HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: men crossing the street at night to avo
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:24:04 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <9301060221.AA02997@york.cs.ucla.edu> gds@ficus.cs.ucla.EDU (Greg Skinner) writes:
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu writes:
>>I'm not interested on metting friends for life when I'm walking to a
>>bus stop; I am just going goggle-eyed trying to keep tabs on people to
>>make sure that they won't sneak up on me and try to assault me.  I can
>>handle the (nonexistent) social rejection implied, and frankly
>>wouldn't give a damn.
>
>Are you sure the social rejection is nonexistent?  As a black man, I
>have experienced many times men, women, and children avoiding me after
>dark.  They don't avoid white men, women, and children in the same
>way.

As a black man, you certainly have a different set of experiences from
me.  I'm not going to argue that people don't tense up around black men;
they do.  I hate to say it, but I've done it and gotten angry at myself
afterwards.  But as a woman, I also have a different set of experiences,
and have different things to fear than you do. 

>Anyway, that's not really the point.  They can avoid me if they want,
>and I can avoid them if I want.  But I'm not going to avoid them if I
>don't want to because as a law abiding citizen I have as much right to
>use the sidewalk as they do.

You also have the right to pick your nose on a streetcorner, but are you
going to do it?  I'm not talking about your rights but about how to act
around other people.  I'm not saying that you don't have the right to be
on the sidewalk; no one is saying that all men should be ordered off the
streets after dark to avoid scaring women.  All we're saying is that
women are jumpy as all hell, and with good reason, and we'd APPRECIATE
it if men understood that, and would it kill you to make it a bit
easier for us?  We'll try to reciprocate when it comes our turn.  

As a woman and a black man, we are going to interpret avoidance in
different ways.  It sounds a lot as if you're saying that since I don't
see things as a black man would see them, that I don't see things
correctly.  Well, you don't see things as a woman would see them either.
When people cross the street to avoid you, they are being jumpy and
assuming that you are a sort of time bomb.  When a MAN crosses the
street to avoid me, I am thinking, "Good.  He's not going to jump me." 
And as far as fear of black men in particular goes, trust me.  I am
going goggle-eyed watching out for ANYONE, and I've known too many
people who have gotten assaulted by white guys to think that only black
men attack people.  

Regards,
Janis C.




-- 
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)
Subject: Re: Good Looks => Perception of Virtues?
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:08:56 GMT

goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves) writes:

>Perhaps, but I do not think that this trait (falsely imputing great
depth of character to handsome humans) is solely the province of
>men.

Of course not. I don't think the net wants to hear about my
sister's awful husband, but I'm sure you get the idea!

Lenore Levine

--
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
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: sfjr@wam.umd.EDU (Steve Russell)
Subject: Men's Group Info Request
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:33:05 GMT

The discussion a few weeks back about the men's movement and men's
groups in general got me interested in learning more about the subject.

Can anyone reccomend good literature on the subject and/or groups in
the Wash D.C. area?

Thanks

Steve R


--
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
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: bob1@cos.COM (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Incendiary Intercourse
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:00:10 GMT

Review of Dworkin's work deleted due to size.

Frankly, I would be a likely to waste my money on Dworkin's
work as I would on Paglia's or Madonna's - which is damned
unlikely.

I was somewhat amused by the references to vagina = ugly = grave.
Opinions which I don't share BTW, but it seems mediaeval
architects did not agree either, or did you ever wonder what
the gothic arch was derived from?

The Old Grouch.


--
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
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: khamsi@ll.mit.EDU (Sarir Khamsi)
Subject: Re: Someone Convince Me
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:34:57 GMT

>>>>> On 10 Jan 1993 17:37:19 GMT, randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) said:

> I would like someone to please send me an article that would
> convince me in a scholorly and logical way that porn does have
> this effect.  Alternativly, I would like someone to please send me
> a reference that I could look up at the local public library.

As an additional suggestion, you might try and talk to some women and
ask them how _they_ feel about it.

--
Sarir (Riri) Khamsi - khamsi@ll.mit.edu
MIT Lincoln Laboratoy
244 Wood St.
Lexington, MA 02173
USA

--
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
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: gds@ficus.cs.ucla.EDU (Greg Skinner)
Subject: Re: men crossing the street at night to avoid frightening women
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: in your face!
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:44:31 GMT

In article <3eh+L-j027n@khantazi.welly.gen.nz> Philip R. Banks writes:
>   [moving to a respectable distance] serves the purpose of avoiding
>you getting hurt for being mis-interpreted in your actions.

Well, if someone is going to hurt me for walking by them at night,
maybe *they* ought to move to the other side of the street.

>It helps keep the woman who can defend herself more relaxed as
>they don't have to be prepared to use whatever methods of defence
>quite so immediately as when you are close, not to mention it keeps
>the woman who hasn't (and really shouldn't need to) learnt to defend
>herself relaxed too. And finally it prevents you from having a crowded
>personal space, something I personally don't like much and I suspect
>alot of other people don't too...

*Everyone* needs to learn to defend themselves against all possible
attackers.

I am not so sure here what you mean by crowded personal space.  For
one thing, if we are just talking about walking past someone for a
brief second, standing at a bus stop, or something like that, (1) it
should not be perceived as crowded, because the person is not
breathing down their neck, and (2) these are public spaces, not
personal spaces, and as such, law-abiding people have the right to use
them in lawful ways.

--gregbo

--
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
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: cortese@skid.ps.UCI.EDU (Janis Maria Cortese)
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:41:52 GMT

In article <1hsskrINN1pt@meaddata.meaddata.com> andyw@meaddata.COM writes:
>I think part of the difference in fear about violence between men and
>women is just a difference in attitude about getting hurt.  This is
>not a scientific survey, but men just seem to be more accepting of
>personal risk than women.
>
>When you look at things like skydiving, whitewater rafting, bungee
>jumping, sports you can get hurt playing, etc, men seem to be more
>tolerant of a given level of risk than women would be.  When you
>couple that attitude with a situation where there really is a
>difference in safety between men and women (walking in bad
>neighborhoods) you end up with a really big diffence in your perceived
>level of safety.
>
>I think the issue that needs to be addressed is actual measurable
>differences in safety, not what peoples FEELINGs are.

You neglect to realize that when a man skydives, he CHOOSES to do so,
freely and with complete responsibility for his actions.  When I CHOOSE
to walk across a dark parking lot, it's because my car is on the other
side of it and I couldn't get a parking space closer that day.  If is
parachute happens to tear or open incorrectly it is only his own fault
since most skydiving places tell you to pack your own chute.  If I am
attacked, it is not because of a mistake or a botched packing job but
because of deliberate malice on the part of another human being -- a
solid and developed desire, molded and acted upon -- to cause pain and
endanger me.  This has nothing to do with a sqeaumishness about getting
a skinned knee.  If I skin my OWN knee through diving too hard for a
racquetball, I feel no cheapening, no endangerment, no sense of being
out of control and utterly unprotected; I just boned it and have to be
more careful about what I dive for next time.  If, on the other hand, I
am attacked and mugged or raped in a parking lot because I had to work
late on a paper in my semantics class, I have had another human being
visit his desire to injure and degrade me upon my person.

Two very different things indeed, and not able to be chalked up to
squeamishness in any way.  Why do you talk so denigratingly about
"feelings" as if they are not valid barometers of a situation?  If I
"feel" unsafe in a given area, it's not without a damned good reason.

Regards,
Janis C.


--
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
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: kathy@ai.mit.EDU (Kathleen LaFrance)
Subject: Re: men crossing the street at night to avo
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:00:17 GMT

[Moderators note: excess included text trimmed]

 <stuff deleted>

  >>>I typically either nod my head in greeting, or say "good evening" or
  >>>something like that.
  >
 >  Actually acknologing someones presence and showing that you are
 >  aware of your surrondings may be a safer reaction for a woman to
 >  make than

ACKNOWLEDGE men on the street??? Maybe where you live--but I have
enough problems with unwanted male attention(on the street), I am
certainly not going to solicit more of it.  THere are a lot of really
sorry men out there who think even looking at them (yes, while briefly
walking down the street) constitutes some sort of interest on a
woman's part.


 >  showing total disinterest.  Self defense classes usually say that
 >  muggers and such are more likely to prey upon people who look
 >  confused, afraid or inattentive.  Totaly ignoreing a person may
 >  make you look preoccupied or inattentive.


I think it is best to walk with a purpose, and yes aware of my
surroundings without acknowledging everyone who is walking near me.

Kathy















   ---












--
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
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: uunet!infmx!hartman@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Mythopoetic ritual (a possibly Very Weird topic)
Date: 12 Jan 1993 00:20:29 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <C0JytG.AHH.1@cs.cmu.edu> tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) writes:
>I apologize, but I'll have to quote an awful lot for context.
>
>>>>>Me again, on the subject of reclaiming sexuality.  In the book
>>>>>"Women Respond to the Men's Movement" p. 4, Ursula LeGuin writes
>>>>>about a gathering she was at where Robert Bly told her, "The
>>>>>Men have raised a Great Phallus farther up the river. ... I'd
>>>>>show you, but it's off limits to the Women...."  When I read
>
>>>>The "women aren't allowed" comment seems quite childish, and sadly,
>>>>quite in character for Bly.  There was no point in telling her about
>>>>it if she wasn't invited to participate.  But that's so typical of
>>>>him.
>
>(Here's where I came in)
>>>It is quite in keeping with the exclusive nature of the initiation
>>>rituals of primitive peoples, both for males and females. Do you have
>>>a well thought out opinion that they are childish too? ...

The above comment about Bly was mine, not Janis's.  As I mentioned
in that article and others, I think it's important for there to be
exclusive events for men and women.  That's not childish.  What's
childish about Bly's comment was his telling of tales out of class.
Exclusiveness should be done out of necessity; it's not something to
gloat over.

-r


-- 
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: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Mid-30s men
Date: 8 Jan 1993 04:00:33 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

kathryn@Apple.COM (Kathryn Vandiver) writes:

>okay, okay.... Why is it that every now and then I meet a mid-30's 
>man who thinks he's going to marry the poor unmarried woman.
...
>It seems to me that both guys have the idea that they are thinking  
>that they can marry any unmarried woman to 'save her' from being 
>single.  
...
>What ever happened to love and passion?  Why do these to guys feel
>so compeled to 'up and marry' any 'suitable' woman? For crying-out-

A couple of comments: One, I take it you are under the age of 35
(my age, btw). Two, obviously these two men do not feel `compelled'
to get married -- your post shows that. 

>... It just seems so strange to me that
>they think friendship can create marriage.  I know that many couples
>loose passion and all for each other after marriage, but usually
>when you decide to marry there is a thread of love somewhere.

Perhaps they are trying to decide whether that love you are speaking
about is actually there or not; further, perhaps they are right in 
that they have an inner sense that their possible-intended's will
or would say yes to a marriage proposal. Maybe they are pondering
the 'C' word: commitment.

>My brother is in his mid-30's and still single. I've never heard 
>his breath ideas that he would marry like this. He's still looking
>for passion and love.  Are these other men being tormented by
>their mothers to find wives???? 

I doubt it, but your post brings up some interesting points. The 
first is that you seem to buy in to the notion that there is something
strange, perhaps unusual about a mid-30's heterosexual man who is
`never-married', or perhaps `pre-marital'.

This attitude perpetuated by the dominant culture, says that people
are dangerous, or at least not-normal unless they are partnered. The
further assumption is that if someone isn't partnered, they want to
be.

Finally, perhaps some people do intend to get married "some day", but
you know, they, uh, never quite get around to it. People `do' have
biological clocks, I think.

Dano


-- 
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: Diane Bailey <dbailey@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: The Women Online Network
Date: 5 Jan 1993 02:47:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
Reply-To: dbailey@cix.compulink.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In both the soc.feminism resources faq, and the WMST-L
information file there is reference to WON:

In the latter it says:

>    An Internet list of interest is WON, the Women's Online
> Network, an electronic political group for women.  It "will
> distribute information, aid in the coordination of useful
> political action, and provide a forum for developing strategies
> to improve the position of women in our society."  Unlike the
> other lists mentioned here, WON charges a fee: $20 per year,
> negotiable if necessary.  To join, contact the co-founders at
> CARMELA@ECHO.PANIX.COM or HORN@ECHO.PANIX.COM or by phone at
> (212) 255-3839 (New York).

For more than six months I have been patiently trying to obtain a
feed of this list.  I have offered money but was told that they
thought there might be insufficient of interest to someone
outside the US to justify a charge.  They offered to send me it
without charge as they would be interested in the assessment of
an overseas subscriber.  I accepted, but the feed never started.
I have reminded them many times, and offered again to pay.  They
rarely reply to messages and never explain.  Twice I have
unexpectedly received from them lengthy files of Supreme Court
judgements on abortion cases, but nothing else.

If WON discriminates against those resident outside the USA -
which would seem most unusual on the Internet - then I feel that
the mentions of their service should warn of this in order to
save such wasted effort and frustration as I have been caused.

My guess, based on reading between the lines, is that, as a
"commercial service", they wish to deny women in countries
where they might sell a franchise insight into their service.
If that is the case, and their "product" being news and
information about feminism, this would strike me as being against
the basic tenets of both feminism and the internet.

If others have had a different experience, or an interpretation
that would lessen my frustration, I should be most interested to
hear.

Diane
dbailey@cix.compulink.co.uk



-- 
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: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Pornography and values
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Date: 4 Jan 93 21:47:26 GMT

In article <1hve55INNhe1@im4u.cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin) writes:
>-*----
>In article <38029@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.EDU ("David A. Johns") writes:
>> One interesting aspect of this debate about pornography is that
>> *interest* in pornography, in our society, at least, is primarily
>> male. ...
>
>That depends on now one draws the categories.  Should one count
>Harlequin romances as pornographic?  I think so.

FYI,  In my experience, the plain-jane Harlequin line has kissing only
(either without much description or without much body language)
and an occasional oblique reference to anything beyond that (like
"climbing that special stairway" in 1 book out of 8). Sex, if it
happens at all, happens once or twice at the end of the book.
Pornographic or sexually titallating? I guess to *SOMEBODY* (who,
I have no idea....)  The only problem I'd have with an 8-year-old
reading a Harlequin is the unrealistic view of the world...but then,
how realistic is Narnia?  <grin>

Harlequin Temptation has lots more physical contact with much
more explicit descriptions; I'd call it erotica (I also call
Playboy and Penthouse erotica). Harlequin Intrigue, which
gets its title from the adventure/thriller/crime plots, also
has rather in-depth descriptions of things. In both these
lines, the main characters are usually in bed 1/2-2/3 of the
way through the book. The other romances I've read tend to
fit into this catagory...ie, Loveswept (the Loveswept line
is my fav; it's hard to find good Loveswepts at second-hand
stores :)

>If one does
>this, then one recognizes that women have as much interest in
>titillating media, i.e., pornography, as men.

indeed.

-jen


--
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
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: lisad@zoo.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Pornography a *male* interest
Date: 4 Jan 1993 23:06:11 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article 38029@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu, Russel (turpin@cs.utexas.EDU)
writes
> That depends on how one draws the categories. Should one count
>Harlequin romances as pornographic? I think so.

I would have to disagree.  Although its been several (maybe 8) years
since I read a Harlequin, they very rarely dealt with *pornographic*
subjects.  My perception of Harlequins is that they are *love* 
novels are usually deal with the heroine's emotions, not the 
specifics of her body.

Another point that may be lost here is that pornography (IMHO) 
is of a degrading nature.  I don't believe that Harlequin's 
fall into this category either.

Just a few thoughts.
Lisa


-- 
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.