HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Expression of attraction
Date: 12 Dec 1992 01:49:54 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

> In article <1g43adINNani@agate.berkeley.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:

> MUCH DELETED
 >if male reporters tried to muscle (or wheedle) their way into the locker-
 >rooms of female athletes after an event? could it be justified on the basis
 >that otherwise significant, career-damaging opportunity is denied to the
 >reporter?

 the thing that i found offensive was thinking about how most of those
 men (and i've been in locker rooms before) have pictures all over their
 locker doors of obscenely degraded women splayed out lke they were
 created to do just that, and yet when a woman walks in and sees their
 nekkid beehinds, all of a sudden that's wrong.  it was the hypocrisy i
 disliked, not the action itself.  
  besides, when women's team sports make as much money as men's do, we can
 talk about turning the tables.  until then . . .
/end quoted material/

(Sorry about lowercasing everything. I'm still learning Emacs.)

I personally find such pictures in poor taste, if not downright
offensive. And yet I feel obliged to wonder who asked you to go in
there and be offended? If something like that offends you, why do you
put yourself in a position to be so unhappy? Women do not belong in
men's locker rooms, and men don't belong in women's. It's got nothing
to do with seeing men's "nekkid behinds" (or, to call a spade a spade,
"penises" and "scrotums").  Further, I don't believe these men are
being hypocritical.  They are just being crude. What is hypocrytical
is the double-standard that women can go in men's and men can't go in
women's.

As far as the "equal money" argument goes: Why don't women support
female athletes to the extent that men support theirs? God knows
there are more women than men. Maybe it's time for women to stop
whining and get out there and start cheering. And paying. 

RB

 -- 
 |"The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who  |
 | have loved it." -- George Santayana  // Opinions expressed here, when |
 | clear and persuasive, are my own. --Rob Brueckner (rhb@world.std.com) |





-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Date: 18 Dec 1992 16:11:57 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

-*----
Recognizing that both women and men are vulnerable to assault
(and ignoring for the nonce the issue of relative probability),
there is an important difference in the likely results.  When I
traverse or tarry in dangerous areas, I recognize that I may be
assaulted with the likely result that I may be beat or robbed.
This prospect does not worry me so much that it is a deciding
factor in my behavior.  There is a much *smaller* risk that I
will be murdered or raped.  In contrast, the risk of rape for a
women in the same areas is much greater, not necessarily because
she is more defenseless, but because the vast majority of
assailants who will rape a woman have no interest in doing this 
to a man.  

In short, I suspect there is some intuitive calculation of
expected cost, and that this calculation is generally different
for men and women. 

Russell


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Mythopoetic ritual (a possibly Very Weird topic)
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:52:01 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1g969kINN9vv@agate.berkeley.edu>, vanhoek@bend.UCSD.EDU (Karen van 
Hoek) writes:
> My other comment is that still, you can imagine a way that
> men could celebrate in that way _and_connect with women
> rather than alienating them.  

Right now, most of us (mythopoetic men) feel that we need to connect with each 
other before we can healthily connect with women-as-a-group (as differentiated
>from the individual women that we all have connections to.)  We're at the stage
that feminism was at when it was having women-only CR groups.  It alienated
men, but the need of the women to form bonds and be with one another outweighed
that.

> What if,
> as part of the Great Phallus celebration or whatever, the men 
> took some time to mourn the way that the penis has been
> identified as a weapon, and how that way of thinking about
> masculinity has separated men from women?  What if they
> talked about how they've found standard models of masculinity
> separating them from their fellow men?  What if they declared,
> as part of proclaiming the sacredness of their sexuality,
> that they weren't going to stand for masculinity being identified
> with the role of victimizer anymore, and they pledged themselves
> to fight against attitudes that encouraged men to take the role
> of victimizer?  What if they mourned the way that rape defiles
> male sexuality?  

What makes you think that we don't?
-- 
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.


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Mythopoetic ritual (a possibly Very Weird topic)
Date: 12 Dec 1992 03:55:25 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1g969kINN9vv@agate.berkeley.edu> vanhoek@bend.UCSD.EDU (Karen van Hoek) writes:

/quoted material follows/
	[MUCH DELETED] ... What if
   as part of the Great Phallus celebration or whatever, the men 
   took some time to mourn the way that the penis has been
   identified as a weapon, and how that way of thinking about
   masculinity has separated men from women?  What if they
   talked about how they've found standard models of masculinity
   separating them from their fellow men? 
/end quoted material/

A good point. I would add to this by saying that any celebration of
sexual organs BY THEMSELVES seems to miss the whole point about
sexuality, in that sex is about communication, not isolation. Sex is
one treasure that is only worth something when it's shared. When it's
not, it's called masturbation, and it's not worth a fuck. ;-)

RB

-- 
|"The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who  |
| have loved it." -- George Santayana  // Opinions expressed here, when |
| clear and persuasive, are my own. --Rob Brueckner (rhb@world.std.com) |



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Shaming men's sexuality
Date: 12 Dec 1992 03:54:56 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1gag82INNfv6@agate.berkeley.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>In particular, they were discussing Prince Charles' female friend,
>Camilla Parker-Bowles; and they implied there was something disgusting
>or unmanly about Charles, because he preferred a woman who didn't
>look like the culturally preferred template, to one who did. In other
>words, insofar as Charles did *not* treat half of the species as
>a blow-up doll, he was less of a man. If his infidelities to Diana,
>instead of being with one woman whom he presumably loved, had been
>with *many* semiprofessional courtesans, who he used like blow-up
>dolls, the media would have expressed a lot more respect for Charles.
>
>I never thought I'd feel sorry for the Prince of Wales, but I do. A
>little... 

Agreed.  Of course, the other side of the coin is that Parker-Bowles,
an attractive woman in her 40s imo, is painted as an ugly, masculine,
boring older woman.

This seems to point out how the culture abuses both men and women:
women not looking like Diane are made out to be ugly hags and men
preferring women like Parker-Bowles are made out to be unmasculine.



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Safe space for men
Date: 14 Dec 1992 02:07:08 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1ge9o5INN6hd@agate.berkeley.edu> karen.van.hoek@um.cc.umich.edu writes:

/quoted material follows/

   This general issue -- that many or most white men don't realize how 
   bad it is to live in fear of violent assault -- is extremely painful
   and angering to many women.  [MUCH DELETED] ... Advice like
   "go for a walk at three a.m." isn't just stupid, it's downright
   _cruel_ -- like taunting someone in a jail cell about how good
   it would be for them to spend a week at the beach.  The fact that
   the cruelty is unthinking doesn't make it much better; all that
   means is that these men are oblivious to the reality of our lives. 

   Karen
/end quoted material/

I sympathize with your pain and, without being patronizing, I do
understand it. But I'm still not sure this is a male/female thing. I
for one would not go for a walk at three a.m. in many areas. I know
I'm not a likely target for rape, but armed assault and murder aren't
anything to sneeze at either. Women who work late at my office are
routinely given cab fare so they don't have to brave the Boston T late
at night. But I'm expected to brave it because I'm a man and, hence,
assumed to be invulnerable. I certainly don't resent women for getting
the extra consideration; I even think it's a good thing, considering
what an easy and obvious target they are. I only wonder what more can
be done. As a man, I certainly don't want half of humanity living in
constant fear, because fear is the disease that kills reason, and
makes communication impossible. And I think communication between the
sexes is desperately important. Besides which, people who live in fear
cannot make their full contribution, so we are all poorer for it.

So: Are you saying that there is nowhere women can feel safe in our
society being out alone? This is not an argument, but a question. And
if the answer is "nowhere," then I think maybe a good topic for
discussion in this group might be what can be done about this sorry
state of affairs.

RB


-- 
|"The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who  |
| have loved it." -- George Santayana  // Opinions expressed here, when |
| clear and persuasive, are my own. --Rob Brueckner (rhb@world.std.com) |



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Motivations for Gender-Neutral Terminology
Date: 16 Dec 92 01:26:05 GMT
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <BzBnBv.3yv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel) writes:

   Often, this is actually a matter of translation.  For example, in
   German, there is a word Mensch; when German writings including this word
   are translated into English, Mensch is almost always rendered as "man."
   It actually [please correct me if I'm wrong] means "human being," and I 
   believe that it's neuter, "das Mensch," in which case it would imply 
   nothing about gender at all.  No doubt there are similar instances in
   Bible.

Sorry, but "Mensch" is definitely masculine: der Mensch. It means "a
person" roughly the same way "mankind" means "people" in English: with
a decided "man as representative of the species" flavor. But one
should not confuse grammatical gender with sexual gender. There are
many instances of words playing against type in this respect.
"Maedchen," for example, is a neuter noun meaning "girl." American
women I know who speak German get upset at being rendered neuter by
nouns like "Maedchen" or "Frauelein" (excuse the added "e" in these
words, but diereses are impossible in this text processor), though I
have never heard a German woman complain. They don't think about it, I
suppose. And men don't think about the fact that "die Hode" (testicle)
is a feminine noun. It just doesn't matter. There are more important
things to worry about.

RB


-- 
|"The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who  |
| have loved it." -- George Santayana  // Opinions expressed here, when |
| clear and persuasive, are my own. --Rob Brueckner (rhb@world.std.com) |



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: female athletes
Date: 16 Dec 1992 00:58:13 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

rgvdh@vtrl.src.mei.co.jp (R. van der Heide) writes:

>rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner) asks
>>Why don't women support female athletes to the extent that men support theirs?

>Why don't Americans support female athletes?

Why should they support male athletes?

Not everyone is interested in sports. In addition, there seem to be
major ethical problems with professional sports, the way it is
currently constituted...


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: vanhoek@bend.UCSD.EDU (Karen van Hoek)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Women's and men's safety
Date: 14 Dec 1992 16:46:20 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Robert Brueckner pointed out that men often have need to fear assault,
and asked also if it's true that there's nowhere a woman can feel safe
being out alone (at night, presumably).  It's definitely true that
men don't go wandering in a lot of areas late at night, but the
number of areas where men _can_ go walking late at night is
far greater than the number a woman can go to.  I live in Ann
Arbor, a very nice town; my male friends all feel safe walking
in many parts of it at almost all hours.  I don't.  In fact,
given a recent rape in broad daylight in one of the woods, I'm
afraid to go walking alone in the woods.  Recently I asked
myself whether there was someplace within reasonable driving
distance that I could go to to go for a nighttime walk.  A 
man wouldn't have to drive anywhere to get to a safe place;
not if he lived in Ann Arbor.  If he lived in a tougher area, he
might be able to drive to a suburb like Ann Arbor and be safe
(if he's not black and so likely to get hassled by the cops).
But for me -- no.  I couldn't think of any really safe place.

The one place I've felt completely safe walking is a 200-acre
spiritual retreat in the middle of nowhere, an hour out from
San Diego.  It's enough trouble to get to that creeps wouldn't
likely go all the way out there just to hassle someone.  There
I took lots of long walks, at all hours of the night, and 
absolutely loved it.  So that's it -- if I fly 2,300 miles
and then drive for an hour, I can have a lovely nighttime
walk.  Male friends in my neighborhood can just step out
their front doors.

Karen
-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:21:37 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of thf2@midway.uchicago.edu:
:In article <1992Dec15.002645.1684@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
:>> "he" as a for someone of unspecified gender,
:>  ^^^^
:>
:>Except that this usage is correct.  Look it up in a usage book.
:
:Depends on your usage book.
:
:>BTW: Finnish has one word, han (with two dots over the a), to specify
:>both he and she.
:
:It's a shame we don't have a third-person singular the way the Finnish
:do.  It would be a simple solution. 

We do.  Damnit.  It's "they".   Yup, I'm going to waste netbandwidth
again and rererepost the best write-up I have on the topic.

--tom

Thought readers here might appreciate these old notes, posted 6 years ago
on the singular use of "they" in English. This usage dates from 1526, 
according to the OED.

I hope that this will establish in everyone's minds that the use of 
singular "they" is as correct as anything can be in English.

Craig

Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.women
From: jamman1@vax2.winona.msus.edu (JOEL MARKOVITS)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: creating a greek newsgroup
Date: 16 Dec 92 20:17:07 GMT
Followup-To: soc.college

In article <1992Dec11.163125.23773@midway.uchicago.edu>,
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) wrote:
> 
> In article <1gabduINNaf1@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> fau@po.CWRU.Edu (Francis A. Uy) writes:
> >So what does everyone say?  I don't have the 
> > resources to run a vote, would anyone like to
> > get this started?  We could start the vote in
> > January + be done by February.
> 
> Personally, I'm against it.  I've been trying to engage in reasonable
> criticism of the fraternity system, but a split would make that impossible.
> If I were to post to soc.college.misc, people would complain that the
> discussion is not in soc.college.frat, but the reality of newsgroups is that
> any criticism of fraternities would not be well-received or -aimed in a 
> s.c.frat newsgroup, because the subscribers to that group would mostly be
> members of fraternal organizations, and thus not particularly conducive to
> two-sided discussion.  
> 
> I would continue to post in s.c.misc, because my posts are aimed at college
> students in general.  Thus, if the split is being done to eliminate the
> discussion of fraternities in s.c., it will fail, because the only thing 
> a split would accomplish would be the generation of additional traffic
> complaining "Why isn't this in s.c.frat" and me responding why I have no
> interest in talking to people who have no interest in hearing anything
> I say, whereas some people in s.c do. 
> 
> If the multitude of threads is a problem, I'll try to include the word "frat"
> in all subject headers, so that kill-files will be most effective, and I
> encourage others to do the same.
> -- 
> ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
> standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
> the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637


	Actually, subscribers to a greek newsgroup would be any body interested in
the greek systems, for or against, like yourself. We would still be able to
carry on your critical discussions of Greek systems but in a separate
newsgroup, so as to keep this group open for other issues pertaining to
college life.

_________________________________________
Joel Markovits                           |
Jamman1@vax2.winona.msus.edu             | 
Present, Past, and Future... A PI LAM!!  |  
Newsgroups: soc.college
From: davidh@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (David Klein)
Subject: Re: I'm back and badder than before
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 04:41:27 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>>No Ted, we are not going away.  We will live on for no other reason than to
>>serve as a continual reminder of your failure to eradicate us. 

>You have an overinflated sense of my importance.

But his idea of your self-importance is on the dot!!!!!

>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
-- 
 David H. Klein        davidh@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu      Brandeis University
 "The single most creative thing that a person can do is run a company."     
                            -Jerry Sterner   author of Other People's Money
 << The opinions reflected herein have no relation to Brandeis University >>
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: willson@seas.gwu.edu (Stephen R. Willson)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:26:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.151519.3485@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal
Nadeau) writes:

>Or, in Humpty Dumpty fashion, does a word mean just what you want it to
>mean, no more and no less?  And anyone who doesn"t instantly realize
>what you mean is, of course, prejudiced.

Isn't this a basic tenant of English? :-)
-- 
-----------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
 Stephen R. Willson    | A fitting end to a screwy campaign year...
 willson@seas.gwu.edu  | Here to swear in the President of the United States,
 (202) 395-4922        | Larry King!                         -The Miami Herald
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english