HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<fb-ngrn.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug24152039@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:44:22 GMT

<In article <MUFFY.92Aug24152039@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
   In article <fb-ngrn.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
<>*rolling eyes* Oh good grief, who let them out of their sandbox? Look, if you
<>want only the feminist view of things, there is soc.feminism.

<   *THE* feminist view of things?  If you ever *read* soc.feminism, you
<   might have found that there is not *one* feminist view of things.  In
<   addition, you would have found much criticism of feminism, to the point
<   where some people complain that it seems to be a group more for the
<   anti-feminists.  Why don't you read what you criticize before you
<   comment on it?

	Looks like "kinder, gentler" Muffy doesn't like it
	when her net.club is criticized...

<>I am not going to waste
<>my time on soc.feminism, as I am a woman that doesn't agree with a fair 
<>portion of what is commonly held to be the Feminist Manifesto, and if I tried
<>to be heard on soc.feminism, I'd turn old and grey first.

<Not that you've tried, as far as I can remember. 
	
	Muffy has been one of the moderators of soc.feminism
	for a little while; obviously that enables her to
	know every person who has ever posted or attempted
	to post to soc.feminism since that group was created...

< Still, it's probably a
< good thing that you don't want to.  

	Thank you for verifying Tyger's opinion of soc.feminism...

<Nonetheless, if you care about the
<   accuracy of your statements, I suggest that you do a little more
<   research before making any more statements about soc.feminism.

	Huff, huff, huff. Muffy REALLY doesn't like it when
	her net.club is criticized.

	Perhaps Tyger actually read soc.feminism (gasp) MORE
	than one year ago, when Muffy first began posting
	to that group????
From: mccoyje@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 3 Sep 92 09:14:42 CDT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <1992Sep2.204503.29629@unislc.uucp>, kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
> I can think of a few times when I wouldn't want a unisex bathroom - like
> when my period surprises me, for one.
> 
> But to make bathrooms equal (I hate waiting in lines, and if there are
> more women in line than toilets, I use the mens)  we could  base public
> bathroom designs on statistics.
> 
> Since it takes women approximately 1.32 seconds to pee, and men
> 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. 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Get the point  8-).  
> 
> 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.
> 
> Karen Biesel
> 


	So, let's get this straight.  You are in favor of the men's
restroom being converted to a unisex restroom?  I assume, therefore,
that you are also in favor of having the women's restroom treated
likewise (in the event that the men's restroom is 'full').  If not, I
suggest that you rethink your views.

	I am not anti-feminist, but I believe the women's-liberation
movement was started to make women equal in the eyes of society.  Over
the years I have heard many feminist arguements and feel that they
have been set forth with the intention of creating a view of
female-superiority.  In truth, no one sex is superior in my eyes. 
Each has its own attributes and shortcomings.  Let's not give women
more rights than men simply because men had more rights than women
before.  It was a societal mistake, something that never should have
happened.  By turning society away from men, you are creating reverse
discrimination.  This just completes the cycle so that it may start
all over again.
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:58:38 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <183fppINNvt@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com> teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:
->> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
->>
->>Anyone know of a female version of the "guy"?
-
-"dudette"

  guy - gal
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:33:44
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Wed, 02 Sep 92 22:52:00 GMT

In article <95kn83p.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.204503.29629@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>>Since it takes women approximately 1.32 seconds to pee, and men
>>approximately 30 seconds, why not just put 3 times as many toilets in the
>>womens room than the mens?

>Where do you get these numbers? 

I suspect these numbers are incorrect...*grin*.  Nonetheless, I think we
can safely state that it *does*, on average, take a woman longer to pee
than it takes a man.  (If you disagree with this, I'm willing to discuss
it further; if you agree, let's proceed.)

>BTW, this is not "equal" by any measure that I know of. And this is one
>reason why I think strict equal treatment will not work. If you want
>equal treatment, then the number of bathroom fixtrues should be about the
>same. If you want equal utilization, the womans room will require 
>more fixtures, and more floor space and plumbing, etc...

Why should "equal treatment" have anything to do with the number of
fixtures?  Since the fixtures are different (men have urinals as well as
toilets) and urinals are not usable by women, it would be sort of
pointless to give women an equal number of urinals.  It would be
counterproductive to remove the urinals from the men's room and then
give each group equal numbers of toilets, since the idea is not to make
things worse for men.

A better measure of "equality" would be "waiting time."  Especially
since it's not the time peeing that is important, but the time standing
there *needing* to pee...*grin*.  If there is no waiting time, the
facilities are clearly adequate (or more than adequate).  Now, if it
*does* take women longer to pee, then their waiting time would be
reduced if they were given additional toilets, correct?

There are many ways to measure things.  The trick is to choose the one
that *matters*.  Do you count the urinals/toilets or how many minutes
you wait in line, bladder aching?  (Well, *if* you've ever experienced
that.)

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: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Proposed Massachusetts legislation H.5194 
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 03:07:55 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug25.141305.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <6y=nxng.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>> And then these bills will be passed, and it will be an offense
>> (legally) to women everywhere that one is male. An offense punishable
>> to who knows what extent. Most of these things remind me of communism.
>> Whatever may have happened is not important, it is what this means
>> as seen by the communist party, or in this case, the feminist party.
>> I see a similarity in the idealism, and the way it is being expressed.
>
>Dworkin-Mackinnon laws have yet to be upheld in courts.

OK, I guess that we can ignore them then.

>-- 
>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.

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: lemieux@eecg.toronto.edu (Guy Gerard Lemieux)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Last names
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:52:43 GMT
Distribution: alt.feminism

dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:

>I have a question for any "feminists" out there, if there really are
>any.  (I've mostly been reading anti-feminists.)  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?  If you do that hyphenation stuff, then you
>burden them with really long last names and just force the decision
>down one generation as to whether patrilineal or matrilinial patterns
>will be embraced.  If you work out some random system or give the boys
>the father's name and the girls the mother's name, then you subject them
>to teasing about being "bastards."  And if you arbitrarily choose one
>last name over the other, then you either are conforming to the
>current paternalistic system or you are "making a statement" at the
>expense of the feelings of the child's paternal grandparents.
>Anyone have a solution?

Flip a coin, and stop wasting your time.

Guy
From: ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Language (was re: Freshm*n)
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:36:05 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <1992Sep4.133306.18913@spider.co.uk> ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid) writes:
>Out of interest, what are your views on the use of girl/woman,
>boy/man, guy/(gal) ? When I used to use "girl" more, I used it to mean
>any female from 0 to about late 20s, using "woman" thereafter (except
>in special cases, e.g. sprightly female octagenarians!).

Oh dear! Sorry! I've just realised that there is a debate under
another heading in this group on exactly this topic. I blame my
rubbish newsreader entirely!


-- 
Ivan Hans Mark Reid                      Management Information Systems Analyst
"Information is Power ..."                                   Spider Systems Ltd
vox: (+44 31) 554 9424                                 Spider Park, Stanwell St
fax: (+44 31) 554 0649                              Edinburgh EH6 5NG, Scotland
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Sexist studies... was(Re: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 00:15:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug31.210339.28759@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>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?

If it bothers you, I have changed the subject line. Is that satisfactory?

But tell me how supporting explicitly sexist activities can "reduce sexism".
 
>- Seth

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: cherkaue@ee.rochester.edu (Brian Cherkauer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:06:34 GMT
Organization: Univ of Rochester, College of Engineering and Applied Science

> In article <1992Aug25.183639.16010@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
> 
>    Has anyone had any experience with blatant sexism?

Recently, I haven't, but it sure was rampant during my formative years.  For
instance:

During Catholic indoctrination class, it was encouraged to punish boys
for transgressions of an individual, and to punish girls as individuals.
Therefore, the girls were allowed to leave on time, whereas the boys were
required remain late nearly every class.  Often, when the propagandist, oops
I mean teacher, was in a particularly bad mood, we were kept until the bus
had left, and then were instructed to call our parents to pick us up and
to explain to them that we had been kept late for misbehaving.  We were
constantly remined of how well behaved girls were, and how bad boys were.
We spent quite a bit of class time on that subject, and it is the only 
thing I remember learning about Catholicism during the 10 years of Wednesday
afternoons I spent there.  It became quite a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Hey, you were going to be punished anyway, might as well make it worth it.

During the budget crunch of the late seventies, my (public) school system
decided a good way to save money would be to turn off all hot water to
all boys' lavatories and showers.  We were still required to shower prior
to using the pool.  Brrrrr...  Girls' hot water supply was not cut off.

Same school system also had no doors on the lavatory stalls in the 
boys' bathrooms, but had them in the girls'.

My high school had a security guard who was a man, and thus he was not
allowed to "police" the women's bathrooms for people smoking and cutting
class.  They then hired a woman to supplement the security force, and
she regularly patrolled both the men's and women's bathrooms.  Quite
an annoyance with her bursting in there considering there were no doors
on the stalls.  Caught with your pants down, as it were.

Happily, now that I'm an adult I can look back on societ's attempts to
mold me into a criminal based on my gender and say they failed.

-Brian
  cherkaue@ee.rochester.edu
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:32:12 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <2SEP199210444301@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:

>But getting back to the use of the term "girl," in this case in the workplace.
>You know who I hear using it the most?  That's right - the secretaries.  One
>of them referred to herself and the other secretaries in the area as "the
>girls."  When I approached her and asked "well, dontcha think others might
>see that as just a bit sexist?" she went nonlinear on me.  She said some 
>people take that politically-correct language business too far.
>
>While I can understand people being tired of political correctness, I 
>disagreed with her on this particular point anyway, and concluded that we
>can't expect all the men to buy into gender-neutral language until all the
>women buy into it.

Another possibility is that this very term "girl" which used to be
derogatory (or whatever you think is wrong with it) has ceased to be
so.

-- jd
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Proposed Massachusetts legislation H.5194
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:25:20
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<6y=nxng.payner@netcom.com>
	<1992Aug24.205430.16309@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
	<36=n#gd.payner@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Mon, 24 Aug 92 22:48:56 GMT

In article <36=n#gd.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.205430.16309@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>>In article <6y=nxng.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>Whatever may have happened is not important, it is what this means
>>>as seen by the communist party, or in this case, the feminist party.
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>I see a similarity in the idealism, and the way it is being expressed.
>>Second, there is no "feminist party".  
>So, who claimed that there was?

Umm...you did.  Right up there.

>Your imagination does you great credit,
>but your attempts to foster your imaginings as my words or intent do us
>both a disservice.

Well, I wouldn't exactly call reading what someone wrote "imagination."
Perhaps it was your imagination that you did not write that?  Try
reading your post over again...

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: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Maternity leave (was: something like Sexist Examples)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 19:34:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa

In article <MUFFY.92Aug27111628@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
[[ opps, deleted the attribute, sorry ]]

>>Another thing:  would you really want the government (currently headed
>>by Mr. Bush, whom you dislike so much--I'm not much of a fan either) to take
>>care of your child?
>
>Absolutely not.  I think the idea here is that it's pretty much the
>purpose of the government to provide services like this, which are often
>too expensive for, say, a small company to offer.  

I disagree, I'd rather have the government entirely out of the home,
and the potential abuses by a government with religious leaders is
immense. Would you have your child (if you had one) raised as a fundamentalist
by programs sponsored by Bush? 

>                                                         I'd rather see
>affordable private day care, though, perhaps aided by government funding
>(although that also leaves open the "brainwashing" possibility - if they
>pay for it, they think they can tell you what to do, even when it's your
>money to begin with (taxes)).

I agree about the day-care, but government funding is a trap. In government
funded clinics, the government tells doctors what they can and can not say.
 
>Muffy
>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Jewish feminists
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:34:25 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep2.162436.21391@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

> 	To any of you feminists ot there with names like
> Goldman, Holzman, etc.-
> Have you thought of changing your names to 
> Goldperson, Holzperson, etc.?

Nope.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:13:07 GMT

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.
>
>What did I find?  Well, for starters, the class focused on what men
>have done to women.  Now while I know this is important, the class
>began to feel like a reprimand.  I was never "in" the class.  The
>teacher switched between the word "women" and "us" while the word
>"Men" was interchanged with "them".

Are you white?  Have you read anything of black history in the US?
I'm a white Southern and I find it emotionally wrenching to read
nearly anything factual about slavery in this country.  Now, I'm not
to blame for the mistreatment of blacks during slavery, but I benefit
from the racism that still exists here.

I think it's hard for people to see their race, gender, class, ethnic
group, religion, whatever blamed for certain horrors and not feel
personally reprimanded.  It's human to feel defensive.  But in order
to know more about sexism, isn't it necessary to discuss what happened
to women?

>I ended up dropping out of the class halfway through.  I had
>previously had this specific professor for a "Current Moral and Social
>Issues" class and did very well.  I enjoyed her previous class but not
>this.

I wish you hadn't dropped out.  I wish you had felt comfortable enough
to talk with your classmates and/or your prof about how you felt.

>My question is this: If a guy wants to help out, do feminists want
>them not to?  Is it the feminist's goal to yell at men for
>wrongdoings and not let them participate?

Every female feminist probably has a different answer.  BTW, there are
male feminists (imo--certain women say no men can be feminists).  I
think feminists in general want both men and women to "help out."
Part of that starts, though, in realizing how sexist our society is,
regardless of how uncomfortable that knowledge may be.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: equality
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:19:02 GMT

From article <3885@keele.keele.ac.uk>, by csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton):
> 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 improvements in performance of the most outstanding
> athletes in some group don't necessarily reflect changes in the whole
> distribution of abilities.  Olympic champions occupy the statistically
> insignificant upper tail end of a distribution about which we probably don't
> know very much (for all I know, average long-jumping ability is falling).
> 
> PaulS

Also bear in mind that steroids help womens performances more than they
do men's--probably the most likely reason for any closing in the records.

SEH