HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 17 Nov 92 11:59:45
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Nov16115724@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1e97utINNmem@transfer.stratus.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anableps.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: dswartz@sw.stratus.com's message of 16 Nov 92 22:39:24 GMT

In article <1e97utINNmem@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov16115724@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> In article <1e3t92INNr0f@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>> > I'm sure if a man posted such snide, condescending putdowns on soc.women, you'd have a cow. 
>> 
>> *LAUGH*...well, I never have cows, and I never read soc.women, so I'm
>> sure that you're wrong.

>Sigh.  I think it's pretty clear what I meant, and the point's no less
>valid because you don't read soc.women.

Actually, it is.  I neither read nor post to soc.women (except from
alt.feminism, where everything I respond to seems to be crosss-posted
there), nor have I (as you admit) ever expressed the idea there that it
was "my space" and that you (men) shouldn't pollute it with "this kind
of crap."  Indeed, I don't feel that way at all.  Therefore, your point
is completely invalid.

>BTW, since you seem to be into hairsplitting, can I assume some
>significance in the fact that you didn't disagree with my description
>of your postings? 

Absolutely.  I was defintely being rude and condescending, in response
to a rude post.  And I agree with you that the person I was responding
to was a bozo.  *smile*.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Xref: sparky soc.women:19704 soc.men:19394
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: what is sexist? (was Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:03:18 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <MUFFY.92Nov14085529@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>Maybe if you get someone to translate my posts for you,
>you would make more sensible replies to them.

That's it, Muffy -- once logic fails you, as it inevitably will, resort to
those good old-fashion personal attacks.  Gee, of all the people in the
world, I thought you would be the last to pull a George Bush.

Daniel Welch
Xref: sparky soc.women:19823 alt.feminism:4651 soc.men:19502
From: rh@smds.com (Richard Harter)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: In pursuit of the perfect insult
Date: 18 Nov 92 06:43:50 GMT
Reply-To: rh@ishmael.UUCP (Richard Harter)
Organization: Software Maintenance & Development Systems, Inc.

In article <1992Nov17.162445.28368@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>But if you are *trying* to be rude -- I don't know why they would be
>off limits.  I believe that they are more acceptable to the gentle 
>reader than "asshole."  

Well, now, this raises an interesting topic, the ancient art of the
insult.  If I apprehend the matter correctly, insults serve three purposes,
dominance, aggression, and bonding.  Insults for the sake of dominance
attempt to establish the superiority of the insultor and the inferiority
of the insultee.  Insults for the sake of aggression attempt to directly
wound the insultee.  Insults for the sake of bonding is best not discussed
in mixed company.

Now it seems to me that if the purpose of the insult is naked aggression,
then anything within the bounds of the Geneva convention is in order.
The only artistry involved is in the fine judgement of where best to
place the knife and how deep to cut.

Status based insults, on the other hand, offer almost endless scope for
artistry.  It has been said that we live in an impoverished culture; in
other cultures the insult is a fine art form.  In such cultures the role
of the insult is subtle; the object is to establish superiority by 
displaying the greater proficiency in the art of insult.

One question that perplexes me is whether insults can be politically
correct.  If the patriarchy is no more than a fossilization of primate
dominance, how can it be politically correct to participate in dominance
rituals?
-- 
Richard Harter: SMDS Inc.  Net address: rh@smds.com Phone: 508-369-7398 
US Mail: SMDS Inc., PO Box 555, Concord MA 01742.    Fax: 508-369-8272
In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
From: jem@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Joan McGalliard)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Chippendales et al
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:50:48 GMT
Organization: Australian Computing and Communications Institute


I wonder if people here would regard Chippendales'
men-calendars etc as inoffensive if they had been to the
ladies night night at a local strip-club that I attended*.

The behaviour of the women in the audience was fairly
horrible.  They were shouting, grabbing at the men, playing
with them like they were toys.  Even the waiter in a g-string was
part of the floor show.  One member of our party said to him
"she wants to touch your bottom".  "That's what I am
here for," he replied.  I do not think that men at female
strip show could have behaved worse (I have heard, indeed,
that generally men are polite during such shows).

If this is the way of the future - some men being reduced 
to sex toys for some women, while some women remain as male
sex toys, it makes me sad.  While I would agree that at the
moment the calendars are mainly fun and a reaction to
swimsuit calendars, I am not sure that this "affirmative"
action is taking our society somewhere that we would want to
go.

(Oh, and if you are interested, the all strippers - except
one - undressed entirely.  I think this actually
added to the objectification.  The men became "dicks" the
way female strippers can be reduced to "tits and cunts")

joan

*Explanation:  the only reason that I was there was because
it was organised as a pre-wedding party for a friend of
mine, who had expressed a strong dislike for the idea.
Little as I wanted these people to have my money, support 
for my friend seemed to outweigh this.  In retrospect I really
regret having attended.
-- 
 "It's better to live on your     Joan McGalliard, 
  feet than to die on your        Australian Computing and 
  knees."                         Communications Institute.
                                  (borrowing latcs1)
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:01:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov18.220043.24431@news.nd.edu> slarsen@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>  One game that we have played for years, though, is used when we 
>watch TV:  "What are they trying to make you think?"  It is a 
>fun game with little kids and commercials.  Now that she is 
>older, we play it with full-length shows.  Often, when a new 
>commercial airs, Iris will turn to me and say "They're trying 
>to make me think my socks are yucky" or some such other 
>observation she has made on her own.


   This is a great idea!   I've heard some educators suggest that
   schools ought to regularly have field trips to TV studios, or
   if possible, to on-location filmings of movies and TV shows.
   Besides being educational and something the kids would probably
   enjoy immensly, these helsp to "break the spell" of TV by
   illustrating or reminding that TV is *produced*.   

   Another exercise in this regard was mentioned in a book _Four
   Arguments For The Elimination of Television_ by Jerry Mander
   (with a name like that he ought to be a political reporter!).
   In some college classes on advertising or TV production people
   are taught to count or note what are called "technical events"
   (changes of camera, or camera angle, or zooming, etc .. things
   that don't happen in real life).  Apparently once people are 
   taught to be aware of these it's hard for them *not* to notice
   them regularly -- this, too, "breaks the spell".   Incidentally 
   the number of technical events is a rough measure of how expensive
   something is to produce -- advertising typically has more technical
   events per minute than the shows themselves.


---peter


  



Newsgroups: soc.women
From: N2SX <N2SX@UNB.CA>
Subject: <none>
Organization: The University of New Brunswick
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 22:43:30 GMT

A couple of general questions from a psychology student: 1. How
would readers of this group react to unisex washrooms?  2. Under
what circumstances (if any) would you enter a washroom of the
opposite sex?  I appologise if anyone finds this topic
uncomfortable.  My assignment is to condust an informal survey of
some aspect of everyday human psychology.  Any assistance would be
appreciated.  Thank you.

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 04:55:08 GMT

In article <BxvJp7.12o@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.163629.1172@mr.med.ge.com> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>>The pain of being transexual is almost to much to bear. Many Transexual
>>people kill themselves over the internal conflict. We are branded as crazy
>>by many who have no idea of how we feel. I have never thought or dreamed
>>like my male friends. I have had to force myself (with great difficulty) to
>>act and react like a male. My therapist says the hardest part will be to
>>drop the male shell I have hidden myself in (so that I could survive as a
>>male). 
>
>   There is at least one branch of feminist thinking that tends 
>   to downplay the concept that gender roles are anything more 
>   than the results of socialization.  These people believe that
>   any suggestion that there are innate differences in affect
>   or intellect to be highly questionable and in any case that
>   such suggestions, or research that would tend to focus on 
>   such things, are politivally incorrect.   (a couple of decades
>   ago the concept that gender differences were mainly socialization
>   was a common theme among many feminists; I don't know whether
>   it still is.)
>
>   How do those who hold this view square it with the opinions 
>   of posters like the above?   Transexuals will frequently claim
>   that they "feel like" a member of U sex in a V body.   Indeed,
>   interesting philosophical questions are raised by just asking
>   what it means to "feel like" a member of a certain gender.

My understanding of transsexual people is that they feel at odds with
their bodies, that their bodies are of the wrong sex.

If a man were to say, "I don't feel like a man because I don't like
sports, I like theatre and music," and yet be very happy with the fact
he's male and doesn't want to be female, I would say that he's just
suffering from cultural stereotypes, something feminism is trying to
free us of (imo).  However, if this man were to say that he hated his
male body and always wanted to be female, I would say that he's
transsexual.

I, too, have some problems with "I've always felt whatever gender."  I
have no problems with, "I've always hated my female (or male) body and
want to be of the other sex."

I'm sure Wendy has more insight than either of us about this, though.

Xref: sparky soc.women:19978 alt.feminism:4745 soc.men:19618
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 19 Nov 1992 19:44:42 -0800
Organization: Hell's Little Breakfast Nook
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna) writes:
> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>>
>>I will say this. You are looking at this from one side only. I am starting
>>to see it from the other side. Whether you believe it or not, women are 
>>looked down upon in this society. Very few men treat them as equals. 
>
>But don't tell me that I, as a woman, am treated in such-and-such a 
>way and that you can prove this through your own experience.  I don't
>buy it.  

One counter-example does not disprove a generalization, because the
nature of a generalization does NOT imply that there exist NO counter
examples.  Let's take a different tack.  Do you feel that all or even 
most women in this society are treated as equals?

Teri
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Cold Marriage
From: Stafford@Vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU (John Stafford)
Date: 23 Nov 92 10:44:40 -0600
Followup-To: soc.women
Distribution: world
Organization: MSUS

In article <By21JL.MA2@NeoSoft.com>, martink@NeoSoft.com (Martin Koistinen)
wrote:
> 
> [heartbreaking story of cold wife deleted]


Her sexual and affectionate temperment is legitimate albeit neither typical
nor popular.
She would probably be very happy with a man
who had a similar temperment.

She could enter counseling under a therapist
who assumes everyone has a strong libido and
she may discover her libido.  She could also
grow resentful and perhaps ill.  It is terrible
to be told by an 'authority' that you are not
'normal' when normality is almost irrelevant.

Best of luck.  I'm very sorry for your situation.
It was painful to read your story.  If I were in
your situation, I'd pursue counseling and try
a number of counselors and be prepared to divorce.
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:52:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Supermodels contribute to spiraling low self esteem?
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
    >Perhaps feminists would feel better about themselves if the only pictures
    >in magazine ads, posters, etc. were of ugly sloppy pathetic women.  Is that
    >a solution to their self-esteem problems?  I doubt it.

Although I agree that advertizements does not need "ugly sloppy pathetic"
women as the models, I would like to see more variety.  I see no real reason
that all ads have to have someone 5'8",100lbs,with long, thick hair.  Why
is a woman 5'4", 120 lbs, with short hair not just as good at advertizing a
vacuum or car?
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:22:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov17.221225.21312@cbnews.cb.att.com> eleanor@cbnews.cb.att.com (eleanor.j.evans) writes:
>In article <2882@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
>>
>>....If you don't
>>believe this, check out an issue of "Ms." magazine.  Count the number
>>of adds for perfumes, make-up, clothing, breast enlargements, etc.  And
>>remember, this is a *feminist* magazine.
>
>Why don't you check one out?  NO ads.  NONE.  Whatsoever.

  True.  Dumb posting, Dan.  _Ms_ went non-commercial a couple of
  years ago.

  But let's not lose sight of the issue:  _Ms_ also has a very
  modest circulation.   

  Some of the largest circulation magazines in the US are the 
  "women's" magazines -- several far exceed the circulation of, say,
  _Playboy_ and probably read more on a per-issue basis since
  it's socially acceptable to leave them out where impressionable
  girls can read them whereas I suspect lots of "men's magazines" 
  end up under somebody's mattress.   

  These women's magazines are supported by the fashion and cosmetic
  industries which are, in turn, supported by *women* by their
  purchases.   

  And, as I pointed out in an earlier posting, while it's true
  that we are all under social pressure to conform to certain
  roles and behavior and consume certain products, that pressure
  *can* be resisted!    Women have to face enough *genuine*
  harassment and discrimination that it's alsmost criminal when
  they actively promote a set of cultural values that further
  denigrates them.   It's truly bizarre.  I'm at that age where
  a lot of my friends have children and I see mothers in generation
  taking their 9-year old girls out to get their ears pierced or
  to buy makeup and jewelry, setting them out on the road to
  becoming obediant little consumers preoccupied with conforming
  to some artificial standard of beauty.   Last Christmas my
  10 year old niece got a mall shopping game! 
        

---peter  

  
  

  
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie)
Subject: Re: Practise what you preach? (was:what is sexist?)
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:21:27 GMT

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

>In article <1ebp37INNdch@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>> Oh, you're not one of the avowed feminists who feel men shouldn't post to
>> soc.women (unless they agree with feminist viewpoints), since soc.women is
>> "womyn space"?

>Exactly.

I then assume, Muffy, that you also agree that women should not post to
soc.men unless they agree with male viewpoints, since soc.men is MEN space?
-Doc

-- 
=============================================================================== The Commodore Amiga 4000 - 24 bit          16,777,216 colors (4096^2)!!         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buster: "Say goodnight, Babs."                                                 
Babs  : "Goodnight, Babs."                                                      I'm tiny, I'm toony, and I'm a little looney!                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darren MacKenzie                                                                ("The Doctor")                                                                  890530m@aucs.acadiau.ca
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:14:25 GMT

In article <By0rrA.7Kw@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>     If females are psychologically different for reasons
>   that transcend social factors then this has interesting 
>   implications for feminist theory.
>
> Are there any feminist scholars who have taken a position on
> the philosophical implications of transexualism?

I would think that they would have to reject the use of the MMPI
or other tests to measure "femininity," as Wendy's analyst
was, as being Incorrect. Otherwise, they'd be
admitting the reality of significant psychological differences
between women and men. 
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:45:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.203742.12768@news.cs.indiana.edu> "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.171853.14016@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
>>I doubt it, but maybe you can explain to all of us how male-->male rape
>>is less evil than male-->female rape.  Inquiring minds would like to see
>>you struggle with that one.
>>
>>While you are at it, maybe you can also explain the degree of evil
>>associated with female-->male rape.  I bet, by your standards, it's the
>>least evil, of the three.
>>
>>Sexist.
>
>No, that was my mistake.  I dubbed it "lesser" because it happens less
>often.  A rape is a rape is a rape, regardless of the sex of the
>victim/perp, or how well they knew each other, or any other variable
>you can throw in there.  And each incident is as horrible as any
>other. 

I apologize for being so blunt.  I've read many of your posts, and I
have appreciated your ideas and thoughts.  Your follow-up re-affirms my
orignal perceptions.  We are all human and make mistakes.

However, I am not so sure that male-->male rape happens less often than
male-->female rape.  There's reason for this doubt.  90% of the prison
population in this country is comprised of men.  According to many
former inmates, rape and brutal violence are almost everyday
occurrences.  One man served seven years for murder, but the conviction
was later overturned because witnesses that testified against him later
recanted their stories.  He said that he had never seen a murder until
he went to prison, but while in prison, he witnessed seven murders.  He
said that records of where he was and when would confirm this statement.

Prison is an incredibly hostile world, as you may well imagine.  Most of
the people incarcerated are there for good reason.  Violence and rape
take place despite all the guards and isolation.

The rape that occurs behind bars is not counted in national statistics
and is not even considered.  But it is common knowledge that if a 
man is sent to prison, he will probably be raped--or will become a
rapist.  So much for rehabilitation and preventing future rapes when he
is released.  

So, I wonder if women are the greater victims of rape in this country.
I have no idea.  But I also don't think you can state unequivocably that
male-->female rape occurs more often than male-->male rape.  Because
rape that occurs in prison is not included in statistics, we can never
be sure.

And, according to a recent survey of college students using the "new,
improved" definition of rape that includes "having sex when you would
have preferred not to," more men than women reported they had been
"raped." 

I don't know what the truth is....  Maybe there is no truth.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Subject: Re: Practise what you preach? (was:what is sexist?)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:24:26 GMT

In article <6f8P03ZDbccz00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> jsp@pls.amdahl.com writes:
>
>(Jeeze, am I getting pedantic, or what?  I've either been preparing
>too much for law school, or reading too much Mike Godwin.)

There's no such thing as too much Mike Godwin. 

--Barbara 



Xref: sparky soc.women:19818 alt.feminism:4637 soc.men:19495