HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 2 Sep 92 07:53:26
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<AWERLING.92Sep1225713@dante.nmsu.edu>
	<2SEP199210444301@venus.lerc.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov's message of 2 Sep 1992 10:44 EDT  

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."  When I approached her and asked "well, dontcha think others might
>see that as just a bit sexist?" she went nonlinear on me.  She said some 
>people take that politically-correct language business too far.

>While I can understand people being tired of political correctness, I 
>disagreed with her on this particular point anyway, and concluded that we
>can't expect all the men to buy into gender-neutral language until all the
>women buy into it.

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.  I agree that women need to stop assisting
people in putting them down, but that doesn't mean that men can't do it
unilaterally.  Anyway, men *wouldn't* be doing it unilaterally - I
certainly do not call any of the secretaries in our office "girls," nor
do they (in this case) call themselves that.

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?

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)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Proposed Massachusetts legislation H.5194
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:20:30 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <m2anlxh@lynx.unm.edu>, lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
> 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)

I am under the impressuion that this mitigates how much time I have to spend
worrying about them.  They tried, they lost, they're yesterdays news.  If their
laws get passed again, they'll get tossed again.

-- 
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.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Maternity leave (was: something like Sexist Examples)
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:16:28
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Distribution: usa
	<1992Aug27.164631.12039@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ajaszcz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu's message of 27 Aug 92 16:46:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.164631.12039@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> ajaszcz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Archie Jaszcz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.105155.2081@cs.rochester.edu> hitzeman@cs.rochester.edu (Janet Hitzeman) writes:
>>must make a choice.  In order to be fair, giving women
>>the same chance as men to be successful at their careers,
>>we need the following:
>>
>>(1) Maternity leave with the promise that when the woman gets
>>back her job will still be there.
>>(2) Day care, preferably run or supervised by the government so
		  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>some standards are upheld and the woman can feel safe leaving her
>>child there.
>>
>A few points here:  I thought that the whole idea of maternity leave
>was precisely so that the woman (or man) can STAY with the child and take 
>care of it.  Why would you need day care, if you're the one on
>maternity leave? 

Well, unless each parent gets about three years of leave (to look after
the child until it starts school), there is going to be a fairly long
period when both parents are working and the child has to be looked
after.  I believe that most day care won't take children under 6 months
or a year or something on that order.

>Another thing:  would you really want the government (currently headed
>by Mr. Bush, whom you dislike so much--I'm not much of a fan either) to take
>care of your child?

Absolutely not.  I think the idea here is that it's pretty much the
purpose of the government to provide services like this, which are often
too expensive for, say, a small company to offer.  I'd rather see
affordable private day care, though, perhaps aided by government funding
(although that also leaves open the "brainwashing" possibility - if they
pay for it, they think they can tell you what to do, even when it's your
money to begin with (taxes)).

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: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 01:08:14 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>As far as reasons, one that I personally find convincing is the fear of
>men that some women who have been raped have.  I think they they should
>have a place to go to be helped where there are no men.  However, I also
>think that there should be equivalent facilities for men.  Which brings
>up an interesting question, since I don't know much about rape of men
>and whether they have similar needs or fears - do men feel that they
>need a men-only rape counselling facility?  Or would that actually be a
>negative?

Well, considering that of the handful of men I know (from an abuse survivors
group) who have been raped, it's about an even split between between 
male and female rapists. If we only consider ones raped in their teens or
later, it's mostly men. That leads to a *real* problem....

BTW, while not minimizing the way female rape victims are treated, I
think some folks would find it instructive to listen to what *male*
rape victims go thru. Sadly, this seems to be due to the flip side
of the sexist attitude that women are *supposed* to be vulnerable.
Thus the first reactions are along the lines of "Uh-huh... *Sure* you
were raped... now go away and don't bother us". ("Hey Joe, did you
hear that Charlie tried to say he got *raped*... what a laugh!")


-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
From: honna@cs.concordia.ca (SEGEL honna)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Respect and equality differences
Date: 2 Sep 92 19:46:49 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

In article <92Aug28.143356edt.962@smoke.cs.toronto.edu> gara@cs.toronto.edu (Gara Pruesse) writes:
>In article <ed.714494162@cwis> ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny) writes:
>>I agree that women don't get as much respect as they should.  The reason
>>for this seems to be rooted in history and biology.

Insert or delete generalizations and somewhat dogmatic rationalizations...
as you prefer.

>>--
>>Ed Stastny  
>
>What inane drivel.  
>
>Pardon me, I don't have time to argue with idiots.  I barely have
>time to call bullshit bullshit.
>
>Learn something before you burden us with your two bit conjectures. 
>Read something intelligent on the subject, something written in
>the last 10 years, say, and then get back to us.
>
>Cheers,
>
Pardon ME, Gara, but who is "us"?  The Enemy, perhaps?
The tone of responses in this newsgroup is becoming unpleasant.
To quote one of the wickedest people I've ever had the displeasure to know:
"Be nice, whydontcha?"








HS/ Michael


-- 
***************************************************************
honna segel
department of computer science
concordia university  *****************************************
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: ppessi@lesti.hut.fi (Pekka Pessi)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
	<1992Sep3.143737.3215@spider.co.uk>
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:25:57

In article <1992Sep3.143737.3215@spider.co.uk> ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid) writes:
>In article <PPESSI.92Sep3022446@vipunen.hut.fi> ppessi@vipunen.hut.fi (Pekka Pessi) writes:
>>	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. 

>Call me old-fashioned, but I'm always startled/shocked to see women
>using the men's toilet. Neither I nor any of my male friends have ever
>used the ladies instead of the gents (supporting Ms. Pessi's findings
>above).                                          ^^

	Get a clue, Miss Pussy Reid? 

>Whilst I sympathise with women queuing for their toilet, I
>resent the fact that some women would scream blue murder if a guy
>wandered into the ladies (quite rightly so, I think), yet some women
>are quite happy to barge into the gents - it doesn't strike me as very
>fair! I've seen women using the Gents simply because they can't be
>bothered to walk a little further for the Ladies - how many women
>would smile sweetly at that excuse from a man using the Ladies I
>wonder?  I don't mind sharing a washroom, but I do object to
>asymmetry of access.

	I think that my observation revealed that women do not need to
	spend 3 times as much time as med do in toilet. Making *all*
	bathrooms unisex seems to minimize, if not equalize, waiting
	time for women and men. It is twisted to "equalize" situation
	by increasing men's time to wait. 


--
Pekka Pessi	/	ppessi@niksula.hut.fi
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 21:26:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.183639.16010@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
>
>Has anyone had any experience with blatant sexism?  By this I mean some
>decision making that was OBVIOUSLY based on sex where sex had no logical
>part in the decision.  I am trying to find out what this is, because all
>through school, university, and now graduate school I have never really
>witnessed what I thought was sexist (other than on TV, books, etc).  I
>am particularly interested in sexism in universities.
>
>I guess I'm either blind or lucky.  If the former, please open my eyes.
>
how about the fact that most grad schools make no allowance for providing
or subsidising childcare? the costs involved mean that the parent(s) - and
if there is only one parent it is most likely a woman - has to work to
pay for it, taking time away from study, slowing them down (on average),
and causing them to be seen as a 'worse' student than others? some
grad school administrators are willing to even talk about such "non-
traditional" students as "liabilities". this is actually one of the least
graphic and inflammatory examples i know - best to start at the low end...


-- 
Scott Probst: Brain and Behaviour Laboratory, Psychology dept, SFU
              Graduate Issues Officer, Simon Fraser Student Society.
e-mail: probst@fraser.sfu.ca - ph: (604) 291 3354/3181 - fax: (604) 291 5843
              "yes, well, and here we go again..." - Dr H. S. Thompson
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: ERA question
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:43:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Janet asks what the ERA actually said or would have done.  In terms of the
text, Janet, it was rather limited -- it merely said that U.S. citizens
would have "equal rights" regardless of gender.  The real question is how
that line would have played out in court decisions after it was added
to the constitution.  Feminists made all kind of wild claims during the
political fight over the ERA as to the legal meaning of those words--equal
pay for equal work, for example.  On the other hand, anti-feminists such
as Phyllis Schafly made similarly ridiculous counterclaims -- it would
force women to undergo the draft, would force unisex bathrooms, etc.
The reality likely would have been neither of these.  If you are
interested, see Jane Mansbridge's "Why We Lost the ERA."  Mansbridge was in
the trenches during the battle for the ERA, and was struck at how both
sides were forced to blow out of proportion the actual likely impact of the
ERA to attract dues-paying, activist members.

Hope that satisfies your curiosity.  If you want to ask more, e-mail is:
dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu

Steve
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:20:01 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 <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?

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:05:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep2.155336.10701@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>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.

I find this curious as well. But I have heard that Einstein was not a
great mathematcian. 
 
>Regards,
>       H. Biesel

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,talk.bizarre
From: jeff@dsp.sps.mot.com (Jeff Enderwick)
Subject: Re: FEMINIST/DYKE JOKES WANTED
Organization: Motorola DSP Compilers
Date: 30 Aug 92 21:38:05

>ata@sage.cc.purdue.edu (ata boy) writes:
>)
>)Q: Why do sumo wrestlers shave their legs?
>)A: So you can tell them apart from feminists.
>
>
>PLEASE TAKE ALT.FEMINISM OFF THESE CROSS-POSTS AND MAINTAIN SOME
>KINDNESS WITH RESPECT TO OTHER PEOPLES POINTS OF VIEW AND LIFESTYLES.
>
>PLEASE!

I agree. I resent this undeserved attack on sumo wrestlers.



	hoping that feminists know good humor when they see it,

	Jeff Enderwick
	jeff@dsp.sps.mot.com

PS: I support the ERA - don't flame me too badly!
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 04:30:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep2.031405.2318@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>In article <2432@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep1.153549.3460@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>>I wonder if the term "male bashing" could be defined.  I get
>>>the idea that some people feel that any reference to sexism or
>>>patriarchalism is derogatory to all men.
>>
>>male bashing: 1. The act of associating a negative characteristic or quality to 
>>	      the set "men", usually in the absence of any positive
>>	      declarations. (general)
>>	      2. The act of associating said qualities with an individual of 
>>	      set "men" primarily by the fact of the individuals inclusion 
>>	      in said set. (personal)
>>
>>But, in the end, it all comes down to personal points of view. You can do all
>>sorts of substitutions for men in the above. If it is generalized it becomes 
>>a def for bashing, all by itself.
>
>I personally would prefer to reserve the word "bashing" for physical
>violence and threats of violence -- as opposed to argument and retoric.

I think that the 'acquired' meaning of the word bashing in this context
is just verbal abuse.
 
>I.e. "gay bashing" and "male bashing" have rather different meanings in
>the present usage.

"Gay bashing" does not mean beating up on gays, the recent court case
notwithstanding. 
 
>-- 
> 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
From: keller@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Margaret Keller)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:01:44 GMT
Reply-To: keller@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Margaret Keller)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In alt.feminism, mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
>I guess I'm either blind or lucky.  If the former, please open my eyes.

As a followup to this and the feisty discussion about the physics AP
problem, the statistics show that there is a significant dirth of women
physics majors.  I gleaned this fact from one of the many official publications
that crossed my desk as the GMU physics club president last year.  Since
this inequity is not reflected in the fields of engineering, computer science
and mathematics, it indicates a cultural (physics culture) bias against
women.

Interestingly, I also work for the Navy.  We have just undergone our
standdown for sexual harrassment training - we get this training every
couple of years or so, but this particular exercise was in direct response
to the Tailhook incident :-s.  Having had many conversations with fellow
employees, I have come to the conclusion that some people just don't
get it.  It was actually the women who were most outraged that some
officer's promotions (5000?) were held up while Tailhook was being investi-
gated.  In fairness, this was before graphic descriptions of what was
meant by sexual harrassment during Tailhook were available.

Sexism also applies to rude treatment of men.  I am, personally, offended
by those stupid commercials that show women heckling cute guys walking
by.  I'm not impressed when men heckle me, and I would not be impressed
by such "politically correct" behavior by a female.

I think that in certain cultures (physics, Navy, your own back yard)
we have been conditioned as Pavlov's dogs to not question our assumptions
about races and genders.  I hope the aim of all activists is to make
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).

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.

=-) =-) =-) =-) =-) =-) =-) =-) =-) =-) =-) =-) =-) =-) =-) =-) =-)

					    Meg Keller
					    keller@oasys.dt.navy.mil
From: osiris@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: equality by regression?
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:31:16 GMT
Distribution: alt.feminism
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


 People have been talking about how women favor opressing men.  Well,
there is a flaw.  Women ARE oppressed.  Andrea Dworkin made a
wonderful speech (I want a 24 hour truce) about how you will find NO
women saying (and really believing) that if women went out and raped
men every three minutes then everything would be alright.  As long as
women have the threat of rape as a form of sexual slavery, they can 
not be equal.  As long as men are taught that men have to be dominant
in a relationship, there can be no equality.  As long as men think it
acceptable to make comments about a woman they do not know, there can
be no equality.  The ERA amendment would force men to reconsider the
status that women are relegated to in our society.  It would not bring
the equality that is necessary.

 It does no good to say "it happens to men too."  That is not the
issue.  Rather, what should be done is to say "it happens" and do
something about it.

Pushing for education in '92
-marcel
  
--
--+  I am, therefore I am a target.		osiris@athena.mit.edu
--+  Anonymous email:			 wi.5559@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
--+  I would include a disclaimer, but that would imply that my 
--+  employer cared.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug31.174327.17143@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:39:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.174327.17143@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:

>"Women can't comprehend mathematics".
>"Women don't understand complicated, technical subjects"
	
My old roommate insists that women are poor drivers (he's a habitual 
tailgator).

>"Well, [woman's name] will be traveling with us, so I guess we won't be 
> able to discuss anything technical in her company.  Don't want to confuse 
> her...ha..ha..ha.
	
I've had this sort of thing said about me (it's true, too)...sometimes
people assume comments like this are sexist (racist, etc.) only
because they are said about a woman (black person, etc.).  But you
didn't fill in the background either...

>"I don't mean to talk down to you by talking economics...I know you
> can't understand those types of subjects..." (this one said to me)
	
Again, how do you know this was said because you are a woman?  (I'm
not flaming, I want to understand)

>"Even though [woman's name] didn't understand the technical aspects of the
> job, we hired her anyhow because she had such a sweet personality".

Okay, now *that* one is obnoxious and patronizing.  Ick.

--
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"