HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Shaming men's sexuality
Date: 12 Dec 1992 16:05:01 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

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

> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

|> Well, certainly the softcore porno pictorials presents images that are
|> artificial (though I don't know about unrealistic or objectified).  
|> And these images are aimed directly at some of the prevalent male
|> fetishes in our society -- no question there.

|> But you're making a big leap of logic if you think this implies
|> that the male porno consumer has "presumptions about women
|> and their uses".  There's no evidence pointing towards that.

| The presumption is based on the images presented. Women are regularly
| shown in the skin books as degraded beings who exist only that their
| sexual organs may prove stimulating to a certain type of man, i.e.,
| the "male porno consumer." 

This has never been my impression.  Certainly an image is being created
that is "stimulating to a certain type of man" (or a certain type of 
woman).  But "degraded beings" ??  I don't tend to look at women
that way.

I suspect you possess an (unfortunately prevalent) bias against
women who work in the sex industry, and it is because of this bias 
that you see the models as "degraded".  I consider your characterization
of these women as quite unfair.

| ...and if it's realistic, then why aren't thse valiant consumers
| out getting laid instead of settling for their one-handed readership
| of these publications?

I do not think pornography consumers "get laid" any less than
anybody else.  Indeed, lots of women and couples consume 
pornography.

|> I dislike that type of cartoon as well... [..]
|> But to say those who DO find these things amusing are
|> "expressing feelings of inadequacy" is just armchair psychology.
|> I'm pretty cautious about judging people.  All I'm willing to say 
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
|> is I don't share their tastes.

| And you say this apparently without irony, after calling me an
| armchair psychologist, etc.! 

I see no irony whatsover.  You are passing arbitrary judgement on
millions of pornography consumers whom you know absolutely
nothing about.  Whereas I am making observations on you based
on your clearly communicated and absolute statements.

In case you're unaware, the mainstream psychological view is
that reading pornography is perfectly normal and has nothing to
do with "feelings of inadequacy" as you continue to assert.

Steve

Steve


-- 
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: dwelch@devnull.mpd.tandem.COM (Dan Welch)
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:04:08 GMT

In article <1gkv73INNaqq@agate.berkeley.edu> vanhoek@bend.UCSD.EDU
>(Karen van Hoek) writes:
>It's definitely true that men don't go wandering in a lot of areas
>late at night, but the number of areas where men _can_ go walking
>late at night is far greater than the number a woman can go to.

Not true at all.  What *is* true is that men think they are safer in
certain places.  The truth remains, however, that they are just as
vulnerable to assault.

>I live in Ann Arbor, a very nice town; my male friends all feel safe
>walking in many parts of it at almost all hours.  I don't.  In fact,
>given a recent rape in broad daylight in one of the woods, I'm afraid
>to go walking alone in the woods.

You male friends are fooling themselves -- as, to a certain extent,
you are, too.  Anytime you go outside at all you are placing yourself
at risk.  Men often feel that they are not as much at risk, because
(after all) they are rough and tough and able to handle themselves.
The fact is, though, if someone has a gun pointed at you, there isn't
a whole lot you can do, no matter how rough and tough you are.  Crime
prevention is possible only through training in how to recognize and
avoid dangerous situations, and self-defense in one -- something
equally available to men and women.

But I think you are fooling yourself, too, if you let yourself be
afraid to go anywhere where you have heard of another woman being
attacked.  It is pretty much a matter of chance whether or not you are
going to be attacked, and avoiding places probably isn't going to help
you much.

Obviously, there are dangerous areas of any city that it is wise to
not go into.  However, if you feel like you have to avoid every place
where you might possibly be assaulted, you will end up in a barred and
shuttered room in your house.  And realistically, even that is not
safe.

>So that's it -- if I fly 2,300 miles and then drive for an hour, I
>can have a lovely nighttime walk.  Male friends in my neighborhood
>can just step out their front doors.

Karen, I understand your feelings, but you have to understand that the
"safety" men have is just an attitude, and one that may be wrong.  I
am willing to go walking at night, not because I think I am some great
hero that can fend off attack, but because I know that, in reality, my
chances of being attacked are pretty small.  I feel that the risk is
worth the benefit of being able to go out at night.  Have I ever been
attacked?  No.  Will my attitude change if I am?  I would like to
think not, but honestly I have admit that it probably will.

Daniel Welch

--
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: wagner@hp800.lasalle.edu (Jon Wagner)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Motivations for Gender-Neutral Terminology
Date: 14 Dec 1992 20:51:37 GMT
Organization: LaSalle University, Philadelphia, PA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

I have been wondering about the motivation behind gender-neutral
terminology.  There have been many changes to classic works (such as 
the Bible) to conform to this idea.  I am not against these transformations
but I wonder where the roots of the movement began.  I have three ideas,
which are probably wrong, but I invite discussion on them.

1) Gender-neutral terminology attempts to establish equality by using the
	same words to describe both sexes.  In my opinion, this motivation is
	invalid.  Aren't there other ways to achieve equality?

2) Gender-neutral terminology attempts to erase the effects of the times
	where the sexes were considered unequal.  For example, changing the
	Bible reflects the desire to erase the effects of the male-dominated
	Jewish (& gentile) society during which the Bible was written.
	In this case, I feel that there may be a need to focus more on the
	present rather than changing the past.
	
3) Gender-neutral terminology attempts to change the attitudes of today's
	society by promoting the equality of sexes via language.  The 
	equality of terms will affect perecption and communication, and
	can have (subtlely?) effect on our culture.  I feel that this is
	a worthwhile motivation.

Any discussion, comments, etc., on these and related ideas would be 
appreciated.


Jon Wagner                                              wagner@hp800.lasalle.edu--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's spelled Mr. Luxury Yacht, but it's pronounced Mr. Throatwobbler Mangrove.
You're a very silly man, and I'm not going to interview you.

			-- Monty Python


-- 
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: Richard Berlin <rberlin@Eng.Sun.COM>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Expression of attraction (Shaming Men's Sexuality?)
Date: 13 Dec 1992 03:12:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

rbb@world.std.com (Robert H. Bruekner) writes:
> I personally find such pictures in poor taste, if not downright
> offensive. And yet I feel obliged to wonder who asked you to go in
> there and be offended? If something like that offends you, why do you
> put yourself in a position to be so unhappy? Women do not belong in
> men's locker rooms, and men don't belong in women's. It's got nothing
> to do with seeing men's "nekkid behinds" (or, to call a spade a spade,
> "penises" and "scrotums").

I agree; it appears to me that it's not what hangs between these men's
legs that some women find offensive, but what's between the men's
ears.  

That seems like "Shaming Men's Sexuality" to me.  The act of clearly,
even vociferously expressing offense at *publically* *displayed*
material degrading to women is legitimate political action, e.g.
consciousness-raising.  But I believe a sports team's locker-room is
semi-private--and an athlete's locker is, by definition, distinctly
private, personal space--and so I would like to respectfully suggest
that if a hypothetical man's private expression of his sexual thoughts
is offensive or frightening to a hypothetical woman, making a public
stink about it is not the woman's most effective strategy for
productive dialogue.

-- Rich

p.s. Lest I be misunderstood, I'm talking about a pin-up on the door
of a locker (specifically, I'm thinking of inside the door).  I would
not extend this thinking to a pin up in an office; that's public
space.  And I am *not* talking about deliberately making unwelcome,
lewd or threatening gestures to a female reporter who is just trying
to do her job; that is harrassment no matter *where* you do it.


-- 
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: vanhoek@bend.UCSD.EDU (Karen van Hoek)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Women's and men's safety
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:56:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Robert Brueckner pointed out that men often have need to fear assault,
and asked also if it's true that there's nowhere a woman can feel safe
being out alone (at night, presumably).  It's definitely true that
men don't go wandering in a lot of areas late at night, but the
number of areas where men _can_ go walking late at night is
far greater than the number a woman can go to.  I live in Ann
Arbor, a very nice town; my male friends all feel safe walking
in many parts of it at almost all hours.  I don't.  In fact,
given a recent rape in broad daylight in one of the woods, I'm
afraid to go walking alone in the woods.  Recently I asked
myself whether there was someplace within reasonable driving
distance that I could go to to go for a nighttime walk.  A 
man wouldn't have to drive anywhere to get to a safe place;
not if he lived in Ann Arbor.  If he lived in a tougher area, he
might be able to drive to a suburb like Ann Arbor and be safe
(if he's not black and so likely to get hassled by the cops).
But for me -- no.  I couldn't think of any really safe place.

The one place I've felt completely safe walking is a 200-acre
spiritual retreat in the middle of nowhere, an hour out from
San Diego.  It's enough trouble to get to that creeps wouldn't
likely go all the way out there just to hassle someone.  There
I took lots of long walks, at all hours of the night, and 
absolutely loved it.  So that's it -- if I fly 2,300 miles
and then drive for an hour, I can have a lovely nighttime
walk.  Male friends in my neighborhood can just step out
their front doors.

Karen



-- 
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: rgvdh@vtrl.src.mei.co.jp ("R. van der Heide")
Subject: Safe space
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:24:03 GMT

I dunno, have I just rediscovered standard wisdom here?  Still, it
feels like I figured something out, so I'll send it in.

"Oppression" is a vague and meaningless word, until you hear the details.
And once you've heard the details, general statements that sounded like
bullshit or "whining" begin to sound a lot less unreasonable.

karen.van.hoek@um.cc.umich.edu writes
>This general issue -- that many or most white men don't realize how
>bad it is to live in fear of violent assault -- is extremely painful
>and angering to many women.  It isn't just annoying, it really
>_hurts_ ....  Advice like "go for a walk at three a.m." isn't just
>stupid, it's downright cruel ...  these men are oblivious to the
>reality of our lives.

Yow.

It's true, for the most part we really don't realize how bad it is.

This reminds me of a vaguely related incident.

A while back, a group of three women and three men, including myself,
had a long rambling conversation which drifted into the women telling
stories of sexual harrassment incidents they had suffered.  As they
continued, our jaws dropped further and further.  Finally, one of them
commented on how, whenever she tells about these incidents in front of
male friends, they always get shocked and angry and *amazed*.  We
really don't know about this stuff, and we usually don't hear about
it.

I think to many men, a lot of this harrassment is invisible.  Either
culturally invisible, in that we're so used to seeing it we don't
think anything of it, unless someone points it out.  Or else, once
people start pointing it out as wrong and it becomes culturally
visible, those who do it do it in secret so they won't be punished.
But either way, if you're not doing it, and it's not happening to you,
it actually takes effort to notice.

I think the fact that this was just some "war stories" (I'm using this
term the way I've heard others use it, as a general term for ambulance
crew stories, getting caught on a mountain in a snowstorm stories,
sysadmins' clueless user stories, landlord from hell stories, etc.)
the conversation happened to drift onto, rather than in the context of
some formal attempt to educate us "as men", helped us listen with
sympathy rather than defensiveness.  Or maybe it was just who happened
to be there that day.

-RGvdH

p.s. Your friend told you how much it hurt to be told to go walk
around the block, and you've told us.  Has anyone told the guy who
made the comment in the first place?  He's the one who really needs to
hear it.

--
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: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Reading and Kids (Re: Those damned magazines (was: clearing something) up)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 15:55:17 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Bonita Kale writes
>In a previous article, uunet!infmx!hartman@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Robert Hartman)  
says:
>(after a lot of fascinating and worrying stuff):
>But, in my experience, it's too late for the boys.  By the time they're old
>enough to be interested in mature (or any!) sexual expression in reading,
>they aren't reading fiction, or at least, not much.  There's a whole bunch
>of boys (of the ones who read at all) who go from kid's sports stories to
>Playboy or nothing.

I'm surprised comic books weren't mentioned in this context.  My
daughter is addicted to them.  I'm troubled by the violence in them,
but pleased by the number of strong women found in many of the comics
that she reads.

>My own boys, both readers, were the same.  They didn't want to read
>anything that dealt with relationships in any depth.  I don't understand
>it, but I have sat in a movie with my no.  2 son, in which almost no scene
>held both our interests.  For every scene, one of us would be leaning
>forward intently, the other checking his/her watch or fidgeting.  And guess
>which scenes?  Of course, the fights and chases bored me, while the talk
>and closeups bored him.

Same with my daughter.  Usually.  But she adored "Awakenings" two
years ago (when she was 10), so I try to take her to more "adult"
movies to continue to expose her to a variety of ideas, and
not just action/adventure flicks.

>Sorry this ran on so long.  I don't understand it, myself, but I've seen
>how many eager girls we have coming in, telling their friends, "Read this,
>it's great!" and how few boys do the same.

Again, I think you're right about fiction, but I have seen boys
and some girls behave that way around comic books.

*   NeXT: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com * GEnie:  Laurie.Mann   *
*In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak*
*because I wasn't a Communist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I*
*didn't speak because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade*
*unionists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a trade unionist..*
*Then they came for me---and by that time no one was left to speak*
*speak up.  [Martin Niemoeller]   Why to March on Washington, 4/93*


-- 
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.
Xref: sparky soc.feminism:2953 news.answers:4623
From: mvwjf@mvgpf.att.COM (William J Fallon)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: female athletes
Date: 17 Dec 92 18:02:05 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1ggq7oINNhcm@agate.berkeley.edu> rgvdh@vtrl.src.mei.co.jp (R. van der Heide) writes:
>
>world, and she said that if you want to be a professional female
>athlete, you pretty much have to leave to US to find work, and that
>Americans payed less attention to women's sports than any other
>country she know of.  So:
>
>Why don't Americans support female athletes?

Can't say that I agree with all that since just about all US colleges
have women's teams in many sports, US companies give female athletes
(tennis, golf, primarily) lucrative endorsements, women work out side
by side with men in most athletic facilities, etc.

But that's not what I want to talk about and it's highly arguable
anyway. What I wanted to say is that I just finished reading "Are We
Winning Yet?" by Mariah Burton Nelson. She interviewed many US female
athletes for her book. A couple of her main points were that "in the
old days" when women's sports weren't popular they were controlled by
women. Now that they are more popular most of the coaches,
administrators, corporate sponsor representatives are men. Also that
the women's sports that are popular among the masses are those in
which men are clearly superior to women (tennis, golf, basketball,
volleyball). There is a chapter about physically challenged female
athletes and a chapter about serious problems like female joggers
being raped. Also little vignettes about sponsors encouraging female
triathletes to wear as little as possible, etc. Pick up a copy for
those hard to buy for people on your Christmas list.  Also very good
is a book called "Stroke" by Heather Clarke and Susan Gywnne-Timothy
about the experiences of the women on the Canadian national rowing
team. Highly recomended (by me, at least).



--
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: vanhoek@bend.UCSD.EDU (Karen van Hoek)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: The Men's Movement
Date: 13 Dec 1992 02:26:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Steve Russell asked for comments about the Men's Movement.  I'm
not an expert on it, but I have a few thoughts.  My first
reaction to the Men's Movement was very positive; I liked
_Iron John_ because I saw the good it might do for a lot of
men I knew who seemed uncertain how to "be men" in this
society.  Later I began to have a few doubts, as people
pointed out that some Men's Movement figures, like Robert
Bly, sometimes show little awareness of, or concern for, the
issue of men's treatment of women.  Starhawk's article
"A Men's Movement We Could Trust" (in _Women Respond to the
Men's Movement_) really says it -- it's _great_ if men
want to get together and create new images of masculinity
and bond together as males and the whole bit, _provided_
they're conscious of the other half of humanity and of the
fact that power relations between us aren't equal.

Some of what men are doing is very much like the Goddess
movement, and in fact it's very exciting to those of us
who think we need a new image of the God (i.e. "the God"
as in "the Goddess and the God"), that masculinity has
been degraded, defiled and warped and that it needs to be
reclaimed.  But when it seems as if men aren't sensitive
to women's concerns, or when the Men's Movement literature
seems to be blaming women for men's problems, it's
frightening to women.  No doubt, men _do_ have a lot of
legitimate complaints about their treatment by women.
But we'd like to see awareness of the legitimacy of our
fears,and the urgency of our concerns, as well.  Otherwise,
the gut reaction some of us have to seeing men celebrating
masculinity is similar to the reaction some black people
might have seeing white people dressing up all in white to
celebrate their whiteness.

As for why we need new myths, rather than no myths -- It
has to do with the idea that the culture we live in is a
culture based on estrangement, on a view of the world
as non-living and ourselves as cogs in a machine.  Re-
mythologizing our lives is a way of changing our values,
of creating a culture in which we and everyone else are
viewed as inherently sacred.  Starhawk lays it out
pretty clearly in the book _Dreaming the Dark: Magic,
Sex and Politics_.  The bottom line is, even the idea that
we're _not_ sacred manifestations of the Divine is part of
a particular mythos; we can't avoid having some myths, so
we may as well choose our myths with care.

Karen



-- 
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.