HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The anti-choice-for-men, Muffy (Was Re: Winning by Violation)
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:35:48
Organization: savage hackers
	<715568079@lear.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 4 Sep 92 00:54:40 GMT


In article <715568079@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>  In article <ZEN.92Sep3134228@death.corp.sun.com> 
> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
> >You are
> >lying when you say [...] she posted any of what you
> >claimed she said that choice for women is good and choice for men is
> >bad, and that we should force unequal legislation on men.  

  I still say the same thing; you say:

> Muffy posted that:
> #Why is it so bad if he pays for his choice?
> # [...]
> #If he wishes to attempt to avoid the risk, but still have sex,
> #he can wear a condom or get a vasectomy...
> # [...]
> #It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity.  If he's
> #so worried, let him get a vasectomy.
> # [...]
> #Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures
> #(abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in
> #condom"?  *Everyone* involved needs to be responsible.

  *Where* does muffy say that choice for men is bad and that it is good
for women?  She said that everyone involved should be concerned and have
*responsibility* (feel free to bring back any text that I deleted, but
nothing seemed particularily relevant, although you might disagree.)
There's nothing at all about legislation here either, BTW.

> When Muffy tells men "if you don't want to deal with unwanted
> pregnancy then don't fuck or get sterilized" y'all don't see anything
> wrong in controlling men's sexuality.

  She's not talking *just* to men, though -- she's saying that everyone
needs to be responsible.  And yes, I think that by being responsible you
might need to curb your sexuality or modify your behavior by practicing
some birth control.  She isn't advocating changing the frequency of your
sex, but that you should consider your actions -- what is the big shock
or crime about that?  She mentions no laws, no vigilante groups to gun
down exposed penises.  You seem to object to someone saying in their
opinion that they think that men are being irresponsible for their
sexual actions, and that they should be responsible.  What specifically
do you object to?  And don't say that it's muffy's desires to slap us
all (or even men) with laws unless you give me a line that says that, or
that she advocates lack of choice for men and the reverse for women
unless you can show me where she actually has written anything remotely
resembling that.

> >  How about some proof with your accusations?  Not that we'll see any.
> How about an apology?

  I'm still waiting for the proof.  If you want to repost her article
and say *why* or *where* you think she is saying what you say, please
do!

 -- d
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:05:14 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <3898@keele.keele.ac.uk> csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton) writes:
>From article <pxhn#5@lynx.unm.edu>, by gworrell@carina.unm.edu (Gayla M. Worrell):
>> .......................................................  I know it may
>> be hard to understand, (and I don't mean this to be condescending, honest)
>> but a women's studies class is an envioronment in which women feel safe
>> to express their views regarding the society in which they have lived.
>> For many of them it is the first time they have ever felt safe to
>> express these views.
>
>Then it is a women's _therapy_ class, not a 'studies' class (unless the word
>"studies" has lost something as it crossed the Atlantic :-)

The Women's Studies courses I was seemed very different from what's
been described in this newsgroup.  But that was 10 years ago.
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminists (Was: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:39:15 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

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.

	He might read the writings of this woman, for example:

"All men are rapists, and that's all they are."
				-- Marilyn French

	Or this woman:

"Men especially love murder."
				-- Andrea Dworkin


	Aldrich can assert that French and Dworkin aren't
	"femininists", he can admit to loving murder and
	being a rapist or he can allow as how there's 
	more to "feminism" than he thought.....

	But to state that sweeping generalizations about
	men are "more or less true" is absurd.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 03:49:41 GMT

In <MUFFY.92Aug27185934@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:


>Well, I was going for the "moderators posting" and the "party line"
>arguments at the same time, since the same example seems to me to
>disprove both of them.

Not necessarily.  Moderators posts don't seem to be screened as carefully.  
There is the case where a moderator clearly insulted a poster in a public
article, but the offened party was allowed no redress.  ( Bronis V. being
the injured party)

Ken

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Re: ERA question
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:45:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.181129.14972@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rweibl@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Richard A Weibl) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.160036.26747@cs.rochester.edu> hitzeman@cs.rochester.edu
>(Janet Hitzeman) writes:
>>Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does the ERA say?
>
>The shrill voices of the opposition effectively seized the initiative and, 
>according to Berry, so distorted the issue that it is no wonder you do not 
>recall this simple wording.  What most people will remember is that "family 
>values" advocates like the "Eagle Forum" lead by Phyllis Shafley argued that 
>the ERA would result in unisex bathrooms and women being drafted into the armed
>forces.

Gosh, do you mean that both sexes would be equal under the law?!?
Maybe car insurance charges would no longer be based upon sex!
I don't suppost the ERA would have applied to race, religion, and sexual
preference, too?
Naa.  The conservatives would never allow *that* level of equality.

 * * * * *  =================== 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: gworrell@carina.unm.edu (Gayla M. Worrell)
Subject: Re: FEMINIST/DYKE JOKES WANTED
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 18:53:54 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Aug28.075718.9555@cc.uow.edu.au> g8231233@cc.uow.edu.au (Andrew Warner) writes:
>
>If we might think for a moment of the feminist philosophies expressed in this
>group. Some of them may be considered by some to be invalid or perhaps
>offensive to ones sensibilities. However, we would not consider for an
>instant keeping them quiet. Can one in fairness then restrain other people's
>expression, however abhorrent we may find it.
>
Gee, Andrew, I was going along with ya there for awhile, then, THIS! :-)
I have yet to see *any* feminist philosophies expressed in this group.

(Go ahead folks, Flame Away!)  

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Gayla M. Worrell              *  "The future will be better tomorrow"
UNM - Mental Health Center    *         	   --Vice President Dan Quayl
Albuquerque, NM               *    
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: asgard@plx.com (J.R. Stoner)
Subject: Re: Proposed Massachusetts legislation H.5194
Keywords: n
Organization: Heironamous Botch's Murk Works
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:38:57 GMT



; holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

; Dworkin-Mackinnon laws have yet to be upheld in courts.

; In article <m2anlxh@lynx.unm.edu>, lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
; Are you under the impresion that this somehow mitigates their horrific
; nature?

; holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:

;I am under the impressuion that this mitigates how much time I have to spend
;worrying about them.  They tried, they lost, they're yesterdays news.  If their
;laws get passed again, they'll get tossed again.

My impression that a law drafted by Dorkin/MacKinnon was upheld in Canadian
courts.  Makes me _truly_ wonder whether Canada's percieved bastion of
personal conscience can be maintained in the face of this legal malpractice.
-- 
J.R. Stoner, DWMIT - asgard@plx.com - sun.com!plx!plxsun!asgard
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sexist studies... was(Re: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 00:01:31 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <AWERLING.92Sep3144419@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>In article <xqkn+8p.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>  In article <AWERLING.92Sep1232252@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>> >
>> >Women's Studies in and of itself is *not* sexist.  It is a study that
>> >focuses on a particular group of people.  
>
>> No, you are playing games with words, it focuses on a particular
>> -sex-. 
>
>Yes, and meteorology focuses on a particular aspect of natural
>phenomena.  I don't understand your point.

Sexism requires differentiation by sex. Womens studies is based upon 
differentiation by sex. Generalizing "sex" to "a particular group of people"
can only have the effect of hiding that this group of people is exactly the
group required by sexism. 
 
>> >                                           Just because it is not
>> >called "Gender Studies" does not make it sexist.  It is not sexist to
>> >wish to understand.  To strive to understand.  To create a program to
>> >*help*others* understand.
>
>> You might clarify what you mean by "gender". But regardless, "Womens
>> studies" are based upon diferentiation by -sex-, not gender, so unless
>> you claim that they are equivalant, I do not understand what you are
>> saying.
>
>In my vocabulary sex = gender.  Am I missing some distinction?  In my
>vocabulary sexist does not equal "focusing on a particular sex," it
>means unfair discrimination based on sex/gender/whatever word you wish
>to use here.

From Websters

gender  n.  1) Any of 2 or more general grammatical categories, as masculine
               and feminine, into which words are divided and that are 
               determine aggreement with and selection of modifiers or
               grammatical forms.
            2) Sex classification.


I do not agree that gender=sex. The primary usage is quite different, and
it is possible for a female to do things that are masculine. If what you are
referring to is indeed the sex of a group, the only clear unambiguous thing to
do is -refer- to the 'sex' of the group. Gender may not be accurate, and it
will never be clear.

Or is it PC to refer to gender, because one cannot use the word sex?
 
>Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Feminists for Life take a shot at euthanasia
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  4 Sep 1992 13:41 EDT  

From Feminists for Life, 811 E. 47th St., Kansas City MO  64110
(818) 753-2130

A FEMINIST STATEMENT AGAINST EUTHANASIA

The euphemisms "right to die" and "physician-assisted suicide" are used to
cover up a practice in which doctors, who are predominantly male, are given
greater power over patients - who are predominantly female.  This alone 
should set off alarm bells in the feminist mind.

The fact is that the vast majority of the "beneficiaries" of this "right"
are women.  Why are women pressured into "choosing" to die so much more
often than men?

Among the possible reasons, FFL suggests:

o  The term used to explain wanting induced death is a desire not to be a
   "burden"; this is cited more often than pain!  Women have traditionally
   served as caretakers.  Those who do not regard women as having value
   in their own right will disdain women who can no longer fill the function
   of caretaker.  Men are not as likely to be held to this standard.
o  Because of the unfair practices whereby women's work is less valued and
   lower-paid, or where her resources are dependent on her husband, women
   have access to fewer funds which can be put toward medical care.
o  A dependent woman who does in fact have access to funds for her care is
   less likely to have her heirs regard the property as actually being hers.
   Remarks are made about conserving resources for their heirs and the fear
   of being a "burden" comes into play again.
o  Disabled women (like pregnant women) are socialized to blame their own
   bodies for society's failure to accommodate their special needs.
o  Proper psychological counseling for a suicidal depression takes time and
   effort.  Women must be seen as worth that effort - especially disabled
   women.  To say that suicide is ever "rational" is to defend a bigotry
   against the disabled.

Intentional medical neglect is, by definition, a major health threat to 
women.  Outright lethal injections are even more so.  In a society that
still has to learn to fully take the rights of women seriously, how quickly
will the "right to die" become the *duty* to die?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: new group?
Date: 24 Aug 92 04:31:12 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <oneil.714584073@cwis> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:

>David Duke, Patrick Buchanan and Jerry Falwell all have more rights than I
>do.  

O.K. I'll bite.  Which rights are you lacking?  (Note: not being an american,
I really don't know.)

Ken
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist studies... was(Re: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:27:41 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <AWERLING.92Sep1232252@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>
>Women's Studies in and of itself is *not* sexist.  It is a study that
>focuses on a particular group of people.  

No, you are playing games with words, it focuses on a particular
-sex-. 

>                                           Just because it is not
>called "Gender Studies" does not make it sexist.  It is not sexist to
>wish to understand.  To strive to understand.  To create a program to
>*help*others* understand.

You might clarify what you mean by "gender". But regardless, "Womens
studies" are based upon diferentiation by -sex-, not gender, so unless
you claim that they are equivalant, I do not understand what you are
saying.
 
>Too much propaganda going on here!

No, too much unclear communication.
 
>--
>Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  2 Sep 1992 10:44 EDT  

In article <AWERLING.92Sep1225713@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu 
     (WERLING) writes...

>You know, I often catch myself saying "girl" and I instantly correct
>it to "woman."  The word "girl" is patronizing by its very nature, but
>my problem is I'm looking for a friendly term to refer to anyone
>female.  Like "guy" is used to refer to anyone male in a friendly
>context.  Or casual I guess is a better word than friendly.

My Wife the Feminist [tm] has (I hope) cured me of the above sexist lapse.
Her contention was (and this another topic altogether) that the term "lady"
is also sexist, in that it has negative connotations ("lady of the night,"
etc.) with no male gender-specific analog.

But getting back to the use of the term "girl," in this case in the workplace.
You know who I hear using it the most?  That's right - the secretaries.  One
of them referred to herself and the other secretaries in the area as "the
girls."  When I approached her and asked "well, dontcha think others might
see that as just a bit sexist?" she went nonlinear on me.  She said some 
people take that politically-correct language business too far.

While I can understand people being tired of political correctness, I 
disagreed with her on this particular point anyway, and concluded that we
can't expect all the men to buy into gender-neutral language until all the
women buy into it.

My wife prefers "woman" to the other terms, but she tolerates the old-
fashioned "gal" used by my office-mate, a veteran engineer.  She says that
at least "gal" is analogous to "guy."

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: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Modest proposal (was: Unisex bathrooms)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:07:48 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>In public bathrooms, women will generally
>be dressed and therefore have to spend a significant amount of time
>getting out of their clothes enough to make use of the facilities.  For
>example, if you and I are each in a pair of jeans, with underwear, you
>will have to unzip the jeans.  I will have to unzip them and pull them
>down.  Then, you zip, I pull back up, tuck my shirt in, and zip.  So,
>there is extra time spent there.  In addition, I understand that men
>spend little or no time wiping, which is not pratical for women, so
>there is more time spent there.

Since there are already thousands of public lavatories with limited
facilities for women, and since sharing bathrooms seems to be unpopular,
and difficult to implement, I suggest that federal funds be allocated
toward developing a disposable, cheap catheter which can be installed
by every woman desiring one. This would at least reduce the time it 
currently takes for women to urinate, thus equalizing the lines at
these facilities.

This is, of course, only a stop-gap measure. For long-term relief we
should pursue research into surgical procedures which would permit
women to urinate directly into urinals, and require men to squat,
said surgery being voluntary, but funded by general taxation.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
       who thinks sexual equality is a swell idea.
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Respect and equality differences
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:22:23 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


In article <ed.714494162@cwis> ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny) writes:

>                                               Throughout history,
>physical strength was the key to survival and dominance and thus
>garnered respect.

Zenobia of Palmyria, Boadiccia, Thomas Aquinus, John the Blind,
Jesus of Nazareth, Claudius, Martin Luther, Ghandi, Kleopatra VII,
John the Lame, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I, Margeret of Anjou, etc...

Avery partial list of people who have been dominant, gathered respect, led
armies, countries, or founded movements,  without dependancy on
physical strength.   

Your hypothesis needs modification.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: "Totalitarians" and alt.feminism (Was: proposed vote of confidence)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep2.164407.24466@panix.com>
	<DF.92Sep2164954@anableps.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:26:09 GMT

<In article <DF.92Sep2164954@anableps.berkeley.edu> df@anableps.berkeley.edu (d) writes:
<In article <1992Sep2.164407.24466@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
<>   It seems rather totalitarian to focus on the only
<>   newsgroup on the net where mention of feminism does not
<>   bring down a barrage of flames.

	I personally very much doubt that it is totalitarian.
	Totalitarians, for one thing, don't generally call
	for votes unless they already know how the vote will
	turn out; Stalin, for example.

<It *is* totalitarian... 

	Please go look up the word "totalitarian".

<that's the purpose of these people who want to
<silence feminists, or denounce them as militant/incoherent lesbians (or
<some other "awful" label.)  Obviously anyone who won't bow down to the
<superior wit and force of the ruling party must be silenced, humiliated,
<or destroyed.  
	
	This is interesting. Some people feel exactly this
	way with respect to "feminism"; that they must bow
	down to it or be silenced, humiliated and/or destroyed.

	Can you tell me of any person who has attempted to
	pass a law that would outlaw "feminism"?

	On the other hand, are you familiar with Andrea Dworkin
	and the laws that she *has* helped to pass?

<Any woman who speaks her mind (e.g. muffy, etc.)
<obviously must be stripped of her force, by ridicule, or actual seizure
<of her position as moderator (which gives small power, by any standard).
 
	I don't want Muffy's chocolate bunny, honest.

<I imagine if she were a man, then the tone on this newsgroup would be
<very different.

	Not from me.

<>  Is only silence permissible?

<   Only if it is the oppressed who are silenced.

	Are you familiar with "speech codes"? Do you feel
	that speech codes silence "feminists"?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hitzeman@cs.rochester.edu (Janet Hitzeman)
Subject: Maternity leave (was:something like Sexist Examples)
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 10:51:55 GMT

The problem with disallowing maternity leave in order to
be "fair" or w/o gender bias is that you are forcing
women to make a choice between having babies and having a
career or an education.  At first glance it seems unfair
because men don't get this little extra "vacation", but
if you think a little longer you'll realize that a man
can have a family AND a successful career, while a woman
must make a choice.  In order to be fair, giving women
the same chance as men to be successful at their careers,
we need the following:

(1) Maternity leave with the promise that when the woman gets
back her job will still be there.
(2) Day care, preferably run or supervised by the government so
some standards are upheld and the woman can feel safe leaving her
child there.

And what would be absolutely marvelous:

(3) The single-standard maternity leave found in many
areas of Europe, where husband and wife are each given
6 months leave that they can take sequentially, e.g.,
Mom stays with the kid for the first 6 months and Dad
for the 2nd 6 months.

The reductions that Bush has been making in day care
and on other "women's isues" are forcing the woman back
into the home.  Which is lovely if you WANT to be in the home and if you
can afford it.  Imagine, however, being a single mother
(and there are plenty of those): Where do you
leave your kid while you work if there's no daycare?
Solution:  You don't.  You go on welfare.  
What a family-oriented guy Bush is.  

Janet
Newsgroups: alt.feminism