HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: khamsi@ll.mit.EDU (Sarir Khamsi)
Subject: Re: slamming Women's Bookstores
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:29:17 GMT

Just a quick thought on all the discussion on this bookstore...women
have, for centuries, been excluded by men from many areas of society.
It seems odd that when this situation is reversed, there is such an
alarming reaction.

Please do not take this as an objection to any of the discussion -
communication is a great thing - I never leave home without it. :-)

--
Sarir (Riri) Khamsi - khamsi@ll.mit.edu
MIT Lincoln Laboratoy
244 Wood St.
Lexington, MA 02173
USA

--
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: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.EDU (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Version Five -- I better shut up!
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: 25 Dec 92 04:19:15 GMT

harikuma@enterprise.ifp.uiuc.edu (G. Harikumar) writes:

>Let me point out specifically what is wrong with your  reasoning.
>Your classification is not different in principle from the
>right wing classification of feminists as belonging to one of
>the following classes.

>1) Lesbians.

>2) Unattractive women who are trying to come into mainstream
>society, who have  smelled power and who are not going to
>let go without a fight.

>Which, as we will all agree, is BS.

I would like to add one final word on your posting. What is pejorative
about either 1) or 2)?

What is wrong about saying some feminists satisfy these characteristics,
if they are not regarded with contempt?

Lenore Levine

--
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: jem@snug.acci.com.au (Joan McGalliard)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:07:31 GMT
Organization: Australian Computing and Communications Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

What keeps me most a prisoner is not so much with the real
danger to myself, or even my perception of the danger, but
society's perception of the danger.

I was attacked by a stranger in a public place (albiet at
1am) a number of years ago.  The man threw me to the ground,
I struggled and screamed, he ran away.  The police attitude
- along with a great deal of interest in finding my
assaillent - was "what were you doing there at that time of
the night anyway?" (I was walking home from work.)  Despite
the fact I well equipped to handle that situation, I was
under pressure from not only my own fear, but also from the
police, to modify my behaviour greatly because of the risk.
I never told my parents about this incident, although I was
still living with them, because I knew their fears would
imprison me further.

I friend of mine was sexually assaulted by a taxi driver on
her way home from a nightclub.  Her father's attitude "what
do you expect, dressed like that?"  She was the victim, yet
she was supposed to change her life around the incident.

Every now and then someone stabs and robs a taxi driver in
this city.  I have never heard the police advise taxi
drivers to stop working, or to only carry female passengers
or whatever.  That would be silly.  The attitude is always
one of "we must catch this man before he strikes again."
Yet last year, when a woman was raped by a taxi driver, the
official police line was "women should avoid catching taxis
alone"  But what else can you do if you don't have a car?
Public transport is unsafe after dark, relying on friends
robs you of much hard one independence, many women could no
longer get home from work, or go out in the evening with
people who didn't live in the same house.  The advice was
useless, but apparently considered by the person who gave it
as reasonable.

joan
-- 
Joan McGalliard		ACCI 
			Australian Computing and Communications Institute.
			Phone 282 2548
			Fax   282 2501


-- 
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: mara@Panix.Com (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Date: 3 Jan 1993 01:16:38 GMT
Organization: (getting there)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

andyw@meaddata.COM (Andy Welter) writes, reasonably enough:

 >I think part of the difference in fear about violence between men and
 >women is just a difference in attitude about getting hurt.  This is
 >not a scientific survey, but men just seem to be more accepting of
 >personal risk than women.

Where does this difference come from?  Does it make sense in the real
world for it to exist?  Suppose we say no, and want to set about
changing it.  That is, we want to change the difference in attitude
about getting hurt so that men and women are, in general, about
equally likely to accept personal risk.  Let's assume further that
there is no biological differentiation along these lines, so that 
we can, at least theoretically, bring about equality in this
respect.

Do we want to make women more accepting of risk, or to make men less
accepting of risk, or both?

I maintain that most (if not all) differences pertaining to
acceptance of risk are learned.  Girls tend to be kept closer to
whatever adult is watching them, to be warned faster about being
careful, to be played with less roughly, to be expected to play less
risky games.  I think it would be great for girls to be freed up in
this regard.

At the same time, I think that boys are encouraged to boast about
their willingness to do dangerous things, and that they are taught
that exercising prudence is not something to be proud of, because it
is less "manly" than what is commonly called courage.

 >When you look at things like skydiving, whitewater rafting, bungee
 >jumping, sports you can get hurt playing, etc, men seem to be more
 >tolerant of a given level of risk than women would be.  When you
 >couple that attitude with a situation where there really is a
 >difference in safety between men and women (walking in bad
 >neighborhoods) you end up with a really big diffence in your perceived
 >level of safety.

 >I think the issue that needs to be addressed is actual measurable
 >differences in safety, not what peoples FEELINGs are.

Why?  I believe that the issue of feelings (and why the upper case? 
it reads as though you're sneering) is an extremely important one.
It is not the same issue as that of personal safety, but both are
important.  And they are related issues, so that considering each is
helpful in considering the other.

-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.



-- 
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: cworth@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU (CHUCK WORTH)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's and men's safety
Date: 23 Dec 1992 19:54:51 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
Distribution: world
Reply-To: cworth@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

 I have learned some things following this thread, for which I am
 appreciative.  I thought I'd add some data to this conversation.

 Source is from the National Crime Survey program as reported in __Social
 Indicators III__ (Bureau of the Census, 1980).  Data is from a *victimization*
 study (note, not the Uniform Crime Reports which seriously *under-* reports
 crime).  I'm sorry the data is old (1978 victimization rates, but I think
 the Social Indicators program--started by Nixon, interestingly--was killed
 early in the Reagan era).  A cursory view of my library's online catalog did
 not reveal anything more recent (if somebody wants to update this, I'd
 be pleased...nudge, nudge ,hint, hint.)

 The 1978 victimization rate for personal crimes of violence (rape, robbery 
 & assault was 34 per 1000.  Personal crimes of theft were 97 per 1000.

 Among individual violent offenses (per 1000): simple assault(17), aggravated
 assault (10), robbery(6) and rape(1).  "Males were much more likely than
 females to have fallen prey to personal victimization. ... 46 for males and
 23 for females." (page 206).

 "When the variables of sex & race are considered jointly, ... black males 
 were victimized by crimes of violence at a higher rate (54) than any other
 group, followed by white males (45), black females (30), and white females
 (22)." (p206).

 Age is an important factor: victimization rates are highest for people 
 12-24 years old.  Rates decline with advancing age.

                                     Regards,   Chuck W.


**********************************************************
 Chuck Worth            California State University, Chico
 CWORTH@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU


-- 
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: mara@panix.com (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: my two cents about on
Date: 23 Dec 1992 05:44:47 GMT
Organization: (getting there)
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

I wrote:
  >MC> Yes.  One of the problems involved here is historical.  That is,
  >MC> men-only groups have become suspect because they so frequently
  >MC> became power bases from which women were excluded.  Women-only
  >MC> groups don't have this kind of history to overcome.
goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves) writes:
 >It's interesting that you would say this, Mara.

 >Perhaps this was true of only men's groups in the past, but with the
 >growing power base in the women's movement, it seems that the same
 >suspicions can now also be drawn about women-only groups...

I had in mind institutions like Harvard, Princeton, and Yale.
The Century Club.  Assorted sports clubs.  Business and
professional organizations (like Rotary International)
that had explicit charters restricting membership to men.  

I would be most interested to see a comparable list of powerful
institutions on local, regional, national and international levels
that forbid access to men.

Living Well Lady doesn't cut it.  At least, there's no evidence yet
that it does.



-- 

  Mara Chibnik
  mara@panix.com                Life is too important to be taken seriously.




-- 
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: pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: slamming Women's Bookstores
Date: 3 Jan 1993 21:38:56 GMT
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <9212311641.AA06160@LL.MIT.EDU> khamsi@ll.mit.EDU (Sarir Khamsi) writes:
>Just a quick thought on all the discussion on this bookstore...women
>have, for centuries, been excluded by men from many areas of society.
>It seems odd that when this situation is reversed, there is such an
>alarming reaction.

Indeed!  Have you also noted the number of vigorous reactions to "discrimination"against men - affirmative action programs, for example.  The incidences of male
discrimination seem trivial in comparison to the long-term and systematic
discrimination and marginalisation of women, yet the cries of anguish can be 
heard all over.

Dey
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au
Politics Department, Monash University
Melbourne, Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 




-- 
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: goid@zooid.guild.ORG (Will Steeves)
Subject: The Men's Movement
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 22 Dec 92 00:03:09 GMT

vanhoek@bend.UCSD.EDU (Karen van Hoek) writes...
KVH> issue of men's treatment of women.  Starhawk's article
KVH> Men's Movement_) really says it -- it's _great_ if men
KVH> "A Men's Movement We Could Trust" (in _Women Respond to the
KVH> want to get together and create new images of masculinity
KVH> and bond together as males and the whole bit, _provided_
KVH> they're conscious of the other half of humanity and of the
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KVH> fact that power relations between us aren't equal.
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well, first of all, it doesn't seem as though the women's movement is
always aware of the other half of humanity, either.

Second, they also seem to think that power relations "aren't equal"
in the sense of always being disadvantageous to women, which is rather
a "feminist-centric" view...   (I don't believe that I just said that...)

KVH> Some of what men are doing is very much like the Goddess
KVH> movement, and in fact it's very exciting to those of us
KVH> who think we need a new image of the God (i.e. "the God"
KVH> as in "the Goddess and the God"), that masculinity has
KVH> been degraded, defiled and warped and that it needs to be
KVH> reclaimed.  But when it seems as if men aren't sensitive
KVH> to women's concerns, or when the Men's Movement literature
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KVH> seems to be blaming women for men's problems, it's
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
KVH> frightening to women.  No doubt, men _do_ have a lot of
KVH> legitimate complaints about their treatment by women.

This isn't entirely fair, Karen.  It isn't just the Men's Movement
that occasionally blames the other gender for "their problems".
Indeed, I recently bought "My Enemy, My Love," which considered itself
to be a feminist perspective on the fact that the feminist movement
has become ambivalent of men, if not downright showing hatred of men.
I flipped through some of the pages, saw how much of the text was
sounding as though it was entirely *blaming men* for women's
ambivalence towards them (!), and grumbled "Oh GOiD!" :-)

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Click...click...click..damn, out of taglines!

--
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: turpin@cs.utexas.EDU (Russell Turpin)
Subject: Re: men crossing the street at night to avoid frightening women
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Date: 2 Jan 93 05:32:56 GMT

-*----
In article <9212292355.AA02165@york.cs.ucla.edu> gds@ficus.cs.ucla.EDU (Greg Skinner) writes:
> For argument's sake, let's say all non-threatening men decided to
> maintain a respectable distance from women late at night, ...

I'm glad it is just for argument's sake.  It does not work in
practice if, for example, you are headed for the same bus stop.
I have found that one can seem less intimidating in such
situations merely by smiling and saying "hi" when one enters
the scene.  Of course, it probably depends on *how* one does
this, and regardless, any change in others' perception from
this is probably as irrational as most other perceptions
about risk.

Russell

--
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: djohns@elm.circa.ufl.EDU ("David A. Johns")
Subject: Pornography and values
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: University of Florida, Gainesville
Date: 25 Dec 92 04:17:24 GMT

One interesting aspect of this debate about pornography is that
*interest* in pornography, in our society, at least, is primarily
male.  This leaves women in the enviable position of having nothing to
lose in the battle to eliminate it.

In fact, it seems that most activities that we define as immoral --
generally those that involve sex or risk-taking -- are much more
appealing to men than to women.  Surely this is reflected in the sex
ratio of our jail populations.

The standard way of expressing this imbalance, of course, has been
that males are inherently naughtier than females or are socialized to
be so at an early age.

The major social stricture that has traditionally affected females
more than males is that involving virginity and fidelity.  And yet
this is not quite parallel to the pornography issue, because it
affects men too.  If men argue for a general value of fidelity, they
restrict themselves also.  If men try to argue (as they have, of
course) that women should be chaste but men should not, they leave
themselves open to a powerful attack on the grounds of equality. The
pornography argument is different because women are not saying that
*they* should be allowed pornography while men should give it up.

So isn't it also possible that our society has defined morality in
terms of women's interests rather than those of males?

David Johns


--
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: cjohnson@stolaf.edu (Carrie L Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Getting Involved--?
Date: 22 Dec 1992 16:27:52 GMT
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Keywords: NOW, NARAL, etc
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Does anyone out there know the easiest way to get involved with
lobbying organizations such as NOW (National Organization of Women) 
and the NARAL...................

I want to get involved and I'm curious.....

(there is no need for flames please, i'm just curious....)

thanks gang,
carrie



-- 
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: khamsi@ll.mit.EDU (Sarir Khamsi)
Subject: A quote on equality
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: 25 Dec 92 04:16:41 GMT

Just a short quote I found on the equality of women and men :

"The emancipation of women, the achievement of full equality between the
sexes, is one of the most important, though less acknowledged
prerequisites of peace.  The denial of such equality perpetrates an
injustice against one half of the world's population and promotes in men
harmful attitudes and habits that are carried from the family to the
workplace, to political life, and ultimately to international relations.
There are no grounds, moral, practical, or biological, upon which such
denial can be justified.  Only as women are welcomed into full partnership
in all fields of human endeavor will the moral and psychological climate
be created in which international peace can emerge."

                                    - From the Baha'i writings


--
Sarir (Riri) Khamsi - khamsi@ll.mit.edu
MIT Lincoln Laboratoy
244 Wood St.
Lexington, MA 02173
USA

--
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.