HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hrose@eff.org (Helen Trillian Rose)
Subject: Re: MEN-BASHING
Organization: The Evil Fascist IRC Admins From Hell, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:32:43 GMT


 -> One thing I can't understand is how women can be men-bashers.  I am
 -> a woman, and I think I am very liberal, but i am no man-basher.
 -> What is the point?  Isn't that what they have been doing to us and
 -> what you are fighting against?

I dunno about other women, but when I men-bash, it's when I'm in a
particularly bad mood and have just been eited (MIT-slang for "hosed",
"screwed", etc) by a guy. For instance, I was exchanging email with a
particular male (who shall remain nameless) who was calling me a
"useless woman", etc, etc, etc. Well, when this happened, I fell back to
my old college-days of men-bashing (all men are scum!! and the like :).
I didn't really *mean* it all, but it sure felt good to get rid of my
frustration. Nothing is more relaxing than going out with a bunch of
female friends and men-bashing ... it's a great stress reliever!

All this done and said, I *do not* hate all men! There are some I
dislike, but it's the same with women. Gender is not a part of it!

 -> I feel that women should be liberal to an extent.  What's wrong with
 -> being a house mother?  I know a lot of women that stay home woth
 -> their children and love it.  In fact, most of them quit their job to
 -> stay home.  I think it's nice to know that if I don't have a job my
 -> husband will support me.

What "extent" do you consider being liberal? As in you should be open
and free only when it's acceptable? A male member of my fiance's family
told me that women belonged in the kitchen. I was less than happy (being
the content working woman that I am) and told him so. Just the *idea*
that I had *considered* "talking back" (what I call "being assertive")
put him in a panic. I don't consider that "being too liberal". I speak
my mind. I have no regrets about this.

--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose             	email eff@eff.org for EFF info
Electronic Frontier Foundation   	irc operators: operlist@eff.org
Systems and Networks Administration	Flames to: 
<hrose@eff.org, hrose@cs.bu.edu>	women-not-to-be-messed-with@eff.org
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Use of pronouns
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 23:23:15 GMT

From article <1992Sep8.151853.5514@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>, by mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie):
[...]
> 
> "The manager of company XYZ calls in a consultant, and she asks her to..."
> "So our guy who has just estimated the cost function calls in his boss
>  and tells her that they need to do so and so..."
> 
> He used examples like this whenever possible, and by the end of the term,
> most people didn't even notice the gender pronoun he used.  We would
> remember a manager in the example, but not whether he said "he" or "she".
[...]
> 
> Paul

Ahhh, but is 'the manager' then viewed as male in your minds eye.  The
big arguement for these changes is people automatically assumes the
hypothetical manager is male when paired with the supposidly neutral he.

My view is people will get used to the change and then go right on assuming
the manager is male and the nurse is female.

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Organization: The Ohio State University
 writes:
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:01:39 GMT

>>say it does are grasping at straws so try and demonstrate some systemic sexis
m
>>in Western culture my looking for "MAN" in every word and then assumming that

>> excludes female.
>
>Entymology notwithstanding, I'll paraphrase Wittgenstein: look not
>at what a word means, look rather at how it is used.
>
Freshman usually means a first-year student and it is usually used to refer to
a first year student.  So what is your point?  If you feel that it only refers
to male students than I suggest you have the problem.

>Man in English is male, in any context.  We as a society are very gender
>conscious when we look at language, so this Freshman thing is very important.

But not the three letters "MAN" in all contexts.
MANual
MANipulate
MANage
MANdatory
MANgle
MANiac
FreshMAN
chairMAN
woMAN
MANkind

>
>>My advice to these people: try a serious issue or you won't
>>be taken seriously.
>
>Well, dear, it *is* a serious issue, with or without your decree.
>
As long as people take such a ridiculous view of language then I will
not take them serioulsy.
>
>--
>Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu


Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Some examples (Was Re: Winning by Violation (
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 22:40:04 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.110751.675@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>
>>  > Tell me just one thing Ms. "I've never heard about it" Leslie,
>not a personal attack? Not hostile?? A positive contribution to understanding??

I followed this argument (about the moderation in soc.feminism) in
soc.men and received the same examples.  I said nearly the same thing
you did, that I would have rejected most of Gazit's posts because of
the personal bashing that he engaged in and/or the one-line zingers.
There were some people who had submitted posts that I would have let
into soc.feminism if I were a moderator.

>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)

I don't think it is an artifact of the moderation process.  Try
reading soc.wo/men some time.  I do think he has an axe to grind
against all feminists.  Has anyone ever seen him post anything
positive about feminism or a particular feminist?
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:01:05 GMT
Organization: Something close to nothing, but different than the day before

sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>
>> I'm against that.
>> The government should have no right to sterilize people 
>> against their will, and it is not the damn business of 
>> the government to keep records of who has had an abortion.
>
>So, who's job it then is if not the government ?

It should be the job of the agency that does the operation, whether that be
Planned Parenthood or the quack down the road. When the government starts
keeping track of surgeries like abortion or any other, it's time to move to
a new country...

>Sami Kiiskil{  

  Tyger

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
 
                       
        
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 21:03:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.042253.8942@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>| >> "These pro-life women on the Left believe in a consistent ethic of
>| >> life.  ... As for abortion, Feminists for Life say that 'truly
>| >> liberated women reject abortion because they reject the male world
>| >> view that accepts violence as a legitimate solution to conflict.'"
>
>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.
>
>dholtsin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>| Some people believe that abortion concerns both issues, not just
>| the latter issue.  
>
>True; but I was writing on the basis of the liberal principle
>that state power must be justified by some strong public
>interest, and therefore has no business interfering with
>people's personal moral decisions.  There have been polities
>where the state was generally empowered to tell you what to 
>do, or what to say, or what to think; I think such states 
>repulsive and want no part of them where I have to live.

And as it so happens, we live in a nation whose self image has always
been that it was the vanguard of the free.

The antiabortionists have no shame as Americans, evidently.

If we don't have the right to live according to our religious beliefs
(abortion is choice of women given free will by God),
my, my, then I guess it isn't America anymore. Give the Statue of Liberty
back to the French and call the whole thing off.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: a programmer is not an engineer, indeed
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:56:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.165503.27617@news.nd.edu> slarsen@schumann.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.152837.9951@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>> 
>>so what should we do, muffy? hire women as engineers who are not qualified
>>to make up for all the years of negative messages? that would be great
>>news to me when i drive over a bridge that collapses...
>>
>>
>>"ayyyyyeeeeeiiiiii, i'm falling....but i'm not bitter because the WOMAN
>>who designed this bridge was hired as compensation for her not going into
>>engineering because of all of the negative messages from society....
>>ayyyyeeeeiiiiiiii".......... *SPLAT*
>
>Okay, I'll admit it, this is off-topic, but:
>
>Since when has private business made it a point to hire the "most 
>qualified" anyway?  Every for-profit business I have worked for 
>viewed "qualifications" as just one part of the hiring package.  
>In some outfits, it was a rather small consideration.  "How did 
>the applicant look?"  "Which of the bosses' relatives is this?" 
>"Who are they connected to?"  "What was the name of her husband's 
>business?"  "Do we owe his dad a favor?" "Oh, we don't ever 
>hire people from *that* university.  Old football rivalry, you 
>know."  "Gotta get a domer, we need that Notre Dame connection."

 [etc..]
>
>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
>

While I haven't agreed with a lot you have posted so far, I think your
right on in calling him out on this. People alway seem to start using
this complaint about 'not being able to hire the most qualified people'
garbage whenever they are afraid that someone is trying to take away
some of their power to hire (and discriminate) against whomever they
please, conveniently ignoring the fact that they have *never* adhered
strictly to this policy of 'hiring the most qualified' anyway. I tried
repeatedly (and unsuccessfully) to dispel this myth in a thread on
affirmative action a while back. Better luck to you.

-kelvin
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Victimhood's Strange Bedfellows
Date: 5 Sep 92 18:39:24 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Sep4.171956.6694@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

>>         It seems we're just a few steps away from
>>a brave new world in which everone is everyone's victim and no one is to
>>blame.

>	And it's all over the political spectrum.  Pat Buchanan wants you
>to believe that fundamentalist Christians are victims of a SeXular
>Humanist Conspiracy (thanks, drieux! >:-)> ); The Bushman says HE'S just
>a victim of a gridlocked Congress;

One of the advantages of free markets (from the point of view of, say,
Bush or Mitterand or Yeltsin) is that no one is responsible for what
happens to the economy.  (See today's Guardian.)

Anyway, the attack on "victimhood" is mostly a tool of the right.
They want to discredit the idea that anyone (especailly the government)
ought to do anything about these problems.  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:52:32 GMT

In article <SK73171.92Sep5151115@kaarne.cs.tut.fi> sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep2.214022.9251@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>
>(....)
>
>> My complaints and letters to the managment were ignored.
>
>> Yes, I was shown the club before I joined, but since then, managment has
>> moved things around, and got new equipment which he put in the mens 
>> excersize area.  
>
>What's the problem ? If you are not satisfied with the services the
>company offers, try some other ? Or is that the only one in the area ?

Most likely, she has paid big bucks for a full-year's membership (common
practice for health clubs in the US).

I'd recommend demanding a refund pro-rated from when equipment was installed in
men's only area.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminis
Keywords: rebuttal defending feminism strawman
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:47:04 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Sep8.160434.718@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> 
moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:

>as a rule, expecting to demolish an entire philosophy by showing that
>some few of it's most outspoken advocates sometimes make ill-thought
>statements is not practical. Otherwise we wouldn't have Dan Quayle
>in any public position? 

Dan Quayle is a joke, and quite a few republicans know that.
In feminism, we are talking about non-fiction books which are
taken seriously, are sold in millions of copies and bash men.  E.g:

#When men are men, slugging it out among themselves, conquering new land, 
#subjugating new people, driving on toward victory, {\it unquestionably}
#there shall be some raping.
                        --  (Susan Brownmiller, "Against Our Will)
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Watch Those Attribution Lines, Please (Was: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency))
Date: 9 Sep 92 09:16:44
Organization: savage hackers
	<ATAYLOR.92Sep9085748@gauss.nmsu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: ataylor@nmsu.edu's message of Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:57:48 GMT


In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep9085748@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>>  [...]
>   Since I did not write the text that zen attributes to me,
>   this flame is pointless.
>   Please watch the attribution lines.

  Here's the headers and part of the post that came to my site, sans the
really offensive lines.  Looks like you to me, although some could have
forged it.

 -- d
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Alan Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:12:23 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

[....]
You, on the other hand, are just a jerk.

I hope this helps you to understand my reasoning.  It's really not all that
inconsistent.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:57:02 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <10SEP199212180593@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov> 
spzkny@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY) writes:

>Still, there is a great resentment towards those who lack personal 
>responsibility.  Any measure of "reproductive rights" must be tempered with 
>"reproductive responsibility".  Those who ignore responsibility for their 
>actions should not assert that it's their right to do so.

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.

(Note that most of those who object to "choice for men" in the name
of responsibility have nothing to say against the above approach.)

I think that Norplant or IUD as a condition for welfare will be fair because
the woman will have to do something that helps society in exchange for the 
welfare, but I don't think that most of the "choice for women!" feminists 
will agree that *their* reproduction right will be under such attack...

Taking men to the cleaners seem, to them, like the real equality approach....
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Star Trek Opening
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 06:13:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.204256.12606@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>>>- >>	I LIKED THE STAR TREK OPENING BETTER BEFORE THEY WERE PRESSURED
>>>>- >>	INTO CHANGING IT! 
>>>
>
>Although its not worth argueing about, let me state that I liked the old
>opening better also.

Agreed.

>Man refers to humans specifically (at least to me) and makes more sense.

I've always found it a bit amusing because the image I have is of a
man having sex with a virgin ("to boldly go where no man has gone
before").  Of course, I have problems with the generic masculine...
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "The Oppressed"? (was: proposed vote of confidence)
Date: 13 Sep 92 12:34:09 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <#=xn+b=.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
| In article <DF.92Sep2164954@anableps.berkeley.edu> df@anableps.berkeley.edu (d) writes:
| >  Any woman who speaks her mind (e.g. muffy, etc.)
| >obviously must be stripped of her force, by ridicule, or actual seizure
| >of her position as moderator (which gives small power, by any standard).
| >I imagine if she were a man, then the tone on this newsgroup would be
| >very different.
| >
| >>  Is only silence permissible?
| >
| >  Only if it is the oppressed who are silenced.
| 
| What absolute codswollop to call women "the oppressed" in America today!
| They have far more rights and far more options than men do, both in
| law and in social custom.  ...

In that case, why don't you convert?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Looking for "women's" rpg.
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:24:16 GMT

In article <BuAJIs.6G4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jacobus@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
>
>Okay, it's started.  Will someone please give me a complete citation which
>proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the following are true:
>
>Matriarchical societies exist today.  I want to know where they are.
>
>Matriarchical societies have existed within recorded history (I discount ANY
>pronouncements about non-recorded history--it's all bald-faced conjecture,
>no matter what it may purport to be.)

Well, this may not fit all your critera, but I would suggest:

"The Sacred Hoop: Recovering the Feminine in American Indian Traditions"
by Paula Gunn Allen

The author writes in the introduction:

"Modern feminists sometimes theorize about the shift from matriarchies
to patriarchy in the Old World, but a more complete and accurate retelling
of history and of the contemporary manifestations of that shift among 
American Indian peoples would make such theorizing unnecessary."

-- 
 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,soc.men
From: grey@bnr.ca (Bryan Miller)
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Reply-To: grey@bnr.ca (Bryan Miller)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 20:06:08 GMT

In article <715975722@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
|> 
|> I've met quite a few male engineering students who did not like the
|> subject but were there because of social/economical pressures.  *If*
|> you want women to be as successful then you have to pass them via 
|> the same destructive pressures, with the same destructive results.
|> 
|> The idea in feminism is that there is some way for *women* to 
|> avoid that - to get the same paychecks as men without being 
|> expose to all those non-feminine destructive pressures.
|> 

Whoa! Is that *really* what either feminism or pay-equity are about?
I see the focus on opportunity, not avoidance.

Bryan
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pentangl@spdcc.com (Scott Moir)
Subject: Re: choice for men
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Distribution: alt.feminism
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:16:52 GMT

In article <DSTEINBE.92Sep14080252@emmy.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>Scott:
>You ignored methods of birth control (e.g. the IUD) because they do
>not stop the HIV virus; I have only one question for you:
>How does the pill stop HIV?
>In other words, please be consistent (or explain what you meant).

I didn't post the original article, I was responding to a crosspost
in alt.sex... I am now over here in alt.feminism looking around and 
reading up on the 75 or so articles in this thread that remain on my
system.

In reference to you rquestion, I don't advocate -any- birth control
method except a condom (male or female version). That barrier is the
only protection you have against fluid exchange, which is how the HIV
virus is transmitted.

As far as other bits about the thread go, it poses an interesting question.
I have two children, and (now separated) I live with someone who has a
child of her own. i]We have looked at the possibility of having children,
and we have decided that it is both our responsibilities to look after
our own and each other's welfare.

We take precautions whenever we have sex to prevent her from becoming
pregnant. She tracks her period, I use a condom. We occasionally skip
using a condom, but only during the week immediately following her period.


That is fine, and works great in a long term relationship... but for the
shorter, more 'casual' ones... If a woman is against abortion and wants to
have sex with someone, I would think it would be fair for her to express
this limitation to her partner in the course of getting farmiliar with
her prospective partner. He, in turn, should be ready to deal with the
risks and responsibilities FULLY after making the choice to sleep with her
or not.

How can you make a good decision without being fully informed? A female's
unwillingness to have an abortion is a BIG factor. It is something that
can change the way sex is approached. 

If the woman doesn't have a problem with having an abortion, then it would 
be proper for the couple to split the costs for said abortion if the birth
control fails. 

Getting pregnant shouldn't 'just happen'. It should be planned for, talked
about and agreed upon. This is a Big Deal and will affect you directly for 
two decades in the immediate sence and for the rest of your days in a less
direct way.

Scott

-- 
Scott Moir / Pentangle / Satyr ______ # "There's really only one requirement 
pentangl@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com  \ \/ / #  for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+) s+ m r p+     \/\/  # "What's that?"
These are my opinions, not SPDCC's    # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs