HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich)
Subject: Re:  naming 
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:08:47 GMT

Well.. here is my take on the subject.

Muffy, 

I think there is something to the phenomenon of which you speak.
I don't know if it has any particular significance as far as feminism
or any of the other stuff that has gone by, but I have certainly
observed as well that men tend to be called by their last names
by other men, as well  as other women in what appears to be a gesture
of familiarity. That is when someone get's to know me at all, they will
often start refering to me as just `aldrich' . It appears to be 
a way of expressing familiarity. I do not know it, but suspect that this
tradition(?) comes from the military where everyone is called by their 
last name, which seems to have also carried over into the sports
world. I do not think that it is necessarily a `men' thing as I have
observed my 2 closest friends who are lesbians also address each other
and myself with just last names. ( One of whom spent 8 years in the army ).

Anyway, I myself do find myself doing this with men for the same reasons
stated above and now that you mention it, I find that I cannot remember
an instance where I addressed a woman with only her last name.
Hmmm..will have to think about that one.

For what it's worth..:-)

/al




-- 
Al Aldrich	inet:aaldrich@encore.com
"..if you understood everything I said, you'd be me." miles davis
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MY opinions are not to be construed as those of my employer.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:967 soc.women:16449
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:16:56 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

Apparently my experience (commercial programming a good field
for women, 1965-1980) has been atypical.  I have worked mostly
in the New York City area, with some time in Philadelphia, San
Francisco, and Boston.  Obviously, New York is culturally
different from other parts of the country, and this would
seem to be the dominant factor in the different pattern of
employment.  
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 06:14:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep5.154140.671@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:
>
>co-option. power imbalance. Both have bearing on the examples you gave.

Where is it written that there must be any sort of "power" balance, and
who decides?

It sounds impressive and meaningful, but it seems to me that there has never
been any sort of power balance (by sex) anywhere anytime. And it also seems
to be a pointless and meaningless abstraction, like 'sphincter imbalance', or
'big toe imbalance'. Literally, so what?

Also, it is 100% dependant upon how you define power. It is not a real 
distinction, but another layer of abstraction.

But it sounds great if you claim to be a victim of life. You are absolutely
100% never responsible in any way for any misfortune that has ever befallen 
you, it's them damn "males" in power.

I cannot help but recall the phrase 'cop out'. 



Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Subject: Re: Grading papers
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:57:36 GMT

moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley) writes:

>> Are you saying that because I use "he" as the gender neutral pronoun that 
>> I feel that men are the norm and that women are abnormal?  Well, I do not
>> think this.  When I hear or write "he who laughs last laughs best," I am
>> not thinking of "he" as a necessarily male person.  I am just thinking of
>> him as a person.

>there are numerous studies that show the non-specific usage to be the one
>describing the dominant group. Only the dominant group has the power to
>define themselves as the norm; alternatively, only the dominant group can
>afford to ignore others to the extent of excluding them...

Oh, forgive me for being male.  No matter what I do, it will always be wrong,
because I am a member of the "dominant" group.

"He" has more than one meaning.  Its secondary meaning is a gender-neutral
one.  I don't consider women less equal, but I am still going to use "he".

>> Although, if you said "she who laughs..."  I would think that you were talking
>> about a female.  Hmm..  mabye we males need our own private pronoun.
>precisely. there are some coming into use: sie, kie, hir

which mean what?

>> I think that a sexist is one who believes that women (or men, as the case may
>> be) are inferior in some way to the other sex.  My using "he" as an
>> unspecific pronoun does not imply that I feel this way.

>niether does my use of the word shit in reference to you. (it is a 
>contraction of the non-specific "s/he/it")

Well, that certainly helps to further your point, doesn't it.

keith
From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:13:51 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep08152113@gray.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Alan Taylor) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Sep8151044@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu
>(Muffy Barkocy) moans and groans and whines and cries:
>
>>WI'm just curious about this; I have noticed you calling Gordon Fitch
>>"Fitch" several times now while attacking.  On the other hand, you call
>>me (Muffy Barkocy) "Muffy" when flaming.  Is this just random
>>inconsistency or is there a reason?
>
>>attack/insult/flame people?  Is it somehow more/less insulting to men
>>to just be called by their last names (particularly with no title)?
>
>>Muffy
>
>I call you "Muffy" because "Muffy" really sounds stupid.  It's the kind of
>a name you give to a rag doll or a French Poodle.  "Fetch Muffy, Fetch!"
>"Here Muffy, here's a bone for you to chew upon".  "I'll be out of the
>bathroom as soon as I wipe the shit off my Muffy".
>
>A REAL WOMYN -- A REAL FEMINIST wouldn't be caught dead with a name like
>"Muffy".
>
>I call Fitch, "FITCH", because it's the kind of name that generates respect
>and it's the very least a worthy advisary such as Gordon deserves.
>
>You, on the other hand, are just a jerk.

And this is about the most sexist comment I have heard in a long time!
Argue with a woman.  Put her down, try to make her feel as irrelevent as
you can.  Argue with a man.  Well, that's different.  This is another
man after all.  He must be treated with *respect*.

>I hope this helps you to understand my reasoning.  It's really not all that
>inconsistent.

Ah yes, I understand!

Marg
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<716222634@lear.cs.duke.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Sep11110137@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:48:38 GMT


In article <MUFFY.92Sep11110137@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

> When did these women learn how to produce babies without the aid of a
> man?  In each case that a woman had a baby she could not support, there

It is quite easy due sperm banks and test-tube impregnation. 

> was a man whose baby it was who could not or would not support that same
> baby.

If the man has given his sperm to be used when a couple wants a baby and
there is something wrong with the man, it is supposed that the helped
couple raises the child as their own and don't even know who the
donator was. 

> A friend of mine works counselling pregnant teenagers.  Most of them
> have boyfriends who tell them "you can't kill my baby."  Not that they
> want to *support* it, of course.

> >2) There is nothing similar to Norplant or IUD for men.

> Big surprise.  Most people seem to think that it's the woman's sole 
> responsibility to take care of birth control, so why bother inventing
> anything beyond condoms for men?

Why is it then the man's responsibility to find out both a) is the woman 
a person I want to live with, but also b) am I the man she wants to
live with ? Why the woman shouldn't have any responsibility when she
accepts to have sex with all men that want it and not just the ones
that will support her if a pregnancy occurs ?

> I really don't see why men don't just always wear condoms (except those
> with latex allergies), given that many of them do seem to be terribly
> afraid of being tricked by women.  I know that some people claim that
> they are not comfortable, but I know many men who like them very much,
> and they are also good for preventing the spread of disease.

Some like, some not.
And of course, some men do want to have babies.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Grading papers
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:49:45 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <MUFFY.92Sep8172659@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <2457@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>>In article <AWERLING.92Sep8153601@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>>|> Males have "he."  We need a new gender-neutral pronoun.  I prefer
>>|> "it," but I figure that would never fly. ;-)
>
>>This subject and this solution to a perceived need has been around for quite
>>a while. I contend that if WE NEEDED a gender-neutral pronoun WE would have
>>invented it already. After all, Necessity is the Mother of Invention.
>
>Well...actually, there *is* a pair of gender-neutral pronouns (there is
>also a possessive form) which has been invented, by those people who saw
>a need.  You will find it in frequent use on such newsgroups as
>alt.sex.bondage, if you would like to check it out.  The pronouns in

Oooooooo. Mainstream.

>question are "sie" (gender-neutral equivalent to "she" and "he") and
>"hir" (gender-neutral equivalent to "her" and "his").

Yes, I have seen these. Seldom. For me they don't work. I know no one
personally who does use them.

>The thing you seem to have overlooked is that not everyone thinks the
>same way.  Therefore, some people (such as AWERLING) believe that we

Actually, I didn't overlook it as much as incorporate it into my
post by capaitalizing WE. I suppose I should have put a more sarcastic
tone of voice on that one word, but..... such is life.

>Now that you know that they have been invented and are being used, do
>you think that we need them?

As you note in deleted text, they have been invented several times. And
abandoned several times. Their lack of widespread use, including news
and entertainment media, indicates to me that the inventions are flawed
or just not needed by many. 

I personally feel that gender-neutral-speak, mit neutered pronouns is
like Esparanto, a solution searching for a problem. But I may be wrong.
I often am.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 07 Sep 92 08:57:45 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep4.190919.26264@qiclab.scn.rain.com> 70465.203@compuserve.com writes:
>Try because the state law requires X fixtures per person. And the builders
>understinated the number of women who would be using the facility.
>
>I know for a fact that for businesses in this state, there are mandated
>numbers of toilets per X number of workers. (A place I worked once had
>the applicable section of the law posted. It included a table cross indexing
>number of employees with number of toilets.)
Leonard,

One nice thing about working in a mostly-male field...2 years
at microsoft, and I've never had to wait for a stall....I'm more
surprised when I go into a bathroom and someone else is in there
than when someone isn't.  Handy place to hide too; if I want to
'get away', I hide in the women's room.

:>

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What's the purpose here?
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:00:30 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

I have a niggle here: people seem to be upset that muffy both moderates and
posts to soc.feminism. Also, that she does not know everyone and everything
that has been posted on/rejected by soc.feminism.

could we have a list of volunteers to act as moderators of soc.feminism
who fulfil the implied requirements stated so far.

i: must have read soc.feminism since it began (and remember all the authors)
ii: must be prepared to NEVER EVER post ANYTHING on soc.feminism that they wrote.

this seems silly to me. I really can't see that anyone with enough interest in
the group to moderate it would also not want to post to it.

Also, personal bias, I think a male moderator might be a good plan, but IFF
there was joint moderation. I don't see that as practical, so, women only?

MOZ
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: choice for men
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: alt.feminism
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:02:52 GMT

Scott:
You ignored methods of birth control (e.g. the IUD) because they do
not stop the HIV virus; I have only one question for you:
How does the pill stop HIV?
In other words, please be consistent (or explain what you meant).
Thanx
David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:41:40 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

spzkny@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY) writes:
> oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes...
> 
> >"Man" in English is gender-specific.  If I told you to go talk to that "man"
> >over there, and the "man" happened to be female, you'd think I was an idiot.
> 
> But words that contain the letters m-a-n are, in usage, non-gender-
> specific.  The "policeman" can be male or female.  That's well understood 
> by people in our culture.
it is also well understood that this usage is patriarchal and sexist. It all
depends on where you look for the understanding. As you are a feminist I
suggest you try some of the feminist works on gender in language.

> >We are not grasping.  We are trying to point out that the way we use language
> >does reflect society.
> 
> Yes, words such as "policeman" DO reflect the history of all-male police 
> forces.  Its usage today, however, is non-gender-specific.  Ditto "midwife".

co-option. power imbalance. Both have bearing on the examples you gave.

For men to take a womans job (midwife), and make it into a scientific
field (medicine), that denies womens power, is co-option. There are several
good books on this, i will try to find references tomorrow.
 Brief history: the early doctors (men) went to great lengths to break down
the village medical system in the 16th-19th centuries? Ever hear of the
witch-hunts? Birth especially was chosen, and it took until the early 20th
century for midwives to be wiped out, along with the huge amount of 
knowledge they had. Now we see a small resurgance...

Policemen: a male profession if ever their was. I'm surprised you didn't
use `artilleryman' or some other military term.

examples of the dominant group terms being used as `generic' are numerous
and well-documented. Eg: the mere word `straight' for sexuality, the
controversy over the use of `pakeha' to describe whites in new zealand.

Look, this is basic feminist theory. If you can't read, you shouldn't be
here. Go to your library, look under feminism as a subject or title. If
you have a feminist studies department, ask for their introductory
material or reccomendations. Then come back here when we can speak thee
same language, even though we will probably still disagree.

MOZ 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: More Thoughts About Father Notification/Father Responsibility
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:51:35 GMT

Some problems with paternal notification:

(1)  It requires an adult (the woman) to notify another adult
about her private medical decisions.

(2)  It discriminates between married women (who presumeably 
would be required to notify their husbands -- whether or not
they are actually the father) and single women (who the hell 
would they be reuired to notify?) 

(3)  Say notification *is* required.  How does that benefit 
the man (unless he has the privilige of affecting the course
of action -- are you proposing to give men the privilige to 
decide for an adult woman whether she will abort or bear a child?)
 
Comments, anyone?

						--  Michal
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:913 alt.sex.bondage:17162
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex.bondage
Subject: Mainstream (Was Re: Grading papers)
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:21:09 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#Well...actually, there *is* a pair of gender-neutral pronouns (there is
#also a possessive form) which has been invented, by those people who saw
#a need.  You will find it in frequent use on such newsgroups as
#alt.sex.bondage, if you would like to check it out.  The pronouns in

In article <2466@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM 
(Duane Hentrich) writes:

>Oooooooo. Mainstream.

Just to get some perspective:

In article <1992Sep3.051010.4126@PA.dec.com> in news.lists
reid@decwrl.DEC.COM (Brian Reid) writes:

#        +-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
#        |     +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
#        |     |     +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
#        |     |     |      +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
#        |     |     |      |      +-- Recent traffic (kilobytes per month)
#        |     |     |      |      |      +-- Crossposting percentage
#        |     |     |      |      |      |    +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
#        |     |     |      |      |      |    |      +-- Share: % of newsrders
#        |     |     |      |      |      |    |      |   who read this group.
#        V     V     V      V      V      V    V      V
#  17 150000  3151   64%  1459  4985.9     3%  0.06   5.8%  alt.sex.bondage
#  78  86000  1861   73%   384   902.1    29%  0.02   3.5%  soc.women
# 144  67000  1439   72%   934  2073.6    49%  0.06   2.7%  soc.men
# 494  34000   741   70%   190   970.5     3%  0.05   1.4%  soc.feminism

I guess that most readers of a.s.bondage are deep in their closets,
but there certainly are quite a few of them...

>d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

Hillel                                                 gazit@cs.duke.edu

"...sometimes people can't cry about what's really eating the heart,
and need some other, safer, overt reason."  --  STella
From: bc151@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ken Fisler)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: List for the Discussion of the Presidential Campaign
Date: 12 Sep 1992 07:43:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu



There is now on Bitnet a list for the discussion of the '92
presidential campaign. Discussion is unmoderated and focusses
primarily on important, current campaign issues, though, like the
campaign itself, some discussion occasionally degrades to
spurious non-issues. Threads sometimes lead into critical
analyses of political history, the media, and campaign
strategies. Many members of this list post exerpts from books,
magazines, journals, newspapers, television reportage, and
academic studies as well as the full text of position papers and
speeches given by the candidates. A meaningful number of list
members understand the inherent union of theory and praxis and,
given the nature of the discussions, the flame level is very
tolerably and surprisingly low. If all you've heard and read thus
far hasn't parted the sea of sound bites, if you're looking for
information and analysis of current issues or have something to
give or express yourself, this may be a viable group to join.

To subscribe, send to: LISTSERV@MARIST (from a Bitnet address)
or LISTSERV@MARIST.BITNET (from and Internet address) the
message: SUB CLINTON <your first name> <your last name>


	Internet:	bc151@cleveland.freenet.edu
	Bitnet: 	bc151%cleveland.freenet.edu@cunyvm
	Audio:		Ken Fisler
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<1992Sep7.154918.11940@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:03:15 GMT


In article <1992Sep7.154918.11940@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

> When I got into the computer software field, 27 years ago,
> I was just about off the street.  They called us "programmers"
> and there was no talk of engineering.  Degrees were not
> particularly liked, because people without them seemed to be

(...)

> a third of these people were women.  I've been in offices
> where half the programmers were women.

> About fifteen years ago, maybe a little less, Academia
> finally figured out how to teach people to program -- give
> them access to computers -- and started reconquering the
> field.  Now, apparently, it's very hard to get into unless
> you have a bunch of degrees.  And, since "programmer"

Which is quite understandable. There isn't any easy way to test if
someone is a good programmer or not. If he has good papers it however is
more likely him to be better than someone with poor grades. Hiring a
person without any papers is in that case more like guessing. And of
course it gives the employer backup against his superiors if the selection
turns about to be wrong to be able to show the papers which the decision was
based on.

> didn't carry the kind of weight you can charge a lot of
> tuition money for, they started calling programmers
> "engineers."  So programming became engineering.

(...)

> Lo and behold, 90% of the students in the field are male,
> just like it spoze to be in Engineering!  The field has

Why it si supposed. If women are good at programming and they wanted
to do the job, why not they then get the papers ?

> been made sexist, where it was once a shining example of 

Or is it that women doesn't like anything that even remotely sounds
technical. To mede something isn't the same than to become something.

> a place where women could get along just like the guys!

> Do I have this completely wrong?  If not, what happened?
> How are we going to get rid of this crap by going
> backwards?

Why should women be forced to do something they don't like ? If the base
of dislike is something as silly as 'the course has the word ..tehno.. or
...science... in it's name' does that give others the right to make decisions
for her ? The problem isn't that we wouldn't like to have women on the
trade but they don't want to come.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--