HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Date: 24 Dec 1992 16:09:41 GMT
Organization: (getting there)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Notwithstanding JJ's careful disclaimers-- which are important, and
well worth attending to-- I was around for at least one major
hammering out of the question of whether a guy should cross the
street to avoid frightening a woman walking alone at night, and I
disagree with his characterisation (which means, of course, that
there was no consensus, or that it wasn't as he expressed it). 

jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch) writes:

 >I'm also very sensitive to this sort of suggestion.  A few
 >years ago on nutnoise this topic was hammered to death.  The
 >'feminist concensus' at that time (Now, note, this is ON THE
 >NET, and that's what said people represented themselves
 >as!!!  I surely know that they aren't representative of
 >all "feminists" any more than I represent all white males)
 >was that NOT doing it was some kind of harrassment or assault.

Not at all.  I think it's a helpful suggestion, and I'm glad that
some men do it, but I would not-- and never have, and would dispute
anybody who said it was-- characterise failure to cross the street
as either harassment or assault.

 >I took issue with this, to the result that I was branded
 >a woman-hater, rapist, and other nasty things, simply
 >because I refused to act like I was a criminal.  This
 >is inextricably related to the attacks on men on the
 >like 'all men are potential rapists' that come and go,
 >and can only have the same effect.

I have no question that JJ was branded unkindly.  (I'm not sure
whether he considers the self-description in his Fullname to be
unkind or not, but I think it's inaccurate.)  But to describe any
such labeling as a feminist consensus is just wrong.

I disagree, too, with the negative effect of crossing away
>from a woman at night, but that's a different issue, and depends
on circumstances.  It happens that I very seldom find myself in that
situation, mostly because I'm so aggressively a morning person that
I'm not awake (much less outside walking around) late at night.
Therefore there is nothing habitual in my situation, and anything
that reduces my anxiety for the brief period that I'm feeling it is
helpful.  It might be a different story for women who regularly
find themselves in such circumstances.  But that, really, is a side
issue.

Mara [who is not calling JJ a liar]
-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.




-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves)
Subject: Re: Expression of attract
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:58:20 GMT

cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes...
(JMC)

rhb@world.std.com (Robert H Brenner) writes:
(RHB)

RHB> Another example of this sexual double standard occurs in the now
RHB> famous (o infamous) female-reporter-in-male-lockerroom story. Can
RHB> you imagine the ho if male reporters tried to muscle (or wheedle)
RHB> their way into the locker- rooms of female athletes after an
RHB> event? Could it be justified on the basi that otherwise
RHB> significant, career-damaging opportunity is denied to the
RHB> reporter?

JMC> The thing that I found offensive was thinking about how most of
JMC> those men (and I've been in locker rooms before) have pictures
JMC> all over their locker doors of obscenely degraded women splayed
JMC> out lke they were created to do just that, and yet when a woman
JMC> walks in and sees their nekkid bEEhinds, all of a sudden that's
JMC> wrong.  It was the hypocrisy I disliked, not the action itself.

I don't strictly consider it hypocrisy that some of the men who put
posters on their walls, disliked it when female reporters barged in on
them.  The difference is that the women who posed for the posters, did
so *voluntarily*, which was *not* the case of many of the men who were
*involuntarily* displaying themselves.

Women athletes also generally *demand* the right to privacy, and male
reporters may not enter their locker rooms until they are *fully*
clothed.  Why do male athletes not receive this same right?

JMC> Besides, when women's team sports make as much money as men's do,
JMC> we can talk about turning the tables.  Until then . . .

*This* is why you believe that female reporters should be allowed to
barge in on partially-undressed men?  Come on, let's be reasonable.
The reason why female athletes do not currently make as much as male
athletes, is because there is more *demand* for male athletes (ie.,
and therefore more *money* is pumped into the industry...), which is
also the reason why male models and centrefolds generally make *much*
less than women in the same roles - there is more demand and more
money.

In this case, the issue is economics, *not* sexism.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * "Ensign Pillsbury?"  He's BREAD, Jim!

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: chris@psych.toronto.edu (Chris Hitchcock)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: harrasment the other way
Date: 23 Dec 1992 15:07:39 GMT
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <9212172149.AA24193@mica.berkeley.edu> muffy@mica.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>They do not constitute sexual harassment.  However, if you feel that the
>atmosphere is negative towards you in areas where you have to work, then
>it is harassment.  There does not seem to be a sexual component,
>however.  The "sexual" means that there is some element of sex (nude
>pictures, suggestive comments, etc.) in the harassment, not that people
>of one particular sex are being put down.

I was under the impression that "poisoning the environment" kinds of 
harrassment included comments like "You girls probably won't understand
this hard stuff". Perhaps it depends on the definition of sexual harrassment
being used under the circumstances.

Chris Hitchcock.

-- 
Chris Hitchcock, Dept. of Psychology     chris@psych.toronto.edu
University of Toronto      in my new life: clh@vax.ox.ac.uk                 
Toronto, Ontario          UseNet:  I only read it for the  
CANADA  M5S 1A1                         .signatures                         


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: sfjr@wam.umd.EDU (Steve Russell)
Subject: Standards For Sexual Harrassment
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:21:23 GMT

chris@psych.toronto.edu (Chris Hitchcock) writes:

I was under the impression that "poisoning the environment" kinds of
harrassment included comments like "You girls probably won't
understand this hard stuff". Perhaps it depends on the definition of
sexual harrassment being used under the circumstances.


	One thing for became clear from the Anita Hill/ Clarence Thomas
	shebang.  There are MANY diverse definitions of what constitutes
	sexual harrassment.  Many men/women will consider some actions
	serious while others wont.  I believe this situation will
	eventually lead to lessening of respect for such complaints
	and the issue as a whole.

	I think a *Precise* national code of what constitutes sexual
	harrassment, set criteria for proof, and set penalaties for
	various degrees is very much needed.

	Does anyone know if any of the Legal or Feminist organisations
	are pushing for any such national standard?

Steve R




--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca ("Charles J. Savoie")
Subject: Re: Why I will *not* be wearing a white ribbon...*ever*
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: SOCS - McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:04:03 GMT

In article <92Dec15.072001edt.11758@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves) writes:
>I realise that I am taking a *very* unpopular stance

Join the club...

>SW> people.  The final toll: 14 dead, another dozen or so injured.  Now,

                              ^^ 15 people were dead. Think a second.


>(Again, can someone confirm or deny this?  I am
>still VERY angry that his suicide note was covered up by the
>authorities - it might have explained *something* - yes, even the
>motives of madmen, no matter how insane their motives seem, *ought* to
>be examined in order to help prevent similar tragedies).

His note was NOT covered up.  In fact, it was published by `La Presse'
and possibly even `The Gazette' here in Montreal.  I'm sure you can
look it up, it was published no later than a couple of months after
the incident.  If your French isn't hot, send it to me on-line and I
can translate it.

I wouldn't be surprised if it never made it to Toronto, though... The
note (I didn't read all of it, but this is what I remember) was
basically expressing anger at women and feminists in particular, as
well as giving a little of Lepine's background.  It
probably never made it to Toronto because the note actually made the
reader feel some sympathy for the man, which was the complete
opposite of what most of the media wanted. (`La Presse' is known to
be more politically incorrect than most newspapers.)

>SW> In the days following the massacre, much was said about the larger
>SW> social causes that produce men like Lepine, and about societal
>SW> misogyny in general.  Some of it was a bit extreme should perhaps be
>                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>SW> excused as having been said out of shock and grief.

Unfortunately, those who said these hateful things never excused
themselves, never published retractions, never even suggested going
overboard.  Therefore, it should not be excused.

[rest deleted - except for:]

>I still find it unfortunate that such a tragic event as this, has been
>turned into a polemic propaganda circus.

[which I had to include because it's so true, and sobering.]

Charles

--

,.. .  . .  . ,.. . . ... ,.. ,..   =====================================
|   |--| |  | |   |<   |  |-  `-.   Charles Savoie  chuckies@cs.mcgill.ca
`'' '  ' `''' `'' ' ` ''' `'' '''   =====================================

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: jj@alice.att.com (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch)
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Reply-To: jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch)
Organization: NJ State Home for Bewildered Terminals
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:13:56 GMT

In article <9212191628.AA10490@york.cs.ucla.edu> gds@ficus.cs.ucla.EDU (Greg Skinner) writes:
>In article <g9T=D-B@engin.umich.edu> David Snearline writes:

>>This means crossing to the opposite side of the street at night if a
>>woman is coming from the opposite direction, to make her feel more
>>comfortable.

>If all men did this, not only would it look silly, it would only call
>attention to the problem without offering a practical solution or

I'm also very sensitive to this sort of suggestion.  A few
years ago on nutnoise this topic was hammered to death.  The
'feminist concensus' at that time (Now, note, this is ON THE
NET, and that's what said people represented themselves
as!!!  I surely know that they aren't representative of
all "feminists" any more than I represent all white males)
was that NOT doing it was some kind of harrassment or assault.

I took issue with this, to the result that I was branded
a woman-hater, rapist, and other nasty things, simply
because I refused to act like I was a criminal.  This
is inextricably related to the attacks on men on the
like 'all men are potential rapists' that come and go,
and can only have the same effect.

I have a much simpler objection, though, in that such
actions only confirm the fears of the person being avoided, while
they will have no effect on the real criminal.
What are you going to do when the next guy doesn't cross the street?
If the jerk is determined or nuts, nothing much, unless you've trained
to protect yourself.  If you have learned to protect yourself,
then you'll generally be aware of people's positions regardless
of whether or not they're across the street, and you will
have already reacted accordingly.

Why ask all men to act like convicted criminals when it won't
do a wee bit of good?
--
Extremism *Copyright alice!jj 1992, all rights reserved, except transmission
   in the    *by USENET and like facilities granted.      Said permission is
  defense of     *granted only for complete copies that include this notice.
 liberty is no vice.  *Use on pay-for-read services specifically disallowed.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Faludi on neurotic single men: lapse?
Date: 24 Dec 1992 03:49:33 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec23.044226.3706@sophia.smith.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
>In "Backlash" Susan Faludi seems at one point potentially guilty of
>the same error she uncovered in the shoddy work of others:  assuming
>that correlation implies causality.  She quotes statistics (p.17) to
>show that single men are more depressed, passive, and susceptible
>to nervous breakdowns; experience more nightmares, fainting, insomnia;
>and in general are more neurotic than single women.  She concludes that
>"the institution of marriage has an overwhelmingly salutary effect
>on men's mental health."
>	What I don't see is evidence to rule out the possibility
>that neurotic behavior keeps you single, rather than her implicit
>assumption that marriage improves mental health.  Perhaps this
>evidence is in the many references she cites, and which I have not
>read.  I'd appreciate clarification from anyone who knows the
>statistics.

This would be true only if neurotic people mostly stayed single
long term. I guess you could argue that someone was neurotic
for a long time, therefore remaining single, then suddenly 
improved and became capable of marriage, but occam's razor
goes the other way. In addition (and I believe also cited by
Faludi) there are stats showing that the mental health of newly-single
(i.e. due to death of spouse or divorce, particularly death) men and
women follows the same pattern. There are other potential confounders
here, but as far as I understand it there's enough longitudinal work
(repeated studies over years) to suggest strongly that marital state
is the independent variable.

paul


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: gds@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: men crossing the street at night to avoid frightening women
Date: 3 Jan 1993 01:18:49 GMT
Organization: in your face!
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Dec31.220108.22376@informix.com> Robert Hartman writes:
>Well, insofar as it is customary for men to avoid frightening each
>other when out and about at night--unless they're looking for
>trouble--this helps other men spot the loonies and take evasive or
>defensive action in plenty of time.  So while it doesn't completely
>eliminate the risk, I think it helps.

It has never been my experience that men cross the street, or for that
matter, move away, when they are approaching each other late at night.
In situations where I felt threatened, I moved away or crossed the
street.

>In that case it would keep them from getting mace in the face by
>mistake.

Where does it all end?  Do I have to now carry extra-strength mace
around to defend myself against women who might use mace against me if
I so happen to walk close to them late at night?

--gregbo


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves)
Subject: Re: my two cents about on
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:38:14 GMT

mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik) writes...
MC>  >The point of the healthy variety of separatism is finding out
MC>  >who we are, not in calling men names.
MC> Yes.  One of the problems involved here is historical.  That is,
MC> men-only groups have become suspect because they so frequently
MC> became power bases from which women were excluded.  Women-only
MC> groups don't have this kind of history to overcome.

It's interesting that you would say this, Mara.

Perhaps this was true of only men's groups in the past, but with the
growing power base in the women's movement, it seems that the same
suspicions can now also be drawn about women-only groups...

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Some people grow with resposibility - others swell.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: charles@eecs.umich.EDU (Charles Jacob Cohen)
Subject: Re: >slamming Women's Bookstores
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:26:43 GMT

In article <9212292253.AA09583@popov.EE.CORNELL.EDU> seid@popov.ee.cornell.EDU (Steve Seidman) writes:
>First (WARNING: deep ideology follows:)
>In theory it is possible for a male author to produce
>a book fitting into some sort of Lesbian/Women's Literature Scheme.
>(and should such a thing ever happen, it could get shut out of the
>mainstream *just* as easily as the typical Lesbian/Women's book do)

There is a one woman play called "Shierly Valentine" (spelling?) by
a male writter. I don't have his name only right now, but many women have
told me this is a women's play, etc.  It was on broadway, and it is also
now out of video tape. I highly recommended it.  I wonder if it is sold
in women's book stores. It *is* sold in mainstream though. - Chuck



--
"I do not feel obliged to believe that same God who endowed us with sense,
reason, and intellect, had intended for us to forgo their use." - Galileo
"I'm an engineer, not a dictionary!" - Me

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: chris@psych.toronto.EDU (Chris Hitchcock)
Subject: Re: The _Varsity_ Break-In...
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:18:57 GMT

In article <1h51ijINNfhm@agate.berkeley.edu> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>clh@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes...
>
>CL> What about the death-threats which women at (some Canadian university)
>CL> received last October following a break-in and theft of their files
>CL> (and photos)? [reference, recent McLean's article on universities in
>CL> Canada].
>
>Actually, Chris, I think that you're referring to the break-in at the offices
>of the University of Toronto _Varsity_ newspaper ...

No, Will, I was referring to a break-in at Carleton University in
October.  (as someone kindly reminded me by email). I think it was
Physics. And 20 women received personal death-threats by telephone
calls. Nothing happened, so they figure it was just a "prank". :-(

Chris Hitchcock. (posting from my TO account over the holidays ... )

--
Chris Hitchcock, Dept. of Psychology     chris@psych.toronto.edu
University of Toronto      in my new life: clh@vax.ox.ac.uk
Toronto, Ontario          UseNet:  I only read it for the
CANADA  M5S 1A1                         .signatures

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: gds@FICUS.CS.UCLA.EDU (Greg Skinner)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Date: 30 Dec 1992 17:19:42 GMT
Organization: in your face!
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Mara Chibnik writes:
>Therefore there is nothing habitual in my situation, and anything
>that reduces my anxiety for the brief period that I'm feeling it is
>helpful.

Is it helpful in the sense that

* you feel there is less (or no) danger to yourself, or
* you feel if there is danger, you can handle the situation?

Would you rather feel the former or the latter, in the general case?


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.