HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:30:58 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
Followup-To: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

Note the Followup-To: line.

In <92311.022651KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>Clinton will sign the Freedom of Choice Act (at least, he said he would),
>and will use R v. W  as a litmus for Supreme Court candidates (at least,
>he said he would).

>Don't know how many justices he'll get to appoint in his 4 years, though...

I think most expect him to appoint a replacement for Harry Blackmun.

Many think that Byron White and (if memory serves) John Paul Stevens will
also resign in the next four years.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist (whose wife recently died and who I think has
been having back problems) and Sandra Day O'Connor (for reasons unknown to
me) have also been mentioned as having outside chances of retiring.

My reading of this is that Clinton will probably appoint 2 justices, and
maybe 3 or 4.

Appointing 5 would be a godsend.

-- 
Michael Rawdon				 rawdon@colby.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

"Today I don't need a replacement,
 I'll tell them what the smile on my face meant,
 My heart going boom boom boom...
 'Hey,' I said, 'You can keep my things, they've come to take me home.'"
					- Peter Gabriel, "Solsbury Hill"
From: deannab@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Deanna Bergstrom)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:41:21 GMT
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans!  (Women especially!)
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

I agree!  I am feeling so energized and excited....I also actually
voted for winners this time!  And now I have 2 female US Senators
(Feinstein and Boxer), a female Congresscritter (Lynn Woolsey) and
a female State Assemblycritter (Valerie Brown....but this one would
have been female no matter what as her Rep. opponent was Janet 
Nicholas).  And other women won many of the local seats around here.

As Feinstein said about the Senate, "2% is not enough!".  6% isn't
enough either but at least the numbers tripled overnight!

Deanna Bergstrom
Santa Rosa, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 92 20:28:54 GMT

In article <7967@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.080709.1587@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>Yeah, isn't it a bummer?  They actually want you to be responsible
for the consequences >of your actions.  Definitely incompatible with
your political leanings.

Of course, you didn't address the point of "freedom of association."
I can see why, it's probably a dirty secret many Libertarians don't
want to admit to.

Nearly every Libertarian that I've read and talked to essentially says
this:  "If you're not being hired because you're Jewish, or black, or
queer, or Hispanic, the only recourse you have is to find an employer
who will hire you or form your own company or business.  There should
be no laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, sexual
orientation, color, religion, ethnic background because such laws take
away a person's right to freedom of association."

So, Rosa Parks should have just walked or drove a car or better yet
formed a bus company that didn't force blacks to sit in the back and
give up seats to whites.

As I said, not my idea of justice or a society I want to live in.

There are aspects of Libertarianism that I like.  It's just that I
don't like them enough to outweigh the bad points.

>> I talked several friends out of voting for Libertarians when I showed
>> them some postings on the net by Libertarians on the topic of "freedom
>> of association."  (Those posts are usually eye-opening, to say the
>> least.)

>Oh yeah, right.  All Libertarians are like the extremists.  All
pro-gun rights supporters >are Rambo clones with penis inadequacy.
And yeah, talk is cheap.  I notice you really >did "say the least".
If you have posts by more than a handful of extremist Libertarians,
>how about posting the parts you considered offensive?  

Read some of the politics newsgroups sometime.  You'll find many
Libertarians there and they do usually make the point about freedom of
association.  In fact, the only net Libertarian (the self-identified
ones) who I've seen _never_ write about freedom of association is June
Genis, and she was running for the Senate.  Whether she didn't comment
because she disagrees with it or because she thought it was bad
politics is anyone's guess.

Since you appear to be a non-nut Libertarian, what do you think of
freedom of association?

BTW, you know less of my politics than you think.  There's probably
still a post in alt.feminism where I talked of arming women with
handguns to prevent rape.

Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:01:53 GMT

In article <ISBELL.92Nov9141459@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>Beyond that, it is clear that the poster was referring to the
>importance of gender.  Whether one thinks that gender *should* be a
>relevant characteristic in history, it remains a somewhat obvious
>truth that it has been (and, for that matter, that it is).  Therefore,
>it is often "of importance" when studying history (or contemporary
>events).
>

Fine let's agree that gender is relevant to the study of history.
This has no importance whatsoever to the question of whether such a
thing as 'feminist philosophy' exists, or can exist.

Let's take a philosophical question: is mathematics reducible to logic?
Is there is 'feminist' perspective on this question? And keep in mind,
we must separate 'the position taken by most feminists' from 'a position
that is both distinct and distinctly feminist'.

Enjoy.

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Xref: sparky soc.women:19190 alt.abortion.inequity:4988 talk.abortion:47388 alt.feminism:4054 soc.men:18966
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 10 Nov 1992 02:22:51 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:

>> >The legislation was for -spousal- notification. And if my wife was pregnant,
>> >and it was not my child, I would think that I would have a right to know.
>> examples he came up with.
>>   
>> One question. Why would you have a right to know that the child your
>> wife was carrying was not yours? Does she not control her own body?

>Because, legally speaking, he will be financially liable for *any* 
>offspring his wife should produce.

>Any.

>For 18 years.

If you feel that that is unfair, then perhaps you should try to 
change laws that regard any offspring of the wife to be the financial 
responsibility of the husband.  But that does not justify writing
more bad law.  It does not nullifying a woman's right to having her
medical records held private.

							--  Michal

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 09:42:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.111921.1@mdcbbs.com> royce@mdcbbs.com (Royce D. Myers EDS/Unigraphics) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.163113.27613@athena.cs.uga.edu>, carr@athena.cs.uga.edu writes:

>> This is a sad day. To all you Creton men out there who are going to reply
>
>Why do you assume that the only people who support bias based on sexual
>orientation were men?  I suppose the data points in my experience which
>conflict with this are "the exceptions that prove the rule" :)).
>
>Noble of you to be open minded about sexual orientation...will you be open
>minded towards gender too?

I can think of a few explanations:  

(1) Carr was using the generic "men," so (male) men should realize
that both men and women were being addressed.

(2) Carr knows that in this newsgroup, there are usually many more men
than women, so s/he addressed the majority.

(3) Carr has noticed that the rabid homophobes are usually men
(although there is one rabid female phobe in talk.abortion).
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: penises
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:15:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Oh well!  The great and powerful (not to mention sarcastic and obnoxious) net god ljf has
spoken, so I guess that ends this thread!

Followups to alt.flame, since that seems to be where ljf started from.

Oh, by the way?  Weren't you one of the women who was complaining how if she asked a
question which some men considered stupid/inappropriate/naive/whatever, how she got
deluged with hate mail/posts?  Hypocritical twit.

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
From: Chuck.Lavazzi@launchpad.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Subject: Re: Was Clinton's victory America's message to the Anti-Choice?
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:08:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.183726.12720@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>>I'm curious to hear what you all think about the issue of abortion and its
>>>effects on the presidency and other implications such as the dangling
>>>supreme court.
>>
>>Clinton will sign the Freedom of Choice Act (at least, he said he would),
>>and will use R v. W  as a litmus for Supreme Court candidates (at least,
>>he said he would).
>>
>>Don't know how many justices he'll get to appoint in his 4 years, though...
>
>
>Not a flame, just my $.02, the justices already on the court were appointed
>for a lifetime term, so Clinton can't appoint any new people until one of
>them retires.
>
	Quite so.  And at least one of them is getting quite on in years and
likely to retire soon.  This is one of the reasons I voted for Clinton in the
first place, since it is highly likely that there will be a court vacancy
during the next four years.  And it is highly likely that President Clinton
will *not* fill it with another Stealth Rightist, as Bush has done.
	I'm hoping that this will at least stem the tide of Statist judicial
activism that we've seen during the last several years.

>Simon
>
>>------------
>>Kurt Ludwick
>>------------
Chuck
No .sig, no frills, no foolin'

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Xref: sparky soc.women:19008 soc.men:18819
From: dace@shrike.und.ac.za (Roy Dace)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Get a CLUE, a LARGE CLUE
Date: 7 Nov 1992 16:06:22 GMT
Organization: University of Natal (Durban), South Africa
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: shrike.und.ac.za
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
: 
:   I ducked out from this dicsussion because of the large volume of 
: hate mail I was getting, but I simply MUST respond here.
: 
:   How was my statement either racist or derogatory when I referred 
: to the increased presence of blacks in combat as being the result of
: SUPERIOR performance capabilities? 
: ^^^^^^^^
:   Since when is it racist to ADMIRE someone's strengths?
: 

Where I come from (and yes, it's quite easy to spot racism here), making
unqualified generalisations about members of a specific race is called
*RACISM* and is frowned upon in civilised areas! 
Xref: sparky soc.women:19167 alt.abortion.inequity:4983 talk.abortion:47351 alt.feminism:4034 soc.men:18954
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: penises
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 02:31:02 GMT

In article <7888@transfer.stratus.com> dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber) writes:
>> >> lnewton@pvec.bridgewater.ns.ca (LEE NEWTON) writes:
>> >> >	This is a very serious and mature quetstion. What to women think in 
>> >> >general on the issue of circumsized penises vs. uncircumsized penises?
>
>Whoever said anything about choosing or not choosing a particular man
>because of anything about his penis?  There are a number of other issues
>about which he might have wanted to find out womens' opinions - such as
>intercourse, aesthetic issues, etc.  And I'm sorry, as it was phrased, I
>*did* find it snide.  If she didn't want it to come across that way, she
>could have phrased it "I don't think most women think about that issue a
>whole lot".

Who said that soc.women posters are reading soc.women to answer
questions about foreskins?  It's (imo) a thoroughly stupid question to
be asking in a newsgroup about women's issues.  

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:15:21 GMT

In <BxErIq.E6L@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@meibm4.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:

>kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:

>>I do not believe they create a hostile enviroment, and everything is
>>capable of contributing to a hostile environment.  I am not against
>>chastising hostile co-workers, but against labeling posters as immediately
>>hostile.

>When a member of what is sometimes called the "weaker" sex is surrounded by
>calendars depicting scantily-clad women, she can get the impression that her
>male coworkers don't take her seriously as a person and coworker, but only
>think about her in terms of how she looks.  Whether or not that is true, it
>makes (some) women uncomfortable with the work environment.  That can make it
>harder for them to work smoothly and is "hostile".

It seems to me that it is easy enough for a person to know if their coworkers
take them seriously.  All of the women I know are intelligent enough to
figure this out.  There is a much bigger difference between hostile and
non-hostile environments than the presence of one of these posters.

>Companies have an interest in ensuring that their workers feel comfortable at
>work and can work smoothly, and should have a policy against such displays.
>(The other alternative is to kick out women who complain about it or whose
>job performance suffers; and *that* is sexual discrimination and/or outright
>harrassment.)

	Consider this office:  11 men and 9 women.  Four of the women have
beefcake posters up, while six of the men have swim suit pictures up.  These
are the only people in the business and on the premises.  Nineteen of these
people are very happy with the state of affairs.  One born-again christian
fundamentalist male is not.
	How far do his coworkers have to go to accomodate him?  How 
comfortable is this place going to be for everyone to work?

Ken
Xref: sparky soc.women:19106 talk.abortion:47203 alt.feminism:3972 soc.men:18900 misc.legal:19677
Newsgroups: soc.women

	
	Surprised?   Why are there so many folks surprised?

	No surprises in this election for me....  Especially wrt
	women in politics...  the only way to get elected is to run,
	and now that women politicians are building their political
	experience at local and state levels, many more are becoming 
	recognized for their qualifications, especially their increased
	experience.  Many more women are now running as solid candidates,
	in the mainstream of political movement.  This _should_ result
	in more women getting elected....

	It has.

	No surprises.

	-Mike-
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:32:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.153742.20271@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
)In article <Bx80u8.4zK@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
)>
)>What a person reads, wherever they read it, should be their own business.  I
)>still don't understand why someone should be upset with that woman for
)>reading an erotic magazine.  Granted, it is easy to come up with specific
)>incidences, but I don't think it is valid as a general rule.
)   
)Not at work. You're on private property with other people and
)those other people have rights.

Only recently, though, has it been seen fit to say that people have a
'right' to sue in Federal court to demand that things that they find
to be 'demeaning' or 'hostile' be taken down, and people who utter 'hostile'
words to be punished.  The previous tradition in this country was that the
State would *NOT* regulate speech, posters, or other displays, even if they
were offensive, unless it met much more strigent standards than a 'hostile
environment' or 'hurting someones feelings'.

I find the current reversal of this long tradtion rather unfortunate,
and the legal justification for it rather ad-hoc.

Freedom of speech - unless, of course, it 'hurts women' seems to be
the current viewpoint :-(.  The sexism in this viewpoint seems very
obvious to me.

Xref: sparky soc.women:19361 alt.feminism:4214 soc.men:19111
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 00:08:00 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1drlt8INN1ep@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com>
teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:

>And let me say for the record that I believe men are oppressed too, OK?  
>However, women are oppressed *more*.  

What would it take to convince you that the sexes are
oppressed (or not oppressed) equally?

Let's see....how about, say, 50 independent, controlled
psychological studies over the last 20 or so years, 90%
of which came to the conclusion that the psychological
positive well-being of women is equal to or slightly
greater than that of men?

Would this do it?  I'm just wondering if this attitude
is a priori or if it's 'scientific' in some way.

-S. Schultz 
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:43:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.025617.9172@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>| 
>| Let's take a philosophical question: is mathematics reducible to logic?
>| Is there is 'feminist' perspective on this question? And keep in mind,
>| we must separate 'the position taken by most feminists' from 'a position
>| that is both distinct and distinctly feminist'.
>
>That's not only kind of philosophy there is, though.
>Questions of grammar may approach gender- and class-
>neutrality.  Political questions (for example) do 
>not.


Ok, but are we talking about 'philosophy' (with no qualifier), or something
else  (e.g., 'political philosophy')?  Very few would question the relevance
of gender to political questions (although some have); I certainly wouldn't.


> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:59:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.142905.24479@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> rfs@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (richard.f.j.soyack) writes:
>This whole thing started because some guy saw some woman at a
>party wearing clothes he found stimulating.  When I read this,
>and now, my first thought was why didn't he go up and talk to
>her?  That's what I would have done.

You're so shallow.

Xref: sparky soc.women:19147 talk.politics.theory:4803 sci.philosophy.tech:3973 sci.philosophy.meta:2427 sci.classics:943
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
Date: 9 Nov 92 07:40:42
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
Distribution: inet
	<1992Nov6.161153.9610@panix.com> <BxE6rn.IHx@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us's message of Sun, 8 Nov 1992 10:06:54 GMT

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
|No.  I think that those who advocated such views were wrong.  Perhaps you 
|would like to continue to apply that reasoning and advocate "slave philosophy"
|and "serf philosophy".  What kinds of deep philosophical insights do you
|think one acquires by being a woman, a slave, or a serf?  

A basic and personal understanding of what it means to be oppressed.
I suspect that many of those who have been homeless, for example, have
had their worldview shaped by such an experience.

And real, hands-on experience--as opposed to simple theoretical
understanding--should not be underestimated.  I think being pulled
over by a police officer and beaten near to death by a flashlight
provides a "deep philosophical insight" as it were that might not be
arrived at by other more cerebral means.



--
Peace.
                    "We don't necessarily discriminate.  
                     We simply exclude certain types of people."
                             -Lt Col. Gerald Wellman, ROTC Instructor 
                              at M.I.T., on D.O.D. 1332.14
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: More Women Than Men Prefer to be Alone
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:23:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov10.172327.29144
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1doj8oINNjkk@news.aero.org> foy@aero.org (Richard Foy) writes:
>A news item this morning said that 20% of married men preferred to be home
>alone. However, 50% of married women preferred to be home alone.
>
>Are there other studies similiar to this? What are the reasons for more
>women then men preferreing to be by themselves?


May I suggest one answer, from personal experience?  When I was married 
and home with my husband he was constantly interrupting whatever I was 
doing -- cooking, reading a book, washing the windows, writing a paper -- 
he wanted my attention at all times; sometimes it appeared my function 
was to simply stand there and witness his existence.  He didn't want me 
to *help* him, though I always offered.  He just wanted me physically 
*there*.  It seemed that whatever he was doing had priority over whatever 
I was doing simply by virtue of the fact that it was he who was doing it. 

Now the man I've lived with for the past seven years is totally unlike 
this.  We enjoy being in the house together, we take pleasure in helping 
each other out.  This weekend he stained a bokcase for me while I was 
editing a grant proposal for him.  We're courteous to one another and 
have consideration for one another's time.  We don't issue demands, we 
make requests. 

Had I been part of that study six years ago, I would definitely have 
answered "prefer to be alone."  Not so today. 

--Barbara 
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men