HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:38:11 GMT

keller@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Margaret Keller) writes:
>the world such that we can all be fully functional at whatever labor
>we have talent without having to battle against a wave of irrelevant
>prejudice (relevant prejudice is not, in my opinion, bad).

Violent opposition of anything gives just as much validity to something
as violent support. 

>And incidentally, all you who make stupid, sophmorish, sexist comments
>on this or any other group, may your tiny, dweebwad brains someday be
>capable of understanding how embarrassing you are to the rest of us.

Why would you be embarassed at something someone else does? And why should
the fact that you are embarrassed matter to a "tiny dweebwad brain"?
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

   A man appointed to be judge has been killed without a knife.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexuality and Human Evolution - query
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 14:00:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug29.105416.5417@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>In article <1992Aug29.001740.42643@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
> miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>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.
>
>I think this is a sweeping statement that is not justified by the 
>evidence.
>
>Male dominance is widespread, but not universal in human history.

For what it's worth (and I am not qualified to have an opinion in this
area), there has been a discussion <ahem> in sci.skeptic where the
notion that there were -any- societies which were not male dominated 
was questioned.
 
>(I would point to Minoan Crete, some periods in Egypt, and some
>American Indian tribes as counter-examples. )

I have heard it said that some societies split the work differently,
that is along different gender lines, some even have the males taking
care of the children. This has suggested to some that our system may
not be "right". I rather thing that "right" is internally defined, and
I observe that all societies, even the above-(referred-to?) do divvy up
the jobs to different sexes (I mistakenly used gender above). No matter
how it jives with ones personal political views, I think that a case can
be made that this is very natural. Of course, you can always argue that
the division of labor needs to be balanced, of changed in some way.
 
>Mammalian social structures, even among primates, vary considerably.
>
>-- 
> Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
> alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: ERA question
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:11:01 GMT

In article <ATAYLOR.92Aug27145304@gauss.nmsu.edu> 
 ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>
>	Odd, I recall some opponents to the ERA pointing out that
>	equal pay for equal work had been the law since the late
>	1960's, that employment, housing and educational opportunities
>	were already addressed by various aspects of the Civil Rights
>	legislation (again of the 1960's) and that issues of
>	family rights were properly left to various States, rather
>	than the Federal Government.
>
>	Perhaps I had the misfortune to know articulate, thinking
>	people who opposed the ERA instead of the cartoon characters
>	Ric apparently encountered.

These federal laws are important but not comprehensive.  The ERA would
have changed a whole patchwork of state and local laws, federal
regulations etc.

(I don't see why sexism should be a states rights issue .)

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: ERA question
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:16:23
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: usa
	<1992Aug25.190117.4420@msc.cornell.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu's message of 25 Aug 92 19:01:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.190117.4420@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>From article <1992Aug25.181129.14972@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by rweibl@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Richard A Weibl):
>> The shrill voices of the opposition effectively seized the initiative and, 
>> according to Berry, so distorted the issue that it is no wonder you do not 
>> recall this simple wording.  What most people will remember is that "family 
>> values" advocates like the "Eagle Forum" lead by Phyllis Shafley argued that 
>> the ERA would result in unisex bathrooms and women being drafted into the 
>> armed forces.
>> 

>That's two people who have poo-pooed women being drafted and unisex bathrooms.

Well, I don't think that Richard is actually "pooh-poohing" these
things; rather, he is pointing out that these are things which many
people object to and which therefore were used to convince people that
the ERA was a "bad idea."

>Well, it seems to me that they certainly apply under ERA.

I agree.  I'm in favor of unisex bathrooms.  I often get *very* tired of
waiting in line, and I often just go ahead and use the "men's bathroom,"
if it is free.  I'm against the draft, for anyone, but I certainly think
that it should apply equally if it exists...I just don't think it should
exist, so I'm not going to fight to have women drafted but rather to
have men *not* drafted.

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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:53:36 GMT

aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:

>	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)

That's the first time I've heard this. Do you have any sources on this
remarkable assertion? I'd really like to look it up.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ted@dgbt.doc.ca (Ted Grusec)
Subject: Re: Real world example
Organization: The Communications Research Centre
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 23:54:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.135004.26055@burrhus.harvard.edu> dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
>In response to your real world example on the Physics question, I have to
>agree with the majority of people who have pointed out the question didn't
>need to mention gender at all.  But given a situation where mixed gender
>was somehow necessary and one had to be doing work while the other watched,
>the question remains: who should be portrayed as doing the work.  In such
>a situation, I disagree with the folk who say "This is physics, not
>politics, so it doesn't matter."  Prejudices spill over from field to
>field, and from social activity to social activity.  It's not OK to be
>prejudicial in physics as long as you aren't in political science.
>
>Nevertheless, my answer to Lester Ward would be that the wording of one
>particular question isn't really important.  The only time question wording
>would really be an issue, I think, is if over a series of questions those
>writing the test consistently had the man or the woman following a passive
>role.  Therefore, the response taken by your professors (to vary from year
>to year) seems perfectly adequate.  Any women who happen to take the
>test when the boy is portrayed as doing the work have no grounds for
>complaint under those terms.

If we are to pursue this line of reasoning, then let us not treat
"gender" as binary. From year to year, the "physic" question must
include all combinations of homosexual, lesbian, hermaphrodite,
transvestite, etc.  The students should be exposed to physics as it
really is!>
-- 
==========================================================================
Ted Grusec    Communications Research Centre    (Govt. of Canada, DOC)
 3701 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ont.K2H 8S2, CANADA  Internet: ted@dgbt.doc.ca
  Compuserve: 73607,1576  (613) 998 2762   Fax (613) 993 8657
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: The anti-choice-for-men, Muffy (Was Re: Winning by Violation)
Date: 4 Sep 92 00:54:40 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Living In Harmony

In article <ZEN.92Sep3134228@death.corp.sun.com> 
zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

>of posting rediculous and unsubstantiated claims.  What claims?  You are
>lying when you say (unless you're referring to her posting someone
>else's articles that say this, not her) she posted any of what you
>claimed she said that choice for women is good and choice for men is
>bad, and that we should force unequal legislation on men.  

Muffy posted that:

#Why is it so bad if he pays for his choice?  If a man chooses to have
#sex with a woman, he has to consider the possibility that a child will
#result.  If he does not wish to take this risk, he can avoid sex with
#women.  If he wishes to attempt to avoid the risk, but still have sex,
#he can wear a condom or get a vasectomy (which is, by the way, *much*
#less painful and dangerous than an abortion).  If the condom breaks, he
#can always sue the condom company for the child support, eh?  Also, of
#course, he should check out Consumer Reports and find out about the
#brands with less failures.

And:

#It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity.  If he's
#so worried, let him get a vasectomy.  If he's willing to take the risk
#of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break.
#Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures
#(abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in
#condom"?  *Everyone* involved needs to be responsible.

When anti-abortion people tell women "if you don't want to deal
with unwanted pregnancy then don't fuck or get sterilized" then every
feminist shouts that they try to control women's sexuality (I agree 
with feminism on that one BTW).

When Muffy tells men "if you don't want to deal with unwanted
pregnancy then don't fuck or get sterilized" y'all don't see anything
wrong in controlling men's sexuality.  Everybody (especially
feminists and traditionlists) "knows" that men's sexuality is a bad
thing that should be controlled.  When Muffy supports these opinions
she just fights for equal rights - feminists' style.

>  How about some proof with your accusations?  Not that we'll see any.

How about an apology?

> -- d

Hillel                                            gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Go back to school -- learn to read -- do something -- but don't bother
responding to postings that are obviously over your head." -- Diane Holt
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 2 Sep 1992 15:38:49 -0700
Organization: HP/San Diego Technical Graphics
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

>> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>>
>>Anyone know of a female version of the "guy"?


"dudette"
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:34:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep3.192001.13492@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>In article <9+kn7_r.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>"Gay bashing" does not mean beating up on gays, the recent court case
>>notwithstanding.
>
>Oh?
>
>It may mean something else as well, but this is common usage where I
>live; what usage did you have in mind? Parties?

I have absolutely no idea what you mean by the above. Communication is
not happening. And you deleted (after ignoring) the sentence before
where I stated that the term bashing in this context (XXXX bashing),
refers to verbal abuse only. 
 
> Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: The trashing of alt.feminism
Date: 1 Sep 92 21:19:54 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Aug31085410@remarque.berkeley.edu>,
	muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: 

> Well, you're a liar and a hypocrite, that much is clear.

While I'm not surprised that the first few postings in alt.feminism are about
the *reason* why we now need an alt.feminism, I am somewhat surprised that
the biggest violator of the charter of alt.feminism is the MODERATOR of
soc.feminism.

The new group is turning into a flaming ground by the very person who should
know better.  It makes one wonder if she isn't trashing the group because
she is jealous?

I call upon Muffy to stop flaming and post articles that are relavant to
feminism.  Never in my wildest dreams did I expect that the person who'd
trash the new group would be one of the supposedly "solid" citizens of
USENET.

Al
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rweibl@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Richard A Weibl)
Subject: Re: ERA question
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:11:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.160036.26747@cs.rochester.edu> hitzeman@cs.rochester.edu
(Janet Hitzeman) writes:
>Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does the ERA say?

From: Why ERA Failed: Politics, Womens's Rights, and the Amending Process of 
the Constitution by Mary Frances Berry.  Indiana University Press 1986.

"1.  Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of sex.
2.  The Congress shall have the power to enforce by appropriate legislation,
the provisions of this article.
3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

>People were arguing about it while I was growing up,
>but I only heard the arguments and never the actual text
>(not that I was interested, being perhaps twelve at the time).

The shrill voices of the opposition effectively seized the initiative and, 
according to Berry, so distorted the issue that it is no wonder you do not 
recall this simple wording.  What most people will remember is that "family 
values" advocates like the "Eagle Forum" lead by Phyllis Shafley argued that 
the ERA would result in unisex bathrooms and women being drafted into the armed
forces.

The same folks have used attacks on Hiliary Clinton rather than to debate the 
issues in the coming national elections.

Richard (Ric) Weibl          rweibl@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Educational Policy & Leadership, designated "student"
The Ohio State University
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:26:12 GMT


Perhaps so, Paul.  But unfortunately, anger and rhetoric do crop up.  I was
answering the man's question on *why* he was being "yelled" at.  In any debate
on a serious issue that are bound to be emotions that surface, whether they be
anger or some other kind.  Handling them in a classroom situation is, no
doubt, a very difficult thing to do.  Ignoring anger may be one way of doing
it, but perhaps there are other ways.  Also, I think the "bitter and indignant"
label may be a bit harsh...

carol
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Proposed Massachusetts legislation H.5194
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:06:06 GMT
Organization: Sporadic and incomplete

holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

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

Are you under the impresion that this somehow mitigates their horrific
nature?

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
From: spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Keywords: girl boy man woman vocabulary word games silliness
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:24:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <MUFFY.92Sep2161818@remarque.berkeley.edu>,
 muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes...

[deleted: "girl"=child  "man"=adult]...quite true, quite true

>If men were
>called "boys" in all the situations that women are called "girls," I
>don't think there would be a problem with the word "girl," either.

Which is pretty much the case.  Oh, I don't know about "all" situations, 
but men are sometimes referred to as boys.  I hardly think that anything is 
implied by their casual usage, but there are times when the diminuative 
isn't appropriate.

When such has happenned to me (someone actually called me "Jimmy" in a 
professional setting, habitually), I'd diffuse the situation by returning 
the favor (the offender certainly didn't like being called Mikey!). ;+)

                                                  James S. Zakany
						(no e-mail please!)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:04:09 GMT

From article <oneil.715538064@cwis>, by oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil):
[..]
> 
> "Man" in English is gender-specific.  If I told you to go talk to that "man"
> over there, and the "man" happened to be female, you'd think I was an idiot.

And if, as the first astronaut steps onto mars, I comment "Imagine, mankind
has now made it to mars".  And you said, they still haven't, that astronaut
is a woman, I'd think you were an idiot also.  Its usually quite clear
whether were refering to a specific individual or in the generic.

> We are not grasping.  We are trying to point out that the way we use language
> does reflect society.  When a person says "chairman of the board" one 
> typically thinks of a gray-haired, fifty year old white man.  What is so
> difficult about saying "chair of the board."  Are you going to tell me that

In which case, after getting the furniture picture out of my mind, I'd still 
think of a 50 year old man.

> sounds silly because it sounds like a piece of furniture?  Any more silly
> than the "chairman of the board" being female?

I have absolutely no problems with the 'chairman' of the board being a woman,
as I have none with a wo'man' being a woman.

If you truly think the masculine isn't neutered enough when used in the 
generic.  Instead of trying to institute new wording, I think a better 
strategy is to futher neuter it--by refering to nurses as he and the group
of just female students a freshmen.  Part of the problem is when people try
to be cute and call them freshwoman, effectively de-neutering what was a 
perfectly good neutral word.

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: d89-mor@nada.kth.se (Monika Orski)
Subject: Re: feminism
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:16:10 GMT

|> 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.
From: lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?....Why don't you guys get a JOB?
Date: 28 Aug 92 21:17:02 GMT
	<1992Aug25.143622.9395@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<26AUG199214230230@tacos.caltech.edu>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
In-reply-to: gag@tacos.caltech.edu's message of 26 Aug 92 22:23:00 GMT


>And YOU!!!  You're another gem.  With all the great books to read in
>the world, you waste your time reading and talking about this
>GARBAGE?  Are you guys for real????   You "feminist men"  REALLY crack me
>up.   The feminist women are annoying, but YOU guys are PATHETIC.
>GET a JOB.  If you can't find a job then worry about why the 
>economy is so bad--not about whether or not makeup oppresses
>women.  Get SERIOUS.

I have a job and a career, and am undoubtedly a serious man.  The
emergence of social-economic feminism is one of the most powerful
sources of modern change.  The work force has nearly doubled, the
nuclear family has disappeared, politicians now legislate based on
input from feminist lobbies, and the ethics of "We hold these Truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" have been called
into question.  The foundations of modern economics, society,
psychology, and philosophy have been shook. The question comes
to my mind, do you read any of those great books to which you referred
to as preferable to this discussion?  And if you really believe what
you are saying, why in the world did you join this discussion?

Tom Lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: wwf1@ra.msstate.edu (Bill Ford)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:16:41 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:

>English is essentially a Germanic Language.  "Man" (in German) is not gender
>specific.  The term "freshman" in English is not gender specific.  Those who 
>say it does are grasping at straws so try and demonstrate some systemic sexism 
>in Western culture my looking for "MAN" in every word and then assumming that 
>excludes female.  My advice to these people: try a serious issue or you won't 
>be taken seriously.

>Jeff.

Really.  I mean, we are all huwoman, right?

-- 
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|  Bill Ford: wwf1@isis.msstate.edu |   Miss'ippi State University          | 
|        Or : wwf1@ra.msstate.edu   |      "Moo."                           |
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------'
From: smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:25:04 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

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.

What did I find?  Well, for starters, the class focused on what men
have done to women.  Now while I know this is important, the class
began to feel like a reprimand.  I was never "in" the class.  The
teacher switched between the word "women" and "us" while the word
"Men" was interchanged with "them".

I ended up dropping out of the class halfway through.  I had
previously had this specific professor for a "Current Moral and Social
Issues" class and did very well.  I enjoyed her previous class but not
this.

My question is this: If a guy wants to help out, do feminists want
them not to?  Is it the feminist's goal to yell at men for
wrongdoings and not let them participate?

I'm not looking for flames; just some answers.

- Seth
Newsgroups: alt.feminism