HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:20:46 GMT

In article <wqtn3!j.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>[...]Your response has tended to become rather condesending as of late.

So has yours.




-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:03:37
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: ataylor@nmsu.edu's message of 8 Sep 92 20:12:23 GMT


In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep08152113@gray.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Alan Taylor) writes:
>   I hope this helps you to understand my reasoning.  It's really not all that
>   inconsistent.

  What an asshole.  It's amazing that idiots like you really exist.
It's even more amazing that you could claim to care about anyone or
anything other than yourself -- I don't know why you bother to post, but
I guess some people like hearing themselves talk, even if filth is all
that comes out.  And to call that "reasoning"?  What an astonishly
disgusting person.

 -- d
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 7 Sep 92 12:25:50 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article<1992Sep7.042253.8942@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>True; but I was writing on the basis of the liberal principle
                                             ^^^^^^^!
>that state power must be justified by some strong public interest

1) Thanks for the laugh.

2) Have you ever heard about "tax and spend" liberals?

3) What is more liberal than giving pork-barrels to the
   people who vote to the right party?
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:32:45 GMT
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

In article <Bu2AzD.D04@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> asurpren@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (aimee surprenant) writes:

> There has been a lot of talk on this newsgroup about how changing
> to "non-sexist" language is/is not something important to work for.
> I agree that it should not be the first priority in changing the
> status quo towards women.  

I'm not fully with you, personally.  Language is one of the main
shapers of reality and expression.  Sexism is expression.  If the
language doesn't have the roots of sexism (or sex-exclusion) in it, it
weakens the chance of unintentional alienation.

So, because of that, I feel it should be at least *one* of the first
priorities.

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Grading papers
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 07:18:57 GMT

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

>Well...actually, there *is* a pair of gender-neutral pronouns (there is
>also a possessive form) which has been invented, by those people who saw
>a need.  You will find it in frequent use on such newsgroups as
>alt.sex.bondage, if you would like to check it out.  The pronouns in
>question are "sie" (gender-neutral equivalent to "she" and "he") and
>"hir" (gender-neutral equivalent to "her" and "his").

Hmm...  In German, "sie" means (among other things) "she", while "ihr" means
"her".  Is this merely a concidence?

keith

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:965 soc.women:16440
From: robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 10 Sep 92 23:35:24 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>[ long story, go back and read it ]
>In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep7142601@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
>| 	Which 'crap', please? The "credentialism" which
>| 	has become entrenched in U.S. society (along
>| 	with bureaucracy) over the last 30 years, or what?

>Is the credentialism pushing sexism into the programmer part
>of the workforce, or not?  It is if 90% the "engineers" are
>male, isn't it?  Are my figures wrong?  I'm just making an
>observation on what I've read here, and from daily life.

>1.  Once upon a time from one-third to one-half of the
>programmers I observed were female.
>2.  Credentialism happened and programmers became "engineers."
>3.  90% of the new "engineers" are male.
>4.  Programmer workforce will become more skewed toward males
>than it was.

>So or not so?

	Hasn't been true any place I've worked.  You're making a blanket
statement that 90% of the new "engineers" are male, without stating any
kind of source.  Is this personal observation?  Is this "all engineers" or
specifically "CS" engineers?  We need to know your source before we can
even being to answer "so or not so".

Robert C.
-- 
----------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 05:33:01 GMT
Organization:  I said WHAT!?!

In article <1992Sep13.221346.824@cco.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>
>>Seems to me the pressure for birth control is about equal...men are
>>pressured into using condoms and women are pressured into using the
>>pill.  
>
>Yeah.  And those condoms sure do mess up the guys' hormones and give
>them headaches, nausea, and aggrevate high blood pressure.  Poor men!

Oh please Michal! You make it sound as if women have no option but the pill!
True, the pill is the most effective next to abstinence, but I understand that 
the new condoms for women are a really close second. While I would agree that 
women are urged to go with the pill, I don't think there is anyone out there
holding guns to women's heads saying "Ortho-Novum or DEATH!" If the pill
causes problems for you....use those condoms, whether it's you or your 
partner!

>						--  Michal

   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: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:08:02 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
| > So, the matter isn't if killing is righ or wrong, but who has the
| > right to fo it ? Is that a common attitude thereabout, could surely
| > explain some of the violence on the streets ?

dholtsin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
| Some people have attempted to link the increase in child abuse in recent 
| years to the liberal abortion policies created by Roe v. Wade.   

There's no way of knowing whether child abuse has increased
in recent years because ideological pressures have effectively
prevented anyone from finding out how much of it there is.
You see, most of it occurs the in the family, and as we all
know, the family is sacred ground.  One may not look.  Instead,
day-care centers and employees are demonized, serving two
purposes: to frighten women about putting their children in
them, thus discouraging them from, and at, work; and to draw
attention away from the chief category of child-abusers, a
set of persons I need not even name.

That being the case, one can confidently say that there is
not a scintilla of evidence that increased access to
abortion has increased, or decreased, child abuse.  It is
pure speculation, either way, and the sound of axe-grinding
is loud in the background.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu (Manu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:43:43 GMT
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711

In article <716452802@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.221346.824@cco.caltech.edu> 
>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>Yeah.  And those condoms sure do mess up the guys' hormones and give
>>them headaches, nausea, and aggrevate high blood pressure.  Poor men!

	Just becasue condoms don't mess around with our bodies, doesn't
mean we have to like them.  When my girlfriend and I first had sex, I
volunteered to wear a condom. The sex was good, but the condom was annoying.
The next time we tried w/o and it turned out that she liked the condom about
as much as I did (very little).  I was surprised to hear it.  She said that
the next time we have sex (we live far apart and don't see each other all
the time) she'd be sure to be on the pill.
	My question is how many other womedon't like condoms very much?

Manu

[rest deleted]


-- 
Email: gmeltzne@jarthur.claremont.edu            

"The Arab governments were largely responsible for the ruin of the Palestinian
  Arabs"     -Sir John Bagot Glubb
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:43:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.172401.7045@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>wag5@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>
>>	I have a better solution:
>>		Remove all 'indecent exposure' laws against men.
>>	Then, you could just plant some trees and bushes around
>>	gasstations and buildings.  The men could just whip it out
>>	and urinate on the spot, without bothering with inconveniences
>>	like urinals.  Then, we could have 'bathrooms' which have
>>	only toilets and could be used by all genders without
>>	disrespect.
>>		Also, people could carry foldable shovels, and could
>>	dig holes and take dumps into them, then cover them up with
>>	the dirt from the hole.  Makes good fertilizer, helps
>>	the environment, no one is sexually discriminated against!
>
>Human shit and piss, like dog shit and piss, is actually not too good
>for plants.  I have heard that piss contributes to the early death of
>urban trees.  And I read in a composting book that both human shit
>and dog shit are about the only kinds of shit that appear to be
>uncompostable for some reason (in the author's experience.)  So I
>don't think your idea would 'help the environment'.
>
	So what is that 'nightshade' stuff the Chinese use
	to fertilize the fields that keep them fed, pray tell?
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:30:20 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

Me:
#>This from somebody who wants to let men not pay *ANY* child support
#>when he decides it isn't convienient, err, "ruin his life".


In article <716158194@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
#*Only* if he tells it to the woman fast, so she can have an
#abortion, [rest deleted]

How magnanomous. How kind. How touching. 

How sick this philosophy.

Advocating deadbeat fathers, as long as they skip out quickly? 
Or using economic pressure to pressure women into abortions. 

Excuse me, but the attitude you are espousing make me sick. 

#The idea in feminism is to have the choice, but shift the 
#responsibility.  

Every feminist I have heard espouses  *SHARED* responsibility. 

#Does anyone thinks that our 
#pro-equality Virginia man gives a damn about that?

Yes. Why don't you ask my opinion before you attempt to make slams
against me. 



--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 07 Sep 92 08:41:27 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1863f7INNq4g@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>
>>>> Since it takes women approximately 1.32 seconds to pee, 
>
>(I especially disbelieve this number...)
>
>>>> and men approximately 30 seconds, why not just put 3 times as many 
>>>> toilets in the womens room than the mens?
>
>>>Where do you get these numbers? 
>
>I'm not sure I believe this.  I'm fairly certain men have 
>considerably larger bladders than women, and therefore the
>average man can take, if not a longer pee, then at least a 
>more voluminous one, than the average women.  And for the 
>same reason, women pee more frequently -- at least that's been 
>my impression.
>
>Steve

Question is, does the numbers include just the physical act
of voiding, or the 'undo clothes to the extent necessary to
avoid stains and change physical position (ie sit down!)'?

A man wearing jeans can unzip or unbutton, adjust underclothes,
take aim, and go.
A woman wearing jeans has to unfasten the jeans and pull them
down, unfasten and pull down underclothes, then sit.
A man in business attire unzips or unbuttons, adjusts underclothes,
takes aim, and starts.
A woman in business attire (suit) unfastens the skirt, pulls it down,
pulls down slip/pantyhose/panties, then sits.

Once finished voiding, each step must be reversed. 

-jen


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:42:16 GMT

In article <716147821@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
#Telling a woman "if you will get pregnant, even if you cheated him
#about birth control, then we'll either help you take him to the cleaners
#or we'll pay you welfare," is a great way to create irresponsible women.

This from somebody who wants to let men not pay *ANY* child support
when he decides it isn't convienient, err, "ruin his life".

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:28:31 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <MUFFY.92Sep8202047@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>No, they are offended because it *is* an insult, in our society, to call
>an adult a child.  In addition, accepting that label might well cause

I will agree to this statement. I would like to note that if I wanted
to insult a woman by accentuating their imaturity I would use the
term _child_ instead of _girl_, as in, "Listen child." Much more
patronizing than "Listen girl." I believe the insult is more pronounced
since the term _child_ is sexless.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:07:38 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand


> 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.

rich replied:
>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.
 
probably by you, from the sound of it. A couple of Canadian places do
gender studies.

Also, there is no literature on which to base a `mens studies' course on.
If you can come up with ideas for a syllabus I would be interested to 
hear them.

Do you personally feel disadvantaged by there being a womans studies couse?
how?

do you feel men in general are disadvantaged by these courses?

if not, then how are they sexist?

(sexist: discrimination by gender with negative results for the group
discriminated against)

MOZ


*love* & *hugs*
  ____MOZ___    (moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)
 /\  _______\
 \ \ \____  /                                       /
  \ \ \/ / /         +--+          +--+         +--/
   \ \/ / /     Male |  |   Female |  |         |\/|
    \  / /           +--+          +--+         +--+
     \/_/
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Grading papers
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:38:51 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

I recently graded a paper by a young man who consistently used "he"
and "his" for pronouns.  I spent a decent amount of time trying
to come up with an appropriate response when grading the paper,
so I thought I would share the comments I used.  Maybe somebody
will want to use it too, or maybe someone will have a suggestion
for next time I confront this situation.  Here goes:

"The emerging convention is to use gender-neutral or otherwise
inclusive pronouns (e.g. "she or he" or "his/her") when writing
for a polite audience, since this reduces sexism inherent in
traditional language conventions.  Although this factor didn't
influence your grade, I would have appreciated less frequent use
of masculine pronouns to describe hypothetical individuals in the
text."

I thought this set a good balance, admonition without strong advocacy.
steve
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Playing Games with Words
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:49:39 GMT

In article <5476@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>In article <Bu29y4.AEK@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, Francis.Gardner@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Francis Gardner) writes:
>
>>   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.......
>
>(Sorry, I only have a comment.  I don't have time to think of a really good
>flame!)
>
>You might try not using "he" or "she" at all.  Many times one can simply
>use a title, such as "the operator" or "the user", etc instead of using
>"he" or "she".  It's a bit of a challenge to write a document this way,
>but it can be done!
>
>Terry "the poster" Wood

	No! No! Use 'The Masked Avenger!'

				J. Wagner
From: 9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 10 Sep 92 05:47:23 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University

In article <1992Sep8.220540.26780@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.161054.16762@panix.com> pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich) writes:
>I believe it was Margaret Mead who pointed out that, regardless of
>what men in a society did, men's work is nearly always rated higher in
>status and more valuable than women's work.  

Once upon a time I posted an analogy about 50% of the machines in a
factory not reaching even close to their ful potential.  Once upon a
time I got my ass flamed off.

I would like to suggest that Mead's observation can be reworded:  "What
we percieve as men's work is nearly always rated higher in status and
more valuable than what we percieve to be woman's work".

Why should this be so?  Why do we percieve certain areas as being "men's
work?"  eg, farm labour, airline pilot, taxi driver, president, etc.

Mitch.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: Playing Games with Words
Organization: gte
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:30:51 GMT

> Francis.Gardner@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Francis Gardner) writes:
> >   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.
> 

Uh, shouldn't that be your master's/lady's thesis?

Remember that the term "master" historically refers to the male
gender.

On the other hand, maybe we could all grow up and understand that,
for the sake of simplicity, masculine pronouns referring to non-specific
are understood by an reader of average intelligence to be non-gender
specific pronouns (and since the English language -- along with most
other languages-- doesn't have a non-gender pronoun we might as well
go along with 1,000 years of tradition and understaing -- that is what
reading & writing are about, right?)


-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:27:04 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>If they don't
>>trust the other gender, they can have sex with their own gender or avoid
>>sex or whatever works, but they should NOT just dump the problem on the
>>other person.
>
>Why is it that you think that having sex with their own sex is an option?
>Even if you would do it (and it is not important, and I do not care),
>that is -your- choice, and it is as reasonable to think others have
>that choice as to think that others can change religion at will. 

Err -- are you familiar with the meaning of the term "or"?  She listed
some *options*, some of which are more or less attractive to different
people -- some may down right repulsive.  She didn't say that people
*should* go around have sex with same sex people...  Sheez.

I mean, I think people *do* have the option to change their religion if
they choose to.  Granted, many people don't exercise that option, but
it is still an option.

>>Muffy
>
>Rich

rini