HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Lipstick
Date: 14 Sep 1992 14:21:03 GMT
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

As an illustration of the power of gender socialization, I have
observed an increasing number of little boys who like to wear
dresses.  At a PTO meeting for a nursery school, one parent
brought up her dilemma:  her 3 yr. old son wants to wear a
dress to school.  He has an older sister, and apparently has
not been socialized away from femine attire at home.  This
nursery school is his first school situation, which will shortly
socialize him regardless of what goes on at home. 
	Although many at the meeting said, "Let him wear a dress,"
the parents felt that the extra attention and potential ridicule
required conformity, and they did not allow the dress, to his 
considerable dismay.



-- 
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: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Anyone noticed the new mudflaps?
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:07:01 GMT

In article <195c0vINN1h4@agate.berkeley.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>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.

>   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.

And what does the use of appliqued women on mudflaps have to do with
public nudity?  The use of women as decoration is rather a different
issue from the ones of whether or not women are entitled to uncover
our bodies to the same extent that men are and, if, in fact, the
government should be in the business of legislating garb at all.

As for 'what to do,' my own take is to figure the guy is a Neanderthal
and then forget about it (assuming the ability to resist the
temptation to do a "Thelma and Louise").  Even if you support
restrictions on pornography, the image is not pornographic.  At worst
it violates community standards of taste.
--
       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu

--
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: raju@chekov.usc.edu (Raju Narayanan)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Hinduism and women
Date: 8 Sep 1992 14:37:52 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article 4947 Diane writes,


>In discussing this problem people should realise that the people
>are usually Hindu, a religion which maintains that to be a woman
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is a cursed state - that a good life will mean reincarnation as a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>higher being (a man) and a bad one a return as a woman or an even
>lesser creature.  Even so, to kill a woman, or to kill a child
>are named sins of great gravity under the religion.  This is not
>to say that those of other religions behave differently.


Although, what Diane says about Hinduism is true, there
is of course, the other side of the coin.

	1) There are many goddesses in Hinduism.

	2) The supreme of all gods is believed to be Shakti ( a goddess)

	3) Lord Shiva( one of the two most popular gods in Hinduism) gave
	one half of his body to Shakti (probably symbolizing equality)



Another point to be noted is that Hinduism is no one religion; it is a 
collection  different relegions that have different philosophies, different 
gods and different sets of rituals, the only commonality being the willingness 
of the people to accept other gods. Specifically, Hinduism allows the right 
to opinion, unlike some of the other religions that originated in the 
Middle-East ( the Sanskrit word for religion is MATAM, which means opinion 
unlike the word religion which means a binding). In other words, it is 
acceptable to amend and emend Hinduism. Thus, blaming Hinduism is ridiculous. 
The real reason is lack of education and the prevailing poverty. Note that the 
Brahminical communities (which are usually highly educated) in Tamil Nadu ( the
state in which Pushpa Iyengar did her study on infanticide -- quoted by Diane, 
later  in her article), are *NOT* known for infanticide despite the fact that 
the  Gita ( a revered text of Brahminism) explicitly says that females are 
sinners.


Raju
raju@spock.usc.edu



-- 
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: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Lipstick
Date: 14 Sep 1992 04:54:43 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <190a5mINNs2n@agate.berkeley.edu> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>The reason I think this is a feminist issue is that I see in
>feminism not only an effort to "expand the field of choices
>for women" but an effort to recover the possibility of the
>feminine in both sexes.  Where males are so stringently 
>required to avoid a practice which has been assigned to the
>feminine, something is going on which I think is not
>favorable to either of the feminist enterprises.  But I'm
>not sure what it is.  Why shouldn't men wear makeup if they
>feel like it?  What does the severity of force used to
>suppress such a practice say about our culture and 
>especially about our politics?

Where I once worked there was a young man who did wear makeup--
foundation and mascara.  When I first saw him, I was a bit surprised
because I wasn't used to seeing men in makeup at work.  However, once
I got used to it, he seemed as average in his makeup as most women do
in theirs.

He took a lot of heat for it, though.  I heard several coworkers
(women and men) remark that he shouldn't be allowed to wear makeup,
that he should be fired.  (We had no dress code as far as I knew.)
And many people assumed he was gay, so he was harassed about that.

I think that assumption is telling and explains why our culture
doesn't allow men to wear makeup unless it's a "bronzer" or something
like that.  In our culture, makeup means feminine and feminine men
means gay men.  (Think of how many people assume that male
crossdressers are gay.)  Several feminists have written about
homophobia, that gay men are ridiculed and harassed because, to hetero
men, they have chosen to reject the mantle of being male and fucking
women.  Any man who rejects that is less than a man and becomes
female, perhaps even less than female since women are born female and
gay men choose not to be hetero men.  (Disclaimer: I don't believe
people choose their sexual orientation.)  Dworkin makes the point that
laws against oral sex and anal sex are there to make sure that only
women are fucked.  I think there's a grain of truth to that.



-- 
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: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Petty Behavior and Gender
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:38:47 GMT
Organization: Subvert the Dominant Paradigm, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu


 In article <laahk3INNbb6@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>, I had written
 referring to people who happen to be feminists engaging in
 what could be described as petty behavior:
 
 >I do tend to think that when this behavior occurs it isn't
 >necessarily being done maliciously or with political intent.

Steve Klautky adds:
 
 But doesn't that sound like a man's defense when he is told to lay off
 the sexually oriented jokes that may be offensive to women?  He says
 he is not doing it maliciously or with political intent.  Still,
 feminists generally agree that he should stop.  If you do not believe
 or agree with the man's defense should you do the same with the
 woman's defense?  Is this a fair analogy?
 
IMO, "sexually oriented" jokes could span a wide spectrum from the
obviously crude and demeaning, to poking gentle fun at the foibles
associated with one gender or another: clearly it is the attitude
and content that matter.

In other words, a sexually-oriented joke that is likely to be
offensive to women is likely to be offensive to (note I did
not say "may be", for the obvious end to that is the end of
communication), anyone who dislikes crude jokes.

Your specific question might then become: is there any "fair"
joke one would tell only if the target group were not present?

At this point we have moved beyond feminism, though. To
answer your more general question, no it is not a fair
analogy. 

My point was that inappropriate behavior can exist outside
political labels; that "petty behavior" can be a human behavior
regardless of political (or any other) orientation, and
the behavior should be noted when appropriate.

Dano



-- 
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: aen@cs.brown.edu (Ann Nicholson)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Wolf's Iron Maiden (Was Re: man discovers why pin-ups at work are inherently offensive)
Date: 8 Sep 1992 04:11:23 GMT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep02.181941.8066@Veritas.COM> rdh@veritas.COM (Robert Hartman) writes:

[describing Wolf's argument again pin-ups]

>If I may quote her (pages 51-52):
>
>"Pinups in the workplace are metaphors for the larger issues of how
>the Iron Maiden [anorexic] imagery is used to keep women down on the
>job.  At the Shoemaker Mine in the United States, when women coal

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". 

Ann Nicholson.



-- 
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: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Lipstick
Date: 13 Sep 1992 21:00:38 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

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.

While there is a certain amount of social pressure towards
makeup for women, especially during reactionary periods such
as the one we passed through in the '80s, the pressure for
males to _not_ wear overt makeup is severe.  (Males can wear
makeup that, for instance, confers the appearance of a tan,
but it must appear natural, or at least appear to be trying
to appear natural.)  The severity approaches, even reaches,
violence, in many situations, especially if we consider
arbitrary loss of livelihood a form of violence.

The reason I think this is a feminist issue is that I see in
feminism not only an effort to "expand the field of choices
for women" but an effort to recover the possibility of the
feminine in both sexes.  Where males are so stringently 
required to avoid a practice which has been assigned to the
feminine, something is going on which I think is not
favorable to either of the feminist enterprises.  But I'm
not sure what it is.  Why shouldn't men wear makeup if they
feel like it?  What does the severity of force used to
suppress such a practice say about our culture and 
especially about our politics?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )



-- 
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: mgflax@phoenix.princeton.edu (Marshall G. Flax)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: man discovers why pin-ups at work are inherently offensive
Date: 8 Sep 1992 14:40:48 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep02.181941.8066@Veritas.COM> rdh@veritas.COM (Robert Hartman) writes:
>Is it patronizing to ask that a woman explain why she should feel
>offended by something?  

Two questions which I would try to answer first: Is the purpose to
obstruct or to understand?  Does it function to start a discussion or
to forestall one?  But more importantly, is it patronizing to worry so
much about patronization?

>"How can a woman say she "doesn't want to be beautiful?"

Just as I can say that I don't want to be "successful."  With great
difficulty, but it is possible.

>However, the writing that accompanies the pictures often puts forth
>such degrading attitudes toward women that I can see where men and
>women both might get the idea that this is what pinups are for.  

Are we talking about pinups or the use of pinups?

marshall
-- 
------------ 40 Linden Lane, Princeton, NJ 08540, 609-921-0962 ------------
----------- 5 Joyce Lane, Woodbury, NY 11797, 516-364-9331,9379  ----------
----- c/o Jack Gelfand,Psych Dept,Princeton U.,NJ 08544,609-258-2930  -----
- Original material(c) 1992, Marshall Flax <mgflax@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> -


-- 
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: Ruth Ginzberg <RGINZBERG@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: those mudflap pinups
Date: 16 Sep 1992 02:12:49 GMT
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
Distribution: world
Reply-To: RGINZBERG@EAGLE.WESLEYAN.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Those mudflap pinups are widely sold at (e.g.) Flying-J truckstops &
other such chains.  I think some direct discussion with the managers
of the retail outlets about the flaps' offensiveness to women, & the
fact that you, therefore are taking your business elsewhere, might get
further than any net.discussion. Also a few of those "THIS IS
OFFENSIVE TO WOMEN" stickers decorating the mudflaps of trucks parked
in public rest areas might go a long way, not that i am in any way
suggesting that anyone actually DO anything like that...
------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA


-- 
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: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Anyone noticed the new mudflaps?
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:09:35 GMT

In <193c5iINNdkp@agate.berkeley.edu> mahadeva@point.cs.uwm.edu (Aruna Mahadevan) writes:

>Hi,

>I have been noticing something recently, and would like to get some
>feedback as to whether others have noticed it, and what their reaction
>was.  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.
>I have seen similar silhouettes on license-plate holders, and painted on
>tinted windows while driving to work or going out to eat.  I think it is
>rather demeaning to women to have to see this stuff on mudflaps, windows
>and license plate holders.  Is there anything anyone can do to stop this
>before it becomes a very common thing?
>Any comments?

These have been around a *long* time.  I think they're one of those
things that remain unnoticed until you see the first one and then they
seem to be everywhere.  Truckers do lots of cruddy stuff like this:
have you ever noticed the "Leg Inspection" (with arrow) on the back of
the truck, driver's side?  There are actually women on the passenger
side who will pull up their skirt or whatever as their car overtakes
the truck (I generally just have a finger ready).

Disgusting as it is, I don't really see what can be done.  It's not
like its a work environment, it's not like you actually interact with
these scum (no apologies to any of you out here that may have them on
your vehicle).  I simply let my opinion be known far and wide.

--Cindy
--
        Feminism is: "...a socialist, anti-family political movement
        that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their
        children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
        become lesbians."                           --Pat Robertson
Xref: sparky soc.feminism:2132 news.answers:2833
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: bashing feminism in soc.feminism
Date: 8 Sep 1992 04:10:54 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

rdh@veritas.COM (Robert Hartman) writes:
| >I don't think that this should become a forum in which feminism itself
| >is debated.  Articles in attack or defense of feminism seem to me to
| >be out-of-place here.  
| [...]

bhattach@engin.umich.edu (Sayan Bhattacharyya) writes:
| While I agree with Robert's contention that articles 'bashing` feminism
| are out of place in this newsgroup, I disagree with him that debating
| about 'feminism itself' is also out of place. ....

I think the problem with the constant questioning of the
validity of feminism and other basic views is that we never
get beyond them to other issues.  For example, I recently
mentioned that some feminists had theorized that homophobia
is produced by patriarchy or male suprmacist ideology.  This
is a highly debatable issue; many other causes or origins
can be hypothesized.  However, instead of discussing the
issue within the context of feminism, Will Steeves wrote
in to challenge the idea that patriarchy was anything more
than a plot by power-seeking feminist conspirators to
denigrate all men.  The moderators chose to print this
sort of thing, as is their policy: it was vaguely on the
subject, and reasonably civil.  But it was completely off
the point.

What is one to do?  Do we can ignore such remarks, but
that is taken to be acquiesence in, or fear of them.
Or we can go back to square 1 and answer them, and keep
the group narrowly focused on -- in essence -- not
feminism, but what feminism's enemies think of it.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )



-- 
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: dsy@psych.toronto.edu (Desiree Sy)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Lipstick
Date: 10 Sep 1992 19:59:31 GMT
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

It's very interesting to hear what people have to say about this,
because I've been feeling more uncomfortable about the idea of
wearing make-up (as opposed to the practice of doing so) -- and
yes, reading THE BEAUTY MYTH was what started the train of
thought.

Fiona Webster includes an excerpt from Kennedy Fraser's article,
"Painted Women":
>        Makeup has no purpose save that of adding drama to
>        routine.

I never wore make-up until I became involved with community
theatre.  And ever since, I've associated make-up with theatre --
and particularly with masquing (as opposed to masking).

At work, I will wear make-up if I'm meeting a new business
acquaintance for one main reason; I look about 7 or 8 years
younger than I am.  I wear it only to try and get over an initial
impression of inexperience.  As I interact with the client, she
or he can form other, more lasting impressions of my competence
and experience (I hope!), and I stop wearing make-up.

I also wear make-up to go out (sometimes) or to go to parties
(sometimes), and the act of doing this (like changing clothes)
can change my mood.

Change cosutumes, add make-up, and step into a new role.

The same article notes:

>	Women wear makeup for their own benefit.  Unless something
>	happens to it--an eyelash begins to peel, or the lipstick goes
>	askew--or unless they see someone without it for the first time,
>	women hardly give a thought to other women's makeup.  Men are
>	blind to all but great changes and excesses.  Yet in some
>	strange way makeup persuades us to feel better and more confi-
>	dent.  

As noted above, I don't quite think this is true.  Make-up, like
lighting, sound, and other theatrical effects, does not act at a
conscious level -- except to professionals, who evaluate its use
in that context.  Nonetheless, people *do* react differently to
those who use make-up.

Of course, this is moving somewhat from the real question, which is
why people do react differently to the roles created with the
help of make-up -- and why those roles are played by women.

-desiree



-- 
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.