HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: proposed vote of confidence
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:07:41 GMT



The issue has been raised that a/the modertor of soc.feminism has been
inappropriately rejecting articles.  The responses have been wild and
emotional.  To get directly to the point, I proposed that the issue be
put to a biding vote of no confidence to see what people really
thought, independent of any of the points made by the two with 'locked
horns'.  This is the response:

   >muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
   >*laugh*...right.  And all of you would leap to try to pull soc.feminism
   >down, even though you have made it clear that you have very little
   >understanding of what's going on there.  

I ask you to reconsider.

It is inconvienient to have two forums on the same topic.  It would be
much simpler to let the large majority of readers to agree that the
moderation is appropiate and have one group.  This is not an issue of
moderation or no moderation - it is an issue of appropariate
moderation.

   >Look, you've got your place now, why not just live in it?  If
   >people are really so unhappy with soc.feminism, they will all 
   >post here and soc.feminism will quietly die away.

Wouldn't that be nice, there would be the one group of people whose
articles biased moderator likes/tolerates, and then the other group.
Also there is the problem of cross posts etc.  The views expoused on
soc.feminism are interesting, even Muffy's.  That is not the problem
with that group as it stands, the problem is the articles which are
missing.  Kind of like south Africa making a little country just for
the blacks, so they won't get in the way...

It seems that the least that could be done is some sort of election
for new moderators - seeing that your short.  Again, I would bow
out of such an election upon Muffy's request.
From: lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 2 Sep 92 01:36:36 GMT
	<MUFFY.92Aug26180417@remarque.berkeley.edu> <l9cnk5b.tyger@netcom.com>
	<LYNCH.92Aug31023446@flubber.cc.utexas.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Aug31103235@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin
In-reply-to: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu's message of 31 Aug 92 15:32:35 GMT

>*LAUGH*...right.  I said I *had* not done so, not that I would not do so
>in the future (and the letter was writting after the post, even though
>they may not have been read in that order).  Once again, Tom Lynch
>attempts to justify his hypocrisy.

very tricky there muffy, I didn't catch that one.  One posting
saying that you didn't call some poeple whinners in the past, and are
not doing so in the present, and then note on the same day, apparently
at a later hour/minute, calling them whinners, and then a flame to me that
you now (being in the future) calling them whinners without
contradiction.  And then you call ME a hypocrite.

I am glad that you are enjoying the freedom of speech on this
unmoderated news group Muffy.

-tom
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: ERA question
Date: 27 Aug 92 04:16:43 GMT
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu

From article <1992Aug26.222810.3115@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by rweibl@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Richard A Weibl):
[...]
> 
> What the opponents did was ignore these issues, displace the discourse in 
> academic terms, and shaped the debate in a manner that was intended to appeal 
> to irrational fears.
> 
> Ric

You mean they played politics?  No, tell me it isn't so.

SEH
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:12:41 CDT

In article <nwjnstl@lynx.unm.edu> gworrell@carina.unm.edu (Gayla M. Worrell) writes:
>In article <3895@keele.keele.ac.uk> csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton) writes:
>>From article <1992Aug31.172158.16877@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell):
>>> In <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.
>>>>...
>>
>>> And I don't think it is the feminist's goal to yell at men...but we have a
>>> lot of pent up anger.
>>
>>An academic course on "women's studies" should not be a vehicle for working
>>off pent up anger.  Many bitter people, male and female, get off on their
>>own indignation, and those "feminists" who are merely doing that should be
>>discreetly ignored.  There are serious issues to be debated, and anger and
>>rhetoric can set this process back.
>>----
>
>Hey Paul - You wouldn't, by any chance, be saying that women really shouldn't
>be angry, or that if they are angry they should be ignored, would ya. :-)
>
Maybe he is just saying that these women shouldn't be angry at all men.  What if
I were to be angry at all feminists, blacks, gays, ....  I guess that these 
generalizations are not fair to anyone, whether these people are feminists
or fascists!


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu
From: kkidman@vx9000.weber.edu (Kent Kidman)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: equality
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:53:00 GMT
Organization: Weber State University ComSci Department
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <h_bnd3k.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)         writes...
>In article <25AUG199211354714@vx9000.weber.edu> kkidman@vx9000.weber.edu (Kent Kidman) writes:
>>
>>As far as Olympians are concerned, I think it was Newsweek (I could be wrong on
>>this) that compared current female Olympic times for swimming and running to
>>men 20 - 30 years ago, and the current women won.  Maybe the reason women
>>aren't as fast as men (at least in the Olympics) is that they have been
>>discriminated against for so long that they are just behind.  Maybe they will
>>catch up if they are allowed to try.
> 
>You know, I have difficulty seeing what this means. Women athletes train
>just as hard as male athletes, and both have the full benefit of modern
>medical research and training. Are you implying that their coaches
>say, "yeah <yawn>, you may be able to do it someday". You have made a
>distinction where I see no clear difference.
> 
>Can you explain -exactly- what this means?
>  
>Rich
> 

I am talking about evolution here.  Usually small improvements are made in
times and distances every year.  It is unusual to see a record really wiped
out.  The women of today are beating the times of the best men in the world of
30 years ago.  Women are improving at a faster rate than men are in many cases. 
I am not saying that women will ever catch men in running or jumping or
swimming.  What I am saying is that noone can say for sure that women would not
be on an equal footing with men in many events if they had been competing
equally with men all along.  (This is about women in general, not about any
particular woman.)  And even if men are better at a certain thing than women,
does that mean a particular woman should not be allowed to perform at this
event if she happens to be better than the men, just because she is female?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Kidman                  kkidman@cc.weber.edu
Department of Mathematics    Weber State University   Ogden, Utah
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 10:55:16 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism

As quoted from <1992Aug28.160427.8950@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> by clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge):

> 	In which case, any damage done by any extremist member of any movmement
> must "be given due consideration", whatever that means in this context.  Fair
> is fair.  David Duke is a Republican, Rev. Al Sharpton is a civil rights
> leader, members of The Cross, Sword, and Arm of The Lord are Christians.

That's COVENANT, Sword, and Arm of the Lord.  Please, let's keep our inbred,
web-toed mutants straight shall we.... :)

> That hardly makes them representative of their movements, and it doesn't
> discredit those movements as a whole.

I think percentage of membership or agreement is a valid consideration....


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lee@tweedledee.ucsb.edu (Richard Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Southern CA Student Pro-Choice Coalition
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:12:49 GMT
Distribution: ca
Organization: /Net/vorpal/Users/lee/.organization


Please forward the following letter to anyone you feel would be
interested.



Dear Campus Pro-Choice Activist:

On August 22, representatives from several campuses in Southern
California met to discuss fall activities, share ideas, and build
intercampus communication.  It was agreed that a coalition of Southern
California Pro-Choice student groups would be beneficial for
coordinating activities and to provide a network for the exchange of
ideas, resources, and assistance between Pro-Choice student groups.

Working together, we can have a larger impact on the elections and in
lobbying politicians.  Furthermore, by coming together now, we can
break down the isolation and barriers between us, paving the way for
future organizing and action.

If you are interested in representing your campus in the formation of
this coalition, or if you would like information on forming a
Pro-Choice student group on your campus, please mail me for more
information.

				Yours truly,
		
				Richard Lee
				California Abortion Rights Action
				League at UC Santa Barbara
				Member of Coalition Convening Committee
				 
E-mail address: lee@vorpal.ucsb.edu

US Snail address: California Abortion Rights Action League at UCSB
		  Box 293
		  Campus Activities Center - UCSB
		  Santa Barbara, CA 93106
		  Attn: Richard Lee
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: grey@bnr.ca (Bryan Miller)
Subject: Unequal Representation and Systematic Discrimination
Reply-To: grey@bnr.ca (Bryan Miller)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 13:25:11 GMT


Scott Probst brought up the example of lack of childcare
support for grad students as a clear case of sexual
discrimination, in response to Paul Mackenzie's request
for examples. Perhaps some of you can provide some insight
on an issue I've struggled with for an awfully long time.

How do you deal with issues where unequal representation
is the norm? This issue begins with a question of whether
childcare support should be offered to grad students. The
fact that the sexes are unequally represented brings
discriminatory overtones to the decision.

Do we become over-zealous in our effort to eliminate
systematic discrimination, and does this lead to a
compensatory system in which groups are ill-treated in
one respect, and compensated in another due to greater
representation? Does this perpetuate the very
representational problems that cloud the issues?
Is this addressing systemic injustice or does it promote
favoritism?

The obvious solution to me would be to eliminate the
unequal representation and leave the 'issue' for resolution.
Given that this is not a solution likely to be realizable
in the short term, how do we address it?

Bryan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grey@bnr.ca					I think I know enough of hate
						To say that for destruction ice
my own opinions and not those of my employer	Is also great, and would suffice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: 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: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 03:14:05 GMT

In article <2432@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.153549.3460@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>I wonder if the term "male bashing" could be defined.  I get
>>the idea that some people feel that any reference to sexism or
>>patriarchalism is derogatory to all men.
>
>male bashing: 1. The act of associating a negative characteristic or quality to 
>	      the set "men", usually in the absence of any positive
>	      declarations. (general)
>	      2. The act of associating said qualities with an individual of 
>	      set "men" primarily by the fact of the individuals inclusion 
>	      in said set. (personal)
>
>But, in the end, it all comes down to personal points of view. You can do all
>sorts of substitutions for men in the above. If it is generalized it becomes 
>a def for bashing, all by itself.

I personally would prefer to reserve the word "bashing" for physical
violence and threats of violence -- as opposed to argument and retoric.

I.e. "gay bashing" and "male bashing" have rather different meanings in
the present usage.

-- 
 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: hoffert@isa.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Claudia Hoffert)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 12:51:24 GMT
Organization: TU Darmstadt

In article <1992Sep1.191640.10395@panix.com>, smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
 
> Is this such an important issue?  If so, how far does one take it?  Is
> the term "student" sexist because it has "stud" in it?  What about
> other languages which have words which imply only one sex?

In german many words imply only one sex, so many different ideas for 
adressing both sexes have come up.
For example: "Student" means male student
             "Studentin" means female student
Some people use "StudentIn" or "Student/in". Of course they are
not elegant solutions, especially for grammatical reasons
(praepositions etc.) you can get nonreadable texts. The "conservative"
opinion is: women are adressed too by saying "Student", but if 
you say "Studentin" they are offended and will never accept being
"adressed too".
 
Please excuse my english

Claudia
-- 
Claudia Hoffert                                              /\((*))
TH Darmstadt, Germany                                 _(/_  /  \  /\
                                                       (\  /    \/  \
EMail: hoffert@isa.informatik.th-darmstadt.de            \/______\___\
From: mad19@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Mr The biggest chauvanist around. =)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: feminism
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:54:58 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

FEMINISM?????   Is this a joke?


Women just are not equal to men. They never can be.
This is my view on the subject.

Thank you

THE CHAUVENIST PIG IS STRIKING AGAIN. HA HA HA
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 30 Aug 92 11:16:41
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1bbnqca.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug26180417@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<l9cnk5b.tyger@netcom.com> <MUFFY.92Aug27185934@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.92Aug29124118@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Aug29123017@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Aug29.230523.26475@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
	<MUFFY.92Aug29183841@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Aug30.044152.19718@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca's message of Sun, 30 Aug 1992 04:41:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.044152.19718@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
> The words 'can'
> and 'may' are used in these excerpts.

Got it.  We're being too polite, and foolishly expecting people to
respond well to that.  I'll write up a more "fascist" (*snort*) section
for the FAQ.

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: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Gun Control
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:31:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism

As quoted from <1992Aug26.224207.5213@news.columbia.edu> by mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green):

> In article <BtLHJ9.B61@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton) writes:
> >As quoted from <1992Aug25.170015.764@igor.tamri.com> by donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin):
> >
> >> In article <BtJLFF.2Do@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> olmstead@sail.uwaterloo.ca
> >> writes:
> >
> >My mother used to be virulently (and stupidly) anti-gun.  The only thing she
> >ever had to say was "Getridofthegunsgetridofthegunsgetridoftheguns".  Then 
> >somebody hit her in the head and took her purse.  Her line changed to:
> >"Buymeagunbymeagunbymeagun".  I find this a typical pattern.  Nobody should 
> >have a gun... until they need it.  Of course by then it's usually too late. 
> >
> >If women want to be independant of the goodwill of men for their survival,
> >they'd better be willing to defend that independance.  Stern lectures
> >do not an effective defense make, especially against serial rapists.
> 
> Just remember:  Don't carry a gun unless you are prepared to use it.  Otherwise
> your would be rapist/mugger can use it against you!  Also, if you use it, you
> had better have a permit...the police are sure to investigate :-)  Permits
> are hard to come by in NY, guns are not!

I see no other reason to have one other than to be willing to use it if 
necessary.  Of course other peopl just want to "frighten" their attackers.  I'm
firmly convinced that most wouldbe rapists would be VERY frightened by gunshot
to the abdomen....

As for permits, a lot of places dole them out to political favorites and those
with the money to buy them.  The saying goes, "Better to be tried by twelve
than carried by six....".

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: proposed vote of confidence
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep2.164407.24466@panix.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:58:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.164407.24466@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

> There
> are already plenty of newsgroups for the exhibition of 
> misogyny and anti-feminism, and there is nothing to stop
> their fans from creating more, moderated or unmoderated. 
  
Yip's curious: what newsgroups would these be?

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:04:17
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Aug24.000255.10003@news.acns.nwu.edu> <1bbnqca.tyger@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: tyger@netcom.com's message of Wed, 26 Aug 92 06:26:22 GMT

In article <1bbnqca.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>I would agree that keeping things civil is a good idea, in general, but lately
>I and others who have posted there or have tried to have compared notes, and 
>seen that prospective posts that appeared to us to be harmless, but in 
>disagreement with the party line, if you will, were rejected.

Okay, I went over to soc.men to see what the problem was.  Now, I note
that people are saying that this group (alt.feminism) is necessary
because "the moderators are entering into the discussion on
soc.feminism."  I'm pretty much assuming that this mostly means me,
since Cindy doesn't post nearly as much as I do and Miriam almost never
posts.  So, let me point out something.  Why do I post so much on
soc.feminism?  Well, if you read it (instead of taking the word of
disgruntled people on soc.men) you would see that 90% of my posts are
strong disagreement with the posts I am replying to.  If you further
examined it, you would see that I, personally, approved at least 1/3
(usually more) of the posts that I reply to.  Finally, if you really
wanted to get your facts straight, you would see that *all* of my posts
are approved by *another* moderator.  So, I enter the discussion as any
other poster, not as a moderator (my posts go through the same process
as anyone else's, except that I will not approve my own posts).  I enter
the discussion specifically because things which I DISAGREE STRONGLY
with are posted, often approved by me.  Therefore, it seems to me that
your claims that only posts that "adhere to the party line" (i.e. that
we, the moderators agree with) get through is patently ridiculous.

By the way, though, I think that alt.feminism is a fine idea, although
I'm not sure how much longer I want to keep up with the volume.  I just
hope that the "all you women need is a throbbing cock" posters start
posting here (like the person with the (purported) poem), so I don't
have to see their stupid articles in my mailbox anymore...*grin*.

>Now, this debate
>raged for almost a week in soc.men and women, which is why this group is now
>here. Muffy dropped in to defend the moderators on that same civility issue,

Actually, I didn't.  I read soc.men for the first time in three years
today to determine what this was all about.  I haven't read soc.women in
at least that long.  Perhaps it was one of the other moderators?

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