HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: uunet!mailrus!gatech!meshugge.media.mit.edu!cindy@ncar.ucar.EDU (Cindy Blank-Edelman)
Subject: Re: men's issues vs. women's issues
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:17:48 GMT
	<CINDY.92Aug7105058@meshugge.media.mit.edu> <BtGvyA.D6G@cs.psu.edu>

Don writes (responding to what I wrote):

>>This would explain how things developed into what
>>*I* see, where women are excluded from the registration for the draft
>>because men felt the need to elevate it into some kind of macho thing
          ^^^
>>so they could deal with it.  Saying "this is man's work, women can't
>>do it" puts them on top in the hierarchy again after the country has
>>told them their lives are on the bottom.
>>This also, by the way, could explain the attitude towards gay men and
>>lesbians in the military -- men's determination to keep the hierarchy
>>in
                              ^^^
>>place so that they don't have to question what they are doing.
>>
>>It makes me sad that men have to go through all of this
>>self-manipulation, and sad that women, gay men and lesbians have to
  ^^^^
>>suffer for it.  Just confirms my pacifist leanings.

> I would agree with your analysis in the following sense:
> leaders, army recruiters, and all those persons immune from being
> drafted have a vested interest in seeing to it that the military
> is self-sustaining and well populated by strongly motivated soldiers
> (replete with deception about the nature of war, feelings of
> superiority and exclusivity, macho as one way of dealing with
> the obvious contradictions, and so on).

> But you seem to equate "men" with this power group (note emphases
> above).

> Do you really believe that

> . "men" form a self-deceiving conspiracy with the goal of
>   oppressing women, gay men, and lesbians?
> . the "power elite" is not supported by (and does not include) women?
> . this system was instituted solely by "men"?
> . all "men" benefit from this system and willingly accept it?
> . only "women, gay men, and lesbians have to suffer for it"?

You are right.  I misspoke, and I apologize.  I was speaking of men as
a group, but that is an incorrect and unfair generalization, at least
in this case.

I suppose I should have said "men who are in power".  (Perhaps "people
in power"?  I don't know...I still think it has been some men who have
set the rules on this issue, not some men and women.)

Actually, I should say "some men in power".  Or "some people in
power".  Or maybe I should just say from the outright that I am
generalizing and leave it at that.

Or maybe I should stop making generalizations!?! :-)

--Cindy Blank-Edelman

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Subject: Re: Preventing Female Children - in India
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 27 Aug 92 19:34:25 GMT

In <1992Aug27.003136.22261@zip.eecs.umich.edu> bhattach@dip.eecs.umich.EDU (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:

>I think that the problem is more related to poverty than to
>lack of education. Traditionally, the girl child leaves the
>family when she is married, while the male child will stay
>in the family for ever and will contribute his earnings
>to the family. Thus, it makes perfect economic sense for an
>impoverished family to kill or neglect girl children, because
>any investment made on the girl child is a waste of money .
>It makes more sense to invest the already meagre resources
>on the sons , for they are a good investment.

>This is the ground reality in India and , I think, in many
>third world countries.

>A clear example of this is the traditional custom in Indian
>households that the women of the family should eat last,
>after the menfolk have eaten. Obviously, this doesn't matter
>so much in affluent families where there is enough food to
>go around for everyone. But one can well imagine what the
>situation is like in impoverished families : often, it is
>only leftovers, if that, which are left for the women. Once
>again, this makes perfect economic sense.

All this perfect economic sense is going to go out the window
a generation from now, you know...

I *don't* think the problem is *just* economic.  I think it is
symptomatic of the continual dismissal of the value of the work
that women do, which is true here as well as there.

--Cindy

--
        Feminism is: "...a socialist, anti-family political movement
        that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their
        children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
        become lesbians."                           --Pat Robertson

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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.
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: who "benefits" from  (1)
Date: 3 Sep 1992 00:11:40 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
> Muffy writes...
> MB> effective.  If she *does* get pregnant, the man can just leave, so it's
> MB> not all that risky for him.
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Hardly...  I'd say that the possibility of getting hit with a paternity suit
> and being forced to support a child whom you may not want, for 18-24 years,
> is a fairly significant risk.

Assuming of course that she is an affluent white woman who believes that
such a court case would be both worthwhile AND beneficial to her.
(or is it different in the USA: an illiterate puerto rican woman can
take a paternity suit against an unemployed black man of no fixed abode
and get something out of it?)

For you personally perhaps this is a real risk you face in daily life?
I _assume_ from your posts that you are a well-off white male? who has a
life plan that would be impeded by having to pay for a childs upbringing?
And that you would feel morally obliged to pay? So that yes, there is a 
real risk of you being in that position. Even so, the risk for any
female partner you have is greater, as having a child is almost certainly
going to wreck her career plans and cost her a bundle.

MOZ


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Preventing Female Children - in India
Date: 28 Aug 1992 01:21:16 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

[Moderator's note: excessive included text trimmed.]

In article <1992Aug27.003136.22261@zip.eecs.umich.edu> bhattach@dip.eecs.umich.EDU (sayan bhattacharyya) writes:
>In article <9208170853.AA00858@score.aic.co.jp> jaya@aic.co.jp (Jayanthi Krishnamachari) writes:
>>Beyond this, education at the grassroots level, that girls
>>*can* be an asset, is necessary. This is the work of
>>more than a lifetime.
>
>I think that the problem is more related to poverty than to
>lack of education. Traditionally, the girl child leaves the
>family when she is married, while the male child will stay
>in the family for ever and will contribute his earnings
>to the family. Thus, it makes perfect economic sense for an
>impoverished family to kill or neglect girl children, because
>any investment made on the girl child is a waste of money .
>It makes more sense to invest the already meagre resources
>on the sons , for they are a good investment.
..
>The only way that the situation can improve is if economic
>conditions improve.

That's assuming that the social structure remains the same
(much the way that in the US the argument was made in the 1980s
that the way to improve the lot of poor people was to give money
to rich people). 

If you change the tradition, so that women no longer become
the property of the family they marry into, then investment
in their welfare becomes economically sensible. If you simply
enlighten the tradition, so that someone acquiring a wife is
more likely to select someone in whom an investment has been
made, the investment in women's welfare again becomes economically
sensible.

But if you leave things as they apparently are, where, although
they cook and clean and keep house, women are viewed as liabilities,
then it will always be economically advantageous to kill them
directly or by neglect. Only if the social structure changes so
that women have perceived economic value will the economic arguments
for doing away with them change.

paul





-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: gcf@panix.COM (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: male/female joy of sex
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: mydog in exile
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:16:54 GMT

| In article <17bb4gINNg9p@agate.berkeley.edu> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >I think the "tyranny of the orgasm" has a lot to do with the
| >ideology of production and consumption in a capitalist culture.
| >...  If one doesn't produce one (in both oneself and the
| >partner(s), at exactly the same moment) one has _failed_.  It's
| >as if the GNP went down.

beaver@castor.cs.psu.EDU (Don Beaver) writes:
| Yes -- but what does the P stand for?   (It probably ties in well
| with your male-oriented theory...   }:-)

I got some funny remarks about the phrase "went down", too.

It seems difficult to discuss this issue without running off
the rails into humor.  You should have seen the response to a
similar article I wrote for the DERRIDA newsletter -- of course,
there I mentioned baboons, and it was just too much for them.
But what I'm getting at is that sex is cast into a particular
form in our culture which seems related to very non-sexual
things like industrialization.  One wonders what pre-capitalist
sex was like -- or pre-patriarchal sex.  I don't even know if
it's a feminist issue; I guess it depends on who wants to
discuss it, and it what terms.
--
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism callous to m
Date: 30 Aug 1992 16:50:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

uunet!mailrus!gatech!meshugge.media.mit.edu!cindy@ncar.ucar.EDU (Cindy Bla
nk-Edelman) writes...

CB> I think the main problem is one of communication.  When men talk to me
CB> about their concerns or issues (and in my entire life that has only
CB> happened on soc.feminism), I hear them expecting me to give up my
CB> issues because theirs are the *real* issues.  I hear them blaming me
CB> for not working on their issues.

As one of the only men who has spoken to you about his concerns on issues,
I should add that I have never once claimed that you, or any other person
concerned with women's issues, should "give up" anything.  Robert Coleman
has not asked you *anything* of this sort, either, nor has Robert Hartman,
and I can probably list others.

We are only *hoping* that the women's movement be OPEN-MINDED, rather than
simply call us sexist pigs or "spoiled boys".  (GOiD!  I think that Alan
and the other U of T'ers are going to slap me silly if I keep on going back
to that quote from the U of T Women's Centre Coordinator...  :-) ).

If I have caused you to misinterpret any of my concerns, I apologise, and I
would certainly willing to discuss them with you, on soc.feminism or in
e-mail.  Thank you for hearing me out and keeping an open mind.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * The Borg Hard Drive - Your files will be assimilated.


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: muffy@mica.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy)
Subject: Re: male/female joy of sex
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:44:27 GMT

In article <173rusINNncb@agate.berkeley.edu> mas1!kens@apple.com (Ken Showman) writes:
> Muffy writes:

>>In fact, it is not clear that women, in general, enjoy sex nearly as
>>much as men.  It's only lately that men have even been that
>>concerned about women having orgasms, [etc., on how sex is often
>>viewed as a vehicle for satisfaction of the man]

By the way, I should note that I do not consider orgasms to be the
ultimate goal of sex.  I should have stated this in my original
discussion, but I got off on some different points.  The basic point
is not orgasms, but enjoyment.  My contention is still that many
(most?)  women do *not* actually enjoy sex, even though they are
generally physically capable of doing so.

> I am male, and for me having an orgasm does not constitute success
> in a sexual encounter.  The "goal" of a sexual encounter is not _my_
> orgasm; [etc.]

> Perhaps the difference here is I'm talking about "making love" while
> you're talking about "having sex"... ?

Actually, no.  The point was not about how considerate you are, or any
other specific man is, as a lover.  The point is that sex, in our
society, is still conceived of in such a way as to make it difficult
for women to enjoy.  I was responding to the following (trimmed)
statement:

<Since we know that women enjoy sex too, how do we explain why women
<desire sex only within a relationship, whereas men enjoy sex
<regardless of a relationship? [...]  but it is obvious how women
<benefit from withholding sex until a relationship is established.

The implication here is that women enjoy sex and that therefore they
must have some other motivation for not having sex all the time.  The
idea being that they can use sexual desire to control men.  I object
to the premise that women enjoy sex; not the idea that they *can*, but
that it is generally the case that they do.

From my conversations with other women and my own experience, it seems
to me that even now, when many men *are* concerned about their
partner's pleasure, that doesn't really change things.  I have known
and heard of many men who ask "did you enjoy that" or "did you come"
but it is still so much of a performance issue for them that if the
woman says "no," it is a huge disaster, so many women are reluctant to
discuss any problems or lack of enjoyment.  In addition to this, no
one is really encouraged to talk about sex (how-to) with their
partner.

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


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves)
Subject: FAQ Entry for M.E.R.G.E.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:53:36 GMT


M.E.R.G.E. - Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality

MERGE was founded in mid 1987 by Professor Ferrel M. Christensen of the
University of Alberta, as an organisation dedicated to gender equality,
supporting both the women's movement and the men's movement, without showing
bias towards either.  Since MERGE incorporates the concerns of both men and
women, its members consider themselves to be "equalists" and "humanists"
working towards equitable treatment of both genders.

MERGE has come under fire for not being dedicated enough towards men's
issues, while many in the feminist movement have condemned MERGE for taking
a stance which they consider to be "pro-male," "anti-feminist," and "anti-
women".

To counter these charges, MERGE has published an eight-part statement of
purpose.  Some of its major positions include:

- Opposition to any imposition of sex roles and sex role stereotypes
_ Support for legal and educational issues of importance to both men as
  and women.
- Equal costs for men and women in all economic matters, ie., insurance,
  services, etc.
- Support for the principle that divorce settlements should be based on
  contributions of labour (including housework) and money, rather than on
  a presumption of equal contributions or a subjection determination of need
  for either party.
- Support for a legal presumption of joint custody in divorce cases.
- Support for the principle that whatever legal rights women have to claim
  or renounce legal parenthood, should also be matched by corresponding
  rights for men.  This is a "Pro-Choice" stance which also includes the
  newly-growing groundswell of support for the concept of "Pro-Male Choice"
  in addition.
- Equal support for all victims of violence, whether female or male, and
  the elimination of gender-based stereotypes regarding this subject.

For further information, write:

MERGE - Movement for the Establishment of Real Gender Equality
10011  116th Street
Suite 501
Edmonton, Alberta
T5K 1V4
CANADA

Phone: (403) 488-4593

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Why ask Why?  Because it tastes like water!

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: rdh@veritas.COM (Robert Hartman)
Subject: bashing feminism in soc.feminism
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: VERITAS Software
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:54:20 GMT

It seems to me lately that there has been a lot of criticism of
feminism here of late.  As one of the people who has expressed some
heated critical views, I want to reiterate that I think of feminism as
a very important, very positive, development.  I admire the intentions
and the work of most feminists, and for the most part I respect those
I disagree with.  And those whom I don't much respect, I empathize
with.

When I voice complaints about certain attitudes and practices, my
intention is to bring it to women's attention, not to accuse or
condemn.  When I get hot, this doesn't always come across.  I
encourage women in the movement take what might be useful from me and
leave the rest.  I do not want feminism to go away, to change its
charter, or to do things my way.  In short, I am trying to be
constructive, even about things that have caused me a great deal of
pain.

I don't think that this should become a forum in which feminism itself
is debated.  Articles in attack or defense of feminism seem to me to
be out-of-place here.  There's plenty of that kind of thing over in
soc.men.  (It may not belong there either, but that's what soc.men
seems to have evolved into.)

I'd like to express my regret at becoming so involved in my issues
that I may have contributed to a change in the apparent tone of this
newsgroup.  As I understand it, this is supposed to be a group for
discussion of feminist issues, not a group for discussion of the issue
of feminism.

I'd like to ask the moderators in future, to please feel free to send
back any articles of mine that appear to call feminism into question.
While there are certain techniques and practices in feminism that I
object to, and while I will continue to object to being patronized in
the name of the women's movement, I am beginning to find the tone of
hostility toward feminism in this forum to be even more objectionable,
even when it comes from me.

Thanks,

-r

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may 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: c9117709@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (THE SKY IS FALLING......NO I'M TIPPING OVER BACKWARDS)
Subject: Help Needed: Looking for Jen Olsen
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 10:10:58 GMT

*******************************************************************************
**************************HELP NEEDED******************************************
*******************************************************************************

	I am trying to find an address(E-Mail) for a girl who goes to The
University of New Mexico.  She comes from Boston.  Her name is Jennifer Olsen
If anyone knows of her whereabouts could they please get her to contact 

**  PETER.J.BOWMAN AT Email- C9117709@wombat.newcastle.edu.au 

	She was an exchange student in Perth Australia where I finished High
School, but I have lost touch.  ANyone knowing where she is can mail me at the
same address funnily enough.

Thanks.

Peter.J.Bowman
C9117709@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
The University of Newcastle
New South Wales
Australia.