HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: elyse@uivlsi.csl.uiuc.EDU (Elyse Rosenbaum)
Subject: Re: >slamming Women's Bookstores
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Coordinated Science Lab., University of Illinois
Date: 29 Dec 92 00:04:35 GMT

In article <1hmc15INNob5@agate.berkeley.edu> WALKER@bigvax.alfred.edu writes:
#Steve Seidman writes:
##I have a bone to pick with a local women's bookstore,
##and I hope that my beef will have implications toward
##certain concepts that will apply to "gender-differences
##between men and women" in books and also net.discussions.
##
##There's a somewhat famous women's bookstore in Ithaca, NY.
##Besides carrying books on women's issues they also have many
##community activities such as poetry readings.
##
#
##The other day I went into that women's bookstore with a friend.
##He happened to ask for a book that might have fit their
##collection profile.  The clerk got up from behind the counter
##of healing crystals and said:
##
##        We don't have that book.  We don't carry books
##        written by men.
##
#I thought they were a lesbian bookstore.  Did the book fit
#that profile?  Yeah, I now, lots of the stuff they don't
#carry doesn't fit that profile.  But it might explain their
#lack of interest in men.
#
##
#As owners of the store they are entitled to specialize in
#anything they want.  I think it's a charming place and
#their specialty makes it what it is.
#

In full agreement with Mr. Walker, methinks Mr. Seidman
is reading waaaay too much into the bookstore's policy
of only carrying books by female authors. I see no reason
not to name names - Smedleys bookstore is a SPECIALTY
shop. They have finite floor space *and* their stock
COMPLEMENTS that found in other bookstores right
inside Ithaca. In fact, back in ancient times,
when I lived in Ithaca, Borealis bookstore had a little
sign posted which explained their lack of a women's studies/
lesbian studies section. Namely, that these items could
be found nearby at Smedleys. No one read any "anti-woman" bias
into Borealis's decision not to duplicate Smedleys' stock.
Nor should any "anti-man" bias be read into Smedleys' decision
to specialize in women's books and women authors.

The existence of Smedleys won't lead to the eradication of
heterosexuality. And it's not like they specialize
in *hate* literature. Let's find some real injustice to get
worked up about.

A bookstore lover,
Elyse Rosenbaum


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: uunet!infmx!hartman@ncar.ucar.EDU (Robert Hartman)
Subject: Re: men crossing the street at night to avoid frightening women
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:29:52 GMT

In article <9212292355.AA02165@york.cs.ucla.edu> gds@ficus.cs.ucla.EDU (Greg Skinner) writes:
>In article <1ho1c9INN1f7@agate.berkeley.edu> infmx!hartman writes:
>>As a man, I must say that I don't have any problem with keeping a wide
>>berth when I see a woman walking alone at night.  If I'm by myself, and
>>I'm not in a huge hurry, it's just not that big a deal to adjust my
>>pace to maintain a constant, respectable distance.
>
>For argument's sake, let's say all non-threatening men decided to
>maintain a respectable distance from women late at night, but it is
>not possible to distinguish a non-threatening man from a man who
>intends to do harm to women.

Who's arguing?  I'm just indicating what I do when I'm in the situation.

> ... Would you say that women still have
>something to fear, even though they would no longer be frightened by
>non-threatening men? Would you say that steps ought to be taken to
>empower women to defend themsleves against these men?  In other words,
>does avoiding frightening women really help them protect themselves?

Well, insofar as it is customary for men to avoid frightening each
other when out and about at night--unless they're looking for
trouble--this helps other men spot the loonies and take evasive or
defensive action in plenty of time.  So while it doesn't completely
eliminate the risk, I think it helps.

>If women are given (and take) the means to protect themselves, what
>purpose does the non-threatening men keeping a respectable distance
>serve?

In that case it would keep them from getting mace in the face by
mistake.

Also, when men keep a respectable distance, they become potential
witnesses, rather than potential perpetrators.  And isn't that a nicer
way to be regarded?

Finally, since the presence of a witness can itself be a deterrent,
that alone increases the safety of all concerned.

-r

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: rhb@world.std.COM (Robert H Brueckner)
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:44:41 GMT
	<1992Dec17.013326.17387@octel.com>

[Followups to this need to be very careful to keep a feminist
relevance.  A flame war over gun control will not be permitted
on this group.  --CTM]

In article <1992Dec17.013326.17387@octel.com> uunet!octela!!cathy@ncar.ucar.EDU (Cathy Kearns) writes:

QUOTE
   [ELIPSIS]  Interviews with rapists and other criminals have pointed
   out that they tend to prey on fearful women more than confident women,
   so woman who truely feel confident walking the streets are less likely
   to be attacked.  How do we give women the confidence they need?  In
   some cases, being able to walk at night, with only women, gives them
   this confidence.  Yes, those women only "Take Back the Night" walks.
   They don't mean to exclude you, they mean to empower the women
   walking, that maybe they can, someday, with confidence, walk alone.
   Other confidence building measures...permits to carry real weapons,
   and the knowledge to use them... self defense courses...I don't know,
   feel free to throw suggestions in here.  The point I am trying to make
   is, that as long as we feel we need men to protect us, we won't be
   free to walk alone in the dark.  Putting the criminals away will take
   away the danger.  But even then, how do we take away the fear?
END QUOTE

I'm heartily support self-empowerment for women (if this sentiment
isn't totally irrelevant); however, I wonder how walking in a group
will give women the confidence to walk alone. Seems kind of illogical
to me. And I am absolutely chilled by your notion that women should be
carrying "real weapons." I think the answer, or one of the answers, is
to deny *everyone* the access to firearms. I don't believe there is
anything in the Constitution that should condone the kind of violence
we have in America today, and if there is we should change it -- not
make it worse.

If women have guns, and it is seen that they do, then rapists will get
guns too, and use them first. Think about it. Do you want your town to
become some 1990s version of Tombstone, Arizona?

Or do you think that only women should be armed in your utopia? And
that if they shoot a man, then he was probably (or even definitely) a
rapist? And that's that?

My question was aimed at how can crimes be prevented, not perpetuated
and multiplied


RB
--
|"The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who  |
| have loved it." -- George Santayana  // Opinions expressed here, when |
| clear and persuasive, are my own. --Rob Brueckner (rhb@world.std.com) |


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Clinton's Cabinet
Date: 30 Dec 1992 17:18:28 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:

>What do people think of Clinton's cabinet?

>He did appoint four women, but Shalala aside, they seem very ordinary,
>perhaps conservative.  It seems like the women who do climb up high
>on the political ladder are mostly like this.  While it means something
>for the opportunities for women who are into ladder climbing I dont see
>any value in it beyond that.

>Same shit, differnt sex.  For a white man who already has doors open
>to him I dont see how it changes my world any beyond some cosmetic
>alterations.

It is a good point.. I think. The thing is , that the system has
`ladder climbing' inherent in it. The whole notion of `ladder climbing'
implies a higher/lower relationship in all things. I think the theory
is that women in positions of power will tend toward handling that
power in more of a peer/peer relationship than a higher/lower manner,
but as you say, this does not seem likely, given the higher/lower headset
that is required to reach such positions of government. The system is
self perpetuating, so is unlikely to be significantly changed just by
putting people of the previously oppressed into `power' positions.
I believe that Bill Clinton gives good lip service to the idea of
creating `partnership' as a model for government. The changes will be
barely perceptible though, if they happen at all. Time will tell..


>Any opinions

MY opinion..

al

-- 
Al Aldrich aaldrich@encore.com 305-797-2335
"Mythology: The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its
origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished
>from the true accounts which it invents later." -- Ambrose Bierce


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: mvwjf@mvgpf.att.com (William J Fallon)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Expression of attract
Date: 22 Dec 1992 17:55:10 GMT
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <92Dec19.125418edt.54564@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves) writes:
>cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes...
>
>I don't strictly consider it hypocrisy that some of the men who put
>posters on their walls, disliked it when female reporters barged in on
   
Oddly enough in four years of college high school sports, four years
of college sports and 15 years in a private gym the only time I saw
a locker with pictures of partially clothed women in it was when Sylvester
Stallone forced open his locker after it had been given to someone
else in the original Rocky movie.
  
>them.  The difference is that the women who posed for the posters, did
>so *voluntarily*, which was *not* the case of many of the men who were
>*involuntarily* displaying themselves.
   
Almost all the college locker rooms we visited (including our own) and
the New England Patriots locker room, scence of a famous confrontation
between male athletes and a female reporter, have seperate shower areas
away from the lockers so athletes don't have to be nude in the locker
area unless they so chose.
  
>Women athletes also generally *demand* the right to privacy, and male
>reporters may not enter their locker rooms until they are *fully*
>clothed. 
   
Not true in the Ivy league and can't say I've ever heard of this in
a pro sport where there are TEAMS. It's true in many tennis and golf
clubs which are PRIVATE clubs used for pro events.
  
>
>JMC> Besides, when women's team sports make as much money as men's do,
>JMC> we can talk about turning the tables.  Until then . . .

Well you specified team sports but female tennis stars make more money
than do the present crop of men as do female skaters and gymnasts.



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Version Five -- I better shut up!
Date: 30 Dec 1992 17:19:00 GMT
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1hfsncINN6kb@agate.berkeley.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

# What do you know about my life that you can say so surely that I'm
# wrong when I say that I was discriminated against by affirmative
# action?

Two points, neither of which *necessarily* applies to you:

First, if 10 males are turned down for a position that a woman gets,
all 10 can't claim they lost the job to affirmative action.  Nine of
them would have lost it anyway.

Second, if the assumptions underlying affirmative action are correct
-- that women and minorities have been systematically excluded from
certain positions -- then the position you thought you lost to
affirmative action wouldn't have been available at all if that
discrimination hadn't taken place.

David Johns




-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: The _Varsity_ Break-In...
Date: 21 Dec 1992 18:14:43 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

clh@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes...
CL> In article <1g5jbiINNhtg@agate.berkeley.edu>, bickis@skmath3.usask.ca (M. Bi
CL> ) writes:
CL> >
CL> > Lepine's actions were an anomaly.  They are not something likely
CL> > to recur.

CL> What about the death-threats which women at (some Canadian university)
CL> received last October following a break-in and theft of their files
CL> (and photos)? [reference, recent McLean's article on universities in
CL> Canada].

CL> As the job market gets tighter, and there are more successful women
CL> who may be perceived as "taking my job [place in an engineering
CL> class]", I do envision this kind of event recurring. :-(


Actually, Chris, I think that you're referring to the break-in at the offices
of the University of Toronto _Varsity_ newspaper, which had recently published
a supplement on female sexuality which included, among other things, an article
>from a woman who discussed sex with vegetables and fruits, and said (this isn't
paraphrasing of her point) 'I'd rather fuck vegetables than any MAN'.

Now while I am NOT defending the break-in, I am saying that in this case, the
cause was *not* the perception that "women are taking our places," as you
hypothesised, but rather that "feminists are lesbians who hate men".  Again,
while I do not agree with the actions of the perpetrators, I think that it
is somewhat important to at least clarify the motives (and as I have said
before, even the motives of *insane* people are important).

Even so, while I would say that I took offense to a woman saying that men are
sexually inferior to vegetables, as though we should be, to paraphrase Martin
Terman's recent message, shaping up to some sort of ideal of length and eternal
erection, I believe that breaking into a newspaper office and threatening
feminist members of the masthead with death, is NOT a justified reaction *at
all*.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Hello, I am part number ||#||||#||#||#||


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: brasher@chaph.usc.EDU (Brenda Brasher)
Subject: Prostitution in America
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Reply-To: brasher@chaph.usc.EDU
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:20:37 GMT


I'm in the very early stages of studying prostitution in America, and
wondered if anyone has encountered commendable resource materials
dealing with this subject?  My interests include the legal, economic
and other societal structures which either tacitly or overtly assist
in producing a vulnerable population who become prostitutes AND
critical analysis of American sex, power and money ideologies which
marginalize and enshadowed the business of prostitution while
simultaneouly allowing it to flourish.

I realize my biases are evident in the way I've framed this request,
in that it's obvious I do not consider prostitution an activity which
a reasonable person -- who possessed viable alternatives -- would
pursue.  If there are good critical writings which make an alternative
argument, I would be interested in them as well.

Please e-mail responses to brasher@scf.usc.edu.  I will be glad to
post a summary of the responses I receive to the net if people are
interested.

Thanks!

> Brenda
>
> [...studying over the holidays whether I like it or not!]
>
>


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: muffy@mica.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy)
Subject: Re: harrasment the other way
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:33:48 GMT

In article <ByAH5r.Iso@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> lstewart@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (L. Stewart -- IS Office 1058) writes:
>I work in a department that has a long tradition of feminism,
>anti-authoritarianism, and social activism. The feminist
>element is quite strong and vocal. For the most part men and
>women get along rather well. Because the feminist movement
>is locally empowered there is a proliferation of literature,
>posters, flyers and pamphlets. Newspaper articles are stuck
>to walls, doors and billboards. The tone of much of the recent
>output seems to be pretty plain in accusing men of being
>generally guilty of oppression, sexism and harrasment.

>Do the displays of such materials constitute sexual harrasment
>given that there are areas within the department that I simply won't
>go because the atmosphere is so negative.

They do not constitute sexual harassment.  However, if you feel that the
atmosphere is negative towards you in areas where you have to work, then
it is harassment.  There does not seem to be a sexual component,
however.  The "sexual" means that there is some element of sex (nude
pictures, suggestive comments, etc.) in the harassment, not that people
of one particular sex are being put down.

It has been a while since you posted this, so I don't know if you've
done anything further about this.  I certainly think that you ought to
talk to your manager about this negative atmosphere.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca ("Charles J. Savoie")
Subject: Re: Version Five -- I better shut up!
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:25:21 GMT

In article <1hslm4INNkpm@agate.berkeley.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:

>Two points, neither of which *necessarily* applies to you:
>
>First, if 10 males are turned down for a position that a woman gets,
>all 10 can't claim they lost the job to affirmative action.  Nine of
>them would have lost it anyway.

Hmmmm.  This seems like a decent argument at first, but then again,
always try and reverse the roles: would you say that 100 blacks who
lost a job to the five whites who applied for it, can't all claim they
lost a job to racism?  I mean 95 of them would've lost it anyway,
right?  Still seems the same?  Thought not.

Think of it less as losing a given job to affirmative action, but as
losing all hope of getting a given job due to affirmative action. Ten
people could claim *that*, in your example.

Also, it's either men and women, or males and females; NOT males and
women.  A woman recently complained here (or perhaps it was soc.women)
about people using 'a female' to denote 'a woman', so I'm going to
show how it's a silly point by complaining about the reverse... :-)

>Second, if the assumptions underlying affirmative action are correct
>-- that women and minorities have been systematically excluded from
>certain positions -- then the position you thought you lost to
>affirmative action wouldn't have been available at all if that
>discrimination hadn't taken place.

Why?  No positions would be opening up if women and minorities were
included in all positions from the start?  Um, no.  What apparently
happened is that men got most of the openings for a while.  The only
way the above argument makes sense is if the company fired a perfectly
good male worker to open up a position for a female one.  I don't
think anyone does this. (yet)

Charles.

PS: Yes, point, counter-point, I know... I know...
--

,.. .  . .  . ,.. . . ... ,.. ,..   =====================================
|   |--| |  | |   |<   |  |-  `-.   Charles Savoie  chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca
`'' '  ' `''' `'' ' ` ''' `'' '''   =====================================

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.