HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Kristi Michalek
Subject: Surprising statistics
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:03:47 GMT

Recently, I came across a survey that was given to 200 university females  
(mainly juniors and seniors), apparently its purpose was to determine 'the  
extent of female physical aggression on campus'.  I guess it was a project  
for Psychology or something,  but the results may be surprising.

1. 10% have engaged in a fist fight on or near campus in the past year.
      Of those 10%, 70% of the fights were alcohol-related.
2. 35% have engaged in a fist fight in the past 3 years.

Those who answered yes to either of the fist two questions were asked to  
describe the intensity or severity of their most recent fight on a scale  
from 1 to 5 with 1 being minor (pushing, shoving), and 5 being horrible  
(many severe injuries common).
    AVERAGE:  3.7
     LOWEST:  1.5
    HIGHEST:  5.0
Then they were asked the length of their most recent fight
    AVERAGE:  34.5 seconds
     LOWEST:  5-10 seconds
    HIGHEST:  10 minutes !
Then they were asked why they fought (choose most fitting category)
      no good reason, just a really stupid fight:  25%
                            didn't like the girl:  14%
                 verbal argument turned physical:  17%
             don't like something other girl did:  33%
                                           other:  11%
Finally, how the fight ended:
    Broken up by police      10%
    Broken up by others      64%
    Mutual stop              22%
    'knockout', or other
       injury to prevent further
       fighting              4%

The people who did the survey concluded that on average, 1 out of every 20  
female university students will engage in a fist fight per semester!!!!  I  
don't know how they got the figure, but this comes to about 3 fights a day  
average (although I'm sure most fights occur during the weekends.)

45% have witnessed a girl-girl fist fight on or near campus in the past
    year.
91% have been in a situation in the past year that could have easily
    escalated to a fist fight, but did not.
42% expressed a CURRENT desire to 'beat up' a specific person.
    Of those 42%, 33% think they might follow through with the desire
    given the right mood and setting.
85% say they get more aggressive (i.e. more prone to fights) when drinking


 (a few unrelated statistic from different sources:)
98% of female college students who have sisters admitted to physically  
fighting with them at least once.
8 out of 10 pairs of sisters physically fight every year (averaged over  
ages 5 thru 17).
Sister-sister physical fights are actually MORE COMMON that  
brother-brother fights.  (two different sources!)


Although some of these statistics may seem surprising, I tend to agree  
with them.  I had a sister that I ALWAYS fought with (physically), and I  
have been in a fight in high school.  A handful of my friends have been in  
a fight in the near past (since coming to U of I).
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:24:51 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <10933@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> odin@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>I can't say that pornography is wrong. I can't say that rape is wrong either.

What?!?  

>It's easy to say "If she reacts with that kind of hostility to my
>Elle calendar - well she's really fucked up!". I find it equally easy to say
>"If she reacts with that kind of hostility to her friend getting raped - well
>she's really fucked up!" - but aren't we all?

Huh?!?  The two aren't even in the same category.  Rape is a *crime*, an
intrusion of one person on another.  Pornography is a private matter, one
person, one magazine, book, or video, and no one one else's goddamn
business!  I find it mind-boggling that you can equate the two reactions
you describe above.

You've probably confused a lot more people, too.  Would you mind explaining
the above?

Daniel Welch

BTW, since when did "swimsuit calendars" become pornography?
Xref: sparky soc.women:18810 alt.abortion.inequity:4830 talk.abortion:46585 alt.feminism:3679 soc.men:18639
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: More Women Than Men Prefer to be Alone
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:20:48 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Followup-To: soc.women
Distribution: na
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

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?

Interesting.  A study a few years ago showed that in long term marriages
(I forget the details, but the study dealt with senior citizens who had
been married to their partners for a long time), when the woman dies
the man often dies within a year (the change in average lifespan was
statistically significant), but when the man dies it has no effect
(statistically) on the death rate of the women - they live to their
natural age.

I just assume that studies like this show that men care more about 
women than women care about men.  Like most such generalities,
it's probably false, but that's the way it seems sometimes.  8-)
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
Xref: sparky soc.women:19343 alt.discrimination:4614
From: carl@Cayman.COM (Carl Heinzl)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.discrimination
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:26:19 GMT
	<1992Nov6.081944.2669@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Nov6.224701.6781@fid.morgan.com>
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Cayman Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: sethb@fid.morgan.com's message of 6 Nov 92 22:47:01 GMT


>I'm not saying that anybody is actually planning this, or even that it
>will happen.  I'm in favor of laws banning discrimination on
>irrelevant grounds, provided they don't allow statistical "proof" of
>discrimination.

>To those who are going to say "This company hasn't hired and X's,
>therefore they must be discriminating.  Why won't you allow that as
>proof?"  I'll say "Show me one X who applied and was more qualified
>than candidates they did hire.  The existence of such a person implies
>discrimination; if you can't find one, then tell me _precisely who_
>they discriminated against."

I must beg to differ.  I do not believe that this implies
discrimination, however I think that if this systematically happened
over a period of time to several people then something could be up.

For example, I have interviewed people that have been extremely well
qualified (technically), more so than others, but that most people in
the company would have had an extremely hard time working with.  All
of this is true for people of any race, creed, color, religion, etc.
Qualifications alone do not make someone appropriate for a position.
Attitude and personality go along with it.  You cannot simply judge a
person by their resume (even if all the resumes are totally accurate
portrayals of their technical ability)!!!

-Carl-
--
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: More Women Than Men Prefer to be Alone
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 09:38:57 GMT

In article <BD.92Nov12092048@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>Interesting.  A study a few years ago showed that in long term marriages
>(I forget the details, but the study dealt with senior citizens who had
>been married to their partners for a long time), when the woman dies
>the man often dies within a year (the change in average lifespan was
>statistically significant), but when the man dies it has no effect
>(statistically) on the death rate of the women - they live to their
>natural age.
>
>I just assume that studies like this show that men care more about 
>women than women care about men.  Like most such generalities,
>it's probably false, but that's the way it seems sometimes.  8-)

Or perhaps the women are the caretakers and nurturers.  When the wife
dies, the husband loses the caretaking and the nurturing.  When the
husband dies, the wife loses someone to take care of.  

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Am I "exploiting" this woman?
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:57:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.195735.13037@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com
(Janice Kendall) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.014515.11092@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>In article <3707@creatures.cs.vt.edu> debra@creatures.cs.vt.edu
>>(Debra Potts) writes:
>>
>>>	  In every case I've ever EVER seen, the woman
>>>	  claims sexual harrassment on the basis of direct, specific, and
>>>	  often explicit sexual remarks that have been uttered by the accused--
>>>	  most significantly, such remarks made AFTER the utterer has been
>>>	  warned that the remarks are offensive/unacceptable.
>>
>>I guess you've never seen the cases where a women accuses a man of
>>sexual harassment because she disapproves of the calendar he posts on
>>his wall, or the magazine he reads during his lunch hour.
>>
>>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
>
> 1) It depends on where they post it.  I have complained when it is posted
>    in a more-or-less public place where I, and many others, can not easily
>    avoid seeing it.  If the offensive poster/calendar is not easily seen,
>    I have less of a problem.  This is true of women posting beefcake
>    posters/calendars as well.

I was responding to the statement that every claim of sexual
harassment involves "direct, specific...sexual remarks...made AFTER
the utterer has been warned..." (see full quote above).

> 2) Same with the offensive magazine - it should be read in private, not
>    public.  How would you feel if you walked up to a woman at lunch to
>    visit and then realized she was staring at a picture of some guy's
>    erect penis?

I really don't care what magazine she puts down to talk to me.  And if
she doesn't put down the magazine, I'll leave, and it still won't
matter what magazine it is.

> Guys, it can't be too much skin off your back to keep this stuff at home.
> Put it on the ceiling over your bed, in your bathroom, on your refrigerator,
> I don't care, but don't put it on your office wall.  I tend to avoid men
> who put such things on their office walls as I tend to feel that they have
> little respect for the women with which they work.

That's a perfectly reasonable attitude on your part; you're welcome to
base your feelings about people on whatever you want.

> An interesting experiment is to bring in similar material which features 
> the opposite sex and display it in a similar fashion - sometimes people 
> have to experience the discomfort themselves.

Of course, lots of people won't experience any discomfort.  Many men
who like looking at naked women expect women to like looking at naked
men, and aren't bothered by it.

If I post a calendar with pictures of sushi, could a vegetarian take
that as harassment?  If I had a picture of my wife and children
(assuming I had any), could a member of ZPG take that as harassment?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women in Combat
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:54:20 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of York, England

An (possibly) interesting aside in the discussion.

This week in Britain a woman succesfully sued the Territorial Army
(T.A.)(equivalent of National Guard) to be allowed to join the TA
parachute regiment as an infantrywoman. I'm not sure what grounds
the Paras rejected her but it certainly could not have been on the
grounds of fitness or upper body strength. Quite whether this will
mean she will actually now join the paras I'm not sure.

If anyone is interested I will find a newspaper report and send some
details.

		Aaron Turner	aaron@minster.york.ac.uk
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: dirk@iastate.edu (john case)
Subject: Re: A GREAT Night for Americans! (Women especially!)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 09:54:09 GMT

In <7868@transfer.stratus.com> lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Laurie Mann) writes:

> ... it was
>great that the evil Prop 9 went down to crushing defeat in Oregon.

Hardly crushing. 60% against, 40 % for. At least it was defeated, but
too close for my comfort. *sigh*

>Does anyone know what happened to the ERA in Iowa?

It failed. I was so excited, early in the evening, when reports said
it was ahead, but it eventually failed , 52% against, 48% for. Geesh.
And voters _did_ vote in another gambling law. Great. Being able to
blow money gambling is more important then equal rights. I want to puke.

-- 
------------
Am I a Geek because I carry the K&R man. (second edition) with me constantly ?
* Don't blame me, man. I voted Libertarian. *   #include "disclaimer.h"      *
-=     Too Many Puppies are Trained to Kill (Primus, _Frizzle Fry_)         =-
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.classics
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Yoder's idea of feminist philosophy (was Re: Plato's Views on Women)
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:14:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.100739.6828@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au> pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander) writes:
}
}Furthermore, points of view expressed by various marginalised groups are just
}as valid as those of mainstream philosophy.

What?  Even if false or incoherent?  Merely because a position is taken by
someone who belongs to an oppressed group doesn't grant it validity.  Philo-
sophy is about more than merely points of view, unless you're a Nietszchean.

Serf/slave philosophy is a nonsenseyou prattle off as a way of making claims that women have a valid and alternative viewpoint seem stupid.  Thankfully, too many people now are have woken up to
}those kinds of tactics.

What makes philosophical conclusions so special just because they're arrived
at by women?


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Xref: sparky soc.women:19529 alt.feminism:4377 soc.men:19247
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: 11 Nov 1992 03:47:05 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>What if, as is often the case, a malicious mother prevents contact
>with the father?  What if the husband has some doubt *before* the
>birth or shortly thereafter?  Why would you want a man to dive into
>a cuckolding without thinking and without any right to know?

We're talking about notification of *abortion*.  In which case 
there is no birth for us to discuss whether the man has a right to 
know about.

If you wish to discuss whether a man has a right to know whether 
he has fathered a child who has been (or will be) born, then by all
means we can do so.  Only please change the subject-line first!

							--  Michal

Xref: sparky soc.women:19094 alt.abortion.inequity:4956 talk.abortion:47195 alt.feminism:3964 soc.men:18892
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:15:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov8.171503.8736
Distribution: na
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <forb0004.52.721195005@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.152507.17089@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
[hey, this post id shorter!]

>>>>Sure, she controls her own body...but certain choices should not grant her
>>>>control over his wallet.  If she chooses to carry another man's child, she
>>>>should accept the possible consequences and the full responsiblity for her
>>>>choice.  I didn't notice Rich saying he would force her to take any given
>>>>course of action.  But, since her actions have an impact on him, I agree
>>>>that he has a right to know that it's not his child.
>>>
>>>That's nice.  You've gien us lots of reasons why you'd *like* to know.
>>>But you havent given us any justification for your belief that you have
>>>a *right* to know.
>>                                                     -- Michal   
>>
>>You missed that part about the husband being assumed the father of
>>the wife's children, and his having full legal and financial responsibility
>>for the child? 
>> 
>>Rich
>
>Not to argue with your excellent point, but fatherhood itself is the right. 

When the father is -not- the husband, the husband still becomes the legal
father-in-fact, does he not? The problem is that fatherhood and husbandhood
are considered the same thing, in all levels os law and custom.

>Eric Forbis      forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 07:17:47 GMT

In article <KYTAN.92Nov5103431@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com> kytan@mantra.fia.dmg.ml.com (Kok-Yong Tan) writes:
>  Sometimes, it's the attitudes of otherwise very pretty and
>inteligent women which makes men stay away from them.  I know because I've met
>one exactly like that.

That's fine.  More women for the man-hating, feminazi dykes (tm)!
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:36:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude

In article <1992Nov7.202854.24075@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> 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.

Uh, isn't that exactly what she did, walked instead? And convince a
lot of other people to do the same? Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I
thought Rosa Parks started the Montgomery bus _boycott_.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
From: cworth@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU (CHUCK WORTH)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: S. Faludi's __Backlash__
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:34:28 GMT
Reply-To: cworth@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: oavax.csuchico.edu


 Hi,
   Our campus is hosting a systemwide conference on the status of women next
 Spring.  Susan Faludi--the Pulitzer prize winning author of __Backlash__--
 will be the keynote speaker.  Consequently book discussion groups are form-
 ing all over our campus.  (I've joined one, but am only into Chapt 5 so far).

   I am very curious to know what the opinions are about:
 1) the quality of Faludi's scholarship (the general accuracy of the data/ 
    studies she cites, correctness of the conclusions she draws from them 
    and so forth.)
 and,
 2) the general regard/opinions/ views for the thesis of this book.

   If this was widely discussed a year ago, or a FAQ is available, I apol-
 ogize for reintroducing it.
                                       Many thanks,  Chuck

 Addendum: So far I've been impressed by what I've read.  I'm a practit-
 ioner/student of survey research and think she's done a marvelous job
 of marshalling a lot of different data sources in a compelling way.

**********************************************************
 Chuck Worth            California State University, Chico
 CWORTH@OAVAX.CSUCHICO.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Sad Day for Liberty
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 07:56:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.163113.27613@athena.cs.uga.edu> carr@athena.cs.uga.edu writes:
>Colorado's Amendment 2, which makes it illegal to pass any legislation in
>the state protecting gays & lesbians from harassment (or protecting their
>right not to be fired because of their identity), FAILED.

No, unfortunately, it passed.  I did hear that the governor thinks
it's unconstitutional and intends to fight it.  If he doesn't, perhaps
the No on 2 people will.  (I'll see what I can find out and post
adresses if anyone wants to write or send money.)

>Iowa's ERA FAILED.

Yep.  :(

>Since the campaigning for Oregon's Prop. 9 - which would have given gays &
>lesbians the civil rights of, say, convicted child molesters - gay-bashing
>has risen by (i think) 30 percent. Last month a retarded gay man had been
>attacked by skin heads on several occasions; a black lesbian moved in with
>him to protect him: BOTH WERE KILLED IN A FIREBOMBING LATER THE SAME WEEK!!
>If the proposition had passed, that would not be classified as a hate crime.
>Kinda like, the Nazi's didn't kill people because they were Jewish (or
>Gypsies, or Gay/Lesbian, or Socialist).

The good news is that Prop. 9 was defeated.  The bad news is that so
many people voted for it, the religious right intends to keep
fighting, that anyone was actually evil enough to come up with Prop. 9
in the first place.

>Happy that we're finally out from under the Republican yoke; happy that
>Carol Mosely Braun won (is that correct?); happy that Prop. 9 didn't pass
>(only a 10% margin).

Yes.  The good news is that a Republican president won't be appointing
Supreme Court justices for at least 4 years.  And that both of
California's senators are women--former San Francisco mayor Diane
Feinstein and Representative Barbara Boxer (beating anti-choice,
anti-queer rights Bruce Herschensohn).

>Sad that Americans have sent a clear message that they don't believe one
>should have the right love whomever one desires. (and not suffer injury,
>economic retribution or even death for that choice)

Yes.  But at least the Republicans with their "hate everyone except
white fundamentalist heterosexuals" platform didn't win.

Xref: sparky soc.women:18913 misc.kids:27879
From: judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer)
Newsgroups: soc.women,misc.kids
Subject: Re: Tarzan and Jane (was Re: Barbie)
Date: 5 Nov 92 22:46:29 GMT
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California

In article <lfej4qINNlun@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>
>>Which books of ERB had the characters identified as "living in sin"?
>
>The Land That Time Forgot.  More precisely, they lived as a married
>couple until the end of the book when they were rescued and "officially"
>married.
>

Since marriage is a sacrament performed by the two people involved and only
witnessed by the priest/minister, in actuality they were NOT living in sin.
They practiced the sacrament between themselves and it was "officially" 
entered into the legal documents of society after they were rescued.   So,
they were married in the eyes of God before they were rescued and married
in the eyes of the law afterwards.  No sin there.

-- 
Judy Leedom Tyrer

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"	- William Blake
Xref: sparky soc.women:19248 soc.men:19016