HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 08:35:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.202550.18976@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep30.152059.7395@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>>>What?  Are you conflating daycare and secondary education?  Do you
>>>believe that taxpayers opposed to funding state-supplied daycare are
>>>opposed to funding state-supplied secondary education?
>>>
>>>If so, let me correct you.  I'm against the former and for the latter. 
>>>Public education has long been recognized as being worthy of tax dollar
>>>suport.  Daycare has not.
>
>In the referenced article, petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
>
>>I was not equating the two per se, just noting that *probably* this same
>>*attitude* (i.e. that the parents should shoulder *all* financial
>>responsibilities for *their* children)  was why it is so difficult to
>>get taxpayer dollars to fund situations involving children. (i.e. they're
>>not my children, so why should I pay?)  
>
>Since most people believe that education should be state
>funded, I think this '*attitude*' is a straw man.

Perhaps where you are this is true.  Here, in Oregon, we are having a *lot*
of trouble convincing people of this.  The "they're not my kids so I shouldn't
have to pay" attitude is very prevalent.   Universities are being hardest hit 
at present but every level of education is going to suffer.

>>*All* children are our society's future, IMHO, (and not just a personal
>>ego trip), and as such deserve whatever we, as a society, can give them
>>to confront and live in that future.  One child (or one adult for that
>>matter) that is not given the opportunities that our society *can* provide
>>diminishes that society, IMHO.
>
>Education is about giving children opportunities.
>
>Daycare is about giving adults more free time.

I disagree.  Daycare is *not* about giving adults more free time.  It is 
about giving parents (mostly women but some men) the opportunities to
both raise a family and pursue meaningful careers.  This is something that
has mostly been reserved for men and the wealthy in the past.

>This is a clear reason why one is considered
>more worthy of state support, IMHO.

And it would be nice if our society really recognized the contribution
of mothers/daycare providers or if that's not possible, then at least
make it possible for mothers to make their contribution to the work
force in a meaningful(to the mothers) and respected (by society) career.
>
>Toby
>-- 
>Toby Kelsey
>School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
>University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk

Marg

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu (Susan Soric)
Subject: Seeking connections with E.European feminists
Organization: Univ. of Chicago
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:33:15 GMT

I am working on a master's degree
in feminist theology and I am 
particulary interested in feminism
in Eastern Europe.

I would very much like to correspond
with and exchange ideas and information
with feminist scholars in Eastern Europe
(particulary Croatia and the Balkans, but
anywhere in E. Europe is fine) on the subject
of women and religion and even on broader
topics of feminist concern.

If you know of such contacts or would like
to respond, please contact me by e-mail
at 
susan_soric@upubs.uchicago.edu

Thanks.
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:06:30 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct5.045719.14085@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.183342.26778@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>>For starters,
>>   -End preferences and quotas for women in hiring and promotions
>
>	Like what?
>
>	Affirmative action is designed to correct known biases, such
>as those against woman and black people in some quarters. I'm well
>aware that it is sometimes considered "reverse discrimination", a
>charge that may well have merit. But there _has_ been a lot of
>anti-woman stereotyping in decades past, if you are not so blind as to
>be aware of that.

Men and women simply make different career choices, that's a fact. Even
when the law has *nothing* to do with it. To penalize more qualified
men to benefit certain lesser-qualified women to "gender equalize" 
certain fields is blatant discrimination. 
It is the assumption that "two wrongs make a right."
(Yes, the "power structure IS clearly scared shitless of looking like
"Male Chauvinist Pigs", and will bend over backwards to feminist demands,
reasonable or not).
>
>>   -End prosecutions for vague "harassment" that in fact are plain-out
>>    censorship of 'things feminists don't like' (or, alternately, give
>>    men the SAME power)
>
>	Like...
The new MacKinnon-proposed legal agenda.


>>   -End the feminist assault on the first amendment.
>
>	Like...
Dworkin, MacKinnon, NOW, "Women Against Pornography," etc.

>>   -Either abolish "Womens' Studies," or else give "Mens' Studies" the
>>    same footing.
>
>	Why???
>
>	My preference would be to make it unnecessary, to end the
>locking out of women from important positions.

Women are NOT "locked out" of posisitions any longer, and have not been
for quite some time. Now the cry is for women to simply be GIVEN positions for
which men are forced to compete.

That would be my preference, too. Only I'm not naive enough to think that the 
power to brainwash the next generation would EVER be relinquished, now
that it has been seized. "Oh, gosh, discrimination is over now, women 
are 50% of the CEOs in the land. I guess it's time to close down these
departments now."

You must live on Fantasy Island, Loren.

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 25 Sep 92 22:58:49 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <19ll35INNrgq@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> 
> >>(It is interesting to note that although women do have more risks and
> >>potentially more to lose, they do, btw, want more children, on average,
> >>then men do.)
> 
> Funny, the world health organization finds that the exact opposite is 
> true -- that men want more children than women, on average.  Their
> no.1 recommendation to lower population growth is to educate *women*
> on family planning and to raise women's status in a society so that 
> they have more of a say int he number of children born.
> 
Both arguments are correct, for different populations.

For developed countries (ie: wealthy people), it is often the woman
who wants more.

For the undeveloped countries (ie: poor), it is more often
the man.  

From what I've gathered, many Latin American cultures view a large
family as an outward sign of a manliness -- any wonder why those men
want more kids?
-- 
"25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with
no permit of any kind: some say it's crazy.  However, 4 out of 5 US murders are 
committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?"   -  Andrew Ford
gtephx!forda@enuucp.eas.asu.edu  OR  !uunet!samsung!romed!enuucp!gtephx!forda
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
Date: 2 Oct 1992 17:41:57 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Besides, if our society really believed that sexy clothing *caused*
rape, wouldn't one expect rape victims to be able to turn around and 
sue clothing stores for selling and advertising those sexy clothes
in the first place?

						--  Michal
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:05:28
Organization: savage hackers
	<1992Sep25.214541.15830@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<ZEN.92Sep25173538@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Sep29.005352.2047@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:53:52 GMT


In article <1992Sep29.005352.2047@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
> >what is *enough* caution to relieve you of responsibility?  
> ABSOLUTELY NONE. Nothing relieves one of responsibility. Period. 

  Ok...

> >  By similar arguments, you can say that women are responsible for being
> >raped, by wearing provocative clothing, walking through bad
> >neighborhoods, etc.  I think that leads to pretty destructive logic...
> Not really. If a rapist has no target, how can he (or she) rape?

  Sigh.  You don't think people aren't raped in their homes?  At work?
Anywhere?  *Everyone* is a potential target -- the only way you're not
going to get raped is if you've been (literally) cremated.

> I'm not saying that the woman has COMPLETE and TOTAL responsibiity
> for some whacked out fool who wants to force his sexuality on others...
> but I won't absolve her of any responsibility either. 

  So what you're saying is that if you're at home or work, reading this
post right now, that you're responsible if someone grabs you from behind
and rapes you?  Get a life, guy.  By your logic people are responsible
for being raped by just breathing.  Don't forget, men get raped as well --
so if you ever get raped and someone tells you you shouldn't have provoked
your attacker, or that you somehow are responsible, let your tears
pierce your soul, let your anguish mend your flesh, and let your guilt
and rightous responsibility crush your waning spirit.

  Let a bit of poetic expression liven up this group :-)  Hopefully the
point is not lost in prosaic expression.

 -- d
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1848 soc.men:17181 alt.sex:31493
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:53:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.022727.26928@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >>      ... as a
>| >> proposition it's fairly reasonable.  Goes right back to
>| >> Pavlov and his slavering dogs.  Masturbation gives
>| >> intense pleasure, pleasure is associated with magazine,
>| >> magazine contains articles.  Could be the chain breaks,
>| >> but the idea isn't absurd.
>
>tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>| >That probably explains why every time I pick up a copy of Playboy, my
>| >dog salavates and I hear bells ringing.  Oh, wait!  That's just the
>| >telephone!  As Emily Litella would say, "NEVER MIND!".
>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>| This is interesting, but very badly (and pointlessly) slanted. Lets
>| try a (supposedly) more normal example. When a man and a woman have
>| normal sex, and the man has an orgasm, will not the same result occur?
>| 
>| Guess sex needs to be outlawed. 
>
>You bring up a good point.  What's the difference between
>sex with a human being and sex involving a magazine?  In
>the former case, there's a real person to associate
>intense pleasure with, to become attached to, to love.
>In the latter, there's nothing but a piece of paper.

I believe that the quote by MacKinnon referred to associating
women to the 'position' during masturbation. I assume that at least
some of the time, the positions during normal sex would be the same.

As for emotional attachments, I agree. Only if a woman could not be
found would the magazines make any difference.
 
>This is pure speculation, but my theory is that the reason
>human beings have very large sexual organs with respect to
>body size compared to most mammals, are in heat most of 
>the time, and have a sex drive far beyond the need to 
>reproduce in spite of the most dire environmental 
>conditions, is that the emotional result of sex is 
>important in keeping humans from killing one another.  

Hmmm, you may be right...
 
>If you've ever dealt with animals much, including wild ones, 
>you'll probably agree with me that there is no fiercer, 
>more aggressive, or more dangerous animal than a human 
>being.  Sex could be the counterbalance to that aggression.
> 
>If my theory is accurate, then diverting the sex drive into 
>violence or commerce could have very bad results.  As I say, 
>it's speculative.  But there are plenty of bad results 
>around to support the theory.
>-- 
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: CONDOMS!
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:39:51 GMT

In article <6810@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Oct4090947@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>> In fact, my usual recommendation would be condoms, but
>> as we have seen on this group, many men object to using them.
>
>Men,
>
>Do yourselves a favor and use that condom.  When you think about it, doesn't
>it make the most sense?  Why take a risk?  Why suffer the hassle of a visit
>to the doctor?  Why risk death?
>
>Or for that matter, why risk being at the mercy of a pregnancy that you
>didn't want and can't support?

How do condoms protect you from this risk?   (Here come the flames.  
Let's see:  Russian Roulette with a six-chambered gun leaves you 
a 16.6% chance of "failure."  Maybe that's not so bad.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: statistics and questions
Date: 03 Oct 92 08:14:19 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct1.212637.7371@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>> 
>
>Actually, under the traditional arrangement, women get a fairly good 'pay'
>for what they do.  It just isn't a direct salary.  The man worked, the
>woman was his partner and shared his lifestyle.  This really does have 
>advantages for women over a pure capatilistic arrangment, IMO.  A partnership
>is much more equal than the alternative employer-employee relationship that
>would otherwise develop (IMO again).


hmmm...yes, I'm wasting "hundreds if not thousands of dollars"
to hmmm.   :-)

As you put it, Bronis, a partnership could have advantages over
a pure capitalistic arrangement.  What would you think of extending
this type of arrangement, say, perhaps becoming a househusband if
you and a partner were in a situation where having a full-time
parent would be advantageous?  Or, for that matter, a more-than
-two-adult arrangement (I'm not asking from a sexual orientation
point of view; I'm thinking about how two or three wage-earners and
one or two childcare/homemakers might be more efficient).

-jen

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 02:33:40 GMT

In article <6807@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.143119.23156@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>> proposition it's fairly reasonable.  Goes right back to
>> Pavlov and his slavering dogs.  Masturbation gives
>> intense pleasure, pleasure is associated with magazine,
>> magazine contains articles.  Could be the chain breaks,
>> but the idea isn't absurd.
>
>That probably explains why every time I pick up a copy of Playboy, my
>dog salavates and I hear bells ringing.  Oh, wait!  That's just the
>telephone!  As Emily Litella would say, "NEVER MIND!".

This is interesting, but very badly (and pointlessly) slanted. Lets
try a (supposedly) more normal example. When a man and a woman have
normal sex, and the man has an orgasm, will not the same result occur?

Guess sex needs to be outlawed. 
 
>        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
>"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
>"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
>"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:26:59 GMT

No this is not what my arguement boils down to.  You brought a a specific
question, this is my specific answer.  You want people to stop using words that
*YOU* deem offensive, that is quite silly.
>
>Sure, Jeff, you can call anyone anything you want.  That's what the
>first amendment is all about.  But there is a little thing in this
>world called "courtesy" and some of us think it is a Good Thing.
>
Is courtesy and Absolute?  Is that why it is a _G_ood _T_hing? I think courtesy
is a good thing too.  But don't tell me I have to use your definition
of courtesy.

>JerkfaceJeffy  :^]   (my new sig!)
>
>rini
>

JerkfaceJeffy   :^]
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
Date: 2 Oct 1992 14:17:10 -0700
Organization: The sun shines brightly...
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

In article <1ai1l5INN604@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Besides, if our society really believed that sexy clothing *caused*
>rape, wouldn't one expect rape victims to be able to turn around and 
>sue clothing stores for selling and advertising those sexy clothes
>in the first place?

Sounds like a plot for LA Law.

Teri
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape? No way!
Date: 3 Oct 92 19:19:18 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct2.221842.6563@ils.nwu.edu>, lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

> I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if baggy clothing reduces the chances
> of attack, it would be well worth considering as an avoidance mechanism in
> cases where you don't care what you look like.

I do not believe that there is any data showing that baggy clothing reduces
your chance of being raped.  That was the point I was trying to make.

> This is the ONLY point I am contending here.
> Anybody seen any statistics on this?

If anybody does have a study at hand, please post!

>>Your clothing will not keep you safe.  Learning self defense is a better
>>course of action.

> One may also wish to consider carrying Mace.  I gave a can to a friend who
> moved to a not-so-nice neighborhood recently, and she feels much safer having

> PS  Warnings about the legality of Mace (if any) are not needed.  We figure
> the benefits outweigh the risks there.

How about a warning about the effectiveness of Mace?  Is your friend carrying
something that will really help or just a placebo?

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2108 alt.censorship:7871
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Censorship
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:13:37 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

| Can't you decide that there is a bug in a theory by looking in its
| conclusions?  (Have you ever heard about "counter example?)
| Don't you know that censorship is the result of MacKinnon's theories?

In article <1992Oct5.220146.17938@panix.com>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>You have two categories of outcome here, I think.  One is
>the production of predictions 

Do you accept the prediction that banning _Playboy_ will reduce rape rates?

>and the other is advocacy of a social program.  

Do you see MacKinnon's anti-porno legislation as censorship?

>In order to discuss whether someone is "for censorship"
>or "against censorship" one has to define one's terms a bit.  

Do you (Gordon) view the anti-porno laws that MacKinnon
pushed as censorship?
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1635 soc.men:16949
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: <None>
Date: 3 Oct 92 19:28:39 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct3.070904.26820@netcom.com>, barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

> 	Speaking of hilarious, I simply must repeat a small piece of
> that MacKinnon quote, just to savor it:

> 	"Masturbating over the positions taken by the women's bodies
> associates male orgasm with the positions expressed in the articles."

> 	And people actually take this woman seriously?

Seriously enough to enact her proposed legislation.  Like Ross Perot, she
looks fine till you examine her writings. ;-)

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:00:43 GMT

In article <1aa3scINNk38@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>Now, getting back on topic, are you (plural) still interested 
>>in objecting to the claim that persons of both sexes object to
>>contraceptives that "impinge"?
>
>I (singular) maintain that men (or rather, most men) are not 
>particularly vocal in objecting to contraceptives that "impinge"
>on women.  Most men seem to feel that it is preferable for the
>woman to take the Pill (and perhaps suffer headaches, etc.) then 
>for themselves to put up with the inconvenience of donning a condom.

Are you implying that you think it is preferable for a man to put
up with the inconvenience of a condom than it is for a woman to put
up with the inconvenience of the Pill?

Are you implying that you object to using the Pill because it
makes some people "perhaps suffer headaches, etc."?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged