HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 1 Sep 92 02:38:53 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1992Aug31.194530.3396@leela.cs.orst.edu> petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes:

-And I have some more examples.  I used to work in the Distribution Dept. of
-a local newspaper (inserting pre-prints, bundling newspapers and loading
-vans).  

[ deleted part where MP notes that the new-hires (men) were to get the
  training on the fork lift. ]

-I insisted that we be taught the same skills as the men or I would make
-a formal complaint to his superiors.  He gave in and taught all of the
-women at the same time as the men.  Needless to say (or is it?) the
-women did just as well at this job as the men.  I even received some
-compliments from some of the men concerning my precise placement of
-the pallets and stacking.  They commented that *they* couldn't be that
-precise.  Of course, I wound up being the one in charge of stacking. :-)
-I don't know if this was a good thing or not but it did allow me to
-make a point.
-
-Marg

You fought you own battle and won.  For that you should be comended.
Rather than take the feminist view and repeat the story as an act
of sexism, you should use it as an example of how to overcome.

By using your story to show discimination and sexism many people would
only remember another negitive causing undue tension in society.  On the
other hand the real truth of your story is that you overcame by using
you own volition and "moxie".  That fact would encourage others to
do likewise.  It is a story to rejoyce about not feel bad about.

You have done what men have been doing for a very long time, by sticking
up for yourself.  You were not intimidated, not at all.  Your action
benifited you as well as the other women.  So in that one small space
things have changed.  We should be consentrating on the changes.

One of the many reasons that I am an anti-feminist ( note that does not
imply anti-women ) is that feminism stresses the negitive.  Like Murphys
laws "given any situation a feminist will find something negitive".  Another
reason is that when one disagree's with a feminist one is called a sexist
thus effectively making that word meaningless.

starbuck

Life is deeper than feminist thought.
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Date: 2 Sep 92 15:26:27 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <MUFFY.92Aug29123017@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>If all you were doing was protesting the posting, as opposed to
>discussing feminism, then that is not appropriate for soc.feminism, it
>is appropriate for feminism-request, which is the alias for the
>moderators to discuss such problems.

>    Read the
>informational postings sometime...discussions of how the moderation is
>done are *not* appropriate for postings.  How hard is it to understand
>that?  It seems pretty simple to me.

The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

One time when I posted to a moderated technical newsgroup, the
moderator edited my posting.  Although I don't think this was
the intention, I ended up looking like an idiot.  When I sent
another posting pointing out that the result made me look like
I was saying something completely different from what I'd
actually said, the moderator _could_ have rejected this message
on the grounds that it was about the newsgroup and the moderators
and not about the technical subject that was supposed to be
discussed.

Fortunately, this moderator was more reasonable.

Regardless of the letter of the law regarding moderated groups,
I think moderators ought to recognize a right to reply in certain
cases.  When e-mail is used w/o permission looks like one of those
cases to me.

-- jd
From: julie@amazon.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Choice for men (Was Re: Winning by Violation)
Date: 4 Sep 92 18:11:50 GMT
	<ZEN.92Sep3203548@death.corp.sun.com> <715582700@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Organization: Center for Biomolecular Simulation, Department of Chemistry,
	Columbia University

In article <715582700@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

In article <ZEN.92Sep3203548@death.corp.sun.com> 
zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

   >>  I'm still waiting for the proof.  If you want to repost her article
   >>and say *why* or *where* you think she is saying what you say, please
   >>do!

   >I claim that Muffy supports choice for women, but she is
   >against choice for men.  She sees nothing wrong if a
   >birth control failure destroys a man's life.

What choice, exactly, are we talking about here?  Suppose the man objects
to his genes being passed on and wants the woman to have an abortion.  
I would believe that it's her body and since she's a person, not an
incubator, she should have the power to decide whether or not to have
an abortion (let's assume this is before fetal viability, to make the
argument simpler).  Therefore, I do not believe in some sort of complete
symmetry of choice.  But, although I have not followed the "choice for men"
debate (I don't read soc.men) and don't know what this phrase is shorthand 
for, I'll assume you mean some sort of choice in his legal obligations to the
child?  Is that what you're talking about -- his legal status as a father
or not?  If so, read on...

   >You, like most feminists think that this is equality.

What, did you take a poll?  Nobody asked me...  

   >I don't think that you have anything new to say, or that
   >you will ever understand why telling a 17 years old boy
   >"either don't fuck, or get sterilized, or risk your future
   >every time you sleep with a girl." is mean and stupid.

I personally agree that holding a man responsible for a child he didn't
even know existed, for instance, because of a birth control failure, for
instance, is pretty much equivalent to forcing a woman to carry a fetus
to term by not allowing her to get an abortion.  As for what to do about
it legally, I don't have a firm opinion yet, because I am no expert
on the legal obligations men have right now (and they seem to vary from
state to state, too).  I do believe, however, that once a man signs that
birth certificate, he's accepting the decision the woman made to have the
child, and has accepted parental responsibilities, as well.  As for whether
he should have any legal responsibilities if he does not sign a birth
certificate, well, my mind is open.  Which seems to be more than one can
say for yours:

   >So please fuck off to your favorite newsgroup, and stay there.

I hope someone else with your point of view on "choice for men" can do 
a better job of expressing it than THAT.  I know it's upsetting when 
people think for themselves and don't agree with every little word you say, 
but maybe some day you'll learn that if you treat people with respect 
they'll be more likely to listen to you.
From: dyer@marina.asd.sgi.com (Dyer Crouch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Pro-Choice Event.
Keywords: walk, choice, abortion, event
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:08:05 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA

** If this is a duplicate, sorry, I had trouble posting. **




THE PRO-CHOICE COALITION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY (CA.)
WILL BE PUTTING ON THE FOLLOWING:

THE 4TH ANNUAL  (drum roll.......)

**************************************************

     >>>>>>     WALK FOR CHOICE!       <<<<<<

**************************************************

EXPRESS YOUR OUTRAGE OVER THE EROSION OF OUR
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS!!!!!!

             > 5K Walk and Rally <
    > Celebrity Speakers and Entertainment <


*WHAT IS THIS COALITION?

We are a coalition of Pro-Choice groups dedicated
to keeping abortion acessible, safe and legal.
Some of our member groups are:
The Democratic Central Committee / ACLU /
Catholics For Choice / Republicans For Choice /
Planned Parenthood / Santa Clara Womens Community
Clinic / and more. We have about twenty seven
membership orginizations.


*WHY?

We raise money each year to cover our expenses as
well as help others in the pro-choice community.
For instance, we give financal aid to member
orginizations staging protests over anti-choice
descisions. We sent $1000.00 to the Redding, (CA.)
Feminist Women's Health Center after they suffered
another fire at the hands of arsonists. We sponsor
events such as the "Religion, Abortion, Politics
Fourum" where members of various faiths are
invited to discuss thier views on abortion.


*WHEN?

****** SUNDAY, October 25 / Rain or Shine! ******


WHERE?

***** Plaza Park (In front of the Fairmont) *****
***** Market and San Fernando in downtown  *****
***** San Jose. *****


################################################

 INTERESTED IN VOLUNTEERING OR WOULD LIKE MORE
 INFORMATION???  CONTACT ME:
 E-MAIL:  dyer@asd.sgi.com

 Please indicate the following:

 A. I would like to Volunteer for helping with
    the walk.

 B. I would like a "Walk Packet" including more
    information, as well a sponsor sheet.

 C. I would like to be contacted for more
    information.

You can include name, address, phone, and
E-mail address if possible. If you do not feel
comfortable with some of the above info, please
send enough info so someone can contact you, or
send information.

         Thanks, dyer.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:41:47 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation

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.

>What did I find?  Well, for starters, the class focused on what men
>have done to women.  Now while I know this is important, the class
>began to feel like a reprimand.  I was never "in" the class.  The
>teacher switched between the word "women" and "us" while the word
>"Men" was interchanged with "them".

>I ended up dropping out of the class halfway through.  I had
>previously had this specific professor for a "Current Moral and Social
>Issues" class and did very well.  I enjoyed her previous class but not
>this.

That's too bad..I think it is great that you want to help reduce
sexism.. I too have been in groups of women basically `roasting'
men as a whole and you are right, it is very difficult to maintain
perspective when you feel like you are being attacked personally.
I have to wonder whether you were so intimidated that you did not
just break in and state how you were feeling.. I imagine that you
might have found out that you were not necessarily being included
as one of `them'.. myself, I have learned to not let my defenses
get the better of me, because for the most part, in my experience
anyway, sweeping generalizations about `men' usually are more or
less true to a large extent.


>My question is this: If a guy wants to help out, do feminists want
>them not to?  Is it the feminist's goal to yell at men for
>wrongdoings and not let them participate?

I don't think so.. I am a feminist and I would like your help..:-)
My local NOW chapter seems to value my presense..
Please don't give up..just remember that when people are talking
about their oppression they are not overly concerned about picking
out exceptions to the rule..as long as the attacks are not leveled
at you personally, don't identify yourself as the attacked.. look
for the `feeling' behind the words..

/al


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 14:59:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep02.005735.8313@NeoSoft.com> jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.152245.6886@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge) writes:
>> 	She might also arouse less hostility if she didn't actively support
>> and push for the passage of repressive legislation designed to give the State
>> even more control over our private lives than it has already.
>> 	Ideas are not dangerous, IMHO, until the State is pulled in to
>> enforce them.  Then you've taken them out of the realm of civilized debate
>> and put them into the law courts.  Dworkin and McKinnon can argue their points
>> of view all they wish and I'll be happy to listen.  When they propose using
>> the courts and police to shove them down my throat, I tend to get a bit
>> annoyed.
>> 
>> The_Doge
>
>I certainly would agree with that statement.  I don't know very much about
>the kind of legislation she is pushing.  So are you saying that the ideas
>she expresses in her book are fine with you and it's just her legislative
>agenda that you object to?
>-- 
	The legislation in question has been discussed here before in some
detail.  Basically, Dworkin and McKinnon have pushed for the enactment of
censorship laws in various local and state governments and their model is
currently in the House calling itself (I believe) the "Pornography Victims
Compensation Act" or something wqually bogus.  Someone either here or in
alt.censorship probably has a copy of said act; I've seen it posted there.
	I haven't read Dworkin's book so I can't say whether the ideas in
it are "fine" with me or not.  I *do* know that censorship laws are *not*
fine with me at all.  
>Jaclyn Brandt
>jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
>--
The_Doge
ObQuote:	"I hate a dirty joke, I do.
		 Unless it's told by someone who
		 Knows how to tell it."
			 -- Groucho, in  "Animal Crackers"
From: ajaszcz@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Archie Jaszcz)
Subject: Re: Maternity leave (was: something like Sexist Examples)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:46:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.105155.2081@cs.rochester.edu> hitzeman@cs.rochester.edu (Janet Hitzeman) writes:
>must make a choice.  In order to be fair, giving women
>the same chance as men to be successful at their careers,
>we need the following:
>
>(1) Maternity leave with the promise that when the woman gets
>back her job will still be there.

	Seems quite reasonable...
>(2) Day care, preferably run or supervised by the government so
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>some standards are upheld and the woman can feel safe leaving her
>child there.
>
	A few points here:  I thought that the whole idea of maternity leave
was precisely so that the woman (or man) can STAY with the child and take 
care of it.  Why would you need day care, if you're the one on maternity leave?

	Another thing:  would you really want the government (currently headed
by Mr. Bush, whom you dislike so much--I'm not much of a fan either) to take
care of your child?  Would you like the government to teach your child the 
values/customs that some bureaucrat up in Washington things are RIGHT for 
everyone?  How about down right brainwashing of millions of kids at a time?
(even though the idea may seem far fetched).
I think you may be putting too much trust in the government...

	[other stuff deleted]
>
>Janet

	Archie
From: bkt@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Barrie Trinkle)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: ERA question
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:06:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL

hitzeman@cs.rochester.edu (Janet Hitzeman) writes:

>Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly does the ERA say?
>People were arguing about it while I was growing up,
>but I only heard the arguments and never the actual text
>(not that I was interested, being perhaps twelve at the time).
>Since then I've heard women say how important it is, but
>never WHAT it is.  Some rumblings about equality, but
>what SORT of equality, in what areas?  I've also
>heard counterarguments that say that all the ERA would do is
>to change the wording of the Constitution to say
>"All persons are created equal", rather than "All men",
>and therefore I should be against the ERA and wait
>for a better written proposal to come along.


"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged
by the United States or by any State on account of sex."


--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
..nothing is so fatal to maidenly delicacy of speech as the run of 
a good library.
				Robertson Davies, _Tempest Tost_
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The anti-choice-for-men, Muffy (Was Re: Winning by Violation)
Date: 4 Sep 92 04:58:21 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <ZEN.92Sep3203548@death.corp.sun.com> 
zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

>  I'm still waiting for the proof.  If you want to repost her article
>and say *why* or *where* you think she is saying what you say, please
>do!

I claim that Muffy supports choice for women, but she is
against choice for men.  She sees nothing wrong if a
birth control failure destroys a man's life.

You, like most feminists think that this is equality.

I don't think that you have anything new to say, or that
you will ever understand why telling a 17 years old boy
"either don't fuck, or get sterilized, or risk your future
every time you sleep with a girl." is mean and stupid.

So please fuck off to your favorite newsgroup, and stay there.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 1 Sep 92 10:32:16
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<3897@keele.keele.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk's message of 1 Sep 92 13:44:56 GMT

In article <3897@keele.keele.ac.uk> csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton) writes:
> From article <MUFFY.92Aug31113138@remarque.berkeley.edu>, by muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy):

> > Well, things are getting better on that score here in the US.>I was at
> > the Oakland Coliseum a few weeks ago for a baseball game, and *both* the
> > men's and women's rooms had diaper changing areas.

> Are these diaper changing areas segregated by the gender of the person
> changing the diaper, or of the diapered one?

The ones I saw were each attached to a restroom, so they were apparently
segregated by the gender of the person doing the changing.

>And why?

Beats me.  I didn't design the stadium...*grin*.  Actually, I suspect
that the "reason" was that the designers were used to attaching such
facilities to the women's restroom only, since women were expected to do
the changing.  When they were told that men might do this to, they just
did what they were used to, which was attach the changing room to the
restroom, but this time did it for both.  In a way, this is not
unreasonable, since that is where people will *look* for a changing room
and since they probably will also want access to sinks and soap and
such, which are already present in the restrooms.

> Wouldn't co-ed DCAs be a great place for single parents to meet?

*smile*...probably so.  I guess the current set-up favors
non-heterosexual single parents.  Somehow, though, I don't think this is
a major concern for most parents of infants.

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: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 15:06:17 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>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.  

Yes, quite so. You know, it really is amusing to see the same blank
inability to see the point of the opposition that men are so often
(correctly) accused of. "You simply don't get it!" they're told when
they react with puzzlement or denial to some charge of sexism or
discrimination. In this, as in most things we judge others by their
actions but ourselves by our motivations.

Every censor everywhere justifies his or her actions as being in the
best interest of society, and claims to be doing so for largely
selfless reasons. Most censors probably truly believe that this is true,
at least of themselves. Nevertheless, censorship is power; regardless
of how it is exercised, it will be resented. Therefore it should be
wielded with velvet gloves, stealthily, and minimally. For a moderator
to post, especially in rebuttal of posts she so magnanimously passed
in the first place, is sheer folly, because it *has* to rankle those
who care about the issue of censorship. The fact that Muffy's posts
have to pass muster with her fellow moderators is of about as much
significance as the fact that the speeches of Gorbatchov had to get past
the editorial review board of Pravda: in neither case does one expect
much disagreement, or anything but collegial suggestions. 

Regards,
       H. Biesel s.N.a.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: sex is sexist? (was Re: Dworkin...)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 20:01:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Aug28122800@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <4rdnmhc.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>> I wonder if she would find that amusing? :^)  Actually, sex is essentially
>> sexist, and (IMHO) must always be. 
>
>Can you explain this further and give your reasons why you think so?  I
>was completely unconvinced by Andrea Dworkin...*smile*.

Well, I do not find Dworkin convincing either, but it seems that since
the issue is PC, she -is- being listened to.

I am not entirely sure what reasons you are asking for. If you take the
sex outta "sex", ya ain't got nothing, and biology cares little for 
political idealisms. Then again, I am not sure that the text quoted
above is unambiguous, how did you read it?

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

Rich

payner@netcom.com