HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Sexuality and Human Evolution - query
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:17:40 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

I am aware of the atrocious treatment of women throughout human
history (I think it first really got to me when I read Ibsen's plays).
As I understand it, though, at least some varieties of contemporary
feminism go quite far beyond seeking redress for these horrors, urging
some sort of wholesale revamping of sexuality and gender (the cultural
manifestations of sexuality).  This certainly seems to be an age of
extremes.

It seems to me that much of what we are as human beings comes from our
evolutionary past.  Part of that past is certainly male dominance,
manifested in all of the mammalian species which have elaborate social
systems, including, of course, primates.  Have feminist theorists come
to grips with this biologic heritage (or curse, if it is that) and the
long-term consequences, and chances of success, of trying to eliminate
a relationship between the sexes that developed eons before we were
even human?  Reinterpreting, I can see, but eliminating...?

I'll be happy to accept suggestions for reading; who are the people
who have written about this?
********************************** +.............................+
*- Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>* :All opinions expressed herein:
*There is no privileged position.* :are my own and are not to be :
*	-God, Derrida, others    * : attributed to my employer   :
********************************** +.............................+

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 16:04:27 GMT

In article <a1cn4a#.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.141026.1018@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>>In article <l-cn-sd.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
[...]
>>>
>
>>                                                            Laws against
>>sexual harrassment do not necessarily encode Dworkin's extremist views.  
>
>Laws drafted by Dworkin must neccessarily encode Dworkin`s views, how
>can it be otherwise?
>
	But *all* sexual harrassment laws were not drafted by Dworkin, which
is the point I was trying to make.

>>                                                                       Do
>>you have any actual evidence that these laws are interpreted in the way you
>>claim?  Otherwise this is simply an opinion.  Personally, I'd like to hear
>>from someone with some legal knowledge on this issue.
>
>No, this is your mistake in asserting that these were my words. But we have
>covered that already, have we not?
>
	Well, the distinction between what you believed and what someone else
said was unclear (to me, anyway) in the initial article, and I saw no indication
that you *disagreed* with what you quoted.  In any case, evidence is still in
order.
[...]
>
>>                   Personally, I'm getting a little tired of what looks
>>like an attempt to discredit the entire feminist movement by repeatedly
>>focusing on it's most radical members.  It's not unlike discussing the
>>Republican party only in terms of David Duke or Patrick Buchanan.
>
>Any damage done by radical feminists cannot be ignored or dissmissed
>by saying, "others who claim to be feminists would not do this". Unless
>you are prepared to prove that they are not feminists, and not a part
>of the feminist movement, they must be given due consideration.
	In which case, any damage done by any extremist member of any movmement
must "be given due consideration", whatever that means in this context.  Fair
is fair.  David Duke is a Republican, Rev. Al Sharpton is a civil rights
leader, members of The Cross, Sword, and Arm of The Lord are Christians.
That hardly makes them representative of their movements, and it doesn't
discredit those movements as a whole.
>
>>>Rich
>>The_Doge
>
>Rich again
The_Doge


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 27 Aug 92 22:59:14 GMT
	<1992Aug26.185005.29368@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
In-reply-to: crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu's message of 26 Aug 92 18:50:05 GMT


>I've read Naomi Wolfe, and don't see how a woman who believes what she does 
>would use cosmetics or jewelry as anything but something *she* enjoys. I doubt
>if she decorates herself for anyone but herself.

  Sounds a little selfish, don't we all want to please other people
  sometimes?  Can't Naomi speak for herself, perhaps she doesn't want
  to be considered selfish (or maybe she does.. ) It may not please
  her that you said this for her, but it appears you don't care what
  does and doesn't please people (the point being that this attitude
  has ramifications)...  Some quotes from her on the general subject
  would be very interesting.  Since y'all are Naomi read, how about
  it? (perhaps Naomi reads the net?)
  
>  Which is the reason that 
>sometimes I wear makeup and jewelry, sometimes I don't.  Depends on the mood.
>Not what I think someone else (i.e. a male) wants me to do.
                                ^^^^^
                         oh, but a female telling you would be ok?
                         perhaps you meant e.g. - 'for example' instead
                         of i.e. 'that is'

  Don't you ever do anything to please someone else?  Isn't
  it pleasing to  make others happy?  Don't you like it when others
  do things for you?

  After reading this, I wonder to what extent the emergence of a popular
  social-political-economic feminism, especially radical feminism, is a
  manifestation of the 'me' attitudes of the 'me' generation.  I
  submitt that there are many unfair situations, some of which should
  and can be changed.  In fact I beleive a *lot* should be changed.
  But egocentric arguments stem from a philosophy I find inconsistent.
  (Political egocentrism is one of those things that should be changed
  - by deletion.)

  Is this superficial reply your real belief?  Do you have a more
  consistent argument for this point?  I can think of a few, but
  none of them are based on 'men verus woman', or 'just for me'.


-tom
lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu









Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Feminist-bashers
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 05:48:55 GMT

	While I'm at it, could some of you people who necessitate feminism
just come right out and explain why you seek to manipulate and control
womyn?

					J. Wagner

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Sexist studies... was(Re: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<AWERLING.92Sep1232252@dante.nmsu.edu> <xqkn+8p.payner@netcom.com>
	<1992Sep2.160255.4337@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:48:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.160255.4337@ccu.umanitoba.ca> umlepine@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Bryan Lepine) writes:

> Don't flame too hard cuz I respect the right to equality for any race
> religion or gender, however I don't care who does it, arguing semantics is
> silly and it doesn't solve a damn thing. If you are able to obtain
> equality in the workplace and at home what does it matter if what anybody
> calls you?
 
Because semantics, as you call it, can be a very dangerous thing.
Language itself is the tool by which most people define their reality.
Look how the Bush camp twists the term "family values" to mean "the
Cleaver family."  How can a self-respecting woman fully reconcile
within herself words like "Freshman" and such?  I can't imagine it
being any more possible than I can reconcile the twisted notion that
"family" cannot include homosexuals, but must include fathers.

It's all very twisted and/or completely dated.  Nothing "silly" about
trying to change the very tool that shapes society: Language.

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 03:36:02 GMT

In article <oneil.715407157@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:

>   smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:

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

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

First of all, "first-year student" is clumsy and would be shortened
into a slang word within days of its institution as a replacement
title.  

Some people are classified as college freshmen for many years, thus
after two semesters are no longer first-year students.  

Solution?  Think of a short, relevant word.  I intend to be a college
educator, and could not possible adopt "first-year student" into my
vocabulary.  I mean, do you call it "antidisestablishmentarianism," or
do you call it "puritanism"?

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

What she said!

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

Well, hey, I've heard *lots* of men called "babe," by both men and
women.  But I agree with you point.

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

I'd call that oversimplification.  Men "get f***cked" too, you know.
It has to do with the receiving end of sex.  What that phrase does do,
in my opinion, is make sex *in general* into a violent notion.

--
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"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: maria@cs.ruu.nl (Maria Ferreira)
Subject: Re: equality
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:18:31 GMT
Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science

In <BtLKsM.Lz9@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> ahkkim@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Alexander Kim) writes:

>In article <1992Aug25.122519.17366@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> lemieux@eecg.toronto.edu (Guy Gerard Lemieux) writes:
>>>are a laugh to think they will ever happen. 
>>
>>There was a recent article in a campus newspaper about how women should
>>not be subjected to "sex tests" to ensure their gender while competing in
>>world-class sports.  This seems to support the idea of integrated co-ed
>>sports.
>>
>>Should all women be subjected to sex tests?  For that matter, shouldn't
>>men also be so subjected?  A large argument against the testing is because
>>an XX/XY chromosone check is not accurate enough, and could have severe
>>psychological repercussions.  How can you tell the difference between
>>sexes, when you cannot accurately rely upon such tests?  Is genital
>>checking 100% accurate (in the presence of sex changes etc)?  More
>>importantly, is it "fair"?
>>
>
>I always thought that the purpose of the sex test was so that a man could not
>compete as a woman and gain some (hypothetical?) advantage.  To date I think
>that it has happened once an Austrian skier or something.
>

According to an article I read recently in a dutch newspaper (NRC) the only 
time that happened was in the Berlin olympics. A man participated in long jump
women. The motivation was that Hitler wanted Germany to win a lot of medals.
Ironically the man (I forgot his name) ended 4. In the fifties he made the
story public.

As far as "sex tests" are concerned, the international association of athletics
has already banned them and I suppose the COI will be pressed for the same
especially now that the 'cold war' ended. Not only are the tests unfair since
they apply only to a group (women), they are innacurate (the article mentioned
something like 20% error probability), and they pose very serious questions,
not only from an ethical point of view but also pratical. If a women is not
"women enough" to compete in the female competitions, then where can she
compete (man comp. excluded)?

cf

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Subject: Re: ERA question
Organization: Center for Biomolecular Simulation, Department of Chemistry,
	Columbia University
	<MUFFY.92Aug26131623@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Aug27.102510.24842@doug.cae.wisc.edu> <4zcn6cr.payner@netcom.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 04:19:59 GMT

In article <4zcn6cr.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

   The subtle difference here is that the bathrooms in your home/whatever
   is probably single occupancy, where public bathrooms are not. Another
   interesting point us the women require more bathroom facilities than
   men. This is why there is a long line at the womens bathroom, because
   they most likely -do- have equal facilities, but require more for equal 
   usage. I am making no value judgment here, just pointing out what I
   understand to be pertinant facts. 


	I once read in the paper that the state regulations for whatever
state I was in at the time (probably NY) for bathroom construction in 
public buildings were being revised.  It seems that the old regulations
required an equal number of *toilets* in the men's and women's bathrooms.
Most builders then added on some (less expensive) urinals in the men's
rooms.  Voila: longer lines for the women's rooms.
	Unfortunately, I have no idea where or when I read this, so you'll
just have to trust my memory or think of it as a plausible urban legend
(although I'm pretty sure I read it in some reputable newspaper).  
	A male friend of mine used to tell me about the meetings of the
International Male Conspiracy (all men were members), where decisions were
made like making dresses without pockets and making dress shoes half the
width of average female feet.  No doubt they're responsible for the 
bathroom crisis too.  (NO I do not believe in the I.M.C. and YES it was
a joke, so don't bother to flame me for it.  The bathroom regulations are
true though, to the best of my memory.)

Julie
From: gworrell@carina.unm.edu (Gayla M. Worrell)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:00:31 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Aug31.142504.13145@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>I tried taking a women's studies class in college.  I thought it would
>be interesting to see what I could do to help reduce sexism in our
>society.
>
I respect your decision to try to help reduce sexism in our society.  But,
were you trying to reduce your own sexism in the process, or just fix that
of society.  

I have taken quite a few women's studies classes in which men were participants.In some of those classes, the men were active in discussions and other parts
of the class.  In some classes, though, the men participated by become very
upset any time anything negative was said about men in general.  I know it may
be hard to understand, (and I don't mean this to be condescending, honest) but
a women's studies class is an envioronment in which women feel safe to express
their views regarding the society in which they have lived.  For many of them
it is the first time they have ever felt safe to express these views.

Although I haven't attened a women's studies class and felt like a *them*, I
do have experience in other situations.  The most uncomfortable of which was
participating in a "fish bowl" discussion with women of color.  Actually, it
wasn't a discussion for me, because I couldn't say anything.  I am a white
woman.  I sat and listened as women of color discussed oppression in their
life.  It was a remarkable experience, in that for the first time, I listened
and did not respond, just listened.  I heard these women talk about all of
the oppression they suffer as women of color.  Before this event, I did not
consider myself to be racist.  After this event, I knew there was no way I
could not be racist until I confronted it within myself.

My suggestion to those men who wish to help the feminist movement is to attend
a women's studies class and listen.  Listen to what those women have to say
about what their lives have been like.  Do not take this as an opportunity to
defend men, and do not take the statements personally (unless they were meant
that way :-).  Then, when you have assimilated the information, respond in a
way that is appropriate for you, whether that is to join in the fight against
oppression or not.

If you participated in the class by being antagonistic and feeling threatened
everytime someone insulted men, then I'm glad you dropped, because you were
obviously not ready for this type of class.  If on the other hand, you were
an active participant in the class, one who listened as well as spoke, then
I'm sorry you had this experience and urge you to try again with a different
instructor.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Gayla M. Worrell    UNM - Mental Health Center     gworrell@carina.unm.edu

  "The future will be better tomorrow." - Vice President Dan Quayl
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 21:37:03 GMT

tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>england@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (julie england) writes:

>>I had an statistics (econ) instructor who was fond of giving us
>>homework and exam questions that compared women to men.  

[deletia]

>>The women in the class just couldn't believe it.  I
>>couldn't believe it!  I'd never run across such a blatent statement
>>before, though I had suspicions that that was how most men felt.
>
>Sounds more like you have met the wrong guys, rather than making any Earth-
>moving discovery. Since when do the words of one man indicate the thinking of
>many?

Hmm -- in my reading, she said that she had *suspicions* that most
men felt that way.  I didn't read anything that said anything
remotely like, "this blatant statement indicates how most men feel."

Her *suspicions* were of the generalization genre, true... but I didn't
get the idea that she beleived that such generalizations were confirmed
by this one jerk....
 
>>It is sometimes hard
>>to believe.  This happened to me about 6 years ago, so I imagine
>>it is still a common perception.  The instructor, by the way, was
>>a graduate student, fairly young, and in my opinion, should have
>>known better!!!
>
>Well, yes, he should have known better, but otherwise I don't understand 
>your apparent theory that "this guy was a jerk, so all men must be jerks."

I must have missed something.  I can't find the basis for your complaint. 

>As far as society, well you might have a point that he was conditioned to
>think that way, but I find your implying that he thought that way because 
>men as a whole think that way to have no solid basis in fact.

I agree with you, Tyger, that the theory that "all men are jerks" is a 
pretty dumb one, but it seems like you were a little trigger happy on
that flame thrower....

>
>>Julie
>
>   Tyger

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: feminism
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 16:47:13 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep1.151610.1398@kth.se> d89-mor@nada.kth.se (Monika Orski) writes:
>|> In article <3870@keele.keele.ac.uk> mad19@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Mr The biggest chauvanist around. =) writes:
>|> >
>|> >THE CHAUVENIST PIG IS STRIKING AGAIN. HA HA HA 
>|>         
>
>
>  Boys will be boys, but girls will be women.


Probably with about the same frequency as boys become men.


Rich


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ppessi@vipunen.hut.fi (Pekka Pessi)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:24:46

In article <1992Sep2.204503.29629@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>I can think of a few times when I wouldn't want a unisex bathroom - like
>when my period surprises me, for one.

>But to make bathrooms equal (I hate waiting in lines, and if there are
>more women in line than toilets, I use the mens)  we could  base public
>bathroom designs on statistics.

>Since it takes women approximately 1.32 seconds to pee, and men
>approximately 30 seconds, why not just put 3 times as many toilets in the
>womens room than the mens?

	I have made a study about this subject last May Day. It took
		a woman to pee in men's room   35 secs;
		a man to pee in men's room     45 secs;
		a woman to pee in ladies' room 105 secs;
		no man peed in ladies' room. 

	On statistics, it is a Good Idea to make only unisex toilets.

--
Pekka Pessi	/	ppessi@niksula.hut.fi
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Well, what should I do?
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:35:21 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


There has been a lot of conversation about "womens studies" courses,
and how men shouldn't take "men bashing" personally, etc...   Some
people have questioned other people's ability to be feminists.   There
has been a fair amount of negative talk.

How about a little positive talk?  I am a male.  I tend to think
of myself as a feminist.  I know I have eliminated a lot of sexism, but
of course I haven't rooted it all out.   As a male, let me ask;
instead of calling me an appressor, etc...  help me improve instead.
What 10 things should concerned males try to improve in themselves?

Call me a pig, and I'll probably grunt at you.  Give me a check list 
for improvement, and I'll try to improve.

Tom
Newsgroups: alt.feminism