HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Using the dictionary
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:41:30 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science




It's very easy to crack open a dictionary and use it to define
something.  But that is really very dishonest.  A dictionary is only a
starting point.  Look up the definition of "love" and tell me if you
agree that it is inclusive with how you feel about what love is.

We as a society are very conscious of what "he" and "she" means, even
if it is not in an intentionally sexist context.  Same with "his,"
"himself," etc.  Same with "sexist."  How are the words understood and
used within our society?  That is all that matters.  The dictionary is
only a launching pad towards understanding anything.  You people
already know what these terms mean.  Leave the dictionary alone.
Let's figure this stuff out based on our experiences with how people
act, react, and interact.  

After all, that *is* what these discussions are ultimately about, yes?

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: a programmer is not an engineer, indeed
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd, Ottawa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:10:57 GMT


Muffy Barkocy writes:
> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
> >a programmer is NOT an engineer. we engineers have to take math and
> >science courses that the typical programmer couldn't handle on his (or
> >her) best day.  
> 
> You're right, a programmer is NOT an engineer, and an engineer is NOT a
> programmer.  We programmers have to take programming courses that the
> typical engineer couldn't handle on their best day.  

You're both wrong... I'm a computer engineer, half my courses were 
programming courses, the other half were engineering courses... and it 
was impossible to have a "best day." ;)

> >it's the 
> >fear of these math and science classes that keep women from becoming 
> >engineers...not the old boys network.
>
> Anyway, where do you think this "fear" of math comes from?  Math is not
> dangerous or anything...*grin*.  I sincerely doubt that women are
> instinctively "afraid" of math and science.  Rather, it seems that they
> get lots of messages from society that a) "women aren't good at math"
> and b) "it's not 'feminine' to like science".  Then, of course, you may
> say that women should resist these messages, and some of us do.
> However, men don't get them at all, which seems a little unfair, yes?
> (And yes, men do get other, equally negative messages, but we're talking
> about math and science here.)

I remember once having a discussion with some young ladies (during a 
party) and somehow the topic came up why there's not a lot of women in the
sciences.  Two of them said that their parents (mom and dad) thought they
should take "more practical courses" (ie. teaching, history, child care).
One said it never occured to her to take any math or science courses,
considering she didn't like the stuff in high school.  One said that only
geeks took those courses, and she didn't like geeks.  One said that an old
boyfriend got pissed at her when she got better marks on an exam (in high
school), so she purposely did worse to make him feel better... then she
didn't have the grades to continue.  The other two just said that they
never saw it as a option.  Peer pressure and societal pressures seemed
to keep them out more than fear or the old boys network.

Just my 2 cents,

    __o     Brad Booth              | "I want you
  _`\<,_    Bell-Northern Research  |  to know me only as
 (*)/ (*)   Ottawa, Ontario, Canada |  what I believe I am."
----------  bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca  |     ... 54-40
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 10 Sep 92 12:19:54
Organization: savage hackers
	<716147821@lear.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 10 Sep 92 17:57:02 GMT


In article <716147821@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>Telling a woman "if you will get pregnant, even if you cheated him
>about birth control, then we'll either help you take him to the cleaners
>or we'll pay you welfare," is a great way to create irresponsible women.

  Of course it's the woman who cheats the men.  Men are too saintly to
do something like that.  Why is it that in so many posts (notably yours)
it's always the woman who somehow connives to get herself pregnant at
the man's expense?  Do you think this is the usual scenario for birth?
Perhaps unfortunately, the benefits that you say that women get in this
kind of situation are not all that great; small and missed payments by
their "victim" and (very small) welfare checks don't make for a great
life.  Perhaps what they really need is a man to take care of them.

>(Note that most of those who object to "choice for men" in the name
>of responsibility have nothing to say against the above approach.)

  I don't object to choice for men, nor do I object to choices for
women.  If the man wanted to raise the kid, I'd like to see support for
him, if that's what the system decreed for women in an equivalent arena
(I also think that there should be more fairness in who gets to keep the
child, since it seems that women usually will get custody, but again, I
don't have numbers or good solutions to this problem.)  I don't want
children to starve or get thrown into institutions, but I don't know
what a *good* answer is to all of this.  The situation is aggrivated by
the anti-choice types who think that they have to have a kid if they are
pregnant, so the choices of *both* parties are limited.

>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 for the 
>welfare, but I don't think that most of the "choice for women!" feminists 
>will agree that *their* reproduction right will be under such attack...

  Why not an implant for both men *and* women?  You always are so quick
to lay the onus of responsibility on women.  If you just did it to
women, or just did it to men, I'd say you were being unfair in both
cases.  You could say that nothing currently exists for men that would
do this, but I'm taking a more philosophical side to things right now,
plus I don't think that it would take that long (how long is "not long",
I don't know :-) Years, surely) to develop something like that for men,
if it was important.

>Taking men to the cleaners seem, to them, like the real equality approach....

  Yeah, men sure have it rough in this world.  Gosh, what hardships.
What stress.  Sure is easy for those ungrateful women -- and now they
complain about their treatment?  We'd better call up iron john to save
us.

 --d
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:20:47
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Sep3110347@remarque.berkeley.edu> <7462@skye.ed.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk's message of 4 Sep 92 18:09:44 GMT

In article <7462@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Sep3110347@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <7445@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>>In article <MUFFY.92Sep2161818@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>>The word "girl" has a denotation of "child", 
>>>Connotation, surely.  (If it really were denotation, it we wouldn't
>>>find it being used for non-children.)
>>Well, here's my dictionary's definition:
>Is this supposed to show I was wrong about connotation vs denotation?
>(Or did you think I didn't know that "girl" could mean "a female
>child" and hence denote a child?)

Neither one, exactly.  I was showing that it did indeed have that
denotation, which is why I chose to say that, rather than connotation.
I think I see where the confusion is, though.  If a word is applied in a
way which would seem to be against the definition, such as using a word
which normally would refer to a child for an adult, then it is possible
that, rather than attempting to use a different definition for the word,
the person using it is trying to say that the definition *does* apply,
and is therefore redefining the *person* as a child, rather than an
adult.

>>I'm not saying you (or anyone else) should.  I'm simply explaining a
>>thought process.  The question was not "should I change what I'm doing"
>>but "why are people offended."
>They are offended because they don't think much of children?
>Maybe their views of children ought to change.

No, they are offended because it *is* an insult, in our society, to call
an adult a child.  In addition, accepting that label might well cause
people to think that it is acceptable to *treat* them as children.  Yes,
I think our *society* needs to change, including changing in such a way
as to think more highly of children (and to not keep them so powerless).
However, it is definitely considered an insult *now*, and it is not a
problem with the person's view.  If you *intend* to insult me, whether I
take it as an insult or not does not change your intention or my
understanding of that intention (and possibly resentment of it).

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: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:17:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.170739.728@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> 
 moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>Also, there is no literature on which to base a `mens studies' course on.
>If you can come up with ideas for a syllabus I would be interested to 
>hear them.

Well, there is not a lot of literature, but I wouldn't say their is
*nothing*. Most of what follows is popular rather than academic
and I don't agree with all of it, but it is suggestive of the things out 
there:

The Hazards of Being Male by Herb Goldberg
The New Male by Herb Goldberg

The Liberated Man by Warren Farrell (1975)
(includes a bibleography)

The Male Machine by Marc Fasteau

Male Chauvinism and How it works by Micheal Korda

The Limits of Masculinity: Male Identity and Women's Liberation
by Andrew Tolson

The Women Say, The Men say by Evelyn Shapiro and Barry M. Shapiro
(recommended)

"Femininity","Masulinity", and "Androgeny" ed by Mary Vetterline-Braggin

Every Mother's Son: The Role of Mother's in the Making of Men
by Judith Arcana
(recommended)

For Men Against Sexism, ed Jon Snodgrass
(a ground breaking work but may be extreme for some tastes)

Refusing to Be a Man by John Stoltenberg

New Men, New Minds: Breaking Male Tradition, ed by Franklin Abbott (1987)
(a diverse recent anothology)

The Hite Report on Male Sexuality - Shere Hite

Iron John by Robert Bly

Fire in the Belly by Sam Keene

Fire in the John by ??? (Not sure of this is a real book but
the citation I saw on the net was funny ;)

Slow motion: changing masculinities, changing men by Lynne Segal

The hero with a thousand faces by Joseph Campbell
(mythology and initiation before Robert Bly)

The God of Ecstasy: Sex Roles and the Madness of Dionysus by Arthur Evans

Woman and Nature by Susan Griffin - something to react to ;)

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Star Trek Opening
Date: 9 Sep 92 13:48:03 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

>- >     (Bryan Lepine) writes...
>- [text deleted]
>-
>- >>	I LIKED THE STAR TREK OPENING BETTER BEFORE THEY WERE PRESSURED
>- >>	INTO CHANGING IT! 

I don't believe "they" were pressured.  Roddenberry was very open to
ideas and suggestions.  If someone were to bring up a good point, he
would more than likely agree.  For instance, someone pointed out that
there should be a Russian on board the Enterprise since they were the
first in space.  The character Chekov was created.

More relevant to this group, though, was the original pilot which
featured Majel Barrett as "Number One," the second in command.  NBC
would not accept the idea of a woman second in command.  In 1966 it
was unheard of that a woman would be in a position of power on a
weekly tv program.

(Then again, in ST II, Saavik (Kirstie Alley) was referred to as Mr.
Saavik)

- Seth
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Grading papers
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 07:37:40 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <1992Sep8.154304.717@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>>dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:

>[...]
>>
>>>Perhaps the laguage had sexist orgins, but do not call me a sexist
>>>because I accurately practice my language.
>>>keith
>>How about I call you a sexist because you act like one, then? Why does
>>accurately carrying out a sexist practice not make you sexist? 

Are you saying that because I use "he" as the gender neutral pronoun that 
I feel that men are the norm and that women are abnormal?  Well, I do not
think this.  When I hear or write "he who laughs last laughs best," I am
not thinking of "he" as a necessarily male person.  I am just thinking of
him as a person.

Although, if you said "she who laughs..."  I would think that you were talking
about a female.  Hmm..  mabye we males need our own private pronoun.

Someone said something about Christians (I accidently deleted it).
Participating in Christian activities (Christmas, attending church, etc.)
does not make one (note that one is a truely gender neutral word -- use it
as much as possible, eh?) a Christian.

I think that a sexist is one who believes that women (or men, as the case may
be) are inferior in some way to the other sex.  My using "he" as an
unspecific pronoun does not imply that I feel this way.

keith

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ekman@netcom.com (Crossly the Glad-Eyed Bear)
Subject: Re: Grading papers
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 16:31:35 GMT
Organization: Home for the Terminally Infirm

Your suggestion was, at best, an impertinence which you might well have
kept to yourself if, in fact, it had no effect on the grade.

What would you have done had it been a young woman who consistently used
the pronouns "he" and "his"?

I'm not sure I understand the words "used `he' and `his' for pronouns."
Aren't they pronouns?

If being politically correct necessitates use of such barbarisms as
"his/her", I opt for being politically incorrect.
-- 
Crossly the Glad-Eyed Bear              ekman@netcom.com
Home for the Terminally Infirm, Redwood City, California
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:24:01 GMT

wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>
>	I have a better solution:
>		Remove all 'indecent exposure' laws against men.
>	Then, you could just plant some trees and bushes around
>	gasstations and buildings.  The men could just whip it out
>	and urinate on the spot, without bothering with inconveniences
>	like urinals.  Then, we could have 'bathrooms' which have
>	only toilets and could be used by all genders without
>	disrespect.
>		Also, people could carry foldable shovels, and could
>	dig holes and take dumps into them, then cover them up with
>	the dirt from the hole.  Makes good fertilizer, helps
>	the environment, no one is sexually discriminated against!

Human shit and piss, like dog shit and piss, is actually not too good
for plants.  I have heard that piss contributes to the early death of
urban trees.  And I read in a composting book that both human shit
and dog shit are about the only kinds of shit that appear to be
uncompostable for some reason (in the author's experience.)  So I
don't think your idea would 'help the environment'.
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The trashing of alt.feminism
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:35:02 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

Interesting how you people seem to think that one woman is trashing
alt.feminism singlehandedly. The mana of the woman must be enormous.

I personally think it is a long list of people: the Rich, Nosy et al
crowd, who flame each other furiously over things each other has posted
that is the main problem. Maybe a group al.feminism.flame would be 
useful for all flames??

MOZ
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<715956255@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:17:02 GMT


In article <715956255@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

> Which choice?  You are ignoring *many* possible situations in favor of
> just one.  You seem to be imagining that women are running around
> forcing children on men all the time, and that this is the only
> important thing.  In fact, the most important thing is that if a child
> *is* created, it will need to be taken care of for many years.  I think

Why it is supposed that the woman should have all the rights considering
the child and the man just gives the money ? That doesn't sound very
equal to me.

> 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,

So, women should have the ability to have control of their own life
_exept_ when it comes to sex, in which case the man has the right to
do whatever he wants and the woman just does what she is told to.
Is a woman doesn't like the possibility to have babies she can avoid
sex with men. etc... ( semilogical inverse of your own comment...)

> 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.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: 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. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:45:56 GMT

In <deadhead.715455748@molest> deadhead@molest.ugcs.caltech.edu (stephen thompson) writes:

>At Caltech the "first-year students" are simply called "frosh", as I'm
>sure is used elsewhere.  Frosh seems to be a pretty sexless word...better
>than first-year student, as it's shorter.

So what is the modern objection to long words and names, anyway?  I
kinda like saying them, but if I went around saying that I have a friend
from La Cuidad de Santa Maria, Reina de los Angeles, noone would know
what I was talking about ;)  I think our hangup with short things is too
bad.  We rush through things and don't stop and smell the roses.  BRING
BACK LONG WORDS!!!!  Next time you're tempted to call someone an
airhead, call them a flibertygibbet instead!

I suppose I should come up with a list of fun long words to substitute
for all the dull short ones we've grown so tired of. . .when I'm not
feeling so drowsy. . .(*YAWN*). . .
						Bye, all   
						Beth
-- 
"Hold stick near center of its length.  Moisten pointed end in mouth.
Insert in tooth space, blunt end next to gum. Use gentle in-out motion."
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:22:47
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<ATAYLOR.92Sep8145850@gray.nmsu.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Sep8151044@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep9.174716.5158@ils.nwu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: lynch@ils.nwu.edu's message of Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:47:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.174716.5158@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>I've gotten lost as to which messages were faked and whatnot,

I think you got lost before that.  I wasn't talking about forged
messages (unless ataylor claims that *all* the messages on here from
that account were forged, which I do not think is the case).  I was
talking about calling Gordon by his last name, Fitch, and me by my first
name.

>I don't think that's a sign of sexism.

Well, no, but it isn't what I was asking about, either.

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: spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:55:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep9.081351.8685@leela.cs.orst.edu>,

>>I call you "Muffy" because "Muffy" really sounds stupid.
>>I call Fitch, "FITCH", because it's the kind of name that generates respect

>(Marg)
>And this is about the most sexist comment I have heard in a long time!

This is "sexist" because Muffy is a woman and Fitch is a man??!?
Come on, Marg!  Don't go off half-cocked assuming an opinion is sexist 
because it happens to favor a man over a woman.  Taylor thinks that Muffy 
is a "jerk"...her sex, I believe, has nothing to do with it.

Honestly!  If THAT was the most sexist statement you're heard, then sexism 
is surely stamped out entirely!

PS Muffy sure as hell takes a beating here, doesn't she?
   Don't agree with her, usually, but I admire her tenacity.

                                                  James S. Zakany
						(no e-mail, please)