HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 07 Sep 92 08:17:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

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".
>
Carol,

I am fortunate that I haven't had to deal with this for the last
couple years. Flack from people outside the company is one thing;
flack from co-workers I can't, won't, and don't.

This is not to say that microsoft has no discrimination or bad apples
- I haven't encountered any in the last ~2 years.

So either they're not in my orbit or they're darn good at hiding.

-jen
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminis
Date: 8 Sep 92 10:01:30
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 8 Sep 92 12:47:04 GMT


In article <715956423@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.160434.718@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> 
> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
> >as a rule, expecting to demolish an entire philosophy by showing that
> >some few of it's most outspoken advocates sometimes make ill-thought
> >statements is not practical. Otherwise we wouldn't have Dan Quayle
> >in any public position? 
> Dan Quayle is a joke, and quite a few republicans know that.
> In feminism, we are talking about non-fiction books which are
> taken seriously, are sold in millions of copies and bash men.

  More people take dan quayle seriously than ms. dworkin and other
radical feminists, but of course you don't care -- anytime that someone
says something that you perceive as a weapon to be used against
feminists, you don't hesitate to use it, but protest loudly when anyone
points to the problems that the current power structure poses for women
all over the world.  You have no clue, no concept of what feminism is
about -- the quotes and comments you claim are widely accepted among
feminists are a bad joke to most feminists, just as you are.

  Generally, popularity does not equate to being taken seriously among
thinking people.  Calling quayle the definitive spokesperson for the
republicans is much more correct than saying that dworkin is for
feminism.  Similarily, quoting a writer of popular fiction as having an
ideology that all feminists espouse is not particularily meaningful in
most cases.

  I've never met *anyone* say that they believed what dworkin does, but
look at the subject lines in this newsgroup -- dworkin is used widely as
a big stick to crush feminist ideals and to ridicule women.  I think it
was gordon who said that even if she didn't exist, men would invent her --
it's true -- she's proven to be a very good weapon to use against
feminists.  If anyone on the net feels like defending dworkin or other
radical feminists, feel free to leap forth now.  Note that I'm not
saying that they (dworkin et al) don't have a right to say and believe
anything that they want, but to think that that is the goal of feminism
is not only a gross misunderstanding of the subject, but sheer stupidity
and culpability.

 -- d
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The anti-choice-for-men, Muffy (Was Re: Winning by Violation)
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:16:54 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
| Now we see WHY "soc.feminism" has been such a tightly-controlled, Politically
| Correct little universe. It enables the moderators to promote
| blatant hypocrisy without ever being forced to answer for it.

You're either mistaken or lying.  soc.feminism is not 
"Politically Correct" in the sense of "totalitarian;" about
half the articles published have been critical of
feminism or feminist positions.  Repeating the lie, uh,
mistake, will not make it truer.

Anyone who doubts this can read soc.feminism for
themselves and see.

| Now that we have "alt.feminism", I think that our newly-found Freedom of
| Speech is going to quickly send these prissy little hypocrites running for
| cover. 

I'm a feminist.  Try me.

| I wonder how long it will be before we see the word going out to all 
| those of Correct views, "Oh, don't *ever* participate in that horrible
| "alt.feminism."! Don't even read it! It's been taken over by sexists and
| racists and....."

bores.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Born a Feminist? (was: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminis
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 05:39:11 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>>That is a silly argument. One is born a Jew.. 

Not so.  An infant boy becomes a jew when he is circumcised, traditionally 
on the eighth day after his birth.

							--  Michal
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 10 Sep 92 22:29:47
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<716147821@lear.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 10 Sep 92 17:57:02 GMT

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

Telling a guy "if you get a woman pregnant, even if you lied to her
about birth control, you can just wander off and leave her to deal with
it" is a great way to create irresponsible men.  Once again:  BOTH
people have sex, BOTH people have to be responsible.  If they don't
trust the other gender, they can have sex with their own gender or avoid
sex or whatever works, but they should NOT just dump the problem on the
other person.

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

Prove it.  I have certainly consistently urged (even in the excerpt of
mine you quoted originally) responsibility on both sides.

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

Right.  Better to take the *woman* to the cleaners, right?  Look, they
were both there...there couldn't have been a child otherwise.  *IF*
there was reliable birth control, education about and access to same,
and safe, readily available abortion for the occasional failure, *THEN*
your solution of "choice for men" would be a fine one (and I think it is
reasonable in some cases now), but as it is, you're essentially saying
"let the woman deal with it."  Not that that surprises me, since you
seem to think that anything which helps women must necessarily oppress
men.

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
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: 13 Sep 92 14:14:37 GMT
	<716401009@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 13 Sep 92 16:16:50 GMT


In article <716401009@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>In article <gmxn44b.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>Is not communism, or it's nearest equivalant, socialism, still alive
>>and well in China?
> Alive yes, well no.

  Glad we have an unbiased commentator here.

> A pseudo-democracy like Taiwan is certainly in a much better shape.

  In other words, if the government isn't what *you* like, it's an awful
place for anyone to live.  This fits in with your views of feminism
quite well... good to see you're consistant, in any case.

 --d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminis
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 9 Sep 92 10:56:51 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

In article <Btz0M4.Erx@encore.com>, aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> 
> >In article <Btux1o.Fs0@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
> 
> >[snip]
> 
> ><   myself, I have learned to not let my defenses
> ><   get the better of me, because for the most part, in my experience
> ><   anyway, sweeping generalizations about `men' usually are more or
> ><   less true to a large extent.
> 
> >	Aldrich should learn a bit more about "feminism" before
> >	making this statement.
> 
> I freely admit I am not a scholar of feminism..so what? I cannot 
> comment on my own observations?

no, just that to do so `as a feminist' is improprietry exemplified.

much as I would never comment on eg Judaism, `as a jew', to comment
from a feminist perspective, then claim you know little about feminism,
is, well, unusual?
MOZ
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<715956367@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:31:05 GMT


In article <715956367@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

> I'm for education, but I'm against forced education.  E.g. I don't
> like the idea of women using abortion as a birth control method, but 
> I'm against any restriction on abortion rights, even if she has never 
> used birth control and she had 15 abortions before.

This situation can be easily avoided. If all persons are automatically
sterilized when they are having their 10'th abort. And to make things
even, same should happen to all who have started 10 unwanted pregnancies.
These should of course consider only deliberately acts.

> Are you for any restriction on abortion rights?  (I assume not.)

Children aren't a sexual disease despite that many women tend to think so.

> Will you use the state's power to force education on women?
> Will you use the state's power to force education on men?

What is force education. Having government sending info letters and free
condoms to all young when they become 16 ? In that case we are already
on the way to totalitarian dictatorship.

> d told us that soc.feminism is much better than alt.feminism.
> I *assume* that he meant what he said.

What makes forced education worse than censorship ? They are both 
meaned to affect peoples' thoughts. And what about propaganda then ?

> "Or do you think that children should just starve, rather than 
> impinging on the man's right to have a good time?" -- Muffy Barkocy 

If it is just good time for man, what is it to woman ? Or is it that
women are by default so weak and helpless that they can't take of the
child by themselves.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1059 rec.arts.startrek:14990
From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.arts.startrek
Subject: Re: STNG episode about homosexuality
Date: 12 Sep 92 20:40:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: leela.1992Sep12.204031.12098
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <1992Sep12.032956.10243@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.161807.27749@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>>
>>They did do an episode on homosexuality.  It had some problems (IMO).
>>A brief plot outline - there is a planet where having a gender identity
>>is looked on as an illness.  One of the aliens is 'ill' in this manner,
>>and has a relationship with Riker.  She is found out, and cured via
>>'psychotectic therapy'.  Riker tries to rescue her, but she's already
>>been 'cured' and says she's glad she's normal now and she can't understand
>>why she avoided getting help.  Riker goes away pissed.  End of story.
>
>I'm not sure I'd call that an episode on homosexuality (neuter has a
>female identity and is attracted to Riker).  Maybe if the alien had a
>female identity and had been attracted to Dr. Crusher...
>
>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.

They could have made the Ensign Ro character bi-sexual.  

The major annoyance I had with this episode was the emphasis by 
Dr. Crusher and Troi that *females* paint their nails and use
makeup to attract the males.  I think they also mentioned females
having *long* flowing tresses.  Now, I don't find anything wrong
with females (or males for that matter) having long hair.  It
should be IMHO an individual choice.  I, for one, have short hair
and am most decidedly female.  I think my husband of 27 years can 
attest to that.  :-)

This episode made a few,IMHO, important points but it seems that 
TPTB just didn't want to make it *too* explicit for fear of
alienating some of the viewers.

Marg
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: whois RadFem?
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:46:15 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand


was: Re: Forward to the Past: Quote Choice for Men Unquote
gordon and hillel fight on:

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> > gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
> > > 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*

to repeat, "You used the word, now tell us what you mean".
ie: show what you mean by the RadFem label. To political science/feminist
students it means `of radical politics' plus `feminist oriented'. You
seem to use it to include ie Dworkin feminists who are merely
extremists. To me it means, the feminists who favor completely
restructuring society along feminist lines. Not to be confused
with those who merely want the current system adjusted slightly.

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

ad homenim ad nauseum.


*love* & *hugs*
  ____MOZ___
 /\  _______\   (moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)
 \ \ \____  /             I've been stripped bare and nobody cares
  \ \ \/ / /     all the people I looked up to are no longer there
   \ \/ / /           I've been filled up with useless information
    \  / /                 spewed out by papers and radio stations
     \/_/            I've been waiting for tomorrow all of my life
  excerpted from the album `soulmining', by Matt Johnson (THE THE)

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: perception of pressures (was Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 14:16:42 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Bu6x7u.As0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> slaury@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Susan Laury) writes:
>
>I would agree with you 100 percent on this point. I think it
>will be at least a couple more generations before this trait 
>is eliminated. Women by and large tend to be brought up to
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>please others -- particularly significant men in their lives.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does this person live in the same century as I do? And in the same country,
even? I think it's been, oh, about 30 years since I heard any
young-ish woman say something like "Oh, my main role in life
is to please my husband!" Today it's more like: "Look, you exploitative
S.O.B., *this* is what I'm going to do, and I don't care how you feel about
the matter. If you don't like it, cram it!"

But making statements like this is Good for the Cause, because it enables all
of womens' problems to be blamed on men. 


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 13:16:39 GMT


In article <08ln5w+.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:

(...)

> Draize eye-irritancy test decreased by 78% in the 80's; the number of animals
> used in all other tests fell 73%. What's made th reduction possible: the 
> development of alternative tests that don't require live animals. Some major 

How much this is caused by animal free testing requests by customers and
how much by the facts that (some) new tests are cheaper and more
accurete than the pereviously used ?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 17:06:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep9.120753.11483@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>
>I'm suggesting that judging my views in relation to A. D. will likely 
>lead to misunderstanding; especially if this takes the form of defaulting 
>to the assumption that I agree with her unless stated otherwise.
>
>Rich keeps bringing her up, even when I have said nothing about her.
[...]

You state Dworkins viewpoint in a thread, I point out that this is
in fact her much publicized viewpoint, and now you claim that I keep
bringing up Dworkin. This time it was you, although indirectly, who
brought her up.

And what is wrong with bringing up Dworkin? Are you claimimg that
she and her viewpoing are not relevant to a feminist netgroup? What
is the problem here?
 
> 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,soc.men,soc.women
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Statistical "proofs" (Was Re: women in engineering ( help..))
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:42:51 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

(Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >The only way we can get more women in engineering and 
| >"engineering" is to figure out why they aren't there already.

sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
| 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).

No connection?

I generally think of intentional behavior as being benefited
by investigation and forethought, but I concede that one might
bring about a desirable change by accident.  Is that the way
you do other things you want to get done?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Women, Engineering, and Geeks
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 12:20:12 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Sep15.032101.25742@cco.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>like i said, i would
>>love a bunch of fabulous babes to hang around with at work. then after
>>work we could all go out and get to know one another on a more social
>>level.

>Ah, the real reason women avoid going into engineering!  To avoid
>people like this.

Well, that might be a part of it but....

>>most of the engineers i know are geeks with the personality of a moldy
>>mop.

Well, I hate to break it to him, but most of the female engineers I
know are of the same personality as the male ones.

Now, granted, I went to Harvey Mudd where it was true that we were
nerds, but to claim that we had the "personality of a moldy mop" is to
ignore the wonderful possibilities of what you could do with a moldy
mop....

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary