HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:06:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.161004.1@fnalno.fnal.gov> holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.052723.8947@news.columbia.edu>, 
>mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>>>makes it even more degrading. Dworkin contends that material depicting
>>>women as enjoying sex is worse than the Nazis' treatment of the
>>>Jews:"The Jews didn't do it to themselves and they didn't orgasm....
>>>No one, not even Goebbels, said that the Jews liked it.

>> I find these spoutings of hers insensitive, offensive, sexist and bigoted, 
>> and they offend me, as a human being, a Jew, and a man.
>How do you find offense as a Jew here?  Being of Jewish descent myself, I 
>don't see it.

You don't?!  The comparison is ludicrous!  What is the basis for the
comparison?  "Material depicting women" is worse than "the Nazis' treatment of 
the Jews".  You don't find anything wrong with that comparison?  In the first
place, how can one compare biased "material" to horrific "treatment", actions!?
What is this, you have to beat Nazism or else your issue isn't bad enough to
demand redress?  I am awfully sick of hearing people compare things to Nazism!
If she were calling men "dogs" and vermin, who should be killed at any cost,
then I might compare her views with the Nazi.  But I would never compare her
views of people with her treatment of them.

Sorry for yelling.  I hope my point is made.

>None of this has anything to do with her usage of the treatment of Jews in the
>Holocaust.

So?  Wouldn't it be boring if I only said one thing per article?  You would be
seeing a lot more volume of articles on Usenet, I might add.

 * * * * *  =================== 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: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:57:44 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

# Gordon, there was a big debate about the subject in soc.men, and I posted
# quite a few examples of the kind of articles that get posted and the kind
# of articles that get rejected.  Quite a few people agreed with my opinion,
# that's why alt.feminism was created.  Nor you, neither the moderators had
# anything to say in this debate, but you reject the conclusions.

In article <1992Sep4.024049.2422@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>Had I known about the debate -- I gave up reading soc.men
>a long time ago -- I probably would have regarded it as
>illegitimate.  

Why?

>Given what I've seen on the net, the vote ought to be a
>walk-over.

Walk-overs are boring.

>The significant fact in this whole discussion is that you
>and many others cannot _stand_ to have a single newsgroup
>on the net where ideas you don't like can't be submerged in
>flames.  Or at least that appears to be what's going on.

It seems to me that you and your friends can't stand a fair
debate, when both sides have the same rights with respect 
to the forum - your ideas just can't be defended too well...

>As a matter of fact I have had serious differences of 
>opinion with the moderators as to what the scope of the
>newsgroup should be, and with some of the feminists as
>well as the anti-feminists -- as you would know if you
>read the group with any frequency.

I had given it a serious try, and decided to press "u".
Pravda like newsgroups are just not *my* cup of tea.

>the group has never become a forum where feminism is a
>given and subjects outside the question of the validity 
>of feminism can be discussed from a feminist viewpoint.
>We're always in third grade, and every discussion starts
>by explaining everything all over again.

In soc.men we managed to develop new ideas like choice for men,
and affirmative action by income level.  Ideas which are new 
and may be quite important in the future.  Your failure to
develop your ideas is not because of the forum, it is because
some basic flaws in your philosophy.  (BTW why don't you
subscribe to one of the feminist mailing lists and try to
develop your ideas there?  Just wondering...)  

>If _I_ were the moderator, I would simply take all the
>questions of the validity of feminism off the board.

You will end up as a censor and nobody will remember
your good intentions.  

>Why do you want everything to be the same?  Isn't it
>boring?

I asked this question after the men mailing list was taken
over by feminists.  I asked this question again after the
mankind mailing list was broken into.

I don't feel any need to nuke any mailing list; too bad
that quite a few feminists feel that need...

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Hillel                                               gazit@cs.duke.edu

"I am not sure that Liberal Guilt is any better than the open bigotry.  At 
least you know where you stand with an open bigot."  --  Oleg Kiselev
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Sexist studies... was(Re: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug31.210339.28759@panix.com> <j8hn#=k.payner@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:22:52 GMT


Women's Studies in and of itself is *not* sexist.  It is a study that
focuses on a particular group of people.  Just because it is not
called "Gender Studies" does not make it sexist.  It is not sexist to
wish to understand.  To strive to understand.  To create a program to
*help*others* understand.

Too much propaganda going on here!

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"now we find sodom strange take it out put it in your mouth how do you like
gomorrah now a taste of this swallow that feel the fish hide the hat ezekial
where's your wheel you better grease it GREASE GREASE GREASE GREASE! ROCK!!!"
       --Chainsaw Kittens, "Ezekial Walks Through Sodom and Gomorrah"
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 2 Sep 92 08:41:15 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Nosy (ataylor@nmsu.edu) wrote:
: <In article <1992Aug31.174327.17143@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
: 
: <I've come across incidents, very recently, similar to what Julie describes.  
: <They all involve several men in the department where I work.  They have made 
: <comments lately such as:
: <	"Women can't comprehend mathematics".
: 
: 	Someone tell Ada Babbage....
:

	Or Einstein's wife who formulated much of the mathematics for the
	theories of relativity but whose contribution remains largely
	unrecognised. (She is still so unknown that I have to appologise
	and admit I can't remember her name)

	Aaron Turner			aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@ee.tut.fi (Sami Petteri Kiiskil{)
Subject: Re: Guys and Gals (was Re: Real world example)
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<BtF3xz.21p@cs.psu.edu> <FABBOTT.92Aug23145314@e40-008-8.mit.edu>
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:34:04



In article <FABBOTT.92Aug23145314@e40-008-8.mit.edu> fabbott@athena.mit.edu (Freeland K Abbott III) writes:

> All of this could of course have been avoided if the inventors of the
> English language has realized that they needed a full set of *four*
> genders: masculine, feminine, neuter, and common (or neutral, as I put
What would you do with such many of them ? We have only one pronoun 'h{n'
which can be used to all humans. In normal spoken language we often even
use 'se' a word corresponding to 'it' both for humans and for other objects. 

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  3 Sep 1992 10:14 EDT  

In article <MUFFY.92Sep2075326@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
     muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes...

>In article <2SEP199210444301@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov 
>     (Ron Graham) writes:

>>But getting back to the use of the term "girl," in this case in the workplace.
>>You know who I hear using it the most?  That's right - the secretaries.  One
>>of them referred to herself and the other secretaries in the area as "the
>>girls."  

>Why is that?  How often have men based their actions/thoughts on those
>of women in the past?  Where did these women *learn* to call themselves
>"girls?"  I can't be sure, but I would guess that, when women first went
>to work in all-male offices, they (being different) were called "girls"
>by the men, and it stuck.  

That's as may be.  I wasn't around when the chief perpetrator started 
perpetrating ;-).  But I have been around longer than the other three in
the work area.  And I have not heard any men coming around and referring
to them as "girls."  Maybe I just run in the wrong circles ;-).

>The last person to do this (if it ever comes to that) will almost
>certainly be either a man or a woman.  Wouldn't it be kind of neat for
>men if the last one was a woman?

In this isolated case, it looks as though the last one *was* a woman.

RG

"4-6-8-10, why are all your leaders men?"  -  shouted by NOW marchers at
 a contingent from Feminists for Life, whose leaders were all women.
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:31:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <y4lnwmq@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>> ...the term bashing in this context (XXXX bashing), refers
>> to verbal abuse only.  
>
>Wrong.  "Gay bashing" refers to both verbal and physical bashing. Gays get
>bashed -- as in beaten simply because they're gay -- all the time. 

Your usage is different than mine then. 

The use of violence has a proper name already, -assault-.

And as neither "male bashing" nor "female bashing" refers to anything
other than verbal assault, I think you are making a false distinction.i
 
>--
>Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 07:44:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.015137.27277@NeoSoft.com> jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt) writes:
>In article <s3fnffh.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>> 
>> I plan to, although I already do not agree with her views. Of course,
>> she claims that her views reflect my reality, and I feel that I know
>> more about my reality than she does. I do not speak for anyone else
>> in this.
>
>I too found Dworkin's _Intercourse_ a rich source of ideas even though I
>didn't agree with all of her conclusions.  As a result of reading the
>book, I ended up reading five or six other books cited by her.  For
>example, she presented a very different view of Joan of Arc than I had
>heard before.  So reading Dworkin involved all of these 'detours,' in
>which I would stop and read one or two other books and then eventually get
>back to her book.  She is an original thinker, but I suspect that she 
>would get some of her points across better if she didn't shock the hell
>out of people (you for example) with some of her universal statements.
>On the other hand, if she didn't do that, you probably would have ignored
>her.
>-- 
>Jaclyn Brandt
>jbrandt@NeoSoft.com

Eureka!  She is simply trying to anger women into an uprising so they will
o'erthrow the evil males!  Logic?  What logic?  This is the same tactic often
used by the anti-abortion movement.  Show them a picture of a fetus and watch
their outrage!  No logic needed.  Well, I believe in rethinking morals and
ethics when shocked.  But I try to use a little logic.  If you are haunted by
visions of dead fetuses everywhere, I guess you are a prophet, and can dictate
morality for the masses.  I, for one, don't take kindly to having my moral
and religous rights taken away as has been the trend in the recent US of A.
If I felt the need for an abortion (or a friend or wife, etc did), I would
seek religous counsel, and pray the law keep its nose out of my personal
religous beliefs!  Of course, I only say this, noting that Jewish law requires
extenuating circumstances before abortion becomes a possibility.  However,
under Jewish Law, a woman who aborts her fertilized egg or embryo early on
could never be tried as a murderer.  I begin to have my doubts about
the Republican administration's morality as soon as I picture
them making abortion a capital offense.

No :-)

 * * * * *  =================== 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: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:58:00 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Sep2.165406.661@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu> bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger) writes:
>>Hmmm...  So, if she is a fanatic, what then?  Instant dismissal of all
>>her ideas?

Well, why _sould_ we spend any time on her?  I've read a number of
feminist writers, but everything I've found out about Dworkin has
indicated that she shouldn't be high on my list.  

>	I think you've really gotten to the core here. So often,
>	there is disagreement between a group that depends entirely
>	on science, logic and tradition for "the truth" and "reality",
>	and a group that allows other experiences and feelings to
>	have validity or even dominate their perceptions.

What do you do when people disagree?  What if, say, your boss
has the perception that you don't know anything useful and this
is false?

>	The "traditional approach" is so ingrained in this society
>	that people base their arguments on these premises and never
>	notice that the ideas they are trying to invalidate are not
>	dependent on those male-biased foundations.

And what if they did notice this (as I suspect they do)?  What if
they say these ideas are invalid _because_ of their different 
foundations?

-- jd
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:02:55 GMT
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

In article <fb-ngrn.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com 
(Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>Look, if you
>want only the feminist view of things, there is soc.feminism. If you want to
>see the good, the bad, and the ugly, then read here. I am not going to waste
>my time on soc.feminism, as I am a woman that doesn't agree with a fair 
>portion of what is commonly held to be the Feminist Manifesto, and if I tried
>to be heard on soc.feminism, I'd turn old and grey first.

My impression reading soc.feminism was that the moderators were trying
harder to keep the discussion civil and related to feminism than to 
impose any particular view. There are a fair number of postings that
don't seem particularly pro-feminist to me.

What particularly do you disagree with in feminism?

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:54:26 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <nwjnstl@lynx.unm.edu>, by gworrell@carina.unm.edu (Gayla M. Worrell):

>>An academic course on "women's studies" should not be a vehicle for working
>>off pent up anger.  Many bitter people, male and female, get off on their
>>own indignation, and those "feminists" who are merely doing that should be
>>discreetly ignored.  There are serious issues to be debated, and anger and
>>rhetoric can set this process back.

> Hey Paul - You wouldn't, by any chance, be saying that women really shouldn't
> be angry, 

No, I'm not saying that (by chance or otherwise ...)

>           or that if they are angry they should be ignored, would ya. :-)

Hmmm.  Maybe I am.  How _should_ I respond to anger?  If "ignored" sounds
a bit contemptuous, I'm sure we can euphemise (-ize?) it, e.g. "given some
space".  I see anger as one stage of realisation and radicalisation on the
way to being able to argue and debate.  You shouldn't get an academic credit
for being angry :-)

Maybe colleges should offer extra-curricular "Women's Anger" workshops, then
"Women's Studies" classes for those who have worked off their anger ...
----
  __   __    Paul Singleton (Mr)           JANET: paul@uk.ac.keele.cs
 |__) (__    Computer Science Dept.        other: paul@cs.keele.ac.uk
 |  .  __).  Keele University, Newcastle,    tel: +44 (0)782 621111 x7355
             Staffs ST5 5BG, ENGLAND         fax: +44 (0)782 713082
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: proposed vote of confidence
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:40:45 GMT

In article <78885@ut-emx.uucp> lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch) writes:
>
>
>The issue has been raised that a/the modertor of soc.feminism has been
>inappropriately rejecting articles.  
>
>It is inconvienient to have two forums on the same topic.  It would be
>much simpler to let the large majority of readers to agree that the
>moderation is appropiate and have one group.  This is not an issue of
>moderation or no moderation - it is an issue of appropariate
>moderation.
>

No, what this is is a big load of crap.  I kept pace with the dialog 
in soc.men with regard to creating this group, alt.feminism, and 
found myself in agreement that an alternate news group to soc.feminism 
would be beneficial.  If nothing else, it could serve to improve the 
tone in soc.men and soc.women because a forum exists to thrash out 
feminist-related issues in a freewheeling atmosphere. 

Little did I realize that alt.feminism would be used as a forum to 
conduct a Lynching party of soc.feminism and its moderators.  Just 
who elected you net.cop?  If there is room for soc.religion and 
talk.religion, then there sure as heck is room for alt.feminism and 
soc.feminism.  Talk about censorship!  Pretty severe case of pots 
calling kettles black, to my way of thinking.

In fact, as each day goes by, alt.feminism is becoming a stronger 
and stronger argument that there is a need for soc.feminism, because 
of the too-obvious lack of self-censorship skills among certain
alt.feminism posters. I occasionally prefer a venue high on 
intellect and low on insults, as is provided by soc.feminism.
Alt.feminism, on the other hand, is already degenerating into 
base, nasty, discussions loaded with insults, accusations without 
proof, etc. etc. etc.

Let this witch-hunt die the death it deserves.  

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:26:24
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Aug31.131028.24524@coli.uni-sb.de>
	<Bturnu.7z4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <BtuwFH.FIq@encore.com>
	<1992Aug31.193956.1239@javelin.sim.es.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com's message of Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:39:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.193956.1239@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:

>...[examples of 'sexist' behavior deleted]...

>>Even the most well intentioned and politically correct men continue to
>>play rougher with their male kids then their female kids,

>They certainly do. The most recent issue of Scientific American has
>an article on sexual differentiation of the human brain. One of the
>interesting differences that emerges is that mammals, primates in
>particular, engage in rough-and-tumble play primarily among male
>young.

>Perhaps these "...well intentioned and politically correct men..."
>are following the dictates of their biological makeup, rather
>than the transient pressures of current fashion.

Yeah, I understand that most primates don't live in houses, drive cars,
program computers, etc.  We should probably all give up those "trendy"
things and go back to living on the plains or in trees, etc.

I don't know how much biology has to do with our inclinations, but I
*do* know that there are enough individual differences among human
beings that we should not base all our decisions on biological studies
of *other* animals.  Most of what humans do is *learned*, and it seems
that it would make sense to give all children the same *opportunities*
for types of play.  Every child is probably going to have their own sets
of likes and dislikes; why try to bias those by gender?  If it's really
a biological difference, the girls won't enjoy "rough play," and then
they shouldn't have to do it.  However, despite being pretty small and
weak, I *still* enjoy "rough play."  My brother was quite large and
strong, but he always disliked "rough play."

I don't plan to live like other primates...I *like* having intelligence,
free will, and the ability to decide for myself what I like, regardless
of the (purported) dictates of biology.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Proposed Massachusetts legislation H.5194 
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:13:05 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <6y=nxng.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> And then these bills will be passed, and it will be an offense
> (legally) to women everywhere that one is male. An offense punishable
> to who knows what extent. Most of these things remind me of communism.
> Whatever may have happened is not important, it is what this means
> as seen by the communist party, or in this case, the feminist party.
> I see a similarity in the idealism, and the way it is being expressed.

Dworkin-Mackinnon laws have yet to be upheld in courts.
-- 
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