HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Bathrooms (was: Re: ERA question)
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:18:30 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Aug26131623@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
   [about bathrooms and the ERA]

>I agree.  I'm in favor of unisex bathrooms.

   This is where the problem comes in. There are two kinds of supporters of
the ERA. The first group says that the ERA will not make non-unisex bathrooms
illegal, and that it is silly and distracting to talk about it. The other
group says that they think unisex bathrooms are great, and everyone should
be in favour of them.

   It is the second group that makes bathrooms an issue in the ERA debate.
Which is unfortunate, I guess. I personally am in the first group, and don't
see why equal must mean 'in the same place'. All graduate students here are
given a desk, but all the desks are not clustered in the same room.

   But I have a bigger problem in that I don't see why the ERA was neccessary
in the first place. I am not aware that laws (as strickly written) apply
differently to men and women. Even in places where a law uses the word 'man'
we could interpret that to mean 'human' and be done with it.

DanZ
     Gratuitous quotation:
         "Ice, for example. Some of the things you can do with ice."
                                                 -unknown


-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:40:28 GMT
	<1992Aug31.174327.17143@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Aug31.174327.17143@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> crussel@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Carol A Russell) writes:

<I've come across incidents, very recently, similar to what Julie describes.  
<They all involve several men in the department where I work.  They have made 
<comments lately such as:
<	"Women can't comprehend mathematics".

	Someone tell Ada Babbage....

<"Women don't understand complicated, technical subjects"

	Someone tell Marie Curie....
	
<"Well, [woman's name] will be traveling with us, so I guess we won't be 
<able to discuss anything technical in her company.  Don't want to confuse 
<her...ha..ha..ha.
<"I don't mean to talk down to you by talking economics...I know you
<can't understand those types of subjects..." (this one said to me)
<"Even though [woman's name] didn't understand the technical aspects of the
<job, we hired her anyhow because she had such a sweet personality".

<Aaaccckkkkk!  So, there's real life examples for you.

	If these remarks are serious, these men are stupid and sexist.
	If they are "jokes", these men may be sexist or may
	merely be stupid (or may be both).

	It does not follow, however, that all men
	are stupid and/or sexist.

	How do you deal with these remarks? Do you feel
	that your way of dealing with them is "working"?

	Sometimes there is no easy solution to such a problem....
		
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ppessi@vipunen.hut.fi (Pekka Pessi)
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
	<MUFFY.92Aug29183241@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<LYNCH.92Aug31015430@flubber.cc.utexas.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Aug31085410@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<LYNCH.92Sep1184234@flubber.cc.utexas.edu> <BtyLt1.BBL@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Sep 92 02:04:00


In article <BtyLt1.BBL@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch) writes:
>        [about Muffy]
>>It is interesting that you consider being pro-feminist or anti-
>>feminist important among your selection of moderators.  I suppose that
>>kind of thing is important if your trying to reject anti-feminist
>>stuff.  I can't be counted among the antifeminist -- but I do want
>>to hear what they have to say.

>Consider other moderated newsgroups.  Would you expect people to
>choose a moderator of sci.virtual-worlds, or comp.compilers, if
>they knew that the candidate was opposed to the underlying goals
>of the group in question?  If you want to hear what anti-feminists
>have to say, you could (i) try to organize a group soc.anti-feminist
>(or even alt.anti-feminist, if you think it appropriate, since it
>would be faster); or (ii) just watch the world about you.  [Sorry,
>I just had to stick that in. :-]

	As I understood, soc.feminism and alt.feminism were created as
	forums for discussions *about* feminism. They should not
	exclude anti-feminist nor pro-feminist views. Somebody
	underwent that soc.feminism moderators excluded anti-feminist
	(and, like they say in Finland, post-feminist) views, so they
	created this newsgroup. 

	Do you think that one should post into alt.cencorship only
	pro-cencorship matters and views?

	In this newsgroup, I perceive some posts funny; some unneeded;
	some chauvifascist; some feminazist; no one is cencored. I
	found this newsgroup needed.

	(BTW, :-[ is a very twisted smiley in my terminal ;-)

--
Pekka Pessi	/	ppessi@niksula.hut.fi
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 12:29:04 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Keywords: Feminism

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


>	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.  
>	Well, I'm interested in everyone's thoughts...

>	Thanks for your time and hopefully your opinions...

OK..my opinion is this. It is very important in some cases for women to
have a space of their own with no males allowed just as it is important
for men to have the same space, at times. My SO and I both participate
in monogender groups and dualgender groups and we feel BOTH are
necessary. I think the main reason for the need is that there is almost
always a need for women or men who are just starting out to do
something about the  `problem' to air their views in a monogender
group where they will feel safe expressing their views. After jumping
into the fracass, then there is also the need to reconoiter and have
a look at any problems that may have occured and say..`now why did
that happen?'. As far as the group above, I don't know enough about it
to make a judgement but I suspect it is not a bad thing.a

/al


>	Mark
>	standish@athena.mit.edu

> 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 12:53:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.074439.20088@news.columbia.edu>, mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
> Eureka!  She is simply trying to anger women into an uprising so they will
> o'erthrow the evil males!  Logic?  what logic? ...
  
Why would Dworkin's ideas "anger women into an uprising?"  IMO, there is
germ of truth in her work in that SOMETIMES intercourse is used for
political purposes.  If inequities in the workforce, in medical research,
in the judicial system, etc. don't anger women enough to 'o'erthrow the
evil males,' I can't see an academic treatise on sexual politics doing it.
-- 
Jaclyn Brandt
jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
--
From: smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:25:59 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

In article <BtywGK.M6J@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> slaury@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Susan Laury) writes:
>On the other hand, I've known men to claim they like women 
>without makeup but future statements reveal this to be false.
>[...]
>Just that I don't think the number of men
>who say they like women without makeup is a true indicator of the
>number who really feel this way.

It's not that I mind a little makeup, but it's just that even a little
bit tastes terrible when involved in a romantic situation.  

I suppose one of the biggest turnoffs is when her lipstick ends up on
my face.  This dislike probably came from when my aunts' lipstick
ended up all over my face.  Then they'd "wash" it off with their own
saliva...  

- Seth
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: bednarek@picard.med.ge.com (Dennis Bednarek Mfg 4-6971)
Subject: Re: equality
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 06:46:11 GMT

Gee is this turning into an issue

Let us look at it another way.  Which is the superior Olimpian, the gold
  medalist of weight lifting, the marathon, or tennis?  Each of these 
  individuals have unique skills that cannot be compared to the other.
  If the sex lines were removed throughout society, but meaningfull tests
  applied to qualify individuals, I do not believe that all groups of 
  qualified individuals would be 50% male and 50% female.  Yes in some
  areas the ratio may be equal, but in a majority of areas one or the     
  other sex would prevail.  In my mind the areas requiring dexterity
  would be dominated by females, while brute strenght would be dominated
  by males.  Also areas requiring math type skills would be more male
  dominated while areas requiring abstract thinking would be female 
  dominated.     
Lets get off the superiority kick and realize that each of us is an 
  individual, and has individual abilities.  You cannot expect a power
  lifter to win a marathon, so why expect a female to be a man?



--

  
###############################################################################
###NEVER - NEVERMORE###########################################################
###############################################################################
####################################What are the contents of the oblong box?##
###############################################################################
  The usual disclaimer of self and employer applies to all above comments.
#
From: csa09@seq1.keele.ac.uk (Paul Singleton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 1 Sep 92 13:44:56 GMT
Organization: University of Keele, England

From article <MUFFY.92Aug31113138@remarque.berkeley.edu>, by muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy):

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

Are these diaper changing areas segregated by the gender of the person
changing the diaper, or of the diapered one?  And why?  Wouldn't co-ed
DCAs be a great place for single parents to meet?
----
  __   __    Paul Singleton (Mr)           JANET: paul@uk.ac.keele.cs
 |__) (__    Computer Science Dept.        other: paul@cs.keele.ac.uk
 |  .  __).  Keele University, Newcastle,    tel: +44 (0)782 621111 x7355
             Staffs ST5 5BG, ENGLAND         fax: +44 (0)782 713082
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminists for Life take a shot at euthanasia
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 19:00:11 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <4SEP199213411208@venus.lerc.nasa.gov> ecaxron@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ron Graham) writes:
>From Feminists for Life, 811 E. 47th St., Kansas City MO  64110
>(818) 753-2130
>
>A FEMINIST STATEMENT AGAINST EUTHANASIA
>
>The euphemisms "right to die" and "physician-assisted suicide" are used to
>cover up a practice in which doctors, who are predominantly male, are given
>greater power over patients - who are predominantly female.  This alone 
>should set off alarm bells in the feminist mind.
>
>The fact is that the vast majority of the "beneficiaries" of this "right"
>are women.  Why are women pressured into "choosing" to die so much more
>often than men?

Where did this "fact" come from?
 
>Among the possible reasons, FFL suggests:
 
<heavily loaded theorizing omitted>
 
>Intentional medical neglect is, by definition, a major health threat to 
>women.  

Intentional neglect is a seriuos threat to anyone. And considering that
women both receive more health care than men, and live longer than men,
I think that in general, the theory falls flat. Although it may be true
for specific cases. Can you give any specifics?

>            Outright lethal injections are even more so.  In a society that
>still has to learn to fully take the rights of women seriously, how quickly
>will the "right to die" become the *duty* to die?

I'd say that out society is willing to trach anyones rights. 


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 3 Sep 1992 22:26:47 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:

>>> Since it takes women approximately 1.32 seconds to pee, 

(I especially disbelieve this number...)

>>> and men approximately 30 seconds, why not just put 3 times as many 
>>> toilets in the womens room than the mens?

>>Where do you get these numbers? 

> I suspect these numbers are incorrect...*grin*.  Nonetheless, I 
> think we can safely state that it *does*, on average, take a woman 
> longer to pee than it takes a man.  (If you disagree with this, 
> I'm willing to discuss it further; if you agree, let's proceed.)

I'm not sure I believe this.  I'm fairly certain men have 
considerably larger bladders than women, and therefore the
average man can take, if not a longer pee, then at least a 
more voluminous one, than the average women.  And for the 
same reason, women pee more frequently -- at least that's been 
my impression.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:46:11 GMT
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation

biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:

>aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:

>...[explanations about how Al manages to keep his cool when women bash
>men in general deleted]...

>>...I have learned to not let my defenses
>>get the better of me, because for the most part, in my experience
>>anyway, sweeping generalizations about `men' usually are more or
>>less true to a large extent.

>Get a grip, Al. You really don't have to hate your own sex, and agree
>with the bashing of men just because some women feel oppressed by men.

I have a fine `grip' thank you. I did not say I hate my own sex did I?
I do NOT agree because `some' women feel oppressed..I agree because
it coincides with my own personal experience based on observation..
Just because I feel that the majority of men are clueless about their
their own sexism does not mean that I hate men. I love men. I am very
active in a men's group which does a lot of ranting about women from
time to time as well..this does not make me hate women either. I do not
understand your vehement desire for me to think like you.
You don't mind if I have my own opinions do you?

>To get you back to reality, try this little exercise. In the quoted
>sentence above, try replacing the word 'men' with 'women', or 'blacks'
>or 'Jews'. Still feel it's a valid statement with these changes? No,
>I didn't think so. Now for the hard part: why do you suppose sweeping
>generalizations, especially negative ones, are true for men, but not
>for other minority groups? 

irrelevant..women..blacks..and Jews are OPPRESSED minorities..
White males in this country are NOT..
BTW..I am fine with reality..how about you?


>Clue 1: take a good, long look at the values of your mother, sisters,
>father, and brothers, if any. Whose values do you share, whom do you
>respect, who do you think has been most influential in your childhood?

My mother..so what?


>Clue 2: often the people whom we admire, whose opinions we value the 
>most, are disturbed, angry, and controlling. Perhaps their views are
>not as unbiased as we would wish our own to be.

Huh?

>Regards,

I should hope so..

>       H. Biesel

peace
/al

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Posting of Email (Was: What's the purpose here?)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<MUFFY.92Aug29183241@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:38:59 GMT

<In article <MUFFY.92Aug29183241@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
<   In article <LYNCH.92Aug29035529@flubber.cc.utexas.edu> lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch) writes:

<      First, this is not appropriate for feminism but for feminism-request.

<   *snicker*...so, you folks are all hot about people posting personal
<   e-mail, eh?  I eagerly await your flaming this guy to hell for posting a
<   letter (my response to his rather bizarre allegations).  Honestly,
<   though, I don't expect to see it...instead, I expect to see a bunch of
<   justifications about how it's okay for him to do it.  Well, let's hear
<   'em. 

	IF he posted email, then he's just as big a jerk
	as "witchy" and some others I could name.

	POSTING OF EMAIL IS A GROSS VIOLATION OF PRIVACY.
	IT HAS EVEN BEEN JUSTIFICATION FOR LOSS OF ACCOUNTS
	AT SOME .EDU SITES.

	Having said that, I'd like to hear the other side.

	Muffy's grasp of facts has been proven to be rather
	limited *at best* prior to this.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:48:25 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

In article <1992Aug28.052723.8947@news.columbia.edu>, mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
> [dworkin talk]  What bothers me is that people actually listen to her,
> because she is feminist!  She is not pro-female only, she is vehemently and
> blindingly anti-male!  Academia should never accept this trash as valid!

and I never even thought she was pro-female. What in her work makes you think
that she is pro-women?

I have problems with her because she is so vehemently anti-woman in much of
her work. A lot of it leaves me feeling really alienated and cold. She could
be considered pro-lesbian, but I usually say `pro-radical-lesbian-misandric-
feminist', possibly also separatist, although that does give a bad air to most
of the separatist politics I know of. Then, my bias against misandric feminism
is showing, isn't it.

(misandric = man hating, and yes, there is a feminist politic based on this)

> Academia should never accept this trash as valid!

BUT trash it is not, There are valid ideas in her work, and much useful material.
Just because you disagree with her does not make her a null-value experience.
Take, say, Margaret Thatcher. I disaggree a lot with what I hear of him, but I
do think she taught us a lot of valuable lessons.

>vehemently and
> blindingly anti-male

blindingly? her experiences and the world she lives in have led her to think that
males are pond scum, at least in theory. But she still puts a lot of energy
into reforming them, and is not blind to their work, comments and changes.

MOZ
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Subject: Ways to respond to criticism of men
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 06:02:49 GMT

One of the question men face in dealing with feminism is how to
respond to criticism of men as a group.

There a number of responses, some of which are illustrated below:

(Responses to the charge that "Men do X to women:")

 - "Feminists are all out to get men!"

 - "I don't agree with the person who said 'Men do X'"

 - "Some men do X, but that's not true in general."

 - "Men may do X to women, but women do Y to men."

 - "It is my right to do X."

 - "Doing X is an important part of my identity as a man."

 - (Pretending I didn't hear ...)

 - "All men are pond scum."

 - "All other men do X; but I'm different."

 - "I sometimes do X; how can I change individually to compensate?"

 - "How can I change social structures so men are less likely to do X?"

While some of these responses sound better than others, I am not prepared
to say in general that only one or two of them are appropriate. IMHO,
an open mind will consider a number of possiblities.

I sometimes wonder if we should number our responses to save bandwidth ;)

-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Keywords: bathrooms
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:06:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.204503.29629@unislc.uucp> kbiesel@unislc.uucp (Karen Biesel) writes:
>I can think of a few times when I wouldn't want a unisex bathroom - like
>when my period surprises me, for one.
>
>But to make bathrooms equal (I hate waiting in lines, and if there are
>more women in line than toilets, I use the mens)  we could  base public
>bathroom designs on statistics.
>
>Since it takes women approximately 1.32 seconds to pee, and men
>approximately 30 seconds, why not just put 3 times as many toilets in the
>womens room than the mens?
>
	This makes no sense whatsoever.  If there are two guys peeing in one
bathroom, and two gals peeing in another, I would have to wait longer
for access to the men's room, so I would need an extra urinal more if
I were male than if I were female.
>
>Get the point  8-).  
>Karen Biesel
>

		J. Wagner


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Animal testing
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:13:41 GMT
Organization: Funk the Dumb Stuff!

In article <Btz972.Aq8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Laura Blankenship <lblanken@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>In the discussion on cosmetics, someone mentioned that they thought most
>companies didn't test their products on animals.  Unfortunately, there are
>still many companies that do test their products on animals--Bristol-Meyers,
>Clinique Laboratories, Colgate-Palmolive, Estee Lauder, Gillette, 
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not according to Redbook. (No, I'm not being paid by Estee to say that...I'm
a satisfied customer! :))

>Johnson & Johnson, Maybelline--just to name a few.  These are some of the 
>biggest names in the cosmetics industry.  So not only are they exploiting the 
>beauty myth, but they're also being cruel to animals.
>
>Laura

As I mentioned above, there is an interesting little blurb on animal testing 
in the cosmetics/pharmaceuticals industry in the September Redbook. If there
is enough interest, I'll post it.

   Tyger
-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
 
                       
        
Newsgroups: alt.feminism