HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 3 Sep 92 09:47:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

Ron Graham (ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: Her contention was (and this another topic altogether) that the term "lady"
: is also sexist, in that it has negative connotations ("lady of the night,"
: etc.) with no male gender-specific analog.
: 
	How about 'gentleman' - but none of the negative connotations present
	as for 'lady'

	Aaron Turner		aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
Subject: Re: Ways to respond to criticism of men
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:09:39 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

Of course, the other way is to simply agree.  Someone approached me
back at college and asked me if I was pro-life or pro-choice.  I
replied that I was pro-choice.  They than said that if I was not
pro-life, than I was pro-death.  Rather than starting a debate and
tearing apart this person's warped logic, I simply said, "Yes."

End of conversation.

- Seth
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 06:25:19 GMT

In article <AWERLING.92Aug31173953@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>In article <1992Aug31.174327.17143@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:
>
>>"Women can't comprehend mathematics".
>>"Women don't understand complicated, technical subjects"
>	
>My old roommate insists that women are poor drivers (he's a habitual 
>tailgator).

Now this is interesting!
My Dad's insurance company insists that women are *better* drivers!
Also, that *more aged* drivers are better drivers.

The insurance company uses statistics to generalize that male drivers under
25 are poor risks, and prejudges me, an *individual*, as a poor risk.

The line goes like this:
Statistically, most of the people in group A are B.
Person C is in group A, so he should be treated as if he were B.

Change the word male to black, and see if *that* would stand up in court!

Incidentally, my insurance company need not assume that I am a high risk
driver.  They know that I have not had a single accident in my 5 years of
driving.  If I had, they would use that fact to raise my rates, even though
the probability obviously doesn't change!

Is this not unfair and unnecessary discrimination?
Women get better insurance rates, here, than men do.

By the way, this has been the situation in New Jersey and, to my knowledge,
in other local states, such as New York, and Pennsylvania.

 * * * * *  =================== Internet address is  mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * == Meir I. Green == Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
 * * * * *  = mig@columbia.edu= Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@K2KJC.NY.USA.NOAM
* * * * * * =================== Amateur TCP/IP       N2JPG@uhm.ampr.org
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dewind@acsu.buffalo.edu (Padraig)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Keywords: Feminism
Date: 1 Sep 92 00:30:20 GMT
Organization: UB

standish@athena.mit.edu (Mark S Farrar) writes:


>	My 
>	biggest problem with the classes were when an effort was made 
>	to solicit a "male's opinion".  The classes only had 2-5 males
>	in them, or about 5-10% of the class, and I resented being 
>	thought to have a typical male opinion on a given subject.  At
>	those moments I refused to participate, but at other moments I
>	would offer up my thoughts freely and it was always fine...

I have always shied away from taking classes like the afforementioned classes
(although I haven't given up the thought of taking one entirely) for similar
reasons.  I have never seen myself as being a "typical male".  The mere fact
that I listen to people's complaints about the way I behave.  I cringe at the
thought that I could have a large group of angry women scowling at me just 
because I was dumb enough to try to learn something.

>	So, I actually wanted to know what people thought about this
>	new women's group in NY, the name of which escapes me, that is
>	based on the ACT UP organization.  Supposedly, men are not 
>	allowed to attend their meetings, because they inhibit women
>	from speaking up (I believe this was the justification).  Men
>	can participate in their rallies and marches.  I want to know
>	what people think of this rule.  Are they dooming themselves
>	to the same fate as men only organizations?  I can understand
>	emotionally why men are being excluded, but intellectually I
>	have problems with it.  How can discriminatory behavior hope 
>	to correct a discriminatory system?  Fight fire with fire until
>	everyone burns?

Well said...HOw can you hope to fight discrimination with discrimination?
If men were able to attend the meetings perhaps they could learn something
and carry the message on to others.  


  -Padriag

______________________________________________________________________________
Patrick DeWind				  |  dewind@lictor.acsu.buffalo.edu
SUNY at Buffalo				  |  V077PW3W@UBVMS.CC.BUFFALO.EDU
					  |  ACSOPTD@UBVMS.BITNET
"She's been everybody else's girl...maybe |
 one day she'll be her own."  Tori Amos   |Be afraid!  Be VERY afraid!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminists (Was: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 92 13:39:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep3.025311.11936@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) flogs Dworkin yet again.  If Dworkin
>did not exist, people like Nosy would have to invent her.
>
>In article <Btz0M4.Erx@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
>| I can see that if the above statements are a reflection of what most
>| here feel to be the feminist `party line' why there is so much
>| animosity. Whew..what a bunch of hate flying here.. Does anyone out 
>| there feel that the above 2 statements ARE correct or lend any
>| credibility to them at all? Baffled.
>
>You're getting a the soc.men version of feminism.  Besides
>that, there are hundreds of books, articles, and postings
>that reflect another kind of feminism.

So which is the REAL (tm) version of feminism? And why do those others
lie to us and claim to be feminists?  ( half a smiley here)
 
>Just study the texts, and notice out of those millions of
>sentences which Nosy finds important, and you'll see where
>he's at.
>-- 
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Victimhood's Strange Bedfellows
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: Fri, 4 Sep 92 17:19:56 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.221835.27291@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>A couple of exerpts from an editorial in todays Wall Street Journal.
>
>________________
>  Victimhood's Strange Bedfellows
>    by Cathy Young
>
[body of (IMHO) very pertinent article deleted]
>
>For men to define themselves as victims of oppression may not be either a
>traditionally masculine or a politically correct thing to do.  But there's
>always hope.  The men's movement, its bibles also riding the best-seller
>lists, seems to be mostly about one great truth:  Men are victims, too.  
>They are victimized by an industrial civilization, by their fathers, by
>their mothers, by feminists.  It seems we're just a few steps away from
>a brave new world in which everone is everyone's victim and no one is to
>blame.
	I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has noticed this charming
trend.  An unpleasant amount of political rhetoric and even legislation
these days seems predicated on the assumption that this groups or that
group is nothing but a helpless collection of victims, in urgent need of
protection by The State, said protection usually involving giving The
State more money and more power.
	And it's all over the political spectrum.  Pat Buchanan wants you
to believe that fundamentalist Christians are victims of a SeXular
Humanist Conspiracy (thanks, drieux! >:-)> ); The Bushman says HE'S just
a victim of a gridlocked Congress; David DuKKKe thinks white males are
victims of Reverse Racism(tm); Andrea Dworkin and Katherine McKinnon seem
to think that all women are victims of erotica (even the ones who are
involved in creating and/or consuming it); and Randall ("The Terrorist")
Terry and company would like you to believe that women who have abortions
are victims who need to be "protected" from the horror of making their own
choices about these things.
	Yep, victimology is the "in" thing these days, for sure.  And
accepting responsibility for and taking control of your own life seems to
be "out".  Personally, I'm getting pretty fed up with it.
	But then, I'm just a victim of victimology.....>:-)>
	Thanks for the posting, hillyard@msc.cornell, whoever you may be.

The_Doge
ObQuote:	"I'm a victim of coicumstances!" -- Curly Howard


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Subject: Re: ERA question
Reply-To: mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green)
Organization: Columbia University, New York
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 03:57:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.004500.24518@burrhus.harvard.edu> dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
>
>The fact is, the impact of a constitutional amendment as vague as the
>ERA would have been is basically in the hands of the courts.  Since
>the particular guys we had on the bench during the 1980s (and the
>woman we picked up during the decade) were a very unlikely crew to be
>forcing mixed-sex restrooms or a female draft, you can't legitimately
>expect that would have been the result of the proposed text.
>
>Remember, blacks had "equal protection" under the law all during the
>period of Jim Crow laws and lynchings and KKK power.  Didn't help them
>much at all until the Warren Court started interpreting the constitution
>in a favorable way.  Same probably would have been true with an ERA.

Then again, we *can* always hope!  I believe Clinton will win the election.
Who knows?  Things probably won't get worse :-)  They might even get better!

 * * * * *  =================== Internet address is  mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
* * * * * * == Meir I. Green == Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
 * * * * *  = mig@columbia.edu= Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@K2KJC.NY.USA.NOAM
* * * * * * =================== Amateur TCP/IP       N2JPG@uhm.ampr.org
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?)
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:03:11 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
| ... 
| All that from Muffy who rejects politically incorrect articles
| from soc.feminism.

This simply isn't so.  If you doubt me, you can get the
whole soc.feminism contributions file, and check it out
for yourself.  Plenty of what Hillel calls "politically
incorrect" articles appear in soc.feminism, approved
by none other than Muffy.  The standard seems to be
coherence, not correctness, so Hillel may be getting 
things mixed up.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 18:35:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug31.142504.13145@panix.com> 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.

To play devils advocate here, is not the very subject of "women's studies"
sexist given that there are no 'men's studies". I rather suspect that
anyone proposing tha latter subject would be laughed out of the room.
 
>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.
>
>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'm not looking for flames; just some answers.
>
>- Seth

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Gun Control
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:00:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <BtJLFF.2Do@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> olmstead@sail.uwaterloo.ca
writes:
>Re: Gun Control
>
>I'm not sure that this is the right group for this or if I should add my
>two cents canadian via e-male (its a question not a comment). 

Well, my interest was in finding out whether feminists are typically
for or against guns these days.  As I said, my wife is mildly pro-gun
and her mother is vehemently anti-gun.  However, part of the reason my
wife thinks that knowing how to use guns is a good idea, is that she
is pragmatic about the need for women to be able to defend themselves.
I was wondering if she is more of a typical feminist, these days.

If people want me to drop this topic, I will.

>Was the right to bear arms not intended to be a provision against bad
>governments?  Was it not drafted because people were sick of the
>European tyrants?

The Second Amendment was developed by reaching a concensus about the
common meaning of all the state constitutions.  If you read the state
constitutions on this topic, very few have no mention of this topic.
Some state that people need to practice with guns, so that they can
participate in the militia in the event of an emergency.  Others
specifically say that we have the right to self defense.  New Mexico
(which, of course, wasn't part of the US in 1776) even goes so far as
to state that the recreational use of guns is a valid reason for owning
them.

As far as self defense goes, there's no form of resisting assault that
beats owning a gun and being proficient in its use.

>If this is the case you may need more than just guns.

Especially this November; we need votes! :)

    don
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: Thu, 27 Aug 92 14:10:26 GMT

In article <l-cn-sd.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>Here is some information that I posted to a local net. There is a
>3.?K limit to the size of what can be posted, so it is a short clip.
>If I can find the article, I will post more.
>
>
>Rich
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
[lots of loony stuff from Dworkin deleted]
>
>Sexual-harrasment law thus discards the idea of equal protection: given
>the same behavior, a man will find it much harder to prove a claim than
>a woman. The "hostile environment" approach also does away with the idea of
>intent. It does not matter what the defendant intended to do, or even
>what he actually did. The crucial test is the "environment" that his
>actions created - in other words, the subjective reaction of the
>complainant.
>
	I'm afraid you're making a bit of a logical leap here.  Laws against
sexual harrassment do not necessarily encode Dworkin's extremist views.  Do
you have any actual evidence that these laws are interpreted in the way you
claim?  Otherwise this is simply an opinion.  Personally, I'd like to hear
from someone with some legal knowledge on this issue.
	In this particular posting, you have leapt from Dworkin's declarations
to a specific case which asserts only that men generally are more empowered
than women in most part of our society.  You may find this an unacceptable idea,
but I'm afraid there's plenty of evidence to support it.  This doesn't offer
any real support for Dworkin's extremist views, however.

>***********
>
>This is scary stuff, it is real, and it is happening now.
>
	Well, I'll agree with the first two, but I'm a little vague on the last.*What* is "happening now"?  You can hardly claim that Dworkin's extremist ideas
have been enacted into law; consensual sex still isn't considered rape as far as
I know.
>I will post more in the future.
>
	If you insist.  Personally, I'm getting a little tired of what looks
like an attempt to discredit the entire feminist movement by repeatedly
focusing on it's most radical members.  It's not unlike discussing the
Republican party only in terms of David Duke or Patrick Buchanan.
>
>Rich
>
The_Doge

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: miriam@seismo.gps.caltech.edu (Miriam Jackson)
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:18:40 GMT

In article <AWERLING.92Sep1225713@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>
>  lines deleted
>
>Anyone know of a female version of the "guy"?
>--
I always use 'lass', which has the male equivalent lad.  To me these terms
are non-sexist, and a lass means someone older than a girl but younger
than a woman.  However, I'm english so I can get away with lad and lass.
I know many Americans find these two terms weird/outdated/etc.

		Miriam Jackson


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:39:34 GMT

england@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (julie england) writes:

>This got to be real annoying.  One day someone in class asked him
>why he did this, and in front of the entire class, he said, "Well,
>I really don't think women are as intelligent as men".  In front
>of everyone! The women in the class just couldn't believe it.  I
>couldn't believe it!  I'd never run across such a blatent statement
>before, though I had suspicions that that was how most men felt.

>Has anyone come across this perception so blatently before?  Do men
>(and society as a whole) still feel this way?  It is sometimes hard
>to believe.  This happened to me about 6 years ago, so I imagine
>it is still a common perception.  The instructor, by the way, was
>a graduate student, fairly young, and in my opinion, should have
>known better!!!

Not quite the same thing, but I help a number of my less computer
literate friends with their machines. I've gotten a couple of *women*
upset at me because I *didn't* assume that they'd have trouble.
I might add that I haven't noticed that me female friends have any
more trouble than the males. Theyjust aren't used to someone who
*doesn't* assume that they'll have trouble.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,misc.misc
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Keywords: Feminism
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:32:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BtwG8H.1w0@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>Oddly, while everyone has aggreed that if sexism is the probem, it cannot
>>be the answer, almost eveyone seems to think that anti-male discrimination
>>is OK. 
>
>What he was talking about was not `anti-male' discrimination..
>just discrimination.

Gee, you deleted all the stuff about "male bashing". Why?
 
>>Either they do not understand the statement, or I must not.
>
>You do not.

And it was my statement too, what a pity.
 
>>payner@netcom.com
again
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (aaron greenwood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 2 Sep 92 13:57:47 GMT
Followup-To: alt.folklore.science
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <715423275.17423@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
 
-	Or Einstein's wife who formulated much of the mathematics for the
-	theories of relativity but whose contribution remains largely
-	unrecognised. (She is still so unknown that I have to appologise
-	and admit I can't remember her name)
-
-	Aaron Turner			aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
- 

This is a topic for alt.folklore.science or a subject for publication in
the "Star".

starbuck
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Keywords: Feminism
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:18:14 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Sep1.153549.3460@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>I wonder if the term "male bashing" could be defined.  I get
>the idea that some people feel that any reference to sexism or
>patriarchalism is derogatory to all men.

male bashing: 1. The act of associating a negative characteristic or quality to 
	      the set "men", usually in the absence of any positive
	      declarations. (general)
	      2. The act of associating said qualities with an individual of 
	      set "men" primarily by the fact of the individuals inclusion 
	      in said set. (personal)

But, in the end, it all comes down to personal points of view. You can do all
sorts of substitutions for men in the above. If it is generalized it becomes 
a def for bashing, all by itself.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson