HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: equality by regression?
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:13:14 +1200
Distribution: alt.feminism
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand


sk73171@ee.tut.fi (Sami Petteri Kiiskil{) writes:
> 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...
> ...For example in the case of rape by 
> removing the organs required to execute the unwanted procedure.

yes, good one, brilliant. Remove the penii of all male children at birth.
There will be no more rapes. um, well, no? Violent sexual violation I
suspect would increase markedly. Men would have a real axe to grind,
I think.

Of course, this violates all sorts of laws and theories.

I do not favour killing, maiming or mutilating anyone. ever.
I think it is possible to remove the incentive to rape, remove or
reduce the factors that cause 99% of rapes. And I believe that
feminism will provide many of the methods and philosophies we
need to do this.

MOZ
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: ERA question
Date: 26 Aug 92 15:26:36
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: usa
	<1992Aug26.203604.24107@msc.cornell.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu's message of Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:36:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.203604.24107@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>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.

Nothing at all...I don't believe that anyone has said that there was
anything wrong with this.  I can't speak for Richard, but I think the
point is that those are *stupid* things to be worried about (well,
particularly the bathroom one...*grin*) and that that sort of argument
obscured the real *point* of the amendment so that today, all people
remember is things like that.  In fact, on soc.feminism recently, some
guy claimed that the ERA said that *women*, specifically, should be
treated better and didn't say anything about men's rights.  Clearly
(from the posted text) that is not true, but no one remembers that
because of all the ridiculous rhetoric that was used against it.

Honestly, are you afraid of unisex bathrooms?  Doesn't it seem rather
ridiculous to vote against a proposed law on this basis?  Would you vote
*for* the ERA if there was a stipulation that bathrooms remain
segregated?  As far as the draft goes, I would think that men would
*like* the fact that it implies that women should be drafted, too.  Or
that it woudl give women more reason to fight against the draft.

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: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:12:37 GMT

smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:

>How important is it to change the language to make it non-sexist?  For
>instance, back at college, one campus (which comprised of only women)
>organization decided to get the school to change the term "freshman"
>with "first-year student" within the university.

I think that "first year student" is fine.  I don't think that there's
anything wrong with this terminology.  Not only do I think it is non-sexist,
but I also think that it takes into account that a lot of older men and women
are returning to school.  I don't think it is especially appropriate to 
call a 45 year old man entering college for the first time a "freshman" 
since he's obviously got a lot of life experience.

>Is this such an important issue?  If so, how far does one take it?  Is
>the term "student" sexist because it has "stud" in it?  What about
>other languages which have words which imply only one sex?

Don't be silly.  The word "man" in freshman is gender-specific.  The
word "student" comes from the Latin word "studeo" meaning to study.
There is absolutely NOTHING gender specific in the word "student."  
Please be careful about the etymologies you use.

>What do you now call a student who transfers as a junior from another
>college but only get's X# of credits transferred and now is at a high
>freshm*n level?  It's the student's third year but they're a
>first-year student?

Yes, because they have only completed the "first year" of studies,
technically.

>Is the language issue more important than fighting for equal pay, or
>is it a minor but important step in the fight for equal rights?

I think that language reflects society.  And I think it is important that
people realize that the words they use do have an impact upon people.
Think carefully about the words that have been used to describe a weak
man and you will realize that sexism is inherent in that language: "sissy"
"ef/feminate/" "girlie-man" (Not to mention homophobia, which I believe
is directly related to sexism.)

Think about the words used to describe women in the past and you will see
that they reflect weakness: "chick" (a tiny bird) "babe" (an infant)
"pussy"

Think about the curses we use in English.  If you tell someone to 
get "f***ed" or if you say "I'm going to f*** you up" you're basically
saying that you think the person should be put in the woman's position
during a rape.  

I wouldn't say it is more or less important than fighting for equal
pay.  I wouldn't say it is a minor step.

I don't just want equal pay as a woman, I want equal respect.  I would like
my femaleness to be affirmed and valued.  And not just because of my
sexuality, but because of my humanity.  Because being a woman is a good
thing.  Just as being a man is a good thing.

Sharon O'Neil
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: cfaks@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Alice Sanders)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 00:14:19 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

My sister works for a big car rental compnay in CA.  She is in sales.
Most of the sales people are women.  There is one male sales rep.  The
boss sends this man out one day per month with each of the female reps,
"for variety".  The women do not go into each other's territories.  This
man horse-plays with the women, - 'tickles' them, messes up their hair,
generally 'mauls' them, in the name of 'fun'.  They hate it.  My sister
complained to the manager.  She is now required to have the assistant
manager go with her on her job four days per week!  

They also have these golf outings with customers.  The man plays golf with
the customers ( and mauls his female co-workers) while the women serve
beer to the players.  My sister also reported this to the manager.
Trouble is she is the only one of the women who will speak up because they
are afraid of exactly what happened to my sister.  

Also, the manager is a woman; thought I should add that.


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:28:28 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation

england@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (julie england) writes:

>> In article <1992Aug25.183639.16010@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
>> 
>>    Has anyone had any experience with blatant sexism?  By this I mean some
>>    decision making that was OBVIOUSLY based on sex where sex had no logical
>>    I guess I'm either blind or lucky.  If the former, please open my eyes.
>>    Paul

>I had an statistics (econ) instructor who was fond of giving us
>homework and exam questions that compared women to men.  Such as:
[prelude]
>why he did this, and in front of the entire class, he said, "Well,
>I really don't think women are as intelligent as men".  In front
>of everyone! The women in the class just couldn't believe it.  I
>couldn't believe it!  I'd never run across such a blatent statement
>before, though I had suspicions that that was how most men felt.

>Has anyone come across this perception so blatently before?  Do men
>(and society as a whole) still feel this way?  It is sometimes hard
>to believe.  This happened to me about 6 years ago, so I imagine
>it is still a common perception.  The instructor, by the way, was
>a graduate student, fairly young, and in my opinion, should have
>known better!!!

exactly..this is a perfect example of how far we have NOT come..
I don't think things have changed dramatically in `most' men's
attitudes except that `most' now know the politically correct thing
to say in `public'. For instance, where I work I heard someone saying,
" Why don't we hire a `girl' to do that administrative work?"..then
another man says, " Why do you assume an administrator would be
a `girl'?"..at which point I said to myself, Wow..there is another
man who has woken up, until he added soto vocce, " There are too
many feminists around here to be saying stuff like that out loud "..
what a let down..:-(

It is not so much specific examples of decision making based on sex
that one should be looking for , as general attitudes about gender based
roles which `effect' all of ones decisions unconciously.
Even the most well intentioned and politically correct men continue to
play rougher with their male kids then their female kids, and women
continue to buy frilly dresses for their little girls who are out
romping in the mud with their 7 year old peers.. From childhood on,
you have been conditioned to respond to men one way and women another
for almost every situation. This carries over to adulthood whether
it be acedemia or business or just social interactions. The trick is
to start `noticing' where you make these distinctions in gender relations
and to start asking what makes sense and what does not..

>Just my $.02.

Just my $.01
/al

>Julie
From: ejh@khonshu.khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Organization: /home/khonshu/ejh/.organization
Date: 25 Aug 92 14:47:11

In article <1992Aug25.183639.16010@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:

   Has anyone had any experience with blatant sexism?  By this I mean some
   decision making that was OBVIOUSLY based on sex where sex had no logical
   part in the decision.  I am trying to find out what this is, because all
   through school, university, and now graduate school I have never really
   witnessed what I thought was sexist (other than on TV, books, etc).  I
   am particularly interested in sexism in universities.

   I guess I'm either blind or lucky.  If the former, please open my eyes.

   Paul

Yes, I have. I was the editor of my University paper at a time when
our University President was accused of sexual harrasment. But that's
not what I'm talking about. During the big stink that naturally
followed (and in which he eventually was removed from his post), there
was a lot of talk about sexual harrassment and sexual harrassment
issues. As part of our newspaper's stories I talked to a lot of
professors about sexual harrassment and they were all, of course,
appalled and outraged that it had happened. But at this time there was
a certain professor who had been at the U. for maybe 20 years who was
very well known for groping and making suggestive comments to you
freshman guys. He was so well known that when I brought up the story
to the Dean of the College of Science he identified the professor by
name. I actually saw this professor make comments and grab guys in
ways that, had he done them to women, would have had picketers in
front of his office and demands for his dismissial (as happened to the
U. President, although his case was far more boarderline - whether or
not he sexually harrassed the woman is question was much more a matter
of interpretation). No one really cared about this groping professor,
because he only did it to boys. In particular the members of the
Women's Studies Committee did not seem very interested at all. That
was the most blatent case of sexual discrimination I ever wittnessed.

				Ed Hartnett

--
Edward Hartnett			ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:30:21
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<715423078.17379@minster.york.ac.uk> <7439@skye.ed.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk's message of 3 Sep 92 15:27:35 GMT

In article <7439@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <715423078.17379@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:

>>best to use the word "woman" as a substitute (and mean it and not just as
>>a vacuous substitution when the speaker would still rather use the derogatory
>>term "girl"). 

>So in addition to saying something something different, we have to
>mean something different?  If what we say is of so little importance,
>why can't we just mean something different (which I already do)?

I don't think that the previous poster was saying that what you say is
unimportant.  I think the point was that if you don't *mean* what you
say, then it is pointless to make the change.

Unfortunately, the people you are speaking to have to determine what you
mean from the words you use.  If those words mean something specific to
them (such as "calling an adult female human a 'girl' is usually
derogatory"), then that is the meaning they will perceive, regardless of
what was going on in your head when you produced the sentence.

Now, this doesn't mean that you (or anyone else) have to change what
you're doing, but you wanted to know why you couldn't just mean
something different.  You *can*, but it's unlikely that most people will
*know* it unless you change your language to match, since all we know is
what words you use, not what is going on in your head.  An alternative
is to continually put disclaimers in, or explain yourself later, but
that seems to be more trouble than just changing the words you use.

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: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Proposed Massachusetts legislation H.5194
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:09:21 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <+tbnvvn.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> As long as we are dealing with things not claimed, add in the "these bills
> will be passed" above. I do claim that several cities/states have adapted
> laws drafted by Dworkin and MacKinnon.

And then set a new land speed record for getting tossed out as
unconstitutional.  Dworkin Mackinnon laws don't stand up in court, and thus
stop being laws real quick.

> extremists and communism in action. I am not claiming that they are
> the whole of feminism, not even representative. But they (Dworkin,
> MacKinnon, and those who think as they do) need to be watched carefully.

Earlier on you were in fact coming across as stating that Dworkin and
Mackinnon's attitudes were representative.

-- 
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
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 19:02:00 GMT
Organization:  The following is all GERG'S fault!  
Distribution: usa

In article <181h94INNiu@cs.utexas.edu> russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams) writes:
>
>Hold on, is there actually a real difference between perfume and cologne?
>I always assumed they were basically the same chemically, and they just
>call it "perfume" for women and "cologne" for men for marketing reasons.

As I understand it, cologne is nto as strong as perfume, and hence the smell
is not as strong, and it doesn't last as long. Not that I'm an authority,
though...I hate the stuff.

>You're not alone.  Too many women spend an hour each morning to achieve
>a Tammy Faye Bakker effect.  A waste of time and money and packaging
>and animal experimenation and...
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now, time, money and packaging I'll give you, but animal experimentation? I've
gotten the impression that the Mary Kay Commandos were one of the few cosmetics
manufacturers still using animals. They and others like them say it is the only
way to accurately test the products...I buy Estee Lauder products because they
no longer use animals in their testing...they say.

>R
   Tyger

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
 
                       
        
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Re: Gun Control
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:42:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.065443.1141@mr.med.ge.com> bednarek@picard.med.ge.com (Dennis Bednarek Mfg 4-6971) writes:
>I think that you might have posted in the wrong board.  From all the posts
>here a majority of them are from males.

And many of them are feminist.

>I really could not say what board
>is most read by females.

Many might be reading but not posting.

In article <BtLHJ9.B61@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
>As quoted from <1992Aug25.170015.764@igor.tamri.com> by donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin):
>
>> In article <BtJLFF.2Do@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> olmstead@sail.uwaterloo.ca
>> writes:
>
>My mother used to be virulently (and stupidly) anti-gun.  The only thing she
>ever had to say was "Getridofthegunsgetridofthegunsgetridoftheguns".  Then 
>somebody hit her in the head and took her purse.  Her line changed to:
>"Buymeagunbymeagunbymeagun".  I find this a typical pattern.  Nobody should 
>have a gun... until they need it.  Of course by then it's usually too late. 
>
>If women want to be independant of the goodwill of men for their survival,
>they'd better be willing to defend that independance.  Stern lectures
>do not an effective defense make, especially against serial rapists.

Just remember:  Don't carry a gun unless you are prepared to use it.  Otherwise
your would be rapist/mugger can use it against you!  Also, if you use it, you
had better have a permit...the police are sure to investigate :-)  Permits
are hard to come by in NY, guns are not!

For that matter, short term partners are easier to come by than decent
relationships....  :-(

 * * * * *  =================== Internet address is  mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * == Meir I. Green == Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
 * * * * *  = mig@columbia.edu= Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@K2KJC.NY.USA.NOAM
* * * * * * =================== Amateur TCP/IP       N2JPG@uhm.ampr.org
From: russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 1 Sep 1992 23:51:48 -0500
Organization: Great Northern Hotel
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Aug31.202905.27496@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>Deodorant is alright (and sometimes necessary) but perfume?  When I
>take the morning bus into New York City, some women have so much
>perfume on it's sickening.  It has a worse effect than freshly chopped
>onions!  My eyes water, my throat gets itchy, my nose gets stuffed up.

I agree.  Perfume stinks.

>There are also men who use too much cologne, but the perfumes (to me)
>usually have a sharper scent.

Hold on, is there actually a real difference between perfume and cologne?
I always assumed they were basically the same chemically, and they just
call it "perfume" for women and "cologne" for men for marketing reasons.

>It's just that using these products seem to (more often than not) do the
>opposite of what they're purpose is.  Am I alone in this thinking?

You're not alone.  Too many women spend an hour each morning to achieve
a Tammy Faye Bakker effect.  A waste of time and money and packaging
and animal experimenation and...

R
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:31:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug31.125359.8131@NeoSoft.com> jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.074439.20088@news.columbia.edu>, mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>> Eureka!  She is simply trying to anger women into an uprising so they will
>> o'erthrow the evil males!  Logic?  what logic? ...
>  
>Why would Dworkin's ideas "anger women into an uprising?"  IMO, there is
>germ of truth in her work in that SOMETIMES intercourse is used for
>political purposes.  

I have not yet read her book, I will as soon as time permits, but by 
understanding was that she has stated that -all- acts of intercourse are
acts of opression, unless the woman is suitably enlightened that is.

From what I understand that "SOMETIMES" you have used is not part of Dworkin's
political theory. Is this correct?

>                    If inequities in the workforce,

I still do not understand what "inequities in the workforce" have to do
with anything. Can anyone tell me why, given absolutely no bias of any
kind, the workforce would be exactly 50% male and 50% female all 
fields? This is just another ad-hoc assumption. 

>                                                     in medical research,
>in the judicial system, etc. don't anger women enough to 'o'erthrow the
>evil males,' I can't see an academic treatise on sexual politics doing it.
>-- 
>Jaclyn Brandt
>jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
>--

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism