HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lm89@ecs.soton.ac.uk (McIlhoney L)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:49:37 GMT

I too have had an experience of sexist attitudes in University.
There is a female I know who is always going around saying things
such as:

"Men are all the same - they only ever think about sex."

Being quite an enlightened man myself, I find this sort of remark
quite offensive and hurtful, and so do many other blokes I know.
But, (against my better judgement) I one day decided to abandon my
previous tolerance of such remarks and turn the tables on one or
two women I know who say such things.

The next time they started to compare notes on the contents of men's
boxer shorts in my company, I reversed the above remark on them,
basically treating them the same as they treat their male friends.

You should have heard the uproar from them when subjected to their
own medicine!  But I think the message eventually got across.

-- 
Lawrence McIlhoney, Department of Electronics & Computer Science,
University of Southampton, United Kingdom.  Email lm89@uk.ac.soton.ecs
"Live fast, die young, leave a good-looking corpse -
preferably someone else's."
From: malu@imdpy1.im.se (Mats Luthman)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: equality
Date: 28 Aug 92 15:45:43 GMT
	<1992Aug24.102105.23391@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<1992Aug24.150815.1@fnalno.fnal.gov>
Organization: Industri-Matematik Data AB, Sweden


   In article <1992Aug24.102105.23391@hellgate.utah.edu>, 
   nkramesh%harpo.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Nanda Ramesh) writes:

   > Man was meant to be 
   > stronger as he was to do the hard work and women was meant to be delicate 
   > and I hate it when one tries to be like the other. Note the word tries..

Actually, biologist say that men are bigger and stronger than women
because they fight EACHOTHER, as with most polygamic mammals (which
man untill recently has been (and still is claimed to be in a great
deal of the different societies on earth)).

I guess this will start a flame war, but, the moral aspects of this
put aside, it seems quite reasonable, doesn't it?

--
Mats Luthman
Systecon AB (A subsidiary of Industri-Matematik AB)
Stockholm, Sweden
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: The Feminist Joke
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 06:30:21 GMT

Q "How many feminist's does it take to put it a light bulb?"

A "One"

- -

he "Do you know the women's movement has no sense of humor?"

she "No, but hum a few bars and I'll try to fake it."
 
 (from a old cover of Ms. Magazine)

- -

he - "What do You Women Really Want?"

she - "Power and Dominiance! We're driven by our spritual inadequacy
       and insatiable sexuality to devour men and reduce them
       to sexual and moral slavery."

he - "That's about what I figured"
  
 (from "I'm in Training to be Tall and Blonde")

- -

in bed - "God! I Dreamt I was playing Scrabble with Mary Daly!"

 (from What I Love about Lesbian Politics Is Arguing with People I
  Agree With.)

- -

"Hello, I'm Radcliff Vasser Smith, professional lesbian..."

 (opening line of a Chicago stand-up comic)

-- 
 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: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: sex is sexist? (was Re: Dworkin...)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:34:42 GMT

In article <6!fnl5_.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>[...](Muffy replied:)
>>Well, it *is* ambiguous, but I read it as "the sexual act is always
>>sexist (which word I define essentially as "negatively discriminatory
>>towards people according to their gender")."  If this is basically what
>>you meant, I'd like to know the reasons why you think that sex is always
>>sexist.  If you meant something else, I'd like to know what, and, again,
>>why it is that you think what you meant was true.
>
>The "negative" aspect is acquired, and has no part of the real meaning
>of the word sexist. Wait, I just attempted to verify that, and this may
>not be correct. For my usage (and what I meant) by "sexist", is simply
>to differentiate based upon sex only. Most of the peoples of the world
>see one sex as sutiable as a sex partner, and the other sex unsuitable.
>Obviously, there is more than that, but it is a prime consideration for
>most.
>
>It may be wrong to make job decisions based upon the sex of the applicant,
>but it is -not- wrong use such criteria in choosing a lover. Imagine an
>"equal opportunity" law for choosing lovers. 

I would point out the existence of bisexuality; and the half serious
characterization of bisexuals as "equal-opportunity lovers" ;).

While I have no desire to inflict an "equal opportunity" law for choosing 
lovers on anyone, as a regular reader/poster on soc.bi I can testify
that there exist bis who "do not discriminate with respect to sex"
of their partners. (This is not to say they are indisciminant ;). 
(And some bis get different things from relationships with different
sexes.)

Thus, even twisting words around a bit, I don't think it is true to
regard sex as necessarilly "sexist".

I would also question not making a distinction between differentiating
with respect to sex and discriminating with respect to sex.  If we
take a narrow "monosexual" view of sex, then by analogy with employment,
being of the approriate sex is a "legitimate job requirement" -- perhaps
this is what you meant.  However there is hardly the same social stigma
attached to rejecting a would-be lover and no class of people is
closed out of 100% of their sexual opportunities by this practice.
Among monosexuals, neither sex is at a net disadvantange on this account.

I really don't think the cases are parallel, and it is reaching
pretty far to apply the word "sexist".

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: proposed vote of confidence
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:44:07 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

The only possible reason to have a "vote of confidence"
in the moderators of soc.feminism, or to replace them, would
be to silence soc.feminism as a distinct newsgroup.  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. 
It seems rather totalitarian to focus on the only
newsgroup on the net where mention of feminism does not
bring down a barrage of flames.  Is only silence 
permissible?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:47:43
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Sep2193344@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1863f7INNq4g@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu's message of 3 Sep 1992 22:26:47 GMT

In article <1863f7INNq4g@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>>>> Since it takes women approximately 1.32 seconds to pee, 
>(I especially disbelieve this number...)

She said in a later post that that was supposed to be minutes.

>> [..] Nonetheless, I 
>> think we can safely state that it *does*, on average, take a woman 
>> longer to pee than it takes a man.  (If you disagree with this, 
>> I'm willing to discuss it further; if you agree, let's proceed.)

>I'm not sure I believe this.  I'm fairly certain men have 
>considerably larger bladders than women, and therefore the
>average man can take, if not a longer pee, then at least a 
>more voluminous one, than the average women.

I have heard this about bladders, as well.  I should have qualified my
original statement a bit.  I'm not just talking about the time to
physically empty the bladder.  In public bathrooms, women will generally
be dressed and therefore have to spend a significant amount of time
getting out of their clothes enough to make use of the facilities.  For
example, if you and I are each in a pair of jeans, with underwear, you
will have to unzip the jeans.  I will have to unzip them and pull them
down.  Then, you zip, I pull back up, tuck my shirt in, and zip.  So,
there is extra time spent there.  In addition, I understand that men
spend little or no time wiping, which is not pratical for women, so
there is more time spent there.

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: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Re: Sexuality and Human Evolution - query
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 10:54:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.001740.42643@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
 miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>It seems to me that much of what we are as human beings comes from our
>evolutionary past.  Part of that past is certainly male dominance,
>manifested in all of the mammalian species which have elaborate social
>systems, including, of course, primates.

I think this is a sweeping statement that is not justified by the 
evidence.

Male dominance is widespread, but not universal in human history.

(I would point to Minoan Crete, some periods in Egypt, and some
American Indian tribes as counter-examples. )

Mammalian social structures, even among primates, vary considerably.

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:01:15 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Aug31.172158.16877@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
>
>Seth, I don't know what other women will say...but for me, I just don't trust 
>men anymore.  So many men give lip service to feminism, but in reality they 
>don't support it.  

> I'm not saying *you* don't care, or that you don't support feminism.  
>But you're up against the old adage of "how to prove a negative",in this case 
>that you're *not* anti-feminism.
[...]
>but we have a lot of pent up anger.

Carol, I'm not out to prove that I'm *not* anti-feminism.  I don't
think I could say anything that would let you take me at my word.

>In Susan Faludi's book "Backlash" she gives statistics on 
>how many men *really* support feminism; if you get a chance, read it - then 
>you'll understand why I-and perhaps so many other women - just don't have any
>trust

Question: Would reading this book change your opinion of me?  Would I
     be surprised by anything in it?

All I hear here is that you don't trust men and that there are some
excellent reasons for this in the book "Backlash".  How about pointing
me in the direction to help make change? 

- Seth
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: proposed vote of confidence
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:25:33 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

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

>The only possible reason to have a "vote of confidence"
>in the moderators of soc.feminism, or to replace them, would
>be to silence soc.feminism as a distinct newsgroup.  

It can also cause soc.feminism to follow its original charter -
that anti-feminist articles would be as welcomed as feminist ones
and that men's articles would be as welcomed as women's articles.

The current structure assumes that a feminist moderator would
usually be a fair one, a false assumption in my opinion.  (If
the moderators had any intention to follow the promised then
they could add an anti-feminist one.)

Anyway, I prefer to leave soc.feminism as is; it is a good
example to the way that net.feminists keep their promises
and how well they moderate.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gworrell@carina.unm.edu (Gayla M. Worrell)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 17:11:47 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <3898@keele.keele.ac.uk> csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton) writes:
>From article <pxhn#5@lynx.unm.edu>, by gworrell@carina.unm.edu (Gayla M. Worrell):
>Then it is a women's _therapy_ class, not a 'studies' class (unless the word
>"studies" has lost something as it crossed the Atlantic :-)

I don't think the word has lost something crossing the ocean, but maybe the
concept has :-)  In some ways beginning women's studies classes are a lot
like therapy.  (Having been in both for a long time, I feel somewhat qualified
to give that opinion :-).  

Imagine, if you will, a woman in, say her mid 40's.  Housewife, mother, has
not ever worked outside the home.  Her kids are gone off to college or other
pursuits, her husband is working 1 hours a day.  She decides to go back to 
school and registers for an Intro to Women's Studies class.  The first day of
class, she walks in to find a group of people she has never even talked to
before.  Women between 18 and 30, lesbians and feminists, maybe a few other
non traditional students returning to school. After a few classes, in which
she says nothing more than her name, she begins to hear these women talk
about things that have happened to them.  She has also experienced some of
these things.  It maybe a man whistling at her on the street or being raped
by a relative.  It doesn't matter much what example I use, the reaction is
the same.  For the first time in her life, people around her are angry about
these things happening.  She finally sees that it's OK to be mad about it.
She has never before been told that this behavior (sexism) is not OK.  But
now she knows, and she's going to get mad.

Fortunately, she has found at least one place, her class, where it's OK to
be mad, where it's safe to be mad.  

For some women, WS is a chance to debate issue.  For others, it's a chance
to explore their own experiences in an environment which is safe. 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:578 soc.women:16133
From: deadhead@molest.ugcs.caltech.edu (stephen thompson)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:32:27 GMT

smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer) writes:
>opposite of what they're purpose is.  Am I alone in this thinking?

No.

--stephen


--
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 | I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours.                         |
 |								  --Bob Dylan |
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:29:24 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch) writes:

        [about Muffy]

>It is interesting that you consider being pro-feminist or anti-
>feminist important among your selection of moderators.  I suppose that
>kind of thing is important if your trying to reject anti-feminist
>stuff.  I can't be counted among the antifeminist -- but I do want
>to hear what they have to say.

Consider other moderated newsgroups.  Would you expect people to
choose a moderator of sci.virtual-worlds, or comp.compilers, if
they knew that the candidate was opposed to the underlying goals
of the group in question?  If you want to hear what anti-feminists
have to say, you could (i) try to organize a group soc.anti-feminist
(or even alt.anti-feminist, if you think it appropriate, since it
would be faster); or (ii) just watch the world about you.  [Sorry,
I just had to stick that in. :-]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:56:34 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <1992Aug31.191307.15144@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>I think it's hard for people to see their race, gender, class, ethnic
>group, religion, whatever blamed for certain horrors and not feel
>personally reprimanded.  

True.  This is why history books are mostly written in a format to
make us (ie. the audience it was intended for) appear to be good
and/or less evil.  I've taken a few sociology classes in race relations
to try to counter what the history books have taught me.

>It's human to feel defensive.  But in order
>to know more about sexism, isn't it necessary to discuss what happened
>to women?

Yes, but that wasn't my reason to take the class.  I agree with citing
examples but that's all the class did.  I don't need to read 20
articles (from reliable sources) on AIDS to know how bad it is.  

>I wish you hadn't dropped out.  I wish you had felt comfortable enough
>to talk with your classmates and/or your prof about how you felt.

I agree with you.  But I don't really think I knew why I felt
uncomfortable.  When I figured it out, I did approach the professor
and I explained it to her.

>I think feminists in general want both men and women to "help out."

Someone said that they don't want men helping because it makes the
feminist movement seem like it can't go anywhere without a man's help.
If I remember this correctly, I heard it around the time when guys
wanted to march in some parade to show their support.  The women
didn't want them marching with them for that reason, but they would be
allowed (and welcome) to attend the portion of the ceremony when
speeches would be made.

- Seth
From: sean@cae.wisc.edu (Sean Rutledge)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: ERA question
Date: 27 Aug 92 15:25:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering

In article <MUFFY.92Aug26131623@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.190117.4420@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>>From article <1992Aug25.181129.14972@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, by rweibl@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Richard A Weibl):
>>> the ERA would result in unisex bathrooms and women being drafted into the 
>>> armed forces.
>
>>That's two people who have poo-pooed women being drafted and unisex bathrooms.

>I agree.  I'm in favor of unisex bathrooms.  I often get *very* tired of
>waiting in line, and I often just go ahead and use the "men's bathroom,"

I like unisex bathrooms too.  I have had one in every house or apartment
I have ever lived in.


sean rutledge                              murphy was an optimist!!!
sean@cae.wisc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: The trashing of alt.feminism
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 03:15:13 GMT
Organization:  MOOOOOOOOOON RIIIIIIIIIIVER!

In article <5353@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Aug31085410@remarque.berkeley.edu>,
>	muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes: 
>
>> Well, you're a liar and a hypocrite, that much is clear.
>
>While I'm not surprised that the first few postings in alt.feminism are about
>the *reason* why we now need an alt.feminism, I am somewhat surprised that
>the biggest violator of the charter of alt.feminism is the MODERATOR of
>soc.feminism.

Soc.feinism has received a great deal of criticism here. Some justified, some
perhaps not, but at any rate, when one's group/race/newsgroup/etc. are attacked
it might lead one to get a little defensive to the point of even going a little
overboard. This does not excuse such action, but it could be a cause.

>The new group is turning into a flaming ground by the very person who should
>know better.  It makes one wonder if she isn't trashing the group because
>she is jealous?

Jealous? Far be it from me to speak for Muffy. She can certainly be abrasive, 
but I can hardly think she would be jealous. I mean, here she has no control
beyond the same control everyone else has over what they say/post.  In 
soc.feminism, she has a say in what is said there, and the image presented
by the group. If she is one of STella's "control queens" then she can just go
back and be happy as a clam, so how could she be getting her panites in a bunch
just because this group is here? No, I think there are other reasons.

>I call upon Muffy to stop flaming and post articles that are relavant to
>feminism.  Never in my wildest dreams did I expect that the person who'd
>trash the new group would be one of the supposedly "solid" citizens of
>USENET.

To be fair, I think that Muffy has been goaded to her responses to some degree.
Again, not an excuse, just an explanation.

*looks back* Wow...I defended Muffy...what *is* the world coming to?

>Al

   Tyger
-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
 
                       
        
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Julia Simon)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Organization: Fachschaft Computerlinguistik, U of Saarland, FRG
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:10:28 GMT

ejh@khonshu.khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.183639.16010@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
> 
>    Has anyone had any experience with blatant sexism?  By this I mean some
>    decision making that was OBVIOUSLY based on sex where sex had no logical
>    part in the decision.  I am trying to find out what this is, because all
>    through school, university, and now graduate school I have never really
>    witnessed what I thought was sexist (other than on TV, books, etc).  I
>    am particularly interested in sexism in universities.
> 
>    I guess I'm either blind or lucky.  If the former, please open my eyes.
> 
>    Paul

I don't know if this is what you're looking for...

A friend of mine, who is very fond of his little son (8 months), often
complains about that the rooms where you can change your baby's diapers, etc.
ALWAYS are attached to the women's toilets, NEVER to the men's toilets and
hardly ever to be entered from somewhere else, so that he feels forbidden to
look after his son in public.

			Julia 8-)


 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
				Julia Simon

 Fachschaftsrat Computerlinguistik	DIaLOGIKa GmbH
 Fachbereich 8.7, Bau 17, Zi. 201
 Universita"t des Saarlandes		Albertstr., Pascalschacht
 D-W-6600 Saarbru"cken, Germany		D-W-6602 Dudweiler, Germany

			email: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de
			       sileas@coli.uni-sb.de
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------