HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: The word "sexist" (WAS: Sexist studies...)
Date: 11 Sep 92 06:09:19 GMT
	<JULIE.92Sep9145130@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu>
	<47sn05h.payner@netcom.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

In article <47sn05h.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

{re: "sexist," the word}

- Right. But I have not said that either is wrong, or right for that matter.
- I have yet to make any value judgements here, despite several posters
- assumptions to the contrary.

I assume you are partially (fully?) referring to me.  I've been
conscious of your evading of value judgments, or at least your lack of
including or inferring them.  What I have tried to point out is that
the *word* sexist is negative in our language (via our culture).  To
say that Women's Studies is sexist is to call it negative, without
providing a disclaimer.  Your lack of a disclaimer is either
neglectful on your part or dishonest.  

If you wanted to merely say that you find Women's Studies to be
exclusionary, you might have considered using less-loaded words than
"sexist."

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Subject: Re: STNG episode about homosexuality
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 06:48:52 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.130106.21538@bnlux1.bnl.gov> schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder) 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've always felt that all the credit that TOS gets for this is a little
>over-blown.  I wouldn't exactly call that "kiss" ground breaking.  After
>all, it never seemed to really mean much to me in that it was _forced
>through telekenisis_!  Now, if two characters of white and black
>extraction had kissed voluntarily, that would be something different.
>
>Gary L. Schroeder  		|  
>schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov         |             Boo. 
>Brookhaven National Laboratory  | 

What you don't seem to realize is that until this *kiss*, there had
never been an inter-racial kiss on prime time network TV, forced or
otherwise.  And I always thought it was a rather sneaky way of
getting past the censors of the time.  

	Censor:	"But you can't have Kirk do that!"

	Writer/Director/whoever:  "Well, Kirk is really being forced."
			          "It's against his will."

	Censor:  "Oh, that's different.  Never mind."

	:-)

Marg

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: FM010201@ysub.ysu.edu
Subject: women in engineering ( help..)
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:07:46 GMT

I am a graduate student in engineering, a minority, doing a thesis on " women ,
engineering and creativity". I am interested in knowing about the opinion of ot
hers about why there is not much interest in women about becoming engineer. I a
m pursuing two traditional line of search:
 1. Nature: women have different cognitive abilities than man and do not have m
            uch interest in men's pursuit of dominating nature. As most of the
            engineering is.  More right brain with thicker connection between
            right and left brain ( corpus clossum).
2. Nurture: Women are discouraged verbally or non-verbally to pursue abstract t
            opics such as math, science and engineering. feminist opinion.
Both sides have their defenders. It is hard to see which one is on the right tr
ack. Your opinions are highly needed to form a sort of informal survey. Thanks:
 Lisa
 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1167 soc.men:16453 soc.women:16615
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Statistical "proofs" (Was Re: women in engineering ( help..))
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:54:11 GMT
	<1992Sep15.032101.25742@cco.caltech.edu>
	<1992Sep15.102825.9967@uoft02.utoledo.edu>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: ktitus@uoft02.utoledo.edu's message of 15 Sep 92 10:28:25 EST


In article <1992Sep15.102825.9967@uoft02.utoledo.edu> ktitus@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
 [...]
 > If you were smart, you wouldn't jump to such conclusions based upon one
 > humorous comment.  Obvioulsy, no one would state such a comment
 > seriously on alt.feminism.

  You haven't been reading here very long, have you?

-- d
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Forward to the Past: Quote Choice for Men Unquote
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:04:57 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Sep12.130851.27637@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>| 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.

Is there any experience, or a serious of experiences, that can 
convince you the communism can't work?  You see, I'm interested 
in theory only when it can be checked by experiments.  The failures
of the kibbutzs system convince me that communism can't work.
I leave it to the "theoreticians" to give a theoretical explanation,
assuming that they will ever bother to check the facts...

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

So why did you raise that?

>| 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.  

Would you mind to define where "here" is?

>| 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*

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

>| 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.

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Hillel                                       gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Inflammantory"?  Moi?  --  Diane Holt
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: Sun, 06 Sep 92 19:52:51 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <715803090@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <-ppn!7q.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>How can you cross A (power to force) with B (closer to nature)? They
>>seem diametrically opposed, 
>
>Ha?
>
>Quite a few "green" people are all for using the state power to
>enforce *their* goals.  They also have no problem about using 
>high tech equipment when it helps them.

So it would seem.
 
>>and from prior postings, A would seem to
>>be exactly the same "male" world view which some feminists claim to be
>>the cause of all womens problems. Or is it only bad when men do it?
>
>Don't you know that logic is a male thing and women
>should trust their intuition and not the male logic?
>(Some feminists are serious about that; I can't understand why.)

Then it would be unreasonable to expect discussion on a *.feminist
or *.women newsgroup. And one should expect no more than emotional
responses. <sigh> I expect flames would count. :^)

I guess all of those rational responses are men posing as women. :^))


Rich

payner@netcom.com




Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Statistical "proofs" (Was Re: women in engineering ( help..))
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:22:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.113259.24017@panix.com> gcf@panix.com
(Gordon Fitch) writes:

>In 28 years of programming and systems work, I have never seen a
>problem that couldn't be easily solved without using Calculus.

I have.  It depends on the field you're in.  When I was doing
relatively uninteresting record-keeping type stuff, I didn't need
calculus.  For advanced financial stuff, I do.

>The last time the Calculus requirement was debated on the net, I
>took an informal survey of my colleagues in the craft.  Of a
>population of 51, number who had used Calculus on the job, ever:
>0.

It's now 51 to 1.  If I polled my colleagues around here, I'd probably
find a reasonably high percentage that use calculus.

>The only way we can get more women in engineering and 
>"engineering" is to figure out why they aren't there already.

Why?  I don't see the connection.  Suppose we make some change,
without knowing why there aren't more women in engineering.  There is
no reason to believe that such a change *couldn't* get more women into
engineering (there is likewise no reason to believe that it *would*,
but your claim is that a random change *can't* work).

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Rita Mae Brown?
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:45:47 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <Bu542y.JGD@acsu.buffalo.edu> ztsindi@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (The Independents - SUNY Buffalo) writes:
-Howdy Y'all,
-	Does anyone know what Rita Mae Brown is up to these days? I 
-read a few of her books after a friend turned me on to her. I'm not
-particularly fond of feminism, at least wasn't until I read some
-of her essays. How could I disagree with someone who could convice
-in such a sane, rational, clear and lucid manner? Anyhow I have
-great respect for this person and her ideals which seem to have come
-from a great deal of personal consideration. The only problem is I
-can't seem to find anything by her after the mid-seventies when
-'radical feminism' moved off the charts. Is she still in the writing
-business? If so, could someone post the titles of more recent 
-(eighties - present) works?

Bingo 1988
High Hearts 1986
Poems 1987
Southern Disconfort 1982
Starting from Scratch 1985
Wish You Were Here 1990

starbuck
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Alan Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:12:23 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <MUFFY.92Sep8151044@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu
(Muffy Barkocy) moans and groans and whines and cries:

>WI'm just curious about this; I have noticed you calling Gordon Fitch
>"Fitch" several times now while attacking.  On the other hand, you call
>me (Muffy Barkocy) "Muffy" when flaming.  Is this just random
>inconsistency or is there a reason?

>attack/insult/flame people?  Is it somehow more/less insulting to men
>to just be called by their last names (particularly with no title)?

>Muffy

I call you "Muffy" because "Muffy" really sounds stupid.  It's the kind of
a name you give to a rag doll or a French Poodle.  "Fetch Muffy, Fetch!"
"Here Muffy, here's a bone for you to chew upon".  "I'll be out of the
bathroom as soon as I wipe the shit off my Muffy".

A REAL WOMYN -- A REAL FEMINIST wouldn't be caught dead with a name like
"Muffy".

I call Fitch, "FITCH", because it's the kind of name that generates respect
and it's the very least a worthy advisary such as Gordon deserves.

You, on the other hand, are just a jerk.

I hope this helps you to understand my reasoning.  It's really not all that
inconsistent.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:898 soc.women:16360
From: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:49:43 GMT
Reply-To: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <1992Sep8.141532.14036@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon
Fitch) writes:
|>9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis) writes:
|>| ...
|>| All the women programmers and project leaders I have known have been
|>| absolutely first rate.
              [...]

|>I've observed the same thing, and wondered why it was so.  The
|>best thing I could come up with was that the women were more
|>businesslike, and less likely to use the machines for games or
|>to show off.  That may be cultural, because women don't seem
|>less playful than men to me, but they do seem less taken with
|>machines; when it comes to play, they seem to prefer social
|>games.

Ummmmm, we're talking about women in the workplace.  Do you seriously
think that any woman is going to post an article from her employer's
site saying "Hey, I play games JUST AS MUCH on my machine!  In fact,
whole months go by where I hardly work at all!  I had to take a break
from blasting aliens into little gobbets of green slime just to
write this!"

Hmmmmmm, maybe women _are_ smarter than men.  :-)

                     -rocker
                      who would NEVER post from her desk, nooooooooo
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:903 soc.women:16362
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Interesting Survey
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:55:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of California, Riverside

I have extracted from a news article the results of a very interesting
survey done by women with a track record in polling.  Two things I
that I find of interest are that Women do not seem to differ from men
on these issues and what is not on the list.

		-= Economics Is Women's Top Worry =-

The following information is extracted from a survey commissioned by the Ms.
Foundation for Women and the Center for Policy Alternatives.  The heart of the
survey is the public opinion poll cunducted by five respected pollsters
inculding Democrat Celinda Lake and republican Linda DiVall.  Among the
survey's major findings were: 

     o Asked what they worry about most, women said:

       Economy and jobs ( 26 percent )
       Health care      ( 14 percent )
       Crime	        ( 12 percent )
       Education	( 12 percent )
       Drugs		( 11 percent )

     o Abortion and rape, traditional organizing issues for feminist 
       political groups, were well down the priority list at:

       Abortion		( 7 percent )
       Rape		( 2 percent )

       NOTE:  Support for a law that would guarantee continued access to
              abortion.  ( 53 percent ).

     o More concerns

       Won't be able to make ends meet.  ( 33 percent )
       Someone in family will lose job.  ( 33 percent )
       Won't be able to pay rent.	 ( 25 precent )
       Become sole supporer of family.   ( 25 percent )

RANDOM NOTES:

     o  Main problems facing women:

        Demands of earning a living and family care.    ( 50+ percent )
        women's lives have improved durring last 30 yr. ( 75  percent )

     o  Government policies needed that will

        Will iprove their ability to provide for families.
        Provide time with families.
        Health care reform.
        Equal pay and flexile work hours.
        More female leaders.

starbuck
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "One" as a pronoun
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:04:28 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
> 
> -   Well, I would write:
> -
> -	"One should watch what he says about his teacher,..."t
> -
> -   This clearly sets up the gerderlessness but does not seem so awkward.
> 
> How does the continued use of "his" maintain genderlessness?

#brain OFF
  because `he' refers to both sexes, it's the generic term.
#brain on

I thought the whole point of the discussion was that the masculine term
is NOT taken as the generic.

Maybe s/he/it meant "One should watch what sie says about hir teacher,..."
(yes, that is a flame, just say "s/he/it" out loud)

MOZ
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)
Date: 5 Sep 92 17:49:41 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>In soc.men we managed to develop new ideas like choice for men,
>and affirmative action by income level.  Ideas which are new
>and may be quite important in the future.

Umm, *when* did you develop these ideas?  They've been around
in one form or another for at least most of the 20th century,
you know...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
From: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu (Al)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Bathroom symbols
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:59:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

>Now this interpretation is way too repulsive for me, to think that our
>society has the generic human standing there to indicate the "male's"
>restroom.  As a form of denial, I have adopted a new interpretation that
>seems to make more sense.  The generic human restroom is for all of us,
>man and woman alike.  The restroom where the human wears a skirt is for
>people who wear skirts.  Now doesn't that make more sense?

So if I wear a kilt, I can go into this restroom without fear of prosecution?

Sorry, but even Perry Mason couldn't get by with *that* defense! ;-)

Al
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: "One" as a pronoun
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 02:03:00 GMT

awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:

>In article <1992Sep8.062558.24485@news.columbia.edu> mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:

>-   In article <Bu29y4.AEK@comp.vuw.ac.nz> Francis.Gardner@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Francis Gardner) writes:
> 
>- >  This is a bit of an aside......but is still relevant-ish
>- >  In the English language there is no sexless singular third person personal
>- >  pronoun (except maybe "it" :-).

>- "one"

>So:

>	"One should watch what one says about one's teacher, for one's
>	teacher might give one a bad grade."

>vs.
>	"He should watch what he says about his teacher, for his 
>	teacher might give him a bad grade."

>The first seems awkward, but I guess it would be so with any new
>pronoun.

Well, I would write:

     "One should watch what he says about his teacher,..."t

This clearly sets up the gerderlessness but does not seem so awkward.

keith
s
From: spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:18:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep8.212553.5902@gtephx.UUCP>,
 forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes...

>In article <mcline.1d2a@terapin.com>,
 mcline@terapin.com (Matthew Cline) writes:

>> In article <4SEP199215550439@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>,
 spzkny@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (that's me, folks) writes:

[discussing the usage of "man" in English]

Okay, enough thread background.

Well, Matt, I honestly didn't know that language was running amok, getting 
in all sorts of trouble, and generally not doing what it's supposed to do.  
                                  :-)
Centuries of use and convention have neutered the male pronoun.  Its usage 
is clear and concise - nothing else is.
                                                  James S. Zakany
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1065 rec.arts.startrek.misc:9153
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.arts.startrek.misc
Subject: Re: STNG episode about homosexuality
Date: 12 Sep 92 21:44:22 GMT
 <1992Sep10.161807.27749@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>  
 <1992Sep12.032956.10243@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a4@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep12.032956.10243@leland.Stanford.EDU>
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

> I thought it said some good things about having something entirely
> natural to some people being treated as an illness by the majority,
> but it still didn't deal with homosexuality clearly.  I'd love to see
> a gay or lesbian couple as part of the background in the ship's bar,
> etc.  Heck, I was hoping Ensign Ro (spelling?) would turn out to be
> lesbian, but there was that episode about her and Riker.

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.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..) - native vs. western medicine
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:46:22 GMT

I forgot to mention midwives as part of 'folk medicine'.
How asinine how difficult - to - impossible it is to be a midwife
in two places I know of, Massachusetts and California.

Western medicine has the dubious distinction of being infected with its
social values. If it competes with our ability to make money, pass laws
against it. If people threaten to take their lives into their own hands,
pass laws against it. If alternative medicine and preventive medicine
threaten to put doctors out of work, try to exterminate them.

The latest AMA/FDA thing seems to be to attack herbals and glandulars
and 'smart drugs'. Can you imagine having to get a prescription from your
doctor to be able to buy Echinacea root?

If we don't sell it, or profit from it, then it's not legal. Maybe western
medicine keeps our bodies alive longer, but we no longer seem to own the
deeds to them anymore.

The one freaking pill people would like to get their hands on here - RU486 -
is banned due to an utterly fraudulent claim by the FDA.

western medicine is full of wonderful things, and it's getting better as
it gets less invasive. but it's not complete, and its integrity is being
compromised by the money motive, and now by slowly becoimg an arm of, or
a victim of the state.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism