HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cindy@meshugge.media.mit.edu (Cindy Blank-Edelman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: denial
Date: 8 Oct 1992 16:57:15 GMT
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

dgross writes:

> I realize that me-too-ism has irritated many people in soc.feminism,
> but I couldn't help but respond to this post.  Denial and
> insensitivity is yet another sexism complaint that turns out to be a
> two-way street.

[examples of sexist comment and flasher joke....]

I don't think your example was the best one you could use, because it
did involve a flasher, not just a typical man.  However, you
obviously thought it was anti-male and insensitive, so I wonder what
bothered you about it as a man.  Why did you feel offended?  

I also want to say that there definitely are anti-male jokes that get
a big laugh from a lot of women -- including feminists like me.  There
are jokes that stereotype men as being insensitive, unintuitive,
overly involved in things like sports, etc.

I think that the one thing such "humor" usually expresses is anger
towards a sexist society.  It is women fighting back, turning the
tables, taking revenge for all of the anti-woman stuff that is out
there, and for all of the anti-woman humor that we hear.  It is a
release for me, a kind of catharsis, and a way to express my
frustrations without getting angry all the time. 

That being said, I think that anti-male humor is still dangerous.  I
don't want to become an oppressor as a result of having been
oppressed.  But how else to express our frustrations, to laugh at the
situation?  (I think it is telling, also, that when feminists don't
make jokes we are "humorless", but when we do, we are "insensitive".)

I wonder a few things:

--Isn't all humor based on laughing at some kind of pain?

--When does humor cross the line into insensitivity?

--Do most feminists just not find typical anti-male jokes funny?
(Maybe I'm in the minority, here.)

--If anti-male humor is responding to women's anger, then what is
anti-woman humor responding to?  Men's anger?

--Cindy Blank-Edelman


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.GOV ("Daniel B. Holzman")
Subject: Re: denial
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:03:51 GMT

In article <1b1p9bINNd7d@agate.berkeley.edu>, cindy@meshugge.media.mit.edu
(Cindy Blank-Edelman) writes:
> I don't think your example was the best one you could use, because it
> did involve a flasher, not just a typical man.  However, you
> obviously thought it was anti-male and insensitive, so I wonder what
> bothered you about it as a man.  Why did you feel offended?

As I originally heard the joke, it was designed to be actually said to a
flasher while he was flashing -- with specific intent to humiliate and cause
emotional pain to the flasher.  In such a context, I have no problem with it,
(I class it with self-defense) but people should remain aware that it is
intended as a weapon to cause pain, and not a cause for merryment.

> I think that the one thing such "humor" usually expresses is anger
> towards a sexist society.  It is women fighting back, turning the
> tables, taking revenge for all of the anti-woman stuff that is out
> there, and for all of the anti-woman humor that we hear.

Does this justify telling such jokes in an academic setting, where it will have
the effect of making the environment hostile and uncomfortable for men?  Does
this make it any less abusive of the professor to use her students in this way?
How is it not hipocritical of someone who tells anti-man jokes to complain
about anti-woman jokes?

> It is a release for me, a kind of catharsis, and a way to express my
> frustrations without getting angry all the time.

Is it OK, then, if men respond in kind with anti-woman jokes as a catharsis and
release for all the anti-man stuff they're hearing from people who complain
about all the anti-woman stuff out there?

--
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: Laurie.Mann@transfer.stratus.COM
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Turnabout
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:16:04 GMT
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.COM

First, thanks to both Muffy Barkocy and Janis Cortese
for picking up on this.

>In article <>, Muffy Barkocy writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.214345.10483@panix.com> pw@panix.COM (Paul Wallich)
writes:
>>>In article <7010@transfer.stratus.com> lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.COM
writes:
>>>It is OK to assert yourself.  You could have said "I don't want to
>>>be touched."  You could have moved your seat.  You could have...
>>Well, it's nice to know that blaming the victim is a gender
>>neutral phenomenon :-)
>Suggesting ways to get out of an uncomfortable situation is *not*
>"blaming the victim."  lmann did not say that "it was your fault,
>because you should have done <x>."

Precisely.  I was suggesting taking action.  Once you take
action in a situation, you are reducing the chances of BEING
a victim.

>I was at an SF Con recently and this guy was standing uncomfortably
>close to me and leering at me.  Was it "blaming the victim" for me to
>tell him (as I did) "you're standing too close and making me
>uncomfortable"?  It *is* OK to assert yourself, and it often works.
>That doesn't make it your fault if you don't.

And generally SF fans are much MORE likely to understand "please
move" or "no" than men (or women!) in society at large.

>>Now even though the dive has a pool table, this kind of worry
>>was not even at the back of my mind. Does this make the way
>>that a guy feels under these sorts of circumstances (unwanted
>>advances) qualitatively as well as quantitatively different
>>from the way a woman feels?

I'm not sure.  It's well known that men can rape other men, but it
does not seem to happen generally in society.  It's certainly
theoretically possible for a woman to rape a man, but given that
your average man is stronger than your average woman, I don't think
men fear rape the way that women do.

*  NeXT: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com * GEnie:  Laurie.Mann  *
**** Bush or Perot, Just say NO! **  Vote for CHANGE in 1992!****
***** "Hollywood still doesn't get it." Dan Quayle, 9/21/92 *****
* "No Dan, YOU still don't get it."  American Voters, Fall 1992 *



--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: bickis@skmath3.pa.dec.COM ("M. Bickis")
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Who Does "Feminine" Belong To?
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:18:30 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

In article <1bhi2rINN153@agate.berkeley.edu> blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu
(BEKKI LYN) writes:
>"Masculine" and "feminine" are social labels that we use to
>try to order and compartmentalize traits.

Exactly.  They need have no intrinsic relation with the biology of the
individuals possessing these traits.  Pink is often considered a
feminine colour.  Why?  Who knows?  And who cares?  Does such usage
contribute to the oppression of women?

>It just seems to
>me that one gender has done most of this for the other gender.

This is not fair.  We're all in this together.  I am quite happy to
see women redefining femininity (as Lenore Levine attempted to do in a
recent posting).  But I should feel free to offer my suggestions.
Just as I would be happy to have women tell me what *they* think
defines masculinity.

>And even if this is not so, one gender seems to have taken
>advantage of our labelling scheme to sometimes oppress the other
>gender.

The problem has been that the labels have had differential values
attached to them.  A masculine trait was somehow positive and
powerful, whereas a feminine one was a sign of weakness.  We can
reconsider this valuation without denying the categories.

> Please do not like pro football just because you are male.

No way.  However, I *would* label the tendency to watch hours of
football on TV a "masculine" trait.  Just one that I don't happen to
possess.  Having tons of hair on your chest is also a "masculine"
trait.  I don't have that one either.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@math.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: banksie@khantazi.welly.gen.nz
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Sex and War
Date: 16 Oct 1992 22:24:50 GMT
Organization: My Arc.
Distribution: world
            <1992Oct13.231628.8033@reed.edu>
Reply-To: banks_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

sharvy@reed.EDU (V Headshape) writes:

> Nor does the supposed inability of some men to control themselves
> justify reserving the right to be in the military to men exclusively.
> Instead of banning women and gays, why not just "ban" from the job
> those who can't do the job -- because of sexual problems, or any other
> reason?  Just as we now do (ideally) in most other jobs.  Sometimes a
> morally proper policy change will force people to change attitudes.
> So? That is not an excuse for avoiding the policy.

   The problem with this scheme is trying to identify those people who
'can't do their job'. The only place where this can be identified is in
actual combat situations and that, to put it blunty, is a rather costly way
to find out. If single sex units have shown in the past to be more effective
than mixed sex ones, why risk getting people killed to test this theory
again?

   To get this back to feminism again one question I am curious about is
which sex would fight more fiercly to defend their homeland? And why?

    Philip

--
Philip R. Banks  Syntax: mail < banks_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz >            @@@@@/|
Take a look around you at the world we've come to know,                 @@@@/#|
Does it seem much more than a crazy circus show?                        @@@/##|
Maybe from the madness something beautiful will grow....                @@/---|
   ---The Artilleryman from Jeff Wayne's "War of the Worlds"            @/    |


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: seb3@gte.com
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Sex and War
Date: 13 Oct 1992 21:05:30 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

I would have replied using email, but this was an anonymous posting.
Sorry to bother everyone.

In article <2AD5AA7B.22488@ics.uci.edu> anonymous writes:
[...]
>4. Service in a combat unit, and exposure to combat conditions, must
>be a precondition for senior military positions.
[...]
>6. If the unit is so constituted that sexual relations or the
>possibility of sexual attraction (whether reciprocated or not) exists,
>then unit cohesion is placed at severe risk.
[...]
>This is the reason that many thoughtful commanders [...] support the
>current brute-force ban on gay males in the military and women in
>combat units. [...]

But this doesn't follow, does it?  If the only objection to women in
combat units is that the possibility of sexual attraction is thought to
jeopardize the cohesion of the combat unit, why not just have all-women
combat units as well as all-men units?

Depending on the size of these units, I suspect that homosexual women
and men could also be placed in units in such combinations that the
perceived risk of sexual attraction is minimized.
--
steve belczyk  seb3@gte.com  steve1@genesis.nred.ma.us
Genesis Public Access Minix:  +1 508 664 0149
Free Usenet News and mail. 3 lines; HST, V.32


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Bigots And Children Of Both Sexes
Date: 10 Oct 1992 20:46:55 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

  I've read quite a bit of the arguments about bigoted jokes told by both
men and women.  I just have to say I think the whole thing is quite childish
  Both sides have some experiences which just cant be denied without 
employing cognitative dissonance.  Why cant everyone just admit:

1.  Men have unfair advantages and some men are assholes.
2.  Women can be and some women are just as much sexual bigots as some
    men.
3.  Women engaging in sexual bigotry dont like to admit it and will make
    claims to the contrary when cornered.
4.  Men engaging in sexual bigotry dont like to admit it and will make
    claims to the contrary when cornered.
5.  The world would be better off without the men and women from # 3&#4.
6.  We are just as big of a fool as these bigots are if we make blanket
    statements about groups based on these bigoted indviduals and get
    caught up in general arguments.


There.  Was that so hard?  Are our egos destroyed?  Did the penis clipping
dyke feminists seize control of the white house and geld all of the men?
  Did the male oppressors rape and kill all women now that we admitted
some women are assholes as well?  Jesus people.  Listening to what others
have to say and CHANGING your opinion IN LIGHT OF NEW DATA will NOT hurt
you IN ANY WAY.

SFJR

:X



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: bickis@skmath3.pa.dec.com (M. Bickis)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women warriors and male myths (WAS: Military Quote)
Date: 15 Oct 1992 14:02:57 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <ldf96cINNnrb@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> rberlin@Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>
>"If gender is to have any significance at all in society?"  Hmm...you
>say that as if it's a good (or necessary) thing.  What am I missing
>here?  You know as well as anyone what harm sexism does.  What is
>sexism, if not the attitude "gender has significance in society" run
>amok?

But just because something run amok is harmful doesn't mean the thing
itself (when not running amok) is harmful.  A mad dog can be
dangerous--should we therefore eliminate dogs? 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@math.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: bickis@skmath3.pa.dec.COM ("M. Bickis")
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women warriors and male myths (WAS: Military Quote)
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:53:59 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

In article <BvpFyy.FDJ@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca> alubiw@maytag.uwaterloo.ca
(Anna Lubiw) writes in reply to me:
>>I did not suggest that *any* person's ideal or myth is a good or positive
>>thing.  I was talking about a particular gender myth---that men are to
>>be courageous and protective whereas women are to be nurturing and
>>nonthreatening.  Burned "witches" and battered wives are not the
>>consequence of this myth.
>
>On the contrary, if women are to be "nurturing" and men are to be
>"aggressive"  [ ... ]  The myth says that a man's ideal
>response to a problem is to act aggressively to solve it.  If a woman is
>not suitably nurturing, that is a problem, and is to be met with agression.

That's a corruption of the myth.  Only threats are to be met with agression.
Since women are not threatening, there is no justification in being agressive
towards a woman.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@math.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: blchapma@eos.ncsu.EDU (BEKKI LYN)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women warriors and male myths
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:14:02 GMT
Reply-To: BEKKI LYN <blchapma@eos.ncsu.EDU>
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos

In article <1992Oct12.221153.23029@access.usask.ca>, bickis@skmath3.pa.dec.COM ("M. Bickis") writes:

|> If men and women each vote for their own definitions, we'll never
|> be able to communicate.  Your definition of 'feminine' is not a
|> very useful concept for making distinctions since it would
|> encompass most traits.  Of course, if you want to *avoid* making
|> distinctions, then such a vacuous concept is just what you need,
|> but that is just evading my argument rather than meeting it.  I
|> defined a concept something possessed by an attribute of people 1)
|> If it is more commonly found among women or 2) is believed by
|> society to be appropriate for women or, 3) if it is believed to
|> derive from the woman's sex.

I find it easier to communicate with others when they don't slap
labels on me because I am not "feminine" or "masculine" enough.
I believe the physical differences between males and females are
enough.  Just because something is more common among a gender does
not make it exclusively that gender's; therefore, that something
cannot be defined as exclusively that gender's.  If the word
"feminine", for example, was defined by a society of females, I
could accept it better.  (Of course, the males who also have
those characteristics would feel very left out, unfortunately);
however, "feminine" has tended to be defined for us by a society
which has generally been ruled by men.  Give me some of these
characteristics that are derived exclusively from a woman's
sex and then we can call it "feminine".  However, we'd better
make sure that there aren't any males who also possess this
characteristic.

|> I attach the label 'feminine' to it because that is how I believe
|> that word is commonly used.  If you find that label objectionable,
|> suggest another one.  But don't avoid the issue by redefining my
|> terms.

I kind of like the idea that these characteristics are genderless
if both males and females are found to possess them, or have
the capability of possessing them.  I am not avoiding the
issue by redefining your terms.  I am not playing by your terms.
I am only giving my opinions on this issue regardless of whose
terms they are abiding by.
--

Bekki Lyn

************************************************************
"Today is within my reach, and tomorrow is so illusive
 But I'm still chasing time through increasing disillusion
 Forever living for the future of an illusion."

 -- FATES WARNING-- "Perfect Symmetry"
************************************************************

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.