HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ucakcmg@ucl.ac.uk (Ms Rachel Mary Pearce)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Date: 8 Sep 92 09:08:35 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

Rachel Pearce (Dept. of Haematology UCL, London ucakcmg@ucl.ac.uk)
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:47:16 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <MUFFY.92Sep8151044@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep8145850@gray.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Alan Taylor) writes:
>> Is FITCH aware of this difference?
>
>WI'm just curious about this; I have noticed you calling Gordon Fitch
>"Fitch" several times now while attacking.  On the other hand, you call
>me (Muffy Barkocy) "Muffy" when flaming.  Is this just random
>inconsistency or is there a reason?
>
>This reminded me of the discussion of how women are called by their
>first names while men are called by their title and last name and I was
>wondering if this was a common thing to do when actually *trying* to
>attack/insult/flame people?  Is it somehow more/less insulting to men
>to just be called by their last names (particularly with no title)?
>
>Muffy

I've gotten lost as to which messages were faked and whatnot, but if, in fact,
somebody used Fitch instead of Muffy, all I know is that when I see a post from
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu I'm gonna say it's from Muffy.  When I see a post
from gcf@wherever.the.hell.he.is and the sig says Gordon Fitch, odds are 50/50
I'm gonna say it's from Fitch.

I don't think that's a sign of sexism.

-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist studies... was(Re: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:22:49 GMT
	<AWERLING.92Sep3144419@dante.nmsu.edu> <x7lndzp.payner@netcom.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science


Forgive me for not using >'s...I have to do them by hand (unless I'm
missing some special command) and I don't have the time right now to
go through the entire article and add them.

In article <x7lndzp.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

   In article <AWERLING.92Sep3144419@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
   >In article <xqkn+8p.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
   >
   >>  In article <AWERLING.92Sep1232252@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
   >> >
   >> >Women's Studies in and of itself is *not* sexist.  It is a study that
   >> >focuses on a particular group of people.  
   >
   >> No, you are playing games with words, it focuses on a particular
   >> -sex-. 
   >
   >Yes, and meteorology focuses on a particular aspect of natural
   >phenomena.  I don't understand your point.

   Sexism requires differentiation by sex. Womens studies is based upon 
   differentiation by sex. Generalizing "sex" to "a particular group of people"
   can only have the effect of hiding that this group of people is exactly the
   group required by sexism. 

Sexism does require differentiation by sex.  But it requires something
more.  It requires an uneducated bias against a particular gender...or
at least an unfair one.  It requires prejudice of some sort.  It
requires assumption.

Women's studies is the close examination of the lives and
accomplishments (and failures I assume) of women.  It is not sexism.

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Watch Those Attribution Lines, Please (Was: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency))
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ZEN.92Sep8160337@death.corp.sun.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:57:48 GMT

<In article <ZEN.92Sep8160337@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

<In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep08152113@gray.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Alan Taylor) writes:
<> I hope this helps you to understand my reasoning.  It's really not all that
<>   inconsistent.

< What an asshole.  It's amazing that idiots like you really exist.
 
	Since I did not write the text that zen attributes to me,
	this flame is pointless.


	Please watch the attribution lines.

	Thank you.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<716147821@lear.cs.duke.edu> <ZEN.92Sep10121954@death.corp.sun.com>
	<nancyo.716158932@sfu.ca> <1992Sep11.225002.7579@cco.caltech.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:04:17 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.225002.7579@cco.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

- I remember reading that article.  The primary complaint by the
- men on whom the method had been tested was it made them nauseus 
- and gave them headaches.  Funny, but many women who take the 
- pill suffer the same complaints.  But I guess it's OK for women
- to suffer....

Interesting abuse of logic here.  Did anyone say it was okay for women
to suffer?  All men did was complain of the symptoms, as women do when
they take the pill.  Would you have them not complain?

Seems to me the pressure for birth control is about equal...men are
pressured into using condoms and women are pressured into using the
pill.  When it comes to pregnancy, I don't think anyone can argue that
it's more physically or emotionally insane for the man than for the
woman.  You'd think that by nature, the woman in the couple would have
more to gain from birth control.  So *maybe* women are placing that
pressure on themselves?

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Transmitting from Planet Yip--where everyone you meet 
			      is already dead.
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The anti-choice-for-men, Muffy (Was Re: Winning by Violation)
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:12:16
Organization: savage hackers
	<ZEN.92Sep3203548@death.corp.sun.com> <715582700@lear.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 4 Sep 92 04:58:21 GMT


In article <715582700@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <ZEN.92Sep3203548@death.corp.sun.com> 
> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
[...]
> I claim that Muffy supports choice for women, but she is
> against choice for men.  She sees nothing wrong if a
> birth control failure destroys a man's life.
>
> You, like most feminists think that this is equality.

  *laugh* When did I say, write, or even *think* that?  It's amazing --
you seem to have a talent for almost purposely ignoring,
misinterpreting, or misunderstanding people

  Why does getting someone pregnant ruin a life?  If they are afraid of
the concept that fucking can cause pregnancy (which is probably a fairly
reasonable fear to have), then oral, digital or analog sex is a fine
(and pretty darn safe) alternatives until they are ready to take on that
responsibility.  And I'm not talking about men here, I'm talking about
men *and* women.  Both.  Yes, both sexes need to worry.  You see that
word "both"?  It means men *and* women.

> I don't think that you have anything new to say

  Well, that makes two of us, I guess.  It's *hard* coming up with a
*completely* new thought -- I'm not sure I've ever seen one on the net.
And besides, you should know (well, maybe you don't) that there are
always plenty of clueless folks out there that can use another salvo of
repeated thoughts or wisdom.

> or that
> you will ever understand why telling a 17 years old boy
> "either don't fuck, or get sterilized, or risk your future
> every time you sleep with a girl." is mean and stupid.

  What do you think sex is all about?  If either the boy or girl are
unaware that they can have a kid when they have intercourse, then it's
time to educate them.  Yes, *every* time that someone has intercourse,
they have a chance of chaning their future.  Is this news?

> So please fuck off to your favorite newsgroup, and stay there.

  Emotional and illogical ideologies are interesting things... when your
faith is not accepted blindly, you leap to attack your imagined
assailants, rather than examining your own beliefs.  This isn't just WRT
the few posts of mine you responded to; it seems to color your attitude
about people's differing opinions in general.

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Grading papers
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 05:08:44 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.050235.13056@cco.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
>
>>I recently graded a paper by a young man who consistently used "he"
>>and "his" for pronouns.  I spent a decent amount of time trying
>>to come up with an appropriate response when grading the paper,
>>so I thought I would share the comments I used.  Maybe somebody
>>will want to use it too, or maybe someone will have a suggestion
>>for next time I confront this situation.  Here goes:
>
>>"The emerging convention is to use gender-neutral or otherwise
>>inclusive pronouns (e.g. "she or he" or "his/her") when writing
>>for a polite audience, since this reduces sexism inherent in
>>traditional language conventions.  Although this factor didn't
>>influence your grade, I would have appreciated less frequent use
>>of masculine pronouns to describe hypothetical individuals in the
>>text."
>
>>I thought this set a good balance, admonition without strong advocacy.
>>steve

	Well, I would suggest that before you merely focus upon
this obvious use of symbolism to offend, defame, denigrate, or
descriminate or in some way promote any of the above, you should
examine the content of the work.  That is, it could be that the
author is righting something which, below the surface of obvious
symbolism, could be sending a message of defamation, descrimination,
etc.  You are from Harvard, that means you should be intelligent
enough to realize when someone is communicating a thought which is
sexually discriminatory or offensive.  You must mold your subjects'
minds, so that they cannot, nay, will not, even consider such thoughts.
	To allow such free thought and communication, which is so threatening,
is dangerous to your entire mode of thinking.  Give an 'F' to whoever
even implicitly discriminates or offends in any way your thoughts.
That will teach them. (Maybe all of them will come to the U. of C.)

				J. Wagner



Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Keywords: bathrooms
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:47:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.171632.6786@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Idbil Fubar writes:
>
>>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
>
>Does anyone know if this is really true?  Does it vary state to state?
>Could such an imbalance hold up in court in an ERA state?
>
>Since my mother is in a wheelchair and needs help in the restroom,
>my father *routinely* walks into the women's room "as if nothing is 
>going on."  (I suppose they could go into the men's room, but it is
>*she* who has to go, not him, so they use 'her' room.)  In the more than
>a decade of doing this, no woman has ever complained.  And while it is 
>a special circumstance that everyone seems to understand, he, she and I 
>would be quite surprised if it were actually illegal.
>

All I know is one of my female friends bitched that it was illegal for her to
use the Men's room when there was a line at the Women's room...

I suspect that the law does not specifically state this, but local mores may
make interpretation of disturbing the peace or whatever apply.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 04:50:52 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep8.161721.719@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>> But were I to make the claims about -you- that [dworkin] makes about all men,
>> would you take me seriously? Or would you think me sexist and deranged?
>
>no, I'd think you didn't understand the difference between a generalisation
>and a personal attack.

If I were to make claims about -you-, they would not be generalizations,
but specific claims pertaining to MOZ, get it?
 
>Statistics and generalisations _cannot_ be applied as predictors to individuals.
>This is about as meaningful as imprisoning all US citizens for dropping atomic
>bombs on Japan, or Germans for Nazi genocide attempts.
 
Right, and statements about -you- are not statistics nor generalizations.
We are not talking about the same thing.

> /\  _______\   (moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 6 Sep 92 07:19:03 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article<1992Sep6.030251.12001@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>The theory itself is vacuous, since the issue is not whether
>abortion is good or bad but whether the state has, or ought
>to have, the power to prevent it and force childbearing.

By quite a few feminists the state should have the power to force
*moral* behavior.  E.g. the FBI should run after dead-beat dads,
no matter why they don't pay; porno should be censored; affirmative
action quotas are a great idea; a forced socialism is a good thing.

If you cross the above idea with the idea that women are "closer" to
nature and they should follow nature instead of changing it (a green
idea IMO), feminists-against-abortion is a possible result.

(Read sometimes "The Hustler" by Pat Califia if you really want to
know how a feminists-dominated society would probably look like.)

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Need $ ????  Why not go on WELFARE?
All you have to do is give up your self-respect, 
your dignity and your boyfriend."
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Forward to the Past: Quote Choice for Men Unquote
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:50:02
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<716184217@lear.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 11 Sep 92 04:03:38 GMT

In article <716184217@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> participate in the debate present a different view (see the change in 
> Muffy's position for example).  I may lose the next election, but win 

My position has *NOT* changed, nor have I *EVER* seen you post anything
which would influence my views in any way.  I assure you, I will let you
know if you ever do, but in the meantime, please do not tell lies about
me, particularly not to support your "arguments."

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: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Subject: Re: Sexist studies... was(Re: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Organization: Center for Biomolecular Simulation, Department of Chemistry,
	Columbia University
	<AWERLING.92Sep7162249@dante.nmsu.edu> <16qn_h+.payner@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:50:53 GMT

In article <16qn_h+.payner@netcom.com> Rich Payne writes:
>In article <AWERLING.92Sep7162249@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu writes:

[argument about whether Women's Studies is sexist]

>>Sexism does require differentiation by sex.  

>Without this differentiation, there can be no sexism. It -is- a necessary
>condition as well as a sufficient condition.

Hang on... are you serious?  Differentiation by sex is a *sufficient* 
condition for sexism?  I'll have to tell my gynecologist.  Surely there
must be some implication that the differentiation is question is 
inappropriate?  But that's starting to sound like awerling's definition...
Could you clarify your definition of sexism?

[...]

>>Women's studies is the close examination of the lives and
>>accomplishments (and failures I assume) of women.  It is not sexism.

>Of women, -not- men. Men are excluded. One sex (out of two mind you) is
>excluded. This meets the requirement for sexism. And the reason for this
>is not (as you have claimed) prejudice or bias.

[I'm not quite sure what that last sentence means -- it seems garbled
to me]

Look, I've heard (not here) some good arguments against forming Women's Studies
programs or departments, but you sound like you'd argue even against
*any* classes that focused on women, because you see them as sexist.  Does
this mean every class must avoid distinguishing between categories of humans?
Is it "timist" to study only literature from the 18th century in a class?
Are you arguing that in fact there are no legitimate broad differences, and
never have been, between men's and women's experiences, that would justify
focusing on one sex in certain classes?  I have no problem
with doing the same thing for men: I read about one college where someone
was teaching a course on white men's literature -- many places do that 
anyway, and to me it makes sense to acknowledge the things those
guys had in common that other people of their time did not.  

>>Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
>Rich

---Julie



-- 
I wonder why it is that when I plan a route too carefully it goes to pieces,
whereas if I blunder along in blissful ignorance aimed in a fancied direction
I get through with no trouble.
				--- John Steinbeck (Travels with Charley)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Grading papers
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 9 Sep 92 10:47:46 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
> > moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
> >>dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
> 
> >[...]
> >>
> >>>Perhaps the laguage had sexist orgins, but do not call me a sexist
> >>>because I accurately practice my language.
> >>>keith
> >>How about I call you a sexist because you act like one, then? Why does
> >>accurately carrying out a sexist practice not make you sexist? 
> 
> Are you saying that because I use "he" as the gender neutral pronoun that 
> I feel that men are the norm and that women are abnormal?  Well, I do not
> think this.  When I hear or write "he who laughs last laughs best," I am
> not thinking of "he" as a necessarily male person.  I am just thinking of
> him as a person.

there are numerous studies that show the non-specific usage to be the one
describing the dominant group. Only the dominant group has the power to
define themselves as the norm; alternatively, only the dominant group can
afford to ignore others to the extent of excluding them...

> Although, if you said "she who laughs..."  I would think that you were talking
> about a female.  Hmm..  mabye we males need our own private pronoun.
precisely. there are some coming into use: sie, kie, hir

> Someone said something about Christians (I accidently deleted it).
> Participating in Christian activities (Christmas, attending church, etc.)
> does not make one (note that one is a truely gender neutral word -- use it
> as much as possible, eh?) a Christian.
I actually said `act like a christian' and very deliberately. I am quite 
aware of the Paulian churches who call themselves Christian (all of them)
and the `sunday christian' phenomenum.

> I think that a sexist is one who believes that women (or men, as the case may
> be) are inferior in some way to the other sex.  My using "he" as an
> unspecific pronoun does not imply that I feel this way.

niether does my use of the word shit in reference to you. (it is a 
contraction of the non-specific "s/he/it")

*love* & *hugs*
  ____MOZ___
 /\  _______\   (moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)
 \ \ \____  /             I've been stripped bare and nobody cares
  \ \ \/ / /     all the people I looked up to are no longer there
   \ \/ / /           I've been filled up with useless information
    \  / /                 spewed out by papers and radio stations
     \/_/            I've been waiting for tomorrow all of my life
  excerpted from the album `soulmining', by Matt Johnson (THE THE)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Star Trek Opening
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep4.145254.3051@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.145254.3051@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> smgarvin@nyx.cs.du.edu (susan garvin) writes:

- In article <3SEP199210270691@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa
- gov (Ron Graham) writes:
- >In article <1992Sep2.160255.4337@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, umlepine@ccu.umanito
- a.ca 
- >     (Bryan Lepine) writes...
- [text deleted]
-
- >>	I LIKED THE STAR TREK OPENING BETTER BEFORE THEY WERE PRESSURED
- >>	INTO CHANGING IT! 
- >
- >Come again?  :-)
-
- They changed "no man" to "no one."

Heaven forbid!  But of course, this is all just silly semantics, not a
real issue that should concern anyone...

Pffffff!

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.