HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Separate but Equal?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:52:34 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

...[deleted text]...
HB Writes:
>>On the other hand, if you accept the necessity of a society, and a set of
>>roles and values associated with it (as it seems that you do) then it
>>remains to be shown how these roles and expectations could possibly have
>>been shaped largely to the benefit of men, given that women are an equally
>>active and important segment of society.  Please note that an appeal to the
>>"power" of men in this context would be recursive and empty, since the 
>>definition of power, and its glorification, would be a function of society.

>Well, basically, women have been neither equally active nor equally
>important.  It is fairly clear from history that men were more
>important, at least to the historians, who are presumably products of
>their society, eh?  One source of the inequities in "importance" is
>religion.  Many religions have been careful to place women in a
>subordinate role by the rules of the religion.  Societies which then
>adhere to these religions follow their lead in putting women in the
>"unimportant" role.  While a society may be created by all the people in
>it (although, frankly, I think that is overly simplistic), religions are
>created by a small number of people, and if a man or several men (say, a
>dozen or so) could put one together that was convincing, they could
>easily create an imbalance in the importance of the sexes.

>Are you happy?  No appeal to the power of men.

If I were happy I wouldn't be posting here B-}

It seems to me that you're saying that the unequal stature of women in
society is due to the pernicious influence of men, and that religions
are extremely volatile and powerful institutions that can be started
by a few men, to the advantage of men and the implied disadvantage of
women.

I don't see how such a religion could take serious hold of the populace
unless it arose from the values and expectations of the society as a whole.
Gum the Scrofulous, returning from a particularly stressful episode of
raping, looting, and intoxication, proclaiming a recent vison wherein
everyone must paint themselves blue, wear propeller beanies, and beat their
wives three times a day to the tune of "Dixie", would be largely ignored,
except by those few who really like propeller beanies, and the odd 
(decidedly odd) masochistic wife or two.

Seriously, I'd like to hear a reasonably well-developed theory that can
account for the vast preponderance of male-dominated societies throughout
history while still taking account of the fact that the carriers of the
values of a society are both men and women, and the inculcation of such
values is largely the work of mothers. And please, no claims about how women
were brainwashed and subjugated everywhen. Brainwashing is not any more
effective for women than for men, and subjugation does not make for conversion
or acceptance, but rather resistance and subterfuge.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Sex [patterns] (was: Sophie Germain - Gender Differences)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:45:17 GMT

quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:
>hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:

[on non-human primates]

>>However, I believe that in all of them (I could be wrong), those males higher 
>>in the hierarchy have more partners.  So in this area its not a matter of
>>picking.
 
>Nope.  What you say is only true of gorillas.  With chimps, it is very
>clearly females who choose their partners during estrous.  

There are also primates with Good Family Values, like macaques.

>Androcentric primatologists tried to impose the male-hierarchy
>pattern on orangs for many years, but more recent observation
>relatively free of this bias shows that *sexual* hierarchies exist
>mainly among femals, though a certain defensive hierarchy for
>protection of the band exists among males.  Though in any event,
>hierarchy amongst orangs is much more flexible than was thought by
>earlier primatologists seeking to impose models of hierarchical human
>society upon apes.

Coincidence: I just recently went to a talk on this (given by a 
primatologist).

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Robert's "Book"
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:47:16 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>-He purports to be a "debunker" yet doesn't hesitate to spread myths,
>> half-truths, and innaccurate generalizations about feminism.
 
>  Ah, yes, feminism the Convenient Chameleon. Whatever anybody objects
>  to automatically is "not what feminism is about;" apparently it's about
>  everything, and nothing. But feminism, the political movement, does
>  indeed display the traits to which I (and others) have objected.

So, like, you probably think that Joe McCarthy was doing a Good Thing..?

>>-He purports to be a lover of Truth, yet he rants about how telling
>> women the *truth* (that most women do not have orgasms from penis/vaginal
>> intercourse alone) is harmful.  (No real lover of Truth thinks that 
>> people should be 'protected' from it.  Sacrilege.  Grave sacrilege.)
 
>  I never said anything about "protecting" anyone from "truth;" rather,
>  I objected to making a "mantra" or an Article of Dogmatic Faith
>  something that is obviously only *partly* true - ESPECIALLY when
>  it is the kind of thing where strong belief plays a strong part in
>  creating the situation. 

Let me see if I can get this straight.

When a RadFemSurfNazi sez "While it may be true that men exhibit more
violence than women, it's because they are *told* that 'men are violent
by nature' all the time," the RadFemSurfNazi is clearly an idiot, IYO.

But when you say "While it may be true that many women do not
orgams from regular intercourse, it's because they are told that
'women often don't orgasm this way' all the time," you are somehow
cutting to the real issue...?

Again, I'm smelling the stench of post hoc rationalizations...

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,sci.skeptic,soc.women,soc.men
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: why poor women are obese
Date: 13 Dec 1992 01:32:51 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>In article <1992Dec9.165938.15284@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>>Check out the politics that surround this issue--it is more expensive it eat
>>properly, and to know how to eat properly.  

>This is not true, buy most of your foods at the vegetable counter (the
>cheapest section in the store) and you will have a low-fat diet high in
>nutrients. As for cost, I am pretty sure that most can afford a library
>card.

I suggest that Rich try shopping at an inner-city market and check
prices at the vegetable counter -- if he can find it.  Inner cities
are not exactly renown for their full-service grocery emporiums.

Also, how many libraries are in the poor residential neighborhoods?  
How many are open after work hours, when the working poor can get 
to them?


-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Library hours, was(Re: why poor women are obese)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 15:44:05 GMT

In article <1gj3v1INNotn@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>In article <1gg9reINN64b@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>"How many are open after work hours, when the working poor can get to them?"
>>If you do not know the answer, the point is at best moot. At worse, it's
>>a false argument, or it may be wrong.
>
>When I was a kid my home was not -- how shall I say it -- the most 
>stable environment and less than conducive to study.  

I can say the same. 

>                                         I used to go to
>the public library almost every night.  It was open till 11:00 pm.
>I usually stayed there doing homework until closing time.  It was 
>safer than going home.
>
>This was in California, pre-Prop. 13.

Not all libraries in California have hours such as you list below.
The Milpitas branch, for example, is open Sat and Sun.
 
>The same library is now open a couple of mornings a week, 2:00-5:00
>6 afternoons a week, and one evening (either Tuesday or Thursday, I
>can't remember -- after all, I no longer live in that neighborhood)
>till 8:00 pm.  I don't know where the "disadvantaged" kids study
>nowadays.

But your original statement was about inner-city libraries, not Ca
specific. It does not look like you have enough information to generalize.
And so, far from being a telling point, your original question remains
unanswered.

There is a differeence between 'fault finding', and 'finding fault'.
 
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 15 Dec 1992 08:52:53 EST
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
 <1g2egpINN3dl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <2185@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca>
 <2199@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> <michael.724427507@glia>

-
-In the long run it won't matter.  But in the short run, there is still
-pressure in our culture against women becoming a part of scientific
-fields.  This cultural pressure is a leftover from the days when women
-didn't enjoy the same rights men did.  Its slowly dissappearing, but it
-
-    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)

  Here is an interesting bit from the Colliers Encyplodia about the Titanic
disater, 1912.  Of the women and children on the ship 70% got into lifeboats
and survived.  Of the men on the ship, 20% survived.  Of crew members,
24% survived.  Among the dead were several quite well known, wealthy and
powerful men.   But there were not enough lifeboats and women were
given preference over men.

  Being a man isn't always piece of cake.  True, most of the senators are
men, but so are most of the people in prisons - and there are far more
people in prisons than in the senate!   Women do earn les than men do, but
I suspect that the rate of death and injury from employment is much higher
for men than it is for women.  So let us for heaven's sake, look for the
welfare of BOTH sexes and stop pretending that men are living in some
kind of paradise that women are denied access to.

    Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Yugoslavia
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:27:20 GMT

I've been thinking about what I wrote in response to the posted NY Times
artical about the regimented raping of Bosnian women.

This is a highly charged subject matter and I wouldnt be suprised if even
reasonable flamed me for my view/indecision.

Im not doubting the reported events exist.  I just cant help thinking of
the maneurvers pulled to get the US involved in the Persian Gulf war like
the niece of one of the Kuwati royalty making up stories of Iraqi soilders
killing babies in hospitals.  The stories of women raped as well.  Our
wonerfull news services didnt mention how the regular Kuwati government
had some significant human rights abuse  of their own.  The pro war
factions counted on the moral outrage that would be generated from these
stories to get us into the war and it worked.

I feel outrage about the camps and the rapes in Bosnia.  Call me what you
will but I was raised by parents who taught me the truth about war and
I spent a good part of my life in bad places where I had to fight to 
get by.  I've spent a good part of my life hoping to avoid military
service.  These events have honestly made me think about enlisting
in the military if the US decided to intercede.  Something inside of
me feels tortured sitting aside while concentration camps make a comeback
and regimented rapes take place.

However, I dont know if I can fathom these factors with risking an action
that could escalate into another world war, or kill many time more people
then would be dead if there was no intervening.  

Deciding to support intervention & deciding not to causes me anguish.
Its a dammed if you do, dammed if you dont situation for me.  I take
both views seriously.

Sorry for being verbose

Steve R
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: cwp@rbdc.wsnc.org (Catherine Pitts)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: ABORTION IS MURDER
Date: 19 Dec 92 09:10:15 GMT
Organization: Red Barn Data Center Public Access Unix, Winston-Salem, NC.

romingk@pell3l0.alleg.edu (Karl Rominger) writes:



>Just curious, how did this headline  initially make you react?

>Do you agree?  Disagree?

Disagree.  
-- 
Catherine W. Pitts
cwp@rbdc.UUCP
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6309 soc.men:21522 soc.women:21716
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:10:54 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <michael.724787645@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:

[all attributes already missing]

[...---...]
 
>>> 4) Who legislated draft registration?
>>> - legislative bodies which are comprised overwhelmingly of men
>>Who voted for these legislators?
>>- men and women
>
>This WOULD be a point if we could have voted all women into office.

This IS pure, unadulterated, speculation. And you do not state it as an
opinion.

>Unfortunately that wasn't possible.  So this is not a point.

So why bring it up?
 
[this space for rent]
 
>I'm seeing a trend in the response to what you said. :)  Someone tried
>to refute you and made absolutely no sense at all.

I see some trends in both directions.
 
>    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: evahramian@mta.ca
Subject: Re: Language
Reply-To: evahramian@mta.ca
Organization: Mount Allison U, Sackville, N.B. Canada 
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:25:07 GMT


In article <1992Dec16.135617.5840@cs.cornell.edu>, jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>
>And what about derrogatory terms for both women and men (and their anatomies)? Here is my list (feel
>free to add on):
>
>Women:						Men:
>	bitch						dick
>	cunt						jerk
>	slut						dork
>	whore						geek
>	dog						pig
>	hole						muscle-head
>	snatch						asshole
>	pussy
>	prude
>	dick-tease
>	ice-queen
>	
>
  Does it strike you that there are more terms for women
>than for men?  Even if you can come up with an equal number of terms for men
>and women - do you notice the difference in what the terms for women vs. the 
>terms for men imply?  Terms for men imply they are not attractive primarily
>because of their intellect (either a lack thereof, or having TOO much), or they
>imply that men don't have a good personality.  Derrogatory terms for women 
>primarily focus on sexuality (either a lack thereof, having TOO much, or simply
>being an object for sex).  Does anyone else find this interesting?
>
>(this post is in no way meant to be flame bait or sarcastic--I would honestly
> like to discuss this issue)
>
>-jean
>

Jean,

I can understand that you are concerned about the foul words used to 
describe both women and men.  But you admittedly stated that these were
not due to a well researched effort.  You have obviously posted the message
with a theme in mind...the treatment of women.  So you have probably
avoided mentioning several words to describe men, navaho indians, blacks,
pakistanis, west indian, liberals, and Armenians.

In the future, don't expect intelligent discussion when your statements
show a definite lack of objectivity.  And no, I dont call women pussies,
i call men that act like women, pussies.

"I am lost in thought
 as it is such 
 unfamiliar territory"

Pooch


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Robert's "Book"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:29:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec7.011906.27095@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>-He purports to be a "debunker" yet doesn't hesitate to spread myths,
> half-truths, and innaccurate generalizations about feminism.

  Ah, yes, feminism the Convenient Chameleon. Whatever anybody objects
  to automatically is "not what feminism is about;" apparently it's about
  everything, and nothing. But feminism, the political movement, does
  indeed display the traits to which I (and others) have objected.
>
>-He purports to be a lover of Truth, yet he rants about how telling
> women the *truth* (that most women do not have orgasms from penis/vaginal
> intercourse alone) is harmful.  (No real lover of Truth thinks that 
> people should be 'protected' from it.  Sacrilege.  Grave sacrilege.)

  I never said anything about "protecting" anyone from "truth;" rather,
  I objected to making a "mantra" or an Article of Dogmatic Faith
  something that is obviously only *partly* true - ESPECIALLY when
  it is the kind of thing where strong belief plays a strong part in
  creating the situation. 

-- 
  
        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: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: I'm So Confused
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:53:07 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>In article <1992Dec16.033321.23119@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st890674@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>Having a man find you attractive should not entail being sexually harassed.  
>>"Nice tits (ass, etc.) is not an example of someone trying to tell you you're
>>attractive, but trying to tell you "I have power over you, to demean you
>>and humiliate you."  You aren't confused at all: you recognized the difference
>>between a sex object and being found attractive by men, and you're right.

>On the other hand, *some* women really get turned on by a man telling 
>them things like this. (Of course, it has to be the right man: if she
>thinks the guy is neat, she'll appreciate it; if not, she'll get
>mad.) But how is the poor guy to know what reaction the woman will have
>(arousal or anger) before he tries it?
   
>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

Context. Are you making these comments on the street, in the bedroom,
on a date, in a board meeting? That is, do you have any reason to
suppose the woman might find these remarks welcome?

A little hint, from Miss Manners. In what contexts would you find 
remarks about *your* appearance attractive, or intrusive?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael)
Subject: Re: Gender differences - Sophie Germain
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 13:45:32 GMT

In <forb0004.119.723937122@student.tc.umn.edu> forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
>In article <6FieVB1w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>>
>>	It's things like this that make me wonder why so many people argue
>>with Sheaffer-- I've been through some dandy ones (as Loren Petrich will
>>attest), and I've seen enough to convince me that the man's simply not
>>_worth_ arguing with; no matter what evidence you present to him, he will
>>continue to believe as he does. (I'm not being hyperbolic-- ask me in Email
>>sometime about his accusations regarding Noam Chomsky and I.F. Stone, and
>>what his response was when his claims were debunked. Not one word of
>Scheaffer is hardly alone, dude. Just curious, though: Do you have a life 
>beyond following Sheaffer around, spitting? You posted an article you wrote 
>not too long ago; I thought you were finally going to go your own way...

Oooh!  Now this was a really constructive comment wasn't it.  Is this
how you carry on a logical argument? :)

For that matter what the hell difference does it make what kind of life this
person leads.  We don't know that he doesn't have a life outside of following
Scheaffer around, but even if he didn't, what difference does it make.
Grow up...

    Michael Stanley (michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Women in Mathematics: One Final Thought
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:07:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.043431.4423@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>>But quiet, shy
>>boys who study hard and get good grades are not only 'told they're not
>>attractive,' but get followed around and beaten up by the schoolyard
>>bully. And this happens not once or twice, but typically a lot. 
>
>Oh boy, let me try!  I think the argument goes something like this:
>
>"But if boys who study hard and get good grades don't 'fight as 
>hard' with their classmates, gosh, might it not also follow that they 
>don't "fight as hard" in the business realm? Granted, the METHODS of fighting 
>are not the same, but if you argue that smart boys who study hard are 
>LESS aggressive in the one, it becomes difficult to argue that
>they have IDENTICAL degrees of aggressiveness in the other. Having
>admitted this, it then follows that smart boys' position ... in the
>business world is due ...  to a lower level of overall aggressiveness." 

Well, Rini, you got it backwards. Obviously those schoolyard bullies
are not fighting for anything constructive. It's just their "Resentment
Against Achievement" that's coming through. And those smart boys
DO end up in a better position than the bullies. 

>
>So, let's see: from your argument (I only changed a couple of nouns
>here) smart boys who study hard in school should expect to be failures 
>in the job market, right?   
>
>(Hmm... that's not what my job counselor said....)

Who was undoubtedly right.

-- 
  
        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