HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sk73171@ee.tut.fi (Sami Petteri Kiiskil{)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: equality by regression?
Date: 26 Aug 92 09:02:44 GMT
Distribution: alt.feminism
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.



In article <OSIRIS.92Aug25122821@trane.mit.edu> osiris@athena.mit.edu writes:

>  People have been talking about how women favor opressing men.  Well,
> there is a flaw.  Women ARE oppressed.  Andrea Dworkin made a
> wonderful speech (I want a 24 hour truce) about how you will find NO
> women saying (and really believing) that if women went out and raped
> men every three minutes then everything would be alright.  As long as
> women have the threat of rape as a form of sexual slavery, they can 
What makes rape so different from other violent crimes ? The basic reason
for most crimes is that the criminal think that it's possible to get more
from the society by breaking it's rules than by obeying them. If it is
required to lower the amount of crime, the society should provide it's
members means of succes without breakin the rules and simultaneously 
make the cost of rule breaking bigger. For example in the case of rape by 
removing the organs required to execute the unwanted procedure.

> not be equal.  As long as men are taught that men have to be dominant
> in a relationship, there can be no equality.  As long as men think it
Many men still want to have families despite of the work that it causes.
Since most women that are willing to participate in such a relationship
have conservative way of thinking and want their man to be dominant, so
it is necessary for the man to act in such a way even if he wants to be equal.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:43:27 GMT

I've come across incidents, very recently, similar to what Julie describes.  
They all involve several men in the department where I work.  They have made 
comments lately such as:
     "Women can't comprehend mathematics".
     "Women don't understand complicated, technical subjects"
     "Well, [woman's name] will be traveling with us, so I guess we won't be 
able to discuss anything technical in her company.  Don't want to confuse 
her...ha..ha..ha.
     "I don't mean to talk down to you by talking economics...I know you
can't understand those types of subjects..." (this one said to me)
     "Even though [woman's name] didn't understand the technical aspects of the
job, we hired her anyhow because she had such a sweet personality".

Aaaccckkkkk!  So, there's real life examples for you.

carol
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:11:28 GMT
Keywords: Feminism

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>| ...
>| It gives me a warm feeling to know that I can be subjected to "male
>| bashing" everywhere, but it is not personal. Obviously, I have no idea
>| what either "men's" studies or "women's" studies must be about, as both
>| seem to involve male bashing.  ....

>I wonder if the term "male bashing" could be defined.  I get
>the idea that some people feel that any reference to sexism or
>patriarchalism is derogatory to all men.

I think that's a good point. I think a lot of it is perception.
Although it is undeniable that `male-bashing' does occur, and I am
just as quick to point it out as anyone else, a lot of very legitimate
grievances made by women are quickly labled as `male-bashing'.
As I say to my kids, it is not YOU I dislike, but your behaviour.

/al

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 17:21:58 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.142504.13145@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) wri
tes:
>I tried taking a women's studies class in college.  I thought it would
>be interesting to see what I could do to help reduce sexism in our
>society.
>
>What did I find?  Well, for starters, the class focused on what men
>have done to women.  Now while I know this is important, the class
>began to feel like a reprimand.  I was never "in" the class.  The
>teacher switched between the word "women" and "us" while the word
>"Men" was interchanged with "them".
>
>I ended up dropping out of the class halfway through.  I had
>previously had this specific professor for a "Current Moral and Social
>Issues" class and did very well.  I enjoyed her previous class but not
>this.
>
>My question is this: If a guy wants to help out, do feminists want
>them not to?  Is it the feminist's goal to yell at men for
>wrongdoings and not let them participate?
>
>I'm not looking for flames; just some answers.
>
>- Seth

Seth, I don't know what other women will say...but for me, I just don't trust 
men anymore.  So many men give lip service to feminism, but in reality they 
don't support it.  In Susan Faludi's book "Backlash" she gives statistics on 
how many men *really* support feminism; if you get a chance, read it - then 
you'll understand why I - and perhaps so many other women - just don't have any
trust.  I'm not saying *you* don't care, or that you don't support feminism.  
But you're up against the old adage of "how to prove a negative", in this case 
that you're *not* anti-feminism.

And I don't think it is the feminist's goal to yell at men...but we have a lot 
of pent up anger.

carol
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 15:22:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.015137.27277@NeoSoft.com> jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt) writes:
>In article <s3fnffh.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>> 
>> I plan to, although I already do not agree with her views. Of course,
>> she claims that her views reflect my reality, and I feel that I know
>> more about my reality than she does. I do not speak for anyone else
>> in this.
>
>I too found Dworkin's _Intercourse_ a rich source of ideas even though I
>didn't agree with all of her conclusions.  As a result of reading the
>book, I ended up reading five or six other books cited by her.
[...]
> She is an original thinker, but I suspect that she 
>would get some of her points across better if she didn't shock the hell
>out of people (you for example) with some of her universal statements.
>On the other hand, if she didn't do that, you probably would have ignored
>her.
>-- 
	She might also arouse less hostility if she didn't actively support
and push for the passage of repressive legislation designed to give the State
even more control over our private lives than it has already.
	Ideas are not dangerous, IMHO, until the State is pulled in to
enforce them.  Then you've taken them out of the realm of civilized debate
and put them into the law courts.  Dworkin and McKinnon can argue their points
of view all they wish and I'll be happy to listen.  When they propose using
the courts and police to shove them down my throat, I tend to get a bit
annoyed.

>Jaclyn Brandt
>jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
>--

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"All books can be indecent books
		 Though recent books are bolder.
		 For filth (I'm glad to say)
		 Is in the mind of the beholder.
		 When correctly viewed,
		 Everything is lewd."
			-- Tom Lehrer, "Smut"
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:19:28 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Aug31.142504.13145@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>I tried taking a women's studies class in college.  I thought it would
>be interesting to see what I could do to help reduce sexism in our
>society.
>
>What did I find?  Well, for starters, the class focused on what men
>have done to women.  Now while I know this is important, the class
>began to feel like a reprimand.  I was never "in" the class.  The
>teacher switched between the word "women" and "us" while the word
>"Men" was interchanged with "them".
>
>I ended up dropping out of the class halfway through.  I had
>previously had this specific professor for a "Current Moral and Social
>Issues" class and did very well.  I enjoyed her previous class but not
>this.
>
>My question is this: If a guy wants to help out, do feminists want
>them not to?  Is it the feminist's goal to yell at men for
>wrongdoings and not let them participate?

There are:
  1.  a significant number of feminists who are unwilling to accept such help.
  2.  a significant number of feminists who will cheerfully  accept such help.

Give it a second try, perhaps with a friend who also happens to be a feminist.
It helps if you are introduced to "feminist space" by a known individual.

You will still run into some of type 1.  :-(



-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:28:59 GMT

In article <3900@keele.keele.ac.uk> csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton) writes:

>awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING):
>>crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:

>> >"Even though [woman's name] didn't understand the technical aspects of the
>> > job, we hired her anyhow because she had such a sweet personality".
>>
>> Okay, now *that* one is obnoxious and patronizing.  Ick.

> And sexist?

Perhaps.  Depends on the person who says it.  Some people refer to
both men and women as "sweet."  It is patronizing.  Sexist?  Not
enough information to tell.

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"now we find sodom strange take it out put it in your mouth how do you like
gomorrah now a taste of this swallow that feel the fish hide the hat ezekial
where's your wheel you better grease it GREASE GREASE GREASE GREASE! ROCK!!!"
       --Chainsaw Kittens, "Ezekial Walks Through Sodom and Gomorrah"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: question about the devil
From: bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:43:19 -0500
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville
Nntp-Posting-User: bthurman

Has this question been addressed:Can one find as concerted an effort to
demonstrate the femininity of the devil as to demonstrate the femininity (or
feminine attributes) of his/her antithesis?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: FEMINIST/DYKE JOKES WANTED
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:51:31 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation

gworrell@carina.unm.edu (Gayla M. Worrell) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.075718.9555@cc.uow.edu.au> g8231233@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew Warner) writes:
>>
>>If we might think for a moment of the feminist philosophies expressed in this
>>group. Some of them may be considered by some to be invalid or perhaps
>>offensive to ones sensibilities. However, we would not consider for an
>>instant keeping them quiet. Can one in fairness then restrain other people's
>>expression, however abhorrent we may find it.
>>
>Gee, Andrew, I was going along with ya there for awhile, then, THIS! :-)
>I have yet to see *any* feminist philosophies expressed in this group.

>(Go ahead folks, Flame Away!)  

I agree. I just tuned in on this particular group and I am bewildered
about what I have seen so far.. All I have seen so far are rants/flames
and arguments about moderation. As a self described feminist myself,
I was kind of expecting to see what the `net' world was saying on the
subject of feminism with perhaps some references to interesting books
or newsletters, or conferences and some discussion about those. Am I
being overly optimistic ? Maybe I just haven't read enough posts yet..

Ah well.. Maybe I will go get some books and start typing in some
philosophy myself just to get things going. One good thing ( maybe )
is the high number of men looking in.. I am a firm believer that
feminism is not only for women.

/al
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 30 Aug 92 04:41:52 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <MUFFY.92Aug29183841@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>Here's the section from the FAQ:

>> If you
>> have questions about the group, you can send your questions to
>> feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This address will forward your
>> mail to all active moderators (moderators take vacations, too).
>> Please do not send email specifically to any one moderator unless
>> you have been requested to do so, as email addresses may change.
>    
>Here's the signature that we append to every post:

>>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.

>If this is not sufficiently clear, we can add a section to the FAQ.
>Which part of it are y'all having trouble understanding?

Just which part of the english language do you not understand?  The words 'can'
and 'may' are used in these excerpts.  I was taught that those words indicate
options.  If you have a policy where discussions about moderators are 
restricted to email, state that clearly.  Niether of these two excerpts 
mention a restriction.  At best, they relay a preference.

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: slarsen@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:49:01 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Sep2193344@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>A better measure of "equality" would be "waiting time."  Especially
>since it's not the time peeing that is important, but the time standing
>there *needing* to pee...*grin*.  If there is no waiting time, the
>facilities are clearly adequate (or more than adequate).  Now, if it
>*does* take women longer to pee, then their waiting time would be
>reduced if they were given additional toilets, correct?

Since the worst lines I've seen to women's rooms are sporting events, 
concerts, bars, etc. it seems to me a very practical goal to reduce/
equalize waiting times for women.  If the woman is spending so much 
time waiting to use the toilet, she is not spending that time at 
the munchie or trinket counters.  Why keep women waiting to use a 
free toilet when you could be funneling them to drop some extra bucks
at the vending areas?

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 30 Aug 92 11:21:51
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: usa
	<1992Aug28.204754.8256@umr.edu> <hdgn5kh@lynx.unm.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: bevans@carina.unm.edu's message of Sun, 30 Aug 92 07:42:03 GMT

In article <hdgn5kh@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.204754.8256@umr.edu> asparrow@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Angelia Sparrow) writes:
>>However, when pictures were shown to a group of men, most could not
>>tell the difference between clean and madeup.

>But, I'm not that surprised by the results.  Most of the people I know
>who use makeup as an "everyday" thing don't look that different from
>their non-made-up appearance...usually because they don't use much
>more than base, a bit of blush, maybe some mascara/eyeliner.  My
>sister went to modeling school and I've seen her collection of
>"professional" makeup:  Eye shadows, blushes, lip color, mascaras, eye
>liners, eyebrow pencils...she rarely used it outside of photo shoots
>or when she was trying to "look dramatic."  Why?  It's too much of a
>hassle to "do it all."

Indeed.  I used to think it was just a stupid stereotype that women took
forever to get ready for things.  Then I started seeing a woman who
pretty much refused to go out without makeup.  It literally took her
over an hour to get ready, and she didn't look significantly different
to me at the end of it than at the beginning.  I talked to her about
this and she basically said that she was uncomfortable ("felt naked")
without the makeup (and perfume, deodorant, skin conditioner, etc.,
etc.), but couldn't explain it further.  It's frightening how much
someone can be conditioned without knowing it or understanding it even
when they think about it (I'm assuming she was not born with a desire to
put on makeup).

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: charter for alt.feminism
Date: 2 Sep 92 10:27:59
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu


Here's the charter for alt.feminism, from alt.config.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed charter:

Alt.feminism is an unmoderated group for the discussion of feminism and
issues relating to feminism.

All views, pro, anti, or in-between are welcomed, as this is intended to be a
discussion group.  Posters are encouraged to stick to issues (as opposed
to flames), however.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As was pointed out to me on this group, all thise does is *encourage*
people to not flame.  Therefore, Al *snort* was incorrect in claiming
that I had violated the charter of the group by responding to flames.
In addition, the group is said to be for discussion of "issues related
to feminism," and it seems that the posters to this group (the ones that
flamed me, in particular) have definitely shown that they feel the the
moderation of soc.feminism is an issue related to feminism.

So, Al, your claims have no basis.  You'll have to try again to flame
me, I guess.  Sorry to drag the real charter in...I see now why you
refused to send it to me, since it did not support your claims at all.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: slaury@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Susan Laury)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:37:43 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Sep2193344@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <95kn83p.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep2.204503.29629@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>>>Since it takes women approximately 1.32 seconds to pee, and men
>>>approximately 30 seconds, why not just put 3 times as many toilets in the
>>>womens room than the mens?
>
>>Where do you get these numbers? 
>
>I suspect these numbers are incorrect...*grin*.  Nonetheless, I think we
>can safely state that it *does*, on average, take a woman longer to pee
>than it takes a man.  (If you disagree with this, I'm willing to discuss
>it further; if you agree, let's proceed.)

I remember reading the study ... And it is correct that women spend
approx. 3 times more in a bathroom than do men. However, at least
some of the difference was due to the fact that it is primarily
women who take care of children in the bathroom. 

Sus.
-- 
And the speaking will get easier and easier. ... And at last you'll know with
surpassing certainty that only one thing is more frightening than speaking
your truth. And that is not speaking.
		--Naomi Wolf, Commencement Address, Scripps College
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: ERA question
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:04:29 GMT

In <1992Aug26.222810.3115@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rweibl@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Richard A Weibl) writes:

>The arguments may be legitimate, but they really avoided the substantive nature
>of the ERA intent.  The basic argument was that women should not be treated as
>second class citizens solely on the basis of their sex.  That means, more
>importantly than bathroom facilities, that women should receive equal pay for
>equal work; employment, housing, and educational opportunities should not be
>beyond the reach of women because of their sex; and that in issues of family
>rights as defined by law, women should have equal access to resources, 
>property, and government support.

>What the opponents did was ignore these issues, displace the discourse in 
>academic terms, and shaped the debate in a manner that was intended to appeal 
>to irrational fears.

I still don't understand how things would be different if your ERA had passed.
Could somebody please give some meaningful, concrete examples?

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: ERA question
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:01:17 GMT

From article <1992Aug25.181129.14972@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by rweibl@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Richard A Weibl):

> 
> The shrill voices of the opposition effectively seized the initiative and, 
> according to Berry, so distorted the issue that it is no wonder you do not 
> recall this simple wording.  What most people will remember is that "family 
> values" advocates like the "Eagle Forum" lead by Phyllis Shafley argued that 
> the ERA would result in unisex bathrooms and women being drafted into the 
> armed forces.
> 

That's two people who have poo-pooed women being drafted and unisex bathrooms.

Well, it seems to me that they certainly apply under ERA.  Drafting one
sex but not other is certainly not 'equality of rights under the law', and
although you would probably still have separate sex rest rooms it seems it
could not actually be illegal for the opposite sex to enter; it would have
to be segregation by choice and not by law--someone who decided to use the
other restroom at a concert could not be arrested as recently happened.

SEH