HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DURFLING@AC.GRIN.EDU (Finagle, etc. Durflinger,Edward M)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: (none)
Date: 2 Sep 1992 13:40:08 -0500
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Subj: HELP FIND TAMMY ZYWICKI

__________________________________
I am posting the following to soc.women and some other newsgroups becuase 
this matter of all matters should concern women and people who wish the 
world to be a safer place.
--durfling@ac.grin.edu
_________________________________________________________
WE NEED YOUR HELP.
	
	We are friends of Tammy Zywicki, a Grinnell College Senior who 
disappeared Sunday, August 23, around 1:00 pm.  Tammy was travelling from 
Chicago to Grinnell, Iowa, on Interstate 80 when apparently she experienced 
car trouble and stopped at the side of the road somewhere near La Salle, 
Illinois.  She was last seen at her car being assisted by a person or 
persons and a semi trailer was parked ahead of her car.

	When Tammy left Chicago, she was wearing dark shorts and a white 
T-shirt with the word "PRIVATE'" (accent over the 'E') printed on it.  
She is 5'2", 120 lbs, blond hair, green eyes, b. 3-13-71, and was wearing 
contact lenses.

	Recently a body of a woman resembling Tammy but with auburn hair 
was found in a ditch close to Springfield, MO.  Authorities have not 
confirmed the identity of this woman as Tammy, but it is know that she was 
wearing clothing that Tammy was also known to wear. If this woman is not 
Tammy, she could be the victim of a serial killer that also was involved in 
Tammy's disappearance.

	You can help Tammy and us by distributing this information as 
widely as possible. If anyone has any information about either of these 
cases, you may either email me at DURFLING@AC.GRIN.EDU or call the Illinois 
Police Department at (815)224-1150. 

Thank You,
The Grinnell Community
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 13:51:45 GMT

In article <5phn19=.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
> Well, you probably percieve the material in a different light than I.
> By the standards of Dworkin, I should do all in my power to make this
> sexist material go away, I think.
> 
> But were I to make the claims about -you- that she makes about all men,
> would you take me seriously? Or would you think me sexist and deranged?
> 
> Rich
> payner@netcom.com
> 
I would hope that you could distinguish between broad [even sweeping]
sociosexual phenomena and a personal attack.  It's clear when you read the
book that she isn't talking about individual men and every single
relationship.  She's talking about ideas.  As somebody else pointed out, a
lot of the material is from literature and history.  With that kind of
stuff, there is either something there that interests you or there isn't.
  
When you look at broad social issues (the topic of her book is intercourse
as an "institution", according to the book jacket), you have to make a few
generalizations.  One of the things I really like about the book is that
she makes these confident, sweeping assumptions and you have to decide how
much to accept.  
  
  "There is a deep recognition in culture and in experience that
intercourse is both the normal use of a woman, her human potentiality
affirmed by it, and a violative abuse, her privacy irredeemably
compromised, her selfhood changed in a way that is irrevocable,
unrecoverable." (p122)
  
So, to answer your question, yes, I can see that some of her conclusions
might be offensive to you, depending on how personally you take what she
is saying.  Remember, 90% of the book is analysis of novels and historical
events.  So how is that about you?  

I hear generalizations about women all the time.  Most of them don't seem
to fit me very well, but I don't have to destroy the source.  I like to
watch the TV sitcom "Northern Exposure," for example.  Last night, on a
rerun, a couple of the characters were going on and on about how women
are illogical and fuzzy-headed.  And how women have more complicated needs
than men.  And when I look at myself and the men I know, I have to say
that I honestly think that there is an equal amount of fuzzy logic emitted
by us as individuals.  But that doesn't mean that there wasn't something
interesting about the TV scene.  The astronaut was saying, "Yeah, we men
are controlled by two things, our penises and our stomachs.  But when a
woman gets involved in the situation, everything gets more complicated."
(or something like that).  Well, that statement isn't really true of
individuals, but it's an idea that you can weigh against your experience
and decide if it's interesting or not.
  
If we destroy all broad observations about people as groups because the
observations are unfair to individuals, we eliminate the opportunity to
think about very large social issues.
-- 
Jaclyn Brandt
jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
--
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Feminism
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 02:50:27 GMT

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

>Could someone explain to me what feminism is?
>I don't think there is a generally accepted definition on the net.
>So, if there is anyone who feels that they are representative or
>truly understand what it is, please post the definition.

There is no one type of feminism.  Like most philosophies, there tend to be
different interpretations.  The soc.feminism frequently asked questions 
includes a very good summary of the different interpretations of feminism.

>			J. Wagner

Sharon O'Neil

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ahkkim@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Alexander Kim)
Subject: Re: equality
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:38:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.122519.17366@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> lemieux@eecg.toronto.edu (Guy Gerard Lemieux) writes:
>>are a laugh to think they will ever happen. 
>
>There was a recent article in a campus newspaper about how women should
>not be subjected to "sex tests" to ensure their gender while competing in
>world-class sports.  This seems to support the idea of integrated co-ed
>sports.
>
>Should all women be subjected to sex tests?  For that matter, shouldn't
>men also be so subjected?  A large argument against the testing is because
>an XX/XY chromosone check is not accurate enough, and could have severe
>psychological repercussions.  How can you tell the difference between
>sexes, when you cannot accurately rely upon such tests?  Is genital
>checking 100% accurate (in the presence of sex changes etc)?  More
>importantly, is it "fair"?
>

I always thought that the purpose of the sex test was so that a man could not
compete as a woman and gain some (hypothetical?) advantage.  To date I think
that it has happened once an Austrian skier or something.

>But, when/if the "men" and "women" categories are unified in sports,
>  what would happen if the majority of winners were men?
>  ............................................... women?
>
 Does it matter?  I always thought of sports as a personal achievment at the
level of Olympic competition.
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: proposed vote of confidence
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:47:41 GMT
	<1992Sep2.164407.24466@panix.com>
	<AWERLING.92Sep3145824@dante.nmsu.edu>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: awerling@nmsu.edu's message of Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:58:24 GMT


In article <AWERLING.92Sep3145824@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
> In article <1992Sep2.164407.24466@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>> There
>> are already plenty of newsgroups for the exhibition of 
>> misogyny and anti-feminism, and there is nothing to stop
>> their fans from creating more, moderated or unmoderated. 
> Yip's curious: what newsgroups would these be?

  soc.*, alt.*, rec.*, you name it.  Starting with anything containing
"man", "woman", "fem", and "male" in the title might cut out some of the
less offensive newsgroups.  Then again...

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: ERA question
Originator: hillyard@groo.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:36:04 GMT

From article <MUFFY.92Aug26131623@remarque.berkeley.edu>, by muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy):
> 
> Well, I don't think that Richard is actually "pooh-poohing" these
> things; rather, he is pointing out that these are things which many
> people object to and which therefore were used to convince people that
> the ERA was a "bad idea."
> 

So what is wrong with pointing out the legitimate consequences of a law
in order to convince someone not to support it.  If they weren't legitimate,
complaining is fine, but the two he mentioned were not far-fetched at all.

SEH
From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 4 Sep 92 07:13:58 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <1992Sep3.175716.5648@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.092425.22714@leela.cs.orst.edu> petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
>>Well, all I know is that *I* certainly would not like to be called anyone's
>>"girlfriend" at my age (48).  And at what age would you change that to
>>woman?  35?  30?  25?  
>
>I don't think I would change it as I grow older.  If she is 10+ years
>older than I am, and I'm involved with her, then I would think of her
>as my "girlfriend."
>
>I'm not saying it's the best definition, but my little Webster's says
>"girlfriend - A female friend; a regular or frequent female companion
>of a boy or man"
>"boyfriend - A male companion"
>
>The point is that no ages are given for either definition.
>
>- Seth

Well all I can say is that I would find it just as ridiculous for a 70
year old man to be called a "boyfriend" as a 70 year old woman to be 
called a "girlfriend".  

Marg
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 02:26:29 GMT

In <MUFFY.92Aug30111641@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> The words 'can'
>> and 'may' are used in these excerpts.

>Got it.  We're being too polite, and foolishly expecting people to
>respond well to that.  I'll write up a more "fascist" (*snort*) section
>for the FAQ.

No, you were being unclear.  I do not think I am being impolite or unreasonable
in my interpretation.

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 02:14:21 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Sep2161818@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.195050.29837@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>
>>I really don't know why calling a female a girl is offensive.  I don't
>>take offense at being called a boy.  Is it wrong for someone to call
>>their SO a "girl/boyfriend"?
>
>The word "girl" has a denotation of "child", and when it is used
>consistently for women, while "man" is used for men, then the suggestion
>is that women are being equated to children while men are being equated
>to adults.  Since adults have power over children and children are not
>considered to be competent, this can be considered insulting.  I imagine
>that if someone called you a child, you might find that offensive;
>certainly, many adults would.

Would you consider an alternate explanation? The quest for youth. It has
(till recently) always been complimentary to say that a woman looks 
younger than she is. And it has always been forbidden to inquire as to
age. Modern music takes this to an extreme and uses 'baby'.

Youth (or the illusion) grants a woman an advantage of sorts, at least
the way things are.

But much of the modern usage (IHMO) comes from this source, as a compliment,
and not as the insult it is considered by many women today. I admit that
this can, and -is- used in an insulting fashion. But I do not think that
it is how it came about, or it's use as an insult is a blanket explanation.
 
>As far as "girlfriend/boyfriend" go, there is not an inequality here.
>The problem with "girl" is that it's usually "girl" and "man" (so there
>would be an inequality if it was "girlfriend/manfriend").  If men were
>called "boys" in all the situations that women are called "girls," I
>don't think there would be a problem with the word "girl," either.

I bet that in todays PC world, this would not be as true as you think.
 
>Nonetheless, I prefer to call my SO my SO rather than my "boyfriend,"
>both because I feel that there is an implication of youth in the term
>and because I see our relationship as stronger than what boyfriend
>implies.
>
>Muffy
>--
>
>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: rdc@netcom.com (PATSYMAN)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: MY 12th GRADE BOOK REPORT
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:37:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism,misc.test,talk.bizarre,rec.humor
Organization: SOCIETY TO LOVE ALL SOCIETIES


In 12th Grade I wrote a paper on Feminism.

It was entitled:


	      "These are the Times that Try Men's Souls"



PATSY
-- 
--
cj gypsy
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Last names
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:57:22 GMT
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Distribution: alt.feminism
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

In article <1992Aug26.223406.22202@burrhus.harvard.edu> dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
>I have a question for any "feminists" out there, if there really are
>any.  (I've mostly been reading anti-feminists.)  Let's assume a man
>and a woman have gotten married, and the women kept her last name (i.e.
>no hyphenation).  Then they start having children.  What should the
>children's last names be?  If you do that hyphenation stuff, then you
>burden them with really long last names and just force the decision
>down one generation as to whether patrilineal or matrilinial patterns
>will be embraced.  If you work out some random system or give the boys
>the father's name and the girls the mother's name, then you subject them
>to teasing about being "bastards." [...]

Well in these times of common devorces and remarriages, it is not that
unusual for members of the same family to have different last names.

I think parents are more likely to subject their kids to ridicule by
injudicious choice of their *first* names.

From a "feminist" point of view I'm not sure there should be a unique
answer to this question -- but people should be able to choose what to
do without undue coercion or restraint.

I have friends who have hypenated two 10 character last names together,
others who kept their birth names or names from a prior marriage, and
others who adopted a new middle name on marriage.

-- 
 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: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 00:40:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep3.133941.15637@news.nd.edu> slarsen@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>I've been seeing here various incidents involving various 
>characters, said incidents and characters being described 
>as "sexist".
>
>I am curious as to how people define the term "sexist", as 
>it is used both as a noun and adjective.  What I am looking
>for here is not a dictionary definition but what folks 
>believe sexism to be.  

Well, I see sexism as prejudice or discrimination based soley upon sex.
The dictionary adds - esp against women. I feel that in general,
women are as sexist as men, although they express it differently. I
know several women who have (when discussing crimes) tried, conviced,
and sentenced someone based upon no more info than the sex of the
offender and the crime. I tried changing the sex of one offender and
guilt was automatic and the sentence harsh.

Blatant sexism is not a male thing, except according to some feminists.

>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: equality
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 03:00:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <25AUG199211354714@vx9000.weber.edu> kkidman@vx9000.weber.edu (Kent Kidman) writes:
>
>As far as Olympians are concerned, I think it was Newsweek (I could be wrong on
>this) that compared current female Olympic times for swimming and running to
>men 20 - 30 years ago, and the current women won.  Maybe the reason women
>aren't as fast as men (at least in the Olympics) is that they have been
>discriminated against for so long that they are just behind.  Maybe they will
>catch up if they are allowed to try.

You know, I have difficulty seeing what this means. Women athletes train
just as hard as male athletes, and both have the full benefit of modern
medical research and training. Are you implying that their coaches
say, "yeah <yawn>, you may be able to do it someday". You have made a
distinction where I see no clear difference.

Can you explain -exactly- what this means?
 
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>Kent Kidman                  kkidman@cc.weber.edu
>Department of Mathematics    Weber State University   Ogden, Utah

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:25:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug31.194731.20698@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.071149.15854@news.columbia.edu> mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug29.175416.6446@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>>Dworkin thinks it's important to put intercourse in its historical
>>>perspective.  If you read the book, _Intercourse_, you'll probably
>>>find a lot of her statements offend you, but I think you'll be left
>>>with the feeling of, "yes, many times fucking has been used as a way
>>>of colonizing and oppressing women."  She believes that, given a
>>>sexist society, women cannot treat intercourse as a simple sexual act.
>>
>>So, given an imperfect society, we have to give up our ideals, and say that
>>life is evil?  More importantly, can you justify your behavior with other
>>people on the basis of history?  Can you interpret as you will, and attribute
>>others' actions according to your own biases?  I guess you can.  But I don't
>>think it will serve any useful purpose towards cleaning up our society.  And
>>if this is her attitude, then I have no pity for her.  I am ready to treat
>>her as an equal.  I am even ready to say that women have often been treated
>>poorly by society.  I am not ready to say that I am guilty of hurting any woman
>>or women; I am no oppressor!  Prove otherwise!
>
>I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying.  You seem to be
>saying that we, as individuals, live in a vacuum where we're not
>influenced by history, society, etc.

Tell me, how is -anyone- influenced by history? We live with what history
has left us, but that is day-to-day reality, not the past. 

[...] lots gone

>>She seems to think there is still a chance of making the world a better place
>>for both sexes through increased awareness and understanding of one another.
>>I have no problem with educating men about women.  But I think Dworkin needs
>>a lesson about reality.  The reality is that she is a fanatic.  The world
>>isn't perfect, but she really needs to clean her glasses!
>
>Hmmm...  So, if she is a fanatic, what then?  Instant dismissal of all
>her ideas?

You would uncritically accept the writings of a fanatic? (I'd use the
word extremist here BTW). Rather, take with a few metric tons of salt.
If you have the time and inclination, the best thing to do would be to
check things out and draw your own conclusions. But there is not enough
time in life to do this for every extremist/fanatic/whatever. It is
simpler to ignore most of these things, or dismiss them out of hand.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:10:04 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Aug28.052723.8947@news.columbia.edu>, 
mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>>makes it even more degrading. Dworkin contends that material depicting
>>women as enjoying sex is worse than the Nazis' treatment of the
>>Jews:"The Jews didn't do it to themselves and they didn't orgasm....
>>No one, not even Goebbels, said that the Jews liked it.
> 
> Well, if she believes in God who created human beings, male and female, 
> then I believe she would say that God is sexist, and the architect of female
> suffering.  I guess she would have to say that God is a man!

I believe that Andrea Dworkin is an Athiest of Jewish descent.

> I find these spoutings of hers insensitive, offensive, sexist and bigoted, 
> and they offend me, as a human being, a Jew, and a man.

How do you find offense as a Jew here?  Being of Jewish descent myself, I 
don't see it.

> I truly wonder whether she can conceive of a loving relationship with a member
> of the opposite sex.  

John Stoltenberg would seem to think so...

> I won't tell her what kind of relationships to have or
> not to have, but I think she is only declaring her own bias by asserting that
> sexual intercourse is and is only a degredation of females by males.

I don't know if their relationship is sexual, but it is certainly hetero...
 
> How interesting that she brings up Jews in her "argument".  She must not know
> that in modern Judaism, sex is one expression of the ultimate human
> relationship that is almost divine:  marriage.  It is *not* at all sinful!
> That relationship is two-sided and, contrary to Dworkin's view of the world,
> Jewish men are required to provide sex *for* their wives.  Furthermore,
> married couples are supposed to enjoy the pleasures of sex on the Sabbath as
> a way of enhancing the beauty and perfection of the Sabbath, and it presumably
> also makes the sex more of a Divine experience.

None of this has anything to do with her usage of the treatment of Jews in the 
Holocaust.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism