HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Gordon, the freedom of speech fighter (Was Re: Winning by Violation)
Date: 5 Sep 92 20:38:59 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Sep5.143241.25589@panix.com>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>I pointed out that if those opposed to the draft wanted
>the support of NOW, it would be necessary to have some
>kind of movement among those directly concerned --
>oppressed if you will -- for NOW to make an alliance with.

And I pointed out that in the last time that the draft was an *issue*
(early 70's) the feminist movement broke from the anti-war movement
with a lot of complaining about the men's sexism, and it is naive to assume
that if there will be a draft once again then NOW will do anything else.

Gordon, like the 60's generation && the Carter voters,
had nothing to say about that...

>I find the attack on soc.feminism equally dishonest.  It
>is not is content which is anyone's problem -- about half
>the articles are critical of feminism in general or some
>aspect of feminism -- but its existence as a distinct
>newsgroup.  

All of that from Gordon who has never had nothing to say
when a *private* mailing list was broken into and archives
were posted in the soc.women and soc.men.

>There are hundreds of newsgroups, and a
>virtually infinite name space, so there is no reasons why
>those who want to have (yet another) anti-feminist
>newsgroup can't have one -- in fact, all they want.  

Gordon, try to guess why there is a voting process to all newsgroups
not in the alt domain, and why negative votes count.  There are 
rules to the game, and they had been established long before
soc.feminism was around.  If you don't like the rules then
please create your won net, or move to the alt domain.

>Instead, we have an attack on soc.feminism, allegedly
>because it isn't egalitarian enough.  The only purpose
>I can see is to do as much harm as possible, up to the
>point of completely trashing your opponents, as if the
>Net were a big football game.  

Gordon, have you posted any claim like that when several votes for
the creation of soc.men failed because of feminists' objections?

Can you e-mail me a copy of your objection?

>That is what I see as
>illegitimate.  The Net is an information medium, not
>an athletic contest.

An information medium needs some mechanism for debates.
Without that you just have an electronic Pravda.

>I -- and many others, I suspect -- leave you alone in
>soc.men to complain to each other how you're put upon
>by women in general and feminists in particular.  Isn't
>the company of one another enough for you?

The net is a spectators sport and you know it *very* well.
That's why you carry so many debates in a public forum and
not in e-mail and/or a private mailing list.

I have a surprise for you: we know that too.

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

Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Actually, I like it when you're defensive."  --  J. S. B'ach
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:46:17 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:

>engineering is a strictly logical discipline

Where did you get that idea???

Engineering homework exercizes, given to beginning undergraduates, 
usually require the application of logical problem-solving constructs.
But this is a far cry from what is required of one to be a *good* 
practicing engineer.  Most engineering requires *intuitive* generalization.
One has to be able to think, "I've seen this problem before in another 
system" and adapt the solution (of the previously see problem) to the 
current situation.  This requires  alot of creativity!  It also explains
why *good* engineers are so rare, and so valuable.

Any comments from working engineers out there??

							--  Michal

P.S.  My diplomas say math and physics, and I'm working on a thesis in 
astronomy.  But I'm building an instrument so I guess that makes me a 
seat-of-the-pants engineer.  I don't claim to be a good one.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Statistical "proofs" (Was Re: women in engineering ( help..))
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 01:46:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.145504.9949@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>so how are women being discriminated against???? they could have taken
>those classes...the prof didn't walk in on the first day and say...
>
>"no girls allowed"
>
>he came in and said..."75% of you will flunk this class...now open your
>books to page...."

There must be a lot of Calc profs out there that say this.  It is
exactly what my Calc II prof told the class on the first day.  Then he
reiterated it with his first test.  He came in with the test results and
put a viewgraph up with everyone's scores mapped.  1 - 55%, 1 - 43% ...
13 - 0%.  He told everyone that got a 0 to withdraw from the class,
because his tests just got harder and harder.

After they withdrew, he threw out the first test and gave us another
"first test."  The results the second time and the rest of the course
were much more "normal."  And no, the other tests were not as difficult
as that first TEST_FROM_HELL.

Oh, and there were women among those last 8 of us who made it.  One had a
nice bod, too.

Sorry, I don't like to do the smiley thing.  I like being "obscure."
Oh, did I kinda just do it?  Shit.  Exposed!

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Organization: gte
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:45:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.024645.11692@panix.com>, smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
> From the Village Voice:
> 
> In the article from 9/8/92 entitled "Freedom of Speech Under President
> Clinton" (p25):
> 
> "These pro-life women on the Left believe in a consistent ethic of
> life.  ... As for abortion, Feminists for Life say that 'truly
> liberated women reject abortion because they reject the male world
> view that accepts violence as a legitimate solution to conflict.'"
> 
> Any opinions or comments?

I wonder what one of these "truly liberated women" would say about
abortion after she has gotten pregnant from a gang-rape?

And I wonder what is violent about abortion?  
Now poor children shooting each other in the streets is 
violent (and is often a result of non-availability of 
abortion to the poor), but "abortion is violent"??


-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 6 Sep 92 03:02:51 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <1992Sep6.024645.11692@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
| From the Village Voice:
| 
| In the article from 9/8/92 entitled "Freedom of Speech Under President
| Clinton" (p25):
| 
| "These pro-life women on the Left believe in a consistent ethic of
| life.  ... As for abortion, Feminists for Life say that 'truly
| liberated women reject abortion because they reject the male world
| view that accepts violence as a legitimate solution to conflict.'"
| 
| Any opinions or comments?

Yes, it would be nice if you gave the name of the author.

The theory itself is vacuous, since the issue is not whether
abortion is good or bad but whether the state has, or ought
to have, the power to prevent it and force childbearing.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 9 Sep 1992 01:43:48 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona writes:
> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>> > FM010201@ysub.ysu.edu writes...
>> 
>> > 1. Nature: women have different cognitive abilities than man and do 
>> > not have much 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 topics such as math, science and engineering. feminist 
>> > opinion.
>> 
>> My highly-needed, informal opinion is that number 1. above
>> is a complete crock.
>> 
>
>My experience, though limited to a set of 3, has been that #1 is 
>right on -- women tend to think in more of a "touchy-feely" way
>and engineering is a strictly logical discipline.  

I've noticed no such correlation, and I've worked with
many engineers of either gender.

As for engineering being a strictly logical discipline, yes,
I believe that engineering is a need-filling discipline governed
by logic and the scientific method.  But it does have
its creative and intuitive aspects.  Most blown engineering
projects go south because these last get outta hand...

>I have also
>found that the "Well, let's try this" approach in the face of all
>logic which says to try "that" tends to irritatte co-workers/lab
>partners.  

At G.E. this is called the "Edisonion" method of research -- a
reference to the fact that Edison tried umpteen thousand substances at
random before finding one that glowed when used as a lightbulb
filiment.  Edison was male.

>I also think that #1 is not really nature, but is nurture:

Well, what I was really calling a crock was the premise that
#1 is nature.  I don't believe the effect is there at all, but if
it were, it would be nurture.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:00:47 GMT

In article <Bu0AAz.60I@acsu.buffalo.edu> dewind@acsu.buffalo.edu (Idbil Fubar) writes:

> (messed up the thing...I don't know who wrote this following segment)
> >Theory 1.
> >Because men (for the most part) do the designing and building, and don't
> >think about it. 

This seems like an innocent theory, not an attack, *but*...

> Not necessarily.  Think also of the fact that ladie's rooms have fun
> stuff like Mirrors that men's rooms often do not.  If you don't like it 
> because of this reason become a fucking designer and build them your way.
> As far as I know there is nothing stopping you from doing that except your
> own inhibitions.

*Someone* took this personally.  *Someone* got *defensive*.  *Someone*
might considering getting a *grip*!

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
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 07:45:49 GMT

moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:

>dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:

>>I recently graded a paper by a young man who consistently used "he"
>>and "his" for pronouns....
>>"The emerging convention is to use gender-neutral or otherwise
>>inclusive pronouns (e.g. "she or he" or "his/her")[...]"

>From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
>>This is just butchery of the English language.
>or maybe the language is still alive and developing new conventions?

I think the only developing convention is to alternate pronouns, if you wish.

>>Like it or not, "he" is still the gender-neutral pronoun.
>ie, males are still the dominant gender.

This does not follow.

>>  There is no
>>reason, however, not to use "she" in the same context.
>except that some people object to that. as has been said, you have to
>try to do what the lecturer (etc) wants...

Not everyone writes to please a lecturer.

>>It is not
>>sexism because "he" is the norm.  This is just the way the language is.

>like slavery, racism, cot death, .... are (or were) the norm?
>just because something `is' does not mean it is right, even if it is/was
>the standard. `norm' could be argued as female on a variety of grounds.

The secondary definition of "he" is "a being of unspeicified sex" or something
like that (look it up in the dictionary).  I understand when this meaning
is being applied.  It is no fault of mine if you do not.

>>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? For
>example, can I call someone a Christian just because they accurately
>practice the Christian religion, or is there some other ground? And
>if I think they are (wonderful/sexist/oldfashioned) because of this should
>I then deny them that label because they are also Christian??

As long as "he" has a dual meaning, I will feel free to use it.  "Mankind"
does not mean just men, for example.
 
I really think you have to look at intent to label someone a sexist.

keith

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 14:58:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep10.060827.2193@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>In article <mxrnslk.payner@netcom.com> 
[...] 
>[...]
>>Longer than I, but that does not disqualify my observations. But tell me
>>what pro-female goals been achieved in this period? Note, anti-male
>>leglislation and rallies against the 'male chauvenistic pigs' are not
>>pro-female.
>
>This sounds like a "have-you stopped beating your wife" sort of question.

How so? I think that the distinction between pro-female and anti-male
is quite clear. Or are you asserting that {pro-female == anti-male}?
This is the only way that I can make sense of your "have-you stopped 
beating your wife" comment.

>Since I didn't claim feminism had achieved anything; this is really
>changing the subject. But, yes feminism has done something.

Then let me ask you the direct question, what has been achieved? 
 
>This is taken for granted to the extent that people saying "I'm not
>a feminist but...[list of feminist agendas believed in]" is a common
>response.
>
>Liberal and "cultural" feminism have the most to point to in mainstream
>and alternative institutions. Radical feminism in its original form
>is nearly gone but had a big effect on the "marketplace of ideas".
 
And in the marketplace of the courts as well.
 
>>>Let's see if I can hit some high points:
>>>
>>>- I am a man. Perhaps a little deviant from the norm ;) -- but this makes
>>>it less likely that I would accept a point of view that treats men as
>>>hopeless.  
>>
>>I do not see that this follows, although it may well be true.
>
>Not an argument from boolean logic, but from likelyhood. I am suggesting 
>the *radical* notion that I *might* consider my self-interest.
>
>[...]
>>Most, from my observation, would change things to what females would
>>desire, without regard to males. Bring up the toilet seat sometime.
>>You'd be amazed at how angry some women get at not having things left
>>exactly as they need it, they could care less that men have to go
>>through the opposite ritual after they have used the toilet. There is
>>no balance even in small things. 
>
>I'm amazed at the trival issues you raise, and since I usually sit down
>at a toilet this is a non-issue for me. Which way do you roll toilet
>paper? :-)

You'd be surprised how many "trival" issues are major problems. I
suspect that the label "trival" is inaccurate. Your response has tended
to become rather condesending as of late.
 
[...]
 
>I don't consider them "the major effect" of feminism - just one of 10 or
>20 areas where some form of feminism has had an effect.

So what then are ""the major effect(s)" of feminism. You keep alluding to
them, how about a simple list, no need to go into any details.
 
>-- 
> Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
> alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:46:05 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
> 
gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> >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 [...]
> 
>   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.

try, `1989'. The Autralians had a drug that suppressed sperm production.
But from memory it had a minor side effect - slight loss of libido. So
it was unusable, of course. Unfortunately this also sounds exactly like 
alt.folklore.urban FAQ #25, and since I can't even suggest where to start
looking I can't vouch for it at all.

MOZ
(alt.sex.wizard NOT!)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:48:18 +1200
 <716073607@lear.cs.duke.edu> <10SEP199212180593@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Keywords: artificial insemination

interesting comment in `the Bulletin' September 1, 1992. Page 37:

`..few couples in New South Wales are prepared to risk donating their 
embryos to other infertile couples because under existing state law the 
egg donor remains the legal mother'

This adds an interesting slant to the male choice argument: here is a case
where the woman can be held responsible in the same way as a man, and lo
and behold, woman are avoiding it like the plague. OK, the donor thing is
a long and painful process rather than a common and fun one (sex) but the
end result is the same: the legal parent is held liable for making sure
that the child is raised properly. Would be funny if the father could
give the child up for adoption, as that is the expected option in a 
donor pregnancy. (ie you donante an egg, it goes to term, reverts to
you, you give it up for adoption)


*love* & *hugs*
  ____MOZ___   (moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)
 /\  _______\
 \ \ \____  /     That it has taken this long for people to be
  \ \ \/ / /      Bisexual and proud of it has to do, I think, with
   \ \/ / /       this idea that either you're with men or you're
    \  / /        against men.             -- Judith Levine
     \/_/
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 19:51:23 GMT

spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>>the "Well, let's try this" approach in the face of all
>>logic which says to try "that" 

>At G.E. this is called the "Edisonion" method of research -- a
>reference to the fact that Edison tried umpteen thousand substances at
>random before finding one that glowed when used as a lightbulb
>filiment.  Edison was male.

Un-uh!  This proves that Edison was really a female in disguise!
Sort-of an industrial-age Yentil.

						--  Michal

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Using the dictionary
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 19:06:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <AWERLING.92Sep8154130@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>
>
>
>It's very easy to crack open a dictionary and use it to define
>something.  But that is really very dishonest.  

Dishonest? You're joking, right?

>                                              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.

And if there is not even a common starting point, what then? Imagine
a band all playing from different music. It would have much in common
with some conversations seen in certain netgroups.
 
>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.  

And if there are 2 camps, who then is correct? 

>                                                     The dictionary is
>only a launching pad towards understanding anything.  You people
>already know what these terms mean.  

If there were agreement, this thread would not exist.

>                                      Leave the dictionary alone.
>Let's figure this stuff out based on our experiences with how people
>act, react, and interact.  

That's right, lets just give words our own personal definition.
Outstanding communication is bound to be the result. :^)
 
>After all, that *is* what these discussions are ultimately about, yes?

Different people have different "experiences", the experiences are
what they are about. But if we all mean different things when using
the same words, these experiences cannot be shared.

>Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
>"Jesus is coming, look busy."
>          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Some examples (Was Re: Winning by Violation (
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:51:27 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

In article <1992Sep6.025105.11792@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> in a rough'n'tough alt group, you can post all the personal
> attacks you like anyway.

(about rich)

he is, gordon, he is. Oh brother is he ever!.

MOZ
(moderator of alt.feminism) 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Grading papers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 07:11:52 GMT

In article <2457@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>This subject and this solution to a perceived need has been around for quite
>a while. I contend that if WE NEEDED a gender-neutral pronoun WE would have
>invented it already. After all, Necessity is the Mother of Invention.

I'm convinced we already have it: we use the plural pronouns when we
really mean singular.  I think this is natural and not at all
something forced upon an unwilling populace by English-hating
feminists.

I've even noticed a net.misogynist using plurals when he means
singular, so that shows how easy and natural using the plurals is.  Or
else those mind-altering rays are working much better than
Dworkin&MacKinnon said they would...

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women