HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Subject: Re: Attack of the Seperatists
Originator: bbooth@bcrks6
Reply-To: bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca (Brad Booth)
Organization: BNR, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:02:11 GMT


Ciaran McHale wrote:
> I disagree that that any X movement is defined in terms of non-X. For
> example, I don't think that any GLB (or a subset thereof) movement is
> defined in terms of straight people. Similarly, I agree with Iseult that
> feminism is not, and cannot be, defined in terms of men.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear, the GLB or feminism movement is 
a movement for/about GLB or women, BUT the existence of that movement
would not occured if it were not for an oppressive group, straight or
men.  You don't see a straight or masculine movement, because they're
not oppressed and therefore have no reason to exist.

> I think Iseult's point (and I hope she will correct me if I am wrong)
> is that her becomming more integrated in the lesbian community is not
> due to an increased homoerotic attraction (a positive reason) but
> rather due to increased negative feelings towards men (a negative
> reason).

I guess my interpretation was that her increased involvement in the 
lesbian community was due to a sense of support, friendship and
security that she doesn't get in her other community.  This in turn
lead to her distancing herself from men (but not due to negative
reasons). 

> This is quite contrary to what Sara Hopkins said a while back:
> 
> 	Why the fuck can't it be recognised that women love women
> 	through *positive* reasons of loving women, not necessarily
> 	negative reasons of hating men.

Great quote... one that Diane, Mimi and myself live daily. :)


Comments by,

       0  w     | Brad Booth             | "If somebody feels really good
      (_)-|     | Bell-Northern Research |  about who they are, they don't
  ____(_)_|__   | Ottawa, ON, Canada     |  feel threatened by what other
Happy Holidays! | bbooth@x400gate.bnr.ca |  people are." - Dr. M. Rubenstein
From: gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Understanding
Date: 22 Dec 92 18:33:38 GMT
Reply-To: gdb15@cl.cam.ac.uk
Organization: U of Cambridge Computer Lab, UK

In article <1992Dec22.170329.19430@dsg.cs.tcd.ie> cjmchale@dsg.cs.tcd.ie (Ciaran McHale) writes:
>In <1992Dec21.164632.9398@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
>gdb15@grebe.cl.cam.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
>>I think Ciaran and I may be slightly at cross-purposes here.  I'm viewing
>>"understanding" in this context as primarily an emotional thing, whereas
>>he's viewing it as primarily an intellectual thing.  I think that's what
>>forms the basis of our disagreement.  There's a sort of emotional
>>understanding which is just reacting to people's feelings on a gut
>>level, quite independently of any sort of intellectual content.
>>Maybe if I use "empathy" for the first and "comprehension" for
>>the second it'll help to clear things up.
>
>I think that sums up our differences quite well. Having recognised this,
>I don't think there is much else left to discuss since I don't think a
>discussion about whether or not "empathy" is more important than
>"comprehension" would be fruitful. As such, I won't be responding to the
>bulk of your posting, but rather to just a few odds and ends which we
>may be able to tidy up.
>
>>[on reading books]
>
>My point is that comprehension can aid empathy, at least for me.
>Certainly, I can empathise much better if I have a comprehension of the
>issues. Your mileage seems to vary in this regard (you can empathise
>with or without comprehension).

It's the same for me really.  I suppose my only point was that it's
possible to notice that someone's hurt or upset without knowing what
they're hurt or upset about, and to respond directly to the emotion.
You don't need to know what caused it to be able to generate an
appropriate *emotional* response.

>>>Let me rephrase the above into the following dialogue.
>>>
>>>	Man:	Please tell me about what it's like to suffer sexual
>>>		harassment on a daily basis.
>>
>>Whoa, stop.  Do you *really* ask women questions like this?  If that's
>>really all you want to know, then yes, go and buy a book on it.  But
>>I want to understand people as people, not as case studies.
>
>The question isn't whether I, personally, ask questions like that.
>Rather, the question is whether such questions get asked. From my
>experience, the answer is Yes.

OK, sorry for personalizing it.  I just can't think of a situation
where such a blunt question would come up!

--
Guy Barry, University of Cambridge | Phone: +44 (0)223 334757 
Computer Laboratory                | Fax: +44 (0)223 334678
New Museums Site, Pembroke Street  | JANET: Guy.Barry@uk.ac.cam.cl 
Cambridge CB2 3QG, England, UK     | Internet: Guy.Barry@cl.cam.ac.uk 
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17109 soc.motss:53352
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Date: 21 Dec 92 22:37:02 GMT
Organization: (getting there)

alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes yet more drivel.
He's addressed it to Melinda, to Tim, to Ry and to me, and I think
there are more in the thread.

I don't think that this discussion has any relevance to soc.motss.
If Alan wants to take it to soc.women, or to alt.feminism or
soc.feminism, I think they would be appropriate venues.  I don't
read soc.bi, so I have no opinion on whether or not it belongs
there.

There's really nothing to answer, until the end:

   >>>Secondly, you're absolutely correct about one thing:  I don't
   >>>think this is a very big priority, in my life.  No, I'm not
   >>>insensitive or boorish or stooopid -- >
  >>I guess you're just a pretty good actor, then.  You sure had me
  >>fooled.
 >Then you fool pretty easy.  And, clearly, I'm wasting my time
 >here with you, since you do not choose to see *any* validity
 >in *anything* I said.  Which means you are either stupid, boorish,
 >or insensitive.  This is quite dismaying - I just can't believe
 >that you are *that* stuck on auto-pilot, Mara.  It must be
 >my fault, then - I didn't communicate clearly enough.

Perhaps we can agree that it's your fault.
What do you say we put it to a vote?

Anyhow, I think it's a first.  Nobody in soc.motss has ever said
anything like this to me before.  Bob, are you listening?


-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Purity
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:16:53 GMT

In article <93001.140156SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes:
:Getting to be too much to quote.
:
:My favourite, if grammatically incorrect, response to 'what are you?'
:questions is 'a people'.

Wow!  You have a country all to yourself?! :)

G
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: treating men as sex toys
Date: 30 Dec 92 10:08:55
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec26.052957.4713@news.acns.nwu.edu>
	<1992Dec30.063433.23345@microsoft.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jenk@microsoft.com's message of 30 Dec 92 06:34:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.063433.23345@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.052957.4713@news.acns.nwu.edu> Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Dec24114049@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
>> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>[some men (and women) seem to like sex w/ men for "just sex", but if emotions
>>>are in play, they want a woman]
>>[...]

>>A man, say, who was not adverse to cheap meaningless sex ;) might find
>>that men and women responded differently to the idea.

>I, on the other hand, have maintained that sex can be just a physical
>act, and that it's not necessarily better or worse than sex as part
>of another relationship

I didn't really touch on this in my discussion, but this is exactly how
I feel.  However, I think this is a part of the individual relationship/
interaction, and is different with every partner.  What I was discussing
originally is the idea of *all* men as "only for sex" and (sometimes)
all women as "for 'real'/emotional relationships."  I wasn't trying to
devalue "sex for fun," but I think that looking at *all* men as "only
for sex" is devaluing men *and* sex with men.

Muffy

--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Questionnaire for HIV-negative people
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 07:19:57 GMT

In article <BzxLox.Fq1@world.std.com> wij@world.std.com (William I Johnston) writes:
:However, my experience during the past two years as a facilitator
:of just such a discussion/support group for HIV-negative gay and
:bisexual men in Boston leads me to conclude that there are
:important issues to address to help uninfected people stay
:uninfected.

I agree completely with that.  I'm sorry if I misinterpreted the motives
for your study.  From what I read, it just didn't sound like that was
the point at all.

:In an earlier posting, Toal asked humorously if we're next likely
:to see a support group for people who don't have multiple
:sclerosis.

It wasn't particularly humourous.  I have a close friend with MS.

:Finally, to clear up the issue of the nature and funding of my
:study: My work is entirely self-directed. I am receiving neither
:public nor private funds. I am not affiliated with any research
:institution. I am proceeding with this study purely from my own
:interest in developing another aspect of HIV/AIDS education.

Very laudable.

G
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: kay@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Kay Dekker)
Subject: Re: Introduction, or De-Muffining
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:14:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.002105.13358@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> dwells@lonestar.utsa.edu (Darren . Wells) writes:
>Toronto?
>I am planning on returning sometime in February or March.

Hmmm... let's coordinate on this: that's when I'm planning my MegaTart USA 93
tour (t-shirts and promotional condoms not available) for.

					Kay
-- 
the Crisco Kid: nasty pinko faggot agnostic pervert punk.  idx009@uk.ac.cov.cck
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: treating men as sex toys
Followup-To: soc.bi
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 05:29:57 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec24114049@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
 muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>I keep running into this idea, which seems very strange to me.  Most
>recently, I heard a man on a mailing list say it: he will have sex with
>men when he just wants sex, but he will only have emotional
>relationships with women.  I've heard other men say this and some of the
>postings about male-male sex in other cultures seem to say something
>similar. [...]
>
>For me, this is not true at all; the emotional interactions seem to be
>pretty identical.  I know that in our society men are discouraged from
>expressing "soft" emotions, which could hinder forming close emotional
>bonds, particularly with other men who are doing (or rather avoiding)
>the same thing.  Nonetheless, I believe that men and women have the same
>set of possible emotions, the same capacity for strong emotions, the
>same ability to love or get hurt or care about someone.
>
>Without getting into "what is *really* bisexual," my personal definition
>of bisexual is not simply having sex with both men and women, but being
>*interested* in both men and women, as people, as emotional partners, as
>well as as sexual partners.  I wouldn't feel bisexual if I was just
>using men for sex...they'd just be a rather elaborate sort of dildo, and
>I don't think I would be bisexual if I was only having relationships (of
>any sort) with women and just had a large collection of dildos...*grin*.
[...]

Well, it sounds like your experience is not inconsistent with the idea
that women are socialized to place more importance on emotions and
relationships. It sounds like you would not pursue relationships
without a relational component, so *for you* the experences of both
sexes tend to have more in common.

A man, say, who was not adverse to cheap meaningless sex ;) might find
that men and women responded differently to the idea.

As for myself, I can see the attractions of both emotional intimacy
and a large collection of sex toys ;).  (At this point I'm not sure I'm in
a position to be choosy.)  At the same time with issues like AIDS, I feel
that mutual trust is very important, which implies some history and
depth of feeling.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
                      |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
From: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Reply-To: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Organization: ICS Dept., UC Irvine
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:02:16 GMT

In <1992Dec21.223702.8249@panix.com> mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:

>alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes yet more drivel.
>He's addressed it to Melinda, to Tim, to Ry and to me, and I think
>there are more in the thread.

>I don't think that this discussion has any relevance to soc.motss.
>If Alan wants to take it to soc.women, or to alt.feminism or
>soc.feminism, I think they would be appropriate venues.  I don't
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>read soc.bi, so I have no opinion on whether or not it belongs
>there.

Lor' help us.  No, we wouldn't take in this thread!

--Cindy
--
Cindy Tittle Moore

Internet: tittle@ics.uci.edu       | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet
UUCP:     ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle | Usnail: PO Box 4188, Irvine CA, 92716
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17135 soc.motss:53382
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Need A Date for a HS reunion (New Jersey) [STILL NEEDED!]
Date: 21 Dec 1992 22:52:27 -0500
Organization: Mentor Graphics -- IC Group
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sdl.warren.mentorg.com

In <1h097kINNr7l@sdl.Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes:

>Damn.

>I always wanted to bring a male SO to my HS reunion.  I figured that
>when it rolled around I would be dating a man.

>I'm not.

>So, does anyone in the east-coast area want to go as my "partner"?
>You'd have to put up with a lot of strange looks, at least one Public
>Display of Affection ...

Ack!  I still don't have a date.  December 26!  I've already paid for
the ticket.  Don't delay!

Tom
-- 
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)

Unix is a trademark of, WHATT????
From: sara@festival.ed.ac.uk (Swamp Thing)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: coming out to family??
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:02:08 GMT

rks@cscns.com (gisle j benediktsson) writes:

>Hello... I have been reading this group for a while now and have noticed
>that there are many people discussing 'coming out' to their families. Now,
>I must somewhat admit that I am mystified. 

Supposing you were straight and were going out with a wonderful person
of the opposite sex; wouldn't you want to tell your family about it?

>I guess I really don't consider my lifestyle to be any of my family's
>business. It is not up to them to 'accept' me. They have two options in
>my own view: they can either accept it or they can fuck off. (That is 
>assuming that I have a piece of information that I may choose to share
>with them.) 

Lifestyle?  No, I don't go into a great deal of depth with my family
about my lifestyle.  But my friendships, my lovers, yes, sometimes.  And
why the hell should I hide anything from them?  OK, they can accept it
or fuck off, true enough, but surely one still wants to come out to
them?  Why hide something important like that from my loved ones (or
not so loved ones, in some cases)?

>It really bothers me that people seem to be bothered about this?Why in
>the world do we have a tendency to give these people so much power? 

What??  Why is it giving them power?  And why be so paranoid about it? 
Surely the opposite is the case, that we're *taking* power for
ourselves, by saying, hey, this is me, this is the way I am, you can
take it or leave it, but it's *my* life.  And perhaps they'll take it,
accept it, and be supportive; is that not of value?

Sara
From: cen@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Tanaqui is Employed!
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:08:19 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

+ gtoal@ibmpcug.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>>Unfortunately, something went wrong with my shell access on Nyx, and I can't
>>use trn at the moment. So here I am on my ox.vax account, glowing because I've
>>landed a writer's job at a CD-Rom publishing group (initial 3-month contract)
>>and unfortunately not having time to use the Net all I want.
> 
> Nyx has revoked all accounts until everyone re-registers with a notarized
> form and a picture.  Probably without mirror shades.

Well, now, I *had* shell access, via sending in ID with a solicitor's
affidavit, but I didn't have the intermediate stage of validation... so when
Nyx switched to validated accounts only, I was locked out.

All fixed now, I'm just hideously behind on news.
 
> The CD Rom publishing group isn't Electronic Book Publishing by any chance?
> I know they were taking people on just now.  (I moonlight there :-) )

Nope. I live and work in Oxford. I get to keep this account for as long as a
certain tutor holds it for me... unfortunately, I think this is his last year:
he teaches who he likes and no-one else, and is going to be a journo or hold a
job like mine soon. See, having all those extra degree qualifications *isn't*
worth it |-)

And it looks like I have Nyx back now.

Tanaqui 
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17064 soc.motss:53273
From: ry@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (ryerson.schwark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Date: 21 Dec 92 18:28:02 GMT
Organization: UNIX System Laboratories, Summit, NJ

In article <BzMCGn.2HsA@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>
>Any philosophy that excludes nearly half the human race is,
>by my definition, untenable.  

Why do you think empowering women excludes men?  

>
>
>>I'm not trying to say that "feminism" shouldn't educate men (as well
>>as women).  I'm also not saying that "feminists" shouldn't educate
>>men (as well as women).
>
>But you just contradicted yourself.  IF you consider yourself
>a feminist, AND you believe it is NOT your job, as a feminist, to
>use your time and energy in the education of the clueless [sic] men,
>THEN WHO should educate such "clueless men?"

Themselves. society. other men.  women who aren't too tired from
doing it all the time.  

>
>You can't have it both ways:  either feminists have an outreach
>program for clueless men, or they don't.  Either its inclusive,
>or its just another closed society.  But, of course, I'm not
>a clueless person.  And are YOU the one to define feminism?

Wrong.  They can and do have it both ways, that's the way these
things work.  They're not black and white.  Your statements imply
that you think there's some monolithic group out their deciding
these things and making them happen.  There isn't.

>
>In my discussions with feminists who happen to be women, I have
>not been faced so much anger as I've seen here.  

Maybe because there you've appeared to listen more and speak
less than you do here, and maybe because this forum generates
a little more honesty than face to face discussions where ingrained
social habits often cause us not to tell somebody to fuck off
when we really want to.  On an electronic forum, its easier for
the urge to overcome the conditioning, and that isn't always a
bad thing, indeed it can be quite a good thing.
>
>I confess:  I'm not very interested in fighting very old battles,
>And, implementation means WIDESPREAD acceptance.  I advocate
>the use of humor, and tolerance, and education, and FUN as
>techniques for doing so.  If its HIP to be like this, then it
>WILL be accepted.

So use your tools!  other people will use other tools, but
cease telling people that yours are the *RIGHT* tools when there
are dozens that all work.  They may not be your style, but they
work.  The attitude that there is one way, your way, of achieving
a diverse set of goal comes off sounding very conceited.

Ry Schwark
ry@usl.com
Newsgroups: soc.bi
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Pet peeve of the day.
Keywords: Grumble Moan Complain
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 07:10:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.035846.1004@news.columbia.edu> jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
:-jenneke, who tends to assume that people sending talk requests for no
:	reason are idjits who decided to bug someone with an obviously
:	female 'In Real Life' name. 

No, I get them too and I'm not obviously female.  I am however obviously
British, and I'm getting rather sick of spotty 17-yr olds who buzz me only
to have the fascinating conversation 'What time is it over there?'...

G
Xref: sparky soc.bi:17117 soc.motss:53361
From: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Reply-To: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Organization: ICS Dept., UC Irvine
Date: 22 Dec 92 01:04:20 GMT

In <1992Dec21.223702.8249@panix.com> mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes:

>Anyhow, I think it's a first.  Nobody in soc.motss has ever said
>anything like this to me before.  Bob, are you listening?

Yes, I do think it's a first.  I've never seen anyone flame you
before, Mara.  Not here.  Certainly not through claiming you ignore
what another has said.

It's on the same level as someone flaming Jesse for his short posts.
It just doesn't compute...

--Cindy
--
Cindy Tittle Moore

Internet: tittle@ics.uci.edu       | BITNET: cltittle@uci.bitnet
UUCP:     ...!ucbvax!ucivax!tittle | Usnail: PO Box 4188, Irvine CA, 92716
From: chris@unicorn.resun.com (Chris Von Hendy)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Questionnaire for HIV-negative people
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 00:38:10 PST(-800)
Organization: The White Bull
Reply-To: chris@unicorn.resun.com
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v3


In article <Bzqrtv.5I2@demon.co.uk> (soc.bi), gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:
> The latter point I could understand, but that's not the impression the
> posting gave.  It came across clearly as a support scheme for people feeling
> guilty about not catching HIV.  Actually, it wasn't even a support scheme,
> it was just academic research, wasn't it?  Sorry, but over here we don't
> have as much sympathy as Americans for in-depth studies of underwater
> basket-weaving, especially if funded by the public purse.
> 

Actually, it maybe related to survivors guilt.  Such things can be a
problem in trying to deal with a disaster.  


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Von Hendy            "If we shadows have offended,
Escondido, California       Think but this, and all is mended,
ncr-sd!blkhole!chris  or    That you have but slumbered here,
chris@unicorn.resun.com     While these visions did appear." Puck

Newsgroups: soc.bi