HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:34:24 GMT

jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:

>English is essentially a Germanic Language.  "Man" (in German) is not gender
>specific.  The term "freshman" in English is not gender specific.  Those who 
>say it does are grasping at straws so try and demonstrate some systemic sexism 
>in Western culture my looking for "MAN" in every word and then assumming that 
>excludes female.  My advice to these people: try a serious issue or you won't 
>be taken seriously.

But it is a serious issue.  

First of all, while English /is/ a Germanic language technically, it is not
the same as German.  English has been inundated with Latin and French words
to the point where it derives more from those languages than it does from
German, at least from a standpoint of vocabulary.

"Man" in English is gender-specific.  If I told you to go talk to that "man"
over there, and the "man" happened to be female, you'd think I was an idiot.

We are not grasping.  We are trying to point out that the way we use language
does reflect society.  When a person says "chairman of the board" one 
typically thinks of a gray-haired, fifty year old white man.  What is so
difficult about saying "chair of the board."  Are you going to tell me that
sounds silly because it sounds like a piece of furniture?  Any more silly
than the "chairman of the board" being female?

It's easy for you, as a male, to say it does not matter.

Sharon O'Neil
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
From: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:39:18 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <Btux1o.Fs0@encore.com>, by aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich):
>...
> anyway, sweeping generalizations about `men' usually are more or
> less true to a large extent.

... as are sweeping meta-generalisations ...
From: ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:57:55 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

>In article <oneil.715407157@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>
>>   smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>
>>>How important is it to change the language to make it non-sexist?  For
>>>instance, back at college, one campus (which comprised of only women)
>>>organization decided to get the school to change the term "freshman"
>>>with "first-year student" within the university.

In Scottish Universities, we call our "first-year students" (what a
mouthfull!), FRESHERS! This neatly sidesteps the problem of
"-men/person". Why do Americans have to be so gender oriented
(biasedly at that!)?

As for changing the language to make it non-sexist, we have to bear in
mind at all times, the basic purpose of language - it's to enable us
to communicate (efficiently). If changing a word to a non-sexist
version doesn't make it too cumbersome to use, then fine, but changing
a word so that it becomes a real mouthfull, to little real effect is
silly! Whilst it is useful to make people aware off the (arguably)
sexist nature of some languages, I think it is more important, and
beneficial in the long-term to educate our children about gender
issues, give them equal opportunities etc.., rather than confusing
them with esoteric, invented, sexist-free words. This means giving
them the same sorts of toys to choose from, the same chores to do, and
the same educational and career opportunities. What's the use of
teaching your daughter to say "chairperson" when she is kept at home
to help mummy do the cooking, whilst youg Johnny goes out to play? :^)
We have to keep things in perspective, and pursue the things that will
ultimately count and cause changes for the better.

PS. I wonder if Muffy will axe this article? If so, "rejectees" should be mailed, as a courtesy at least, perhaps with guidelines for articles/reasons for rejection. - this relates to the ongoing debate at present about censorship on his group.

-- 
Ivan Hans Mark Reid                      Management Information Systems Analyst
"Information is Power ..."                                   Spider Systems Ltd
vox: (+44 31) 554 9424                                 Spider Park, Stanwell St
fax: (+44 31) 554 0649                              Edinburgh EH6 5NG, Scotland
From: standish@athena.mit.edu (Mark S Farrar)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Women's Studies
Keywords: Feminism
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:35:36 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


	First off, I work in a library and I know that there is
	an area of research commonly referred to as "Men's Studies".
	More progressive book stores also have Men's Studies areas.
	And, some would argue that everything that hasn't been 
	specifically set forth to be Women's Studies could be 
	considered tainted to the point of being automatically
	Men's Studies.

	Anyway, I wanted to post about Women's Studies classes.  I
	have taken 2 classes, not a huge sample I admit, and I enjoyed
	both of them.  I also did quite well in them because at some
	point I think the teacher and a number of people in the class
	appreciated the fact that I was trying to learn more about
	women's issues and the history of feminism.  At times I felt 
	some male bashing going on, but I find our society pretty
	indefensible and that males ARE largely responsible for it.
	Besides, I can't take personal responsibility for everything
	ever done by every male for all of time, and I think most 
	people know that.  But, I did feel bad at times, because I
	am a member of this society and I am a white male.  I did 
	feel some resentment from some people who obviously thought
	I didn't belong in those classes, but they were the minority.
	I say if you're interested in the classes, you should continue
	to take them.  If you're there to learn and occaisionally 
	participate they'll eventually appreciate your effort.  My 
	biggest problem with the classes were when an effort was made 
	to solicit a "male's opinion".  The classes only had 2-5 males
	in them, or about 5-10% of the class, and I resented being 
	thought to have a typical male opinion on a given subject.  At
	those moments I refused to participate, but at other moments I
	would offer up my thoughts freely and it was always fine...

	So, I actually wanted to know what people thought about this
	new women's group in NY, the name of which escapes me, that is
	based on the ACT UP organization.  Supposedly, men are not 
	allowed to attend their meetings, because they inhibit women
	from speaking up (I believe this was the justification).  Men
	can participate in their rallies and marches.  I want to know
	what people think of this rule.  Are they dooming themselves
	to the same fate as men only organizations?  I can understand
	emotionally why men are being excluded, but intellectually I
	have problems with it.  How can discriminatory behavior hope 
	to correct a discriminatory system?  Fight fire with fire until
	everyone burns?

	Well, I'm interested in everyone's thoughts...

	Thanks for your time and hopefully your opinions...

	Mark
	standish@athena.mit.edu
From: smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:10:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <181h94INNiu@cs.utexas.edu> russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.202905.27496@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>>There are also men who use too much cologne, but the perfumes (to me)
>>usually have a sharper scent.
>
>Hold on, is there actually a real difference between perfume and cologne?
>I always assumed they were basically the same chemically, and they just
>call it "perfume" for women and "cologne" for men for marketing reasons.

I don't think there's much difference chemically, but (to me) it does
have a different smell.

- Seth
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:31:38
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Aug31.131028.24524@coli.uni-sb.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de's message of 31 Aug 92 13:10:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.131028.24524@coli.uni-sb.de> simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Julia Simon) writes:

>A friend of mine, who is very fond of his little son (8 months), often
>complains about that the rooms where you can change your baby's diapers, etc.
>ALWAYS are attached to the women's toilets, NEVER to the men's toilets and
>hardly ever to be entered from somewhere else, so that he feels forbidden to
>look after his son in public.

Well, things are getting better on that score here in the US.  I was at
the Oakland Coliseum a few weeks ago for a baseball game, and *both* the
men's and women's rooms had diaper changing areas.

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: Francis.Gardner@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Francis Gardner)
Subject: Re: Playing Games with Words
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Victoria Uni. of Wellington, NZ.
	<1992Sep4.145254.3051@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:03:39 GMT


  This is a bit of an aside......but is still relevant-ish

  In the English language there is no sexless singular third person personal
  pronoun (except maybe "it" :-).

  When I write up my masters thesis in about 6mths time I will want to make
  statements like "he can do this and she can do that", but without using he
  or she.  I personally don't like "s/he", I find it distracting to read.  I
  do like using "they" as a singular but it is bad grammar and my supervisor
  wont let me do it.  I could make a declaration stating that "he" should be
  read as "he/she", but I think these are silly.

  What I plan to do is flip a coin to determine the gender of my third person,
  and state in the report that I did as such to get around this problem.

  Comments, flames.......


  Francis Gardner
  fgardner@comp.vuw.ac.nz
--
fgardner@comp.vuw.ac.nz
Francis Gardner
MSc Student, Computer Science Department
Victoria University of Wellington
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Playing Games with Words (was Re: Sexist studies...)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  3 Sep 1992 10:27 EDT  

In article <1992Sep2.160255.4337@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, umlepine@ccu.umanitoba.ca 
     (Bryan Lepine) writes...

[on playing games with words...]

>From what I've seen in this newsgroup this is the what feminists do. They
>play with words in order to find some possible insult to their gender so
>they can then proceed to dump on whoever dares utter such slander!
>Sheesh! Give me a break who cares if you call men boys and women girls?

I agree that we sometimes inspect our words too closely for too long.  But
IMPO that doesn't mean we should back all the way off.  C. S. Lewis sez
that evils come in pairs of opposites, and in trying too hard to avoid the
one we can run smack dab into the other.  In this case, the "other evil"
is to assume our words have no power.

>	I LIKED THE STAR TREK OPENING BETTER BEFORE THEY WERE PRESSURED
>	INTO CHANGING IT! 

Come again?  :-)

>Don't flame too hard cuz I respect the right to equality for any race
>religion or gender, however I don't care who does it, arguing semantics is
>silly and it doesn't solve a damn thing. If you are able to obtain
>equality in the workplace and at home what does it matter if what anybody
>calls you?

My point is that the words we use are evidence of where we really are as a
society.  If black folks, f'rinstance, are referred to commonly as "niggers,"
even in small homogeneous groups where nobody gets uncomfortable, then there's
no equality for 'em there.  If small groups refer to women as "hot babes,"
and someone from that small group goes to the workplace (where equality is
supposed to be happening), then what that person said and did in that small
group colors the person's perception of women - even in the workplace.  And
equality in the workplace is given a stumbling-block.

What's in your heart finds its way out your mouth.

RG

"4-6-8-10, why are all your leaders men?"  -  shouted by NOW marchers at
 a contingent from Feminists for Life, whose leaders were all women.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Subject: "Sexist" Comedy
Originator: mackenzi@quetzalcoatl.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 21:13:16 GMT


I'm curious to know what people think of stand-up comedians/ennes who
tell jokes about the opposite sex.  For instance, we'll all heard 
comediennes complain about men, and comedians talk about how they 
can't understand women, etc. 

Are these jokes really sexist, or are they just poking fun at the
stereotypical attitudes involved?

Paul
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: ERA question
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 03:18:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug25.181553.15160@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
>I was reading a British newspaper, Financial Times, today that describes in
>*Conservative, ultra-right, fundamentalist* terms what the ERA says.  They 
>quote Reverend Pat Robertson:
>         "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women.  It is about
>a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave 
>their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism, 
>and become lesbians."

Wow, this explains -everything!!!!! :^)

I find this ludicrous extremism even more offensive than some of the feminist
extremes. If we are to survive together, I think we must avoid both extremes.

If the above was not meant seriosly, it could almost be funny. Like British 
humor, be as ridiculous as possible, and make not the slightest attempt to be
serious.
 
>What a sad commentary this is on how some people view the ERA and the feminist 
>movement as a whole.  And really, really scary, too.  I don't want to ramble, 
>though, or I'll be talking stuff that belongs in the alt.politics newsgroups.

Although I do not support all aspects of the feminist movement, I must agree
with you here.
 
>carol

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell)
Subject: Re: ERA question
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:15:53 GMT

I was reading a British newspaper, Financial Times, today that describes in
*Conservative, ultra-right, fundamentalist* terms what the ERA says.  They 
quote Reverend Pat Robertson:
         "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women.  It is about
a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave 
their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism, 
and become lesbians."

What a sad commentary this is on how some people view the ERA and the feminist 
movement as a whole.  And really, really scary, too.  I don't want to ramble, 
though, or I'll be talking stuff that belongs in the alt.politics newsgroups.

carol
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:51:37 GMT

In article <s3fnffh.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
> I plan to, although I already do not agree with her views. Of course,
> she claims that her views reflect my reality, and I feel that I know
> more about my reality than she does. I do not speak for anyone else
> in this.

I too found Dworkin's _Intercourse_ a rich source of ideas even though I
didn't agree with all of her conclusions.  As a result of reading the
book, I ended up reading five or six other books cited by her.  For
example, she presented a very different view of Joan of Arc than I had
heard before.  So reading Dworkin involved all of these 'detours,' in
which I would stop and read one or two other books and then eventually get
back to her book.  She is an original thinker, but I suspect that she 
would get some of her points across better if she didn't shock the hell
out of people (you for example) with some of her universal statements.
On the other hand, if she didn't do that, you probably would have ignored
her.
-- 
Jaclyn Brandt
jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
--
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Incidents of sexism
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:07:07 GMT

Sorry about the Me Me Me post. I have yet to master the editor.


What I said in respone to Mr. Probst's(?) article about child-care for grad 
students' children is:

Why should a graduate school subsidize child-care.  You chose to have children 
and you chose to go to grad school.  Why should other students (and taxpayers) 
pay for the choices you made.  If I have a good paying job and choose to quit 
that job and go to grad school, should the school subsidize my lifestyle so I 
have time to study?

Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: deadhead@molest.ugcs.caltech.edu (stephen thompson)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:42:28 GMT

oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>>How important is it to change the language to make it non-sexist?  For
>>instance, back at college, one campus (which comprised of only women)
>>organization decided to get the school to change the term "freshman"
>>with "first-year student" within the university.

At Caltech the "first-year students" are simply called "frosh", as I'm
sure is used elsewhere.  Frosh seems to be a pretty sexless word...better
than first-year student, as it's shorter.

>I think that language reflects society.

I think that you're correct and would argue that attempting to change any
language for a specific intent (making it non-sexist, for instance) is not
going to work all that well.  If our society were changed first, it would
obviously follow that our language would change, as it reflects the society,
either by the modification of words or simply the modification of the meaning
of existing words.  I get the sense, however, that attempting to change our
society by changing our language would be somewhat analogous to running our
heads into a brick wall.  It's obvious from our language that our society
is sexist, but trying to change our language now is a lot like trying to
treat a symptom instead of the disease behind the symptom.

--stephen


--
%%%%%    %%%     %%%                                                 
%%%  %%%%%%%%% %%%%%        I'll let you be in my dreams             
%%%%%%%  %%%%% %%%%%                if I can be in yours. --Bob Dylan
%%%    %%% %%% %%% %                                                 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  4 Sep 1992 09:41 EST  

In article <MUFFY.92Sep3101911@remarque.berkeley.edu>,
 muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes...

>I'm not sure if unisex restrooms make sense in our current society,
>since most people seem to be extremely concerned/paranoid about people
>of the other sex being there.  Why this is, I'm not sure.

Mainly because urinals have no doors.  Hell, at some places, they have this 
long, stainless steel trough...

>Anyway, I think it's probably better to make the facilities equivalent
>by waiting time (as I said in another post)...

I do believe that modern building design is taking this into account.  Some 
facilities, such as the older stadiums, were designed for the mainly male 
crowds.  Newer stadiums are much more woman-friendly.

                                                  James S. Zakany
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: equality
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:13:05 GMT
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

In article <1992Aug24.102105.23391@hellgate.utah.edu> nkramesh%harpo.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Nanda Ramesh) writes:

>                                                                   But
>there are numerous other cases, like when physical strength is required,
>insisting on equality seems ridiculous to me.

I am not a wimp (6', 220, I work out).  My sister beats the heck out of 
me.   If I were trapped in a burning building, and I had a choice of being 
rescued by some average guy or my BIG MEAN sister,  I know who I'd 
choose.   Why base strength related jobs on sex?  Why not make a strength 
test,  and give the job to those people who can pass the test?
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Proposed Massachusetts legislation H.5194
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:02:58 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Sep3.090643.29196@reed.edu> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>
>   ...both sexually violent pornography and degrading and 
>   dehumanizing pornography convey the message that women enjoy 
>   abusive and anti-social behaviour.  Men who are repeatedly exposed 
>   to such films become more sexually aggressive in their relations with 
>   women and tolerant of such behaviour in others.  This leads to 
>   increased callousness towards women on a personal level and less 
>   receptiveness to their legitimate claims for equality and respect.
>      
>These comments could also be considered a precis summary of the 
>main thesis of Dworkin's book.

Unfortunately, there's substantial disagreement about what counts
as degrading, dehumanizing, etc.  Dworkin's position on this seems
to be pretty far to one extreme, and the sorts of people who usually
support pornography laws (eg, the religious right) are also fairly
extreme.  It's hard to believe that any law of this sort would turn
out to be reasonable.