HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: panda@syrinx.umd.EDU (Lisa Nyman)
Subject: Re: Olympics and Exclusion of Women
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: 30 Jul 92 00:02:56 GMT

In article <151f8oINNlni@agate.berkeley.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
>In article <9207271328.AA04854@gateway.bnr.ca> HWT@bnr.ca (Henry (H.W.)Troup )
>writes:
>>But, the
>>Olympics included countries like Iran, which demanded a male placard
>>bearer because they refused to follow a woman!
>>
>
>Why the Olympic committee would allow such an action by Iran, et al is
>incomprehensible.  So is the U.S. not going along with the CEDAW.
>

While this was true in past olympics, including Seoul in 1988, I
remember seeing female name carriers in both Albertville and
Barcelona.  Of course it was hard to tell under that big bubble thing,
but the talkative TV broadcasters made no mention of the problem
as they did in Seoul.  Anyone care to confirm?  Apologies if my
eyes are truly as bad as the doctors say :)


--
Lisa Wolfisch Nyman         "Life is too short to wear ugly underwear."
panda@syrinx.umd.edu
Just remember, geographers do it in places unknown to the general public.
New from Dweeb Publishers: Memoirs of a Workstation Widow, Oh the Agony of It

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: muffy@mica.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy)
Subject: Re: FEMINIST CANDIDATES F
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:59:29 GMT

In article <14iau5INN36d@agate.berkeley.edu> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes...

>MB> So, can anyone tell me if these women are actually feminists, or
>MB> who the male feminist candidates might be?

>Better yet, Muffy, why don't we turn our sights towards looking for,
>and throwing our support behind EQUALIST candidates, both female
>*and* male?

Will, I don't care how you select the candidates you are going to
support.  I did not say anything, in fact, about *supporting* feminist
candidates, I just wanted to know who they *were*.  I would *still*
like to know, although there does not seem to be definitive
information on this.  In fact, that, in itself, is rather suggestive
to me.  I get the impression that people aren't sure how popular a
feminist stance would be, especially since there are so many ideas of
what a feminist is flying around, and so they make some pro-women
comments in speeches and hope that feminists pick up on them while
anti-feminists miss them.

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


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: rberlin@birdland.Eng.Sun.COM (Rich Berlin)
Subject: Re: The King of Spain, or: Is Womanizing Sexist?
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: SunPics -- A Sun Microsystems Business
Date: 25 Jul 92 05:41:37 GMT

In article <14f799INNehu@agate.berkeley.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>2) (The question that prompted me to write this posting.) I have
>an intuition about such behavior; even though the men exhibiting such
>behavior may be very good men, my intuition is that womanizing is
>usually wrong; that it is likely to end up hurting women; and that it
>diminishes the people who engage in it. I can't quite verbalize *why*
>I feel that way; that's why I'd like to hear from the readers of
>soc.feminism: Is womanizing likely to be an abuse of women?

"It diminishes the people who engage in it" is more than sufficient
reason for something to be wrong.  This message disturbs me, though.
I would like an explanation of why male promiscuity is any more
abusive than female promiscuity, i.e. why you're condemning this
particular behavior unilaterally.

It seems to me this is shaky ground for a feminist.  An adult having
sex with a child is clearly an abuse of that child, as the child is
presumed unable to completely understand the situation and therefore
unable to give fully informed consent; the child is being taken
advantage of unfairly.  There's something about your question that
makes it sound to me like adult women are being reduced to
less-than-adult status somehow.  On the assumption that we're talking
about consenting (and sometimes initiatory?) adult females here, how
can you rationalize it as an abuse?

-- Rich



--
===============================================================================
Richard.Berlin@Eng.Sun.COM   |   The significant problems we face cannot be
			     |   solved at the same level of thinking we were
			     |   at when we created them.  -- Albert Einstein

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: era@niwot.scd.ucar.EDU (Ed Arnold)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: negative population growth
Date: 27 Jul 1992 16:38:00 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
Reply-To: era@ncar.ucar.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In mail-men digest V24I15, att!iwlcs!colsmith (Marcia Colsmith) wrote:

>I agree that if you have to pick the one big problem in the world it is
>overpopulation, although it has different aspects in poor countries
>with many people (i.e., China) compared to rich countries with fewer
>but massively over-consuming people like the U.S., but it all boils down 
>to too many people making the world a dirty, unsafe place.

Along this line, I'd like to mention an article that came to my attention
recently.  I found it highly disturbing.

For many years, Planned Parenthood has been claiming that the ultimate
aim of the "pro-life" movement is to do away with birth control, and that
they have been successful in blocking much research in birth control.  I
never paid much attention to what they were saying, as I presumed that they
were exaggerating their case, as is so common.

The article I saw was titled "Why do Christians Use Birth Control", and
was written by Randall Terry.  In the course of this article, Terry claims
that: "excuses" for using birth control are the same excuses used for
abortion; "Christians" should trust God with how many children they will
have; implies that everyone should have large families by citing cases of
large familes in which the 5th or 10th child was a genius; says one should
never use *any* kind of birth control; if you have been sterilized, seek
a medical reversal; Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) is
in hell.

My psychiatrist claims that Terry is a classic example of an obsessive-
compulsive personality disorder/neurosis.  Whatever the case, it is now
clear to me that the far-right, lunatic Christian fringe is a real threat
to the future of all women in particular, and this planet in general.

Anyone who wants an ASCII copy of this article, may email me directly.
It just may make you angry enough to stand up to lunacy the next time
you encounter it.

-- 
Ed Arnold * NCAR * POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000 * 303-497-1253(voice)
303-497-{1298,1137}(fax) * era@ncar.ucar.edu [128.117.64.4] * era@ncario.BITNET


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Why She Took My Name
Date: 31 Jul 1992 02:07:48 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

histlib@erich.triumf.ca (Mary Olin) writes...
MO> If the following has been said a zillion times already, please forgive
MO> me, but it's important. Wedding rings, IMHO, are more symbolic
MO> of the sexist nature of traditional marriage than names. People express
MO> shock to me on a very regular basis at my lack of one, which tells me
MO> that it's an important statement. The ring is a straight forward
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
MO> signalling that one is POSSESSED by another.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I would be a little bit wary about accepting this.

If I am not mistaken, the purpose of wedding rings was to be a symbol of
fertility, ie., rings as unbroken circles, representing the unbroken circle
of life.

If I ever thought that my wedding ring means that my wife *owned* or possessed
me, then I would remove it.  We wear our rings to show our love for each other,
and *not* to show that we "own" each other, and certainly not to scare other
men and/or women away!  :-)

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                     "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * We all live in a yellow subroutine.


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Subject: Re: Segregation by sex, cont'd
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Coo-Coo-Caroo
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:47:01 GMT

(Rick Russell) writes:

>Let me make it clearer. After spending my entire adolescent life
>separated from girls at school, I formed *no* opinion about women.
>None whatsoever. I entered college life not knowing what to expect
>from women.

Frankly (for me), this is impossible to believe. Even if you grew up
without a mother, even if you grew up without female teachers, at some
point in everyone's life they begin to realize that they are of
one gender and that not everybody else is: i.e., that there is
a difference.

It seems to me that to say you had *no* opinion either means
that you didn't know what your opinion was at the time, or
else that you were in denial about the whole thing. You go
on to say:

>make it easier for the girls; I never saw girls 'play dumb' to get a
>boy's attentions. Several female friends, including my wife, have
>informed me that these were frequent practices in their own coed high
>schools. I really found *that* hard to believe.

The only reason I mention that is because it brings up for me a
similar situation I encountered. When I was 18 or so and living
in Manhattan years ago, some female friends would complain about
walking to the store or going down the street and how much of
a hassle it was.

I too, found it hard to believe, mainly because I never saw it.
They never seemed to get harassed when I was around. To demonstrate
one day, two of them made me stay at the corner. They didn't get
half-way down the street without several catcalls, etc. That day
I renewed my appreciation for a different (in this case a woman's)
perspective.

In any event, you may wish to examine what benefits having "no
opinion about women" could have given you at that earlier age.
Certainly there was a reason for it.

Dano

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: slarsen@verdi.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: men's issues vs. women's issues
Date: 22 Jul 92 16:57:27 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

I've been reading all these wonderfully phrased pleas 
for women to take up the gauntlet of men's issues 
or for all people to join together and fight the single 
good fight of "gender issues."  Very eloquent.

I think of life as a hike in the woods.  Here the 
man has hiked over stones, down ravines, up mountains, 
stealthily past sleeping critters.  Now he stands at the
raging river and he looks over to his companion for 
assistance.  Well, the companion is not by his side 
because she is still about a quarter mile back struggling 
to get out of the last ravine.

So are men and women of today really at the same spot 
in the woods? Have we really achieved a level of 
equality where we as a people can stand together to 
fight a common foe?  

Or, do women still have some catching up to do?

It strikes me that the woman on the road needs to 
get herself out of the ravine before she can join 
hands with her companion to face the raging river.
So, I guess that he can wait by that river 
until she catches up and is able to assist 
him.  Or, if he wants to speed up the hike, he could 
go back and give her a hand.  His choice.

Either way, though, I suspect that she'll figure a
way out of that ravine.


Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: uunet!mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!meshugge.media.mit.edu!cindy@ncar.ucar.EDU (Cindy Blank-Edelman)
Subject: Re: approach
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory
Date: 25 Jul 92 06:02:09 GMT
	<1992Jul16.025858.19045@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
	<149elmINN7ie@agate.berkeley.edu> <l6mjs0INN110@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>

Dano writes:

> This really becomes an interesting question: is there any way
> a heterosexual man 'may' approach a woman with the idea of finding
> out if she is interested in romance, that *couldn't* be
> construed as a harrassment, however slight? I think the case
> can easily be made that there is no way to accomplish this
> at least on a ethical-standard-for-all lever, probably because
> we are each far too individual to put up with something like that.

I believe that polite approaches to women to ask them out for a date
would not be construed as harrassing most of the time.  The problem
arises (I think) when such an approach takes place in an inappropriate
setting -- at work, or from a teacher to a student.  In arenas like
these where women are still fighting to be taken seriously, it would
be much more difficult to indicate a romantic interest without
harrassment.  Certainly, in these settings a man should take a "no" to
be final, and not continue to approach the woman romantically.  (This
is true for other situations as well, but I think there is a little
more leeway.)

I also think that not all women expect to be asked out anymore, and
many do the asking themselves.

--Cindy Blank-Edelman

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: cam@castle.ed.ac.UK (Chris Malcolm)
Subject: Re: The King of Spain, or: Is Womanizing Sexist?
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Edinburgh University
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:58:38 GMT

In article <14f799INNehu@agate.berkeley.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>1) For those of you who have some acquaintance with upper-class life:
>Are these stories true? Do most upper-class men regard sexual candy
>as their right, and legitimate privilege (and are they put under
>extreme temptation to do so)? Is this more true of the men in such
>circles, than the women?

Many women are attracted to powerful and influential men, and regard
it as very flattering to have the slightest relationship with them,
even just a one night stand. In pop circles they're called groupies,
but the same phenomenon exists in high political, financial, and
social circles. It's offered on a plate, so if you want to make a
judgement of whether the man in question is actively seeking it, or
simply taking what is given, you need to know a lot more detail.

--
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: pmfisher@milton.u.washington.edu (Patrick Fisher)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Women and power in society
Date: 30 Jul 1992 06:18:34 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

	Is this a valid academic statement: There are no known human
societies in which women play the most dominant roles.

	Any comments would be appreciated.  The comment is not mine
and it is not intended as flame-bait.  It was a true/false question
on a test.
	I believe that women have played very dominant roles in 
history, but I interpret the above statement as refering to the 
public sector of life.
	Pat-



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: danoc@earlybird.Eng.Sun.COM (Dan O'Connell [CONTRACTOR])
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: gender balance
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:00:56 GMT
Organization: Whiffleball Anonyomous

I write:

>>If a teacher is predisposed to favoring boys, that predisposition
>>may well show itself whether that teacher is teaching mixed or
>>single gender classes, yes?

beth diane garfinkel) writes:

>If we're talking about all-girl classes, it's a little difficult for
>the teacher to favor boys over girls (in terms of answering their
>questions or calling on them for answers,for example) if there are no
>boys present ;)

What I was getting at was that if a teacher has an inherent bias
towards boys, even if that teacher is teaching an all-girl class, the
same set of attitudes and expectations will assert itself; granted the
girls would get more attention, but the "sexist" attitude would be
unchanged.

It is also important to note that I was speaking about elementary
school children. IMO, collge age adults are another matter entirely.
By then we have probably already decided upon our sexual preferences,
we have already a developed personality, social group, etcetera.

These things are just being developed in early childhood, and that's
why socialization with a wide variety of people is important. It is
important to go to school with people who are different: smarter,
dumber, richer, poorer, blacker, whiter, more/less aggressive, and so
forth, for how we react and develop to those around us can provide for
a wider worldview than if we go to school with *only* those who are as
demographically like us as possible.

I will grant that going to school with just one's peers (in terms of
age, race, class, gender, IQ, etc) would probably lead to a better
early childhood education in terms of being able to "learn more
stuff", since there would be fewer distractions, but I think that view
ignores the plethora of reasons for early childhood education in the
first place.

Children learn far more than readin/writin/rithmetic, or how to sit
quitely while an adult drones on when far more interesting things are
happening just beyond that window; perhaps some of the most valuable
skills children learn is how to socialize and deal with others:
particularly those who challenge the individual, to learn about
appropriate and ethical behavior in a 'real-world' setting.


Dano

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: bickis@skmath3.pa.dec.com (M. Bickis)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: RE: Segregation by sex, cont'd
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:46:02 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

I didn't get too much positive response to this idea when I first
started this thread several weeks ago, but the discussion seems to have
picked up and gathered participants from other threads.

The drift I am getting is that single-sex schools (or single-sex classes)
*are* beneficial to women, particularly women pursuing a scientific
education.  While I can accept this idea on pragmatic grounds, I still
have trouble with it ideologically.

Someone (I lost track of who) posted the opinion that one should have
the right to volunteer for segregated classes (i.e. enforced segregation
is wrong, but voluntary segregation is o.k.).   How far is one willing
to push this idea?  Supposing that the male students at an engineering
school complain that they are distracted by the women in their classes,
and would prefer to have all-male classes.  Should one grant them that
right?  Or suppose the parents of z[ insert your favorite racial/ethnic
group here] thought it best if their children were educated among those
like them.  Would you grant them that right?  (Even if "z" was "white"?)

It appears to me that segregated education is addressing a problem
without really solving it.  I can see why women (or blacks) might
perform better in an environment in which their legitimacy is not
constantly being questioned, and thus I can see the point of it as an
interim solution, (like AA).  But I think it is more important to strive
for a world in which such solutions become redundant.

P.S. (I spent two years in an all boys high school.  Somehow I can't see
that this has had any appreciable effect about my attitudes towards
myself or towards women.)


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@math.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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.