HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)
Date: 5 Sep 92 14:32:41 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| # 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.

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >Had I known about the debate -- I gave up reading soc.men
| >a long time ago -- I probably would have regarded it as
| >illegitimate.  

hg:
| Why?

I didn't get around to answering this before.  I'm going to
take "Why?" as applying to both statements I make above, and
answer them both, because the answers are related.

I gave up reading soc.men after the lengthy debate on
whether NOW, and other feminist organizations, should, or
should have, made the abolition of the draft their number-
one priority item.  Towards the end of that discussion,
I pointed out that there were several organizations, like
the War Resisters' League and the American Friends Service
Committee, already fighting against draft registration,
and asked who wanted names, addresses, and phone numbers.
I pointed out that if those opposed to the draft wanted
the support of NOW, it would be necessary to have some
kind of movement among those directly concerned --
oppressed if you will -- for NOW to make an alliance
with.

Naturally, the silence was deafening.  No one cared.  The
whole point of the exercise was not to do something about
draft registration -- certainly a valid issue specific
to men -- but to score points against feminists.  In other
words, the discussion was dishonest.  In fact, some people
even made wisecracks about my naivete in thinking anything
different was going on.  Low stuff, in my opinion, and
not worth taking my time for.

I find the attack on soc.feminism equally dishonest.  It
is not is content which is anyone's problem -- about half
the articles are critical of feminism in general or some
aspect of feminism -- but its existence as a distinct
newsgroup.  There are hundreds of newsgroups, and a
virtually infinite name space, so there is no reasons why
those who want to have (yet another) anti-feminist
newsgroup can't have one -- in fact, all they want.  

Instead, we have an attack on soc.feminism, allegedly
because it isn't egalitarian enough.  The only purpose
I can see is to do as much harm as possible, up to the
point of completely trashing your opponents, as if the
Net were a big football game.  That is what I see as
illegitimate.  The Net is an information medium, not
an athletic contest.

I -- and many others, I suspect -- leave you alone in
soc.men to complain to each other how you're put upon
by women in general and feminists in particular.  Isn't
the company of one another enough for you?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: pete@ohm.york.ac.uk (-Pete French.)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Date: 14 Sep 92 14:51:20 GMT
Organization: Electronics Department, University of York, UK

in article <1992Sep14.120930.6879@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) says:
> Nntp-Posting-Host: bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
> 
[long argument about "freshmen" ]

why not just call them "freshers" like we do over here ? saves a lot of
argument. Its fairly easy to write/talk in a non-gender specific way
without it sounding odd (like "freshperson" would) seeing "s/he" written
in a document annoys me just as much as seing "he" written when any gender
could be refered to. The second is somewhat sexist, but the first is just
lazy and doeant actually help since it just exaggerates the fact that the
change was necessary.

-bat.
-- 
-Pete French. (the -bat. )    -+
Adaptive Systems Engineering   |
                               +- so much for nochalantly tossing the hammer
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:08:59 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Sep10222247@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.174716.5158@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>I've gotten lost as to which messages were faked and whatnot,
>
>I think you got lost before that.  I wasn't talking about forged
>messages (unless ataylor claims that *all* the messages on here from
>that account were forged, which I do not think is the case).  I was
>talking about calling Gordon by his last name, Fitch, and me by my first
>name.

Uh.  Isn't that what I said?  I got lost as to which messages were faked and
which were not?  Yes, that is what I said.  And now you are responding to that
in an argumentative tone.  Why?

>
>>I don't think that's a sign of sexism.
>
>Well, no, but it isn't what I was asking about, either.
>

Sure sounded like it to me...if memory serves me you implied (if not said) that
this was a case of sexism.  To which the response was that no, it's not sexist
at all, you're just an idiot and are being disrespected for that came.  This
is the article ataylor claims is forged (I've figured that much out now).

>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

Of course, as soon as I sent off the message I realized that not only would I
be likely to call you Muffy 'cuz that's your e-mail address and him Gordon or
Fitch as his is g?c;  I also would be extremely unlikely to address you as
Barkocy because I wouldn't know how to pronounce it.

I swear if you call me racist for that (which wouldn't surprise me at this
point) I'm going to find out how to put a person in a kill file (as opposed to
a thread).

My one and only point is that there are a myriad of reasons why ataylor might
call Fitch Fitch and you Muffy.  Asking why he does so is one thing.  Implying
that he is sexist when you ask is another.  What I read sounded like you
were implying that.

Stating that you would prefer to be addressed as <fill in the blank> is an
even better answer.

FWIW, I've always thought of you as Muffy because that's your e-mail address,
and that's how sign all your posts.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex is sexist? (was Re: Dworkin...)
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:08:58 +1200
 <MUFFY.92Aug28154731@remarque.berkeley.edu> <6!fnl5_.payner@netcom.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

In article <6!fnl5_.payner@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> but it is -not- wrong use such criteria in choosing a lover. Imagine an
> "equal opportunity" law for choosing lovers. 

yeah ok, mmmmmmmmmm, ahhh. that was nice. (bisexual speaks)

seruiously, the two are so far apart that I don't think it is realistic to
compare them. Regulating private lives to that degree would not be at all
practical, if you accept that people can be monogamous or monosexual.

MOZ
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminists (Was: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: 5 Sep 92 04:13:13 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
|  .... 
| 	Shrug. Some kinds of "feminists" have been
| 	in my face over the years, sometimes literally,
| 	more than others.

Your problem is where you're putting your face.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Organization: gte
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:07:44 GMT

In article <18b5utINNigd@agate.berkeley.edu>, spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
> > 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.
> 

My experience, though limited to a set of 3, has been that #1 is 
right on -- women tend to think in more of a "touchy-feely" way
and engineering is a strictly logical discipline.  I have also
found that the "Well, let's try this" approach in the face of all
logic which says to try "that" tends to irritatte co-workers/lab
partners.  

I also think that #1 is not really nature, but is nurture:
little girls are trained to be "touchy-feely" while little
boys are trained to repress their emotions.  (Repression
of emotions is necesasry for strictly logical thinking
-- really! just ask Mr. Spock!)  

-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:768 soc.women:16269 soc.men:16082
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Statistical "proofs" (Was Re: women in engineering ( help..))
Date: 8 Sep 92 11:38:22 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

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.

>So or not so?

Gordon once again participates in the liberal (in the non-classical sense)
propaganda of "proving" by statistics.  Here is a good example how
to get politically correct results from raw data:

Adjusted median household income of groups:
                  1980       1990     percentage change
White           $34,919    $31,435       -10%
Asian           $33,607    $36,784         9%
Black           $21,114    $19,758        -3%

By Gordon's "logic" we have a proof that blacks are
discriminate against and a proof that whites are
discriminated against compared to asians.

I don't think that even Gordon would claim that whites are 
discriminate against compared to asians, but he still has 
a real problem accepting that statistic is not a proof.
(You need more liberals in the Supreme Court for that...)

Anyway, what Gordon missed is:

1) Once a job becomes high paying, men are willing to make 
   much more effort to get into it.

2) In the industry (especially small companies, where most of
   the growth is) one is judged more by what one achieved and
   not by his/her degree.

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

Hillel                                                 gazit@cs.duke.edu

"...13 of 17 valedictorians in Boston high schools last spring were immigrants
or children of immigrants." --  US. News & World Report, May 14, 1990
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 22:28:26 GMT

In article <mcline.1d2a@terapin.com> mcline@terapin.com (Matthew Cline) writes:
>In article <4SEP199215550439@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov>, spzkny@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov
>(JAMES ZAKANY) writes:
>>Why?  So that everyone will think the way you wish them to?  By the way, 
>>agreeing with your conclusion above, do you really want language to be 
>>regulated by a specific political/social group?  I don't.
>
>        No, I think that it should be changed because its not doing what its
>supposed to.  For instance, the word "man" is supposed to be the generic for
>humans.  However, the test I talked about showed that when "man" is used as a
>generic, it isn't interpreted as a genric.  Thus, it isn't doing its job, and
>should be replaced by a word that will be interpreted the same way as it is
>used.

Bingo!  I had this same argument in alt.politics.correct.  Obviously
most English-speaking Americans don't view the masculine generic as
being generic at all.  That's why there is a change in turning
policeman into police officer, fireman into firefighter, chairman into
chair, etc.  It's not something that feminists (in all our power) have
forced onto the poor populace.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Rita Mae Brown?
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, 7 Sep 1992 04:34:45 GMT

In article <Bu542y.JGD@acsu.buffalo.edu> ztsindi@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (The Independents - SUNY Buffalo) writes:
>Howdy Y'all,
>	Does anyone know what Rita Mae Brown is up to these days? I 
>read a few of her books after a friend turned me on to her. I'm not
>particularly fond of feminism, at least wasn't until I read some
>of her essays. How could I disagree with someone who could convice
>in such a sane, rational, clear and lucid manner? Anyhow I have
>great respect for this person and her ideals which seem to have come
>from a great deal of personal consideration. The only problem is I
>can't seem to find anything by her after the mid-seventies when
>'radical feminism' moved off the charts. Is she still in the writing
>business? If so, could someone post the titles of more recent 
>(eighties - present) works?

Well, I think she is still writing, but the radical feminist or
lesbian content of her works has deminished. I think her recent output
has been novels.  This is a list of most of her books:

 The Hand That Cradles the Rock - 1971
 Songs to a Handsome Woman - lesbian poetry
 Plain Brown Rapper - 1977 - radical feminist/lesbian essays
 RubyFruit Jungle - 1973 - lesbian novel
 In Her Day - 1976 - lesbian novel
 Six of One - 1978 - novel with lesbian characters
 Sudden Death - ?? (I've read it but I forget the details.)
 Southen Discomfort - novel

 Sneaky Legs(??? another novel or two for which I can't recall the titles)

I was personally fond of her earlier work, but tastes vary.

I think she also had some well-known lover, and showed up in the public
eye on that account, but I don't remember enough details to want to
try and sort this out.

-- 
 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: asgard@plx.com (J.R. Stoner)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Keywords: n
  
Organization: Heironamous Botch's Murk Works
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:02:19 GMT

I think it would be an excellent beginning.  The so-called 'soft' sciences
sound like so much snake oil selling, to me.  Any 'science' that relies on
politicking to formulate a proof is suspect on the basis.

;> >If we destroy all broad observations about people as groups because the
;> >observations are unfair to individuals, we eliminate the opportunity to
;> >think about very large social issues.

;> Is it also not possible that by such classification, we create the
;> conditions necessary for abuse? In fact, is this not more of less the
;> same claim made about the current situation. Those other posters who
;> answered the question about blatant sexism all posted instances
;> where such "sweeping generalizations" were made about females, and
;> about them by implication. Is it right to make such generalizations
;> about men, but wrong to make similar generalizations about women?

Exactly my point.  Identification of disparate individuals into artificial
'tribes' will by necessity lead to differential treatment.

;I'm not sure if you are saying that you would like to censor Dworkin and
;keep her from saying bad things about men or not.

I don't think any sensible Human is saying that the Dworkin ought to be
censored.  It is another thing to allow her personal hatreds to be enacted
into law and enforced by any arm of government.

;No, I don't think that incorrect or unfair generalizations lead to abuse.

Now this is scary, jawohl?

;If someone is being
;abusive, then THAT's the behavior that needs to be dealt with, not serious
;scholarship that happens to contain some personal emotion and happens to
;be unsympathetic to your own gender.  I support the right of Dworkin to
;write books about the political side of intercourse AND I support the
;right of male sexists to tell jokes about women drivers and make erroneous
;claims about female math abilities.  I even support racist scum who slur
;minorities, because I think people are smart enough to evaluate the source
;take whatever, if anything, is useful.

;Censorship and bookburning is obviously going to hurt the gender NOT in
;power more than it will hurt the one that IS.

Now this is scary, jawohl?

"Mein herr polizei, those dreck, those Juden are abusing me by putting their
obscene shops in our town."
-- 
J.R. Stoner, DWMIT - asgard@plx.com - sun.com!plx!plxsun!asgard
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: slaury@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Susan Laury)
Subject: Re: perception of pressures (was Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 04:16:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.144613.667@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>slaury@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Susan Laury) writes:
>> But, a man's preferences are just that. And so are mine. I may
>> think you look better in a suit and tie than in sweats, or better
>> in blue than in red. Whether I pressure you to wear one or the
>> other, or decide how I feel about you based on what you wear is
>> another question entirely.
>
>however, in my experience women are more likely to get upset and challenge
>a person on what they perceive as attractive. Women are also more likely to
>see that as a pressure to change to match the definition they receive.
>
>
>MOZ

I would agree with you 100 percent on this point. I think it
will be at least a couple more generations before this trait 
is eliminated. Women by and large tend to be brought up to
please others -- particularly significant men in their lives.

It is sometimes hard for me not to resent others for the
pressure I impose upon myself to be pleasing to them.
This goes for cosmetics, dress, behavior, etc.  It's not
fair to them, especially those who are trying to be supportive,
positive, encouraging, when I take these traits and translate
them into pressure for myself.

Hmmmmm .... I've never really thought about it this way (and
this actually goes way beyond the scope of a cosmetics
discussion!)

Good point {susan's translation "You should make points
like this far more often!" ;-)}


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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Bathroom symbols
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 05:42:27 GMT


Well, lets think -- what are the primary gross-scale physical differences?

Women tend to be larger in the hips with narrower shoulders.  Men tend to 
have narrower hips and broader shoulders.  So use equilateral triangles
with tip pointing up for females and tip pointing down for males.

								--  Michal
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist studies... was(Re: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:15:23 GMT
	<AWERLING.92Sep7162249@dante.nmsu.edu> <16qn_h+.payner@netcom.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

sorry about this...I have to send this because I can't get out of this
screen...something is annoyingly screwed up.  I'll try again in a
minute.  This is merely a repost, so just delete it, happy readers.

In article <16qn_h+.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

   Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: zen@death.Corp.Sun.COM (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Gender, words, and conciousness
Date: 10 Sep 1992 20:05:15 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
Keywords: hofstadter

  I was rereading _metamagical thems: questing for the essence of mind
and pattern_ by douglas hofstadter (author of _godel, escher, bach_,
etc.); it is a great collection of essays (with some additional thoughts
after writing the original works) that he wrote for scientific american
magazine.  Anyway, there is a very good piece on a feminist bent --
"changes in default words and images, engendered by rising
consciousness", that goes over language, our world, and sexism.  Written
(the original article) in November 1982, it's perfectly applicable to
today; unfortunately, not much has changed during the reagan-bush years
in this arena.  I would urge anyone interested in feminism and society
to read this (the rest of the book is quite interesting as well, BTW.)

  It's full of interesting stories, thoughts, and anecdotes.  A random
one, quoted from _words and women_, by casey miller and kate swift:

  In 1972 two sociologists at drake university, joseph schneider and
sally hacker, decided to test the hypothesis that "man" is generally
understood to embrace women.  Some three hundred college students were
asked to select from magazines and newspapers a variety of pictures that
would appropriately illustrate the different chapters of a sociology
textbook being prepared for publication.  Half the students were
assigned chapter headings like "Social Man", "Industrial Man", and
"Political Man".  The other half were given different but corresponding
headings like "Society", "Industrial Life", and "Political Behavior".
Analysis of the pictures selected revealed that in the minds of students
of both sexes, use of the word "man" evoked, to a statistically
significant degree, images of males only -- filtering out recognition of
women's participation in these major areas of life -- whereas the
corresponding headings without "man" evoked images of both males and
females.  In some instances the differences reached magnitudes of 30 to
40 percent.  The authors concluded, "This is rather convincing evidence
that when you use the word "man" generically, people do tend to think
male, and tend not to think female."


  Again, highly recommended.

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women