HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 09:24:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.195050.29837@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>I really don't know why calling a female a girl is offensive.  I don't
>take offense at being called a boy.  Is it wrong for someone to call
>their SO a "girl/boyfriend"?
>
>- Seth

Well, all I know is that *I* certainly would not like to be called anyone's
"girlfriend" at my age (48).  And at what age would you change that to
woman?  35?  30?  25?  

Actually, my daughter (14) and her age mates may be on the right track and
be setting an example for the rest of us.  They refer to each other as
"my friend......." with no mention of gender.  It is left up to the listener
to note just how often and with what feeling the individual's name is
mentioned.  Perhaps the young shall lead us after all.

Marg
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:57:54 GMT
Organization: I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything!

In article <Bturnu.7z4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> england@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (julie england) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug25.183639.16010@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
>> 
>>    Has anyone had any experience with blatant sexism?  By this I mean some
>>    decision making that was OBVIOUSLY based on sex where sex had no logical
>>    part in the decision.  
>
>I had an statistics (econ) instructor who was fond of giving us
>homework and exam questions that compared women to men.  

[examples deleted]

>This got to be real annoying.  One day someone in class asked him
>why he did this, and in front of the entire class, he said, "Well,
>I really don't think women are as intelligent as men".  In front
>of everyone! The women in the class just couldn't believe it.  I
>couldn't believe it!  I'd never run across such a blatent statement
>before, though I had suspicions that that was how most men felt.

Sounds more like you have met the wrong guys, rather than making any Earth-
moving discovery. Since when do the words of one man indicate the thinking of
many?

>Has anyone come across this perception so blatently before?  Do men
>(and society as a whole) still feel this way?  It is sometimes hard
>to believe.  This happened to me about 6 years ago, so I imagine
>it is still a common perception.  The instructor, by the way, was
>a graduate student, fairly young, and in my opinion, should have
>known better!!!

Well, yes, he should have known better, but otherwise I don't understand 
your apparent theory that "this guy was a jerk, so all men must be jerks."
As far as society, well you might have a point that he was conditioned to
think that way, but I find your implying that he thought that way because 
men as a whole think that way to have no solid basis in fact.

>Julie

   Tyger

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:37:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.

In article <lyhnhd=.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.142504.13145@panix.com> smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>>I tried taking a women's studies class in college.  I thought it would
>>be interesting to see what I could do to help reduce sexism in our
>>society.
>
>To play devils advocate here, is not the very subject of "women's studies"
>sexist given that there are no 'men's studies". I rather suspect that
>anyone proposing tha latter subject would be laughed out of the room.
> 
   Sure there are men's studies courses. We just usually call them 'chemistry'
'physics', 'math', 'economics', and 'art'.


    I overheard this in a debate between two philosophy majors when I was a
U-grad.  You can either say that line with heavy sarcasm, or breathless
innocence, depending on the effect you want to generate.

  Followups to alt.flame.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminists (Was: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:45:10 GMT

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:
>
>
>>	He might read the writings of this woman, for example:
>
>>"All men are rapists, and that's all they are."
>>				-- Marilyn French
>
>Off hand, I would agree that this is an absurd and obviously incorrect
>statement. I would have to see it in context to comment.
>By the way..I `might' read the writings of this woman, but I
>probably won't with this as the only endorsement for it. I tend to

FWIW, I read _The_Women's_Room_ by Marilyn French.

Thumbnail synopsis:  Composite life story of a woman that pointed out all the
evils of sexism.  I'd like to think it's slightly dated, but perhaps not.

One thing it made me realize is that it *is* a big deal that masculine pronouns
are always used.  It's a water-dripping sort of effect that seems trivial, but
can become absolutely enraging.

-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 00:39:35 GMT
Organization:  I said WHAT!?!

In article <MUFFY.92Aug26180417@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>Cindy doesn't post nearly as much as I do and Miriam almost never
>posts.  

Good for them, I just wish Cindy, at least, would do as you do and not 
approve her own posts. I think that sort of thing is why people are complaining
about moderators posting. I don't give a hoot if the lot of you post, I just
think it defeats the purpose to have moderators approving their own posts.

>Finally, if you really wanted to get your facts straight, you would see that 
>*all* of my posts are approved by *another* moderator.  So, I enter the 
>discussion as any other poster, not as a moderator (my posts go through the 
>same process as anyone else's, except that I will not approve my own posts).  
>I enter the discussion specifically because things which I DISAGREE STRONGLY
>with are posted, often approved by me.  Therefore, it seems to me that
>your claims that only posts that "adhere to the party line" (i.e. that
>we, the moderators agree with) get through is patently ridiculous.

Muffy, you aren't the only one that posts to that group. I wasn't one of the
people complaining about moderators posting, so I don't know why you are
all over *me* about that. I haven't made it into print on soc.feminism yet
so I haven't had this problem yet, but what about the people that claim to
have had email posted, and when they try and defend themselves, their rebuttals
are rejected. Please, don't just dismiss it as the word of whiners this time.

>>Now, this debate
>>raged for almost a week in soc.men and women, which is why this group is now
>>here. Muffy dropped in to defend the moderators on that same civility issue,
>
>Actually, I didn't.  I read soc.men for the first time in three years
>today to determine what this was all about.  I haven't read soc.women in
>at least that long.  Perhaps it was one of the other moderators?

Damn, the article is gone off my system, but I could have sworn it was you...
maybe it was Miriam or Cindy....

>Muffy

   Tyger
-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
 
                       
        
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: deadhead@molest.ugcs.caltech.edu (stephen thompson)
Subject: Re: Makeup
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:48:55 GMT

wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

>Ok-To solve this crazy makeup business once and for all-
>Why do you transvestite males out there wear makeup?
>				J. Wagner

Why just transvestite males?  Why not ask why males in general wear makeup?
Why not ask why makeup is worn by anyone?  Why ask Why?

Stephen


--
----                                    I got no reason              
--------                             to be there, but I              
----------------                        Imagine it might             
--------------------------------  be some kind of change. --Bob Dylan
From: lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 31 Aug 92 07:34:46 GMT
	<MUFFY.92Aug26180417@remarque.berkeley.edu> <l9cnk5b.tyger@netcom.com>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
In-reply-to: tyger@netcom.com's message of 28 Aug 92 00:39:35 GMT


   > tyger@netcom.com
   >Please, don't just dismiss it as the word of whiners this time.

   I don't recally dismissing it as the word of whiners before, and I
   certainly have not done so "this time."

   Muffy

Incedible, she says this on the net the very same day she mails this
to me (as Muffy knows from previsous postings (to which she replied),
I was going to post her mail for this very kind of reason).

   Well, apparently what happened is that people started whining on soc.men
							  ^^^^^
   about how their articles were unfairly rejected, and they decided that
   we were being unfair, for various bizarre (and often untrue) reasons.
   Cindy, I don't know if alt.feminism has hit your site yet, but it has
   been created.  Frankly, it looks like an excellent argument for a
   moderated group to me.  I have seen one or two interesting threads and a
   ton of flaming, hatred of women/feminism, circular arguments (and it's
   only been up this week), etc.
   ...
   problem.  I find it bizarre that someone tries to impose his personal
   will on other people by arguing against censorship, but I guess that a
   lot of people see hypocrisy everywhere but in themselves (and don't
   bother, Tom, to try to turn that around on me).
   
   Muffy
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:38:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.074439.20088@news.columbia.edu> mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.015137.27277@NeoSoft.com> jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt) writes:
>>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
>
>Eureka!  She is simply trying to anger women into an uprising so they will
>o'erthrow the evil males!  Logic?  What logic?  This is the same tactic often
>used by the anti-abortion movement.  Show them a picture of a fetus and watch
>their outrage!  No logic needed.  Well, I believe in rethinking morals and
>ethics when shocked.  But I try to use a little logic.  If you are haunted by
>visions of dead fetuses everywhere, I guess you are a prophet, and can dictate
>morality for the masses.  I, for one, don't take kindly to having my moral
>and religous rights taken away as has been the trend in the recent US of A.
>If I felt the need for an abortion (or a friend or wife, etc did), I would
>seek religous counsel, and pray the law keep its nose out of my personal
>religous beliefs!  Of course, I only say this, noting that Jewish law requires
>extenuating circumstances before abortion becomes a possibility.  However,
>under Jewish Law, a woman who aborts her fertilized egg or embryo early on
>could never be tried as a murderer.  I begin to have my doubts about
>the Republican administration's morality as soon as I picture
>them making abortion a capital offense.
>
>No :-)
>* * * * * * == Meir I. Green == Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM

	You're absolutely right. The government should have no say in
dictating the behavior of other people's bodies.  They should not interfer
in any way with the pro-lifers who will stone you to death when
you have an abortion.

				J. Wagner


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil)
Subject: Re: Last names
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: alt.feminism
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 04:11:52 GMT

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

>I have a question for any "feminists" out there, if there really are
>any.  (I've mostly been reading anti-feminists.)

Given that men outnumber women on the net by a considerable ratio and also
given the fact that some men are anti-feminist and also given that anti-
feminists really like to take any opportunity they can to show contempt for
feminists, this is not a surprise.  But yes, there are a few of us intrepid
feminists (male and female) who actually read this group.


> Let's assume a man
>and a woman have gotten married, and the women kept her last name (i.e.
>no hyphenation).  Then they start having children.  What should the
>children's last names be? 

Good question.

>If you do that hyphenation stuff, then you
>burden them with really long last names and just force the decision
>down one generation as to whether patrilineal or matrilinial patterns
>will be embraced.

Good point.  But then you go on...

>If you work out some random system or give the boys
>the father's name and the girls the mother's name, then you subject them
>to teasing about being "bastards."

Huh?  In case you weren't aware of it, about half of all marriages today
end in divorce.  There are plenty of kids walking around today in step-
families where the children have different last names than the parent and
step-parent.  I hardly think that a child will be called a "bastard" 
because he or she has a different last name.  Blended families are just way
too common nowadays for a different last name to faze anyone.


>And if you arbitrarily choose one
>last name over the other, then you either are conforming to the
>current paternalistic system or you are "making a statement" at the
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>expense of the feelings of the child's paternal grandparents.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I guess I think maybe this is where we need to take a look at matters.
Why should it matter so much to the paternal grandparents?  Why should they
take it as an insult?  Perhaps it should be explained to the grandparents
that it is not a personal thing directed against them.

>Anyone have a solution?

Not in these days of 700 Club Republicanism.  I might eventually want to
be first lady and I don't want my statements to be taken against me.  1/2 :-)

>Steve
> 


Sharon O'Neil
oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu
From: df@anableps.berkeley.edu (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The trashing of alt.feminism
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:56:36
Organization: /home/gypsum/riki/df/.organization
	<MUFFY.92Sep2101343@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<5389@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anableps.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu's message of 2 Sep 92 20:23:01 GMT


In article <5389@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
   In article <MUFFY.92Sep2101343@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> > And thank God (or whatever) for that.  My mother isn't a hypocrite.
> > Next time you ask someone to stop flaming, how about if you set a good
> > example yourself?  Or is it that you simply want *me* to stop defending
> > myself, but let everyone else continue to attack, including yourself?
> Please feel free to flame all you like.  With every posting -- with every
> attack you make you justify why you should not be a moderator.  

  What do flames have to do with moderation of a newsgroup?  I would
much rather have an intelligent and opinionated moderator with a
backbone than some whimp that lets all kinds of trash go by, or, worse
yet, would post something like what you've been writing lately (to give
you the benefit of the doubt, in case it's just temporary stupidity.)
If you'd ever read soc.feminism you'd see that most of the things that
she posts, just like most of the traffic on soc.feminism, is pretty much
against what she believes.  At least Muffy hasn't been attacking random
people without provocation or factual evidence, unlike some people
around here.

-- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Pro-life feminism
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 20:37:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Aug29.181231.15158@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> dholtsin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>
>Daphne de Jong, "The Feminist Sell-Out", New Zealand Listener,
>January 14, 1976, reprinted without permission.
 
[quoted stuff omitted]
 
>  If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career,
>their economic or social status, they are pandering to a system devised
>and run by men for male convenience. 

Damn, that fool should not have posted info about the all-male meeting!
He membership in the all-male club will be cancelled, and tomorrow he
will be demoted to an oppressed minority status!   :^)

>                                      The politics of sexism are perpetuated
>by accommodating to expediential societal structures which decree that
>pregnancy is incompatible with other activities, and that children are the
>sole responsibility of their mother.

For this must I assume that pregnancy is fully compatible with everything?
Is a pregnant woman equal to a non-pregnant woman in all aspects?

Pregnancy can be a wonderfull thing, but is is wise to drive a race car
or work with potentially toxic chemicals while pregnant?

[...]

[socio-political ramblings ommitted, you can buy into all this if you
wish, but giving something a label does not transform it to what the
label describes, and Daphne has more labels than anything else.]
 
>Daphne de Jong is a feminist writer and a former president of
>Feminists for Life of New Zealand. 


Rich

payner@netcom.com  (not part of the evil-male empire, and not a feminist
                    either)
From: ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Sexist Language (was re: Freshm*n)
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:33:06 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

In article <MUFFY.92Sep3174749@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>Free clue 1: This is an unmoderated group, which means that no one
>approves the articles.

Whoops! Sorry folks. Being new to these groups, I got a bit confused
between the soc. and alt. distinctions and their respective
"moderations". I also partly blame my crummy news-reader (can u
believe, it isn't threaded, and I have to run a separate program to
post articles. Aaargh!)

>By the way, to inject a little feminist content into this, while I
>believe that language *is* a factor in shaping thoughts, I tend to

How strongly do you subscribe to this view? - strong Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis (largely discredited), moderate or weak? I think language
influences how our thoughts are *expressed* (obviously!) but only
minimally, how they are organised (at least when they are initially
conceived). Thus ...

>believe that it is the thoughts which are harmful, not the language.
>Therefore, I think it's a waste of time trying to eliminate sexist
>language (although I'm not sure that "freshmen" is an example of this,
>anyway) rather than working on eliminating sexist attitudes.

... I agree with Muffy about the thoughts/attitudes being more
important to change. That said, I found that having a huge row with
one of my friends over my use of "girl" instead of "woman" did make me
better aware of the issues. Unfortunately, I am now confused, and use
"girl" and "woman" depending on who I'm talking to - my present policy
is to respect the other person's preference of words (in keeping with
the "language is for communication" idea), falling back onto whichever
of the two words I happen to blurt out when not conciously choosing.
Out of interest, what are your views on the use of girl/woman,
boy/man, guy/(gal) ? When I used to use "girl" more, I used it to mean
any female from 0 to about late 20s, using "woman" thereafter (except
in special cases, e.g. sprightly female octagenarians!).

-- 
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: kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:40:22 GMT

simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Julia Simon) writes:

>ejh@khonshu.khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug25.183639.16010@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
>> 
>>    Has anyone had any experience with blatant sexism?  By this I mean some
>>    decision making that was OBVIOUSLY based on sex where sex had no logical
>>    part in the decision.  I am trying to find out what this is, because all
>>    through school, university, and now graduate school I have never really
>>    witnessed what I thought was sexist (other than on TV, books, etc).  I
>>    am particularly interested in sexism in universities.
>> 
>>    I guess I'm either blind or lucky.  If the former, please open my eyes.
>> 
>>    Paul

I posted this awhile ago, but here it is again.

The Holiday spa in Utah has mens and womens excersize rooms.  All the 
nifty stuff (nautilus, etc) is put in the mens excersize area.  I went to
use it, and was kicked off - soley because I was a woman.

I pay the same membership fees as a man, but its up to the discression of the
manager where to put the equipment.

There is a coed area where he could put single-item machinery,
but his arguement was: there would be to much traffic
on the equipment if he let everyone use it.

My complaints and letters to the managment were ignored.

Yes, I was shown the club before I joined, but since then, managment has
moved things around, and got new equipment which he put in the mens 
excersize area.  


Karen Biesel