HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Star Trek Opening
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:12:08 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep10.061358.27453@leland.Stanford.EDU>, 
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> I've always found it a bit amusing because the image I have is of a
> man having sex with a virgin ("to boldly go where no man has gone
> before").  Of course, I have problems with the generic masculine...

Though you must admit that the image you have is not that inaccurate for
Kirk... :-) 
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Fitch Focuses On Dworkin (Was: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminists (Was: Feminism & Women's Studies))
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Sep4171409@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<ZEN.92Sep8111833@death.corp.sun.com> <1992Sep8.222352.24422@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:54:32 GMT


	Since Fitch has chosen to dodge the issue of stereotypes
	about men in favor of ranting about Dworkin, the subject
	line has been changed.



<In article <1992Sep8.222352.24422@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

<   I don't agree.  I think Dworkin is important for two sets
<   of people (especially the intersection thereof), (1) right-
<   wing social reactionaries, i.e. fascists, who use her to
<   confuse people who would normally be in oppostion to 
<   them, \

	Interesting. Is Fitch asserting that all of Dworkin's
	followers are "right-wing social reactionaries"?

	The entire membership of WAP? All of the anti-porno
	supporters in Canada? The folks in Massachusetts
	pushing Dworkin's anti-porno (really anti-1st
	Amendment) bill?

	Hmm...that's an awful lot of "rwsr's", Fitch,
	and more than a few of them also belong to
	NOW.

<and (2) anti-feminists, for whom she is a useful
<boogie-man.  
<On her own, she would command very little
<   attention, although she might be permitted to clown on
<   some late-night television talk show.

	No fanatic makes much headway without followers,
	Fitch. 

	So Dworkin's followers are all either "rwsr's"
	or antifeminists? Strange, I've not heard of
	NOW as an organization generally populated
	by "right-wing social reactionaries" OR "antifeminists"
	before....but I am informed that the Boston chapter 
	of NOW has some number of Dworkin
	supporters.

	And just who are all those women paying good money
	to hear Dworkin speak?

<   I'll bet Dworkin has been mentioned a hundred times by
<   anti-feminists for every time she's been mentioned by
<   feminists.
 
	Since this assertion cannot be proved or disproved,
	Fitch is safe.
From: vogelges@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Ralf Vogelgesang)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:58:30 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department

In article <BuDu5o.4sB@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> england@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (julie england) writes:
>In article <buescher.716084703@betwixt> buescher@betwixt.ugcs.caltech.edu (Brent Joseph Buescher) writes:
>>[Lots of the old girl/woman argument deleted]
>>
>>In many ways I see this as a corallary to the use in German (for example)
>>of "du" and "Sie"; "du" being the familiar term and "Sie" the polite
>>honorific for strangers.  I usually do refer to young women (my
>
>Interesting analogy to German.  As an aside, in the german language
>they refer to young girls with the pronoun "it".  Something to
>think about.
>
>Julie

being German, I'd like to put my 2 cents worth in about this.

We do use 'it' only when referring to "das Maedchen" -- a smaller form
of "die Maid" (she) (not in use any more).

When referring to a boy, we do say "der Junge" (he) or a similar word.
But there also is "das Juengchen" (it) (again not commonly in use).

It is the "smaller form" that seems to be causing the "it", not so
much the gender itself.  Yet it is peculiar that women are still
observed as being smaller and men are not.  The old protector image?

Another thing that is on the decline in usage, is "das Fraeulein".
Again; take "die Frau" make her smaller, and she becomes it.  But
even crasser, yet,  as in this particular case it is understood that
the woman is unmarried.  Try the same thing on "der Mann" who is not
married -->  "das Maennlein" would sharply protest!

--Ralf
From: jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:08:53 GMT
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900

I'd like to comment on some of your statements about Jacsun Shah's
character.
  
> => Her statements are the product of a sever personallity disorder.  They
> => are without merit.
 
I'm puzzled how you can know so much about a person's character from
reading one article written by them.  What is it exactly in her article
that persuades you that she has a personality disorder?  Are you a
clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist or just an amateur diagnostician?
Does hating men automatically qualify a person for the label "personality
disorder" or is there something else involved here that I missed?
  
> => We should save our praise for women of character, women who have made
> => something of themselves and women who are positive examples of fully
> => developed human beings.  There are millions of women who would fit
> => that description like the the athelete that posted about being the
> => first female to play collegiate ice hockey.  Or my sister-in-law who owns
  
I'd like to know more about what in life allows a women to qualify for
"character."  What if she has done some socially significant things but
also "hates men with full force" and says so honestly in a newspaper
article?  Does the writing of the article remove her good character?
  
> Do you mean Jacun Shah has good character?  If so you, are right we do have
> different definitions.  I do not agree that all lifestyles are equivelent.
 
Again, please spell out your definition.  I'm very interested.  
  
> do not understand how Jacun Shah could aid any person in learning how to
> think for themselves.  
 
I'd like to answer that.  When I read the newspaper, I see a lot of "news"
about male issues, male accomplishments, male opinions.  The actual NEWS
part of a newspaper has very little about actual women and what women do.
Editorial material like the Jacsun Shah article provides ANOTHER POINT OF
VIEW.  I'd like a lot more of that kind of thing in newspapers.  Some
women grow up thinking there is no alternative to being a not-quite-male
person, and that's a shame, IMO.
  
I happen not to agree with her opinions.  I like men a lot.  But I do hate
the way women are alternatively ignored and villified when they express
their opinions.  And I like the way she expresses herself clearly enough
to get in print.  
  
I can respect that the things she says in the article might make you mad
and defensive.  But your personal attacks on someone you don't even know
are disgusting.
  
In my value system, a person's character depends on their honest dealings
with other people, keeping their promises, fulfilling their
responsibilities not on whether they happen to hate men.
  
I have met Jacsun Shah, and I rate her character higher than yours, so
far.
-- 
Jaclyn Brandt
jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
--
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 22:40:09 GMT

From article <mcline.1d2a@terapin.com>, by mcline@terapin.com (Matthew Cline):
[...]
> 
>         No, I think that it should be changed because its not doing what its
> supposed to.  For instance, the word "man" is supposed to be the generic for
> humans.  However, the test I talked about showed that when "man" is used as a
> generic, it isn't interpreted as a genric.  Thus, it isn't doing its job, and
> should be replaced by a word that will be interpreted the same way as it is
> used.
> 
> Matthew Cline
> mcline@terapin.com

Is the test you are refering to where the wording in various titles were 
changed from man to human?  (I remember that one, but the post scrolled off
so I can't check if it wass you)

(If so)  One of the problems with a test like this is that in today's usage
the supposidly neutral term actually refers to a woman.  For example, what
sex is a spokesperson?  If I had to guess I would say female, because a man
would be a spokesman.  So if I see a book title which makes an obvious effort
to use a neutral term I would certainly expect more people to think it is 
about women.

The problem I see with making all these word switches is that if society 
remains the same the new word will soon take on the same meaning and 
connotations as the old.  What sex comes to mind for Nurse?  Engineer?  
Secretary?  Prostitute?  Mugger?  None of these words contain man, yet 
all bring to mind a certain sex (should we change those names also?).  
So if spokesperson is now used all the time for spokesman, but 90% of the 
spokespersons remain men, soon spokeperson brings up the same mental image 
as the old spokesman did.  Conversely, I think if the word spokesman was 
used, and most spokesman were women--and that term was applied to them; 
instead of spokeswoman or person as is done today, that the word spokesman 
would bring to mind a woman.

There is this feeling that changing the label somehow changes how
people will feel about something.  Do people really feel better about
paying 'revenue enhancers' rather than taxes?  Are African-Americans more
respected than blacks, or Afro-Americans, or Negroes, or Colored, or, what's
the newest term, People of Color?  

A spiffy label may help a manufacturer sell a few more cars, something where
you are trying to differentiate between similar products or ideas, but it
won't do much to influence an already formed opinion--if nothing else
changes the new word merely takes the place of the old.

SEH
From: mcline@terapin.com (Matthew Cline)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:22:26 PST
Organization: BBS

In article <9SEP199213183276@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov
(JAMES ZAKANY) writes:
>In article <1992Sep8.212553.5902@gtephx.UUCP>,
> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes...
>
>>In article <mcline.1d2a@terapin.com>,
> mcline@terapin.com (Matthew Cline) writes:
>
>>> In article <4SEP199215550439@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>,
> spzkny@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (that's me, folks) writes:
>
>[discussing the usage of "man" in English]
>
>Okay, enough thread background.
>
>Well, Matt, I honestly didn't know that language was running amok, getting 
>in all sorts of trouble, and generally not doing what it's supposed to do.  
>                                  :-)
>Centuries of use and convention have neutered the male pronoun.  Its usage 
>is clear and concise - nothing else is.
>                                                  James S. Zakany

What I was saying. or at least what I meant to say, was that even though "man"
is *understood* by everyone to mean neutered humans, it is not always
*interpreted* that way.  the study that I was talking about showed that when
chapters of a history book were entitled "Political Man", "Industrial Man",
etc., that in the minds of the readers that images of males were enduced more
often then when they were entitled "Political Humans", "Industrial Humans",
etc.  This means that, in the minds of the readers, that "humans" is more
neutered that "man" is, despite centuries of use and convention.  Thus,
"humans" evokes the image of neuterage (if that's the correct word) more
effectively than "man" does, inspite of the fact that everyone knows that "man"
means a neutered person.  In my view, this means that "humans" does its job
better than "man", and this is why I think that "humans" should replace "man".

Now this doesn't apply to phrases like "police man" and "fire man", which
should be used replaced by phrases that are descriptive, like "police officer"
and "fire fighter".  And this does NOT apply to words like "manipulate",
"manage", etc., because the "man" in the words does not refer to any person.

Matthew Cline
mcline@terapin.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Makeup
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 11 Sep 92 11:56:42 +1200
 <1992Sep4.053905.13189@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Sep4.054153.14434@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

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?

Why do you assume I wear makeup??

When I do, it is because makeup is part of the garb I feel is appropriate
for what I am doing. Usually serious eyeing-up-the-compedition-partying,
as opposed to serious dance partying, where makeup is pretty much out of
the question, and even hair gel gets washed out after a couple of hours.

MOZ
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Grading papers
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 04:46:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep8.154304.717@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:

[...]
>
>>Perhaps the laguage had sexist orgins, but do not call me a sexist
>>because I accurately practice my language.
>>keith
>How about I call you a sexist because you act like one, then? Why does
>accurately carrying out a sexist practice not make you sexist? 

Then we are -all- sexist. What's the big deal? Furthermore, I can
intrepret just about anything you might do as meaning anything which
gets my ire up, therefore you are automatically guilty of these things
as well, and a(n) <nasty thing>ist.

Carrying out any single action probably means nothing. Consistantly
doing something means something. Your above example justifies judging
(and condeming) a book by looking at it's cover.

>                                                                For
>example, can I call someone a Christian just because they accurately
>practice the Christian religion, or is there some other ground?

No, this is just another aspect of judging a book by it's cover. Listen
not to what people say about themselves, or what they say they do, judge 
them more by what they do. And even then, you can be wrong. Personally,
I prefer to judge their words only, and try to get the argument (in the
logical sense) correct.

>                                                                     And
>if I think they are (wonderful/sexist/oldfashioned) because of this should
>I then deny them that label because they are also Christian??

Rather do not give then that label -because- they claim to be Christian, or
because you assume that they are for whatever reason.
 
>*love* & *hugs*
>  ____MOZ___   (moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)
> /\  _______\
> \ \ \____  /     That it has taken this long for people to be
>  \ \ \/ / /      Bisexual and proud of it has to do, I think, with
>   \ \/ / /       this idea that either you're with men or you're
>    \  / /        against men.             -- Judith Levine
>     \/_/

Err, there are still many who are male, not with men, and not against men.


Rich

payner@netcom.com




Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 92 13:03:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <716367849@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Sep13.174007.794@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> 
>moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>
>>> >gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>>> >| Communism is bankrupt; there is not communist state where most people
>>> >| support it and want to be there.
>
>>what ever happened to Cuba? Ok, it's not economically viable, but then
>>neither would a capitalist state in a communist world be...
>
>When was the last time that free election were held in Cuba?
>
>>> Is there any experience, or a serious of experiences, that can 
>>> convince you the communism can't work?  You see, I'm interested 
>>> in theory only when it can be checked by experiments.
>
>>vis: define `success'. 
>
>Having a society where most people want to keep its basic structure.
>
>>Cuba worked for a number of years. 
>
>Communism may work for a generation or two, especially if it 
>comes after a corrupt regime, but it can't survive for too long.

Is not communism, or it's nearest equivalant, socialism, still alive
and well in China?
 
>
>>*love* & *hugs*
>>  ____MOZ___
>
>Hillel                                             gazit@cs.duke.edu
>
>"Intimacy is very important to me, and I take it very seriously;
>this is why I detest the current fad of hugging everyone around one." 
>                                             --  Clay Bond


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: spzkny@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 10 Sep 1992 12:18 EST  

In article <716073607@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes...

>The government should have no right to sterilize people 
>against their will, and it is not the damn business of 
>the government to keep records of who has had an abortion.

The government should have no right to do most of what it does!
And half the records they keep are none of their damn business, too.

Still, there is a great resentment towards those who lack personal 
responsibility.  Any measure of "reproductive rights" must be tempered with 
"reproductive responsibility".  Those who ignore responsibility for their 
actions should not assert that it's their right to do so.

                                                  James S. Zakany
						(no e-mail, please)
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Keywords: bathrooms
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:16:32 GMT

Idbil Fubar writes:

>ps.  You do realize it is illeagal for me to take a piss in the woman's room
>yet you can waltz in to the men's room as if nothing is going on...even though
>urunals don't have doors

Does anyone know if this is really true?  Does it vary state to state?
Could such an imbalance hold up in court in an ERA state?

Since my mother is in a wheelchair and needs help in the restroom,
my father *routinely* walks into the women's room "as if nothing is 
going on."  (I suppose they could go into the men's room, but it is
*she* who has to go, not him, so they use 'her' room.)  In the more than
a decade of doing this, no woman has ever complained.  And while it is 
a special circumstance that everyone seems to understand, he, she and I 
would be quite surprised if it were actually illegal.

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:901 soc.women:16361
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Interesting Survey
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:45:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of California, Riverside

I have extracted from a news article the results of a very interesting
survey done by women with a track record in polling.  Two things I
that I find of interest are that Women do not seem to differ from men
on these issues and what is not on the list.

		-= Economics Is Women's Top Worry =-

The following information is extracted from a survey commissioned by the Ms.
Foundation for Women and the Center for Policy Alternatives.  The heart of the
survey is the public opinion poll cunducted by five respected pollsters
inculding Democrat Celinda Lake and republican Linda DiVall.  Among the
survey's major findings were: 

     o Asked what they worry about most, women said:

       Economy and jobs ( 26 percent )
       Health care      ( 14 percent )
       Crime	        ( 12 percent )
       Education	( 12 percent )
       Drugs		( 11 percent )

     o Abortion and rape, traditional organizing issues for feminist 
       political groups, were well down the priority list at:

       Abortion		( 7 percent )
       Rape		( 2 percent )

       NOTE:  Support for a law that would guarantee continued access to
              abortion.  ( 53 percent ).

     o More concerns

       Won't be able to make ends meet.  ( 33 percent )
       Someone in family will lose job.  ( 33 percent )
       Won't be able to pay rent.	 ( 25 precent )
       Become sole supporer of family.   ( 25 percent )

RANDOM NOTES:

     o  Main problems facing women:

        Demands of earning a living and family care.    ( 50+ percent )
        women's lives have improved durring last 30 yr. ( 75  percent )

     o  Government policies needed that will

        Will iprove their ability to provide for families.
        Provide time with families.
        Health care reform.
        Equal pay and flexile work hours.
        More female leaders.

starbuck
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 22:13:46 GMT

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!

						--  Michal

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? 
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Aug31.131028.24524@coli.uni-sb.de>
	<Bturnu.7z4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <BtuwFH.FIq@encore.com>
	<AWERLING.92Sep1225713@dante.nmsu.edu> <bgarfink.715970352@silver>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:55:18 GMT

In article <bgarfink.715970352@silver> bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel) writes:

- Try "gal."  It's a variant of "girl" whihc most often calls to mind a
- grown woman.

Don't ask me why, but "gal" sounds hickish, unlike "guy."  Not that
hickish is a negative thing, but it kind of makes the two nonparallel.
Am I the only one who has this reaction to "gal"?

I mean, "gal" seems more like the parallel to "dude" than to "guy."

--
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