HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 29 Aug 92 19:41:18 GMT
	<1bbnqca.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug26180417@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<l9cnk5b.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug27185934@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <MUFFY.92Aug27185934@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

<   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.

	Last September, I responded via email to a typical
	feminist post in which it was claimed by an individual
	who called herself "witchy" that only women
	are raped. I chose email as I knew that it was pointless
	to attempt to post any reply to soc.feminism, since
	I would be disagreeing with a "feminist".

	My email was posted with "witchy's" personal attacks
	on me; some people call such attacks "flames", but of
	course soc.feminism is flame-free according to Muffy,
	so they obviously weren't flames...right? Sure.

	All of my attempts to post *any* protest of this blatant
	abuse of email were rejected from soc.feminism. 

	So far as I can tell, the abuse of email for the purpose
	of flaming "unbelievers" is at least tolerated by the
	moderators of soc.feminism....
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Men as feminists
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 13:18:47 GMT

In article <AWERLING.92Sep1230710@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.191307.15144@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>
>> Every female feminist probably has a different answer.  BTW, there are
>> male feminists (imo--certain women say no men can be feminists).
>                  ^^^  ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^
>EEEK!  Why did you qualify this this way?  If a man defines himself as
>a feminist, and is sympathetic about what women are dealing with and
>how they are expressing themselves...and even stands out and speaks
>his mind about how women are treated, by God he's a feminist!
>
One argument for this position is that men will never have the same
life experiences as women and therefore cannot truly understand
feminism (and/or be trusted??).

I continue calling myself a feminist, since I have a higher opinion
of human empathy and I think the real problem is not that men *can't*
understand women/feminism, but that few try very hard.

However, while I like to think of myself as a feminist, I would not
necessarally argue the point with one of these women.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Men as feminists
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:07:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.191307.15144@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

> Every female feminist probably has a different answer.  BTW, there are
> male feminists (imo--certain women say no men can be feminists).
                  ^^^  ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^^
EEEK!  Why did you qualify this this way?  If a man defines himself as
a feminist, and is sympathetic about what women are dealing with and
how they are expressing themselves...and even stands out and speaks
his mind about how women are treated, by God he's a feminist!

--
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: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:43:56 GMT
Organization: Funk the Dumb Stuff!

In article <3870@keele.keele.ac.uk> mad19@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Mr The biggest chauvanist around. =) writes:
>
>THE CHAUVENIST PIG IS STRIKING AGAIN. HA HA HA 
     ^^^^^^^^^^

 know I probably shouldn't be responding to this, but I saw, the maeked bit and
it brought to mind a poem a friend sent me...

                    SPELLBOUND
 
           I have a spelling checker,
           It came with my PC;
           It plainly marks four my revue
           Mistakes I cannot sea.
           I've run this poem threw it,
           I'm sure your please too no,
           Its letter perfect in it's weigh,
           My checker tolled me sew.

Have a frilly day! :)

    Tyger 
                         -Quoted by Pennye Harper



Too funny, eh?

    BL

UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!bludlust
ARPA: crash!pnet01!bludlust@nosc.mil
INET: bludlust@pnet01.cts.com


-- 
      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: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:11:14 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1992Sep2.030706.2090@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:

>The problem is you *can't* absolutely "prove a negative" (in general).

I suspect I can come a lot closer to proving my coffee cup is NOT
a dog than you would come to proving it is one.

(Or substitute "not a dog in the room" if you want it that way.)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Followup-To: soc.men
Summary: Using others bathrooms
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:10:12 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.143737.3215@spider.co.uk>, ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid) writes:
> In article <PPESSI.92Sep3022446@vipunen.hut.fi> ppessi@vipunen.hut.fi (Pekka Pessi) writes:
> >	I have made a study about this subject last May Day. It took
> >		a woman to pee in men's room   35 secs;
> >		a man to pee in men's room     45 secs;
> >		a woman to pee in ladies' room 105 secs;
> >		no man peed in ladies' room. 
> 
> Call me old-fashioned, but I'm always startled/shocked to see women
> using the men's toilet. Neither I nor any of my male friends have ever
> used the ladies instead of the gents (supporting Ms. Pessi's findings
> above). Whilst I sympathise with women queuing for their toilet, I
> resent the fact that some women would scream blue murder if a guy
> wandered into the ladies (quite rightly so, I think), yet some women
> are quite happy to barge into the gents - it doesn't strike me as very
> fair! I've seen women using the Gents simply because they can't be
> bothered to walk a little further for the Ladies - how many women
> would smile sweetly at that excuse from a man using the Ladies I
> wonder?  I don't mind sharing a washroom, but I do object to
> asymmetry of access.

It's a little strange, the entire bathroom thing.  Women's bathrooms
are badly designed in any case - urinals take are of a lot of men
so women need more stalls.  They are just beginning to catch on to that.
You'd think bathrooms were some kind of a new invention.  I 
sympathize with the women who've used the mens room.  AFter being at
many concerts, craft shows, and other events I've seen lines of 20-30
women lined up at the women's room while dozens of guys just zip in
and out of the men's.

About men using the women's - only saw this once, but I think it's
very instructive.  many years ago, on a long road trip from NYC 
back to college in New Hampshire, a car load of us stopped for lunch.
After that we went around the side to use the bathroom.  There were
two bathrooms, one MEN, one WOMEN - although each was a one person
bathroom that you went into and locked yourself in before doing your
business.  So why one MEN and one WOMEN?  Why not two bathrooms and
you do your stuff?  Anyway, there were NO women present at the time.
NONE!  But there were 12 guys all hopping on one foot outside the
MEN door.  So we all looked at each other and we took our turns in
the ladies room (alone) and went on our way.  The question is not
why we did that - but why the other guys didn't.


marc colten

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gworrell@carina.unm.edu (Gayla M. Worrell)
Subject: Children's books
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 23:25:25 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: usa

In response to the person requesting information about children's books.
I am sorry I lost your posting, so I have no idea who you are or where you live.

If you live in a major city, you probably have a feminist bookstore in your areaThat would be the best place to start your search. If you cannot locate one, let
me know.  I have had a great deal of experience in the area of feminist publish-
ing and would be glad to help you locate resources in you area.

I applaud you decision to expose your child to non oppressive literature.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Gayla M. Worrell                              *   My employer is under the
University of New Mexico                      *   the impression that I have
Mental Health Center                          *   no opinion, so of course,
Albuquerque, NM                               *   these opinions must be my own.                              ************************************
Yes, Virginia, New Mexico is a state.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
From: grantg@bnr.ca (Grant Gilchrist)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: equality
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:49:22 GMT
Reply-To: grantg@bnr.ca
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fiber Systems Development

In article <25AUG199211354714@vx9000.weber.edu>, kkidman@vx9000.weber.edu (Kent Kidman) writes:
> As far as Olympians are concerned, I think it was Newsweek (I could be wrong on
> this) that compared current female Olympic times for swimming and running to
> men 20 - 30 years ago, and the current women won.  Maybe the reason women
> aren't as fast as men (at least in the Olympics) is that they have been
> discriminated against for so long that they are just behind.  Maybe they will
> catch up if they are allowed to try.

It all depends on what model you use for sports:  does the best
athlete in the world perform:

  A.  As well as s/he possibly can? Or,
  B.  Just well enough to beat those people s/he is competing with?

It seems you are assuming theory (B).  I would assume theory (A).  If,
in general, women COULD run faster than men, I believe that they WOULD
run faster than men, even when competing against other women.  Of
course, there's no way to prove which theory is correct except by
trying mixed events.

This raises the interesting question, however:  even if (A) is true,
is it "fair" to have a separate set of events for a group that you
assume from past experience will perform more poorly?  The majority of
the great basketball players in the world (to judge by the makeup of
the "Dream Team") are black, but no one these days would dare to
suggest that there be separate events for black and white teams.

-- 
Grant Gilchrist | OSI Protocols, Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ont., Canada 
grantg@bnr.ca   | My opinions aren't necessarily BNR's, or vice versa.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham)
Subject: Re: Walk For Choice
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date:  4 Sep 1992 08:29 EDT  

In article <185hmjINNk1h@agate.berkeley.edu>, dyer@marina.asd.sgi.com 
     (Dyer Crouch) writes...

>THE PRO-CHOICE COALITION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY (CA.)
>WILL BE PUTTING ON THE FOLLOWING:

Y'know, they have an entire newsgroup specifically devoted to this sort of
thing.  It's called "talk.abortion."  That's where this goes.

RG

Who *really* speaks for women?  NOW, with its 280000 members, or the NWCL,
with 1.8 *million*?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Gun Control
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 14:28:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism

As quoted from <1992Aug25.170015.764@igor.tamri.com> by donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin):

> In article <BtJLFF.2Do@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> olmstead@sail.uwaterloo.ca
> writes:
> >Re: Gun Control
> >
> >I'm not sure that this is the right group for this or if I should add my
> >two cents canadian via e-male (its a question not a comment). 
> 
> Well, my interest was in finding out whether feminists are typically
> for or against guns these days.  As I said, my wife is mildly pro-gun
> and her mother is vehemently anti-gun.  However, part of the reason my
> wife thinks that knowing how to use guns is a good idea, is that she
> is pragmatic about the need for women to be able to defend themselves.
> I was wondering if she is more of a typical feminist, these days.

I think discussing it primarily in terms of its relevance to women makes sense
here.

My mother used to be virulently (and stupidly) anti-gun.  The only thing she
ever had to say was "Getridofthegunsgetridofthegunsgetridoftheguns".  Then 
somebody hit her in the head and took her purse.  Her line changed to:
"Buymeagunbymeagunbymeagun".  I find this a typical pattern.  Nobody should 
have a gun... until they need it.  Of course by then it's usually too late. 

If women want to be independant of the goodwill of men for their survival,
they'd better be willing to defend that independance.  Stern lectures
do not an effective defense make, especially against serial rapists.



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:26:14
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Aug24.000255.10003@news.acns.nwu.edu> <1bbnqca.tyger@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: tyger@netcom.com's message of Wed, 26 Aug 92 06:26:22 GMT

In article <1bbnqca.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.000255.10003@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>>My impression reading soc.feminism was that the moderators were trying
>>harder to keep the discussion civil and related to feminism than to 
>>impose any particular view. 
>I would agree that keeping things civil is a good idea, in general, but lately
>I and others who have posted there or have tried to have compared notes, and 
>seen that prospective posts that appeared to us to be harmless, but in 
>disagreement with the party line, if you will, were rejected.

Well, I'd be *very* curious to know what "the party line" is.  If there
is one, no one told me about it, so I have not been rejecting posts on
that basis.  Would you please tell me what this party line is?

Thanks so very much...

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: grantg@bnr.ca (Grant Gilchrist)
Subject: Re: equality
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Reply-To: grantg@bnr.ca
Organization: BNR Ottawa, Fiber Systems Development
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 16:04:59 GMT

In article <Btp236.KsI@encore.com>, aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
> malu@imdpy1.im.se (Mats Luthman) writes:
> 
> >Actually, biologist say that men are bigger and stronger than women
> >because they fight EACHOTHER, as with most polygamic mammals (which
> >man untill recently has been (and still is claimed to be in a great
> >deal of the different societies on earth)).
> 
> >I guess this will start a flame war, but, the moral aspects of this
> >put aside, it seems quite reasonable, doesn't it?
> 
> No..it doesn't seem reasonable at all to me.. with the exception of
> boxers and wrestlers, I know of very few men who fight each other on
> a regular basis ( physically ) and it does not make any sense at all
> to me why the next generation would be bigger and stronger, by in large.
> If anything, men should be getting smaller and weaker since the
> majority of men sit in offices most of the day and sit on the couch
> all night.

Oh, be serious!  Men have only had (at most, and only in certain parts
of the world) a couple of hundred years of (comparative) lesiure to
undo hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.  Evolution just
doesn't work that quickly.  

--
Grant Gilchrist | OSI Protocols, Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ont., Canada
grantg@bnr.ca   | My opinions aren't necessarily BNR's, or vice versa.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The trashing of alt.feminism
Date: 2 Sep 92 20:23:01 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Sep2101343@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> In article <5372@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:

> [A demonstration of how much he really really wants to keep flaming out
> of alt.feminism.]

That was no flame, that was the truth.

>> Go get it yourself.  I'm not your mother. *snort*

> And thank God (or whatever) for that.  My mother isn't a hypocrite.
> Next time you ask someone to stop flaming, how about if you set a good
> example yourself?  Or is it that you simply want *me* to stop defending
> myself, but let everyone else continue to attack, including yourself?

Please feel free to flame all you like.  With every posting -- with every
attack you make you justify why you should not be a moderator.  

Al *snort*
From: honna@cs.concordia.ca (SEGEL honna)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 4 Sep 92 19:18:08 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

In article <LYNCH.92Aug31023446@flubber.cc.utexas.edu> lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch) writes:

>    Frankly, it looks like an excellent argument for a
>   moderated group to me. 


Frankly, the prospect of this group becoming a moderated group makes 
my skin crawl.  I wish there were an electronic equivalent of vomiting -
if there were, I'd be doing it right now.

Perhaps the tone of the  group can be changed a little for the better
by recognizing that schoolyard name-calling, and the ping-pong of 
"You said..." "Did not...YOU said..." are not really appropriate to
DISCUSSION.  Is it not obvious by now that the Interpretation of what
someone (has) said is also, and equally, a political act in itself?

I'm for moderation in comportment and tone in this newsgroup; I'm also
in favour of permanently removing moderation OF this newsgroup OFF OF the
agenda.

HS / Michael

 

-- 
***************************************************************
honna segel
department of computer science
concordia university  *****************************************
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Real world example
From: dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 14:04:25 GMT
 <1992Aug25.135004.26055@burrhus.harvard.edu> <1992Aug25.235447.7856@dgbt.doc.ca>
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA


To the best of my recollection, the physics question didn't specify sexual
preference.  Therefore it doesn't discriminate against homosexuals.
Ted Grusec also wants to be inclusive of hermaphrodites, transvestites.
I would prefer to believe that this was facetious.

Steve

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dpugmire%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (David Pugmire)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Date: 2 Sep 92 10:54:14 MDT
Organization: University of Utah


> How important is it to change the language to make it non-sexist?

Aren't there more important things to worry about than this?  If we
don't solve the national debt, everyone is going to be oppressed -taxed
to death.  I know a lot of women who could care less if freshman/first-year-student or man hole/hole-in-the-street is used.  When 
Mankind is used, they know it means everyone.  I know that
problems exist, and they need to be solved, but little things like this just
tend to make people who aren't feminists more anti-feminist.

I think the only really solution is to stop trying to force everybody.
I think a better solution is to let business owners run their business anyway
they want.  If someone decides to only hire whites, or only give non-whites
janitorial jobs or use sexist language, let the community get together, protest outside of the business, organize boycots, etc.  Then they'll realize that in order to do business in this town, they'd better be fair.  
Again you try to force someone to run their business a certain way, or eliminate
certain words from their vocab, they are going to get mad.

I hear a lot of people yelling stop legislating morals in regards to abortion.
Being fair is a moral issue isn't it ?  What is this, against all morals except
for feminist morals ????

Thanks for your time.
If I'm missing something important, please let me know,

dp