HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 27 Aug 92 18:59:34
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1bbnqca.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug26180417@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<l9cnk5b.tyger@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: tyger@netcom.com's message of Fri, 28 Aug 92 00:39:35 GMT

In article <l9cnk5b.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>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.

Actually, she doesn't want to, but her site refuses to send her articles
to anyone but her.  We're working on this.

>>[...] 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.

Indeed.  And there are posts on more than one side, which was my point.

>I wasn't one of the
>people complaining about moderators posting, so I don't know why you are
>all over *me* about that.

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.

>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.

Well, I vaguely recall something about email being posted, but I am not
sure what the exact problem/situation was.  However, even if something
such as posting personal email is done, that doesn't mean that we will
then post a flame (or other inappropriate article) in response.

>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
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 2 Sep 92 08:37:59 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

: You know, I often catch myself saying "girl" and I instantly correct
: it to "woman."  The word "girl" is patronizing by its very nature.

I think that the word "girl" would not necessarily be patronizing when applied
to a woman if it were used in the same instances that the diminutive "boy"
is used to describe a man. The fact that this is not the case and it is also
used in cases of patronization has led the word to be tainted and so it is
best to use the word "woman" as a substitute (and mean it and not just as
a vacuous substitution when the speaker would still rather use the derogatory
term "girl"). 

An analogue of "guy" might be usefl but how can we be sure it wouldn't soon
be misused and attract the negative connotations of "girl"?

	Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:18:57 GMT


A quick point I forgot to make earlier!

In article <1992Aug31.213536.17806@athena.mit.edu> standish@athena.mit.edu (Mark S Farrar) writes:

> At times I felt 
> some male bashing going on, but I find our society pretty
> indefensible and that males ARE largely responsible for it.
	
Individuals who happen to be male are largely responsible for it.

P.S. Anita Bryant and Tipper Gore and their ilk are also largely
responsible for it.

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"now we find sodom strange take it out put it in your mouth how do you like
gomorrah now a taste of this swallow that feel the fish hide the hat ezekial
where's your wheel you better grease it GREASE GREASE GREASE GREASE! ROCK!!!"
       --Chainsaw Kittens, "Ezekial Walks Through Sodom and Gomorrah"
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:47:49
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<AWERLING.92Sep2203602@dante.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Sep3.145755.3704@spider.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: ivan@spider.co.uk's message of 3 Sep 92 14:57:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.145755.3704@spider.co.uk> ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid) writes:
> 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.   

Free clue 1: This is an unmoderated group, which means that no one
approves the articles.

Free clue 2: I am one of the moderators of soc.feminism.  If you had
posted your article there and I was the moderator that received it, I
would have approved it.  If there had been some reason to reject it, you
would have received your article back with an explanation as to why it
was rejected.

Free clue 3: Don't believe everything you read on the net without
checking it out for yourself.  (Including this, if you choose...*grin*)

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
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.

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: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminists (Was: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 21:49:02 GMT

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

>In article <Btux1o.Fs0@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:

>[snip]

><   myself, I have learned to not let my defenses
><   get the better of me, because for the most part, in my experience
><   anyway, sweeping generalizations about `men' usually are more or
><   less true to a large extent.

>	Aldrich should learn a bit more about "feminism" before
>	making this statement.

I freely admit I am not a scholar of feminism..so what? I cannot 
comment on my own observations?


>	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
seek out writings that present problems and possible solutions rather
than just hate writings. Again though..it appears to me that some here
go through this and other feminist writings just to pick out poor
choices of words to support their claims that all feminists are the
same, which is even more sterotyping..


>	Or this woman:
>"Men especially love murder."
>				-- Andrea Dworkin

Same comment..


>	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.....

Of course there is more to feminism than I am versed in.. again I freely
admit that. I do not claim to be an expert. I am just speaking for
myself and my own observations and interactions with other men and
women who call themselves feminists whom I have never heard make such
ridiculous statements as you quote. Perhaps I did make a poor choice
of words in light of your understanding of feminism.

>	But to state that sweeping generalizations about
>	men are "more or less true" is absurd.

It is not absurd if you asked me what I meant by that. What you quoted
were accusations. What I meant by generalizations were things like..
" Men are always trying to `fix' things ".. By and large true in
my experience.. " Men are so competitive "..again, this seems to hold
water in my experience. This is what I meant by sweeping generalizations.
If you had asked me instead of labeling my statement absurd, I would
have told you that.

I can see that if the above statements are a reflection of what most
here feel to be the feminist `party line' why there is so much
animosity. Whew..what a bunch of hate flying here.. Does anyone out
there feel that the above 2 statements ARE correct or lend any
credibility to them at all? Baffled.

/al
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: good def of sexism
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:35:48 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20Lines: 28

I highly recommend Marilyn Frye's essay, "Sexism" in her book THE POLITICS OF
REALITY (1983, The Crossing Press) as one of the most lucid, thoughtful essays
around on this question. Excerpts (w/out permission):

"The following was the product of my first attempt to state clearly and
explicitly what sexism is:
	The term 'sexist' in its core and perhaps most funda-
	mental meaning is a term which characterizes anything
	whatever which creates, constitutes, promotes or ex-
	ploits any irrelevant or impertinent marking of the
	distinction between the sexes."

she later goes on to criticize her own def:

"I had failed, in that first [attempt], fully to grasp or understand that the
locus of sexism is primarily in the system or framework, not in the particular
act.  It is not accurate to say that what is going on in cases of sexism is
that distinctions are being made on the basis of sex when sex is irrelevant;
what is wrong in cases of sexism is, in the first place, that sex *IS*
relevant; and than that the making of distinctions on the basis of sex
reinforces the patterns which make it relevant."

(etc., etc.,etc.) i suggest the whole essay, pp 17-38, in THE POLITICS OF
REALITY.

------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 08:09:24 GMT

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 :-)

 * * * * *  =================== 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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 02:16:21 GMT
Organization: WeasElectro Productions: Television/Movies/Comics

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>> "Gay bashing" refers to both verbal and physical bashing. Gays get
>> bashed -- as in beaten simply because they're gay -- all the time.  
>
> Your usage is different than mine then.  

The usage happens to be the majority usage -- deal with it.  The only
reason you're confused by it is because you choose to be.

(Of course, what can I expect from someone who doesn't understand the use
of the word "gender" when applied to people as opposed to words...)

--
Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 19:09:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.204503.29629@unislc.uucp>, kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
> Theory 1.
> Because men (for the most part) do the designing and building, and don't
> think about it. 
> 
> Theory 2.
> ?
> 

Try because the state law requires X fixtures per person. And the builders
understinated the number of women who would be using the facility.

I know for a fact that for businesses in this state, there are mandated
numbers of toilets per X number of workers. (A place I worked once had
the applicable section of the law posted. It included a table cross indexing
number of employees with number of toilets.)

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 3 Sep 92 10:19:11
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Sep3.091442.2151@wkuvx1.bitnet>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mccoyje@wkuvx1.bitnet's message of 3 Sep 92 09:14:42 CDT

In article <1992Sep3.091442.2151@wkuvx1.bitnet> mccoyje@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>[In response to Karen Biesel]
>So, let's get this straight.  You are in favor of the men's
>restroom being converted to a unisex restroom?  I assume, therefore,
>that you are also in favor of having the women's restroom treated
>likewise (in the event that the men's restroom is 'full').  If not, I
>suggest that you rethink your views.

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.  I mean, I
know that we are conditioned this way, but I'm not sure where the idea
for that conditioning came from.

Anyway, I think it's probably better to make the facilities equivalent
by waiting time (as I said in another post) than to make them unisex,
since people seem to have so much fear of the latter.  However, when
what is available is two rooms with toilets (i.e. like a regular home
bathroom, not a bunch of stalls), then I don't think they should be
separated into "men's" and "women's."  There's a cafe in Santa Cruz
where the bathrooms are like this...one is "Illusion" and the other is
"Anarchy"..*grin*.

Muffy

--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: mcline@terapin.com (Matthew Cline)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Date: 3 Sep 92 11:41:29 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <1992Sep1.191640.10395@panix.com>, smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
writes:
>How important is it to change the language to make it non-sexist?
        There was a study done to test if the use of the word "man" as the
genric human is interpreted as being generic (as those who want to keep using
it in that way) or is interpreted as being male.  The test consisted of college
students reading various sociological texts (I think).  In one group, the
titles where "Political Man", "Industrial Man", etc., while in the other
grop=up, the titles of the texts where "Political Humans", "Industrial Humans",
etc.  After reading the texts, the students where asked to select pictures of
people that they thought best represented what was talked about in what they
read.  It was found that the students who read the texts titled "____ Man"
picked pictures of men more often than the students who read the "____ Humans"
texts.  So it seems that language can have an affect on what people think, and
it should thus be changed.

Matthew Cline
mcline@terapin.com
From: bednarek@picard.med.ge.com (Dennis Bednarek Mfg 4-6971)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Gun Control
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:54:43 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

I think that you might have posted in the wrong board.  From all the posts
here a majority of them are from males.  I really could not say what board
is most read by females.

--

  
###############################################################################
###NEVER - NEVERMORE###########################################################
###############################################################################
####################################What are the contents of the oblong box?##
###############################################################################
  The usual disclaimer of self and employer applies to all above comments.
#
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 1 Sep 92 10:36:28
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<3899@keele.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk's message of 1 Sep 92 14:17:00 GMT

In article <3899@keele.keele.ac.uk> csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton) writes:
>From article <MUFFY.92Aug31114640@remarque.berkeley.edu>, by muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy):
>>... 
>> As you have probably seen from the other examples posted, there is a lot
>> of blatant sexism against men, too.  You, as a man, might start to
>> notice this more if you look for assumptions about what you can or can't
>> do simply because you're a man [examples deleted]

>More seriously sexist, perhaps, is this assumption that men don't yet
>"notice" these things: really, that is patronising and way off the mark.

Perhaps you did not read the post I was responding to.  The person in
question posted that, in fact, HE HAD NOT PERSONALLY SEEN ANY EXAMPLES
OF BLATANT SEXISM.  Therefore, I made NO assumptions, I merely responded
to what he posted.  In this case, it seems that *you* have made the
assumption, and you might try to follow your own advice.

Most of the men I know, by the way, notice these things very much.  My
friend who I was shopping with is acutely aware of such things, and
sometimes points them out to me.  However, there certainly also exist
men (and women), such as the original poster, who have not noticed these
things.

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: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 92 23:13:04 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Aug30112151@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <hdgn5kh@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.204754.8256@umr.edu> asparrow@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Angelia Sparrow) writes:
>>>However, when pictures were shown to a group of men, most could not
>>>tell the difference between clean and madeup.
>
>>But, I'm not that surprised by the results.  Most of the people I know
>>who use makeup as an "everyday" thing don't look that different from
>>their non-made-up appearance...usually because they don't use much
>>more than base, a bit of blush, maybe some mascara/eyeliner.  My
>>sister went to modeling school and I've seen her collection of
>>"professional" makeup:  Eye shadows, blushes, lip color, mascaras, eye
>>liners, eyebrow pencils...she rarely used it outside of photo shoots
>>or when she was trying to "look dramatic."  Why?  It's too much of a
>>hassle to "do it all."
>
>Indeed.  I used to think it was just a stupid stereotype that women took
>forever to get ready for things.  Then I started seeing a woman who
>pretty much refused to go out without makeup.  It literally took her
>over an hour to get ready, and she didn't look significantly different
>to me at the end of it than at the beginning.  I talked to her about
>this and she basically said that she was uncomfortable ("felt naked")
>without the makeup (and perfume, deodorant, skin conditioner, etc.,
>etc.), but couldn't explain it further.  It's frightening how much
>someone can be conditioned without knowing it or understanding it even
>when they think about it (I'm assuming she was not born with a desire to
>put on makeup).
>
>Muffy

I am a 48 year-old woman who uses lipstick only when going out.  I have
on occasion applied more "makeup" for a more dramatic look for special
occasions.  However, I have never had anyone really notice any difference.
The only difference I have noted is in pictures of myself.  With full
makeup on my eyes stand out more (I wear glasses).  Most people guess I
am in my late twenties even without makeup so there goes one argument
for wearing makeup (that it makes one look younger).  Perhaps I'm
just well-preserved.  :-)

Marg




Newsgroups: alt.feminism