HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: panda@syrinx.umd.edu (Lisa Nyman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Lipstick
Date: 12 Sep 1992 16:55:15 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland at College Park
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

about this makeup discussion....

My office is %50 women professionals (in a techincal field) and I'd say
that only 2 of the 10 women wear any makeup regularly.  Now we never deal
with the Public or customers and I wonder if women in those types of jobs
feel more compelled to wear make-up.  Now, when I do decide to go all
'dressed up' to work, I sometimes get all these compliments from the male 
workers, like "Wow, don't you look nice!".  Now this really bothers me.
Don't I ever look nice when I'm in the natural mode?

A freind of mine works as a leasing agent at an apartment complex and it
is required that she wears panty-hose, all the time (not with pants, I'd 
think) and I wonder just how legal this is.  In fact, one woman in that
office has an alergy to nylon and the bosses tell her to put some form
of bronzer on her legs.  I wonder about the legality of this, as well.

-- 
Lisa Wolfisch Nyman         "Life is too short to wear ugly underwear."
panda@syrinx.umd.edu                    
Just remember, geographers do it in places unknown to the general public.
New from Dweeb Publishers: Memoirs of a Workstation Widow, Oh the Agony of It


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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.
Xref: sparky soc.feminism:2134 news.answers:2835
From: hahn@sunshine.labs.tek.com (Doug Hahn)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: bashing feminism in soc.feminism
Date: 14 Sep 1992 22:34:19 GMT
Organization: Software Technology Research Lab, Tektronix Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

bhattach@engin.umich.edu's messag remarks that 
> By banning or censoring posts that call into question the
> rationale behind feminist thought, this group would be doing itself
> a great disservice.  This would be tantamount to closing one's
> ears to criticism and would circumscribe the terms of the debate
> within this newsgroup to a considerable extent . Bear in mind that
> in parliamentary democracy the opposition has as important a role  
> to play as the government. If you ban the opposition, what you
> get is a dictatorship.

While I agree that in the lawmaking process, it is important to have
good representation of opposing points of view of the population
(assuming what you have is really a democracy), I really don't see how
this translates to a discussion group, where the point is the
discussion is as education for the participants.  It is exactly by
"circumscribe[ing] the terms of the debate" that it becomes possible to
penetrate deeper into intelligent discussions about the topic, instead
of getting bogged down in boring rehashes of decade-old arguments
about the whether certain issues are even important or not.

Sayan is perfectly free to bring up just such a discussion on
many other (hopefully somewhat appropriate) newsgroups.  I'm sure a
number of people that subscribe to soc.feminism read higher S/N ration
groups like soc.men (which seems to have multi-year ongoing debate
where people not yet burned-out on usenet "question the rationale
behind feminist thought" and soc.women (or alt.feminism maybe-soon).
Or you could contact posters of soc.feminism directly and try to start
a mailing list.

--
 | Doug Hahn, CRL, Tektronix, PO Box 500/MS 50-662, Beaverton, OR 97077
 | (503) 627-6419    ...!tektronix!crl.labs!hahn  hahn@crl.labs.tek.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: dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.COM (Dan Welch)
Subject: Re: Lipstick
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:04:13 GMT

In article <192r1rINN9s3@agate.berkeley.edu> uunet!heifetz!rphroy!cmsa.gmr.com!LMEANS@ncar.UCAR.EDU writes:
>In article <1915sdINN2ng@agate.berkeley.edu>
>enigma@netcom.com (Enigma) writes:
>>Now men and women dress very
>>differently, even when they're not at work.
>
>To me, the pattern is a manifestation of Susan Faludi's "backlash":
>the threat to male dominance caused by the leveling of male/female
>appearances became intolerable, leading to a backlash in which
>women met with increasing pressure to feminize/differentiate their
>clothing.

Or maybe some women decided that they liked to be feminine, and to hell
with sticking to the party line -- no, that can't be it, because in
that scenario, women are free-thinking human beings, with the right and
the power to control their own lives.  That's the *last* thing the
arch-feminists like Faludi want; it takes away their control of women's
lives.

Feminism, in most of its current manifestations, has imprisoned women
much more effectively than the "patriarchy" ever did.  Women aren't
allowed to make the choice of a traditional female role without being
blasted by other women.  If they do anything but choose the career
oriented, I'll-make-it-alone-and-to-hell-with-you track they are
ridiculed as slaves to the patriarchy.

Feminism is not helping women's progress.  In fact, I'd say things are
worse for women than ever.  Ironically, a lot of feminists would probably
agree with that, but would have come to that conclusion in a vastly
different way.

Daniel Welch
----
What an abyss divides the sexes!  Let us abandon the pretense of sameness
and admit the terrible duality of gender.

				-- Camille Paglia


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Webster)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Lipstick
Date: 10 Sep 1992 17:53:56 GMT
Organization: Grebyn Timesharing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Mik Bickis writes:
>I don't pretend to speak for all men, but I personally think this is a
>non-issue.  Whether or not a woman wears lipstick, or any other
>decorations, is irrelevant to me.

We're missing the point, though, if we only look at this issue from a
"personal" level.  The discriminatory hiring/firing practices documented
in Naomi Wolf's book are real, and *do* entail such things as whether or
not a woman wears makeup.

>But, having said the above, if some women feel they have to or want to
>paint their faces, why is it such a big deal?  Does it really take
>*that* much time and expense?

The time and expense are relevant, but the more important point is 
about the social pressure behind the beauty myth.  If a woman feels
she *has* to wear makeup, in order to keep her job, that is very
different from her *wanting* to wear makeup because it makes her
feel good.  

The problem I have when someone says--with regard to any form of
discrimination--that "for me it's a non-issue," is that the dismissive
attitude suggests that the problem doesn't exist, that people who
worry over it in such forums as soc.feminism are nattering on about
nothing.  

At considerable risk of sounding pompous here: Until the beauty myth
is a non-issue for *everyone*, it remains an issue, for all of us who
desire change in society.

						--Fiona Webster


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: uunet!mailrus!gatech!meshugge.media.mit.edu!cindy@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Cindy Blank-Edelman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Lipstick
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:54:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.18vknoINNpo1
	<18m6eaINN6k9@agate.berkeley.edu> <18oq3vINNml1@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<18rbdbINN5k7@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Robert C. writes::

[quoting me:]

>> So, would fake beards and the like be an "extravagance"?  A
>> non-issue?  Even if, eventually, all the men on TV and in the
>> magazines had beards?  Even if a man or two were fired because he
>> refused to wear a fake beard?
 
>         I think this analogy misses the point.  It implies that men
> are not subject to social and work pressures on appearance, and that
> isn't true.

I did not say that men are not subject to social and work pressures on
appearance, nor did I mean to imply that.  I was responding to Mr.
Bickis' statement that make-up was, for him, a "non-issue".  My
analogy was an attempt to make the issue more understandable from a
male point of view.  I could not think of a real life situation for
men that is as analogous to the make-up situation as this one was --
one that was expensive, involved covering up one's face in some way to
look attractive, and was socially expected for men.  Clothing is an
example, of course, but not one unique to men.  Make-up, however, is
an issue unique to women, and the fact that men don't wear make-up (in
general) is, in my opinion, significant.  I'd be glad to hear a better
analogy, or of any instances that men could cite of similar forms of
pressure on appearance.

--Cindy Blank-Edelman


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: pmw2c@csissun12.ee.Virginia.EDU (Paul Michael Wayner)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Lipstick
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:40:02 GMT
Reply-To: pmw2c@csissun12.ee.Virginia.EDU (Paul Michael Wayner)
Organization: University of Virginia
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <18oq3vINNml1@agate.berkeley.edu>, Cindy Blank-Edelman
<uunet!mailrus!gatech!meshugge.media.mit.edu!cindy@ncar.UCAR.EDU>
writes:

|> What if men wore fake mustaches and beards?  They could put them on
in
|> the morning and take them off at night.  They could have different
|> colors to match their clothing or their moods.  They would be
|> expensive (say $25-$40), and need replacing at least once a year.
|> Although the fake beards make some attempt to look "natural" and
|> "highlight" men's natural features, everyone can easily tell that
they
|> are fake, and in fact, men make no effort to conceal this fact.
|> 
|> (I would have brought up toupees, except that they are supposed to
|> look "natural", and I assume you don't need a lot of them.)

Ms. Blank-Edelman's analogy is a pretty good one (although shaving can 
easily cost $25-$40), and has a historical equivalent, the wearing of
wigs in 18th Cent. Western Europe.  The wigs
were generally unnecessary and obviously fake, yet fashion dictated it.
They were worn as a badge indicating class, not as a form of
oppression.

Perhaps makeup for women is currently viewed as oppressive because it is
merely a bother and no longer a mark of distinction, since almost anyone
can afford it.  

					Paul Wayner 


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: shimeall@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Books in Bookstores (was Re: Waldenbooks fires)
Date: 15 Sep 1992 22:34:24 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: shimeall@cs.nps.navy.mil (timothy shimeall)
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

[Moderator's note: This is in response to an article on another newsgroup.]

In article <1992Sep11.195625.10024@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>To say that a business owner _must_ sell any particular product, or that
>a business _can't_ sell a particular (legal) product is ridiculous.

Welcome to the real world of the 1990s.  I just came from our local
copy of the Navy's Sexual Harrassment training.  The trainer at our
session noted that "Playboy", "Penthouse", etc. will probably be banned
>from the campus bookstore in the near future.  Not for moral grounds,
but to reduce the Navy's potential legal exposure to sex harrassment
complaints...  I'd imagine all joke books will be carefully examined as
well.  In the post-Anita-Hill world, this will likely be more and more
common.

				Tim
-- 
Tim Shimeall ((408) 646-2509)
The proper response to detecting a bug isn't to fix the bug - it's to make 
sure you'll never have to worry about that bug again.  --- Richard Hamming


-- 
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: falcao@felix.Metaphor.COM (Ronnie Falcao)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Lipstick
Date: 10 Sep 1992 00:58:24 GMT
Organization: Metaphor Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <Bu9sn4.5pC@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> alubiw@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Anna Lubiw) writes:
>I recently visited the home a 2-year old girl, who was playing with 
>a lipstick her mother had given her, and offered that I should put some on.  
>After I declined a couple of times, she looked at me in puzzlement 
>and suspicion, and asked, "Are you a lady or a man?"

I'm really interested in hearing more of this story.  What was
your answer?  What was her response?

I'd also appreciate any references to discussions of how
perception of gender develops in children.  I've seen books
on raising kids in a gender-free environment, but these
have a different focus.  Thanks.

	- Ronnie

falcao@metaphor.com



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: uunet!cmcl2!lab.ultra.nyu.edu!cruz@ncar.ucar.EDU (Nancy Cruz)
Subject: Re: Lipstick
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: New York University Ultracomputer Research Lab
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:04:45 GMT

In article <190a5mINNs2n@agate.berkeley.edu> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>If I attempted to get a job wearing a dress, I don't think I
>would succeed.  I think if I wore a dress to the job I now
>have, I would be fired.  On the other hand, several women
>wear rather masculine garb to this job.  Likewise, if I wore
>lipstick, I think I'd be fired; but most of my female co-
>workers do not wear lipstick on the job, and no one thinks
>much about it.

The one point missed, that I would like to add, is that at least the
rule is clear for men.  You (male) wear a dress to work, the
probability of loosing your job is high.  However the rules for women
are mixed.  Women loose in court because they look too good or because
they don't look good enough.  So as written in the Beauty Myth, women
literally have 'nothing to wear'.

Nancy

--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Nancy Cruz - a.k.a. "Tensha, the Icewoman" |   New York University    |
|      cruz@lab.ultra.nyu.edu                |Ultracomputer Research lab|
+--------------------------------------------+--------------------------+

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Anyone noticed the new mudflaps?
Date: 15 Sep 1992 19:02:55 GMT
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <193c5iINNdkp@agate.berkeley.edu> mahadeva@point.cs.uwm.edu (Aruna Mahadevan) writes:
> I was driving on I-5 in California a few days ago, and noticed
>this mudflap on a truck.  It has the silhouette of naked women on it. 
>Is there anything anyone can do to stop this
>before it becomes a very common thing?

   I think the public nudity issue is one of the more interesting conflicts
relating to feminism. Some women say (as this person) that pictures (or
silhouttes, even) of naked women are demeaning and offensive, while other
women say that they have a right to go topless in public. Both under the
banner of feminism.
   Is there a way to reconcile these points of view? I can't think is a
train of thought that would allow women to go topless, and at the same time
prohibits diplays such as the mudflaps described here.
   I think it just goes to show that there is no concensus group called
'feminists'.

DanZ


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  



-- 
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: rdh@veritas.com (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Challenging assumptions about child custody
Date: 10 Sep 1992 15:48:37 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <185hj9INNk17@agate.berkeley.edu> dgross@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
>The Men's Movement has become a big issue in soc.feminism lately.  I'm not
>sure if this is because of posters from the men's movement stirring up the
>pot, or because of the book excerpt by Phyllis Chesler et al. posted here
>a few weeks ago, or a combination of both.

I think it's some of both, and I'm very glad that you took the time to
make the point that one can't just pick and choose which gender issues
need to be reformed when they're part of a symbiotic interacting
system.  If you don't attack the whole system, the problems just shift
around and take on new guises.

To that end, a discussion of men's issues might well be relevant in
soc.feminism.  However, an "is not is so" argument does not constitute
a discussion.

[ description of the custody chestnuts and S.F. Bay Area statistics deleted ]

> ... You can't
>get rid of only half of the sex roles.  The emancipation of women goes hand
>in hand with the destruction of the pedestal woman has been placed upon.
> ...
>The whole system of sex roles is symbiotic.  You can't just throw away the
>ones you don't like and keep the ones you're fond of.  The whole system has
>to go.  Maternal preference in child custody is the linchpin for a whole
>family of sex-roles having to do with mother-as-caretaker/homemaker and
>father-as-breadwinner/public-sector-actor.

Well, maternal preference is one of the linchpins.  The converse is also
true.  Male preference in outside opportunities is another linchpin for a
whole family of sex-roles having to do with male-as-soldier/female-as-prize.
Insofar as the men's movement ignores the very real issues around unequal
treatment of women, it loses both credibility and relevance.

As does any brand of feminism that ignores the issues of men.

-r


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: rberlin@birdland.Eng.Sun.COM (Rich Berlin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Wolf's Iron Maiden (Was Re: man discovers why pin-ups at work are inherently offensive)
Date: 9 Sep 1992 05:48:41 GMT
Organization: SunPics -- A Sun Microsystems Business
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <18h95bINNab5@agate.berkeley.edu> aen@cs.brown.edu (Ann Nicholson) writes:
>I read this book a while ago and I dont have a copy to check with,
>but I recall the Iron Maiden imagery as being rather more complicated
>than simply "anorexic". 

I concur; it's a broad and powerful metaphor for all aspects of the Beauty
Myth.  From the opening chapter:

    The resulting hallucination materializes, for women, as something all
    too real.  No longer just an idea, it becomes three-dimensional,
    incorporating within itself how women live and how they do not live: it
    becomes the Iron Maiden.  The original Iron Maiden was a medieval
    German instrument of torture, a body-shaped casket painted with the
    limbs and features of a lovely, smiling young woman.  The unlucky
    victim was slowly enclosed inside her; the lid fell shut to immobilize
    the victim, who died either of starvation or, less cruelly, of the
    metal spikes embedded in her interior.  The modern hallucination in
    which women are trapped or trap themselves is similarly rigid, cruel,
    and euphemistically painted.  Contemporary culture directs attention to
    imagery of the Iron Maiden, while censoring real women's faces and
    bodies.

-- Rich

p.s. Does anyone have archived the previous soc.feminism discussions
     of this book (particularly the ones from last spring/summer)?  I've
     been trying to locate them, but to no avail.
--
===============================================================================
Richard.Berlin@Eng.Sun.COM   |   The significant problems we face cannot be
			     |   solved at the same level of thinking we were
			     |   at when we created them.  -- Albert Einstein


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Kent State (Ohio) email configuration?
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:34:41 GMT
Reply-To: ai118@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Rich Zidonis)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


a
KSU has no listing under the college-email faq.  Any KSU students 
aboard who can supply an address and name configuration?
-- 
RAZ     ai118@cleveland.freenet.edu
Xref: sparky soc.college:3787 comp.sys.mac.programmer:15052 misc.education:3305