HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slaury@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Susan Laury)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:44:35 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Sep3.143737.3215@spider.co.uk> ivan@spider.co.uk (Ivan Reid) writes:
>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.
>
>-- 
>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


Keep in mind, though, that it probably isn't the women using the men's
room that scream when a man attempts entrance to the ladies' room. Just
as you dislike women in the men's room and wouldn't use the women's.

The only time I've ever used a men's bathroom was the "mom and pop"
single room type, with a lock on the door. It was empty, there
was a long line to the women's bathroom, so I went ahead. There
was no chance of surprising anyone, and I didn't run ahead of any
men. (In fact, years ago when I worked in a fast food restaurant,
I hated even having to go into the men's bathroom to clean it!)

Sus.
-- 
And the speaking will get easier and easier. ... And at last you'll know with
surpassing certainty that only one thing is more frightening than speaking
your truth. And that is not speaking.
		--Naomi Wolf, Commencement Address, Scripps College
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The trashing of alt.feminism
Date: 2 Sep 92 14:46:32
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Sep2101343@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<5389@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu's message of 2 Sep 92 20:23:01 GMT

In article <5389@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>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.

Heck, mine aren't flames, either, then.

>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.  

*LAUGH*...oh, right.  I *know* there there is nothing that says that
moderators of one group cannot flame in another.  There is also nothing
that says they cannot defend themselves when attacked.

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
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex is sexist? (was Re: Dworkin...)
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:47:31
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<4rdnmhc.payner@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug28122800@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<01dny7+.payner@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Fri, 28 Aug 92 20:01:33 GMT

In article <01dny7+.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Aug28122800@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <4rdnmhc.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>> I wonder if she would find that amusing? :^)  Actually, sex is essentially
>>> sexist, and (IMHO) must always be. 
>>
>>Can you explain this further and give your reasons why you think so?  I
>>was completely unconvinced by Andrea Dworkin...*smile*.

>Well, I do not find Dworkin convincing either, but it seems that since
>the issue is PC, she -is- being listened to.

Well, I won't go on too much about the silliness of the term "PC," but
please note that almost all interactions between human beings *can* come
under the definition of "politics," and that there is always going to be
one side which is currently popular among the "out" group.  I don't
think, however, that this is at all why Andrea Dworkin is being
"listened to."  As I pointed out to a reporter in Canada who was
astonished that alt.sex was the most-read group on the net and that the
top 10 most-read groups contained four "sex" groups - sex is one of the
few things that almost everyone has in common, and most of us have
done it, thought about doing it, and/or wanted to do it.  It's a big
issue for people, and it's a big deal in our society.

>I am not entirely sure what reasons you are asking for. If you take the
>sex outta "sex", ya ain't got nothing, and biology cares little for 
>political idealisms. Then again, I am not sure that the text quoted
>above is unambiguous, how did you read it?

Well, it *is* ambiguous, but I read it as "the sexual act is always
sexist (which word I define essentially as "negatively discriminatory
towards people according to their gender")."  If this is basically what
you meant, I'd like to know the reasons why you think that sex is always
sexist.  If you meant something else, I'd like to know what, and, again,
why it is that you think what you meant was true.

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: johnh@geovision.gvc.com (John Hayman)
Subject: Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)
Organization: GeoVision Systems Incorporated
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:29:03 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Aug25143703@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>As far as reasons, one that I personally find convincing is the fear of
>men that some women who have been raped have.  I think they they should
>have a place to go to be helped where there are no men.  However, I also
>think that there should be equivalent facilities for men.  Which brings
>up an interesting question, since I don't know much about rape of men
>and whether they have similar needs or fears - do men feel that they
>need a men-only rape counselling facility?  Or would that actually be a
>negative?

The majority of (reported) rapes of men are performed by men.  This is
something I really cannot identify with.  All I know is, if it happened to
me, I would be completely horrified.  I think I could handle someone beating
me up, and live with it, but the concept of being raped would have
disasterous affects on me.

So there is no doubt in my mind that counselling is *definitely* in order.
Whether facilities should exist above and beyond what current counselling
centres exist, I don't know.  

In the majority of cases (this group is causing me to over-generalize, and
ironically it is in a group where over-generalization should not happen!!),
women are unable to physically assault and rape a man.  However, I believe
that women are capable of emotionally assaulting a man much more than they
realize.  I think (pure speculation feel free to flame) that men are as
afraid to seek conselling on the emotional abuse they receive as female
(change that--all) rape victims are to seek counselling.  

Emotional abuse:  pictures of the stereotypical wife badgering her husband
come to mind.  I don't really mean this, but I sorta do.  Some people
(because of their situation) are subject to a fair amount of verbal abuse
and some people (because of their personality and disposition) have a hard
time dealing with it, and foster all emotions inside.  

Happy thoughts,
--John
    z

-- 
John P. Hayman                  |
jhayman@geovision.gvc.com       | *** My Canada includes New Brunswick ***
jphyaman@descartes.waterloo.edu |
From: susanc@rice.edu (susan chacko)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Last names
Date: 28 Aug 1992 19:36:31 GMT
Distribution: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University

dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
>and a woman have gotten married, and the women kept her last name (i.e.
>no hyphenation).  Then they start having children.  What should the
>children's last names be?  If you do that hyphenation stuff, then you
>burden them with really long last names and just force the decision
>down one generation as to whether patrilineal or matrilinial patterns
>will be embraced.  If you work out some random system or give the boys
>the father's name and the girls the mother's name, then you subject them
>....

Well, there's obviously no hard and fast rule here, and why should
there be anyway? I plan to give my kids hyphenated last names. I
can't predict what the social system will be like by the time *they*
have kids, and for all I know they'll decide to give themselves
new and original last names when they're 18, or drop one of the
names, but so what? They'll still be my kids, whatever their names.
It's only an issue when people decide that everyone *must* follow
the prevalent custom.

Susan.
--
Mail from this account is forwarded to susan@vger.niddk.nih.gov
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: charter for alt.feminism
Date: 2 Sep 92 22:12:48 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <5396@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
> In article <MUFFY.92Sep2102759@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

Come on!  Both of you.  Knock it off!  This has nothing to do with feminism.
If you want to argue, take it to e-mail.  If you can't send e-mail without
obscenities, I suggest that you both just let it drop.

There are lots of discussions about feminism going on here.  Why don't you
both try reading some of them?

Terry "Sheesh!" Wood
From: martha@paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Martha Sellers)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: girl/woman
Date: 29 Aug 1992 04:55:17 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: paris.cs.berkeley.edu

On the subject of referring to us XX chromosome homo sapiens as girls
or women: I prefer to be called a woman.  

As a women's college graduate, I admit that it helps to hear your
peers referred to as ``Freshwomen'' and to attend functions where you
discuss about ``women's'' issues.  You get used to the term.  It loses
its image of your mother's bridge playing friends... :-)

People say ``come on, why should you be offended by being invited to a
girls night out, or a lunch with the girls?''  This doesn't bother me.
We friends can call ourselves what we like.

It is very different when the professional persons use the term
``girls'' to refer to qualifed adult women.  Men are more powerful
than boys, women are more powerful than girls.  Childishness is not a
trait we reward in professional life; calling me a child is a way to
put me down.  Many persons deny that they use the term ``girl'' in
this sense.  They just want a complement to the term guy, as has been
discussed here.  But, let's face it, it is a clear insult to refer to
an African American man as a boy.  His wife may refer to the ``boys'
night out'' when he and his male friends go out; it is absolutely
disrespectful of us, those who work with him, teach him, wait on him
or commute beside him, to call him a boy.  Or to call me a girl.

Martha Sellers
martha@paris.cs.berkeley.edu


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: deadhead@molest.ugcs.caltech.edu (stephen thompson)
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:52:12 GMT

petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
>Well all I can say is that I would find it just as ridiculous for a 70
>year old man to be called a "boyfriend" as a 70 year old woman to be 
>called a "girlfriend".  
>Marg

And about all I can say is that I wouldn't find it ridiculous at all
for a 70 year old man to be called a "boyfriend" or a 70 year old woman
to be called a "girlfriend".  One of the problems with language is that
it is not all that standard...as in, not everyone who speaks English has
the same concept for the same words.  In my experience girlfriend/boyfriend
simply implies a romantic, possibly sexual, relation.  The terms lack any
age concept whatsoever to me.  

Stephen


--
----                                    I got no reason              
--------                             to be there, but I              
----------------                        Imagine it might             
--------------------------------  be some kind of change. --Bob Dylan
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:27:28 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

| All that from Muffy who rejects politically incorrect articles
| from soc.feminism.

In article <1992Sep3.150311.395@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>This simply isn't so.  

Gordon, there was a big debate about the subject in soc.men, and I posted
quite a few examples of the kind of articles that get posted and the kind
of articles that get rejected.  Quite a few people agreed with my opinion,
that's why alt.feminism was created.  Nor you, neither the moderators had
anything to say in this debate, but you reject the conclusions.

>If you doubt me, you can get the
>whole soc.feminism contributions file, and check it out
>for yourself.  Plenty of what Hillel calls "politically
>incorrect" articles appear in soc.feminism, approved
>by none other than Muffy.  The standard seems to be
>coherence, not correctness, so Hillel may be getting 
>things mixed up.

They don't reject Gordon, therefore it is not a censorship...
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:54:50 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <715513655.17428@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
-Ron Graham (ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:
-- Her contention was (and this another topic altogether) that the term "lady"
-- is also sexist, in that it has negative connotations ("lady of the night,"
-- etc.) with no male gender-specific analog.
-- 
-	How about 'gentleman' - but none of the negative connotations present
-	as for 'lady'
-
-	Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk

It is so like feminists to look for the negitive.  In this case lady means
"lady of the night".  Pure bullshit.  But paranoia dictates that the feminist
find negitve conotations in even the most minnor aspects of life.  Where
would feminism be if it were 'positive' in it's outlook?

Lady in most usage, refers to a women having the refined habits and gentle 
manners often associated with breading and culture.  Other uses are: "the
female head of a household", "a woman when spoken of in a polite way" and
"in reference to royalty".

By the way it is gentleman - gentlewoman.   Gentelwoman though not used
much in the past is being sustituted for lady in some quarters, congress
for example.

starbuck

Life is deeper than feminist thought.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:10:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.142504.13145@panix.com> 
 smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>I tried taking a women's studies class in college.  I thought it would
>be interesting to see what I could do to help reduce sexism in our
>society.
>
>What did I find?  Well, for starters, the class focused on what men
>have done to women.  Now while I know this is important, the class
>began to feel like a reprimand.  I was never "in" the class.  The
>teacher switched between the word "women" and "us" while the word
>"Men" was interchanged with "them". [...]

I'm not sure if women's studies classes are a good starting place
for everybody.  Being academic, they may be descriptive rather than 
action-oriented. Also the majority of writing on feminism is done
assuming women as an audience -- your instructor's manner sounds like
a verbal extension of this -- it may be indifference to your concerns
rather than malice.

In reading feminist ideology I would tend to advise men to be a little
thick skinned.  If the shoe fits wear it, but don't take every comment
about "men" personally to heart -- you are not obligated to be a stand-in
for all men. Some women are very careful to not make sweeping
generalizations, some seem to specialize in it.  This does not correlate
directly with the degree of substance in what they have to say.

Some feminist organizations are women-only; but groups like NOW or
reproductive rights groups often include men in a number of their
activities.

Some reading I would suggest to men with an interest in feminism and
sexism:

"Every Mother's Son: The Role of Mothers in the Making of Men"
by Judith Arcana (1983)

"The Women Say, The Men Say" by Evelyn Shapiro and Barry M. Shapiro (1979)

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:51:21 GMT

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

>In article <95kn83p.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep2.204503.29629@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>>>Since it takes women approximately 1.32 seconds to pee, and men
>>>approximately 30 seconds, why not just put 3 times as many toilets in the
>>>womens room than the mens?

>>Where do you get these numbers? 

Woops - I meant minutes for women, not seconds.  Although I think I did
manage to pee in seconds once.  I was 7-8 months pregnant and sneezed.

Anyway, the number came from a Japanese study I saw on public TV.  It
seems the Japanese are really into toilets.  They were demonstrating
male and female variety toilets.  The female ones had built in 
bidet/douches.  Neet huh?  I don't remember how much they sold for.

Karen Biesel

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 03:53:10 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <c!mn9kl@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>> "Gay bashing" refers to both verbal and physical bashing. Gays get
>>> bashed -- as in beaten simply because they're gay -- all the time.  
>>
>> Your usage is different than mine then.  
>
>The usage happens to be the majority usage -- deal with it.  The only
>reason you're confused by it is because you choose to be.

How can you support this sweeping unsupported claim? And what do you mean
by "deal with it"? Do you plan to come knocking at my door with your friends?
 
>(Of course, what can I expect from someone who doesn't understand the use
>of the word "gender" when applied to people as opposed to words...)

Beautiful. Pure ad-hominum. Personal attack is a good answer to any point, as
it indeed removes all clairity problems. It is now clear that reason has nothing
to do with it, you are stating (god given?) facts, and it is heresy to fail
to agree, punishable by presonal attack.
 
>--
>Lazlo (lazlo@triton.unm.edu)

Have a great day...   :^)


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminists (Was: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:43:36 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <Btz0M4.Erx@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
>It is not absurd if you asked me what I meant by that. What you quoted
>were accusations. What I meant by generalizations were things like..
>" Men are always trying to `fix' things ".. By and large true in
>my experience.. " Men are so competitive "..again, this seems to hold
>water in my experience. This is what I meant by sweeping generalizations.
>If you had asked me instead of labeling my statement absurd, I would
>have told you that.
>
>I can see that if the above statements are a reflection of what most
>here feel to be the feminist `party line' why there is so much
>animosity. Whew..what a bunch of hate flying here.. Does anyone out
>there feel that the above 2 statements ARE correct or lend any
>credibility to them at all? Baffled.

If the two statements you are talking about are:

	" Men are always trying to `fix' things "
	&
	" Men are so competitive "

then lets talk.

To my mind it isnt' so much the basic informational content I object to
as much as the tone or flavor of the statements. Let's take the second
first since it is so obvious. Take the statement:

	" Men are competitive "

is way different than:

	" Men are so competitive " 

Listen for the tone of voice when saying these two variations, the drawn out
"sooo" coupled with the derision. I have heard women say it. I have heard
men say it. In all these cases the assumption is that the speaker is not
competitive or feels competition is in some way bad/wrong/inappropriate.

The statement without the so, while possibly true, is an observation,
no more useful than the statement "Men are robust". Without the context
and the intent of the statement we are left to guess at why competitiveness
is an interesting quality.

In regards to the first statement, it also has extraneous words in it
that place a flavor of negativity on 'fix'ing things. It also just
begs for refutation by using the red flag "always". 

Men are starting to recognize and bitch about the underlying assumptions
in common statements such as yours. The stipped down basic statments are
definitely fodder fo reasonable discussion. But, just as it is a good
and polite thing to address a woman as she pleases and to examine and remove
possible inappropriate attitudes when speaking to a woman, it is a good and
polite thing to examine the way one ladens seemingly simple statments 
with negativity and remove it when speaking to and of men.

Last but not least, if stereotypes are bad/wrong/inappropriate when applied
to women, then stereotypes are the b/w/i when applied to men.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:01:13 GMT

The newer sports stadiums are putting more toilets in the womens bathrooms
than before.

In the old sports stadium in Utah (the Salt Palace), women would be standing
in line outside the door.  Never a line in the men's room.

Then,  two years ago they built the Delta Center.  Put 2-3 times more
toilets in the women's room than in the mens.  The waiting time for
men and women seem to be equal.

Thank you - new designer of the Delta Center.

Karen Biesel