HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:18:18
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Sep2.151840.21320@cco.caltech.edu>
	<1992Sep2.195050.29837@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: smeyer@panix.com's message of 2 Sep 92 19:50:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.195050.29837@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:

>I really don't know why calling a female a girl is offensive.  I don't
>take offense at being called a boy.  Is it wrong for someone to call
>their SO a "girl/boyfriend"?

The word "girl" has a denotation of "child", and when it is used
consistently for women, while "man" is used for men, then the suggestion
is that women are being equated to children while men are being equated
to adults.  Since adults have power over children and children are not
considered to be competent, this can be considered insulting.  I imagine
that if someone called you a child, you might find that offensive;
certainly, many adults would.

As far as "girlfriend/boyfriend" go, there is not an inequality here.
The problem with "girl" is that it's usually "girl" and "man" (so there
would be an inequality if it was "girlfriend/manfriend").  If men were
called "boys" in all the situations that women are called "girls," I
don't think there would be a problem with the word "girl," either.

Nonetheless, I prefer to call my SO my SO rather than my "boyfriend,"
both because I feel that there is an implication of youth in the term
and because I see our relationship as stronger than what boyfriend
implies.

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: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 05:25:45 GMT

In article <!+bn0_p.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.212641.24944@sfu.ca> probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.183639.16010@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
>>>
>>how about the fact that most grad schools make no allowance for providing
>>or subsidising childcare? 
>
>Curiously, here we have a case of equal treatment being given as a case
>of blatant sexism. Would not this be -required- by the ERA.
>
>I am not making a value judgment here. And if the male student had a
>child to care for, he would receive no extra funds or considerations.

According to Al Gore, in an interview with MacNeil Lehrer, Pres. Bush vetoed an
employer health/child-care act which would otherwise have been passed.  He
stated that Bush did so because big-business interests are more important to
Bush than family values.  I don't think this is as much an issue of sexism as
it is the Republican party's sources of support--trickle down economics!

By the way, speaking of equal rights, should desired pregnancy be put into the
same category for health care as undesired illness?  Should pregnancy leave be
subtracted from vacation time?
etc?

 * * * * *  =================== Internet address is  mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * == Meir I. Green == Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
 * * * * *  = mig@columbia.edu= Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@K2KJC.NY.USA.NOAM
* * * * * * =================== Amateur TCP/IP       N2JPG@uhm.ampr.org     /EX
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: ERA question
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 19:13:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug27.102510.24842@doug.cae.wisc.edu> sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Aug26131623@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.190117.4420@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>>From article <1992Aug25.181129.14972@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by rweibl@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Richard A Weibl):
>>>> the ERA would result in unisex bathrooms and women being drafted into the 
>>>> armed forces.
>>
>>>That's two people who have poo-pooed women being drafted and unisex bathrooms.
>
>>I agree.  I'm in favor of unisex bathrooms.  I often get *very* tired of
>>waiting in line, and I often just go ahead and use the "men's bathroom,"
>
>I like unisex bathrooms too.  I have had one in every house or apartment
>I have ever lived in.

The subtle difference here is that the bathrooms in your home/whatever
is probably single occupancy, where public bathrooms are not. Another
interesting point us the women require more bathroom facilities than
men. This is why there is a long line at the womens bathroom, because
they most likely -do- have equal facilities, but require more for equal 
usage. I am making no value judgment here, just pointing out what I
understand to be pertinant facts. 

>sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
>sean@cae.wisc.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Last names
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:28:48 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

ciaran@county.lmt.mn.org (Ciaran Benson) writes:
> dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
> > Let's assume a man
> > and a woman have gotten married, and the women kept her last name (i.e.
> > no hyphenation).  Then they start having children.  What should the
> > children's last names be?
> 
>   Upon reaching the age of majority, the now-adult selects
> for themself the name they will go by as an adult.  The new
> name either becomes a nick-name, or they legalize it.  Fortunately,
> my marriage document had two slots; "Old name, New name", so
> I was able to make the change legal and binding rather than
> just a pleasant folk tradition.

one of my friends did (IMHO) the obvious : both last names in arbitary order
in the list of names the child has, the last name being hers (female child).

the interesting thing is the first name : it was chosen to break most
character sets, having an ae letter, and some kind of accent over another
letter. The name she currently uses is `saxon', chosen for its non-gender-
specificity and ease of use (and the parents liked it, lots).

forget the idea of first-middle-last name, give them all you've got and 
then some for fun, let them choose when they want to.

MOZ
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dbora@ils.nwu.edu (Donald Bora)
Subject: Comfortable shoes...
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:25:24 GMT



>Jeffery - I have heard the saying that women "dress for other women" and do 
>their hair and makeup for men.  I'd love to know what other posters think of 
>this.  I know that the women I am around at work (not friends) almost never 
>notice
>makeup, but they do notice hair styles.  And they're very fashion conscious.
>Fashion conscious almost to the point of being stereotypically "catty" about
>it.  I've gotten comments, all from female co-workers, that they think I'm a
>"dyke" because I wear "comfortable shoes"!  Thank goodness I don't care
>what people think - I used to, almost to the point of driving myself nuts!


carol -

The woman I am marrying this saturday wears comfortable shoes, doesn't wear
makeup, and shares my clothes.  Because she has short hair and I have long
hair we are sometimes mistaken for a lesbian couple (which amuses me to no
end).  I applaud and support your efforts for comfort!

>It is nice to hear from those men in this group that care about more than the
>surface stuff.

I met my woman (and pretty much fell in love on the spot) when she corrected
the spelling of a 7-syllable german word I had written on a friends 
white board...

It's very important to be able to converse with the person you wish to grow
old with...

>carol

Don
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gara@cs.toronto.edu (Gara Pruesse)
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:57:58 GMT

>want only the feminist view of things, there is soc.feminism. If you want to
>see the good, the bad, and the ugly, then read here. I am not going to waste
>my time on soc.feminism, as I am a woman that doesn't agree with a fair 
>portion of what is commonly held to be the Feminist Manifesto, and if I tried
>to be heard on soc.feminism, I'd turn old and grey first.
>

I think you're wrong on that point; I gather from your wording that you
haven't tried posting there.  Also, I think soc.feminism does not only
present a feminist view of things.

Furthermore, I don't believe there is *anything* that is 
"commonly held to be the Feminist Manifesto"!  How can there
be, when "feminism" is a label attached to such a wide spectrum
of views, beliefs, agenda?


>    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 
> 

-gara
From: ian@sinix.UUCP (Ian Malone)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: new group?
Date: 27 Aug 92 09:52:47 GMT
Organization: SNI AG Muenchen, STO XS

In article <8-+n_wk@lynx.unm.edu> rkelly@carina.unm.edu (Robert Kelly) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.225127.9280@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> johnk@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (John J Kuszewski) writes:
>>Feminist chicks
>>Wish they had dicks
>>But they don't
>>So there.
>>
>>-- 
>>John Kuszewski
>>johnk@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
>>I'm not an idiot, but I play one on USENET
>
>Hmmm, my reaction....
>
>I am printing this out and sending a copy to Johns Hopkins University 
>school newspaper and then a letter to JHU postmaster.  I urge others 
>to be the same.  There is a system to use, and we should use it.
>
>
>Robert Kelly
>rkelly@triton.unm.edu

Oh thank god your here to play net policeman.  Your obviously the best
man for the job, some politically correct loser who has no fucking sense
of humor, no clue, no life, and nothing better to do then clip articles
and send them off "to the appropriate authorities"

Why don't you relax asshole.  Like JHU really gives a shit.  And
who the fuck are you to dictate content on, of all places not to be taken
seriously, an "alt" group in usenet?

The guy who sent that clever poem was a jerk, but your worse.  You self
important insecure limp dick waste of life. Self-appointed censors have
to be the lowest form of life.

Now, you going call my employer?  My administrator?  My mommy?  Hey, don't
tell me, let me guess..... you got beat a lot when you were a kid and never
really fit in, and now your going to get your revenge on the world, right?

Ian Malone
From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:45:30 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <1992Aug31.174327.17143@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
>I've come across incidents, very recently, similar to what Julie describes.  
>They all involve several men in the department where I work.  They have made 
>comments lately such as:
>     "Women can't comprehend mathematics".
>     "Women don't understand complicated, technical subjects"
>     "Well, [woman's name] will be traveling with us, so I guess we won't be 
>able to discuss anything technical in her company.  Don't want to confuse 
>her...ha..ha..ha.
>     "I don't mean to talk down to you by talking economics...I know you
>can't understand those types of subjects..." (this one said to me)
>     "Even though [woman's name] didn't understand the technical aspects of the
>job, we hired her anyhow because she had such a sweet personality".
>
>Aaaccckkkkk!  So, there's real life examples for you.
>
>carol

And I have some more examples.  I used to work in the Distribution Dept. of
a local newspaper (inserting pre-prints, bundling newspapers and loading
vans).  Shortly after a rash of new hirings (all male) the Department
supervisor rounded up the males and told them they were going to be shown
how to use the forklift.  Now, I had been working in this Department for
two years at this time and had never been shown how to use the forklift.
I and two other females (who were also relatively new) went to the supervisor
and demanded equal treatment. i.e. that we also be shown how to use the
fork lift.  He initially laughed and commented that *everyone* knew that
women were terrible drivers and were not capable of driving a forklift.

I insisted that we be taught the same skills as the men or I would make
a formal complaint to his superiors.  He gave in and taught all of the
women at the same time as the men.  Needless to say (or is it?) the
women did just as well at this job as the men.  I even received some
compliments from some of the men concerning my precise placement of
the pallets and stacking.  They commented that *they* couldn't be that
precise.  Of course, I wound up being the one in charge of stacking. :-)
I don't know if this was a good thing or not but it did allow me to
make a point.

Marg
From: smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:29:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Aug31.140821.25028@athena.mit.edu> terra@athena.mit.edu (Terra Incognita) writes:

>Essentially, what she's saying is that cosmetic and diet companies
>use mass media to propagate a particularly effective form of
>advertising:  playing on people's insecurities.  
[...]
>principle is involved cosmetic ads.  They give us gorgeous fashion
>models as an example of what we're "supposed" to look like, then tell
>us that by using their products we can look like those models.  They
>take advantage of our raging hormones by telling the relevant 90% of
>us that this is what men expect us to look like.  You can't read a
>women's magazine, watch an hour of television, or go into a store
>without being assailed by this advertising.  Women are made to feel
>that they aren't "presentable" without at least a little makeup, and
>that they aren't "attractive" unless they have "the ideal" figure.

I'll admit that I would like to marry a woman with a great figure, but
I really can't understand the makeup bit.  Yes, it can make certain
individuals look better, but I prefer a woman without it.  When I'm
with someone, I'd rather not taste powder, wax and whatever else they
put in those cosmetics.  

Deodorant is alright (and sometimes necessary) but perfume?  When I
take the morning bus into New York City, some women have so much
perfume on it's sickening.  It has a worse effect than freshly chopped
onions!  My eyes water, my throat gets itchy, my nose gets stuffed up.
There are also men who use too much cologne, but the perfumes (to me)
usually have a sharper scent.

My point here is this: I'm not suggesting that women should not use
these products if it makes them feel better about themselves.  It's
just that using these products seem to (more often than not) do the
opposite of what they're purpose is.  Am I alone in this thinking?

- Seth
From: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:29:51 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <1992Aug31.172158.16877@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell):
> In <1992Aug31.142504.13145@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:

>>I tried taking a women's studies class in college.  I thought it would
>>be interesting to see what I could do to help reduce sexism in our
>>society.
>>...

> And I don't think it is the feminist's goal to yell at men...but we have a
> lot of pent up anger.

An academic course on "women's studies" should not be a vehicle for working
off pent up anger.  Many bitter people, male and female, get off on their
own indignation, and those "feminists" who are merely doing that should be
discreetly ignored.  There are serious issues to be debated, and anger and
rhetoric can set this process back.
----
  __   __    Paul Singleton (Mr)           JANET: paul@uk.ac.keele.cs
 |__) (__    Computer Science Dept.        other: paul@cs.keele.ac.uk
 |  .  __).  Keele University, Newcastle,    tel: +44 (0)782 621111 x7355
             Staffs ST5 5BG, ENGLAND         fax: +44 (0)782 713082
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:40:03 GMT

In article <3900@keele.keele.ac.uk> csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton) writes:
>From article <AWERLING.92Aug31173953@dante.nmsu.edu>, by awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING):
>> In article <1992Aug31.174327.17143@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
>
>> >"Even though [woman's name] didn't understand the technical aspects of the
>> > job, we hired her anyhow because she had such a sweet personality".
>>
>> Okay, now *that* one is obnoxious and patronizing.  Ick.
>
>And sexist?

Probably, but not necessarily.

Depends upon the job and the other applicants.
I would hire a male applicant with a sweet personality if he had the
ability to *learn* the tech. aspects!

I am inclined to see this as sexist, however, since Carol (hope you don't mind)
feels it is so, and I don't believe she is misleading us, since she strikes me
as being intelligent enough to make this assessment, and as not being a fanatic
who would likely mislead herself!

:-)
 * * * * *  =================== Internet address is  mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * == Meir I. Green == Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
 * * * * *  = mig@columbia.edu= Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@K2KJC.NY.USA.NOAM
* * * * * * =================== Amateur TCP/IP       N2JPG@uhm.ampr.org
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:26:17 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <MUFFY.92Sep2161818@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.195050.29837@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>
>>I really don't know why calling a female a girl is offensive.  I don't
>>take offense at being called a boy.  Is it wrong for someone to call
>>their SO a "girl/boyfriend"?
>
>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.)

>                                 and when it is used
>consistently for women, while "man" is used for men, then the suggestion
>is that women are being equated to children while men are being equated
>to adults.

It isn't used consistently for women, and "guy" is often used for men.

>  Since adults have power over children and children are not
>considered to be competent, this can be considered insulting.  I imagine
>that if someone called you a child, you might find that offensive;
>certainly, many adults would.

Why should this low opinion of children (powerless, not competant)
have so much influence?  Why should I change my language because of
an anti-child bias that I don't share?

Anyway, being called a child is not the same as being called a boy.
Nor is it very like being called "powerless" or "not competant".  So,
while it may be that there's something insulting about being called a
child (and I think there is), it has to be something else.

In short, while I can agree that "girl" has its problems, I don't
think the case against it is as strong and clear-cut as you seem to.
Some uses of "girl" to refer to an adult female are sexist, others
are not.

So what it comes down to is this (IMHO): don't use "girl" when it
will taken as implying something you don't mean to imply.  I don't
think many will object to this, because there's so little point in
saying things you know will be misunderstood.  

-- jd
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: equality
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:25:44 GMT
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York

In article <1992Aug26.064611.1045@mr.med.ge.com> bednarek@picard.med.ge.com (Dennis Bednarek Mfg 4-6971) writes:
>  other sex would prevail.  In my mind the areas requiring dexterity
>  would be dominated by females, while brute strenght would be dominated
>  by males.

I have heard that men *generally* are better at instantaneous strength, and
women at endurance.

>  Also areas requiring math type skills would be more male
>  dominated while areas requiring abstract thinking would be female 
>  dominated.

Maybe.  What makes you think so?
Some math requires abstract thinking.

I think that individuals of both sexes would excel.  Their might be trends
along gender lines, but there could be top scorers from either gender, I
would think.

 * * * * *  =================== Internet address is  mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * == Meir I. Green == Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
 * * * * *  = mig@columbia.edu= Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@K2KJC.NY.USA.NOAM
* * * * * * =================== Amateur TCP/IP       N2JPG@uhm.ampr.org
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: new group?
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:19:35 GMT
Organization: I'm part of a massive Blonde Conspiracy

In article <1992Aug24.191147.1231@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>
>They (JHU) would be wrong to strip his account or posting privs or anything
>else. 

It might be wrong, but that wouldn't stop them from doing it. There's this 
thing called Covering Your Ass, that would come into play here. I don't know
all the ins and outs of how things work with Internet/Usenet, but when I had
an account with Bitnet access, if I went out on a public forum (RELAY, for 
example) and was obnoxious or used certain four letter expletives, I could
lose not only my access to RELAY, but if the complaint went far enough, I
could cost my college their network access, Rather than let that happen, they
would shut me down, and IMHO have every right to, as I would have become a 
threat to something they depend on. You can bet they'd be stomped on if I
wasn't shut up.

As I understand it though, such action is only taken in extreme cases, but I'm
sure there are exceptions...there always are...

>Dave Hayes 

    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 
 
                       
        
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:555 soc.men:15895