HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 7 Sep 92 04:22:53 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| >smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
| >> "These pro-life women on the Left believe in a consistent ethic of
| >> life.  ... As for abortion, Feminists for Life say that 'truly
| >> liberated women reject abortion because they reject the male world
| >> view that accepts violence as a legitimate solution to conflict.'"

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| > The theory itself is vacuous, since the issue is not whether
| > abortion is good or bad but whether the state has, or ought
| > to have, the power to prevent it and force childbearing.

dholtsin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
| Some people believe that abortion concerns both issues, not just
| the latter issue.  

True; but I was writing on the basis of the liberal principle
that state power must be justified by some strong public
interest, and therefore has no business interfering with
people's personal moral decisions.  There have been polities
where the state was generally empowered to tell you what to 
do, or what to say, or what to think; I think such states 
repulsive and want no part of them where I have to live.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1111 soc.men:16377
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Statistical "proofs" (Was Re: women in engineering ( help..))
Date: 14 Sep 92 02:25:06 EST
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.men
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <715952301@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <1992Sep8.045754.1775@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
> 
>1.  Once upon a time from one-third to one-half of the
>programmers I observed were female.
>2.  Credentialism happened and programmers became "engineers."
>3.  90% of the new "engineers" are male.
>4.  Programmer workforce will become more skewed toward males
>than it was.
>

hey,

a programmer is NOT an engineer. we engineers have to take math and
science courses that the typical programmer couldn't handle on his (or
her) best day. once a programmer becomes a software engineer, they have 
to run this gauntlet like all the other engineering professions. it's the 
fear of these math and science classes that keep women from becoming 
engineers...not the old boys network.

my experience is that there are very few women who want to take these
classes...maybe it's that they've been conditioned not to take them or
perhaps women just aren't any good at math and science...who knows.

the point is, there are few women in engineering NOT because we sit around
and plot and scheme to keep women out...far from it!!! i would love it if
there were more women engineers...you ever work 8+ hours a day surrounded by
a bunch of smelly guys?!?! jeez, a little change in scenery would be
nice once in a while.

so cut with this conspiracy stuff! if you want more women in engineering
then go to the high schools and grade schools and convince the girls
to go into engineering. nobody on our end wants to stop them!!!! so if
they make it into this profession, GREAT! MORE POWER TO THEM!!!! but if
they can't hack it, then they should drop out and stop blaming others
for their short falls.

don.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:33:22
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Sep11.160859.13836@ils.nwu.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Sep11111915@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep11.222620.25592@ils.nwu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: lynch@ils.nwu.edu's message of Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:26:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.222620.25592@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>I did just ask.  You are the one who is assuming that I was implying
>>that it was sexist.
>>
>>>Stating that you would prefer to be addressed as <fill in the blank> is an
>>>even better answer.
>>
>>It's not at all a question of how I would prefer to be addressed, it's a
>>question of why, given *no* expression of preference, the choices were
>>different.  I think this is an interesting question.  I don't insist
>>that you think so as well, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't post it.
>>

>Again, if you're posting it on alt.feminism, a veteran netter like you MUST
>consider it relevant.  Therefore, an assumption that you were implying sexism
>is not unwarranted, especially when there is (was?) a thread regarding that.

Not really.  I asked if it *was* relevant, so clearly I was not assuming
that it was.  I thought it was possible, given the recent thread, that
the same phenomenon was manifesting, so I asked if that was the case.
Just like other people post on here asking if using the word "girl" is
sexist...they may have some idea that it is considered so by some
people, but they don't (always) claim to *know* that it is or isn't.  I
*still* don't *know* about my question, since I have not received an
explanation of the difference from ataylor (other than the forgery).

By the way, if you're going by logins, it doesn't make *any* sense to
call Gordon "Fitch," since his login is gcf, so the only way to know
what his last name is is to look in his name field or sig, and my name
field and sig both have my last name, too.

Speaking of which, though, I recall on some mailing list I was on
someone suggested that it was more common to give women logins of their
first name and to give men logins of their last name or initials.  I
tend to doubt this, and the general consensus on the list seemed to be
that, in fact, login names were pretty randomly distributed, especially
since most of them were assigned according to some policy of the
organization assigning them.

I don't really know how to pronounce my last name either, but I do it
with a soft c, since that's how my mother told me to pronounce it.

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: dholtsin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 17:42:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.042253.8942@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>dholtsin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>>> The theory itself is vacuous, since the issue is not whether
>>> abortion is good or bad but whether the state has, or ought
>>> to have, the power to prevent it and force childbearing.

>> Some people believe that abortion concerns both issues, not just
>> the latter issue.  

> True; but I was writing on the basis of the liberal principle
> that state power must be justified by some strong public
> interest, and therefore has no business interfering with
> people's personal moral decisions.  

You presume that there can be no strong public interest
in protecting human life.  To support that presumption, 
you must argue the first issue, i.e. that abortion is
not "bad". 

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(


Doug Holtsinger

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminists (Was: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<gpln9r+.payner@netcom.com> <1992Sep3.165031.4382@panix.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 00:14:09 GMT

<In article <1992Sep3.165031.4382@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
<   | In article <1992Sep3.025311.11936@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
<   | >ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) flogs Dworkin yet again.  If Dworkin
<   | >did not exist, people like Nosy would have to invent her.
 
	Fitch provides another example of "feminist" patronization.

	And please show where I have "flogged" anyone. 

	Thank you.

<   Read the stuff for yourself.  Lots of people call themselves
<   things because it makes them feel good, or because they can
<   make a living by doing it.  Nosy is evidently tuned in to
<   one kind of "feminist"; there are plenty of others.


	Shrug. Some kinds of "feminists" have been
	in my face over the years, sometimes literally,
	more than others.
	
	One tends to notice things like that...


<By the way, Nosy, if you're out there: why don't you 
<explain to us why you focus on Dworkin?  You like her
<stuff?  Find it fascinating?
 
	Dworkin speaks to thousands of people every year,
	has written several books which seem to sell copies,
	appears on various tv/radio programs and has
	been instrumental in pushing some of her 
	ideas into law. Therefore, Dworkin is one
	of the most active "feminists" around today and
	also one of the most dangerous....or at least,
	dangerous if you value the 1st Amendment
	to the Constitution....some "feminists" 
	apparently no longer do so.

	If David Duke had gotten some of HIS agenda
	made into law, I'd be paying a lot more attention
	to him as well....ditto for Louis Farrakhan,
	the Arm and Sword of the Lord and/or other 
	intolerant, dangerous fanatics or groups
	thereof. Ignoring fanatics whose following
	is growing can be dangerous, as history shows
	to even the most casual reader.


	Is Fitch asserting that Dworkin is of no
	importance? Is Fitch going to claim that
	he's the "real feminist" and Dworkin isn't?

	Or is this just yet another "now, now, you shouldn't 
	be reading that" from yet another patronizing
	"feminist"?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: WOMEN AUTHORS : Any recommendations ?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:34:59 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <BuL833.Ht@acsu.buffalo.edu> v107smub@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Balakrishn Nair) writes:
| Hi there,
| 
| I am interested in getting to know about some women authors
| who write about feminist related issues.  A list of well
| known authors would be highly appreciated.  Thanks a ton.

Lists of literature on or related to feminism are
published regularly in soc.feminism.  If you don't
get soc.feminism at your site, you can write to the
moderators at feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu and 
they can mail you the material.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<716073607@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:29:34 GMT


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

> I'm against that.

> 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.

So, who's job it then is if not the government ?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 5 Sep 92 13:11:15 GMT
	<1992Aug31.131028.24524@coli.uni-sb.de>
	<1992Sep2.214022.9251@unislc.uucp>
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.


In article <1992Sep2.214022.9251@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:

(....)

> My complaints and letters to the managment were ignored.

> Yes, I was shown the club before I joined, but since then, managment has
> moved things around, and got new equipment which he put in the mens 
> excersize area.  

What's the problem ? If you are not satisfied with the services the
company offers, try some other ? Or is that the only one in the area ?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1122 soc.women:16566
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:41:08 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

laura@vipunen.hut.fi (Laura Tiilikainen) writes:
| >>I believe it was Margaret Mead who pointed out that, regardless of
| >>what men in a society did, men's work is nearly always rated higher in
| >>status and more valuable than women's work.  
| >
| >Paradoxal though that it is both men and women who seem to emphasize
| >the value of men's work and disparage women's work. 

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
| Yes.Steven Goldberg deals with this apparent paradox in his "The Inevitability
| of Patriarchy." In a nutshell, his explanation is: whatever society values
| the most highly, that is what men will practically knock themselves out
| to do. In some societies, a particular task may be done by men, while
| in other societies that same task is done by women. And in societies
| where it is done by men, the task is valued highly, while in those
| where it is done by women, it is not.  ...

It seems to me this sort of explanation simply begs the
question.  When we say that a kind of work (or role) has a
high value, we mean exactly that people will "knock
themselves out" to do it.  That is, its value is measured by
what people will exchange to obtain it.  In addition, even
the right to compete for a role or job may be valued.  Thus,
the lower orders may not be _allowed_ to "knock themselves
out" to become bank presidents, but they will be allowed to
knock themselves out pushing a broom all they like.

The real key to role prestige seems to me to be the role's
relationship to violence.  If the role commands a lot of
violence, like President of the United States, it commands a
lot of prestige.  Knocking oneself out has little to do with
it.  I've done a lot of kinds of work, but the most
difficult was taking care of children and the second most
difficult was keeping house, and I didn't get any prestige
for doing either.  As far as I can see, the "inevitablility
of patriarchy" has more to do with who has the muscle tissue
and the combative hormones than anything else.

It's not at all paradoxical for both men and women to value
men's work and disparage women's work if the men and women
have different social status.  It seems to be a human trait
to regard the preferences of the powerful as the right
thing; the most extreme example of this is the "Stockholm
syndrome."  The less powerful, those of lower status, tend
to internalize the values of the more powerful when they
can.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:716 soc.men:16058
From: ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Summary: puns 'n pisstakes
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:44:23 GMT
Organization: Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK.

KEY: 	Pekka Pessi: >>> & > & ^^ 	IVAN: >>

>>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. 

45s - 35s = 10s. Not much of a difference. Were these figures mean
values or just what it took you Pekka? Bladder size could account for the
difference!


In article <1992Sep3.143737.3215@spider.co.uk> ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid) writes:
>>used the ladies instead of the gents (supporting Ms. Pessi's findings
>>above).                                          ^^

In article <PPESSI.92Sep4122557@lesti.hut.fi> ppessi@lesti.hut.fi (Pekka Pessi) replies:
>	Get a clue, Miss Pussy Reid? 

Eh? What're you on about Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs Pessi?
(To be read in Italian accent): You tekka d'pessi or what?  :-)
				    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^sic


>	I think that my observation revealed that women do not need to
>	spend 3 times as much time as med do in toilet. Making *all*
>	bathrooms unisex seems to minimize, if not equalize, waiting
>	time for women and men. It is twisted to "equalize" situation
>	by increasing men's time to wait. 

I wasn't suggesting we "increase men's waiting time". What's the point
here Pekka?

-- 
Ivan Hans Mark Reid                      Management Information Systems Analyst
"Information is Power ..."                                   Spider Systems Ltd
vox: (+44 31) 554 9424                                 Spider Park, Stanwell St
fax: (+44 31) 554 0649                              Edinburgh EH6 5NG, SCOTLAND
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Birds of a feather (was: Hating Men with Full Force)
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:58:47 GMT
	<SK73171.92Sep5150317@kaarne.cs.tut.fi>
	<1992Sep5.154648.8130@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.


In article <1992Sep5.154648.8130@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:

> [deleted: standard statement that hate never solved anything]

So you think it will solve something in the future ?

> 	Sami, meet Jacsun.  Ideal couple.  Both complete prisoners of their 

Propability of that happening is something 10/5e9, not quite high, eh ?

> own prejudices and stereotyping.

Really ? I haven't seen any bars this far. 

> 	By the way, Sami, all those nasty examples of hatred and warfare you
> cited are "under the control of men".  Don't you think that makes your last
> sentence just a *little* silly?

Nope, I think the main reason that they are control by men is that
the former eastern empire wasn't letting women become in leading positions.

> 	The .sig speaks for itself.

So you think money is all. I thought my previously comment was too old
fashioned and transperent to be taken seriously by anyone, but
obviuosly I was wrong. 

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: THE PARABLE OF THE CHILD REARING COLLECTIVE
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:14:06 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

In article <1992Sep11.162607.25807@panix.com> gcf@panix.com 
(Gordon Fitch) writes:

>I hadn't seen this, but I said that there were problems with
>Plan #2, and this story expounds, at length, on one of them.
>So what's your point?

The point is that most women, feminist or not, will not tolerate a 
woman like Mary even for one minute *if* they had to pay for her
irresponsibility.  They support her today just because they can
shift the cost to someone else.
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 5 Sep 1992 20:39:57 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

> FM010201@ysub.ysu.edu writes...

> 1. Nature: women have different cognitive abilities than man and do 
> not have much interest in men's pursuit of dominating nature. As most 
> of the engineering is.  More right brain with thicker connection 
> between right and left brain ( corpus clossum).

> 2. Nurture: Women are discouraged verbally or non-verbally to pursue 
> abstract topics such as math, science and engineering. feminist 
> opinion.

> Both sides have their defenders. It is hard to see which one is on 
> the right track. Your opinions are highly needed to form a sort 
> of informal survey. Thanks: Lisa

My highly-needed, informal opinion is that number 1. above
is a complete crock.


Steve
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:25:27 GMT
	<716222634@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 11 Sep 92 14:43:55 GMT


In article <716222634@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>>zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>>>   Why not an implant for both men *and* women?  
[...]
>Anyway, the two facts that d overlooked are:
>1) *Most* of the people who keep having babies they can't support, 
>   and get an increase in welfare for them, are women.  Actually, 
>   I don't know about any man in that category.

  And obviously don't care.  Any solution that changes or reduces any
advantage that men currently have over women is obviously wrong.

>2) There is nothing similar to Norplant or IUD for men.

  Of course, if you would have read my post, you would have seen that I
said that nothing like that exists right now.  Of course, that now we
have something like that for women, there's no reason to create a
similar solution for men, right?  Why change the status quo if you're a
man?

 -- d
From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:43:56 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

>In article <MUFFY.92Sep11111915@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep11.160859.13836@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>
>>Sure sounded like it to me...if memory serves me you implied (if not said) that
>>this was a case of sexism.
>
>I certainly did not say that it was a case of sexism.  I asked if it was
>related to a similar phenomenon which had been discussed on this
>newsgroup.
>

I think I can clear up at least *some* of the confusion regarding this
thread.  *I* was the individual who said that the *supposed* answer to
Muffy Barkocy from "ataylor"  re: her question about why "ataylor"
called her "Muffy" and called Gordon Fitch , "Fitch",  was sexist.  

I *never* said that referring to these two individuals in a different
manner was *sexist*.  I *did* say that the answer to Muffy's question
was sexist, IMHO.  It turns out that this *answer* from ataylor was a 
forgery.  

I repeat:  I was the individual who stated that I thought the *answer*
to the question was *sexist*.  Muffy did *not* call the answer sexist.
And according to ataylor the *answer* was not posted by him.

I apologize for any confusion caused by my posting in the middle of
another's argument.  I would, however, like to caution everyone to 
please pay attention to the *name* of any individual they are
responding to.  There are enough disagreements here without adding
to them.

Marg

aka Kathleen O'Toole, Bringer of Light
Newsgroups: alt.feminism