HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:31:58 GMT

In article <BzBK4p.9sD@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>
>> And, how do I maintain an
>> erection while I am raping someone?
>
>...Unfortunately, this is not a problem for all male humans. 
>
>(Read the rather graphic case reported in today's Chicago Tribune. It
>unmade my whole day. :-( ) 

Sorry Lenore, I didnt write that humorous quip left over from Rini's & Heiner's
tete et tete.  I added the comment ( I believe it was *Ouch!* ) after Muffy's
suggestion for achieving such a goal.

Im not offended, I just dont want people coming in on the middle of things
thinking I am making light of rape or have erection problems:)

Anyway, it isnt a big deal, just FYI

Steve R

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:37:04 GMT

The innanity of this blows my mind.  But let's just try one more time:

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>>>>Oddly, the thread rini started in sci.skeptic (a gender neutral pronoun)
>>>>            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>is still occasionally getting activity.

>>>>To correct you for the second time, I did not start a thread in
>>>>sci.skeptic.

>>>I was correct the first time. 
>>>
>>>I recall you responded to a post which had sci.skeptic in the newsgroups
>>>line. It was your response that started the thread. That you did not see
>>>this is irrelevant to what happened.

>>Rich, I *responded* to a thread.  I did not "start" that thread.  I did
>>not bring up the topic at all.  This is a *fact*. 

>Let me try one more time, YOUR RESPONSE STARTED THE THREAD. Ergo, you
>started the thread. That you do not read the group does not change this.

Rich, I am NOT claiming that the fact that I don't read sci.skeptic
has any relevance at all.  What I am saying is that I AM NOT THE ONE
WHO BROUGHT UP THE SUBJECT OF GENDER NEUTRAL PRONOUNS.   ^^^  

Therefore, I fail to see how you can believe that I "started the thread."
I am quite sure there were a couple of articles on sci.skeptic BEFORE
mine that addressed THAT subject.  I know, because when you first raised
this a couple of weeks ago, I went over there and looked.

>>>If you don't like this, edit the newsgroups line.
>>>
>>>It almost sounds like you feel that since you were not there, you could
>>>not possibly have started a thread. 

>>No, I feel that since I did not initiate the topic, I could not have
>>possibly started a thread.

>Why not?

Rich, where is the problem here?  Do you have some different definition
of "start"?  Or do you have some different defintion of "thread"?  

Let's see, I did not make the original post that somehow initiated the 
discussion of gender neutral pronous, nor did I *initiate* the topic of 
gender neutral pronouns, nor did I take any controversial stance on the 
topic which drew lots of replies, nor was I central to the debate in 
any way shape or form.  So can you please tell me Rich in what 
way I "started the thread"?

Really, I don't see what is the problem here.  If I *had* started the
thread, I would be happy to own up to it, but I just don't see the 
point of you lying about this.

rini
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Date: 12 Dec 92 15:50:06 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <ByyLB1.HCH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>And how can a person spending their time in this way
>perform *any* extraordinary accomplishment? Let's
>see what women do, when they are free of Martha Stewart
>and Jenny Craig!

I wouldn't knock Jenny Craig.  She provides a needed service to the community. 
The service provided is both therapeutic and educational.  The program is
desinged for those who are overweight ( an unhealthy condision ) to lose 
weight over time while learning how to put together a heathy diet for 
themselves to maintain a healthy body.  Granted that the motivation of 
people is to look and feel good, but is that so wrong?  Oh, by the way 
many men are clients of Jenny Craig.

starbuck
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Blaming the victim, was (Re: ...Mysogynistic Without Apology)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 18:47:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.183411.29694@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>
>This is to Mr. J  Dunphy:
>		Just as the women you seem to keep involving yourself with,
>you are a time bomb looking for a place to happen.  

If this had happened to a women, what you are dong would be called
-blaming the victim-. And further, you are saying that things like
this will happen in the future, and they will also be his fault.

>                                                  I hope I never have to deal
>with you or any of your aquaintences (both male and female) in my lifetime.  

And I hope to never have to deal with those as callous as you, although
I expect not to be so lucky.



Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: CALLING ALL WOMEN..WHERE ARE YOU?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:24:30 GMT

biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

...[embarassing exchange deleted]...
 
>Oh, stop it rini! It's just no good. Look, everyone is staring at us.
>I don't enjoy watching you suffer. I'm sorry you're hurt, truly sorry;
>I'm even willing to go with you to see Dr. Benway for counseling, but
>I draw the line at shock treatments. (not that I expect much help; I
>remember only too well the humiliation I felt when we went to that
>psychodrama quack, and you acted out your necrophiliac fantasies. I
>could never face those people again after that...)

I'm afraid it's too late.  It's true.  I did fantasize about
reconciliation, but now it clear that it is too late.  (I have 
finaly found Dr. Benway, btw.  She too is a lesbian feminist,
(turns out she was _disguised_ as a male disguised as a female to 
set you on the wrong track, but I have finally tracked her down 
through my connections with NOW) and right now we are working 
through repressed childhood memories of satanic ritual abuse 
involving the inhalation of bug spray.  (It's pretty clear that my 
unnatural heterosexual impulse came about from these experiences...
I also have a much better understanding of your William Tell
scene... misogyny, pure misogyny.)

>Anyway, I still care about you. So, sweetie, just for you "87%, two
>sigma deviation!".

I HAVE _NOT_ CONSENTED TO THIS!   NO MEANS NO!  When will men learn 
that we are not your sex toys?  

I just might have a ground-breaking legal case against you now!

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Diane
Subject: Re: Feminazi
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:21:07 CST

In article <1992Dec16.122825.9452@iscsvax.uni.edu>
wilson4450@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>
>Feminist! Just a bunch of Cum catchers!!!!
>
 
Obviously it been *much* too long since anyone has agreed to catch yours.
Good Luck.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Separate but Equal?
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:34:05
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Dec8.110927.27573@panix.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec10004011@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec10.193817.18786@panix.com>
	<MUFFY.92Dec10201658@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Dec11.162142.3874@panix.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jk@panix.com's message of Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:21:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.162142.3874@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <MUFFY.92Dec10201658@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>[I]f there is only one set of roles, and they are assigned to
>>everyone, then there would be no "unfairness" towards people because of
>>their sex, yes?  That's certainly my view of it.  I would be quite happy
>>if our society simply said "these roles need to be fulfilled, and
>>everyone is required to try to make sure they are."

>A couple of possibilities:

>1.  Suppose there really are innate differences between men and women,
>so that most men are now and always will be better suited for the
>traditional male role and most women for the traditional female role.
>Now suppose a society abolished the traditional female role and
>provided that the functions formerly performed by wives and mothers
>would be carried out by functionally rational hierarchical
>organizations of the sort men tend to act through.

Why suppose all this, though?  Why not just say that *someone* has to
perform those roles, and not specify whether it is a man or a woman.  If
it is then the case that women are actually happier in these roles, they
would be free to take them.  However, if they are *not* actually happier
in the roles, they would not.  If the roles were then not being filled
because NO ONE wanted them, then there would have to be some incentives
given by the society for the roles, which would be quite interesting.

>2.  Suppose most men and most women would be happiest in a society
>that had appropriately-defined sex roles, but some would not.

I see a lot of men on here saying they are unhappy and a lot of women on
here saying they are unhappy.  While what you suggest is a possibility,
it does not seem to be the case in what I have seen of our society.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Can you tell me how much bleeding/it
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  takes to fill a word with meaning and/
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  how much how much death it takes/to give
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  a slogan breath?~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Football: Robert Sheaffer's Central Metaphor?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:34:19 GMT

In article <BzH3z2.40v@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>>Yes, a well-paid female actress (for that is what these are), having
>>an exciting, fast-paced life and undoubtedly dozens of highly attractive
>>suitors, is *exploited* something fierce. We've got to make them stop
>>doing this, for their own good. 
>
>This is the same argument that Jack Benny used, to defend his treatment
>of Rochester. He said, "Rochester laughs all the way to the bank."

So, I guess your argument is that women and blacks are too immature
to know 'what's best for them.' If left to themselves, they might
do something unwise, like children. And so it's necessary for 
wise persons like yourself, who have their own best interests at
heart, to step in and prevent women and blacks from acting unwisely.

Can you say "patronizing"?

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


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: High Heels
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:37:41 GMT

Article: 4225 of alt.feminism
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 21:21:40 GMT

In <1992Dec10.142534.16313@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:

>And
>by the way, can any of you men tell me why high heels are considered so 
>attractive?


	Just FYI.  A friend of mine who did a lot of research into the
	history of clothing told me high heels firts appeared around
	the middle ages.  Supposedly they were invented by some lord
	to make it difficult for "his" women to keep their balance
	so he could easily outmanuever them and push them over.

	Personally, if they vanished I would not care, but I do find
	them attractive despite the sinister history.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Hooray!!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 06:56:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.024950.4961@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>Perhaps...I find it interesting that you find my Oh Good Grief more offensive
>than one other poster's telling Wendy to take her self-pity to 
>alt.angst.post-op.transexual. At least it would seem that way, seeing as you
>said nothing to that other poster.

I missed that post.  I suppose the poster is already in my killfile.

>You and I seem to have different concepts of nice, among other things. 

I was referring to Wendy's response.  I wouldn't call my first
response to you very nice, but it was hardly nasty.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: feminist sound bytes
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:58:38 GMT

bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

[Statistics from the National Survey of Families and Households deleted]

>I feel I should point out that the statistics I quoted (at least the ones
>by Straus & Gelles) do not appear to suffer as much from the phenomeona of
>differing definitions between the genders as the statistics Rini quotes
>above.
 
>Part of the difference may be in asking more specific questions which are
>less open to cultural interpretation in the Strauss & Gelles work.  

"Interpretation" may or may not be desirable thing.   The problem about
asking, say, about slapping specifically, is that your going to pick
up all instances of slapping, some of which were done with a pair of
white gloves, and some of which were serious smacks that can throw
a person to the floor.  While I agree that the different interpretations
of violence that men and women seem to hold most likely hurts the
reliability of the statistics, I don't know if counting the number of
slaps exchanged does a better job or not.

>However, there may be other factors.  One of the very early pilot studies
>done by Strauss & Gelles had a similar apparent bias.  This bias disappeared
>in later studies.  There were two differences between the later study and
>the earliest one.  The first was the generally larger sample size.  

Just FYI, the NSFH is quite large.  Well over 10,000 people, though the
exact figure escapes me at the moment.  (12,4xx??? 14,7xx???)

>The
>second difference was the fact that only *one* family member was asked to
>report on violence - the earlier study asked all family members. 
>Interestingly enough, the authors seemed to avoid speculating that this
>difference in methodology might have made the difference between the first
>pilot study and their later ones - that people might adjust their reporting
>of violence if they feel it might be 'compared' to reports of their family
>members.  The authors (Strauss, Gelles, and I believe at that time Steinmitz)
>seem to prefer the explanation that it was a statistical fluke due to the
>small sample size.

Hmm.  The NSFH interviewed spouses as well.  I have no idea how this
effected how people reported.

>There seems to be an unfortunate tendency for a 'double standard' in this
>area - where women are ocassionally acquitted by juried when they kill their
>husbands in their sleep by burning them alive (the famous Burning Bed Case),
>wheras men are mostly held to the stricter legal standard (which is really
>supposed to apply to everyone) of killing only in self-defense against an
>immediate threat - and not making a 'history of abuse' an acceptable reason
>for homicide.

Have there been any cases where men have used the 'history of abuse' 
defense for homicide?

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:29:05 GMT

starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

(Favorable experiences with Jenny Craig, for him and his adolescent
daughter.)

>starbuck

I am glad Jenny Craig worked for you and your family. Personally
I've never met anyone who's dieted successfully; and I am quite 
prepared to believe in a 95% failure rate for diets. However, 5% 
is a lot of people.

I hope you told your beautiful child that the other children had no
right to make fun of her. Whether nonstandard weight is healthy
or not, in a given individual, that individual should not
accept abuse from others because of it. 

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Diane
Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 10:47:18 CST

In article <1992Dec11.210439.27220@netcom.com>
payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>The issue here is in the subject line, "Subject: Re: Why are many
>low-income women fat?". Fat is only burned by aerobic exercise, therefore
>aerobic exercise is a requirement to be non-fat, or lose fat. And if you
>are seriously out of shape, aerobic exercise is the only exercise you will
>benefit from.
 
Fat is only burned by aerobic exercise? If you have absolute proof of
this, do not delay- tell the medical community *immediately*. Gee, all
this time I thought that fat was burned when your caloric output exceeded
your caloric intake! Can I cite you in my next article?  Seriously, you
haven't taken any physiology courses in your life have you? It's okay-
I've only taken one computer course.
 
>This is new. Most women are smaller (shorter and less massive) than most men,
>and because of this require less fuel. Where do you get your info for
>men and women of "comparable height/weight"? Are you claiming that
>there are metabolic differences which make the fat-burning/muscle-building
>processes significantly different for men and women?
>
  Simply put, yes. If you really want references, and I can find some
that I feel are accessible enough for you (maybe a Cosmo article?) I'll
be glad to supply them.
 
>None of the morbidly obese are getting enough exercise,
>and probably have not been for quite some time. At this point, they will
>probably go anerobic at a fast walk. It is more that likely that they
>are equivalant because nothing equals nothing.
 
True, their caloric intake exceeds their caloric output.
 
>And curiously, if you postulate a more efficient female metabolism, it would
>seem odd that, on the average, the men are 212% over while the women are
>only 150% over. Do your figures show the men eating, what, 50% more than
>the women?
 
My figures are based on my own clinical experience. FYI, a person who is
212% of his ideal body weight is 112% over (I'll write slowly). Women
have been shown to be more likely to seek help earlier than men, so their
level of obesity is generally less at the initial exam. Men tend to gain
quite a bit more weight before they admit to having a problem. If you can
your hands on some back issues of "Obesity Surgery" or back copies
of the newsletter of the National Bariatric Surgery Registry (U of Iowa) you'll
begin to realize that there *are* people who have done a significantly
greater amount of work in this than you have, and we have the conceit to think
that we might know a little bit more.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag against Motor Votor Bill
Date: 14 Dec 92 01:55:00 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> 
> That is, there is absolutely no bad consequence whatsoever of being
> registered to vote. None. Being registered to vote will, at its ABSOLUTE
> WORST, have no effect on a person's life (they hadn't voted before and
> won't now.) And at best, they will be able to vote when they couldn't
> have before (it's not unheard of that people don't realize they're not
> registered until the deadline passes, and then they're unable to vote...
> automatic registration solves this, and enfranchises thousands of citizens.)
> It IS the proverbial free lunch. If that's "Big Brother imposition" this
> country could do with more of it.
> 
> >1. Democracy depends on an educated and concerned voter. If your going
> >        to force them to register, why not force them to vote too?
> 
> They're not being forced to do anything. They are being AUTOMATICALLY
> registered. Virtually no effort on the potential voter's part is involved.
> 

First off; depending on your view of jury duty, being called to serve on a
jury might be classified as an "undesirable consequence"; most counties
draw their jury pool from voter registration lists. Not registering to
vote is one way to keep out of the jury box. 

Secondly, the freedoms we enjoy DO depend on an informed electorate;
frankly, if somebody has to be forced to register, I CERTAINLY don't think
he's qualified to vote. Here in California, registering to vote takes a
maximum of five minutes; you pick up a postcard application, you fill it
in, you mail it. Shopping malls are routinely swarmed by "voter
registration drives", staffed by people who will WRITE IT DOWN FOR YOU;
all you have to do is sign the form. They'll even mail it for you. Voter
registration forms are available at every post office, most stores, and
many street corners. Are you implying that there's STILL too much effort
involved in registering to vote? 

No, the "motor voter" bill is an attempt by Democrats to hijack those
people who don't care enough about their fredoms to vote. And, let's face
it, registering a flock of people who you KNOW won't show up on election
day is INVITING fraud, now, isn't it?

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about: )
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:20:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Dec20.194900.29813@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <BzJBr8.6Jz@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>]>I would be VERY offended and uncomfortable to have to shower with a gay
>]>guy staring at MY tush... therefore by you PC people's own definition this
>]>constitutes sexual harassment.
>]
>]Of course, if you don't happen to know that the guy next to you is
>]gay, it's kind of a moot point, isn't it?
>
>But of course if the military allows openly gay soldiers, then you would,
>wouldn't you? Isn't that what we are talking about - allowing openly
>gay soldiers?

Depends on what you mean.  Most people don't discuss their sexuality
with coworkers.  If the ban were to be lifted, most lesbian
and gay soldiers would probably not come out at work.  Moreover,
most same-sex sexual harassment in the military and in other walks of life
is _homophobic_ harassment.

[Material on "unit cohesion deleted."]

There is no ban in Israel and none in most NATO countries.  The lack of
a ban does not affect cohesion because orientation is seldom made an
issue.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:11894 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10436