HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: The "his", "he" Issue
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:28:32 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

Max Zener:BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate why someone who uses the
> neutered forms in English must necessarily be sexist.

>  
> > Sheheryar:  What is so naive about someone if she thinks that the system
> > is only so good as what it does for us and not vice versa. 
> 
> Max: Well, that particular woman you refer to wouldn't be far from the truth. 

Sheheryar:  That particular "she" is actually also a "he." (conceptual leap 
time, Max!)!
She is as much a neutered form as he.  Think about it.  What, to you,
is the difference between she and he as neutered forms?  It seems
that the only difference you can come up with is that one is "correct" and the
other is not.   And Earlier you
completely misunderstood what I meant by correct/incorrect (given that I did
not state it incredibly clearly but you did not even attempt the "conceptual
leap"!).  What I said then and what mean now is this:  what is "correct" and
"incorrect" in English is something that a bunch of white guys (no offense
meant) decided, right?  It did not decend from the heavens.  What is correct 
today will be incorrect tomorrow.  What is prohibited today will be legal
tomorrow and so on.  When I said "she" in the above statement, I was doing
no different than saying "he."  However, being male you caught that instantly
and commented on the fact that I really meant "a particular woman."  You felt
excluded (not sadly so but still excluded), and that is why you had to 
clarify it.  If so why do you assume that women feel included when the word 
is "man" or "he" or "his"?  If your reply relates to "conventional rules of 
english" and "correct/incorrect" stuff, that is not good enough.  Lets move
away from "systems" and go on to "thinking."  Tell me the real difference
between "she" and "he" Max besides the fact that one includes you and the 
other does not.  The more I think the less I need  to go by the rules.  Kinda
neat, eh?

> Unfortunately, what you originally said was that "a system is only as good as
> the purpose it serves."  Given the context, I took you to mean "only as good as
> the principles to which it claims devotion."  In other words, a system rooted
> in sexism, even if it performs a noble task, is no good.
>    If instead you meant "only as good as what it accomplishes," then I remove
> my remark about naivity.  If that is the interpretaion you espouse, I am glad; 
> not only is it fairly sensible, it is opposed to many of the ideas you
> supported earlier.  


Sheheryar:  Which Ideas does it oppose? 


> 
 

> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: The "his", "he" Issue
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 08:17:35 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.085217.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>   Using the male form as the neutered form _includes_, not excludes, the
>female gender.  Why not change the neutral form to "she?"  Why change it in the
>first place?  Our language has evvolved in this way -- let it stand.  There's
>no particularly good reason to change it (Sherheryar thinking it would be cute
>doesn't qualify as a good reason).

Let's see.  I once read an article which said something to the effect
that, "Like all other mammals, man breastfeeds his young."  Now, given
that the chances of a man breastfeeding his young are very small, is
this the proper use of the generic masculine?  If breastfeeding is a
distinctly female trait but it's still legit to use generic masculines
when talking about it, is it equally legit to talk of his pregnancy or
his uterus? 

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski)
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:22:50 GMT

Here we go again.

According to hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
[...some crap elided...]
>        However, if a verbal-type KKK member works with me, I DO 
> NOT have a "choice" of having to deal with him or not.  I need 
> that "choice."

I think there is some confusion here about what having a choice 
means. Are you forced to work there? No. You *do* have a choice. 
Choice does not necessarily imply desired option (or even 
desirable option). Much of the time, free individuals make 
decisions among options that they like very little. Those 
decisions are still choices, even if they aren't preferred. A 
choice is still a choice even if you may "need" it.

> I believe that I have a right to a "hostility free" workplace 
> BEFORE he has the right to his freedom of speech.  If he makes 
> the environment hostile, he should be fired.

This depends on your definition of "hostility free." If this means 
that this person shouldn't be able to beat you up, throw you in 
jail, or make you "illegal" in some way because he disagrees with 
your opinions, then you are correct: you *do* have a right to a 
"hostility free" workplace. But so does he. You can't throw him in 
jail or make him illegal for expressing his ignoramus views 
either.

OTOH, if you mean that no one should be able to express opinions 
that offend you, then you have no such right. You never have. 
Check you copy of the constitution: free speech? yes, pleasant 
work environment? not there.

Looking at your hypothetical, maybe he should be fired for ruining 
the productive atmosphere of the workplace. Maybe not. This is the 
decision of the employer (who, BTW, *chooses* to employ both of 
you). Of course, I'm not opposed to an employer making whatever 
decision s/he wants - I just oppose the notion that the government 
(politicians) should tell the employer who s/he can or cannot 
employ.

[ .. more elided .. ]
> I repeat that my right to a hostilefree work environment comes 
> before his (not gender neutral since it probably would be a 
> man/boy) right to make my work environment unpleasant.

At least you aren't making the same sort of stereotypical 
assumptions about gender that your hypothetical coworker would 
about race. :^) for the sarcasm challenged.

  - Mike
Disclaimer: I'm lucky if these opinions are even mine by the time 
I've written them down. Don't push it.:->
From: jleduc@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (JonPaul Leduc)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:00:58 GMT
Followup-To: <1992Aug12.215730.15812@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.

(Sheheryar Hasnain) writes:
>>MB: I think there is some confusion here about what having a choice 
>> means. Are you forced to work there? No. You *do* have a choice. 
>> Choice does not necessarily imply desired option (or even 
>> desirable option). Much of the time, free individuals make 
>> decisions among options that they like very little. Those 
>> decisions are still choices, even if they aren't preferred. A 
>> choice is still a choice even if you may "need" it.
>
>SH:  So I see that we're working for the system, eh? And not vice versa. 
>Yes, I also have the choice to make my family starve, right Mike?  Your 
>statements implications are pretty scary, Mike:  Sexually Harrassed women
>should leave if they feel harrassed right?  Hell if we want to get rid of 
>someone in school or work because they're of color or of a different
>sexual orientation, lets harrass the hell out of them  WITH IMPUNITY!!
>Wow what a great thing freedom is, right,Mike?  Remember that a lot of
>people dont have the choice to leave with having to support a family.
>And I don't know about you but, if you look at the economy, does someone
>actually have that choice.  In all seriousness?  If you are Jewish and 
>someone constantly attacks and insults you on the basis of your religion,
>given you are religious, would you feel justice has been done if you 
>end up leaving?   

	I think what you are driving at is not that the person should not
have the right to think you are slime.  They just do not have the right to
go out of their way to make you personally feel like slime.
	Now if you feel it necessary to talk to said person, then they have
every right to tell you the extent of their beliefs. (Only if topic is
relevant to discussion.)  And if they post these beliefs and/or print them
in the paper, you have no right to create a hostile environment for them.
	Equally so, they have no right to bring up issues that have little
to do with your job (ie things like color).  Or drone on beliefs of
credibility without facts (ie sex imferiority).

But if you are just having a problem around them because you know what they
believe, that is 100% your problem. 

>states that all "men are created equal."  Now how can I take, seriously,
>a document that conveniently ignores half the population?

But now we are just being angry.  Just let my generation (femenists
excluded) take the terms mankind and him as generic as they want to.  The
dictionary is defined by our usage, not the other way around as you seem to
think.  These terms are becoming increasingly generic.

--Jean-Paul
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: Gotcha (Re: Summary)
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:39:16 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <77638@ut-emx.uucp>, zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
  
> >SH: The point I'm trying to make is simple:  Who's freedom of speech are you 
> >looking at at when you strike down PC oppressiveness:  Yours or mine?  If
> >you think that I should have not made the blanket statements that I did make,
> >then you're a follower of a different branch of political correctness.  Yes 
> >you too are PC.  Maybe you're not a radical activist fighting for the rights
> >of women and minorities, but you're fighting for your own rights and freedom
> >from being insulted.  Objectivity is relative, which makes it subjective.
> 
  MG...Finally, your
> "objectivity is subjectivity" is nonsense.  I know objectively that racism
> is wrong; it is pig-ignorant, detrimental to progress of all types, and never
> accurate or useful.  I also know that communism is an evil; I see objectively
> what it did to the citizens it governed, to the land it raped, and to the
> economy it was supposed to help.

SH: Your "objective" views are pretty subjective. Tell me how, strictly
objectively speaking that is, communism is evil?  What did you see when
you were in the USSR and other countries in the Eastern Block.  Or did you
read "objective" reports of its evilness? US News? CNN?  C'mon.  Your "views"
(even though you put it as "I know") are not objective but "conservative."
There really is no such thing as objective.  Thats because were're all 
subjective beings.  Simple. (And avoid the "nonsense" talk, it isn't nice)
> 

>MG:   P.C. views support women, minorities and gays (can you tell which
> group is a *majority* in this country?), whereas notions of individual
> responsibility and rights (what you would probably call evil male patriarchy
> or Eurocentrism or some other nonsense) that are a gift of Western civiliza-
> tion favor no one group.  Western standards instead favor success and therefore
> raise the overall quality of life for everyone.

SH:  How do you define "success."  Do you mean "economic success"?"political
success"?  Look at some income distribution statistics in the US.  Who is in 
the top tier?  Who is in the bottom tier?  Is that coincidence?  Or maybe the
ones on the top were harder workers?  Maybe the ones on the top did not
enter the US as slaves?  
And even if economic success has been achieved by a number of people of color
here in the US, does that guarantee them any respect?  If not, then are they
really successful?
Are you sure that you didn't take this out of a Bush speech?? (joke)




Think globally.          
Act locally.             
Buy a Honda!
> 
>
From: mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Looking for a proof...
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:10:58 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University

I'll be away from net access for a week or two, so this will be my last posting
for a while.  In my last couple of posts I have put forth a challenge, which
has yet to be answered.  Here it is again:

   Prove that someone who uses the word "he" as a neutered pronoun is
necessarily sexist.

I'll have some spare time, and I'll try to think of a possible proof, just to
see if I can do it.  I'd love to see some other efforts posted when I get back,
though!

Max Zener
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dave Eisen)
Subject: Re: Looking for a proof...
Organization: Sequoia Peripherals, Inc.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 00:44:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.141058.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> mzener@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>I'll be away from net access for a week or two, so this will be my last posting
>for a while.  In my last couple of posts I have put forth a challenge, which
>has yet to be answered.  Here it is again:
>
>   Prove that someone who uses the word "he" as a neutered pronoun is
>necessarily sexist.

Of course a person who uses the word "he" in that fashion need
not be sexist. There are those who think him insensitive, but
sexist is really a stretch.

My main objection to people using "he" as the neutered form is
that they are not consistent. Most of them end up using "she"
when referring to nurses or secretaries. I have doubts about
anyone I hear defending his use of the male form as the neuter
until I hear him use it when referring to an unknown person who 
stereotype would imply to be female.


-- 
Dave Eisen    dkeisen@leland.Stanford.EDU   Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
          	Some of my best friends are men.
        --- Lisa Nee in "American Women Deserve a Tax Break."
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski)
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:46:31 GMT

In article <viking.713744234@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu 
(Dan Sorenson) writes:
>In <1992Aug13.204955.26397@news.acns.nwu.edu>
> brokow@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Mike Brokowski) writes:
>
>>> SH:  So I see that we're working for the system, eh? And not vice
>>> versa.  
>
>>BZZZT!! Wrong. Next contestant, please. I barely even want there 
>>to *be* a "system" and I'll be damned if I'll work for it. 
>
>	<guffaw!>  Sorry, but there's something slightly strange about
>seeing this from a person posting from an "edu" site.  The "system" is
>what paid for that equipment you're using, and probably partially payed
>for the education you are receiving/had received there.  I find it
>somewhat ironic, anyway.

Perhaps I don't grasp the full extent of the irony here, but NU is a 
private school, not a state school.  Of course I know that government 
money (read "your money") finds its way into most things somehow and 
Northwestern is not entirely excluded.  Nonetheless, the particular 
equipment I'm on is privately owned, even if the UseNet is funded by 
taxes.  

Then again, maybe you meant something else by "system" and I'm just
lost.  Oh well, nothing new - I was even confused by SH's description 
of my views as 'fascist' which was apparently so obvious that it
needed no explanation.

  - Mike Brokowski
  Disclaimer: Views expressed here are the exclusive property of Jean-
  Claude Pernoit's Espreso Bar and Saddle Repair Palace, used with 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: lee@coredump.npac.syr.edu (Lee C Brink)
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
In-reply-to: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU's message of Sun, 16 Aug 92 02:37:17 GMT
Organization: Northeast Parallel Architectures Center (NPAC)
	<1992Aug13.185551.27709@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<LEE.92Aug14134830@coredump.npac.syr.edu>
	<1992Aug16.023717.1174@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 10:17:15 EDT

In article <1992Aug16.023717.1174@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

   As I understand it, the laws are switching to sexual harassment being
   defined as what a 'rational woman' thinks is sexual harassment.  I
   think many women would feel harassed by being leered at and greeted
   with, "Hello, babe."

Sorry about that.  My examples were poor.  I guess a better example would
be "That dress looks nice on you."  Remember I'm trying to come up with
an example which in all probability is innocuous to the speaker, but
could be twisted by the target as sexual harassment.

   >So we should switch to "it"?  That is the technical neuter form of the 
   >pronoun "he" & "she".  I refuse to go through life saying "he or she." "him
   >or her," etc.  simply because someone thinks I was refering only to the
   >male.

   But if you want to communicate with people and most people don't think
   masculine pronouns are generic, are you communicating?  What I have
   been seeing more and more of lately is that people are deliberately
   using plurals or they're using plural pronouns where singular pronouns
   technically should be used (e.g., Did anyone forget their book?).
   Someone recently made a post to soc.wo/men that showed the use of
   plural pronouns where singular ones are correct in English goes back
   hundreds of years.  So, perhaps generic masculine isn't such a great
   concept?

Languages evolve, for better and for worse.  Look at how the law from 100 years
ago is interpreted today [Look at how the law written just a few years ago is
interpreted today :-(].  Look at the 2nd amendment & the huge argument
over the word "militia."

I guess the real question is "Do we want to evolve the language so that 'he or
she' is used instead of just 'he' for the generic pronoun?"  IMO, no.  The 
point of a pronoun is to be more concise.  Technically pronouns never have to
be used at all, as they're a replacement for previously used nouns.  Why
would I want to increase the amount of words I have to type just to placate
nitpickers who take offense to slights such as this?  If minor things such
as the use of a pronoun is enough for someone to scream "sexist," then
IMO nothing will satisfy that person.

  Lee

--
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Lee C Brink	            | Office Support Co-ordinator at NPAC	   |
| lee@nova.npac.syr.edu     | Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 |
|			    | 315-443-1722				   |
+---------------------------+----------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: hasn@midway.uchicago.edu (Sheheryar Hasnain)
Subject: Re: The "his", "he" Issue
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:13:17 GMT

Farthing:  I once read an article which said something to the effect
> > that, "Like all other mammals, man breastfeeds his young."  Now, given
> > that the chances of a man breastfeeding his young are very small, is
> > this the proper use of the generic masculine?
> 
Max Zener: I think I have discovered the source of your confusion.  The term you have
> chosen is quite revelaing.  "Generic masculine" instead of "neutered pronoun." 
> Using the term you have chosen reveals that you cannot see the word "he" as
> being gender non-specific -- hence your objections to its neutered use.  Your
> objection is valid, given your premise that "man" must imply "male," butI doubt
> the language should be changed because you have failed to make the conceptual
> leap involved in seeing "man" as a neutered noun.

Sheheryar:  What is actually revealing is that only women need to make that
"conceptual leap" while the men are already waiting on the other side!!
> 
 Max Zener: The sentence you quoted is correct, even if it sounds silly.

Sheheryar:  A language is only worth what purpose it serves.  "Convention"
and "proper usage" has changed/evolved with social change.  If some people
of this society feel that the generic masculine or the neutered pronouns are
exclusionary then the "need" for change exists.  Simple.  If it sounds silly
change it.  Remember, a system is only so good as what purpose it serves,
and not vice versa.


> 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: muellerm@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (Marc Mueller)
Subject: Re: Misguided Economics
Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:45:29 GMT

A short summary of price supports: 40 billion dollars of tax money being used
to raise food prices for the rest of us.  Your money was used to pay dairy
farmers to slaughter herds of cows to raise the price of milk, to store thousands of tons of frozen broccoli, to sell US grains on the world market at half
US prices (remember why the Australians were protesting during Bush's visit).

Quota's were used to keep out foreign grains, peanuts, beef, cheese,etc.

The only reason for all this protection is political pressure from US agricultural interests.

In any case, the small farmer is on the way out.  The programs currently in use
benefit corporate and large farmers much more due to their economies of scale
then the small guy.

If you want to keep small farmers in business, simply take the 40 billion and
divide it up each year and call it what it really is, charity for farmers.
At least our food prices would then drop to the level of world market prices,
which are considerably less than US prices, despite what Dan Sorensen said in
his first posting about US prices being cheaper than anyone else's.

If as Dan Sorensen says, that US farmers can quit growing food to pressure 
consumers, fine, but let us buy foreign food at cheaper world prices and
we will save a fortune on our grocery bills.

Farming interests have grown so arrogant (example: Dan Sorensen) that
they now demand government charity as if it was their constitutional
right.  No other industry receives as much protection and subsidies for
no other reason than political pressure.  If US farmers are as productive
as they claim, then why do they need protection from the market and
overseas farmers?   

The point is, if the Democratic party cared more for the poor, they would
end the programs that raise food prices.  However, the Democrats cannot
shed their dependence on special interest groups, so look for nothing new.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
From: rpgollehon@happy.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:40:09 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

> KKK propoganda does not.  It has nothing to contribute to society but
> that of further dividing it. Some people argue that leftists also display
> such hate towards capitalism and capitalists so it really isn't any different.
> There is a difference.  Leftists don't go around rousing up crowds to go 
> kill or beat up capitalists or republicans.  Its this hate element thats
> really distructive.  Its one thing if someone starts shouting about how
> much he/she hates ice cream (an opinion) but its quite a different thing for
> someone to shout out about how people of color have tainted our society and
> instill in people anger and hatred towards them.  
--
Oh really??  What happened in Russia in 1917?  Did we have a friendly
resolution of a difference in views there?  One example of hundreds...even
leftists can be Huns (oh no!!! I'm oppressing the Huns!!)!!
-- 
                             Robert Gollehon

                  "Don't call me, and I won't call you."
*****************************************************************************
* University of Colorado at Colorado Springs                                *
* or                                                                        *
* "The little university with the really big name."                         *
*****************************************************************************
*  The opinions expressed herein are mine, and if I catch 'em with someone  *
*  else (especially my employer), I'll shoot the both of 'em and file for a *
*  divorce.                                                                 *
*****************************************************************************