HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women in Engineering
Date: 15 Oct 1992 10:16:17 -0700
Organization: HP/San Diego Technical Graphics
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct12.012353.2237@coe.montana.edu> sandy@cs.montana.edu (Colin "Sandy" Pittendrigh) writes:
>	A friend recently remarked to me that although there
>are very few women at (our local) engineering college, the ones
>there were all very good. In fact, in each class, the "best"
>students invariably include a woman or two. This can, at first
>glance, be explained by a "hostile filter" theory. Engineering
>is so hard and so hostile to women that it drives away all
>but the very best female students. 
>	Well, I'll bet there is a great deal of truth to that.
>But how do you explain the following: at the most recent Tau-Beta-Pi
>engineering honor society initiation, women, who are at most
>10percent of engineering, represented nearly 35% of the honors
>inductees. Anyway, I just wondered.

So...if the women in engineering are the "very best" then are you
surprised that there are *so many* women in Tau Beta Pi (no hyphens)
or that there are *so few*?   I would expect a high percentage compared
to the population--and that's what we see, 35% where they constitute
only 10% of the population.  This phenomenon occurred at my engineering 
school as well.  Anecdotally, at a few other schools as well.

Teri Tracey              "When people are free to do as they like, they
 San Diego, CA            generally imitate each other."                   
  teri@sdd.hp.com  
=============================================================================
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon,
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:13:00 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >The part of the ordinance I saw simply stated that
| >pornography caused rape and other forms of harm.  I would 
| >like to see MacKinnon's reasoning, but I didn't see any.  

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| So learn to use a public library.

They're never open any more.

gf:
| >If you were really interested in freedom of expression, you
| >would use feminism to attack MacKinnon.  Instead, you use
| >MacKinnon to attack feminism, which shows where your 
| >priorities lie.

hg:
| Gordon dear, do you want to discuss issues or to discuss people?

Hey, if you can't stand the rough give-and-take of an
alt group, maybe you should post to soc.feminism.  It's
moderated, and personal attacks aren't allowed.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:54:57 GMT

In article <1b347tINN9g9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ah897@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Robert Lai) wrote:

> I am taking a feminist theatre class, and there was a mention of
> a phenoMENon called the "male gaze".  Is this necessarily
> when a male looks at a woman?  Is this "male gaze" the reason
> for breast implants, cosmetic sales, plastic surgery?


There are two basic kinds of male gaze:

The death ray-like glare that turns women into piles of helpless putty,
ripe for orgiastic rounds of oppression (see also Medusa).

The comic book X-ray glasses kind that can determine the state of a woman's
nipples at 100 metres, under three layers of clothing.

Seriously, it doesn't matter.  
Just accept that it's undesirable, evil or both, and you'll do well.

Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: You are responsible for everything that happens to you
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:54:04 GMT

tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>Taking responsibility for one's life is important.  But you do have to
>remember that no matter how "good" ones choices are, you still can run
>up against "bad luck".  You have to make reasonable choices and take the
>risks associated with living in a free society.

Let's take this one step further...

If you are encountering "bad luck", could it be life's way of trying
to tell you something?
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: You are responsible for everything that happens to you
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 02:10:42 GMT

In article <7470@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.005919.806@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>> The only thing I can figure out is that someone is trying so hard not
>> to be a victim that s/he loses whatever common sense and compassion
>> s/he has.  Strange, too, how this only seems to crop up in people who
>> have lead sheltered lives, where little bad or evil ever befell them.
>> But they're such great people, of course, they're responsible for
>> their nice, tidy lives.
>
>I've heard the "line" used to get people, who blame everything that happens
>to them on someone else, to take responsibility for their lives.  It's a
>generalization and (generally) most generalizations will not hold up in the
>general case.

One of the most idiotic applications of this "line" is one I saw on
the net earlier this year.  One man wrote of being mugged.  Another
poster wrote in to say that he was responsible for his being mugged
(in some lopsided fashion).  Eventually, it became a claim that
everyone is responsible for everything that happens in her/his life
since one can always kill oneself and not have to worry about life at
all.  That made about as much sense as channeling does to me.

BTW, do you really want your sig file to appear twice?  It's cute, I
suppose, but to appear twice?
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Date: 14 Oct 92 04:38:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1bfa2pINNqsk@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:
-
->Q: What is the technical term for the useless piece of flesh around the
->penis. ?

-A:  a sex partner
-(how's that for a non-gender-specific retort?!)

>							--  Michal

Most Excellent!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:51:28 GMT

starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>I don't think so.  I am one of those people who think that feminists are
>making a fatal error in promoting the victimization of women.  
>Making a person a victim is to make them helpless, to more
>or less distroy their sence of well-being.  In a away take away the
>the control they have over their own lives.   Some people don't allow
>themselves to be victims because they have reached a higher state of
>awareness that is superior.

Listen up, folks. This is exactly what I was trying to say (which makes
me wonder why I didn't say it this way). 



-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

    What seems to be absurdity and is not, 
         is better than the ignorance of the man who thinks it is absurd.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2286 soc.men:17515
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: Your views on Catholic Church or Sinead O'Connor
Organization:  The following is all GERG'S fault!  
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:29:44 GMT

curdm@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Richard Mancuso) writes:
>Can I get a feminist view of the impact of the Catholic Church on women. 

I think that the Catholic Church is still a little narrow-minded about the 
role of women in the church and in society, but they certainly, IMHO, have
made progress. There is still progress to be made, to be sure, but the trying
to change matters to me as much as the change itself.

>Also, does anybody have any thoughts about Sinead O'Connor ripping up a
>picture of the pope and proclaiming "Fight your real enemy" ?

I am a somewhat lapsed Catholic, and I don't make it to church all that 
often, but Sinead makes me ill. No, the Pope is not infallible, nor yet
Catholicism as a creed/religion, but I get damn sick and tired of hearing
both on the net and off, about how awful Catholicism is, and how we're all
just sheep following His Holiness, and how Catholicism is something rooted
in fear, a do-it-or-thou-shalt-be-damned compulsion. I don't know what church
these people went to, but it wasn't any Catholic church *I've* ever been to!

>Thanks!
>
>Richard Mancuso

I'm not exactly a feminist, but I am a Catholic, so I thought I'd give this
a whirl anyway...:)

   Tyger
-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
 
                       
        
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lmitchel@nyx.cs.du.edu (lloyd mitchell)
Subject: Re: A fish w/out a bike ( was: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 01:17:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.005631.16323@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <718690599@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>>"A woman without a man is like a fish without bicycle."
>
>I see this as challenging the assumption that people are only
>valued when they are paired up in neat little boy-girl boy-girl
>boy-girl rows, from here to eternity.
>
>Do the men in this group see this as a slam? Is 

I see this as a slam against men for the following reasons:  First, a fish
is an animate object, while a bicycle clearly is not.  Secondly, a bicycle
is one of the more inappropriate things that could be found in a fish's
natural environment.  So to me, this statement says that men are irrelevant
to women (at best), or not even fit to be considered a life form (at
worst).

Yes, I see this as a slam.

Kerry Mitchell
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:30:06 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct11.193122.6353@daimi.aau.dk> pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted) writes:
>{{{
>Note to the Alternatively Ironically Gifted(PC): In the following string
>of ASCII characters, remarks by me may contain irony/sarcasm without
> specific marking/warning, however it should be directed not at a
>specific sex, but at my text itself. So it should not cause any problems.
>If you have any, inform me and I will help you out
>}}}
>
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>
>(I better add, that this is not really only/just a reaction to what rini
>says, but more of a comment to the thread) 
>
>>Okay, from the context it's clear to me that he meant "INEQUALITY of
>>representation" -- that is, there are far more females in porn than
>>males.  Is that an invented non-issue?  Nope.  It's a fact.  It
>>may or may not be a problem.
>
>Yes. It seems to me, that women generally have very little interest
>in pornography; it varies, but on the whole, their interest in
>it seems to apply to a minority. I'm curious as to if the 'complainers'
>want more 'porn for females', or wish to decimate(?) the amount available
>for the male population. It seems to me, they want the last thing, or
>better, they want it changed to something 'politically correct'
>(comments/corrections anticipated(?))

1.  If you go way back (and maybe you can't) you'll find the the original
author of the statement in question (me) doesn't want to decimate the porno
available to men.  [In fact, I agree with you that most of its lousy and could
be better and there could be lots more.]

2.  I'm not even *sure* there should be a lot more porn for women available, it
just seems odd to me that there is such a large discrepancy.  [OK, so I said it
seems *wrong* to me.]

3.  You pointed out some physical differences and hypothesized that there may
be psychological differences in men and women that accounted for these
differences.  This is quite possibly true, but it's also quite possible that 
our society is in a self-sustaining cyclic relationship with these differences.
[Both physical and psychological and whatever other labels one wants to use are
encompassed by the previous statement.]  The question then is, should the
humans work to break these cycles?
Depending on whom one asks, one can get all sorts of answers and programs to
do just that as well as arguments that it shouldn't be done.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:40:10 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Oct15222900@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>It is definitely a great advantage for the anti-feminists to have so
>many different views coming from "feminists."  Not that they generally
>acknowledge that there *are* differences.  They ascribe all the most
>extreme, indefensible views to all of us.  That's why Gordon says (quite
>correctly) that they treat it as a "monolithic political movement."
>It's not.  For some of us, it isn't even "political."  For others, it's
>*very* political.

You seem to treat "anti-feminists" as a monolithic political movement
and use the same techniques you're complaining about.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:38:04 GMT

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

>In article <1992Oct8.191709.29014@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>>[...] They reject my friend's sexuality
>>>(or any display which might indicate that she has any such thing)
>>>because she doesn't have the right body.  Some of the comments she gets
>>>are *extremely* hostile.

>>I believe it. What, if anything, do you think we should do about it, and
>>why, in light of your later comment:

>>>You know how a mob sometimes just all start doing the same thing, even
>>>though they didn't talk about it before?  That is not a conspiracy, that
>>>is just the way people work.

>Well, first, I wasn't indicating that we should do *anything* in my
>post; it was merely to demonstrate that society was, in fact, hostile to
>sexuality.

Perhaps it's just the response of an individual to something he or she
finds unattractive, rather than sexuality per se? Naomi makes a good case
for the exploitation of beauty for commercial puposes; I'm less persuaded
that the perception of what is beautiful is as readily malleable.

>However, what I think needs to be done is to generate more acceptance of
>sex and sexuality in society.  Unfortunately, I don't have much idea of
>how to do this on other than a small scale (discussions with people,
>"outness," etc.).

>I'm not sure how my comments on society not being a conspiracy come in,
>though.  Just because it is not the case that the majority in society is
>conspiring against women, people with alternative sexualities, etc.,
>does not mean that their views are right, or that their views cannot be
>changed.  How do *you* think this (my comment on conspiracy) relates to
>your question?

Your comment implies an innate response - human nature - that is beyond
simple manipulation and control.

Suppose that men innately responded to visual stimuli more intensely,
and more sexually than women. Then the price for watching Cindy strut 
her stuff, or for seeing Big Momma do hers with a dildo, would be
an increase in unwanted sexual advances, if not assaults, by men.

Different societies could respond in different ways, from censorship
to the shadora. Or the society could collectively decide that the cost
of increased sexual violence is worth the benefit of a more open
society. The one thing it could *not* do, given the putative link
between exposure and sexual response, is to accept the one without
expecting the other. Often, however, that seems to be just what we
are doing: complaining long and loud that people *ought* to control 
themselves better, as though the ethical ought transcended the
innate must. For some it can and does, but it is foolish to expect
that it will do so for all; that's why we have police and jails.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<DSTEINBE.92Oct8074843@emmy.nmsu.edu> <1992Oct9.230219.19682@s1.gov>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 03:28:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.230219.19682@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:


   I wrote:
     (lotsa stuff deleted)
   : There is a fallacy in some arguments involving evolution: just because
   : something would be an evolutionary advantage doesn't mean that it
   : exists.  We might be more fit to survive if we had two heads, but we
   : don't...
   and got the reply:
   *Darwinian natural selection is _not_ based on "pure chance",
   *but on a mixture of random variation and natural selection, so it
   *would not be "chance" that leads to something, but proliferation of
   *variations that are more efficient at reproducing themselves.

   *	   Evolution by natural selection _does_ work -- I've seen it
   *work in computer simulations.

My main point is what I kept.  What I was trying to say is that many
people think evolution means that anything that could be beneficial to
survival will happen.  The problem is that while people with two heads
might survive better than people with one, until a mutation gives us
people with two heads, that fact is irrelevant.

   *	   But if some evolutionary events were brought about by the
   *efforts of what I call Exogenous Genetic Engineers, who are either
   *time travelers or extraterrestrial visitors or both(!), then we have
   *the possibility of "purpose" coming in. But even then, it is not clear
   *that the purpose may be a very appetizing one -- it might just be for
   *the fun of it.

True enough, and another good argument against Gordon...
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:53:46 GMT

In article <1bfsf1INNdsq@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Yep.  That's right.  He made that choice *before* the birth
>control failure when he decided to take his dick out of his 
>pants and stick it into a woman.
>
>						--  Michal

How many times do we have to point out how stupid this kind of reasoning
is before people will wake up. By this logic, if someone gets in a car
wreck, its his fault because he made his choice when he decided to get
behind the wheel. Right?

Using your dick is *not* equivalent to making a choice to have a child.
Got it!?

Furthermore you and your cohorts only apply this standard to the man. What
would happen if we applied it to the woman? Let's see. She made her decision
when she spread her legs and let a man impregnate her who never made any
promises to support any children resulting from their activities.

-kelvin


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:25:02 GMT

In article <garry-091092175927@nulla-nulla.rice.edu> garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
>In article <1b347tINN9g9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, ah897@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>(Robert Lai) wrote:
>
>> I am taking a feminist theatre class, and there was a mention of
>> a phenoMENon called the "male gaze".  Is this necessarily
>> when a male looks at a woman?  Is this "male gaze" the reason
>> for breast implants, cosmetic sales, plastic surgery?
>
>
>There are two basic kinds of male gaze:
>
>The death ray-like glare that turns women into piles of helpless putty,
>ripe for orgiastic rounds of oppression (see also Medusa).
>
>The comic book X-ray glasses kind that can determine the state of a woman's
>nipples at 100 metres, under three layers of clothing.
>
>Seriously, it doesn't matter.  
>Just accept that it's undesirable, evil or both, and you'll do well.

So what is it that differentiates a 'male' gaze from, say a female
gaze, or just looking in the same direction as a women happens to be
standing?

In other words, this is a new euphimism, what the hell does it mean?
 
>Garry.

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:45:51 GMT

garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) wrote:

>> I don't know what to do about the condition of men.  For
>> many generations, being male was the only way to be fully
>> human.  As a result the majority of them still seem to be
>> interested only in preserving their own oppression.  There's
>> no credible movement to liberate them -- except feminism, of
>> course.
>
>Shouldn't that be "the majority of us" ?   
>Have you made a break with the rest of us ?  (Sorry guy, you don't escape
>that easily.  Those things dangling between your legs mark you for life).

In what sentence?  I'm confused.
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:41:25 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>So, six million Jews were responsible for the Holocaust?

I guess it *is* true that all USENET arguments lead to some comparison
of nazisim....
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Show me a person who really knows what 'good' is, and I will show you that 
the person almost never uses the word.