HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: Comments on fraternities (was Re: Comments on G**** life)
From: censtad@dion.gac.edu (Topher the Gustie)
Date: 12 Dec 92 14:54:08 -0600
Reply-To: censtad@nic.gac.edu   

In article <1992Dec10.210000.10930@news.cs.indiana.edu>  writes:
> 
> I think it all depends more on the house in general, not just the sex
> of the people in it.  I wouldn't have walked down the hall of my dorm
> naked because 1)I give a damn what other people thought, and some of
> the religious nuts, excuse me, that I had on my floor might not have
> liked it.  It's called "courtesy". If it was a closer social
> environment, and a less "public" area (people could come and go as
> they pleased), who cares?  When I lived in houses with only a few  
housemates
> things were a lot different.   
You are expecting everyone to change because of YOUR experiences.  Some  
Greek houses contain upwards of 40 people.  Almost the same number of  
people which live in a hall.  Not exactly a "closer social environment".   
And what if your house happened to have a "religious nut" living there.  I  
take offense to your use of this term because you are sitting here  
bitching about stereotyping women and then you turn around and do it right  
back to someone.  If you are going to join this argument then please  
figure out where you stand before you start flaming people.
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: streater@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater)
Subject: Re: Sexist language 
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:43:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.194459.2412@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <Bz6snr.o8@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> streater@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater) writes:
>>
>>Well as we know, "chairman" is a non-sexist word, and there is thus no need to
>>replace it with anything ("chair" being something you sit on).
>
>I wonder what you make of the use of the word "Crown" in England, then.
>(You know, "The Crown versus Mr. Jones", and such phrases.)
>
>Like "Crown", "Chair" refers to a position, not to the person who holds
>it.  So "Chair" is not only free from the taint of sexism, it's more
>accurate.
>
>Just to be sure I make my point clearly - I may well go to a meeting
>chaired by Mr. Smith, whom I personally despise, and still show respect
>to his position.  Mr. Smith may be the "Chairman", but my respect is
>directed at the symbolic "Chair", not at the person.  (Why?  Because
>this convention has proven a useful device for running meetings.)
>
Perhaps I wasn't quite clear enough. Indeed, in the UK, the position is the
Crown, and the holder is the King or Queen, depending on who happens to be
the monarch at the time. Similarly, for a meeting or committee or whatever,
the position is the Chair and the holder is the Chairman, referred to as
Mr Chairman or Madam Chairman, depending on who happens to occupy the position
at the time. You might open the meeting and say, "I would like to introduce 
Mr Smith, who is in the Chair tonight", or "Tonight's Chairman is Mr Smith", 
or "Tonight's meeting is chaired by Mr Smith", all or which are equally valid
in my view. What you would not say, I assert, is "Mr Smith is the Chair
tonight", and so on.

I was being slightly facetious in saying chair is something you sit on, I would
have done better to have said (in this context) it is something you occupy.

tim.
Xref: sparky soc.college:5721 alt.usage.english:9691
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:32:11 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Dec14.061313.5784@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
> In article <1992Dec14.044024.22225@Princeton.EDU> grweiss@ernst.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Robert Weiss) writes:
[about first-year students]
>>Why be kind? ;->  I think we should call them all freshlings.  It's PC;
>>neither masculine nor feminine, but it still has that derogatory potential so 
>>important when labelling freshmen. :-)
> 
> Absolutely.  In fact, it makes them sound like fish -- small fry, to be
> exact.

Why not use the non-sexist term which has been current in the UK for a while:
Freshers. It has that semi-derogatory connotation, it can easily be said with a
sneer and its compounds (Freshers' Fair, Freshers' Bop et al) roll easily off
the tongue.
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Xref: sparky soc.college:5697 alt.usage.english:9669
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: PC world--the word is frat
Date: 17 Dec 92 21:08:20 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1gqf6oINNfgi@news.gac.edu> censtad@nic.gac.edu writes:
>When you talk about fraternities all you PC people do NOT use the word  
>frat if you are really as PC as you think you are
>
>
>I mean... would you call your mother a moth? [cruder example deleted]

Well, I'm not a PC person, so this post isn't aimed at me, but I
thought I'd respond anyway.

Chris didn't make up this old chestnut, but one might have thought
that he would have critically examined the proposition it implicitly
states before posting it to thousands of people with his name on it.

No, I don't call my mother a moth.  (Although I do call her "Mom"
on the majority of occasions.)  Perhaps this has something to do with
the fact that "mother" is the English word for "female parent", while
"moth" is a particular type of insect.

"Fraternity" means (generally) "all-male campus social organization", while
"frat", on the other hand, means "all-male campus social organization," so
there is less likely to be the confusion when these two are used
interchangably as when "mother" and "moth" are.  Similarly, I might call
a "photograph" a "photo," but I'd be unlikely to call "furniture" a "fern."
The latter might lead to confusion, while the former would be an acceptable
abbreviation.  Most people of college age are able to tell when a longer
word might be abbreviated acceptably in order to convey proper meaning
without confusion.  Your mileage may vary depending on which college you
attend.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 16:50:29 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi):
:Take a spot poll, Tom. Find how many native speakers find the following
:exchange of conversation natural :
:
:         "Is Joan there?"
:         "No, they went to the market."

Wrong.  By stating a femenine name you disambiguate it.

You go spot check these:

    "If anyone shows up, tell them to go away."
    "Ask your SO whether they're interested."
    "Each employee must sign their own form."

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

    Believe it or not, this signature was chosen randomly 
    from a file of hundreds!
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: school uniform
From: censtad@nic.gac.edu (Topher the Gustie)
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:28:09 -0600
Reply-To: censtad@nic.gac.edu   
Distribution: soc

In article <T91460NY.92Dec12122126@cs0.sfc.keio.ac.jp>  writes:
>  I want to know whether students are forced to wear school in your  
country 
> 
> or not, and I want to know whether you think students should wear school 
> 
> uniform or not and that reason. Please send your idea to me.
> 
>  My adress is t91460ny@sfc.keio.ac.jp

We are not forced to wear anything, but if R. Waigh had her way I'd have  
to wable with a woman seeing my body when I'm not intimate with her
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: Comments on fraternities (was Re: Comments on G**** life)
From: censtad@nic.gac.edu (Topher the Gustie)
Date: 13 Dec 92 15:24:56 -0600
Reply-To: censtad@nic.gac.edu   
Distribution: world

In article <1992Dec12.002109.349@cdf.toronto.edu>  writes:
> >It's a fact of American life that we  
> >are not as comfortable with our bodies as say Europeans are, 
> 
> Why do you want to maintain this attitude?  Isn't it unnecessarily  
stressful?
> Wouldn't it be great if you could be comfortable with your body?
  Yes wouldn't it be great if everything in the whole world was hunky-dory  
and we all ran around with no clothes on cuz we were all so comfrotable  
like that.  It's really too bad that life isn't a utopia isn't it  
Rosemary?  School is stressful enough as it is, I'm not going to pile  
anymore on top by moving into a co-ed house and always worrying about one  
of the women seeing me naked.  I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE ABOUT IT OK  
ROSEMARY!!>???????  
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:48:00 GMT


>No one is claiming language is the sole factor, but it is a factor.
>No one wins a "war" by ignoring some battles as irrelevant . . .
>
>       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself


For much of its recent history, *person* and more especially *young
person* was a code word for *woman*.  Woman is often considered
too blunt, and lady, especially in British usage, tends to be a class
marker rather than a polite term for woman.  In addition, as a euphemism,
person was often used in an ironic or mildly derogatory way--at least
in literature--making fun of the way people use euphemisms.

Further back in the history of person lies persona, the mask, the 
personification or impersonation, and all that that entails.

Aside from rejecting -person compounds because they may be legislated,
like chairperson, there is this whole history of dysphemism surrounding
person that we cannot get beyond.  Is it any wonder then that people
come up with joke forms like personhole cover?

but the alternative is not to go back to masculine generics -- yes, go
back, for the language has indeed left them behind:

singular they is not the darling of the politically correct, but has
always been the common spoken English indefinite singular pronoun, and
quite frequently the written one as well

man for some time now has existed as a generic only in proverbial
usage (man cannot live by bread alone) and to a lesser extent in
anthropology)--for confirmation see the OED comment, which predates
feminist language reform by a good half century.

there are a variety of options, all of which are triggered by context;
what goes for conversation may not be suitable for a formal speech;
you can put in a letter or a memo something that may not fly in a
scientific or technical journal; and literary language, which is not to
be confused with the sesquipedalian verbiage of William F. Buckley, is
something else again, only more so.

but back to person: most trackers of new words dutifully record the new
formations in -person, but note as well that these tend to be
ephemeral.  words that stay are ones like server (no, not waitron or
waitroid) and chair, neither one a new word, both capable of doing
what we need them to do.

--
Dennis



debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
Newsgroups: soc.college
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:52:06 GMT

In article <1giqo8INNc1u@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> prater-ethan@yale.edu (Ethan Prater) writes:
>I'm not sure if this is a productive attitude. If the goal is to avoid
>sexist language in general, then wouldn't it be better to use "truly"
>gender neutral terms all the time, rather than "she" just to "shake you
>all up"? (I'm not sure who "you all" is)
>It seems to me that intentionally using female terms for everyone is just
>as bad as using male terms. If the goal is to achieve language free of
>sexism, why would one consciously use sexist language? 

I agree that the ideal is non-sexist language rather than using "she" to
"shake people up"; but OTOH if I am with someone who is incorrectly using
"he" as a for someone of unspecified gender, I will use "she" for this same
someone to balance things out (and to point out the inaccuracy of using gender-
specific pronouns without getting into a big argument).
-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin
From: scott@edstar.ucsb.edu (Scott L. Thomas)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: E-MAIL ADDRESS FOR CSU FRESNO?
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:49:33 GMT
Organization: UCSB Graduate School of Education

'm looking for the name of the primary computer at Cal State Fresno.  I
was told that it was csufresno.edu but it dosen't seem to want to be
found.  Does anyone know for sure?
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:34:56 GMT

gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>
>The point is that if
>someone tells me they're a freshman, I get a lot more information than
>if they tell me they're "first year"...

Surely you mean "...if someone tells me _he's_ a freshman, I get a lot
more information than if _he_ tells me _he's_ 'first year'..."

Because, after all, the use of the third person plural as an ersatz
third person neuter singular is ungrammatical, right?  And
awkward-sounding besides, right?

And, as we all know, there's nothing sexist about someone writing "he"
in place of "he or she."  People who have to resort to artificial,
politically correct non-words like "first-year" and the singular "they"
are uneducated malcontents with nothing to do, and they're making up
problems where none exist.

Right?
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy      Internet: k044477@kzoo.edu      AppleLink: j.mccarthy
 "This sounds like a semantico-psychological backwardization of the
  real world image."   - Dave Bloom (bloomda@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:51:46 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Followup-To: soc.college,alt.usage.english

In article <1992Dec17.153645.28797@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <BzDLxF.I1M@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>
>>I didn't intend to insult feminists. But you realise that there *are*
>>feminists who believe that the female race is superior to the male
>>race, don't you? Not just that, they allow this prejudice to distance
>>themselves from men.
>
>The male "race"?  The female "race"?
>
>For a person who claims to defend language, you are remarkably careless
>with your own use of words!
>
My dictionary recognises the meaning of race as "a class or kind of
individuals with common characteristics, interests or habits". So do
*most* dictionaries. 

>>Those of you who *don't* have those attitudes can do better than just
>>fiddling with words. Help the rest of the world realise the detrimental
>>effects of such attitudes. When these attitudes dissappear, the need to
>>change language will no longer exist.
>
>And how can we change attitudes without using language?  Surgery, maybe?
>
>       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself

I recommend lobotomy!  ;)

Seriously though, we need to educate people about the meanings of
such ambiguous words. We need to get them to realise the negative
impact these words can carry, if abused. Further more, we need
to exhort them to make the context clear, or, supply explanatory
notes when the context doesn't make the distinction clear.

                                                        Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: heidi@ucthpx.uct.ac.za (Heidi de Wet)
Subject: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 08:57:12 GMT
Organization: Dept of Elec Eng, UCT

eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.144252.22445@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>> 
>> English does have the genderless word 'one', but very few people seem
>> to use it.
>> 
>Even when one does use it, he soon finds that it doesn't solve
>this particular problem.

When one uses it correctly, one finds it solves at least this problem.
<snort!>

What it doen't solve is the problem of a specific person of unknown sex.  
"When the messenger arrives, give (?) this note."  'One' refers only to 
a completely generic person.

-- 
The net is like a vast sea of lutefisk with tiny dinosaur brains embedded 
in it here and there. Any given spoonful will likely have an IQ of 1, but 
occasional spoonfuls may have an IQ more than six times that!
                                                     - James 'Kibo' Parry
Newsgroups: soc.college
From: liucharl@pulua.hcc.Hawaii.Edu ()
Subject: E-mail address need
Originator: liucharl@pulua
Organization: Honolulu Community College
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 05:59:58 GMT


Hi everyone, 

	May anyone of you tell me what is the E-mail address for :

	University of Central
	Lancashire, Preston PRI 2TQ  U.K.

thank you very much!!

Charles.

please send your infomation to: liucharl@pulua.hcc.Hawaii.Edu

thanks again!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|         Charles  Y.  Liu                _ ^ ^ _     what do you think  | 
|         Honolulu, Hawaii               { (o o) }            about me ! | 
|E-mail:  liucharl@pulua.hcc.Hawaii.Edu     (~)   \~~~~~~~~\             |
---------------------------------------- ooOo^_oOoo _\  oOoo\,,,,,, ------
From: MIKEF@brownvm.brown.edu (Mike Fessler)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: Freedom of Association
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 13:19:58 EST
Organization: Brown University - Providence, Rhode Island  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: brownvm.brown.edu
News-Software: BNN via BNN_POST v1.0 beta

Interestingly, though there aren't any fraternities on campus that have as
a matter of policy racial discrimination, there are some which are
predominantly or completely white.  In some cases, this may be due to
discrimination on the part of members, but in others I've found that there's
a strong element of peer pressure from the black community here at Brown
to stay away from "white" fraternities. There are several black fraternities
and sororities (and two latino organizations -- 1 frat, 1 sorority) at
Brown, but they're not given housing by the University because of the sorts
of hazing they do -- far and beyond anything I'd ever heard of before:
branding, sleep deprivation, restriction of social contact for weeks on end,
etc.

My house doesn't practice racial (or gender-based, for that matter)
discrimination in any form, but the minority members that we have are
generally not particularly welcome in the minority community; they're
accused of being "too white" in some cases. Several years ago, there was
a black woman who was a close friend of several of our members, and wanted
to join -- she would surely have received a bid, but as I understand it,
not only was she told by members of the black community that she
would effectively be ostracized if she joined us, but her parents threatened
to pull her out of school if she joined us rather than a black sorority.
I believe that she wound up, reluctantly, with the sorority, and broke
off contact with her former friends here because of the whole situation.

I don't understand the sort of judgemental attitude and enforced conformity
that can lead to things like that. The sentiment for separatism seems to be
quite strong at times, and I don't understand how it can be excusable
when minorities practice it (then label the institutions that they
shun as racist, when there are few minority members because few are up to
bucking the peer pressure from the rest) when it's self-evidently wrong
when practiced by whites. Perhaps I'm just naive and idealistic....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Fessler                                   mikef@brownvm.brown.edu
   To light a candle is to cast a shadow.  -- Ursula K. LeGuin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.college
From: mhaitkin@scott.skidmore.edu (meredith haitkin)
Subject: connecticut college
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 04:14:22 GMT


Does anyone know the email address for connecticut college...thanks..
			Love, Meri
Xref: sparky soc.college:5806 alt.usage.english:9796
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Date: 20 Dec 92 12:58:36 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1992Dec15.182137.18930@news.eng.convex.com>, tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
> 
> We do.  Damnit.  It's "they".   Yup, I'm going to waste netbandwidth
> again and rererepost the best write-up I have on the topic.
> 
[Various quotes omitted which have almost convinced me]

But are we still allowed to profess ourselves *unhappy* with the use of the
singular they?
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is NOT attractive to "SINGLE" men
From: thomas@datamark.co.nz (Thomas Beagle)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:56:43 GMT
Organization: Datamark International Ltd.

In article <724066442.19833@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
>Julie Wright (julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu) wrote:
>: skent@Beethoven.next.com (Steve Kent) writes:
>: 
>: >When I was into the dating game and during one year where I, at various  
>: >times, dated 6 different women, I first found that none of them were much  
>: >excited about sharing the expense of a meal out.
>: 
>: I'm genuinely surprised at the number of female "gold-diggers" that seem
>: to be out there, from what you guys say.
>
>  So am I. It is not my experience at all. 

I have the impression that it is a cultural thing.

To be grossly unfair, most of the complaints about gold-diggers seem
to have come from people in the US. 

I could try and make some generalisations about the importance of
money in the USA, but it would probably be a load of crap.

Anyone here dated in the USA and, say, the UK, Australia, or NZ? Any
differences?


-- 
    Thomas Beagle | thomas@datamark.co.nz           Work: 64 4 233 8186
Datamark Intl Ltd | thomas@cavebbs.welly.gen.nz     Home: 64 4 499 3832
 Technical Writer | Yes, I do have long ears, a black nose, and a tail.