HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HWT@bnr.ca (Henry (H.W.)Troup )
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Olympics and Exclusion of Women
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:58:00 GMT

While I was watching the Olympic opening ceremonies, I realized
something bizarre: for many years, the international sport community
excluded South Africe because South Africa excluded blacks.  But, the
Olympics included countries like Iran, which demanded a male placard
bearer because they refused to follow a woman!

Totally ridiculous double standard.  I'm angry.

  Henry Troup - HWT@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
		      "Every absurdity has it's defender"


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: BICKIS@sask.usask.ca (Mikelis Bickis)
Subject: Re: Negative population growth
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:13:12 GMT

Ed Arnold <<era@niwot.scd.ucar.EDU>> writes:

> In the course of this article, Terry claims that: "excuses" for
> using birth control are the same excuses used for abortion;
> "Christians" should trust God with how many children they will have;
> implies that everyone should have large families by citing cases of
> large familes in which the 5th or 10th child was a genius; says one
> should never use *any* kind of birth control;

This makes perfect sense, but only if you follow it through.  You
should, for example, not bother about finding food for your children.
If God wants them to live, sHe will provide it.  Nor should you spend
any effort in giving them any medical attention, since disease is also
part of God's plan.  And of course, if you find infidels anywhere, you
should hasten to destroy them.  True, many of your friends and
relatives might get killed in the struggle, but no worry, there are
plenty more where they came from.  Better to be a martyr than to
starve.

<< global :-) >>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@sask.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: uunet!cos!tango!bob1@ncar.ucar.EDU (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Why she took my name
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:27:47 GMT

Oh Gawd, the old mans back again:->.

I guess some things only come with time. Florence took my name
when we married, her late husband's surname may have had something
to do with that :-). But we didn't get into any kind of a debate
over this, any more than we debated whether or not to marry (in
a registry office BTW - the church got into a snit because I
was divorced).

I guess the reason why no debates took place is quite simply that
we both know exactly who we are. Sure all the property, tax, etc.
advantages of marriage can be attained by other legal nicities,
but the marriage celebrant was cheaper than a lawyer. I guess
when I was young and oh so idealistic, I would have busted my
tail to avoid looking like I was giving in to social mores, now
I simply ignore them if they are stupid.

As to the other post that set so many folks off (Avri ?), sorry
but it didn't get me mad, just made me shake my head in amusement
(of a sort). Ah, to be so young and so right. In my youth, it was
'marriage is 50-50', so when one partner had gone half way, the
heels dug into the carpet and that was it. Marriage (or whatever
equivalent you prefer) is 100-100. Some days you are going to be
so G** Damn impossible, your partner will near sainthood just by
refraining from blowing you away. Other days, it will be your turn.

Now that is speaking about early days, or younger days, or less
mature days? We have a simple technique, we just happen to love
each other very much, we have both been exposed to other partners
who left something to be desired :-\, and we both realize what
we now have going for us. So, it comes down to a single rule in
the home - 'If you must raise your voice, it had better be in
laughter', besides, loud noises upset the dog. Sure leads to a
tranquil life where you can simply enjoy each other's being,
personality, company, whatever.

Dominate? What in hell would I ever want to dominate another
human being for. Is that supposed to give me some kind of
warm and fuzzies or something? Dominate, he mumbles as he gets
ready to send this off, I just don't understand.

REB


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: rdh@veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: men's issues vs. women's issues
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:43:16 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software

In article <2A773B7D.15723@ics.uci.edu> tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore) writes:
>In <robert.712443872@labyrinth> uunet!infmx!robert@ncar.ucar.EDU (Robert Coleman) writes:
>
>>	One of the results of a feminism focussed on "women's issues"
>>is the obvious power imbalance involved in the draft.  We solve the
>>"women's voting" problem, but since the draft is a "responsibility",
>>and "negative effect" instead of something to be gained, the feminist
>>movement, on the whole, passes this issue by.
>>	This is part of my overall problem with the "women first"
>>approach of feminism.
>
>You are ignoring two very real facts: one is that women have been
>involved in probably almost every war in history.  There is a long
>record of women disguising themselves as men, working alongside men
>(perhaps as nurses or other "non-soldier" capacity, but running
>similar risks to being killed), and so forth.  The other is that there
>are hundreds of thousands of women trying to make their careers in the
>military.

I see both of these as exceptions to the societal expectations Robert
C describes.  Your examples do not disprove the rule.  Robert's point
on this is very well taken I think, and I would hate to see it
dismissed.  It is the "male mystique" that is at issue, not the fact
that some women are high-minded WRT men in spite of that mystique.

Even so, I believe it is up to those who feel the oppression to do the
initial screaming.  As men have stood up against the draft, I've never
noted feminist women telling them to shut up.  The reason the draft is
still with us is that men haven't yelled sufficiently loudly or
persistently to put an end to it.  Which just shows that men need to
do more consciousness raising on both the psychological and political
fronts.

-r

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Subject: Re: approach
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: party
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:53:15 GMT

(John MAX Skaller) writes:

>In article <1992Jul16.025858.19045@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>In <MUFFY.92Jul14154447@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:


>	In the stereotypes, *women* are dominant sexually, not men.
>	It is they who decide who to have sex with, it is they
>	who have the choices.

This really becomes an interesting question: is there any way
a heterosexual man 'may' approach a woman with the idea of finding
out if she is interested in romance, that *couldn't* be
construed as a harrassment, however slight? I think the case
can easily be made that there is no way to accomplish this
at least on a ethical-standard-for-all lever, probably because
we are each far too individual to put up with something like that.

Hopefully, of course, any approach would be done with charm,
grace, appropriateness, and an instant knowledge of the
intended's wishes in the matter; yet, without the wishful
thinking that a male ought to be a minimal mind-reader,
what to do?

I have spoken with feminists of every stripe and it seems no
easy answer is forthcoming. Men are still expected to do the
asking out, women decide on their choice, and that's that.

But if a man gets the societal message that almost any way of
approaching a woman is potentially harassing, it could be
quite frustrating, no?

>of course. I also don't think feminists have really
>addressed the issues. The old social contract is broken,
>there is none to replace it.

Then perhaps it is up to us to give examples of what has
personally worked for us as individuals.


Dano


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: A feminist style socio-economic reform!
Date: 23 Jul 1992 22:14:42 GMT
Organization: MAXTAL P/L C/- University Computing Centre, Sydney
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Jul22.203846.74884@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> mk0i@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MONICA KELLNER) writes:
>[Moderator's note: excessive included text trimmed.]
>
>In article <14iefnINN3pd@agate.berkeley.edu>, maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MA
>X Skaller) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul20.010819.29064@lugb.latrobe.edu.au> AGRSS@lure.latrobe.edu.
>au ("SUBBAIAH,Santharam") writes:
>>>REFORM 1.
>>>      "All women who deliver normal children should be compensated
>>>in monetory terms for their child bearing services".
>>       "Counter proposal: all people who create new children
>>should be severely fined for bringing even more people into
>>an overcrowded world."
>>       You're assuming it's a service. [...]
>> [...] I tend to think those who
>>bring children into the world who cannot afford to keep them
>>have something to answer for.
>
>Though having a child is a personal matter, that new person will be part of
>society.
>If we keep making the life of a new person a personal matter of his/her
>parent/s, we will continue producing a society where lots of people feel
>outsiders and keep one of the highest unjustified delinquency levels of the
>world. Why scrue a child because of some deficiency in the parent/s strength?
>A child is a private matter but also a societies matter, as all other
>societies consider it.

	I dont want to penalise the child: it is as yet innocent.
But the world is unfair: the more support given to children by the 
state (socialism) the more freedom is taken away from everyone,
including the parents, who will be required to conform to certain
standards in return for the state's bequest.

	It is like the problem of inherited wealth: it is not
the childs fault to be born into a poor family, yet it is 
penalised. But by what right do we take away the power of 
parents who might choose only one child in order to support
it properly to provide that extra benefit for their child,
just to compensate children of others less willing, perhaps,
to make sacrifices, or maybe less even less able?

	In the end, there is a balance, and that balance, to
work at all, to be a balance at all, is necessarily unfair
to innocent children.

-- 
;----------------------------------------------------------------------
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         maxtal@extro.ucc.su.oz.au
	Maxtal Pty Ltd, 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA
;--------------- SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING SOFTWARE ------------------


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Question for Feminists
Date: 26 Jul 1992 21:43:35 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

| rajeevc@ifi.uio.no (Rajeev Chugh) writes...
| RC> My question is that if the use of language is so important to
| RC> build up the confidence of women to break into the Male dominated
| RC> societies then why do women accept the DEGREE BACHELOR OF SCIENCE/ARTS
| RC> INSTEAD OF something like SPINSTER OF SCIENCE/ARTS etc. or it just
| RC> doesn't sound too well .

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
| FYI - In regards to degree designations, these terms were derived from the
| Latin terms (correct me if I am wrong here, or if I have misspelled some of
| the words)...
| 
| 
| English    Latin                  Literally means (English)
| 
| Bachelor - Baccalaureat           no effective translation, say "Baccalaureate"
| Master   - Magister               Master
| PhD      - Doctoris Philosophiae  Doctor of Philosophy

Actually, all Latin words have gender, and there is, at least
theoretically, a feminine for each of the degrees listed
above, for example magister/magistra.  However, the feminine
did not exist for these terms in the Middle Ages, when our
educational system was set up, or if it existed, may have had
an ambiguous meaning, as "mistress" still does today.  In
practice, the terms have been pretty much emptied of gender
indication, even "batchelor."  No one thinks of batchelors
and spinsters any more, at least not around where I live;
the notion that every person should be forced into a role in
a nuclear family, so that those who do not require special
terms designating their eccentricity, has pretty much faded
out.  But I take it the original question was facetious
anyway.  
-- 
Gordon Fitch | gcf@panix.com | uunet!cmcl2!panix!gcf 
*       1238 Blg. Grn. Sta., N.Y., N.Y. 10274      *



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Olympics and Exclusion of Women
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:28:40 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <9207271328.AA04854@gateway.bnr.ca> HWT@bnr.ca (Henry (H.W.)Troup )
writes:
>While I was watching the Olympic opening ceremonies, I realized
>something bizarre: for many years, the international sport community
>excluded South Africe because South Africa excluded blacks.  But, the
>Olympics included countries like Iran, which demanded a male placard
>bearer because they refused to follow a woman!
>
>Totally ridiculous double standard.  I'm angry.
>
>  Henry Troup - HWT@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
>               "Every absurdity has it's defender"
>
>
>--
I'm angry also.  Especially after reading August issue of Glamour, with article
entitled "Are Human Rights Only for Men?"  This whole attitude Henry describes 
is described ten-fold in the Glamour article, which explains how the U.S. has 
not ratified the UN Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination 
Against Women.

Why the Olympic committee would allow such an action by Iran, et al is 
incomprehensible.  So is the U.S. not going along with the CEDAW.

carol


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Question for Feminists
Date: 26 Jul 1992 01:50:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

[Moderator's note: excessive include text trimmed.]

rajeevc@ifi.uio.no (Rajeev Chugh) writes...
RC> My question is that if the use of language is so important to
RC> build up the confidence of women to break into the Male dominated
RC> societies then why do women accept the DEGREE BACHELOR OF SCIENCE/ARTS
RC> INSTEAD OF something like SPINSTER OF SCIENCE/ARTS etc. or it just
RC> doesn't sound too well .


FYI - In regards to degree designations, these terms were derived from the
Latin terms (correct me if I am wrong here, or if I have misspelled some of
the words)...


English    Latin                  Literally means (English)

Bachelor - Baccalaureat           no effective translation, say "Baccalaureate"
Master   - Magister               Master
PhD      - Doctoris Philosophiae  Doctor of Philosophy


As can be seen, the original Latin terms were *not* gender specific (unless
a "Baccalaureate" is defined in terms of males-only), and in regards to
to the term for Master, a "Magister" could indeed be a man *or* a woman.

In other words, I believe that the attempted by some individuals to be awarded
a "Mistress of Arts" degree, etc., are mislead attempts to introduce gender
specificity where there had initially been none.

IHMO, my solution would be to go back to the Latin terms, thus eliminating
gender-loaded terms like "Bachelor".

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                   "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Computer Error: (A)bort (R)etry (P)ick a window to break!


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: rberlin@birdland.Eng.Sun.COM (Rich Berlin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: men's issues vs. women's issues
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:49:29 GMT
Organization: SunPics -- A Sun Microsystems Business

In article <9207241927.AA25193@mica.berkeley.edu> muffy@mica.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>True.  However, let's say that this particular roommate doesn't seem
>to care *what* the house looks like and generally only takes care of
>their room, when they feel like it.  So, I feel that I am the only
>one working on any of the other parts of the house.

Yes, it is clear that you do feel that way.  Perhaps you could say
more about what lead you to and continues to renew your feeling of
rightness about this conclusion.

>>There is a world of difference between "These causes are important
>>to me and I want to see to it that a certain amount of effort is
>>directed towards them" vs "Don't bother me with your problems, I
>>have my own and they're much worse (or more important) than yours."
>
>Yes, indeed.  And my original article was about how it *is* possible
>(we seem to now be talking more about whether it is desirable) to
>divide issues up and say "these issues affect women in these ways, so
>those are the ones I want to work on."

That's not the same sentiment as my first statement; did you mean it
as a paraphrase?

>>>That's odd, because it does not seem that gender *IN*justice is
>>>indivisible.
>>Good, we see this differently.  Why and how is it divisible?
>
>Well, as an example, look at the times when women couldn't vote.
>That was an injustice to women, but there was no corresponding
>injustice to men (ignoring the issue of race, which is not relevant
>to my example).

I gather from this statement that your concept of indivisible justice
is that for every unjust action towards women there is an equal and
opposite unjust (re-)action towards men.

I don't know enough pre-1920 social history to analyze the effect of
this injustice in context; if you want to offer a contemporary example
I'll try again, though I suspect Robert has covered a lot of them.
But as evidence of our different ideas about what makes justice
indivisible, I would not necessarily be looking for a corresponding
injustice towards men, though that does happen sometimes; I would be
more likely to want to examine social consequences, e.g.  greater
burdens placed upon men as a result, elections that (in hindsight)
would have gone in a bettr direction with women voting, etc.

-- Rich
--
===============================================================================
Richard.Berlin@Eng.Sun.COM   |   The significant problems we face cannot be
			     |   solved at the same level of thinking we were
			     |   at when we created them.  -- Albert Einstein

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.