HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Forward to the Past: Quote Choice for Men Unquote
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:53:49 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <MUFFY.92Sep12093709@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>I don't see any difference between a mailing list and a newsgroup, other

A mailing list is a private forum, and a newsgroup is a public one.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Medicinal Practices
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 14:15:55 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

Alas, none of the procedures you have mentioned have worked any better
than no treatment at all.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:38:31 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <715868749@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article<1992Sep7.042253.8942@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>>True; but I was writing on the basis of the liberal principle
>                                             ^^^^^^^!
>>that state power must be justified by some strong public interest
>
>1) Thanks for the laugh.
>
>2) Have you ever heard about "tax and spend" liberals?
>
>3) What is more liberal than giving pork-barrels to the
>   people who vote to the right party?

Perhaps some people on the net don't know this but "liberal" means
something rather different these days in the US than what it normally
means in many other countries.
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The trashing of alt.feminism
Date: 10 Sep 92 00:07:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep10.093503.754@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>Interesting how you people seem to think that one woman is trashing
>alt.feminism singlehandedly. The mana of the woman must be enormous.
>
>I personally think it is a long list of people: the Rich, Nosy et al

Are you accusing -me- of flaming? Please give examples.

BTW, it is -Rich-, not "the Rich".

>crowd, who flame each other furiously over things each other has posted
>that is the main problem. Maybe a group al.feminism.flame would be 
>useful for all flames??
>
>MOZ

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<1992Aug21.183954.7830@ultb.isc.rit.edu> <21986@galaxy.ucr.edu>
	<21987@galaxy.ucr.edu>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 13:03:17 GMT


In article <21987@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood) writes:

> Consider the quote from Jacsun Shah, a reporter from the Houston Chronicle
> one more time.

> >->   "Yes, I am a man hater, yes, I am a feminist. and why not?
> >->    Women are dying . They die every day, at the hands of men.
> >->    Men ... beat them, rape them, dismember them. Hell yes, I
> >->    hate men ... To all of you women out there, I say _hate_.
> >->    You have every right to ... I knew the kindest thing I could
> >->    do for the women of this world is to hate men with full force."

Nice.
What if you women sometimes read the newspapers instead of continuous
soap-opera watching. There are places where HATE has been the most
important thing during generations. Places like libanon, ygoslavia or
n-ireland. I can't see any difference between the hate between different
sexes or the hate between different ethnical or religious groups. There
must be something really wrong in a person's mind if the thing she
mostly wants is to start another infinite long chain of revenges and
counterrevenges.
Fortunately the nuke buttons are still under control of men, who know
their responsibility, otherwise we all might just be radioactive dust
floating in the space.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: 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
Subject: Re: Some examples (Was Re: Winning by Violation (
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 6 Sep 92 11:07:50 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> 
> >Hillel, are you aware of the difference between attacking
> >someone personally and disputing their ideas?
> 
> Please spell out for me the Politically Correct definition
> of the difference.. 
avoid mention of the person, and why you believe they have come to hold
the opinions they do. Value judgements on the opinions are also to be avoided.

the difference: you are no longer having to deal with someone who is
personally attacked and defensive, instead you can debate the merits of
the positions involved.

> E.g. Please explain the reasons for the following rejection.

>  > In article <49810@ricerca.UUCP> jan@oas.olivetti.com writes:
>  > >The "custody for women" thing is new, and IMO will be short-lived.  
>  > 
>  > What makes you think so?
>  > 
>  > Will you be willing to bet 25% of *your* income on that?

this contributes nothing to the debate, demonstrates no thought from your side,
and seems to be a form of one-up-man-ship. (ie, you seem to be trying to
belittle the other person rather than the argument)

>  > Tell me just one thing Ms. "I've never heard about it" Leslie,
not a personal attack? Not hostile?? A positive contribution to understanding??

also, the excerpts you gave seemed to have no relevance that I could see to
the questions she asked. They did not cover affirmative action, priority
custody or pro-choice arguments in any way that I could see.

one final ad homenium point: if these are the `best' posts that you feel have
been unjustifiably rejected, then no wonder you have a problem with soc.feminism
moderation. It seems that you are basically looking for a public forum to slag
off at individual feminists and any ideas they may express.

This is not the impression I had got from reading your other posts, on this
and other groups. A stirrer, wanting to shake people up a bit, very definitely.
But someone with a personal axe to grind against ALL ferminists, no.

(this may just be an artifact of the moderation process)

MOZ
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1112 alt.sex:29304
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 14 Sep 92 06:40:03 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Sep13.221346.824@cco.caltech.edu> 
peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>Yeah.  And those condoms sure do mess up the guys' hormones and give
>them headaches, nausea, and aggrevate high blood pressure.  Poor men!

Have you ever heard about the contraceptive foam (98% effective)?

Have you ever heard about the diaphragm (97% effective)?

Have you ever heard about IUD (97% effective)?

What about the cervical cap or the contraceptive sponge?

And for general information: the condom is 95% effective,
the minipill is 97% effective and the Pill is 99% effective.

In short, presenting it as condom or the Pill is not very accurate.
You ignore several other birth control methods which are as effective.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "One" as a pronoun
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:07:02 GMT
Organization: TRW Financial Systems

moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>
>I thought the whole point of the discussion was that the masculine term
>is NOT taken as the generic.
>
>Maybe s/he/it meant "One should watch what sie says about hir teacher,..."
>(yes, that is a flame, just say "s/he/it" out loud)
>
>MOZ

I have two ways of dealing with this, as I hate "s/he" constructions
and compulsive "him or her", "he or she".

One is to use my voice and use 'he', and allow the reader to make the
translation. Because I'll expect to read authors doing the same with
'she', and I'll make the translation.

My common method is to abuse the grammar and use 'they', which works
because there is most often no ambiguity about number. I recall getting
into trouble grammatically from time to time, but I can't remember now
what caused the problems.

By the time the world is largely bisexual, we will have discussions about
using the word 'it' pro and con.

-ecsd
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 8 Sep 92 04:50:07 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

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.

sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
| So, the matter isn't if killing is righ or wrong, but who has the
| right to fo it ? Is that a common attitude thereabout, could surely
| explain some of the violence on the streets ?

There's no violence on the streets here.  We're all
vegetarian pacifists, like you.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1030 soc.women:16489
From: christil@uts.amdahl.com (Christine Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:03:30 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


In article <1992Sep10.162436.11851@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon
Fitch) writes: 
 
> | Hmmmmmm, maybe women _are_ smarter than men.  :-)

What do you mean "maybe"?  *Of course* women are smarter - that's why
men are paid more.  It makes them feel better, because we all know
women are smarter than men.  We don't need to prove it. 

-- 

Christine Lee                           Amdahl Corp. 	
christil@long_island.uts.amdahl.com     Santa Clara, CA   

----------------------------------------------------------
  "Suppose that you were an idiot and suppose you were a 
   member of Congress.  But I repeat myself."
                                            --Mark Twain
----------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 00:44:58 GMT

In article <716169388@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
#You, on the other hand, just loves the idea because that's your 
#only chance to get get rid off all those "sick philosophies."

Since you know nothing about my ideas wrt the power of the
governtment, why don't you remain silent on things you are ignorant
about? 

#The point in all this debate is that you don't want to do it
#with your money, just to force someone else to do it with his money.

I simply want you to pay for the things you are responsible for, not
welsh out becasue you find paying child care "inconvienent".

#What will you do after sending the FBI after dead-beat dads will 
#not yield the results you want?  What will you do if the tax payers
#will be tired of paying for irresponsible women?  How much state
#powers will you use to force your ideals on other people before you
#will have the wisdom to say "enough"?

Why are you trying to change the subject? Losing the current argument?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 06:36:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Sep10222947@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <716147821@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>>Telling a woman "if you will get pregnant, even if you cheated him
>>about birth control, then we'll either help you take him to the cleaners
>>or we'll pay you welfare," is a great way to create irresponsible women.
>
>Telling a guy "if you get a woman pregnant, even if you lied to her
>about birth control, you can just wander off and leave her to deal with
>it" is a great way to create irresponsible men.  Once again:  BOTH
>people have sex, BOTH people have to be responsible.  If they don't
>trust the other gender, they can have sex with their own gender or avoid
>sex or whatever works, but they should NOT just dump the problem on the
>other person.

Why is it that you think that having sex with their own sex is an option?
Even if you would do it (and it is not important, and I do not care),
that is -your- choice, and it is as reasonable to think others have
that choice as to think that others can change religion at will. 

>Muffy
>
>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 6 Sep 92 18:10:17 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

Gordon, open sometimes a dictionary and check what "quite a few" means.
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man?
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:51:01 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <AWERLING.92Sep8155519@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
|> I mean, "gal" seems more like the parallel to "dude" than to "guy."

I live in Santa Cruz county so I kinda hear "dude" a lot. "Dude" is a
overloaded word which can specify males or females. However when a word
is needed for a person of the female sex specifically "babe" is used.
Much less often, "chick" is used.

As for "guy", at one point in American history it was linked to the
sexually obverse, "doll" (fade to Frank Sinatra as Nathan Detroit and
Stubby Kaye as Nicely-Nicely Johnson).

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women,soc.college
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Do Engineers Use Calculus?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 92 03:29:43 GMT

Well, *I* for one need to use calculus from time to time.  I would wager that
most of the engineers who claim to never use calculus rely on the previous
work of people who DID use calculus, and are able to "plug & crank" without
having to re-derive anything.  When you can do this, that's great.  When you
can't, you'll wish you knew calculus.

I am reminded of a woman I knew who thought it inappropriate that she should
have to learn machining methods in an aerospace engineering program--
"There are OTHER people to do that job."  Usually, that's true.  Sometimes it
isn't.

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ztsindi@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (The Independents - SUNY Buffalo)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Rita Mae Brown?
Date: 6 Sep 92 04:49:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Howdy Y'all,
	Does anyone know what Rita Mae Brown is up to these days? I 
read a few of her books after a friend turned me on to her. I'm not
particularly fond of feminism, at least wasn't until I read some
of her essays. How could I disagree with someone who could convice
in such a sane, rational, clear and lucid manner? Anyhow I have
great respect for this person and her ideals which seem to have come
from a great deal of personal consideration. The only problem is I
can't seem to find anything by her after the mid-seventies when
'radical feminism' moved off the charts. Is she still in the writing
business? If so, could someone post the titles of more recent 
(eighties - present) works?
							-Thanx!
							-Joe
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 6 Sep 92 18:11:31 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <-ppn!7q.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>How can you cross A (power to force) with B (closer to nature)? They
>seem diametrically opposed, 

Ha?

Quite a few "green" people are all for using the state power to
enforce *their* goals.  They also have no problem about using 
high tech equipment when it helps them.

>and from prior postings, A would seem to
>be exactly the same "male" world view which some feminists claim to be
>the cause of all womens problems. Or is it only bad when men do it?

Don't you know that logic is a male thing and women
should trust their intuition and not the male logic?
(Some feminists are serious about that; I can't understand why.)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:07:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep09.024431.3291@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <=7qn#w-.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep7.223943.8127@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>>>Rich:
>>>
>>>>That women can be sexist at all is denied by prominent feminists like
>>>>Dworkin, who confuse social context for sexism.
>>>
>>>I never claimed to agree with Andrea Dworkin -- she may be "prominent"
>>>but she doesn't represent either my views or any school of thought I
>>>tend to subscribe to.  I don't want to defend her and I'm not especially
>>>surprised if I happen to be saying something different than her.
>>
>Am I the only one who is surprised (not!) to see, Yet Again, "The
>Prominent Feminist Andrea Dworkin says This" followed by "Dworkin
>who? / I don't agree with Dworkin / Well, she says she's a feminist,
>David Duke says he's republican / who cares what Dworkin says?"
>
>Could we all agree that Dw*rk*n is a sh*th**d and leave it alone?

I'm not denying all knowledge of Andrea Dworkin -- I bought and read
"Woman Hating" -- some years back -- and have heard about her subsequent
forays into anti-pornography action.

I'm suggesting that judging my views in relation to A. D. will likely 
lead to misunderstanding; especially if this takes the form of defaulting 
to the assumption that I agree with her unless stated otherwise.

Rich keeps bringing her up, even when I have said nothing about her.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:04:40 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >I was using the term _liberal_ in its classical sense; 

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| The meaning of words is changed over time.  E.g. when "liberal"
| had the "classical" meaning "computer" meant something else than
| what it means today.  But when you say computer I assume that
| you talk about a machine and not about a person.  Conclusion: 
| if you want to use words in a "classical" sense then say so.

Feminism is political theory.  I assume people who want to 
discuss political theory know something about it; if so, they
would understand immediately from my context what I meant
by "liberal."  The fact that most public discourse is polluted
by propaganda doesn't mean we have to participate in the
pollution.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Grading papers
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:43:04 +1200
 <4SEP199215550439@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> <1992Sep4.213851.2740@burrhus.harvard.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

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

>I recently graded a paper by a young man who consistently used "he"
>and "his" for pronouns....
>"The emerging convention is to use gender-neutral or otherwise
>inclusive pronouns (e.g. "she or he" or "his/her")[...]"

From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
>This is just butchery of the English language.
or maybe the language is still alive and developing new conventions?

>Like it or not, "he" is still the gender-neutral pronoun.
ie, males are still the dominant gender.

>  There is no
>reason, however, not to use "she" in the same context.
except that some people object to that. as has been said, you have to
try to do what the lecturer (etc) wants...

>It is not
>sexism because "he" is the norm.  This is just the way the language is.

like slavery, racism, cot death, .... are (or were) the norm?
just because something `is' does not mean it is right, even if it is/was
the standard. `norm' could be argued as female on a variety of grounds.

>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? For
example, can I call someone a Christian just because they accurately
practice the Christian religion, or is there some other ground? And
if I think they are (wonderful/sexist/oldfashioned) because of this should
I then deny them that label because they are also Christian??

*love* & *hugs*
  ____MOZ___   (moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)
 /\  _______\
 \ \ \____  /     That it has taken this long for people to be
  \ \ \/ / /      Bisexual and proud of it has to do, I think, with
   \ \/ / /       this idea that either you're with men or you're
    \  / /        against men.             -- Judith Levine
     \/_/
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Bathroom symbols
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:34:17 GMT

dfrankow@unity.cs.umn.edu (Dan Frankowski) writes:

>what symbols would you use instead?

>I agree that the symbols currently used are based on the assumption
>that most women will wear skirts and most men won't.  I also agree
>that this isn't necessarily the case and that there's no reason that
>official symbols should promote such stereotypes.  But then how do we
>generically show the difference between the genders so someone who
>can't read English knows which bathroom to go into?

What bathroom symbols do they use in Scotland???
Newsgroups: alt.feminism