HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep7.160139.29769@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 00:05:13 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.160139.29769@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:

-awerling@nmsu.edu wrote:
   >Entymology notwithstanding, I'll paraphrase Wittgenstein: look not
   >at what a word means, look rather at how it is used.

-Freshman usually means a first-year student and it is usually used to refer to
-a first year student.  So what is your point?  If you feel that it only refers
-to male students than I suggest you have the problem.

Jesus!  I *never*ever*ever* inferred that "Freshman" only includes
male students.  The word *man* is what I was referring to, in response
to an argument about entymology (what "Mann" means in German).  The
word "freshman" refers to "first-year student," no kidding.  But it is
also decidedly male in the word's gender.  It carries with it a
message that women (wow...another male-gendered word) are sort of new
to the club, and not really a part of the mainstream.

>Man in English is male, in any context.  We as a society are very gender
>conscious when we look at language, so this Freshman thing is very important.

- But not the three letters "MAN" in all contexts.
- MANual
- MANipulate
- MANage
- MANdatory
- MANgle
 
These do not refer to individuals.

- MANiac

From mania, a condition, not a person.  

- FreshMAN
- chairMAN
- woMAN
- MANkind

These refer to people.  Kind of makes them different.  They are
*labels,* and labels are important.  If you are officially a woman, it
means your label infers you are a type of man.  But if you are
officially a man, your label means you *are* a man, no type involved.

 >Well, dear, it *is* a serious issue, with or without your decree.

- As long as people take such a ridiculous view of language then I will
- not take them serioulsy.
 
That's nice, Jeff.  Rather than being mature about this and engaging
in a conversation about language, you prefer to engage in demeaning
the argument.  There's nothing ridiculous about it.  It just
infuriates you, because you know there's at least a kernal of truth in
it.  If not, prove it to be false!  If so, admit it!  If you still
think it's just ridiculous, not to be taken seriously, then shut up
about it!  It obviously *doesn't* concern you.

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Shake Your Body
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:28:50 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <1992Sep11.230905.7814@cco.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
| [long flame of sexuality on TV]
| 
| So if you don't like what yo see, don't watch TV!  

You reject all criticism of TV?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 12 Sep 92 12:31:03 GMT
	<716222634@lear.cs.duke.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Sep11110137@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<SK73171.92Sep12154838@korppi.cs.tut.fi>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: sk73171@cs.tut.fi's message of Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:48:38 GMT

In article <SK73171.92Sep12154838@korppi.cs.tut.fi> sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
> In article <MUFFY.92Sep11110137@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> > >2) There is nothing similar to Norplant or IUD for men.
> > Big surprise.  Most people seem to think that it's the woman's sole 
> > responsibility to take care of birth control, so why bother inventing
> > anything beyond condoms for men?
> Why is it then the man's responsibility to find out both a) is the woman 
> a person I want to live with, but also b) am I the man she wants to
> live with ? Why the woman shouldn't have any responsibility when she
> accepts to have sex with all men that want it and not just the ones
> that will support her if a pregnancy occurs ?

  No one has said that it was only the man's responsibility.  Why is it
that everytime someone suggests that the man care about and share the
responsibility of birth control/pregnancy/whateverwith their (perhaps
very temporary) partner, that there is a chorus of men (well, I haven't
seen the women complain yet, so until I do, I won't use "people") that
say how unfair it is that men should take *all* the responsibility?  Why
is there no middle ground for you people?  Why can't *both* parties take
responsibility, and not be unfair for men?

> > I really don't see why men don't just always wear condoms (except those
> > with latex allergies), given that many of them do seem to be terribly
> > afraid of being tricked by women.  I know that some people claim that
> > they are not comfortable, but I know many men who like them very much,
> > and they are also good for preventing the spread of disease.
> Some like, some not.

  Are you trying to say that just because men don't like them they
shouldn't use condoms?  Do you think women like putting chemicals in
their bodies, shoving artificial objects inside themselves?  Or are you
advocating that if birth control is so inconvenient that we should just
forget about it?

> And of course, some men do want to have babies.

  No kidding.  Then they don't use birth control and hope for the best
(assuming that they haven't "cheated" their partner).  I don't think that
muffy was advocating condoms if you *wanted* to have kids.

 --d
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:43:55 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

# I think that Norplant or IUD as a condition for welfare will be fair because
# the woman will have to do something that helps society in exchange [...]

In article <1992Sep11.234606.784@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> 
moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

>>   Why not an implant for both men *and* women?  

I knew that there was some reason why I put d in my KILL file...

Anyway, the two facts that d overlooked are:

1) *Most* of the people who keep having babies they can't support, 
   and get an increase in welfare for them, are women.  Actually, 
   I don't know about any man in that category.

2) There is nothing similar to Norplant or IUD for men.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Shake Your Body
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 23:09:05 GMT

[long flame of sexuality on TV]

So if you don't like what yo see, don't watch TV!  

							--  Michal
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 6 Sep 92 16:42:16 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >The theory itself is vacuous, since the issue is not whether
| >abortion is good or bad but whether the state has, or ought
| >to have, the power to prevent it and force childbearing.

In article <715763942@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| By quite a few feminists the state should have the power to force
| *moral* behavior.  E.g. the FBI should run after dead-beat dads,
| no matter why they don't pay; porno should be censored; affirmative
| action quotas are a great idea; a forced socialism is a good thing.

What are we doing now, Hillel, the number where everything
including the weight of the moon is material for attacking
feminism?  Oh, well; let's go through the list.

1.  The FBI should run after dead-beat dads.  This is not
only a feminist position, it's a taxpayers' position.  It's
already been explained to you more than once, but that, of
course, isn't the point.

2.  Porno should be censored.  I'm a feminist, and I'm
opposed to any form of censorship.  I think you'll find a
few others who are, too, if you care to look.  But lovers
have eyes only for their love.

3.  Affirmative action quotas are a great idea.  Once
again, you can find feminists who are opposed to affirma-
tive action and non-feminists who are in favor of it;
quite a few, in fact.  It's not part of the credo.

4.  A forced socialism is a good thing.  That one is
breathtaking; all those hot-shot feminist bankers and
brokers and investors are socialists.  Now tell me about
the Protocols of the Elders of NOW; that must be where
they hide their secret Plan.

| If you cross the above idea with the idea that women are "closer" to
| nature and they should follow nature instead of changing it (a green
| idea IMO), feminists-against-abortion is a possible result.

No one said that "feminists against abortion" wasn't possible.
Any kind of thing is possible, especially stupidity.  What I said
was that their theory was vacuous.  In that, it's like almost
all the anti-abortion theory I've read.  Did you have something
to say about that, or not?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rajat@watson.ibm.com (Rajat Datta)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 20:58:54 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Sep4.172401.7045@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Human shit and piss, like dog shit and piss, is actually not too good
>for plants.

I find that dog piss, at least, is good for my lawn.  Having recently
acquired an Irish setter puppy, I've trained him to go in one part of
the lawn.  You can actually clearly see where he's been peeing since
the grass is lusher and taller in those spots.  Not the whole area,
but little circles that sometimes overlap; basically just around the
area where he's peed.  And it can't be because that's the only spot
that has been getting water, since this part of the country has gotten
a lot of rain this year (especially on weekends).
-- 
rajat (rajat@watson.ibm.com)
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 12 Sep 1992 00:20:22 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

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

>Speaking of which, though, I recall on some mailing list I was on
>someone suggested that it was more common to give women logins of their
>first name and to give men logins of their last name or initials.  I
>tend to doubt this, and the general consensus on the list seemed to be
>that, in fact, login names were pretty randomly distributed, especially
>since most of them were assigned according to some policy of the
>organization assigning them.

It's probably not much of an indicator, but a quick scan 
of the passwd file here where I work revealed the following,
which seems to be in line with the suggestion Muffy heard on
her mailing list:

         first name          last name         initials

men      13                  15                8
women    10                  2                 1

The one woman who used her initials as login also goes solely
by her initials in real life.

Guesses as to why men tend to be addressed by last name, women 
by first have already been floated here.  As to why more
men use initials, I'll bet a lot of them (like me) date back to 
systems like OS 360/370 where three initials was all you got.  

Ours is a small group.  In an organization large enough you
need a policy to assign logins, that might tend to make
them mostly random.

Steve
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Forward to the Past: Quote Choice for Men Unquote
Date: 12 Sep 92 09:37:09
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<716313896@lear.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 12 Sep 92 16:04:57 GMT

In article <716313896@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.130851.27637@panix.com> 
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
[communism]
>>As I said, though, I think my conception of the ideal polity is
>>probably irrelevant to this discussion.
>So why did you raise that?

*LAUGH*...he was "admitting" to all the things you might accuse him of,
to save time.

>>| A RadFem is someone who defines herself as a Radfem.
>>I have never heard, read, seen a single person define themself
>>as a "RadFem."  You used the word, now tell us what you mean.
>There was a frequent writer in soc.women whose signature was:
>#aMAZon @ AT&T Bell Labs Naperville IL; att!ihlpl!maz  maz@ihlpl.att.com
>#*It's never too late to have a happy childhood* (312) 979-5749
>#*When I grow up, I want to be a radfem*>*Lottery winner 310*

Got it.  There is *one* such person, who does *not* "define herself as"
a "radfem," just expresses a desire to someday *be* one, whatever it may
be.  She doesn't define it, you don't define it.  You seem to have
loaded it up with all sorts of things that you hate, why not tell us
what they are?

>I'm not surprised that you missed her; after all you see
>just what you want to see.

He may not have missed her, but his statement is correct in any case.

>>| You complained that you can't develop your philosophy in a non-moderated
>>| newsgroup.  I suggested that you may try to develop your philosophy in
>>| a pro-feminist mailing list, and you have never answered this one. 

>>I can "develop my philosophy" anywhere I can write.  The
>>problem was that one couldn't develop a _discussion_ in a non-
>>moderated newsgroup because any mention of feminism -- much

>My question is still valid; please explain why can't you 
>develop a _discussion_ in a pro-feminist mailing list.

I don't see any difference between a mailing list and a newsgroup, other
than the way in which they are accessed (more people can access mail
than news, but it is less convenient and efficient to have a message
mailed to many people, rather than distributed to many machines, where
all the people can read the same text).  Indeed, many newsgroups *are*
also mailing lists.  Even soc.feminism is distributed by mail, so Gordon
could receive it by mail.  What difference would that make?  The
problems in developing a discussion in the mailing list would be the
same as Gordon outlined in the text you deleted above. 

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,rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: smackinnon@mta.ca
Subject: Re: STNG episode about homosexuality
Reply-To: smackinnon@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:44:15 GMT

In article <AWERLING.92Sep13122942@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>In article <1992Sep12.214422.25397@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>
>- The original Star Trek had the first [prime time network TV]
>- inter-racial kiss.  LA Law(?) has already had the first [...] same-sex
>- passionate kiss, so TNG has missed it's opportunity there.  But I
>- believe the first [...] man-to-man passionate kiss is still up for
>- grabs.  I keep hoping Wesley will come back from the academy, and that
>- he and Riker will discover their true feelings for one another.
>
>Ryker?  EWWWWWWWW!
>
>--
>Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
>Transmitting from Planet Yip--where everyone you meet 
>			      is already dead.

Sorry but i belived that the first interacial man to man kiss was
in SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE with Bill Murry and OJ Simpsom.
there was also a same race man to man kiss with OJ Simpson and the 
Person of color on the show at the time(sorry I can't remeber his name)

qshawn

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: yip@rever.acca (Happy-happy-happyfag!)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Organization: /terret2/yip/.organization
	<1992Sep3.123528.23642@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 22:11:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.123528.23642@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> 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.  

Entymology notwithstanding, I'll paraphrase Wittgenstein: look not
at what a word means, look rather at how it is used.

Man in English is male, in any context.  We as a society are very gender 
conscious when we look at language, so this Freshman thing is very important.

>My advice to these people: try a serious issue or you won't 
>be taken seriously.

Well, dear, it *is* a serious issue, with or without your decree.


--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:777 soc.women:16276
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:54:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: panix.1992Sep8.145411.15165
Organization: mydog in exile

gf:
| >...  So programming became engineering.
| >Lo and behold, 90% of the students in the field are male,
| >just like it spoze to be in Engineering!  The field has
| >been made sexist, where it was once a shining example of 
| >a place where women could get along just like the guys!
| >Do I have this completely wrong?  If not, what happened?
| >How are we going to get rid of this crap by going
| >backwards?

laura@vipunen.hut.fi (Laura Tiilikainen):
| Isn't there some research done about that society (both men and women)
| tends to separate masculine jobs and feminine jobs? About that there
| is and has not been hardly any cultures in which men and women share
| all the work equally but men's jobs are different from women's even if
| it were men who take care of the children and household and women who
| earn the living for the family?
| Well, just a thought...

You can always find a lot of "research" to justify the
status quo and usually reaction, as well.  That's because
those who have access to power and funds have reasons to
shore up and defend things-as-they-are, so they fund the
kind of research that justifies the status quo.

In most fields, a preponderance of males in desirable jobs 
is explained as a historical accident which will soon (but 
never today) be remedied by oncoming enlightenment -- _or_ 
the mystical but inexorable differentiation forced upon us 
by Nature.  In other words, if 90% of engineers are male, 
it's just an accidental holdover from yesteryear, and God 
wants it that way anyway.  You know the rap.  Research
will always show us this, because if it didn't show us
this we wouldn't get to see it.

But here we have an example of a field that, at the worker
level at least, had, and probably still has, a certain
amount of gender balance; there have been a lot of women in
it.  It's been a good field for women; they were respected,
given good money just like the guys, and pretty much not
been hassled for being women.

But then along comes Academia and "engineering" and, lo,
90% of the students are male.  Isn't that interesting?
When the status quo is "the men get the good jobs" that's
an accident, or some kind of mystical nature-nurture
thing, and research indicates we can't change it.  But
when the status quo is women get an even break, as it
was in commercial programming a few years ago, suddenly
the status quo is irrelevant and there's no research
indicating anything.

I'd like to get some more facts and figures at this
point.  It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that
women have been put on a treadmill where they seem to
be moving forward and are actually moving backward.

-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 7 Sep 92 18:02:06 GMT
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.


In article <1992Sep6.030251.12001@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

> The theory itself is vacuous, since the issue is not whether
> abortion is good or bad but whether the state has, or ought
> to have, the power to prevent it and force childbearing.

So, the matter isn't if killing is righ or wrong, but who has the
right to fo it ? Is that a common attitude thereabout, could surely
explain some of the violence on the streets ?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Forward to the Past: Quote Choice for Men Unquote
Date: 12 Sep 92 13:08:51 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >I favor the communist or tribal models 

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| Here we come to the heart of our philosophical differences.
| 
| Communism is bankrupt; there is not communist state where most people
| support it and want to be there.  The repression is just a by-
| product of this situation.  The kibbutz system in Israel is also 
| falling apart for reasons that I'm not sure that you want to hear.

Small-c communist.  Large-C Communism is bankrupt because it was
actually a distorted form of capitalism.  But this is political
theory; try to catch my act next time I do this number in
talk.politics.theory.  You might learn something.

As I said, though, I think my conception of the ideal polity is
probably irrelevant to this discussion.

| >I trust you understand that we are very far from both
| >reproductive freedom 
| 
| That's a legal/political problem that should be addressed; 
| pro-choice laws seem to me like the really important step. 
| 
| >and from honestly presenting the facts of life to young women.  
| 
| It is really not a big deal to find the facts about 
| birth control in the nearest public library.

Around here it is.  The public libraries are closed most
of the time.  No money.  Which will lead us to a discussion
of the informational world people live in.  That has a lot
to do with "choice" -- any choice.  But I'll put that off
for now.

| >1. For future reference, could you define "RadFem" in the
| >following sentence?  
| 
| A RadFem is someone who defines herself as a Radfem.

I have never heard, read, seen a single person define themself
as a "RadFem."  You used the word, now tell us what you mean.

| >2. Can you tell me what you're talking about in the following
| >sentence?  I've never tried to develop my philosophy in a 
| >pro-feminist mailing list.  
| 
| You complained that you can't develop your philosophy in a non-moderated
| newsgroup.  I suggested that you may try to develop your philosophy in
| a pro-feminist mailing list, and you have never answered this one. 

I can "develop my philosophy" anywhere I can write.  The
problem was that one couldn't develop a _discussion_ in a non-
moderated newsgroup because any mention of feminism -- much
less a discussion _based_ on feminist assumptions -- has been
immediately enveloped in flames by anti-feminists and miso-
gynists.  However, looking at this newsgroup, it occurs to me
that times may be changing.  We'll have to see how things
stand when the novelty wears off.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )