HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vanhoek@bend.UCSD.EDU (Karen van Hoek)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Safe Space for Everyone
Date: 13 Dec 1992 02:26:58 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

One funny thing about the "safe space for men" thread is that I'm
finding the post oddly vague and confusing.  I can't tell who's
against men's groups, who's against women's groups, and who's
against groups for left-handed Polish plumbers.  Still I felt
an urge to put in my two cents' worth, if only because (watch 
out, flamebait) this is one of those areas where my opinion
feels to me like "common sense", and so I don't quite understand
what the debate is about.

Of _course_ there should be men-only groups so men can share 
their experiences.  Of _course_ there should be women-only
groups.  Of _course_ there should be groups where men and
women work together.  Where's the beef?

On a somewhat less common-sense note, I don't think female
reporters have any business in men's locker rooms.  And I've
generally been against the rush to make men's organizations
co-ed, because of the obvious outcome -- men will want to 
join women's organizations.  The tricky part is that truly
business-oriented organizations (like the Jaycees) shouldn't
discriminate on the basis of gender; whether laws to prevent
such discrimination are doing more harm than good, I don't
know.

Karen



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: watson@sce.carleton.ca (Stephen Watson)
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Carleton University
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:12:35 GMT

biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes: [discussion with
Karen van Hoek of women's fear of going out at night vs. men's
relative lack of fear.]

>of fear are then rooted in differences of perception and in the emotional
>responses of the sexes rather than in the actual risk.
It's a legitimate question to ask, but:

> I'm not familar with
>Ann Arbor, or its crime statistics, but unless they're very different from
>most "very nice towns", I'd expect that roughly comparable numbers of men
>and women are the victims of violence there, and that hence women and men
>should feel equally (in)secure.

Sorry to quibble, but, I don't think this is a valid use of the
statistic.  You have to weight the proportion of crimes against
persons of either gender against the proportion of women and men who
go out at night.  If fewer women than men (and it would seem that this
is the case) go outside at night, then there are fewer opportunities
for such assaults, hence relatively fewer assaults.

Also, does "victims of violence", as you use it above, include ALL
assaults (i.e. domestic, workplace) or only "stranger" assaults taking
place outside, at night.
--
==Steve Watson: watson@sce.carleton.ca===Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario==
| The above is the output of a 7th-order Markovian analysis of all posts on   |
| this group for the past month.  Not only is it not Carleton's opinion, it's |
| not even *my* opinion: it's really just a mish-mash of all YOUR opinions!   |

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Observations about USENET discourse
Date: 12 Dec 1992 01:51:07 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

alubiw@maytag.uwaterloo.ca (Anna Lubiw) writes:


The point was that people who post to the net on issues like rape, 
abuse, sexism, abortion, etc., almost always have some emotional
attachment to the arguments they make.  The usual game (or discourse
style) is to hide your initial commitment, try to pass off your 
opinions as facts, and bat around the bits of logic and statistics that 
support your side, and demolish the other side.  I was objecting to this, 
and only with the mild objection that it DOES NOT PERSUADE.  
Play the game if it pleases you.

	I couldnt agree more.


And you are blind if you think objectivity is the default for men!

Your opinion that "women may be culturally unable to argue
objectively", repeats an old and very harmful sexist stereotype,
though it's usually expressed in the milder form of women being "emotional"
and men "logical"---taking "objectivity" for men is even more arrogant.

	I cant agree with this more.  Despite these ideas being crammed
	down my throat by the likes of Deborah Tannen etc. I have yet
	to see evidence for it manifest itself in my daily life.  I have
	met many women who are emotionally distant and dont spend every
	moment "exchanging feelings".

	I have also met damm few people, whatever genitalia they have
	who are capable of seperating emotional arguments from logic
	and who do so on occasion.

	Im not saying differnces for GROUPS arent there, but people
	who go around adjusting their behaviour on some stereotype
	are at least being insulting ( oh, a female, let me get out
	my "empathy" and save the logic later, oh a man, ) if not
	blinding themselves to real relations with real INDVIDUALS.

	I have NEVER met anyone who conformed completely to any
	sexual stereotype, "conservative" or "progressive".  Time
	is better spent in learning about the INDVIDUAL and how
	to treat that person.

Steve R

	


































-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Mythology and politics  (was: The Men's Movement)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 16:46:37 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

-*----
In article <1ge70jINN63t@agate.berkeley.edu> vanhoek@bend.UCSD.EDU (Karen van Hoek) writes:
> As for why we need new myths, rather than no myths -- It
> has to do with the idea that the culture we live in is a
> culture based on estrangement, on a view of the world
> as non-living and ourselves as cogs in a machine.  Re-
> mythologizing our lives is a way of changing our values,
> of creating a culture in which we and everyone else are
> viewed as inherently sacred. ...

One can make moral committments and decide values without
adopting a mythology.  True, adopting a mythology is "a way of
changing our values," but since there are other ways, one might
want to consider the side effects and constraints of choosing
*this* way.  For example, it could be argued that to treat such
myths as truths implies the rejection of certain values regarding
empiricism, rationality, and the critical search for truth. 

> ... Starhawk lays it out pretty clearly in the book
> _Dreaming the Dark: Magic, Sex and Politics_.  The bottom
> line is, even the idea that we're _not_ sacred manifestations 
> of the Divine is part of a particular mythos; ...

There is no reason one has to believe either side of this 
coin.  Be wary of false dichotomies.

> ... We can't avoid having some myths, ...

Of course we can.  The notion that we have to fill our heads with
myths, gestalts, or worldviews that address certain kinds of
questions is dangerous bunk.  I don't see much wrong with the
goddess movement, but this underlying assumption is also behind
the various kinds of religious fundamentalism.  

I suspect we would suffer much less political harm if more people
recognized the fact (not myth!) that it is possible to reject a
mythology or religion without putting anything else in its place.
Regarding feminism, given the great gains that have been made by
rejecting various myths about the "natural" or "desireable" role
of women, it should give people pause before they rush in to
create new myths to replace these.  Myths (not being constrained
by empirical tests) are subject only to political manipulation,
and inevitably tend to serve best those who are already in power.
When young, they may help the upstarts.  But how will these myths
function if they become successful and established? 

Russell


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: sandoval@unlinfo.unl.EDU (steve sandoval)
Subject: American athletics: An issue of gender
Summary: To discuss how patriarchy influences beliefs on athleticism.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: University of Nebraska--Lincoln
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:07:39 GMT

Strengh, endurance, flexibility, and speed are the four primary
characteristics that athletes possess.  Although most would probably
agree that the above characteristics are important to any athlete,
some are valued more highly than others in this society.  In our
society dominated by patriarchal structure, that which we value most
are strength and speed--two characteristics that, biologically
speaking, males generally have the upper hand.  The two remaining
athletic characteristics (endurance and flexibility) have shown that
females (generally speaking) are more biologically capable.  The most
"popular" sports in this society are those that require the "athletes"
to have considerable strength and speed (e.g., football, basketball,
baseball, boxing, and so on).  The least popular sports in America are
those that may require more endurance and flexibility (e.g.,
gymnastics, ice skating, cross-country skiing, and so on).

Most other countries don't value strength and speed in athletics as
importantly as American's do (did you notice that during the Winter
Olympics, *all* of America's medals were earned by women?  Also,
because we value strength and speed so highly, did you notice how
America's Winter Olympic team pales to comparison with America's
Summer Olympic team?).  Other, much smaller, countries fair quite well
in the sports that do not require as much strength and speed not
because they are not strong or swift, but because their values of
athleticism is much different than ours (on a whole).  We need to
recognize that the "best athletes" aren't necessarily the strongest
and fastest ones.  We must understand how a society dominated by
patriarchy influences the way in which we view athleticism.

I am utterly convinced that if we weren't living in a patriarchal
society, our conceptualization of sports and athletics would be
completely different than how we view sports and athletics today.  A
challenge to American people: stretch your mind and see how sports and
athletics would be different should our society not be dominated by
white, heterosexual males.  That is, what would happen in sports
should be value all four primary athletic characteristics (i.e.,
strength, endurance, flexibility, and speed) equally?

Steve Naumann-Sandoval



--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.GOV ("Daniel B. Holzman")
Subject: Re: Mythopoetic Groups
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: 16 Dec 92 21:48:35 GMT

In article <1gd2hsINNnn@agate.berkeley.edu>, sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
writes:
> 1.  These "men's" groups seem almost the same as the various "goddess-
>     religions" being created by some feminists.

Not true.  Not all mythopoetics are coming from an explicitly pagan
source, and not all of us who are pagan are coming from the "goddess
religions."  The way I practise it, Wicca has a God equal to the
Goddess.

> Why do some feminists criticize these groups so heavily?

Good question.  My best guess so far is fear of the unknown.

>     several thousand years.  Isnt it illogical to solve the problem
>     of stereotypes/edicts from these things by going out and inventing
>     more of them?

Only if you think of the images as limiting and stereotypical.  If we
envision thousands of role-models, we aren't limiting ourselves.

>     or "Lisa The Lawyer"?  This may seem trite but it looks like if
>     you want to change yourself/society you first have to live with
>     yourself/society, not putting on war paint once a week or making
>     rituals to nonexistent goddesses.

We are also not agreed as to the nonexistence of the Goddess.

--
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: rhb@world.std.COM (Robert H Brueckner)
Subject: Re: female athletes
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: 16 Dec 92 22:15:51 GMT

In article <1ggq7oINNhcm@agate.berkeley.edu> rgvdh@vtrl.src.mei.co.jp (R. van der Heide) writes:

/quoted material follows/
   rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brueckner) asks
   >Why don't women support female athletes to the extent that men support theirs?

   I want to change the question a bit.  Or just point out that it's
   unconsciously narrow.

   About a year ago, while I was riding the subway here in Osaka, I ran
   into two six-foot-tall african-american women on the train, and we
   started chatting.  It turned out they they were over here to play on
   the Sanyo Co. professional women's basketball team.  Both had what
   sounded like pretty impressive college carreers (not that I would
   know, I don't follow sports much).  One of them had previously played
   on a pro team in Italy.  I asked her if she liked traveling around the
   world, and she said that if you want to be a professional female
   athlete, you pretty much have to leave to US to find work, and that
   Americans payed less attention to women's sports than any other
   country she know of.  So:

   Why don't Americans support female athletes?
/end quoted material/

Good question. I think part of the answer lies in the fact that we are
so inundated with sports anyway. And part of it probably lies in the
fact that Americans, for whatever reason, don't value women's
achievements in this area perhaps as much as they should. But I wonder
if the other countries you're referring to subsidize their sports
teams. Certainly the Sanyo corporation subsidizes their team, which
I'm sure never turns any kind of profit. Japanese corporations are
notorious for having sports teams as PR ventures. But in America,
where the only subsidies for professional sports come out of your
pockets and mine, perhaps only the competitions the public really
wishes to see are the ones that get subsidized. I stand by my original
point: if women want female athletes to succeed, why don't they get
out to the games? If millions of women suddenly *demanded* women's
basketball on TV instead of L.A. Law or whatever else they're
currently watching, don't you think it would be on? Don't you think
the venues for such events would change from your local high-school
gym to the big arenas in major cities? And why should American men
feel obliged (yes, that's the word) to go and watch women athletes
when American women themselves don't?

RB
--
|"The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who  |
| have loved it." -- George Santayana  // Opinions expressed here, when |
| clear and persuasive, are my own. --Rob Brueckner (rhb@world.std.com) |


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: Julie Wright <julie@amazon.chem.columbia.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: (none)
Date: 19 Dec 1992 00:01:21 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Please post in soc.feminism.  Thanks

From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
In-reply-to: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com's message of 18 Dec 1992 20:21:12 GMT
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
	<JULIE.92Dec16180834@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu>
	<1gtbroINN850@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: world
--text follows this line--
biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:

>I (Julie Wright) wrote:
>>Perhaps the sexes respond differently because the dangers really are
>>different.  I'm probably not any more likely to be burglarized than my
>>friend in rural Pennsylvania, but she leaves her door unlocked and I
>>have several locks on my New York apartment.  We're both being quite
>>rational in our perceptions of risk, _I_ think, but if I started behaving 
>>like she does, well, what do you think would happen?

>If you think your risk of being burglarized in New York is the same as that
>of your friend in rural Pennsylvania - an assessment I do not share - then
>why do you consider it prudent to lock your apartment when she does not,
>and yet assert that both of you are rational in your risk assessment?
>Assuming that you mean to summarize all risks of becoming a victim of a
>crime under the general heading "burglary", your behavior should be the
>same as your friends, if the term "rational perception of risk" is to have
>its generally accepted meaning.

Sorry, my phrasing was confusing.  I meant that _given_ that my apartment
door has two locked locks on it, and _given_ that she leaves her door
unlocked all day, our risks are about the same.  (Well, they could be;
of course I don't really know this for a fact, but it seems plausible.)
The parallel was meant to illustrate that different behavior can more or
less equalize risk, which is what I was arguing could be happening when
women stay inside more than men.  I'm even less likely to start leaving
my door unlocked when I'm gone than I am to walk around at 3 a.m. by
myself the way my male friends do, but I think they and my Pennsylvania
friend are being reasonable in their behavior, given their circumstances.

---Julie


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Shaming men's sexuality
Date: 15 Dec 1992 18:51:08 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca (Charles J. Savoie) writes:

>Also, while it's on my mind, could someone give me an example of a
>*published* work which you believe is a female-bashing analogue to
>the phrase "at least it [penis] didn't grow on your face".  I would
>like to compare my own thoughts on the matter, and I can't think of
>any right now which degrade all women's bodies in quite the same way
>(but I'm sure it exists).

Flip through any softporn magazine which has cartoons in it or the `humour'
section of hustler magazine and you will see plenty of examples..


-- 
Al Aldrich aaldrich@encore.com 305-797-2335
"Mythology: The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its
origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished
>from the true accounts which it invents later." -- Ambrose Bierce


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Expression of attraction
Date: 13 Dec 1992 03:18:57 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1gbs6aINNpf4@agate.berkeley.edu> harikuma@enterprise.ifp.uiuc.edu (G. Harikumar) writes:
>Also, in any sport where physical fitness
>and athletism are involved, the women's
>level of play is "a zillion years behind the men's", to 
>quote John McEnroe. Women atheletes should be paid
>as much as men if and only if competitions are
>made gender-neutral. That is,  Martina Navaratilova 
>should have to beat Boris Becker before she wins
>the US Open. 
>
>Else, it is just more quotas. 

I'm curious if you think the divisions in men's boxing are quotas.
Since the heavyweights could probably win in every division, does that
mean that Sugar Ray Leonard should never have become a champion?  Or
that he should have been forced to box the likes of Mike Tyson to win?



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.