Has anyone come across this perception so blatently before?  Do men
(and society as a whole) still feel this way?  It is sometimes hard
to believe.  This happened to me about 6 years ago, so I imagine
it is still a common perception.  The instructor, by the way, was
a graduate student, fairly young, and in my opinion, should have
known better!!!

Just my $.02.

Julie
-- 
*-------------------------------------**-------------------------------------*
| Julie England, Database Coordinator || Workshop in Political Theory and    |
| england@silver.ucs.indiana.edu      || Policy Analysis, Indiana University |
*-------------------------------------**-------------------------------------*
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: spzkny@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  4 Sep 1992 15:43 EST  

In article <MUFFY.92Sep3172542@remarque.berkeley.edu>,
 muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes...

>>(?)
>>Why keep women waiting to use a 
>>free toilet when you could be funneling them to drop some extra bucks
>>at the vending areas?

>(Muffy)
>Good point.  In fact, I often do not get a drink at, say, a concert or a
>movie, in order to avoid the necessity of going to the bathroom.

Speaking of funnels...  Didn't a woman recently invent a female urinal (a 
sort-of funnel-like device) for women?  Something like this should help cut 
down on the women's toilet line.

Sidebar:  Damn!  You women go through the toilet paper like nothing!
          I kept track, and my fiancee goes through t.p. at a rate nearly
          four times greater than me.  Sheeesh!!! 
                                                  James S. Zakany
Newsgroups: alt.feminism