HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Practise what you preach? (was:what is sexist?)
Date: 17 Nov 1992 13:35:34 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: paprika.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <1992Nov16.232907.27055@wam.umd.edu> sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>:a
ho hum

>I have my problem with some particular feminists and I have problems with
>some particular feminists doctrines.  However, I think it is important
>to realise that feminists are indviduals like members of any other group
>who believe a wide variety of things.  I think this post is a good example
>of how some people operate on the implicit assumption that feminists
>are a monolithic group mind with a single ideology.  Many of the arguments
>/complaints seem to be of the form " Feminist X once said this to me, now
>you, Feminist Y say/do the contrary.....you are a hyprocrite or you are
>to blamed for my anger at X's comment"
>
I have addressed this subject in a previous article. The thing is although
feminist X may, for example, say (s)he is willing to tolerate male habit A, 
feminist Y may be protesting vigourously against it.

Now feminist Y runs the risk of being flamed, laughed at etc etc for his/her
intolerance, but nevertheless is bound to succeed to a greater or lesser
degree in getting habit A reduced or stopped. Thus 'moderate' feminist X 
gains as a consequence of the actions of extreme feminist Y.

In trying to make sense of this 'jungle' of interrelated effects, I have 
concluded that there must be a 'basic' definition of feminism, onto which
any feminist can add his/her personal perspective. Furthermore, the rejection
of 'condescending terms of endearment' is something I take to be part of
this 'basic' definition, and if someone is _willing_ to claim to be a feminist
then they should be _willing_ to accept and abide by its own rules.

>Steve R
>


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: mzank@shell.portal.com (matthew c zank)
Subject: A basic question
Organization: Portal Communications Company
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 05:12:09 GMT

I like to ask this for fun, what body characteristics
of men turn women off? does anyone know?
--
Matthew Zank * Eau Claire, Wisconsin
------------------------------------
mzank@shell.portal.com
mzank@nyx.cs.du.edu    MZANK@MCIMAIL.COM
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 23:20:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.164000.10607@mr.med.ge.com> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
)
)Peter,
)
)As the book also says, most males will not understand what she has to say
)at all. I agree, you certainly proved that........

It's truly amazing how one can generalize from one man's position (which
happens to be misrepresented, IMO, as Peter seems to _understand_ what
the book said, he just didn't _agree_ with it), to 'all males'.

It may be true, however, that 'most males' won't understand the book, as
'most males' are probably not human and therfore cannot read :-)

)To show how male you are, you took a quote out of context to make readers
)think that she supports women being victims, at least that's what it appears
)you tried to do. She doesn't. Earlier in the same chapter she says:
)
)		 "As her perceptions are validated, she will begin to trust
)		  herself. She will become more willing to clarify and check 
)		  out her perceptions with less fear of recrimination. She
)		  will learn to discriminate between those which are valid
)		  and those which are not."

)What is being described at the point you quoted is the stages a women must
)go through during therapy. It is a therapy based on women's perceptions of
)the world.

This is actually a good point - too bad you had to stoop to slamming
'males' and Peter for 'being so male' rather than just making it.


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:38:48 GMT

In article <BxvvL0.FCI@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>  And, as I pointed out in an earlier posting, while it's true
>  that we are all under social pressure to conform to certain
>  roles and behavior and consume certain products, that pressure
>  *can* be resisted!    Women have to face enough *genuine*
>  harassment and discrimination that it's alsmost criminal when
>  they actively promote a set of cultural values that further
>  denigrates them.   It's truly bizarre.  I'm at that age where
>  a lot of my friends have children and I see mothers in generation
>  taking their 9-year old girls out to get their ears pierced or
>  to buy makeup and jewelry, setting them out on the road to
>  becoming obediant little consumers preoccupied with conforming
>  to some artificial standard of beauty.   Last Christmas my
>  10 year old niece got a mall shopping game! 

    
There's nothing wrong with little girls wanting to wear makeup and earrings.
There definitely is something wrong with making them wear them and there's
definitely something wrong with telling them they can't do things like play
baseball. Give them a choice. Let them wear makeup and earrings if they
so choose.
From: sormani1@husc11.harvard.edu (Nannette Sormani)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Date: 24 Nov 92 02:13:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Nov23.211354.17741
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

-------stuff deleted
>
>1) the combat side of the militiary cannot be compared to the service sector
>of the forces or to industries .
>true . women may generally handle family pressures and pregnancies well but
>not ALL of them do . and in a combat unit where there is generally very 
>little allowance for substitutions of roles - this could be very disruptive.
>men may have the same problems too - ( minus the obvious one ...) but at
>least the system knows how to handle the situation as pertaining to men .
>and furthermore , men tend to be more predictable in their .... lifestyles.
>i don't know if i put this properly .. but i guess what i mean to say is that
>the male dominated militiary KNOWS how to predict when a problem might pop up
>and what should be done .... with women ... you'd have to re-train personnel
>to further evaluate the unfamiliar situation . (am i saying this right? )
>hmm.... 
>besides.... let's not forget that that ONE problem i was talking about IS 
>a BIG factor..

This isn't a very fair argument.  You're punishing the women for the
flaws of the system.  Fact of the matter is, the only way the military
will become used to dealing with women is to put women in combat
positions and particularly in positions of leadership.  After all, if
women are as different as you claim, women will know how to deal with
it.

In many ways I think this argument is analagous to one which could
have been made in the forties when the army was desegragated.  Looking
back, we would all agree that this was a good thing, but many of the
common arguments could have been made.  For example, you could argue
that putting blacks in with whites would create tension and lack of
trust, given the racial attitudes of the time.  Furthermore, how would
the commander be able to handle things if a "black problem" cropped up
(though I'm not sure what a "black problem" or even a "woman problem"
would actually be).


>2) inter office romance and even relationships in the service sector ofthe
>forces cannot be compared to relationships in the combat sector . 
>they're mUCH more disruptive because life/death situations and decisions
>generally are made more often in the combat units.
>yeesh...bus is here..got to go..back tommorow.
>>							--  Michal

I disagree here, too.  I would tend to see relationships as more
intense forms of the bonding that goes on in any combat unit.  Would
the actions of a romantically involved couple be that different from
two very close friends in a combat situation?  Please, give men and
women some credit for professionalism!

Looking forward to hearing your response,
Nannette


-- 
*******************************************************************************
* Nannette Sormani          * "The rooster may crow, but it's the hen that    *
* sormani1@husc.harvard.edu *  delivers the eggs." -Ann Richards, Gov. of TX  *
*******************************************************************************
From: jsmt@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Julia Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Cold Marriage
Keywords: Marriage
Date: 22 Nov 92 04:30:43 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1992Nov21.230335.6184@dragon.acadiau.ca> 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>
>>Do yourself a favor and seek professional help.  If she won't
>>go with you go by yourself.
>
>On the contrary, I do believe it's HER that needs the help, not HIM!!
 
Doc, they both *need* help, but they need different kinds of help.
He needs help to deal with his hurt and what it is going through in
his increasingly abusive relationship (and if you don't think withholding
affection is abuse, I feel very very sorry for you).  She definately needs
help as well, but HE CANNOT CHANGE HER.  The only person he can change
is himself.  If she won't get the help she needs to make a relationship
tolerable, he'll have to figure out whether it is worth it to him to 
stay or go.  but HE CANNOT CHANGE HER and no amount of pushing or
prodding will force her to do something she isn't ready or willing
to do.
  The first tenant of recovery is that no one can do the work for you.
That applies to trouble in relationships as well.  
  Darren, if you sit around and wait for her to change, you are going
to suffer some major hurt which will take you a long time to deal with.
Start now - get the help you need.  Maybe once you start, and she sees
that it doesn't turn you into a zombie, she will be able to take care
of what is troubling her.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie)
Subject: Re: Derrogatory terms for men and women (was Re: <none>)
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:51:09 GMT

royce@mdcbbs.com (Royce D. Myers EDS/Unigraphics) writes:

>In article <9873@armltd.uucp>, hwatters@armltd.uucp (Helen Watters) writes:
>> [...comments on single sex washrooms, etc, deleted]
>> I guess he was a bitch too :-) or can bitch only refer to women?  What 
>> is the male equivalent?

>An interesting point.  A derrogatory term for a woman is "bitch", derived from
>the verb that means "complain rudely" (and appears unrelated to the "bitch"
>that means female dog).  Straight men are not refered to as "bitches"; the
>comparable term seems to be bastard (i.e., his mother was not married). So even
>the crime of being a bastard can be traced to a woman.

I have seen/heard males being called "bitches".  In fact, I'm sure it's
more insulting for a male than for a female (referring to a FEMALE DOG).
Incidentally, I believe very strongly that when it's used against a
female, I believe it is ALSO referring to a FEMALE DOG.  I know it most
certainly is when I use it.  It seems more insulting than just saying:
"You dog!", or whatever.

-Doc


-- 
=============================================================================== The Commodore Amiga 4000 - 24 bit          16,777,216 colors (4096^2)!!         ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Buster: "Say goodnight, Babs."                                                 
Babs  : "Goodnight, Babs."                                                      I'm tiny, I'm toony, and I'm a little looney!                                   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darren MacKenzie                                                                ("The Doctor")                                                                  890530m@aucs.acadiau.ca
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: University of Hawaii
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:29:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.032253.11008@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.171018.4931@mr.med.ge.com> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
>>
>>I just thought I would say that I find this whole thread interesting. Being a
>>Transexual on her way to transition, I can understand both sides. Most men,
>>being members of the White Male System, have no idea of what women go through.
>[deleted sarcasm]

Gee, Rich, she was just trying to make a point.  I mean, for most of us,
"being in the other person's shoes" is just a thought-experiment.  She's
actually done it.  Have you?  *I* haven't.  

>Since you made a public anouncement, I hope you won't mind my asking why?
>(The sex change that is)
> 

Didn't the original post say something about always having felt that
she was a woman, biological gender notwithstanding?  So, that's why,
I would imagine.  Wendy?

>>Wendy
>
>Rich
>
>payner@netcom.com
>
>

Mike
______________________________________________________________________
Mike Wasson    ---   U.Hawai'i, Manoa   ---   Fat Messiah Games
mwasson@uhunx.uhcc.hawaii.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Can you say: Do-deca-he-dron?" -- Lisa Simpson
"Fool! Do you think I would fight you alone?!?" -- Skeletor
----------------------------------------------------------------------




From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:30:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Racist/Sexist Role Models
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

	
	It's amazing how many people seem to be talking past eachother
	in this thread.... so few people actually hearing what
	the other has said...  and so few _actual_ resoponses to
	issues...  I could probably go on for pages to _directly_
	respond to all that has been said here, but since there seems to 
	be so little *hearing* going on, I'll save my effort.

	What continues to disappoint me greatly is the "thinking"
	(rhetoric actually) that was repeated here with regard to racism,
	especially when directed against blacks.  Until a much more
	significant amount of the black population in America can
	get their "heads on straight" about what it means to be
	black, white, and racist in America, they will continue
	to lead lives that fail to meet their satisfaction.  Rarely
	have I ever seen such immense misrepresentation and complete
	misunderstanding of white America as I had read in some previous
	posts.  Most distressing were the blanket representations of
	whites as "barbarians" and such....  This is obvious and clear
	racism, in the ugliest sense.  The individual should feel
	ashamed IMHO for such a display of their racist hatred.
	I apologize for commenting on this in soc.women, but felt
	compelled to respond.

	As far as role models....  Brian (I believe was the name) was
	very much right on target in his recognition of racism, and the
	implicated importance of learning NOT to identify with people
	primarily on the basis of sex or skin color or national origin.

	Fantastic role models are available everywhere!  If you limit
	your role-model choices to those who have the same color
	and genital set as you, you are limiting your life.  Simple
	as that.  It helps to make a strong identification
	with a role-model, and that can be accomplished by use of
	sex or color, but it NEED NOT BE SO.  There are infinate ways
	in which to identify with any individual, and in the choosing
	of any role-model.  Teach your children to model off all
	peoples... it is something that many don't currently do, but it
	can be taught.  Remember, we 'teach' our children to see
	in a racist and sexist way.... we _can_ undo this teaching
	if we really want to.  

	(note, many of the ideas expressed here are generalizations
	in the most general sense.... :-)  your milage may vary)

	-Mike-


Xref: sparky soc.women:20113 soc.men:19748
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Supermodels contribute to spiraling low self esteem?
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:03:06 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <168A1CDAD.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>  writes:
>In article <BxsH9p.6FL@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
>brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
> 
>>Perhaps feminists would feel better about themselves if the only pictures
>>in magazine ads, posters, etc. were of ugly sloppy pathetic women.
>>
>Perhaps 'feminists' would feel better if *some* men didn't act as though
>they thought that there were only two types of women- the supermodels
>and the 'ugly sloppy pathetic' ones.

Perhaps *some* men would appreciate the ugly sloppy pathetic ones more if
they stopped blaming others for their problems.  What do you think makes
them pathetic?  Their looks?  No.  It's the whole attitude of "Gee, isn't
life unfair to me because I'm not beautiful. (pout)"

I find it strange how many women rage against how women are only judged on
their appearance, and then turn around and talk about their low self-esteem
because they're not supermodel-beautiful.  This says to me:  "I think that
my looks are very important to my worth, but I don't want *you* to think
that."  You have to change your own attitude first.

Daniel Welch
----
What an abyss divides the sexes!  Let us abandon the pretense of sameness
and admit the terrible duality of gender.

			- Camille Paglia
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: schock@flip.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Craig-Richard Schock)
Subject: Re: Abortion and humanity
Reply-To: schock@flip.cpsc.ucalgary.ca
Organization: University of Calgary Computer Science
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:21:37 GMT

The original article I wished to comment on is gone, so I've quoted it from an  
article written by "Lost Boy":

This one is too funny to let go.

In article <Bxru3y.FG6@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> smithmc@mentor.cc.purdue.edu  
(Lost Boy) writes:
> In article <1992Nov11.083200.5334@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>  
noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> > [ Loaded story about Mother Vs Baby deleted]
> >and Mr.  Smith.  The Smiths would have provided a stable and nurturing
                               ^^^^^^^^^^
> >environment, as well as sparked a keen interest in medicine and science
> >in Baby Blue (whom they would have named Chelsea).  Chelsea Smith,
                           ^^^^^^^^^^
> >through her active research in human genome mapping, would have
                                                        ^^^^^^^^^^
> >designed a series of attack virii that would have fought off
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^
> >each of the many strains of the HIV virii.  In effect, a cure for
> >AIDS.  As a result of her work and many publications, target virii were
> >designed to attack mutant cancer cells.  Within 10 years of her attack
> >virii research, a cure for the common cold was even created.  

Since your story is all about "would have"s,  let's add another one in there.   
Since research is never just the work of one person, there *would have* been  
another person with the expertise necessary to develop what "Chelsea Smith"  
*would have* developed.

Don't like that story?  How about another one...  The development of the  
attack virii *would have* been delayed 10 years because of Chelsea Smith who  
never quite learned how to sterilize lab equipment properly. 



You can make up as many stories as you like...  The fact is we still have to  
deal within the bounds of reality.  If you want to post this kind of stuff,  
please post it to a creative writing News Group.

Thanks

Craig
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:58:11 GMT

In article <By11K4.4C4@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>>...[]... The way I see it,
>>it is much easier for a person to develop and change their personality
>>than it is for them to change their looks (which they are basically born
>>with).  
>
>Ah! This, I think, gets to the heart of the matter. Personality is under
>our immediate control, and looks aren't, or at least so Muffy believes.
>
>Is it true, though? Much is made of the effect of early environment upon
>later character traits and habits, so much so that people are said to
>be "maimed" for life by episodes of childhood abuse. Similarly, several
>long threads on this net belabor the alleged effects of advertising,
>society, etc. on shaping the behavior and the values of women. The gist
>of much of this is the contention - true IMO - that human behavior is
>generally shaped by the environment in which people find themselves,
>and it is difficult to resist these influences. This in turn implies that
>peronality and character, while subject to some change, is also not easily
>controlled, by the individual, much less significantly altered without 
>great effort and desire.
>
>Looks, by contrast, require merely an investment in cosmetics and plastic 
>surgery, something that would appear, to me at least, to require much less
>time and willpower than to change one's personality significantly.

Actually, changing one's looks significantly is not so easy.  A new haircut is
one thing, but dropping 30 pounds is another.  Plastic surgery is hardly cheap,
and cosmetics can only do so much.  Which is tougher:  Hitting your 'ideal'
weight or psyching yourself out of depression?  I'd say neither.
I'd guess they're about even in terms of difficulty of change on average,
though the range is quite extreme.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women